The Sun. — London, England, 1845-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 3. (Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice CR/ESSWZLL and a Middlesex Special Jury.) GRIM. CON.-CLARK V. DIJNSFORD. This was an action for trim. con., w hich was part heard yesterday, and in which the defendant is a medical man , i n partnership with the plaintiff's brother. The Attorney-Genera], Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, and Mr. Butt, appeared as counsel for the plaintiff; Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. Sergeant Channel], and another Learned Gentleman, for THE ge nerally going out with her visitor, but frequently returning alone. This practice , how ever, was not limited to the tim e whileshe of her hurried trips to Bristol by railway, for e sthe rogu e larly resided there it w as shown that she pursued plan, on most occasions of her home for any length of time, and to a husbanmdobreeilnimg itaewdaeyxftreonmt, who was in the plaintiff's service as coachman, gave it in whenhome she in t h knewc rs h e e wasfa only h a o t u r his A e f fi n other e of w t b en wetness.e s evidence that on one particular occasion, when he had e him a l y t Mr. e c r into ark w t h e t country, oob w di t e t h h o is ur m M as inform her of the hour,but said he thought it would be about ahckis. mistress s uld as n k o e t d ten o'clock ; and he further stated that he had frequently received directions to take Mrs. Clark up in the carriage at a greengr ocer's shop in Brist ol, ke p t by a person of the name of Dowling, and whose house was some ten minutes' walk from her own house, but not more than a hundred yards from the defendant's residence. The nurse and parl brother, our-maid Mr. at l eng th decided on inform in g the plaintiff's Henry Clark, of what had occurred when they returned home from their stay at Weston. Upon being informed of these circumstances, he sought an interview with Mrs. Clark, but was at first refused, though she afterwards received him in the afternoon of the same day in her bed-room. Another interview was had between them the next day ; and in three or four days she quitted her home, and went to her sister's residence at Newport.-Flester,[the parlour-maid, accompanied her thither, not only by her mistress's own earnest desire (as she declared 's in giving her evidence), but by that of the plaintiff brother, with whom she was to communicate with regard to what occurred during her stay with Mrs. Clark at Newport. At first, however, there existed some doubt as to what the nature of this communication between them was to be, as it at one time appeared that it was to be in case there was any money wanted, as it was desired that the lady should be comfortable. But, in cross-examination, this servant admit ted that she was to write to Mr. H. Clark all concerning the conduct and proceeding of her mistress ; though in re-exami nation she declared that she had not intended to act the spy, and that the only letter she had rwarded him bad pelf. re viouely to being posted been show fo n to Mrs. Clark hers As that lady and her sister, however, did not agree very well, she soon left Newport, proceeding to Chepstow, and then to Gloucester, and, after staying some little time at each of these places, to London, where she remained for a while at the Bull-and-lltloutb. Nobody received her in the metropolis, and the servant then returned to Bristol, and re entered Mr. Clark's service. Such is a general statement of the purport of the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff's case. The A TTORNEY- GENERAL addressed the jury for the plaintiff, and entered into a detailed account of the cirs cumstances under which the cases was brought before them ; and having concluded his speech, the following witnesses were called : Elizabeth Jones—Was servant to the plaintiff in the year 1842, and afterwards in 1844, when they resided at Bristol. During the first period of service she knew the defendant as being the partner of Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's bro ther. He used often to visit Mr. and Mrs. Clark, she thought as a medical man. During the second period he was a con stant visitor, and generally came when plaintiff was out. He always used to go up stairs by himself, which no other visitor ever did. Ile used to let himself out, which was also unusual. When other visitors were going, the bell was always rung for her (witness) to show them out. She re membered his calling on the 6th of June, 1844. On that oc casion he was shown into the library, and Mrs. Clark met him there. After they had been together a little while witness heard the door either locked or bolted, and the win dow-blind pulled down. This excited her suspicions, and she went into the pantry, which was under the library, where she got upon the dresser to listen to what was going on in the room above. She heard the noise of feet, as if some one was walking towards the sofa, and then a noise, as if two persons were on the sofa. She then called to Elizabeth Hertford, her fellow-servant, whe did not come to her imme• diately, and when she did come the noise had ceased. Soon after this witness heard the door unlocked, and, almost at the same moment, Mr. Clark came home Hester Bevan, examined by Mr. Burr—l' entered the ser vice of Mr. and Mrs. Clark on 'the 18th of February, 1845, and lam in Mr. Clark's service now. I recollect Mr. Duns ford frequently calling to see Mrs. Clark. On one occasion after he had gone the sofa was very much tumbled. I saw my mistress afterwards, and she appeared confused. In the spring the baby was vaccinated. In the week of the vaccination the library was freshly arranged, and the sofa was taken into it out of the dining-room. The library was arranged on the Tuesday, and the vaccina tion took place on the Friday. Mr. Dunsford called on the Friday. I showed him into the library, and the child was brought to him almost immediately. In about 10 minutes afterwards the baby was taken away. Mr. Dunsford and my mistress remained in the library together for nearly three hours afterwards. My master was out of town. The defendant called again on the Friday following. My mistress went into the library, and the child was taken in there also, with a basin and a towel. The child was hardly in the room ten minutes. The defendant said to Mrs. - Clark when he came in, " Make haste and bring the child, as I have a great deal to say to you." He came at a quarter before three o'block and left at a quarter before seven. He let himself out when he went away. While he was in the library with my mistress I went to the door and listened. I heard Mr. Dunsford say, " If I do love you better than any other woman in the world, you need not say so. You say to me, 'be cautious, be cautious,' and yet you your self say things that lead people to suspect." Mr. Duns ford charged her with something she had said to some one, and she wished to known what it was. He said, " Well, shall I tell it you just as I heard it?" She said " Yes." At that moment the bell rung, and I went to answer the door. Two ladies came to the door, and I told them, as I had been directed, that my mistress was engaged. While I was listening at the library door, I heard the de fendant kiss Mrs. Clark. I saw the defendant go out, and I immediately went up to Mrs. Clark, and asked her whether she would not take something, as she had had nothing but her breakfast that day. Her face was remarkably red, and she did not look up, but smoothed her hair with her hands when she spoke to me. That eras the last time Mr. Duns ford came to Berkeley-square. About a week afterwards the Misses Kirkby came on a visit. In August last the family went to Weston-super-Mare. Mr. Clark came every evening to Weston, and returned in the morning to Bristol, except on the occasions when he went to Exeter. While the family were at Weston, Mrs. Clark went to Bristol three times. I went to Bristol on the second of those occasions. Miss Kirby went with us. We arrived at Bristol in the evening. On the following day my mistress went out with Miss Kirkby, and remained out all day. On the third day we returned to Weston. While at Weston my mistress went many times to the post- office. There was a boy who took letters to the post-office from the plaintiff's house. My mas ter was in Bristol when the family returned from Weston, and he left the next day. Mr. Henry Clark came up to the house the day after my master left, and spoke to me. lie saw Mrs. Clark in her bed-room on that day. He had called before, but by mistress would not see him. I went with Mrs. Clark afterwards to Newport. Elizabeth Hertford, fellow-servant of the former witness, gave evidence as to the suspicions which had been excited in her mind by various circumstances. Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's brother, spoke to a con versation subsequent to the commencement of this action, in which defendant said, " Joseph and Potiphar's wife has been acted over to the life ;" and added, that five words from him would have ruined Mrs. Clark. Maria "Withers examined—ls sister to a Mrs. Needes, who keeps a lodging-house, No. 17, Norfolk-street, Bath. In July, 1844, her sister left Bath for a time, leaving the house in her care. During her sister's absence, a gentle man called upon her, and represented that he was secretly married, that lie wished it to remain a secret, and that he wanted lodgings in Bath. He called himself Mr. Lisle. After this she wrote to her sister about it, and on receiving an answer, she desired her nephew, alad named Kinchen, to write to Mr. Lisle, to tell him that his terms were accented. She knew his address, which was at the British and Foreign Hotel, Hanover-square, London, from a letter which she had received from him. (This letter was produced in Court, but the part which contained the address had been cut away.) After this Mr. Lisle came several times to sleep at her sister's house. He used to come at night and remain till the next evening. On each occasion he said, in the morning, that he expected Mrs. Lisle, and a lady came at about ten o'clock. She remained each time till four, when she went away alone, and at about nine he went away also. He never slept there two successive nights. '1 hey met there four times. Mrs. Needes, and George Kinchen, her nephew, corroborated the above statement. The three witnesses had seen Mr. Dunsford and Mrs. Clark at Bath, and identified them as the lady and gentleman whom they had known as Mr. and Mrs. Lisle. The servant of the house was also examined, and said that on one occasion Mr. Lisle had not slept there the night before, and the bed was not disturbed during the time he and Mrs. Lisle slept there. On the three other occasions he had slept there, and the bed had been left un made by his wish, so that it was tumbled before Mrs. Lisle came, and she could not say whether it had been used while she was there. This witness had also identified the defen dant and Mrs. Clark. Joseph Hall, a police-officer at Bath, had taken the four last witnesses to Mr. Dunsford's and ;Mr. Clark's: house, in order to identify the persons. On stating his object to the defendant, the latter said, " What is done cannot be helped." The above-named witnesses having been examined, evi dence was given with respect to the marriage settlement. The deed itself was put in, and proved by the attorney who had prepared it and witnessed its signature. Evidence was also adduced of a notice that had been served upon the trustees under it. It appeared that in this deed it was a condition that 5,0001. should be in trust for the sole use and benefit of Mrs. Clark ; and, further, certain property she would inherit from her grandmother and mother, the interest arising from which was to be duly paid over to her for her sole use and benefit, by the before-mentioned trustees, :on receipts bearing her own signature. There was, however, a proviso, to the effect that this interest should not be paid over to her until she had formally demanded the payment of it, and notice had been regularly served upon the trustees. It was accordingly now proved that the payments had been de manded in due form since Mrs. Clark had quitted her husband's house. The evidence for the plaintiff (of which the above presents the material portions) having been concluded, Sir Tnost.is Wrene addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, and contended that they could not, upon the evi dence as it now stood, come to a conclusion adverse to his client. He submitted that there was no direct or clear, satis factory or by any means conclusive proof of adultery having been committed by the defendant and the plaintiff's wife. Even if they were disposed to place entire reliance upon all that had been given in evidence by the witnesses which had been adduced in support of the case on the other side, he did not believe that it could be held that more than a case, he admitted, of great suspicion had been esta blished by the witnesses. That, however, would not be suf ficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict at their hands ; and still less would he be entitled to it upon testimony of such a very doubtful and improbable nature as they had heard that day. Upon such evidence no one who was stand ing at the bar of a criminal court could be found guilty ; and he contended that a similar doctrine should be applied to such a case as the present. Before they received such testimony with anything approaching credence, they ought well to consider its value and probability. They ought to exercise the utmost caution before they SO received it. It would, he admitted, be impossible and useless to deny that great and suspicious intimacy had existed between Mrs. Clark and his client, or that there had been no improper familiarities between them. It was most probable that such had taken place ; but a far more decided conviction must be entertained before a verdict could be given for the plaintiff. He contended that there was no reason to come to the positive conclusion that this intimacy and those fami liarities had been carried to the last act of criminal i ty be tween the a by he ti form. parties,,and that adultery had really bee n com mitted a vrdeer the them. But Apenlva plaintiff nn i unless t ff the oend b that il ur y were we r e returned satisfied clearly ort established hdaatm t hageer no es w were sufficient grounds for such a verdict, he submitted that this was a case that called for nothing beyond a low and trifling amount of damages. Little would compensate the plaintiff fhlly, for, regarding matters in the most unfavour able light, his loss could not be looked upon as heavy. After commenting on the evidence that had been adduced before them, the Learned Sergeant concluded by leaving the ques tion in the hands of the jury, being assured they wou ld, p.c. cording to the best of their judgment, do justice betty ems the parties, and meet the merits of the case. The Learned Junog then proceeded to sum up the evi dence, and carefully and clearly laid all its material por tions before the jury. In the course of some remarks upon crguments that had been use d b y Counsel, his Lordship said that much might be insisted on respecting the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation in instances such as the present. As was usually the case in actions of this nature, many ob servations had been made as to the total inefficiency of any amount of pecuniary com p en sation to sooth a husband's wounded feelings; or to satisfy his injured honour, and the sufferings he must endure under such circumstances. The law, however, had awarded no other than a money compen sation in all such cases ; and, notwithstanding all that might be alleged against its adequacy, it would be P2411) 1 1 10 4 cult to point out any other remedy that would be mere sans- factory and efficacious. The jury, therefore, would new only have to decide whether the pleiutiff, wider the circumstances of this case, judging from the evidence that had been laid before them, was entitled to any compensation, and if to, to what amount they should award it to meet the merits. They must measure the damages by the value of what the plaintiff had lost through the conduct of the defendant, that had de, prived him of a wife, and his children of a mother. It would be for them to estimate the extent of the injury the plaintiff had sustained, and to give damages (if they were agreed that da mages should be given) in accordance with that estimation. In coming to a decision as to the amount to be awarded, they must take into their consideration all the facts ; fbr, In such in stances, much depended upon the character of the wife seduced, the manner in which the husband had ever behaved towards her, and various other circumstances that gave each case a distinctive character, and made all the difference between the extremes of the hitherto virtuous wife who was se duced, and the wanton profligate woman, who with head long passion threw herself into the arms of the adulterer. As regarded the nature of the injury iuflicted, it was cer tainly difficult, indeed, to imagine any one that would be more afflicting to a man who had fulfilled the duties of a good husband and a kind father, and who was happy in his reminiscences of the past, the enjoyments of the present, and the bright and cheering prospects of the future, than the seduction of the partner of his wedded life, once chaste and virtuous, and the blight upon the condition of his children, deprived under such painful circumstances of the care and love of their once devoted mother. If, however, on the other hand, a man had allied himself to a woman of free and capricious manners, of immodest deportment, and wanton lascivious disposition, it would certainly be his mis fortune to have espoused such a female, but it could scarcely be considered a misfortune to lose her. In such a case too, a plaintiff could scarcely be held entitled to any con siderable amount of damages, even if any beyond a mere nominal sum, by way of compensation for the loss he had endured by her abandoning him. It would be there fore for the jury to decide where in their opinion the present case stood, awl at what distance from the one extreme or the other. If they gave credence to the testimony of the witnesses they had heard in the course of the cause, he thought they could entertain no reasonable doubt that there had been acts of adultery. If so, the plaintiff had been, by the defendant, deprived of the society of her, who was at once his wife and the mother of his children; and it would be for them to estimate the loss the plaintiff had thus sustained, and to give damages accordingly. In the course of the pro ceedings they had heard that the defendant had spoken slightingly of the virtue of the plaintiff's wife, and that he had said something about the story of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar being acted over again. He (Mr. Justice Cressvrell) had, however, observed that, from the beginning to the end of the evidence that bad been adduced, not a single question had been put to any witness with a view of casting a slur upon the manners or life of Mrs. Clark, or seeking to impugn her virtue prior to her acquaintance with the de fendant. There was nothing either to show that her con duct had been light, or that she had first sought the de fendant, and had not been seduced by him. The law did not in such cases seek to punish the offender, but