The Sun. — London, England, 1844-12-23 00:00:00

still larger portion about a quarter of an hour after wards, which carried with it the whole of the mas sive timbers of the floors down to the basement with a tremendous crash, upon which the engines were enabled to bear more powerfully upon the ruins, which still continued to burn fiercely. As soon as the ruins were sufficiently cooled to enable the firemen to enter the premises, they did so from the back upon the ground floor, and near the wine-cellar they found a man standing immovable from intoxication, who was immediately handed over to the care of the police, and was conveyed to the station-house. At that moment one of the brigade men heard the moans or stifled cries of a person coming from the front of the house. Hastening round to the front he descended the area, and break ing open the kitchen window could plainly distin guish a man lying in the ruins, and still alive. Every exertion which humanity could prompt was instantly made to rescue the unfortunate being, who was lying near the front kitchen door, with his feet under a dresser, and a massive beam pressing across his knees, while heavy joists, &c., were lying on his shoulders. He was evidently sinking fast, and, notwithstanding some warm brandy and water was instantly procured and administered, he became insensible, and when at length he was, by means of jacks to raise the timber, extricated and conveyed on a police stretcher to a surgeon's in the same street, it was found that life was quite extinct. The deceased was John Birkmyer, a policeman of the E division, No. 152, who had been assisting in the endeavours to extinguish the flames, and the body was immediately removed to the work house of St. Giles's-in-the-Fields. As soon as the confusion which necessarily prevails on such lamentable occasions had somewhat subsided, great fears were entertained that Mr. Farey's clerk, a youth, named 'William Robinson, about fifteen years of age, who slept in one of the attics, had perished in the flames ; and as soon as the ruins were sufficiently cooled an active search was made for his remains, which were not, however, discovered until three o'cleck in the afternoon, when they were found nearly at the top of the ruins, in a dreadfully burned state, nothing remaining but the head and back, and portions of the arms and legs. The remains were shortly afterwards placed in a shell and conveyed to St. Giles's workhouse. Upon the police being mustered on their return to the station, after attending the fire, it was found that another policeman, named John Wright, No. 128 E, who was assisting in Guildford-street, as well as Birkmyer, was also missing ; and, up to a late hour last night, no trace of him had been discovered, and every fear is entertained that he also has fallen a vic tim, and that his body is now in the ruins. A man named Charles Jenkins, a jobbing groom, lodging at the Guildford Arms public-house, in the same street, who was seen actively assisting at the fire, is also missing, and very little doubt exists that both have perished. It was believed that the man Jenkins, hear ing, about five o'clock, that a valuable dog belonging to Mr. Farey was in the kitchen at the time of the outbreak of the fire, was anxious to see if he could find it, and ventured down the area steps, and into the kitchen, in search of it (that part then being uninjured by the fire), when he was seen by the two policemen, Birkmyer and Wright, who followed him, to compel him to come back, arid, at the instant they were doing so, the roof falling in, carried down with it the upper floors to the first floor, under the flooring of which were iron rafters, and on it two massive iron .chests, each weighing (it is stated) 1,100 weight, the whole of which was then forced down to the base ment, burying the three individuals under the ponde rous mass. The following statement of the outbreak was given to our reporter by Dilley, the coachman of Mr. Farey " I was suddenly aroused from my sleep by a loud knocking at my door. I immediately got up, and, upon looking out of the window, I perceived that a large body of fire was raging in the pantry at the back of my master's house. As soon as I got on my trou sers, I ran out, and thus made the best of my way up the stairs, and shouted 'Fire ! ' I succeeded, I think, in awakening some of the inmates ; for shortly after wards I heard a loud screaming at the top of the building. Finding the fire was progressing, I hastened back, and called to the neighbours to come and render assistance. I was soon afterwards joined by Charles Jenkins, the groom, who ran into the house several times to save what property he could. The flames descending and the smoke being so oppressive, I en deavoured to persuade him not to enter the house again. He replied, laughing, Oh, Dilley, have a little pluck, my boy, there's no danger; I will go and get master's favourite dog (or bird).' Having said this, he dashed into the house, and I never saw him afterwards. There was no other way of escape ; therefore I am of opinion that he perished in the flames. I have not the slightest idea how the fire originated." Relative to the means which were employed to awaken the youth in the attic, the following state ment of Mr. Farey, jun., will prove that nothing which humanity could suggest was left undone in order to accomplish his rescue : " Immediately I was made sensible of there being a fire upon the premises, I ran out of my own room, which adjoins that of the servants' on the third floor. I called out to the parties below, and advised them in stantly to escape. Finding I could not descend, I hastened towards the parapet, knocking as I went most violently at the servants' door. Before reaching the parapet, I found the boy Robinson was missing. I ran back and called him ; but receiving no answer I knocked still more violently at the door of his cham ber. The heat was so oppressive that I was forced to retreat, but upon reaching the parapet a second time I revived, and again returned and broke the window; of the boy's room. All these attempts to awaken the lad proving useless, I was obliged to leave the room, and just reached the parapet in time to save my own life." The building in which the fire originated is totally destroyed, with the entire of the splendid furniture, books, pictures, drawings, jewellery, instruments, &c. Information of the melancholy cccurrence has been forwarded to Mr. Wakley, M.l'., Coroner, but it is not yet known whether the inquest will be taken on the two bodies found, or delayed until the other two are found. LAW INTELLIGENCE. PRIVY COUNCIL, Dec. 20. (Before the Lord Chancellor, Sir James Graham, Baron Parke, the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall.) THE CASE OF TIIE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF THE ISLAND OF GUERNSEY. The Committee for the affairs of Guernsey and Jer sey, consisting of the above-named members of the Privy Council, re-assembled yesterday, for the further consideration of the petitions of the bailiffs and jurats of the Royal Court of Guernsey, complaining of certain acts of the Lieutenant-Governor. Mr. BURGE, Q.C., resumed his reply, at the conclusion of which their Lordships rose. In this case no judgment will be delivered, as the Com mittee report to the Crown. COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 21. THE CORPORATION OF GLOUCESTER V. WOOD AND OTHERS. — JUDGMENT.—THE LATE MR. JAMES WOOD'S WILL. When this case was called on, the LORD CHANCELLOR inquired of Mr. Swanstone, counsel for the Corporation of Gloucester, whether his clients acceded to the terms of the order of Vice-Chancellor Wigram? Mr. SWANSTONE said they did. Mr. WALKER—It was not an order of his Honour, but a proposition suggested by the Court. Mr. SWANSTONE —The Corporation of Gloucester are ready to accede to the proposals that have been made, and they will submit to any order the Court may here after think proper to make. The LORD CHANCELLOR then said he had considered this-case with great care and attention, and the con clusion he had come to was, that the money in litiga • tion ought not to be paid to the executors pending the appeal to the House of Lords against Vice- Chancellor Wigram's decision. On looking at the judgment of the Court below he observed that hie Honour at the time stated, that in a question of such importance, where property of upwards of 200,0001. was in litigation, it was not likely that either party would be satisfied with the decision of a puisne judge of the Court, and therefore he (the Lord Chancellor) considered it a proper case for an appeal, and that the proceedings were not frivolous. After some further remarks, his Lordship said, suppose he was to order the money in dispute to be paid over to the executors, they would not feel themselves justified in distributing it. Under the present circumstances, therefore, he thought it had better remain invested in the Funds, under the con trol of the Court, until the appeal to the House of Lords was decided. At the same time he was of opinion that the executors were at full liberty to apply to have any portion of the fund paid over to them on their giving sa tisfactory security. It was asked by counsel for the execu tors that, in the event of loss by a decline in the funds, the Corporation should make it good. Now he could not make any order on that point, as the Courts had always considered Consols in the light of money : if the price fell, the executors would lose (in case the appeal should be in their favour) ; but if it was higher, they . would have the advantage. In conclusion, his Lordship ordered the money claimed by the Corporation, under a codicil in the will of the testator, to remain invested in the Funds pending the appeal, with liberty to the de fendants (executors to the will) to apply to take any .portion of it out, on giving sufficient security. A long discussion ensued respecting costs. His LORDSHIP directed the costs of the present mo " tion to be paid by the Corporation. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 21, (Before Sir J. WIGRAM.) VIVIAN V. COCI(RANE. In thi s case a question has arisen between the plain tiff; the Rev. J. W. Vivian, Rector of the parish of St. Peter-le-Poor, in the City of London, and the proprietors of th e N at i onal Bank of Ireland,' Broad- . street, as to the principle upon which tithe was to be taken on the house and premises used for the business of the bank, whether it should be levied on the amount of the reserved rent, or on he value of the house in its improved state. The question is an important one to the owners of property in the city, and at a former . stage of the proceedings his Honour had stated that his decision was not likely to be final on the matter. It had been postponed on one or two occasions,, but was given this day. His HONOUR, after remarking on the novelty and importance of the case, said the plaintiff was the rector of a parish in London, and the defendant re presented the National Bank of Ireland, who are lessees for years and occupiers of a house, the tithes of which are claimed by the plaintiff. The lease under which the bank occupancy was made in consideration of a reserved rent, and of a covenant by the lessees to expend 2,0001. in building, &c. ; that sum had been duly expended according to the covenant. The right of the clergyman to tithes of 2s. 9d. in the pound on the reserved rent was not disputed, but the plaintiff claimed to be paid 2s. 9d. in the pound on the im proved value of the property arising from the expen diture of the sum above stated. The question at issue ' was, then, on which of the two valuations the tithes were to be paid, and this depended on the statute of 37th Henry VIII., c. 12, which is an Act regu lating the payment of tithes in London. His Honour read the decree in that Act, and after going minutely into the details of the case, said it was one presenting great difficulties, but he thought his decision must be in favour of the plaintiff and his claim to the tithe ; he therefore directed an account of the said tithes to be taken on the value of the premises, but without costs. COURT OF QUEEIV'S BENCH, Dec. 21. Lord Denman was occupied the whole morning in trying, at the Guildhall, with a London special jury, an indictment against Rowland and others fora conspiracy, illegally to procure an award in a case of arbitration against the prosecutor.lLyon Samuels. The case, which will probably last to a late hour, is devoid entirely of public interest. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 21. (Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF BARON and Special Juries.) MUTT AND OTHERS U. GILES. This was an action of covenant brought by the trustees of the Western Australian Company to recover from the defendant the sum of 1,250/., being the amount of a call of 1254 per share on ten shares held by him in that Company. The action was undefended. Mr. Martin and Mr. Peacock appeared for the plaintiffs. The Western Australian Company was established in the year 1841, with a view of promoting emigration to the western ports of Australia, and of encouraging its cultivation. 5001. was the value set upon each share, one fourth of the amount to be paid at the time of pur chase. Calls of 1251. on each share taken was subsequently made, and the object of the pre sent action was to recover the third call against the only solvent shareholder out of six who had not met the call. The defendant had put several pleas on the record, one of which was, that he had not had notice of the call by circular in the manner required by the Company's deed of settlement. Evidence having been gone into on the part of the plaintiffs, and his Lordship having summed up, the jury returned a ♦erdict for the plaintiffs—Damages, with in terest, 1,3431. 15s. CRIM CON.—MIJLLETT LLYOD. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Hoggins conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Walesby appeared for the defendant. This was an action to recover compensation in da mages for the domestic loss sustained by the plaintiff, by means of criminal conversation had by the defend ant with his wife. The damages were laid at 2,0001. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD proceeded to state the case. The plaintiff was a young gentleman of about 30 years of age, and was a paper manufacturer, and a wholesale stationer, in an extensive way of business in the city of London. The defendant was some years his senior, and was one of those persons who had taken upon themselves, or had assumed to them selves, the position of public instructors—he was the proprietor of several newspapers. One was published under the title of Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, a three penny affair, he believed, Lloyd's Penny Sunday Times, and Lloyd's Penny Miscellany. He now resided at a villa on Forest-hill. The plaintiff was married on the 9th of September, 1836. He was then a young man of twenty-two years of age, whilst the un happy lady was some three of four years younger. The marriage had been one of sincere affection and strong attachment. At the period of his union the plaintiff was in a salaried employment, but shortly afterwards he had commenced business on his own account, and being successful, he had looked forward to that full enjoyment of his domestic comforts, to wards which all men with a family were accustomed naturally to yearn. Up to the time, within a very brief period, when this lamentable event came to pass, there had never been a breath even that could inter fere with that happiness —a happiness which had been increased and added to by the fact of his wife having, borne him four children. The defendant also, he re gretted to say, was a married man with three children. The connection between the plaintiff and the de fendant had not simply been of the most intimate cha racter, but it had amounted to brotherly friendship. The defendant had dealt with the plaintiff for paper to the extent of 12,0001. per annum, and at the moment when this affair took place was then a debtor to him to the extent of upwards of 4,0001. That sum, it was, however, but-fair that he should state, had been regu larly paid as the bills had severally arrived at maturity. He had merely mentioned the fact in order to show the extent of the transactions which had been carried on between the parties. The plaintiff, too, had been one of the securities for the defendant at the Stamp -office. Such, then, it would be seen, were the relations in which these per sons stood the one towards the other. They were those of the closest friendship. They were on the most intimate, and friendly, and cordial footing. Some time after the plaintiff had been married he be came the proprietor of two mills, the one at Bristol, and the other at Tonbridge, and until that period he had never slept away from home. Then, however, such a course was absolutely necessary, for he could not carry on his business without; but upon no occa sion had he left his wife without a female companion. Subsequently the defendant, it was remarked, had become a frequent visitor at the house when the plaintiff was from home, and that the lady took rides with him alone. In the month of April, however, the matter was seen by the servants ; for Mrs. Mul• lett was observed to go out in the absence of her hus band, and to remain away for some time, but to con trive in most instances to reach home before her hus band's return. On the 27th of April, at length, she went out, and never returned, leaving all her trin kets, and even her watch behind her. The plaintiff was left to seek where he best could consolation for the de privation of the partner in his best hopes, in his best wishes, in his best expectations, and above all the mother of his children, whilst the defendant, deserting his own wife, had taken to his arms a paramour in the person of the wife of his most intimate friend. With that paramour was he now living at Forest-hill, where she was known as Mrs. Lloyd. The house, it ap peared, stood back from the road, and was approached through a gateway leading into the front garden. That gate since the plaintiff's wife had flown there had been kept locked, so that, contrary to all former custom, even the tradespeople were not permitted to come up to the house. But this difficulty it would be proved had been overcome by the plaintiff, and the identity of the female now living and passing as Mrs. Lloyd, being in reality Mrs. Mullett, the plaintiff's wife, would be most clearly established by evidence which could not be impeached, for that lady had her self come down without her bonnet, and spoken to a gentleman who was well acquainted with her. There could not, therefore, be any dispute as to the fact of the supposed Mrs. Lloyd being the real Mrs. Mullett. George Cox, jun., produced an accredited copy of the marriage register between the plaintiff and his wife. The marriage took place the 10th of Septem ber, 1836. George Luck—l am uncle to the plaintiff's wife. I have known the plaintiff and his wife during the whole of their lives. I was in the habit of visiting them after their marriage, in the Deptford -road. He is now living at his mill, I imagine, in the country. They had lived most happily together until just be fore this event. They have four children. Isaac Henry Sercombe—l attend from Somerset House, and produce the bond entered into by the defendant to the Stamp-office, and the plaintiff