merely to give the injured party, the plaintiff, compensation for the loss he had sustained in losing the society of his wife. The degree of the defendant's guilt was an important matter of investi gation and consideration for this latter purpose. The blacker his transgression, the greater must of necessity be the injury sustained by the husband, and consequently the larger the amount of damages to which the latter would be entitled. It must be so, inasmuch as the more serious the guilt of the seducer, the more subtle the artifices to which he had re course to attain his purpose, the more deep laid the plans by which he at last succeeded in triumphing over the virtue of the once spotless wife, the higher must originally have been her value to her husband, and the higher also ought to be the amount awarded him by way of compensation, as far as the law allowed compensation to be made him for the loss he had sustained. The wife, however, who, on the other hand, yielded readily to any man who chose to approach with a guilty purpose and solicit her, could never have been of much worth or value to her husband; and the easiness of the adulterer's triumph might be taken, therefore, as a measure of the rate at which she was justly and truly to be esteemed. The jury must, in fact, look to the particular cir cumstances of the case, and decide upon the evidence they had heard what would best meet its merits. The jury, at the conclusion of the Learned Judge's obser vations, retired to consider their verdict ; and, after being out of Court rather better than half an hour, returned with one for the plaintiff—Damages, 5,0001. the defendant. This action (in which the damages were laid at 10,0001.) was, as above stated, brought by the plaintiff, to recover com pensation in damagesfor the injury he had sustained through the defendant having had criminal conversation with his wife, and having at last induced her to quit her husband's house. The ~plaintiff, Mr. Clark, is a solicitor carrying on business at Mstol, where the defenda nt also resides, prac tising his profession as a med ical man, in which quality he had been in the habit of visiting the family of the former gentleman. Mr. Dunsford, it appeared, was a friend Op int well as formerly the partner) of M r. Henr y Clark, the plaff's brother, by whom he was originally introduced to the plain tiff's family, and which he had occasionally attended pro fessionally, besides being always admitted on terms of the closeset intimacy. tinder these combined circumstances, it might be easily imagined that the defendant had the freest and most unsuspected access to the house of the plainti ff. s lt further appeared that Mr. and Mrs. Clark had always lived together on terms of affection and mutual confidence. The husband was especially kind and considerate in his manner and con duct towards his wife, always conducting himself towards her with the utmost tenderness ; and the lady had recipro cated such treatment, and exhibited a like demeanour towards her husband (according to the testimony of servants and others who had possessed ample opportunity of observing all hat occurred in the family) until some time after Mr. Duns ford was introduced into the house. It was then noticed that she often betrayed towards Mr. Clark signs of diminished affection, and occasional sullenness. According to the testi mony of some of the female servants who were examined in support of the plaintiff's case, and who deposed to this pet tishness and altered manner on the part of Mrs. Clark, they were chiefly shown while the family were at the dinner table. This, for instance, it was alleged that she would sometimes give no answer at all to questions or observations suede by her husband. One of the servants, Hester Bevan, who was a material witness in the cause, further stated that the sUllenness she meant was principally shown by her mistress mist answering the question as to what she would prefer being helped to at dinner. It, however,appeared by the evidence that she always was he l p ed to what she liked, not withstanding her giving no answer on the subject Mr. Henry Clark, the brother of the plaintiff, too, deposing as to the pettishness and sullen manner of his sister-in-law, said, that shortly after the time it was probable the relations between Mrs. Clark and Mr. Dunsford had become intimate, there no longer appeared to be the same sympathy and cor diality between the husband and wife as formerly, and that she seemed estranged from him, and to live in less commu nion with him. This had not been seen in her manner prerds viously. She moreover, began therea ft er to display towa him an unwonted degree of coldness and reserve, entirely differing from her demeanour previously to the unfortunate introduction of Mr. Dunsford into the family circle. Stwallis , notw i t h s t an ding this obvious change on her part, it shown that her husband's manners towards, and treatment of his wife, ever:remained the same, and that hOwas always kind, considerate, and affectionate in his demeanour, towards her. There was a young family, the fruit of this marriage, and Mr. Clark was proved to have been, not only a good hus band, but likewisel s a tender and attached father. When the visits made by the defendant to the house had become more frequent, as was the case some time after the first intimacy commenced, they were the subject of repeated remark by the plaintiff's servants, and it was observed (and the cir cumstance added to the other grounds for suspicion in their minds) that those visits were either made when thel plain tiff was away from Bristol, or away from his home, and known to be engaged at his office, and likely to remain thee for some time. Another subject of suspicion, as to the ature and object of the defendant's visits to Mrs. Clark, was the character of the orders always given to her servants by the lady herself, when Mr. Dunsford was ex pected to come. On such occasions directions were always issued by her that no one was to be admitted during his stay at the house, and that she was, in fact, "at home" to no one while he was there. Again, his visits were extremely long, and his departure was made in the quietest possible manner, so that often those in the house were not aware when or how he left. Though, however, these visits of Mr. Dunsford to Mr. Clark's house were thus protracted in their duration, they were but few in number, and long intervals elapsed be tween them. On the occasion of the first one, deposed to by one of the servants, Hester Bevan, she stated in her evidence that her mistress, previously to the defendant's arrival, told her that she expected a gentleman to visit her that day, and that during his stay no one was to be admitted, and that, on his arrival, he was to be shown into the drawing room, and no one was to intrude while he remained. Three specific occasions were deposed to ; and on each of them the defendant was stated by the witnesses to have remained several hours in company with Mrs. Clark alone. It was each time some three or four hours at the least that they were together, except on the last occasion of his calling at the plaintiff's house, when his visit was even more protracted. Various circumstances too were spoken of in connexion with those visits, that were alleged to render them still more sus picious in their nature and object. Thus, when he was about to leave the house, the room bell was not rung for the ser vants to come up and open the door, as was the custom with all other visitors; but he left without any announcement to the servants, opening the street-door himself, and departing in this manner, without making any one in the house aware of it. The servants, who respectively acted in the establish ment in the capacities of nurse, cook, and parlour• made, gave evidence to the above effect, as regarded the visits of the de fendant to Mrs. Clark, during her husband's absence ; and two of the three were shown to be in the service of the latter at the present time. Another important portion of the evidence adduced in support of the case, was that respecting the s visits made by Mrs. Clark away from her home, in the absence of her husband. On several occasions it was proved that the lady left her house at an early hour of the morning, remain ing out on those days some six, seven, or eight hours, and not returning till late in the afternoon. A further fact deposed to by the witnesses as an additional proof of the ciasninality of the parties, notwithstanding the absence of any very decided testimony of criminal acts themselves, .was that of Mr. Dunsford having, under a feigned name, taken lodgings in the city of Bath. At those lodgings it was shown he was in the habit of receiving the visits of a lady, to whom he asserted he had been privately mar ried, although circumstances prevented their acknowledg ing that marriage openly. Those visits were paid at long intervals; and it was:of course sought, in support of the plaintiff's case, to lead the jury to the conclusion that the lady so visiting the defendant was no other than Mrs. Clark, as any of the railway trains would convey her from BriStol to Bath in little more than a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes—thus affording plenty of time for her to be some hours with Mr. Dunsford at his apartments in Bath, out of the six or seven hours, she was sometimes absent from home. With respect to the three visits made by the defend ant to the plaintiff's house, while the plaintiff himself was absent, the second was, that concerning which there was the most important and comprehensive evidence, as to the crimi nality of the parties. Regarding the first of these three "calls," it only appeared that Mr. Dunsford prolonged his stay in the society of Mrs. Clark for severallhours, and that the parlour maid, when she went into the drawing-room, where they had been sitting, after his departure, observed that the sofa was much tossed, and the cover crumpled, while Mrs. Clark ap ;lased excited and confused in her manner upon the ser vant entering the apartment. Several days elapsed be tween that and the next visit of the defendant to the plain tiff's house. During that interval changes were made in the arrangement of the furniture in the library and drawing room. From the latter, various chimney ornaments, &c. were removed, and placed in the library. From the dining room, too, a sofa was taken and placed also in the library, the same directions being given to the servants as before respecting the gentleman who was expected to come. Upon his arrival, at this second visit, he was shown into the library, according to the directions given by Mrs. Clark. That lady, upon his arrival, was, according to the evidence of the par lour-n aid, Hester Bevan (who was the principal witness in the case) in her bed-room. The instant, however, the fact of Mr. Dunsfoord having come was announced to her, she rushed down stairs to the library to meet him ; and the nurse was shortly afterwards ordered to bring down the baby that had been but recently vaccinated, when the defendant operated on the arm, so as to allow the matter to escape from the pustules. A very few minutes, however, sufficed for this ; and the nurse then went into the garden with the child. The windows of the library looked upon these grounds ; and the nurse deposed that, on looking up at the room she saw the blinds drawn half down ; ant her suspicions were at once aroused as to the proceedings between her mistress and the defendant. She immediately went into the house and told her thoughts to Hester Bevan, one of her fellow-servants, and they both decided that it would be well to watch. The latter, accord ingly, went close to the library-door, and listened at the key hole, in order to discover, if possible, the nature of what was passing within. With all her efforts she could discover nothing; but, in her testimony, she positively stated that she distinctly heard a kiss given , and that she moreover heard the defendant say to her mistress—" If I do love you better than any woman in the world, why need you speak of it? You say to me, be cautious, be cautious, while you yourself say things that must make us the objects of suspicion." Mrs. Clark thereupon asked, " Why, what did I say ?" And the defendant replied, " I will tell you. I will tell you as I heard it." Before there was time, however, the servant, who was eagerly listening at the door to hear more of this conversation, there was a loud ring at the hall-bell, and she was obliged to go down stairs to answer it. Two ladies had called to visit the mistress of the house, and they asked the maid if Mrs. Clark was within ? She answered that she was at home, but was en gaged. Thereupon the ladies departed, and the witness Hester Bevan at once betook herself to the pantry, that was situated directly beneath the library. There she stayed, according to her own representation, for more than a couple of hours, during which time she heard the defendant walk across the room, and afterwards heard a great scuffling of feet. Shortly before the defendant that day departed, she beard him open the door for the purpose, as she imagined, of looking into the passage, and seeing that the coast was clear. She looked out at the time, and from the place out side the pantry she saw him in a minute or two subsequently come out of the room, and opening the hall-door himself, leave the house. She could not say she heard any lock turned or b o lt d r awn, when the defendant first opened the library door ; it was simply opened, and did not seem to have been fastened. Directly he had left she went into the room to ask Mrs. Clark whether she wished for any refresh ' anen t, as she h a d no t rung f or h er b rea kfast that morning, and bad, in fact, eaten nothing that day, though it was, by the time the servant entered the library, quite evening. Upon her asking her mistress this question, the latter thanked her, and or dered a poached egg and so me bacon with her tea. With regard to the lady's demeanour at this time, the wit news stated that it was very confused, and that her mis tress's face was very red ; that she did not look in witness's face while she s p oke, bu t continued smoothing her hair • with her hand, by that means shading her eyes and face from observation. The sofa again appeared to be much di s turbed and crushe d ; and it was e v ident , the witn ess added, that it had been lain upon. A third visit was after wards paid by the defendant to Mrs. Clark, also while her husband was away from home ; and on that occasion another child, who had some affection of the throat at the time, was brought down from the nursery to be seen by Mr. Dunsford. It was in the room about ten minutes, but the interview lasted as usual, for hours between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife. In the month of August two of the servants, the nurse and Hester, the parlour-maid, went with the fa mily to Weston-super-Mare, not many miles from Bristol ; and the plaintiff was there all the time with his wife and children, except upon a few occasions, when he had to go to Exeter. Mrs. C., it appears, was all this time receiving letters ; but they were not sent like the rest to the house, being fetched by herself from the post-o ffi ce (about a quarter of a mile from where they lived). Upon the occasions of her husband's absence she toQ9 the opportunity of leaving Wes ton and travelling to Bris tol by the railway. She remained on several of these occasions away for a day or more, being accompanied by one of the servants and by a lady of the name of Kirkby, who was on a visit to her at the time. She usually left the house at an early hour of the day, and did not return until Ave in the afternoon, and eonietimes later, EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Dec. 3. THE PIRACY AND MURDER CASE. Sir J. DODSON (in continuation from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday) said—lt was urged on the other side, that the capture was not made in accordance with the instructions is sued to the Royal Navy under the treaties ; but it must be re membered that these instructions were altered when the convention of 1830 was agreed to, and for his part he thought the seizure in question in no way violated them. He ad mitted that this country had no right to punish these pri soners as pirates at all, but it had the right of capturing . a vessel suspected to be engaged in the slave-trade for exami nation, and if the crew of such vessel committed an offence after such capture, they rendered themselves amenable to the laws of this country. That was the case here, and therefore he contended that this country, having a right to capture, and the capture itself having been properly effected, the prisoners had laid themselves open to the vengeance of the English laws by the murder of Mr. Palmer subsequent to the seizure of the Felicidade. In a time of war it often occurred that neutral vessels were captured, but he had yet to learn that the crews of those vessels, following out the argument of his Learned Friend on the other side, had a right to disregard the privileges of the British flag, and murder the whole or any of their captors to recover their vessel. It was objected that the Echo was not captured by a lieutenant in her Majesty's Royal Navy, or by a vessel having certain instructions on board. Now he should con tend that the Echo was captured by a jolly-boat of the Wasp, acting under the directions of Lieutenant Stupart, commander of the Wasp, but before the capture could be made by the jolly-boat, the Echo struck, and how it could Ile objected that this was not a capture effected by a vessel in the Royal Navy, he could not for the life of him under stand ; but of this he was confident, that the mode in which the Echo was captured could be no justification for the murder of Mr. Palmer. He submitted, in conclusion, that both the Echo and the Felicidade were lawfully captured by a British vessel in the Royal Navy, and being then under the control of the British flag, any offence committed on board of either, whether by an Englishman or a Brazilian, against the municipal law of England, rendered the offender liable to be dealt with and punished by those laws. Dr. ADAMS replied, reminding the Court that his Learned Friend, throughout the whole of his address, had been contend ing that the country had a general right of visitation. Now lie maintained, that in a time of peace it had not, except by especial contract entered into with a foreign nation whose vessels were to be searched, and unless the conditions of that compact were strictly complied with, no right of visi tation existed. That was the case in this instance, and lie humbly submitted that their Lordships' decision ought to be in favour of the prisoners. Dr. HARDING also replied, and the Court adjourned shortly after five o'clock. ARCHES' COURT, Dec. 3. (Before Sir 11. JENNER FUST.) JUDGMENT.—THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN V. THE REV. JOHN DAY. This was a proceeding by letters of request, against the Rev. John Day, clerk, rector of the rectory of llawridge, for the reformation of his manners and excesses. The suit was in pursuance of the provisions of the Church Discipline Act, and as it has proceeded throughout in pzenam (the rev. defendant not having appeared to the citation), the articles exhibited; were, on a previous court-day, read seriatim, as well as the evidence brought forward in support of them. Counsel were then heard in support of the validity of the charges, and, as total deprivation of the living enjoyed by Mr. Day was asked fur, the Court took time to consider the case in extensO. The principal articles exhibited against the Rev. Mr. Day were to the following effect:— " We article and object to you the said Wm. Day, that at all times in and during two years previous to the commence ment of this suit (save from on or about the ith day of July, 1843, to the 9th March, 1844), during which time you were a prisoner in her Majesty's gaol at Aylesbury, in the county of Buckinghamshire, you have addicted yourself to habitual excesses. " Also we article and object to you, the said Wm. Day, that there did exist concerning you scandal and evil report as having offended against the laws ecclesiastical, in the several matters hereinbefore particularly articled, objected, and set forth against you. And we further article and object to you that by reason, and in con sequence of such scandal and evil report, and under and by virtue of an Act of Parliament, made and passed in the 3d and 4th years of the reign of her present .Majesty, entitled An Act for better enforcing Church Discipline,' the Lord Bishop of Lincoln did think fit of his own mere motion to issue a commission under his hand and seal, bearing date the 14th day of September, 1844, to five persons, one of whom was the Rev. John Rd. Clerk, Vicar of Ivanhoe, in the said county of Buckingham and diocese of Lincoln, and a rural Dean within the said diocese, for the purpose of making inquiry as to the grounds of such scandal and evil re port concerning you, as having offended against the laws ec clesiastical by having addicted yourself to habitual excesses. That when such proceedings had been closed, one of the said Commissioners, after due consideration of the depositions taken before them, openly and publicly declared the unani mous opinion of the said Commissioners, that there was suf ficient prima facie ground for instituting further proceed ings; that the said Commissioners transmitted to the said Bishop, under their hands and seals, the depositions of the witnesses taken before them ; and also a report of the una nimous opinion of the said five Commissioners, that there were sufficient prima facie grounds for instituting further proceedings against you, and that such report is filed in the registry of the said diocese of Lincoln." There were other articles. The concluding ones prayed that the said William Day be duly and canonically corrected and punished according to the exigency of the law, and also be condemned in the costs of this suit. Sir 11. JENNER Friar, at . very considerable length, ex pressed his opinion upon the case. The articles exhibited were referred to by the Judge, and he held that the mate rial charges were proved. Referring to previous cases of the kind, and cited in argument, lie (Sir 11. J. Fust) was not disposed to hold that this was a proceeding in which depri vation was called for. The Court thought, however, that a suspension of three years from the emoluments of the living would be sufficient. The sentence of three years' deprivation, with costs, was ordered to be entered in the registry. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 3. (Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.) IN RE FRANCIS COPLAND, AN INSOLVENT. The insolvent in this case, who was better known as Col. Copland, and who was some time since deeply mixed up in the affairs of Margaret Edmonds, of St. James's-place, and Lord lluntingtower, came up to-day for his final order. Mr. JAMES, who with Mr. Sturgeon appeared for the in solvent, said that a difficulty arose upon the last appearance of the bankrupt before the Court, inasmuch as the certificate of a former bankruptcy of Colonel Copland was not produced. It was then held by an attorney who had a lien upon it, but had since been given up, and thereby obviated tho opposition then raised by Mr. Valiance against the insolvent. Mr. VALIANCE said that he had certainly opposed the in solvent upon his last appearance before the Court, both in rela tion to his " commission," and the evidence which he had suw, LONDO'S,I_ THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 4, 1845 given under the bankruptcy of Lord Huntingtower, which he then disbelieved, but which subsequent explanations from the Colonel induced him (Mr. Valiance) to believe to have been correct, and to confirm his present belief, that the Colonel was a man of the strictest honour, and therefore he now withdrew any further opposition to the present application. Mr. JAMES said that the amount of the insolvent's debts appeared at the first sight to be very large, but since the bankruptcy his private debts were only 240/. Since, and in consequence of the examination gone into after Lord Hun tingtower's bankruptcy, Colonel Copland was deprived of his commission, which was worth 5,0001. or 6,0001., and that had left him in a precarious condition. Colonel Cop land came forward on that occasion, at the request of Lord Huntingtower, to explain some bill transactions. Although the debts were large, being all renewals, the new debts were only 2401, Mr. Commissioner FONPLANQUE—The renewed debts are at the prejudice of ti.. 14 new creditors. Debts to some thou sands to participate with the present creditors is prejudice to them ; it is a most mischievous practice, and I always find that creditors least entitled getrenewals. Mr. JAMES said that he entirely concurred in the propriety of his Honour's observations, but begged to state that Colonel Copland had never received a single shilling by giving these renewals, which were solely given from a sense of honour. Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE—As to the commission, a statement ought now to be made to the authorities at the Horse Guards, so that they might review their decision •, and in the event of his being re-instated, he must give the Court an undertaking that he will pay his debts. It might happen, that as Mr. Valiance was satisfied, so might the Horse Guards also be, and then her Majesty might permit Colonel Copland to sell his commission. Mr. STURGEON—If the insolvent were to enter into any such undertaking, he (Mr. Sturgeon) could say, from his own knowledge of the service, that— Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQuE—If the authorities at the Horse Guards were to look to the law of Debtor and Creditor, as other persons do, they might permit the sale of the com mission, and unless you conform to these terms, I shall ad journ the case from time to time. Mr. Jasiss—lt was Colonel Copland's wish to give such an undertaking, but he feared — Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE—Do yop believe that the Horse Guards would show more regard. for Colonel Copland than for his creditors? Mr. JAMES apprehended tbt result of that would be that the gorse Guards would Say you are seeking to get back the commission for sale., and not for rank. After some further observations the application was ad journed for six months, with leave to the insolvent to come here from time to time, in order to keep the matter within the control of the Court. —Adjourned accordingly. IN THE MATTER OF RAT. and that they both left the room, and went down stairs. The prosecutor lost no time in giving information of the robbery, and two policemen having accompanied him into the inn yard, they found the prisoner, who, on being charged with stealing the watch, denied it. The policemen, hewever, pro ceeded to search him, in doing which they experienced con siderable resistance, but succeeded in finding the watch be longing to the prosecutor in the pocket of a large coat which he wore at the time. Subsequently to the discovery of the watch the prisoner was then heard to say that a strange man had offered him a watch in the room at the inn, but the offer was refused, and that when he (the stranger) found the po licemen were likely to come there, he (prisoner) supposed that he dropped the watch into his coat:pocket. It was also stated that the prisoner had attempted to run away. The prisoner's Counsel dwelt with much earnestness on the probability of the truth of the watch having been depo sited in the prisoner's coat pocket by the strange man in the confusion which arose when the policemen were seen ap proaching. The jury found the prisoner Guilty. In reply to the CHAIRMAN, Mr. Keene, the Governor of the County Gaol, said the prisoner had been confined there for assaults. A policeman of the M division informed the Court that the prisoner for some months past had been the associate of thieves. The CHAIRMAN, in sentencing the prisoner to six months' imprisonment and hard labour, told him that if ever he again appeared in that Court on a criminal charge, and was con victed, his doom would be transportation. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. GUILDHALL. Benjamin Fenton, a lithographic writer, was summoned on Wednesday before Mr. Alderman Hunter, to answer the complaint of Isar. Allen, of Coleman-street, his late employer, for refusing to complete a verbal contract he had entered into, and commenced to serve under, to work for one year certain at 30s. a week. Mr. Hobler stated the case on behalf of the complainant. The defendant had absented himself just at the period when there was the greatest pressure for hands to complete the railway plans for Government. Mr. Allen had a process peculiar to his establishment, he believed, and in which he had instructed the defendant, who repaid this kindness by leaving him when his services were of the utmost importance to his master. Mr. Allen stated that he engaged the prisoner in Dublin, about five years ago, at 255. a week, and in July last the complainant having determined to shift his establishment from Dublin to London, the defendant, amongst several others, entered into a verbal agreement to accompany him and serve him for one year certain, at the increased wages of 30s. a week. Complainant paid the travelling expenses. In September, expecting some foul play, he drew out a written form of engagement, and required each man to sign and send him a copy of it. The defendant alone refused to sign at once. The defendant said it was to the same purport as their engagement in Dublin ; but he preferred taking the advice of a friend before he signed anything. This was on Satur- day, the 27th of September. On the following Monday he sent a note declining to sign the agreement, and refusing to return to his work. Walter Smith, in the service of Mr. Allen, proved that the defendant left some work unfinished, and that the agreement in writing was admitted by defendant to be the same in effect as had been made verbally in Dublin. Michael Kehol, foreman to Mr. Allen, proved that the defendant told him in Dublin that he had: entered into an agreement to serve Mr. Allen for a year at advanced wages. The defendant, at first, utterly denied that he had entered into any agreement for a limited time, but afterwards ex pressed a willingness to return and serve the remainder el the term. Mr. Allen said he was not disposed to admit such an un grateful man into his house. He had made other engage ments. He now only sought that ho should be punished. The defendant inquired whether he could not force his master to complete the contract. Mr. Alderman HUNTER said he had by his misbehaviour, in absenting himself at a critical time, left it to the option of the master to discharge him The ALDERMAN, after ineffectually endeavouring to recon cile the parties, deferred pronouncing his decision un" Saturday. The insolvent in this case came up for his final order, and was described as a clergyman of White's Chapel, White's rbw, Spitalfields. He was supported by Mr. Buchanan, soli citor, and opposed by Mr. Cooke, for several creditors. After an examination of the insolvent, the further heariag was adjourned for a few days, when we shall give a detailed account of the proceedings. (Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.) THE LAMBETH UNION BREWERY—IN RE GURNEY. The bankrupt carried on business as a brewer at Lambeth walk, and this day came up to pass his final examination. The debts and liabilities were stated to be about 12,500/., con tracted within a very few years. It appeared from the statement of Mr. Lawrance, who op posed the application upon the part of Mr. Chapman, that the latter had, upon certain representations made to him, en tered into partnership with the bankrupt, to whom he ad vanced 6,800/., besides a subsequent advance of upwards of 2,000/., in addition to which there were bills outstanding, accepted by Gurney, in the name of the firm, to an extent of which Mr. Chapman was wholly unaware, and the assets were next to nothing. The bankrupt, in examination by Mr. Lawrence, stated to the best of his belief, that the list now handed to him con tained the whole of his debts and liabilities, as well joint as separate. Mr. Banks, the bankrupt's accountant, stated several bills were still outstanding, and which were not contained in the list before the bankrupt. The banker's book alone would show the appropriation of the moneys which he received, and as the accounts had not yet been gone through, he could not explain them. In yearly dealings, to the amount of nearly 30,0001., he could not show what particular amounts were drawn at particular periods, and it was impossible for him to say to what extent the banker's book would show the appropriation of the moneys which were lodged there. He was indebted to Mr. Carruthers 8451. 1 ls. for bills discounted by him, and Mr. Chapman knew it, although the books con tained no entry of it. The sum of 2,681/. 3s. 2d. had been borrowed by him from his father, Mr. J. Gurney, of Farring don-street. Before Mr. Chapman became his partner he (the bankrupt) gave his father the bills which he now held for that amount, and Mr. Chapman knew the occasion why he wanted them. That money was used for the purposes of the brewery, the plant, the casks, the drays, &c. That he would positively swear, although that sum was advanced at least three years before the partnership. His brother, James Gurney, held his acceptance for 1,072/. 3s. 11d., for money advanced by him. Mr. Commissioner EvAsrs—Will your book show when you received these moneys, and how you appropriated them ? —lt will not, Sir. By Mr. LAWRANCE—I see you put down a person of the name of Saltmer as a creditor, and also Messrs. Lee, Bons field, and Co. ; and now I wish to ask you, did you ever mention to Mr. Chapman that you had had any dealings with them ?—I think I had some conversation with Mr. Chapman about them, and also about Mr. Carruthers. The truth is that I got money wherever I could get it, and it is possible, at least I apprehend it is possible, that I had some conversation with Mr. Chapman about it. - Will you swear you ever mentioned the name of Saltmer to Mr. Chapman ?—Yes, as I think, and I apprehend that he has seen him with me. Saltmer was in the habit of obliging me by obtaining discounts of bills to the amount of some thousands, at the rate of 7 1 ,4,10, and 12 per cent., and at long dates (a year), at 15 per cent. I will not swear, however, that I ever mentioned to Mr. Chapman that Saltmer was in the habit of discounting bills for me. The goods supplied to the brewery are in the bill-book, but it contains no account of any one of these bills to which my attention has just now been called. Mr. LAWRANCE—I apprehend, your Honour, that under these circumstances, and no balance-sheet having been filed, that this is a clear case for an adjournment sine die, though in some cases (like the present) the justice of the case is not met by such an adjournment. The case was then adjourned sine die. BOW-STREET. Mr. Jackson, a solicitor of Lincoln's Inn-fields, applied to Mr. Twyford fur his advice under the following circum stances : A few weeks ago a lad absconded from the service of a Mr. Webb, a silversmith, in Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury, with a number of gold and silver watches, which lie after wards pledged at different pawnbrokers. Mr. Webb pub lished a handbill, offering a reward of 5/. for the apprehen sion of the lad and the restoration of the property. A work ing tradesman, named Curran, observing the description of the property in the handbill, recollected its haying been in the possession of a lodger in his house, whom he and his wife had supposed to be a woman, but who afterwards turned out to be Mr. Webb's boy in woman's clothing. The consequent apprehension of the lad, and his examina tion at Bow-street, were reported in The Sun at the time, and since then the prisoner had been tried and convicted at the Old Bailey. Curran, who was in humble circumstance, conceived himself entitled to the reward, being the party who had caused the prisoner's apprehension and the restoration of the property ; but, on applying to Mr. Webb for it, he had refused to pay the amount, alleging as the reason that he had already incurred much expense in the inquiry. Mr. TWYFORD regretted that it was not in his power to interfere in any way, an action at law being the only remedy In such a case. CLERKENW WELL. A person waited on the Magistrate, requesting his advice under these circumstances : It appeared, from his statement, that there is a house in Great James-street, Bedford-row, in which five or six persons live, who are " victimising " all the tradesmen in the neigh • bourhood, by acting in unison, and presenting to the tradesmen so many strange faces, they were enabled to obtain goods to six times the amount that a single person could do. When the bill was presented for payment at the house, the tradesman was informed that he had made the bill out in the wrong name. Mr. J. had not ordered them, it must have been Mr. B. ; when Mr. B. was appealed to it was Mr. C., and so on ; but it ended in the tradesman losing his goods, and time into the bargain. Mr. GREENWOOD said he could do nothing. Applicant asked if the parties could not be indicted for a conspiracy ? Mr. GREENWOOD said he could not yet say what might be the consequence of such conduct, and recommended appli cant to inform the police at the station of the district in which the house in question is situate. The Magistrate was occupied up to six o'clock on the pre vious evening in investigating a case in which Police•ser geant Archer, 8 G, was charged with using defamatory lan guage towards John Strange, and thereby violating his duty. The case was sent before the Magistrate by the Commissioners of Police. Mr. Duncombe, of Gray's Inn, appeared for the prosecu tion ; and Mr. Wakeling, of St. John's-square, for the defence. The Court was crowded with police, and with the friends of the prosecutor. Mr. Duncombe said this was a very important case, inas much as it would test the stretch of a policeman's authority, and whether or no he was licensed to assail unoffending per sons, however humble their station in life might be. It was hard enough upon licensed victuallers to be obliged to open their houses at all times for police inspectors; but it was harder still, and what he thought the law never could sanc tion, if police-officers, taking advantage of the extraordinary power with which their office invested them, were permitted to walk into the parlour of a respectable publican, and there insult his customers and grossly defame one of them. The power the police possessed of thus entering public-houses should at least be