is one of the securities to that b on d. I n August last that bond was withdrawn, and another substituted. The defendant there is not a surety. The bond is for the payment of the duties on Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper. Mary Walsh—l was servant to the plaintiff. On the 27th of April Mrs. Mullett :left. My mistress said she should go away on the 26th of April, and on the next day she did so. Prior to her doing so, however, she gave all her trinkets and her watch into my care. The plaintiff was aware that she was going away, because she told him she would on the pre ceding evening. Upon that occasion she had come home late, when he asked her where she had been. She would not t e ll hi m ; w h ereupon th e plaintiff said he would make her. She again refused, but he said she should tell him, or he would make her. Upon this, she said she should go away from him altoge ther. The plaintiff, in a tone of astonishment, ex claimed, " That surely she would not think of doing so ; did she remember her four children ? Could she abandon them ?" My mistress cried very much, but persisted in her determination to leave. The plaintiff then said, if she had resolved upon adopting such a step he would place her in proper care, and make her an allowance ; he would place her with her father. She said she would not go there, for her father was nothing to her. Cross-examined—I have lived three and a half years with the plaintiff and his with. They lived in the most comfortable and affectionate manner, and with kindness and attachment: to their children. I never heard any angry words pass between them until the last three months. I have never seen her cry during the whole of that period. I have known the plaintiff to come home late at night ; one o'clock Was the latest. I have heard Mrs. M'illett complain of his being la,te. But they did not have words about THE SUNIAAoNDON, MONDAY _MO-RNING, DECEMBER 23, 1844. John Mullett—l am in the employ of my brother, the plaintiff. The defendant dealt with my brother for paper, and during the last six months it averaged at the rate of 12,0001. a year. In April last he owed us 4,3001. He had about 1,3001. worth a month. The 4,3001. have been paid in due course. Cross-examined by Mr. Walesby—The defendant dealt with us for three or four years. The Parliamentary return of newspaper stamps was here produced to prove the sale of the publica tions of which the defendant is the proprietor. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Cocx.BURN then addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, and said he was not instructed to deny the offence of which proof had now been laid before them. The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up ; and the jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict fur the plaintiff.---Damages, 750/. CONS IS TOR Y COURT, Dec. 21. (Before the Right Hon. Dr. LUSIIINGTON.) PHILIPS V. PRIA.IPS. Dr. LUMINGTON pronouneed judgment in this case. This was a suit instituted by Mr. Philips, who is a bar rister and conveyancer, for a separation, a mensa et thoro, from his wife, on the ground of an adulterous connexion between her and Mr. Charles Benny. The defence was, that there was connivance on the part of Mr. Philips ; and the state of the facts was as follows :—The parties were married in 1825. They became acquainted in Dieppe with Mr. and Mrs. Ranny, and in consequence of circumstances which came to the knowledge of Mr. Philips with regard to the degree of intimacy subsisting between his wife and Mr. Ranny, he referred the matter to two gentlemen to have the circumstances investigated. They seem to have diligently inquired into the facts, and reported that they believed Mrs. Philips was inno cent of any real criminality, though they left it to be inferred that she was guilty of consider able indiscretion. The parties were separated at this time, and they recommended Mr. Philips, if he so thought fit, to take back his wife. It appeared from the evi dence that Mr. Philips resided at this time in Sloane street, and that his professional avo ca ti ons use d to call him from home at nine o'clock, and that he used not to return till six in the afternoon to dinner. Mrs. Benny was frequently on a visit at Mr. Philips's, and Mr. Ranny used sometimes to sleep in Mr. Philips's house. Mr. Philips took back his wife, and in the year 1840 it appeared that the intercourse between Mr. Benny and Mrs. Philips was renewed. Mrs. Philips used to sleep from home frequently, and very often she used not to return to her home till ten o'clock at night. She used at these times to sleep at Mr. Ranny's, and to remain at his house, and though this was the case, it did not ap pear that Mr. Philips, who used to come home regu larly at six o'clock, made any inquiry as to the absence of his wife. One occasion when she slept from home two nights in succession, he asked her where she had been, and upon her saying she had been at her sister's, he appeared to be satisfied. Now it appeared that she had not slept at her sister's house more than once during the summer of 1841, and that they were not, in fact, on good terms. Mr. Philips was also aware that Mr. Ranny was in the neighbourhood, for he knew that he gave his (Mr. Philips) boy a model of a ship. Subsequently Mrs. Philips went to Dieppe, where she met Mr. Ranny; and there was no doubt of the fact of the adultery being committed there. When she re turned the same kind of intercourse between her and Mr. Ranny, which had previously existed, was renewed, and then is was that Mr. Philips moved in the matter. The parties finally separated on the Bth of October, 1842, and the. present suit for separation was brought. The question therefore was, whether Mr. Philips under those circum stances was entitled to a separation, and whether his conduct did not exhibit such a degree of connivance as to disentitle him.to it ? The Learned Judge, afttr going thmtigh the. whbfl case in detail, sa id with the. know ledge which Mr. Phillips had that his wife was absent from his house by night and by day—that with the knowledge that Mr. Ranny had been in the neighbour hood—that his boys had been at Mr. Ranny's, and after having instituted previously an investi g ation into the conduct of his wife, whi c h h e k new to be at least indis creet, he ought at once to have interposed in some way or other. 1 here was, therefore, a degree of culpable negligence on his part, but the question which he had to decide was, whether this culpable indifference, with a previous knowledge of the great indiscretion of his wife, and ao active steps taken by him to interpose but where cohabitation continued, whether that was in the eye of the law such a connivance as to bar a suit for separation a mensa et thoro. The Learned Judge, after referring to the authorities, none of which were applicable to the pre cise circumstances of the present case, but showed that there must be consent and intentional negligence on the part of the husband,went on to say, that though he could not acquit Mr. Philips of the most supine inertness, when his own honour, the happiness of his children, and the ,peace and sacredness of his domestic hearth were con cerned—though he could not acquit him of the most culpable and supine indifference—though the circum stances called; and most loudly called for, immediate and active interposition, yet he thought the facts. and the law as he found it laid down, Justified him in saying that this case must be - brought within the case of "Moreson and Moreson," and he gladly availed himself of the shelter of that high autho rity to give to Mr. Philips the relief hp prayed fur. I n pronouncing jud gmen t in Ealisit7Al6lhit high autho rity, Lord Stowell, says, " I feel I shall tolerate neglect and inattention on the part of husbands, and that I shall pronounce a decree which will not lead to the peace and honour of families, nor the parity of wives." And never would Lord Stowell, feeling and uttering those sentiments, have followed them up with a decree for separation, unless he felt himself bound by the stringency of the law to adopt such a course. If such were the consequences of the law, it was not even for Lord Stowell, and much less for him, to deviate from the decisions to which it led, on account of any conse quences. He therefore pronounced in favour of this se paration, but he wished it to be most clearly understood that the grounds of his judgment were, that there must be a corrupt connivance, which he did not find in this case ; there must be a knowledge, or necessarily pre sumed knowledge, of adulterous intercourse or indecent familiarity, and not finding those circumstances, he thought he was entitled to give Mr. Philips the remedy for which he prayed.—Judgment accordingly. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Exeter, Doc. 19.' (Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.) Richard Wrigferd Clompit, a tenant of Lord Clifford, was indicted for maliciously wounding three colts, the property of George Gill. Mr. Rowe and Mr. Cox defended the prosecution; Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Stone the defence. Mr. Gill, the prosecutor in this case, had several colts in the care of a farmer of the name of Elias Randall, which were suffered to run upon the slopes of the bank of the river Teign. The case for the prosecution was, that the prisoner, seeing that these colts trespassed upon his land, had shot at and severely wounded some of them. To prove this, two witnesses were called, who stated that they saw the transaction and could swear to the person of the prisoner; and two other men also swore that at a greater distance they saw the transaction, as described by the first witness, but could not speak to the identity of the prisoner, though one of them said he believed it was him. Several discrepancies appeared in the evidence by the cross-examination, and the prisoner received an excel lent character from several respectable witnesses, and among others from Lord Clifford, who said that he could be justly proud of his tenants, but of none more than his friend Mr. Clompit. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. attended Beaty George C arpenter was indicted for ravishing Elizabeth Hibb ert. con Al d r u . c C ted ek th b e urn ca s (who forthe prosecution s pecian , y) an an d d fir Alr. It . S t o o w n e e and Mr. blerivale appeared for the prisoner. The prosecution was instituted by Lord Clifford. The prisoner was a respectable druggist, residing at Chudleigh. Elizabeth Hibbert was a poor girl living with her mother, n ear t h at town. She had for some time been unwell, and her mother having lived long in the neighbourhood of Lord Clifford, that nobleman allowed them, as was his habit with regard to the in valided poor, to reside in one of his Lordship's cottages. The girl having been recommended to take medicine had several times gone to the shop of the prisoner to have her prescriptions made up. The prisoner always conducted himself in the most proper manner until the time in question, and then he behaved t o her in th e wa y d escr ib ed by the girl in her evidence. Elizabeth Hibbert was examined and said—l am twenty-one years of age, and lire with my mother in a cottage belonging to Lord Clifford. On the 22d of October I went to Chudleigh, and about one o'clock in the day I called at the prisoner's shop, and asked him to let me have a box of pills, and I would call again for them. I went away on some business, and called again at his shop in about an hour. He said he had not begun to make the pills, and he asked me to sit eown, which I did. In answer to a question which he asked me, I told him I Iliad a pain in my stomach. He then asked me different questions, and what I was going to treat him with on my birthday. I said, " Nothing at all." He said, " You may as well give me a glass of shrub." I told him I it, for he has explained where he has been. I never saw him strike or throw anything at her. Mrs. Dibble—l am sister to the defendant's wife. They were living in Salisbury-square in April last. The defendant did not sleep at home at that time, because they had had words, and a difference in con sequence. I was there a few days after the plaintiff's wife had gone off from her husband, when the latter called there. It was about seven o'clock in the even ing. He saw my sister. He was not very much excited when he was speaking to her. The defendant came home while"the plaintiff was there. I heard the plaintiff ask the defendant for his wife. Mrs. Lloyd was crying very much in consequence of what the plaintiff had communicated to her. I heard him after wards say, " You are a black-hearted villain." The plaintiff said, "You have got my wife ;" and the de fendant said, " That is to be proved." Afterwards the defendant said, " You may take my old wife, and I'll have your young one." The defendant ordered the plaintiff to leave the house, which he was about to do when blows ensued. Mrs. Lloyd left the house to protect her life, and afterwards she left her husband altogether, in consequence of his connection and be haviour. Mrs. Lloyd left her home on the 29th of May. The defendant lives now at Forest. hill. They have two children living. Mrs. Lloyd is my sister. Mr. COCKBURN rose, and said he would save at once his Learned Friend the trouble of offering any further proof of the criminal act. That fact he now was not there to deny. _He was prepared to admit the fact, and that the parties were residing together at Forest-hill. Elizabeth Trueman stated that Elizabeth liibbert came to her on the day in question, and appeared dread fully frightened ; she was crying. Elizabeth Strowbridge said she kept a grocer's shop at Chudleigh. The la t witness called her to see Eliza beth Hibbert. She appeared pale and trembling, and made a complaint of Carpenter's conduct,. Charity Hibbert deposed that she was the mother of the prosecutrix. When she came home that afternoon she complained that Carpenter had ill-treated her. Elizabeth Williams, the housekeeper of Lord Clifford, had that morning sent the prosecutrix to Carpenter's for some pills. Louisa Trowbridge, a witness whose deposition had been taken, but who was not examined before the grand jury, was now put into the box by Mr. Cockburn, for cross-examination by the prisoner, Mr. Baron ALDARSON saying that it would be com petent for Mr. Cockburn to contradict her. - Mr. ROWE cross-examined her, but nothing : wag elicited. Joha Trueman, a constable of Chudleigh, had a war rant against the prisoner on the 23d of October. Searched for him for a week, but could not find him. His shop was shut the day after this happened. Cross-examined—The prisener:afterwards gate him self up. Mr. RowE then addressed the jury at great length for the prisoner, urging upon them the improbability of such an offence being committed in so public a situation. Mr. Baron ALDERBoN, haying summed up with great care, The jury found the prisoner Guilty of an assault. Sentence deferred. MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Lincoln, Dec. 19. (Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.) The Learned Judge, who was occupied yesterday until about five o'clock in the evening in trying unim portant cases of larceny, this morning, at half-past nine o'clock, attended Divine service at the Cathedral. Thence he proceeded to the Castle, and opined the county com mission shortly after eleven o'clock. Mr. Justice PArrxsoN shortly charged the grand jury (of which Viscount Alford, the eldest son of Earl Brownlow, was foreman), and then proceeded with the trial of prisoners. Wiliam Hamilton, Edward Howes, and James Jordan were charged with feloniously assaulting the person of William Wetherill, on the night of the 12th of October last, and stealing one 51. note of the Wisbeach and Lincoln Banking Company, ten sovereigns, one half sovereign, and other moneys, the property of the said William Wetherill. It appeared that the day upon the night of which the robbery was said to have been committed was Holbeach fair, and that the prisoners, ,w,ho had, with tho prose cutor, on their way home been-at a 'public-house kept _by a man named Carp en t er , l e f t i n t h e di rect i on of Wisbeach together. While on their way the prosecutor was knocked down, and robbed, not only of his money, but of various articles of wearing apparel. Tlec next day the prisoners were found together at Wisbeach, one of them wearing a cap belonging to the prosecutor, and all of them wearing clothes purchased by the money which they had stolen the previous evening. '1 he 51. note (which had been cut and rejoined) was clearly identi• fled as the note stolen from the prosecutor.—Guilty. The Learned JUDGE sentenced each of the prisoners to 15 years' transportation. William Haynes stood indicted for having stolen a horse and geleing from Horncastle, in this county, on tho 20th day of August last. Mr. Wildman appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Boden for the defence. The circumstances, although somewhat singular, are very shortly stated. On the evening of Tuesday, the 19th of August last, Mr. Brown, a farmer residing in the neighbourhood of Horncastle, saw his horses safe in the field in which they at that time grazed. The follow • ing morning they were missing, and strange as the fact may appear to be, the prosecutor and others traced his horses from Horncastle to the neighbourhood of Reading, in Berkshire, a distance of upwards of 200 miles. The conduct of a Mr. Price, a young farmer living near Reading, is deserving of particular notice. It appeared that on the Thursday (the robbery of the horses having been committed in Lincolnshire on the Tuesday) Mr. Price saw two men conveying four horses by side roads and across grounds in the neighbourhood of his farm in Berkshire. He immediately suspected the horses were stolen, and pursued the men by whom they were conducted. At first he endea voured to banter and " deal " with them, but at last exclaiming. " One of those horses looks very like a horse belonging to Mr. Brown, of Horn castle," the man now missing said, " If you have got any better title to the horses than we have, take them." Mr. Price, in a most determined tone, replied, " I'll not be content with the horses, but I'll have men too." The prisoner and his companion immediately made off in different directions, one taking to the right and the other to the left. -Mr. Price followed the prisoner, who, find ing himself closely pursued, threw himself from his horse and took to the fields. Mr. Price, like a good sportsman, followed his game, and, to use the expression he this day used in his evidence, "ran the prisoner to cover," but afterwards " broke ground " and secured him. It turned out, upon consulting that unerring chronicle the Hue and Cry, that Mr. Price's suspicions were perfectly correct, and on the following Monday Mr. Brown arrived in Reading to identify the stolen horses. The master-man, as he was called, sans horses of course, got away. It was stated yesterday and this morning that a great defence was to be made for Haynes. An attorney, or an attorney's clerk, from Essex-street, Strand, represented that they should prove that the pri• soner (who is a London man, but who represented him self to come from Glastonbury) was at Sleaford the night the robbery was committed. The case for the defence, so far from benefiting the prisoner, after Mr. Wildman's very able reply, tended to convict him, and he was sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. Mr. Justice PArrEsots - ordered Mr. Price to receive from the county 101., in addition to the ordinary allow ance NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Norwich, Dec. 19. (Before Mr. Justice WaLraasite.) George Dye, aged 17, was indicted for wilfully and maliciously setting fire to a wheat stack, the property of Daniel Watson, of Lurling. Mr. Evans appeared on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoner . was not defended. The prosecutor is an innkeeper at Lurling, and also farms a small quantity of land. On Sunday night, the 25th of August, the prisoner and five other men had been spending the evening at the prosecutor's house ; they left about half -past nine o'clock, and went up the road together until they came to the turn of the road leading to Hockham. The prisoner then left the other men, saying that he was going to Norwich. They had passed the stack a minute before, and must have seen a blaze if it had then been on fire. Soon after they had parted company with the prisoner, they perceived the reflection of a fire in the direction of the prosecutor's house ; but, thinking it was far off, they did not turn back. About half an hour after the Six men had left the prosecutor's house, he was called up by the prisoner, by whom he I was informed that there was a fire up the road. lie looked out of his window, and saw his own stack in a blaze. The prisoner made several statements of a con •tradictory character, in consequence of which he was detained in custody, and was afterwards examined as a witness against two of the men who had been in his company at the prosecutor's house. The prisoner and the two men were kept in custody for eleven days, but the evidence being insufficient to connect them with the actual perpetration of the offence, they were discharged. However, on Oct. 8, Stephen English, a Suffolk consta ble, was going from Bury , to Maury in a gig, and about a mile from Bury he overtook the prisoner and two boys, and being requested by the former to take up one of the boys, who he stated was his brother, the constable took the lad up, and drove him fire mi les. During the ride, the boy told English all about .th, - t fire at Lurling, and when the prisoner male up, the constable observed to ' him how fo rt u nate he had been it, , getting off the fire job so easily. Th e fortunate ; he keg his tong ue quiet, 4 , :id they could get no hold of him, e Prisoner re pli e d th a t he was very ! x then Faid_that tiler were two others should not give him anything. He then asked me if I would have a drop of peppermint ? I said I did not care if.l did, if he would please to give me some. He had pre viously asked me to have some gin or some shrub, which I refused. He then took a glass, and emptied something white into it from a bottle in the shop. He took the glass out of the shop. He stopped a minute or two, and then came to the door between the shop and the room behind. He said, " Come in here." I went. He told me to sit down, Which I did. He then shut the door of the room, and took the glass from oft the table, put his arm round my neck, and said, " Before you drink I must have a kiss." I said, " You shan't, and it I had known this I would not have come in." He then kissed me, and I sipped out of the glass. He said, " Drink, drink ;" and I said " I don't like it." But he pressed me, and I said, " Here's your health," and then I drank about a third of it. I rose from my chair to get out at the door, but he caught me and threw me back on the chair. He behaved rudely to me. I called out as loud as I could. Some one came to the shop. The prisoner left me, and went into the shop. I heard some one speak in the shop. I called out, " For God's sake, some one come to me." The person who was in the shop went away, and the prisoner returned to me. He fastened the door. I tried to get to the window, but he caught me and threw me down, and again took libel ties with me. I cried out. At length he let me go. I said I would tell of it as soon as I got out. He said, " No, no ; you won't." I said, " I'm d—d if I don't." He again said, " Oh, 110 ; you won't." I said, "So held me God, I will." He then went out into the shop, and I went out of the house as fast as I could to Mrs.Strowbridge's, at the King's Arms, and saw Betsy Triiernan, and told her of the prisoner's conduct. When I got home, I told my mother. Cross-examined —The prisoner's house is in the main street of Chudleigh. It is a corner house, with another street running by it, into which the window in the hack room looked. Two people looked in at the window while I was screaming. There was a blind to the window. It appeared that th• depositions of several persons had been taken who were not taken by the prosecutors be fore the grand jury, and their names were not on the • back of the indictment. Mr. Baron ALDERSON said this was extremely im proper, and not fair towards a prisoner. It was reason able for a prisoner to suppose that the witnesses exa mined before the magistrates would be produced on the trial, and he could not know the contrary until the in dictment came down from th• grand jury ; and then at the last moment, when it was too late for him to send for such witnesse , , he found they would not be called for the prosecution, and he consequently lisst the benefit of their testimony, which might be of the greatest import ance to him. It was an improper practice, and ought not to be adopted or allowed. The witness was a particularly modest-looking girl, and gave her evidence in a manner which entitled her to credit. in the mess as well as him ; they had been iiipprehended s but were discharged. English then asked the prisoner if they were the persons who did the fire. Ile replied that he did it, that he went over the gate, and set the stack on fire with lucifer matches, and not a ball, and that he then gave the alarm that no suspicion might fol low him. The prisoner then gave the details of a fire he did at Ipswich. English then asked him if he had done many fires, to which the prisoner replied, that if he had not there was no reason why he should not, that there would be plenty of more fires this winter ; he did not care about being transported ; if he Was there were plenty more to take his place. The prisoner had not the slightest idea that his interrogator was a constable, English having previously stated that he was a liquor merchant, and the prisoner was not a little surprised when informed of the real calling of his companion, who, as soon as the prisoner had furnished him with with a detailed account of his exploits, took him into custody, and the prisoner then thought he hail been bamboozled by the disguised liquor merchant. The prisoner when called upon for his defence, told the jury that English had spoken falsely, but the jury thought otherwise, and found the prisoner Guilty.— Sentence deferred. William Medlar, aged 37, was indicted for wilfully and maliciously setting fire to a stack of wheat, the pro perty of Robert Samuel Thorne, Burgh, next Aylsham. Mr. Palmer appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Pren dergast defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a farmer, residing at the parish of Burgh, and the prisoner is a cordwainer, living in the same parish. About one' o'clock of the morning of Tuesday, the 26th of November last, a stack of wheat belonging to the prosecutor, standing in the midst of ,everal other stacks, was discovered to be on fire by Mrs. Goodson, the wife of the constable of Burgh, who lives near the premises of Thorne. Goodson was awoke by his wife, and immediately got up and called the prose cutor, who arrived at the stockyard before the fire had extended as far as the eaves of the stack. Persons in the neighbourhood arrived soon afterwards at the fire, but only in time to save the surrounding stacks. The stack fired, (the produce of twelve acres) was totally consumed. Two policemen arrived at the fire shortly after it had broken out. Soon after they came up they perceived a small gap in the fence leading from the stack yard into a field of wheat, where some one had got over, and one of them watched by the gap till daylight, to prevent any person proceeding in that direction, and destroying any trace of footsteps that might exist in the field ; and on examining the wheat field the policeman discovered thirteen footsteps leading towards the prisoner's house. From circumstances which came to the knowledge of the policemen, the pri soner was apprehended between eight and nine on the morning of the fire. The prisoner's shoes were taken off and compared with the impressions in the field, and they corresponded in every respect. The cottage of the prisoner was searched, and part of a box of lucifer matches corresponded in colour and dip with one that was found in the ditch of the wheat field, near the gap leading from the sta c k y ar d. Th e prisoner, when ap prehended, stated that h e h a d b een in 134 hours and hours when the fire broke out ; but on inquiry being set set on foot, it was ascertained that, about twelve o'clock on the night of the fire, the prisoner called at the public house in Aylsham, which is the adjoining parish to Burgh. In order to prove malice on the part of the pri soner towards the prosecutor, it was proved that the prisoner had repeatedly expressed the greatest animosity towards Mr. Thorne. On one occasion he was heard to say that " Mr. Thorne starved him and his wife and children, and. would not give him work, nor suffer others to do it, and that he would mark him for it some day or other." Mr. PRENDERGSST addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner with great ability. The - Learned JUDGE summed up the case, and the jury found a verdict of Guilty.