exercised with discretion, otherwise it would become an intolerable nuisance, and would not be sub mitted to by any one in this free state. Evidence was then adduced to prove the alleged improper language. Mr. Wakeling contended that Archer had done no more than his duty in. apprising the landlord of what probably he had not been previously aware. Ultimately the complaint was dismissed. QUEEN-SQUARE. Martha Browning, a young woman, apparently about 25 Pears of age, was charged with the wilful murder of Eliza )eth Mundell, an aged female, with whom she resided. The case is one of a most extraordinary and mysterious character, and before proceeding to detail the evidence ad duced, it may be as well, in order to render the case more intelligible to the reader, briefly to advert to the circum stances which led to the prisoner's apprehension ; a course the more necessary from the fact, that in consequence of the insensible state of the accused during the examination, a portion only of the evidence was given before the Magis trate. The supposed victim of the prisoner's violence was found dead by her daughter on Monday morning, and on the evening of that day a coroner's' jury sat upon the body, and returned a verdict "that the deceased had committed suicide whilst in a state of temporary insanity." Since that period some circumstances of a very suspicious nature have transpired, tending to criminate the accused as the murderer of the deceased female; and on her being found on Tuesday afternoon in possession of a sham bank note, which it was obvious she had considered genuine, as she had attempted to get change for it, she was closely interrogated by the husband of deceased's daughter, who at once recognised it as corresponding with one of two which the ill-fated woman had been seen to have in her pos session the day before her death, and a desire on the part of the prisoner to possess which, supposing them to be genuine bank-notes, it was inferred might have induced her to put a period to the existence of their possessor. The accused's replies were anything but satisfactory, and she endeavoured to effect her escape from the house, but was detained. The husband of the deceased's daughter insisted upon her ac companying him to the station, and before their arrival there she became much agitated, and said, " I did it, I did it ; have mercy upon me." Mr. Partridge, the inspector on duty at the Gardiner's-lane station, whither the prisoner had been most unwillingly taken, having made himself ac quainted with the particulars, as well as the brief space of time would permit, immediately sent for the whole of the prisoner, was liftedl st i o nt hoatdhtehdeocakppienara an appearance apparently of a hearty whose evidence bore upon the matter, and brought the accused to this Court. The n se y s o e i l i e n s g s woman, state, immediately after which she fell into a succession o f strong fits, between which she gave way to paroxysms of apparently despair and tore her hair. Everything, however, which humanity could suggest, was done to prevent her in juring herself, Ann Gage, of 11, Rochester-street, Rochester •row, sworn — I have known the prisoner for about six months, and she has lodged with my mother for the last six weeks, at No. 1, Pro vidence-row, Brewers'-green. On Monday morning, at about eight o'clock, the prisoner came to me at my resi dence, and said my mother was very ill. She said that she had fallen into a fit at about seven that morning, and had screamed out, " Murder, what are you at ? what are you at ?" She wished me to come round and see my mother, which I immediately did. Whilst I was dressing myself I asked her whether the person in the next coon ha decoe into her when she screamed " murder ?" wh she lied, " No ;" that the door was locked, and she was holding my mother's hands and washing her face at the time. 1 went with prisoner as soon as I had dressed myself, and on entering my mother's room I looked in the bed, but she was not there, and I was turning to come out of the room when I found her lying on her back on a box, with her head towards the door and there was a cord about as thick as my finger twice round her neck, the knot being tied on the right side. Mr. BOND—Was it what is termed a slip or running knot? Witness—lt was not a slip knot. It was, however, made in a particular way that I cannot describe. Did you examine the cor d ?—I did. Was it tied tight ?—Verv. Examination continued-LMy: mother appeared quite dead. I immediately called out for assistance. Mr. BOND — Was the prisoner in the room at this time ? No, she was not. I was there alone. How was prisoner engaged during this time ?—She was running about the house, calling for assistance. Witness continued —Prisoner and some others came into the room, and prisoner then rubbed my mother on the stomach. Mr. Borip--Did she make any observation ?—She did not speak, After other evidence, - ST SDI' Mr. BOND said, I have heard quite enough t o justify a MURDER ON THE HlGL remand. I will not trouble you (to witness) a n y further at . THAMES POLICE CO URT. jog Ss present. ADJOLRN ' TED EXAMINATION OF CAPTAIN It was then arranged that prisoner should be brought up for re-examination on Monday afternoon. STONE. The accused was then conveyed to Tothill-fields Bride- (Continued from our Afternoon Edition 0 , E si d s at Na well in a cab. Mary Blewitt was next called, and said --I 1 •; 7 _ s hip VI; board Oa MARLBOROUGH-STREET. 23, Albany-street. I was a passenger on . 1 _a for I remember three of the men being in irons a son' ca afar .-- i William Edwards, alias Warner, alias Morris, was brought • • in • bi half a littis the rigging. I was the cabin as aca before Mr. Maltby for final examination, charged with-deat tom" before fortnight. I was afterwards in the h f S having obtained from Earl Howe, by false pretences, the - sum of 11. more forward, but not left of the poop. n , hear d 44 ber, I believe about three or four o'clock, i d voile A few days ago the prisoner left the following petition at 2 Johnstone demand ' that the mate be found en „ s igh° his Lordship's residence in South Audley-street : a s the v t hee Of esterday.) wherever he was, to him. Barry Yelverton sy , was _ " Parish of Penn, County of Bucks, to wit. found him, and brought him to the captain.. l_ are. De " The bearer, Mr. J. W. Warner, has carried on the busi- looking on, ' of which Captain Johnstone was net sn, e O ther . ness of a draper and grocer in this parish, where, on the 2d had a pistol in his left hand, and a cutlass in the of last month, whilst himself and family were attending I believ the pistol was loaded, for Captain u loa ded , Divine service, some evil disposed persons, as yet unknown, feloniously entered his shop and dwelling-house, and there- The captain s ordered them .to bring on. the ~. bu t 0 The struck Ra bert right and left, 0 h i s .the head ost, from stole and carried away goods, money, and other valu- and m s fte w r e w r a e rd fr s e o u n , the Du b ri o n d g y ables to the amount of 130/. and upwards. tam Johnsw ~., ari d to r inp ter . " hn l nd a " We, the undersigned, having a knowledge of his mis-R a mbert u h p ad. no 2 ir s ' u na t i . e ps pi ef fortune, do feel justified in recommending his case to the Captain.theßutimmbe striking him he begged for mercy Johnstone replied, " Oh, you overgrown _. l w ith lt 4 generous public, by whose contributions he may be enabled you cowardly brute !" and with that he cut lise,_basto. to resume his former business, and enable him to support 'cutlass Rambert sail , 4 Ask the sailors, Captain theJu cote his wife and family in his usual respectable industrious if l e , • • • " whi ch °K ier. -er said a word against you, on avocations. k at him in _ ,be seemed to get snore enraged, and struck _„ T , knee? , " Given under our hands this 7th November, 1845." lently than he did the time before. ~ Go on Y 0 ',•; : „„. 10, 4 This document purported to contain an account of sums •I, which • Rambert did, and then, after ca,l,,,ith t' subscribed by Lords Grenville, Thomond and ,Orkney, and "overgrown sali monster," he struck him se vereif ! a tel , Boston ; Sir W. Clayton, Sir Giffin Wilson,t, Lady Grenville, cutlass. Rambert exclaimed, "0, rnY G 4 d c's Nut Rev. T. Knollys, the Hon. W. Fitzsimons, and others. As God ! I am killed." With that he droPP ° i, tone •tbi soon as the signatures were known to be spurious, the docu- side, and said "Oh !" when Captain Jo""., d p et . A ment was forwarded to the Mendicity Society for for the irons. After that the carpenter came ~' isso g :; • inves tigation, and precaution was taken to have a police-constable irons on the monkey-hatch on the half-decit.,he ~8 in waiting when the defendant called for an answer. The was bleeding so at the time that I could not s•t%e th ' in g te l L ta ` prisoner called on Tuesday last, and on stating his name to Rambert asked the boy Slack to bring som e op ring t .. .k. be Warner, a sovereign was handed to him, and he was then his head up. The boy •I l had nothing. '' s ,, r reftw:4 said he given into the custody of police-sergeant Whall. shin ow time I believe the captain retired into his ... , 0 pi Horsford, from the Mendicity Society's office, proved that ments. Captain Johnstone had not made Maw OW . f th e IP the man for some years had been known as a begging-letter- delay when he came up again, and went up in'. ° . , hi ps. m t writer. The society were in possession of fraudulent peti- mast-top, where the man, Stephen Cone, was l'iipleatis, tions sent to the Earl of Burlington, the Earl of Arundel struck at Cone in the most violent manner, so, _ k ing s; and Surrey, and Colonel Powell. The prisoner had also been I heard the blows from where I had been Lu; it h, OP . in custody before for an offence similar to that now charged I could not see ' s truck • b if what the captain his t against him. if tbs that he went up with a cutlass God! , o r Mr. MALTBY said he was quite satisfied from the evidence With that I cried out, "My God, rnY 0 b i r s.'P' ° o6 that the prisoner was a person who made it a practice to go Stephen Cone, he will kill him." I said this t e _. ta ie about endeavouring to obtain money by false and fraudulent son. That was the first time I spoke while the_cZireep pretences, and therefore he should send him for the full term been striking Rambert. With that Rain b I, oo dlter e , o I of three months to the House of Correction. and said, " Mrs. Blewitt, I am dying, give me S. o plied! . .4 Joseph Ventine, a native of Wallachia, was placed at to tie my head up, lam bleeding to death." ' ohs? the bar charged with having conducted himself in a dis• am in that state I am not fit to move • I 1 , 111 neieg . 