—Sentence deferred. PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURT. " We have further to present that it is the unanimous opinion of the grand jury, that the present winter assize was uncalled for in this county, inasmuch as a large majority of the prisoners in the calendar would have been tried at the next quarter sessions, within a fortnight from this time. " EDMUND WODEHOITSE, J. GORDON Foreman JOHN MOTT GEORGE KETT R. BLAKE ROBERT MARSIIAM ALBEMALE CATOR HENRY DOVER H. GILBERT JOHN STRACEY JOSEPH SCOTT WILLIAM WINDHAM WILLIAM COLLYER H. S. PARTRIDGE W. 13. Dom" WILLIAM GWYNN OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, Dec. 10. TUE WOLVERHAMPTON CASE.—The trial of this long expected case came on this morning, when the Court was densely crowded, but the curiosity of the " ladies" was most wofully disappointed, as the nature of a portion of the evidence rendered their exclusion necessary. Jane Railton, 30, a very interesting-looking and lady like person, John Sherriff, 26, and James Hildreth, 38, both of highly respectable appearance, were arraigned on an indictment charging them with concealing the birth of the child of the female prisoner, at Wolver hampton, on the 21st of October. Mr. Beadon, with Mr. Woolrych, conducted the prose cution, the prisoners being defended by Mr. Yardley, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Huddlestone. The prisoners severally pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Haley, surveyor, produced a plan of the premises of Mr. Quinton, surgeon, of Welverhampton, in whose „privy the child•was found,. and ,td whom Sheriff was- in assistant.; - Joseph Titley, servant to Mr. Quinton, proved the finding of the child. Timothy Casey, police-officer, of Wolverhampton, said—l told Mr. Sherriff there was a child found, and he said, "Is there ?" He tool: the fork and pressed on the body. I said, " Don't rupture it, it seems fresh, and has not been long in." I took the body to a public house, and sent to the Coroner. Mr. Foulke, the sur geon, saw it. It was the same child th a t was t a k en out of the privy. Cross-examined—lt was partly from the pressure of the fork that I judged how long it had been in. I took Sherriff into custody at the second sitting, in the jury room, by. direction of Colonel Hogg, the deputy chief constable. I had no warrant. By Mr. HUDDLESTONE—Miss Railton was taken into custody on the 12th of November. She was brought to my house about eleven at night. She was crying and very agitated indeed, suffering under much anguish. Miss Railton was at my house eleven days. She was very much affected ; the whole time she suffered greatly. My wife was with her, and paid her every attention. I ordered her to do so, as Miss Railton was constantly crying. My wife remained in the room one night at Miss Railton's request. Thomas H. Foulke—l am a surgeon at Wolverhamp ton. I attended an inquest on the 30th October at the Greyhound, Bell-street, on the body of a female child, which appeared to have been born at or near its full time. The external body was green. I should suppose it had been born about five or six days. I could not perceive any sign of food in the stomach of the child, and do not think it had received any. I found meconium on the body. There was a marked appearance of it. My opinion is that the child was born a ith the head presented. The meconium may have been discharged by pressure after death. The witness then detailed par ticulars of the examination made of Miss Railton. I have nOdoubt Miss Railton had given birth to a child, within ten or eleven days I should think. Colonel Gilbert Hogg, deputy chief constable of the county--On the 9th November, from information I re ceived, I went to Mr. Quinton's, and saw Mr. Sherriff. I asked him if he knew Miss Railton, the sister in-law of Mr. Darby, the postmaster, and if he had not attended her professionally ? lie said he had not. He admitted having given Mr. Hildreth medicine for a female in his house, who he supposed was in the family way. I asked him again if he had not done so ? He said he did not know Miss Railton, and he had not attended her. On the 11th November I had another interview with him at Mr. Quinton's. I told him I had still reason to believe he attended the party in her confinement, particularly so from information I had received that he applied to Mr. Omberlow for that purpose. He said he did so, but the person for whom he applied was the late cook of Mr. De Hane, a surgeon in Queen-street. He again repeated that he did not know Miss Railton. I attended the ad journed inquest on the 12th of November, and in con sequence of what I heard I arrested him, telling him that from the evidence given before the Coroner by the surgeon, I thought it my duty to detain him. On the 9th I went to Mr. Hildreth, who is a printer, and asked him if his sister-in-law, Miss Railton, was staying with him. He replied " No, she has left the town since the races, but returned yesterday, and is now with here brother-in-law, at the', post-office." I said I had reason to suppose she had been confined in his house ; to which he replied, " It is false ; whoever says so shall be punished for injuring the character of a re spectable female." I asked if he had ever applied to Mr. Sherriff for medicine or advice, and he said he hal not. I went to his house again on the 15th November, and arrested Mrs. 'Eldred). lie said to me, " You are going too far with this business ; you had better let it drop a good deal." This was after I apprehended Mr. Sherriff and Miss Railton, both of whom I had arrested without a warrant, on suspicion of felony. After the ! inquest on the 12th I went to the post-office, where I found Miss Railton. Mr. Foulke and Mr. Casey were with me. Mr. Darby, the postmaster, married Miss Railton's sister, who is now dead. Before Mr. Foulke examined her, I told her I had reason to believe she had lately been confined, and the child destroyed. She said "It is a mistake, and not at all the case." Mr. Foulke then went up stairs to Miss Railton, by my direction. After he came down I went up, and saw her. I said the surgeon had told me she had lately been confined, and I was sorry she had told me a falsehood. Mr. lIUDDLESTONE here objected that this remark of Colonel Hogg was an inducement to Miss Railton, and therefore her statement was inadmissible as evidence I against her. In all cases cited by Judges Gurney, Pat teson, Gazelee, and Littledale, it was held that the evi dence was inadmissible. The JUDGE—I shall receive the evidence, subject to a proper case. Examination continued—l arrested Miss Railton, and delivered her to Casey, at his private residence. The lock-up at Wolverhampton is a wretched and miserable place, and I did not take her there on that account, for I am sorry to see au unfortunate woman in that miserable place. She said, " I am sorry I did not tell you all about it, but what will become of my sister, her seven children, and the poor young man ? At noon, on Sun day three weeks, a person came to me and performed an operation on me, which caused me excruciating pain until a late hour of the night. At night, my sister delivered me of a child, which she killed." I asked, " How do you know it was killed?" She said, "It was born alive, I heard it cry." I asked her what became of it ? She said, " A person came three or four nights after and took it away." She said it was Mr. Sherriff, and added that he had performed a similar operation three or four times in two menthe, but never with effect until that costs. Sunday. She said she was not ill until the operation had been performed, She was quite well previously. On the itith 1 saw her again, in consequence of a note from Cisey. This is the note produced. Casey recalled—This note is in my handwriting. I sent it to Colonel Hoz, , g in consequence of Miss Railton telling me she would like to see him. I said it was late, but she desired to see him, and I wrote the note. Colonel Hogg continued—When I got there I saw her in the same room. She said, " I have been most un happy since I saw you yesterday, lest, from the state of mind I was in, I might have told you anything that is untrue." I then, at her request, repeated what she told me the previous day from my note-book, which I have with me. When I came to the part where she said her sister had killed the child, she said, " Oh, did I say so ? Then I must be mad, and at the time did not know what I was saying. My poor sister ; she took the child, rolled it up, took it to the fire, gave it some nourish- ' ment, and it died. My poor sister ! lam sure she felt very much for it." Cross-examined by Mr. ALLEN—I did apply to the Coroner for a warrant, but he refused. I only made one application. Miss Railton was arrested immediately after the Coroner declined to interfere. Henry Wm. Oroberlow, chemist, of Wolverhampton —I remember Mr. Sherriff coming to me, about fire months ago. He said he wanted to ask a favour, for me to attend a female who was respectable, and where secresy was required. I said, "Do you want me to pro cure a miscarriage ?" He said, 755.. I replied, no in ducement would cause me to do it. He said the party would "some down." Wm. Quinton, surgeon, of Queen-street, Wolverhamp ton—The back part of my premises are in Castle -street. Sherriff was my assistant. I have seen Hildreth at my surgery frequently, from August to September. I asked Sherriff the object of Hildreth's visits. He told me Hil dreth wished him to procure the abortion of a highly respectable female, who would be confined in a room of Hildreth's house, the greatest secrecy to be observed, and money no object. I think this was on the 25th of Au gust. He asked me if I would take the case. I replied, " I will have nothing to do with it." Mr. Sherriff came to me on the 28th of October, and said, " There is a child found in the privy in the yard." I went out and saw the body, which I should think had been there three or four days. Cross-examined by Mr. ALLEN—I saw Mr. Hildreth at my surgery twenty times or more. The first time was on the 18th of August. On the 25th I spoke to Sher riff about it for the first time. When I saw Hildreth on the 13th of November, he said he had called upon Sher riff about selling him some books. After some further evidence, Mr. HuDati,EsToNE submitted that there was no case to gu to the jury against Miss Railton, as her own state• ment was the only thing which affected her, and it was questionable whether that was legal advice. The JUDGE—I think there is evidence to go to the jury. lifessrs. Yardley, Allen, and auddlestone severally addressed the jury for the prisoners, who received exem plary characters from persons of the highest grade of Wolverhampton. l Mr. Justice C07.7M.41 , 7 summed up the voluminous evidence in a most minute manner, pointing out to the jury the law as it regarded each and all of the prisoners. The jury retired at nine o'clock, and on their return in half an hour Acquitted all the prisoners, which, the re porter adds, was received with applause in Court. There is another indictment against Sherriff. NEWINGTON SE S SIONS. (Before T. PUCKLE, Esq., Chairman, and a full Bench of Magistrates.) On Thursday, a special sessions was held at the Court house, Newington, before Mr. Puckle and a full Bench of Magistrates, under the 7th and Bth Victoria, cap. 101, to adjudicate upon the applications under the bastardy clauses of the Poor-law Amendment Bill. The applica tions were very numerous, and in all the cases which came before the Court, with one exception, in which the Magistrates thought there was not sufficient evidence, the putative fathers were ordered by the Magistrates to pay 2s. Gd. per week for their respective offsprings, from the time of the first application for the summons, exclu sive of costs varying from 20s. to 30s. The new bastardy clauses of the Act came into opera tion on the 9th of August last, and Mr. Boxer, the chair man of the board of guardians for St. George's, South wark, was in attendance to watch the eases and the working of the Act. In one of the cases before the Bench, Mr. PUCKLE, the chairman, asked Mr. Ware. the magistrates' clerk, in the event of the father not paying the costs, could he re cover them from the female ? Mr. Ware replied in the affirmative. Mr. JouNsoN (the magistrate)—Yes ; and a more cruel, harsh, and unjust measure than these bastardy clauses never passed the Legislature; and the more I see of them, the more am I satisfied that they amount to a total denial of justice, and hold out a temptation to crime. Here is the absurdity and cruelty of the law—the third section gives the justices power to make an order on the putative father, and to enforce the same by distress or committal, after one month from the date of the order. The father has the power of appeal to the sessions; in which case the whole of the expenses must fall upon the unfortunate female—she must find travelling expenses, lawyer, counsel, witnesses; and she is probably poor and friendless, ignorant, and totally unacquainted with the law. From the cruel operation of these clauses, the worthy magistrate said, that in three cases out of four the appellant would be successful,.and get off without having, to, maintain, his child.'Then, again, as to the hard ship of the case, the parish officers would formerly assist the female, and compel the father to support his illegiti mate child; but here, under the seventh section, the pa rish officers are, under a penalty, positively pro hibited from interfering; the words are, they shall not interfere in any respect." Again, the eighth section declares the parish officers to be guilty of a misdemea nour if they in any way endeavour to force the man, or persuade him to do an act of justice by marrying the female. And yet the mother is punishable for the neglect or desertion of her bastard child, and may be committed to prison. He (the worthy magistrate) repeated that it was a monstrous denial of justice ; and he was at a loss to-know how the Legislature could expect the magistrate could conscientiously administer justice by enforcing the provisions of such a law. Mr. WARE said the Act was altogether incomprehen sible. Mr. PUCIELE (the Chairman)—lt is extremely defec tive and loosely worded, and exceedingly vague in its meaning. The other Justices fully concurred, and the matter then dropped. A female applied to the magistrates for a warrant to enforce the payment of an order of 2s. 6d. per week, made upon the father of her child at the last sitting of the bench. The father only laughed at the order when served on him, and said he would pay when he was made to pay, and not before. kr: JOHNSON—hid you demand payment at the time you gave the order to the father? Applicant—No, Sir; I told him it was your worship's order, and he only laughed at it. Mr. JOHNSON said she ought to have demanded the amount at the time of serving the order. The applicant said she was really ignorant bow to act. Mr. JOHNSON—There can be no doubt of it. How are these poor creatures to know the working of these monstrous laws ? The man may well afford to laugh at the Magistrate's orders. The fathers of illegitimate children might get out of the way, or put the female to an enormous expense by appealing to the sc , ssions. No wonder that illegitimate children were on the increase. The worthy Magistrate again c‘indemned the clauses of the new Poor law Amendment Bill relative to bastards as an act of inhumanity and injustice. Mr. PUCKLE remarked that hitherto the appeals had been very few. • Mr. JOHNSON—There were two last sessions, and how many we may eventually have from the whole county it is impossible to foresee. The Magistrates were unanimous in condemning these clauses of the now Poor-law Amendment Act, and said that part of them were totally incomprehensible and absurd. In one case a man said he had so many illegitimate children that he really could not afford to pay for any more. He was ordered to pay 2s. 6d. per week and 208. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (SATURDAY.) UNION-HALL. Edward Edwards was charged with being found on the premises of a gentlemaicnamed Bright, at Brixton, for an unlawful purpose, and Mecrgaret Sheen, a young woman tervant in the family, was charged with admitting the former prisoner into the house. It appeared that the female prisoner was nurse for Mr. Bright's family, and that she slept with an infant in a room at the upper part of the house. Between three and four o'clock this morning the complainant was awakened by the crying of his infant, and, oil his wife proceeding up stairs, it was found the child was in bed alone, no appearance of the nurse having been there. Mr. Bright immediately descended to the kitchen, and on opening the door, his amaaement may easily be imagined on beholding the two prisoners lying hugged in each others arms on a hearth-rug, before a blazing kitchen fire, fast asleep. He did not awaken them, hut went for a policeman, and gave them both into custody. On the way to the station.house the female prisoner threw away a waistcoat belonging to her master, which she said adhered to her shawl without her knowledge. The other prisoner said that he was paying his addresses to the nurse, and that having called to see her, sleep overcame him, but he declared that he had no intention of doing anything wrong or taking any property. Mr. TRAILL said that he should remand the prisoners until Monday, in order that further inquiry might be made. MARLBORO UGH-STREET. Mr. Patrick M. Owen, a young Irishman, was brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged with having broken a looking-glass, worth 171., and done other damage to the property of Mrs. Fletcher, of 34, Duke-street. The complainant said she kept a respectable lodging-house for ladies. The defendant, who was a stranger to her, called upon her about five weeks ago, and said he had been recommended by a Airs. Thompson, of Dublin, to a young lady who lodged in the house. Complainant refused to allow him to see the lady in question, as she was under the pro tection of a friend. The defendant refused to go until he had seen the lady, and then complainant threatened to call the police. The defendant imme diately thrust his umbrella against a looking-gl ass worth 171., and broke it, and also broke a gas lamp worth 10s. The defendant went away, and com plainant obtained a summons against him, but the summons could not be served until Friday evening. WA AV' ) MARKET NE WS.—(SATVI‘ v ib fr °l / COVENT-G.A.RDZN. ,th Although we had much larger supplies °f and Vegetables on sale than were exhibited ° n • . last, last, the demand was quite as active, and r A cl generally supported. Potatoes from 3s to 4 ,s A l Vorit t s Turnips, 2s 6d to 3s 8d; Carrots, 5s 6d to 76; Greens, 3s to 3s 8d ; and Leeks, Is to 21 e r W" e c is ts bunches ; Appl e s and P ears , 2 s t o 4 s ; I ‘;'' 2s 6d ; and Onions, is 9d t o 2 s 9d per boll, a yilke j r) Apples, 8s to lOs ; For e i gn G ra p e s, 8d to ; l b ; I Is to Is 2d; and Cobb Nuts, 10d to Is 2d F ir r dot e d Cabbages, 3s to 7s ; a nd Savoys, is 3d to 25 Pe 3 j ; Horse Radish, 2s 3d t o 5 s ; Broaoli, 2 5 ° l „ f s es lII ' Celery, 10d to 2s 6d p er bundle ; Qr . "' Lemons, 8s to 10s per 100. ; inniazuroms.till s( There were only moderate supplies of most - 0 0 - produce on sale, yet the demand was by no 11/ Live, at late rates. 6 zrzwpoirr. • c r of fo rifil l We had a very steady inquir for each kin d j e e , j l3 Meat, at full prices. Otherwise the demand rt, PA" Beef from 2s 10d to 3s 10d ; Muttoa. 2 5 gd Sy r 1 10 ' Veal, 3s 6d to 4s 4d ; an d P o rk, 33 2d to 45. i NNINGATN AND ZNAD. I77I " I" 6OS °P ei In consequence of the supplies of both , 0 Poultry cowiderably exceeding the demand, the submitted to were extremely low, and a clear 6 ; ch lt/P ik not effected. We had an irnmense'supPlY of , L aln of Meat offering; still, however, the trod. ' v- 4 Wu A , Sanedlpordir 74%..etrtoenr7Veillyodautpopaosrtsedd.; Veal,/ef 5 fr 0 ( 1 .4 ,110 41" and Pork, 2s 8d to 4s per Ms. by th e ea rcs 6- The supply of n F z i Fish ZwNiolleflottlpaTrstrlrail, ovria to which the general quotations were ou tb ° VTICITECIL&P2O', o ff Tiegrfroel There was a larger quantity of UN" e Ott trade was rather active, at our quototi ° "; 104 2s 10d to 3s 10d Mutton, fis 10d to ss er 3s 4d to 4s 6d ; an d P or k, 2 s 10 d t o Ss luu r 3311,E.11.11. A{ Or li° The prices of wheaten Bread in the — . a tr ia per 41 from 7d told ; of household ditto, 5 0 t ° loaf. fly JP RIDS MARZST. Raw hides at per stone of 141Iss.—Best steers 10 1 , -- d ; iir ; middling hides, 5 5 to el f ;i t int: l 4 Si 6d to 6s 2d ferior hides, 4s 6d to 4s liid. Sheep and, cA ; o' o°P per skin—Market calf, 6s 6d to 811 ; vlll3 ' sheep, 2s 9d to 3s 6d ; short ditto, 2$ t 0 35 ' aI V i ' '• RAY AULLILEXTII. 1 1 SMITIIFIELD.—COarte Meadow Hay . 3 ' i: -I t s to t°s/ hi") Useful ditto, 4/ 16s to 51 4s • Straw , ' ,6 1. " 5/ 108 ; Clover Hay, 41 10;to 6/ Up ; ()at o. 1/ 141 ; Wheat Straw, 1/ 14a to 1/ 163 per " a " o tiO i r A t our Vol IV, average supply, and a steady demand, CUMBERLAND.—Coarse Meadow Hey, slil s , 51 7 1 5. Useful ditto, 4/ lis to 5163; fine IT land 0 ,".. - 11c, 1 , 1 , - 0, Joe U eud dit to, i11,t,..t 6/ 123 ; Clover Hay, 418 s to 6/ 18sp,• Oat 0 " - o r P' to I/ 155 ; Wheat Straw, 1/ 1.5 s to 11 1" r , 11 51, Supply but moderate, and trade firm. to . l; /3 1 21 5 0 0 0 WIIITECTIAPEL.—Coarse Meadow Hay, Useful u ditto, 4/ 16s to 5/4s ; fine LT land ei tt° '11 1 „"1,11 10; ; Clover Hay, 41 10i to 6/ , pOat Strs * P° 11 , r I ° . i Ol I/ 14s ; Ha • y and Straw were in fair request, at Pref reticles. - A rs' WAKEFIELD CORN lIARKES---Fop 0 VI There , I,* day' 0" is a good supply of grain to this 1 ii itt v i , and all descriptions remain without mste rill it' 6l4 ol e in value. 'Wheat has met a fai r sa le at last ~ e t s i to to Fine samples of B ar l ey are rather scaree9 ,i' ef isti a ' ,z quantity of For ! i gn h as b een o ff ering. ,-.° elo i : to 04 7 noie in Oats, Bean s , an d Sh e lli ng. t)... r ., 1 i l Per qr. or CO—' b Oto 01. Y-' .41 r 4$ 4. , Wneat Suffolk, Essex, and Kent... Red....." to ei r , Ditto ditto ..... White... --- 40 43 41 Norfolk ....... .................. ... Red ..... -- 51 4 P Ditto --- ditto White... "-- 46 , 0 0 Lincolnshire and Cambridge Red..... "'" DO 0 0, Ditto . . ditto White... •"" 45 P Yorkshire ...». ................. Ditto ditto White... -"' ,48 0 0 1 . Foreign feed.... isie r 0 Ditto ditto White.. Per - re :i 0 4 2* 51 51 31 Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk ......."" . .. . .. .. ........ -.. 0 0 0 Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Grinding ............ ........„,„,. ..... _., '''' 14 PO f , Foreign. -. t 0 ille o Per qr. 0 1 6511). J 0 0 Beans, Small rite ... ........... .... ......... . .... ..... .....• *-- 41 0, Ticks •** .... 0 ....- _ i, Foreign. .......,„ ...... J ..- sr sti o, Oats, Potato aid Poland .. ''''' -- 4 PI l' . 4 to 0 „, „ ~,,, ]dealing........ WEL to 12d., Foreign .-4. Shilling Malt A.. to . 27, 4 0s. e r r I.A . Rspe!sed..... ...... ................... Al.ot 24 1 . 10 - """. f ETON COL LEGE , DEC. 20.—1 n conseqnnrolc°l;l2% marriages, duri ng thi s wee k , o f the Rev . , (ov6 e 'bsf e ward Durnford and of the R ev . J o hn Err ir r ebsie assistant m as t ers at E ton College, two felle r ' A, ts o become vac a nt a t Ki ng ' s College, Cambritig h piog vacancies will be fill e d u p by th e f e ll o wships 'i v) i‘ to the Captain of the Eton School, Wright, gl lj the next seni orsc holarat Ft ~. . • -- rilif7'lfB f f' G. . , dy c/ On the 17th i ns t., a t Tliope, Norfolk,. the ' a ' )10' Cubitt, Esq., of the 7th Hussars, of a Ron. Stree t ' i On the 3d inst., at Pelton Cottage, Chester -le-- c• of Selby, of a son. . . . .. •• • On the 2d inst., at the Vicarage, GeddingO r l i t e l le te s , „ V i the Rev. R. Morton, of a daughter. WriP • On the 18th inst., at Clapham, Mrs. Alexander ,4 a daughter. On the 18th inst.,'in Granrille-s( uare, Pentonv— • ,pi 10 of Mr. W. E. NewtOn, of a son. 1 the On the 19th i ns t., at t h e G rove, W a lthamstos f, o pal George D. Tvser, I•:sq., of a son. • , ~ o f 4,1 Fry, onEtshge.,2oof a 20th inst., at Sydenliani, ' Kent, the wife ,.. ° daughter. l i f , On the 17th inst., MARRIED, ohristCch, st. 111 7... iebt7 : j° 00 4'1°: Hart, Esq., of Woburn-place, Russell-squar l e , t°7l4 itr. -4 beth, eldest daughter of Alfred Daniell, Esq. , 01 ke ti square_ n i de! V ir d' On the 18th inst., at Plumstead Church, ..- — t i er of Esq., juu, of Blackheath, to Emily, elder dangu` ail Brown, 6oanies, Hannah On the 19th inst„ at St. George's, Hanover-el:1n- to 'ell' , d iif h, C o h f te rt r i - t s t t o r n ee s t t of the Grove, Shoute;',_s•hill, ICent.:.re.Wiiiia ter of J. W. Meredith, Esq. • 1 i f fO r On the sth inst., at the Ponta della Lima , near •oe, DIE Chester-street, Oro Margaret Louisa, the wife of Henry Denkin. Esq . ostb efi On the 18th inst., at Welbeck-street. Marianne 0, f etl• eldest and only surviving child of R. M. Stephen s s a reAl a tr On the 18th inst., Mr. W. Mitchell, ofl3rixtnnt.,,,,s,u,ffi On the 12th inst., at Racy House, Charlton li-_ OO P' cestershire, Catharine, the wife of the Rev. Archd" i iifil of Hazlebrook, Roscommon, aged 81. the On the 16th inst., near Paris, Marie Antoin e tte. of the Re v . CuttleldWardroper. c r,iirort h i l ie On the 17th inst., Abraham Alger, En:, of , St. J° On the 18th inst., George Bangley, Lefl. , °' wood-road, Regent's-park, aged 81. i t London: Printed and Published by mußpcl ' ' l/140.,,i No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Co Sios Ow ther 40'; Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy , u, Middlesex, Monday, December 23,1144 .ab c oo The defendant attempted to deny being t `" who had called at the complainant's house. 1,01 0 , Mr. HAgnwick was satisfied that the eenlP'llo story was correct, and therefore fined the de f at 51. fiir the assault, Si. f o r th e gl as s, and 101. gas lamp.—The defendant paid the m oney. • , THANES POLICE. The brother of the late master of the UeresPrds before Mr. Ballantine to contradict a s t a temen t fr 0 on Thursday by a p erson , w h o in appliieg j° o ol arrear of wages alleged to be due to his O n ' said th e di the parties who peri s h e d in'th e w reck, dent was attributabl e t o the' circumstance of th e d t t O tain having been ill, and entrusting the care teasel to the mate, who was in liquor at !be d s 'o disprove so serious a charge, and to re lie o lcr memory of his brother from the obloquy it ' ls & eIY lated to attach to it, the applicant bawled te, - Oft istrate a letter from Me ss r s . Hoffman 1111 ' ~ , rging him to attend at th e police-office for the pose of contradicting this stat e ment made Ag aiils master of the Hero. Mr. BALLANTINE said the Court could n°' " XOl the vehicle of public information, not in connected with the public business. The f e ~o ( o ,io would no doubt correct any misrepresent s " — was in their power. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. 01 0 3 LONDON, DEO. 21.—Wind easterly, fresh bre e cloudy. t4t414 RAMSGATE, DEC. 19.—Arrd. Cuba, IN D , for Hamburgh. ree ts :;. PORTSMOUTH, DEC. 20.—Wind E., &o .h Arrd. Neckin packet, llofken, Surinam for Atm - 1007 Maria, Ruyter, Trinidad. for Bremen ; Halifax ; Symmetry, Brown, Quebec f0u.1 3 COWES, DEC. 20,—Arrd. Adolph, Schro der '; ) ,; Rico for Bremen ; Cybele, Edmonds, Haffl"" liant, Russell, Honduras. mot* , FOWET, DEc. 19.—Sid. Good I n tent, New ""peit e d Orr THE WIGHT, DEC. 17.—Der Borg/ Batavia. STUDWALL ROADS, DEC. 18.—Arrd. TA Ocllj°4 Schwer, Quebec. Ar 4 LivottrooL, DEC. 20.—Wind E.S.E., reouel sir ° Ilottinguer, Bursley, New York. Sid. Lit,f rot o; Sierra Leone ; Peruvian, Ichabo e ; Jupiter, St m ble,r' Mersey, Apalachiola ; Chieftain, Charle.ton.,l New York. Th e Rhoda, Matthews, from aground off the King's Pier. 0 0 ' 0 1 HOLYHEAD, I)xc. 19.—The Nicolas SOT' l Petersburgh to Liverpool, is ashor e in the t i ,t e lisW: t this bay, but expected off next tid e . The ' 4 ' o llo 1 " Boston, U.S., dismantled and abandoned, if°, 0 0 0, r, with, 22d ult., let. 39, lon. 63, by th e Astbani e ,_,' arrived here ; she appeared :o be without cl'h leaky. Oat WI:hoop, DEC. lg.—Part of a vessel% s A • e k , 15 feet long, oak, and apparently of recent ivr ec t w (10' iron fastenings, no trenails, wits picked U? 13 he since, in Ballyteague Bay. er, hi° oti HULL, DEC. 20.—The Yorkshireman,. ste am to Yarmouth, got on the Holme Sand, yesten* remains. Had'' OFE ToRDAY, Doc. 20.—Hendrick ' New York. v , PLYMOUTH, DEC. 20.—Wi n d Arrd. Arab, Dulgarno, Port Philip; Justiffil' i i, ) 1 ""' Calqutta, left St. Helena, on th e 16th ult.; J„ e e b;c , colm, Ceylon; Queen of the O cea n, Tilley, 411 . 1 0, !, P e d FALMOUTH, DEC. 20.—Wind E., strong P c , IP squally.—Arrd. E u phr os y ne , D o yl e , Sague na y ' on the 15th ult. of (1 4 ° ' HARWICH, DEC. 16.—The barque Recove r iii,lfP" I from London, for Newcastle. got ashore on the o „ti t , rock this morning, but i s ex p ec t e d off on th e • o pc" CoRK. I )Ec. 17.—A barque is reported ashore! Bay, eight miles to the westward. 4 t.i t 11'1'1