1 ,0 1 orderly manner at the residence of the Turkish Ambassador, and faint." With this Rambert said, " ' lle le —", ire nd , Bryanston-square. again,he will kill me. omy God 10my . God!' ,dlP: f s s • toW s ' ,eib' It appeared that the prisoner in March last obtained a pass- made no reply. As Capt. Johnstone was coi ns oor ' t istt port, and that he yesterday applied for another, which was bert, he said, " Where is the overgrown monster, svith etl i ultimately given to him ; he required assistance in money which.theti orj . is the overgrown brute," but I cannot say also, and as the Consul-General thought fit to refuse his re- he said to the carpenter, " Where is he, an d , , r earOpyi quest, he became very insolent and caused a crowd to assmble Rambert to be taken away to the main hatch. 1-Vbsf,ll,o round the door ; a constable was called, and he was then Mrs. Thompson, " What is to be done, there W"' 401 3 ,: i s given into custody. he ca rat to us all this night." After this, I believe t fir ~4, The prisoner, after being given to understand that he forward with some of the men, and I heard o ut of 1 ;0 must not repeat the annoyance complained of, was dis- recollect that Rambert was to be taken rferlopo charged. Directly after that I heard a rush on the P o °l?.,„e big_ ',40 MA RYLEBONE. boat on the poop. I saw Rambert trying "' to . T r . jall o llio between the end of the boat and the comPe i m ° ha yeill o or tli t, on the poop at the time, with a musket an S , o ttet. .. 11 , I' ssenting the 10. t.: orepaiii • ofert Or A young man, named William Henderson, who said he re sided at No. 4, Conduit-street, and that he was in the em ploy of Mr. Page, bookseller, Broadway, Hammersmith, was charged with having uttered a counterfeit half-sovereign. It appeared from the evidence that on the same afternoon the prisoner went to the Marylebone Literary and Scientific Institution, and asked for a ticket for Mr. Russell's forth coming entertainment, at the same time presenting in pay ment for the same to a youth named Large a piece resembling a half-sovereign. It was taken to the secre tary, in consequence of Large suspecting that it was not genuine ; and it turned out that the suspicion en tertained was correct. A constable was called in, and the prisoner, who said he was not aware that he had any bad money in his possession, was then given into custody. He had upon him a memorandum book, a catalogue, and other papers. Mr. RAWLINSON remanded him for the attendance of the Mint solicitor. top of it. I saw Julian pres, ..., ~,b , Rambert. With that I heard the caf• — Oire'" 09- ,9 where is he? where is he?" ~ lie is goue Ido said Julian. The captain answered, " Th e dal. ° have half of them overboard before sunset te ed " rog I n elf next words I heard were Captain Johnstone /d e not O• and ordering a glass of grog for all hands, hu f t wit s ta whether all the crew were there. 1 , dotri . tooL hausted and faint that I lay down °•::: , e i to b r it e ci • ; i l l ; further, only I was in hopes there might be b o ob , 0 0 6 further state, though I paid my _passage treated very unkindly by Captain Johnstone, anu t hot A ashore at Deal. The reason of this witEl • to h i° called on the 7th of last month by the captain ° ts iro,, , O: The boy Slack came to me, and said, " The lot we you." I exclaimed " Oh, my God! does be e o ptS! l , iv e kill me ?" I went into the cabin, and saw if t h t .„. h u liri, Barry Yelverton, French, and Spence. ''', dolt tho:, seeing me so excited, came to accompanY I T tilo s ' a Fil tain Johnstone said, " I have called yen to ° ~0 00 j 1 intend to put ou in irons the rest of the vogfiairpfl ther said, "You are going to be hung at the ! ~,,ti , eir said, " Is not that it, French?" and the latter. o g re? 000 , I believe it is, sir." I made answer, "I am wil i ly.' 1;0 4 Johnstone, for anything I have done in the e r • t o said, " Captain Johnstone, may I say a w rci S I ee ler , O r d barked in your ship the 14th of last Alay , 0-11 _, oaf - or any man during the whole period, up till no; t hat jr, word against you or the ship. If there is a ti w c s ptsi o pid , o , I have ever said a wrong word against Ye, ° .'„y i t . oteflo stone, or the ship either, let him come all':, '5l - 0 , Wal l / ever hear me, French ? French answered, o n% n", 41 1 84 I never did, except that time when you bad t° l t helb salt water to make cakes, and frying them h b i sd lrd French afterwards said to me, " This h e a ls ogol e it Blewitt ;" and lanswered, " It is so ; why d°°, ; ,fral'. o ltiP4 to the captain." I called Mr Spence and as)te u " o r 0%0 lit stated anything against Captain Johnstone, At Vol, " No, Mrs. Blewitt, I never did," he answerew_lifs, 'l e p, I never expected to come out of the cabin 'ft Of such dread and fear. With that I called 0 11 '4 be ,P °I 00 1 O f ' ton, and asked him a similar question ;0 . 0 y " No, Mrs. Blewitt, except hearing you eV:: I eel," for a' that .' but what you meant bY, ' A ' abilt;, 4 4o, ' I might have said the words," I reP he "; hoot ° ,;" Ore recollection. To tell you the truth, Captain q .r ,s olod turning to him, " It is a word of my fs a . t .„%s the ° ,l6/ Johnstone kept still, and said nothing. 1 " din' Or to leave the cabin. I felt very bad at the timed 0 that Captain Johnstone observed it, for he oral d of wine. tiono s P r , Catherine Thompson followed in examinagbe a ,r 0 She lived in Sidney-street, Baker-street. Joe ger in the ship Tory. She saw Captain e;el o(4 the voyage cut Rambert with a sword. o °,o o t tio d ol saw Rambert with his body cut and ov ln r e b il i tl ecl , 7 1 ;14 manner. She heard Rambert jump see him. At that time she heard the eall - o ee k 00 a good thing, and that he ought to ha ve th us? before." De fel h ; James Glover recalled and examined re f P; t ith 1- 0 8 ° of Rambert—He recollected Rambert dint e e e med sist i ot the day before his death. They dints the oP' be on good terms. He was boat - t he Or anything particular that day on "at ° p i" lled 1 il ter'd .i , About 7 o'clock at night he was ea „ n d l'i mv by the captain to give him a little branding- fer le VI ness then saw the mate on his knees, PraYqu'i ca In'Al ls to forgive him. He continued in the captara Airier of same position, the captain standing ov e r that n n t 5 1 1, in his hand. Witness did not observe, s ad /107, then wounded. Witness was going l on abe r 'el ei tvi cabin till 12 o'clock, and always found cell tw o to and the captain standing over him w i l h o ivell,, P ;e ll ,Y captain said several times that he ha,",ft„ of t,, P V, life twice. At 12 o'clock the captain we -; nary, ~ v; previous to his going out, he asked Mr. Scene' Ipeolf; and witness, if he (the captain) should forg l bet , a 0 01 1 ., , Witness did not hear Yelverton el ) .,e ir e : ,,,' ess tetoak r ', swered be would leave that to him. 1 1 " t he ni T'or of anything that Rambert had done. A fter ton l oo t tio out the mate slept on deck, when Yetv e t r olf ol o, o o o 4 0' were sent in search of him. That was ab be lilA d en. ,„ ; Witness went out and saw him in Os" tto rx called him several times, but received 00 a i rt 0 0 0 rj forming the captain of this they were silo, bin /o• Rambert down. They could not fin a l , after pow 0 captain went on deck, ani sent Frene-,; 0 , en d bert was not brought again into the Ow" A ere he e 6 , 0 1! .° not see him afterwards. ~„ one 4t epPt Ay ,. Thomas Lee said that he W-' - r itir ' - ' lt ory - o cr i A Tory, and was put in irons along de oat hs , t y 1, 0 0 Witness was placed in the maintop. --- d to ''.' toe, CV up to the maintop on the day refers t hen• b ore n t ° ,O l witness, but he had no wounds on h i gitnees,,", i, e " l i t,/: get the shackle off witness's neck. " w hich Pifer, stiff,' Johnstone singing out for him, on , e Iv, (A i 0 the mainstay. The next fling _. n " on yon O', Sii the captain say was, " You overP e ; . " d WA/ I have pardoned you three tht er t' ina ° ,00 0 , 4 4 0 ,0 0 your life now." He then chased Ra m to 11 9 De g no' ) ( / and the blood was flowing from his tbig Dail fo uoaa A foii up the poop ladder. The captain va ° d o o'o r f oO sword, on which he jumped overboar s • ii i, 11°,0oit oto let go the helm for a moment, and the 1 ,09, Alteitil moment. The captain cried, 4 , Lay t ° ow ei "o4 0 f ..0 0 ,1 took its regular course. Several °the!' _ _ v dea_ l4o P'4,„ bythe witness in corroboration of tu. sb o ' c rop , . Cone, and to the effect that he (vri t ' e ge h' it ; n t9 sj A by Capt. Johnstone, when in irons , o !'„„ a bi p °- v ' shoulders, but the foregoing were the" vo oteo coo / e s o. We are happy to learn that the uet f o ty t oar o r/ liers is now convalescent. , b. 0 A the nO O 4 611 2 STAYS OF TRADE.—Altllffilo9otoop w ire ; very gloomy appearance yesterday:, ilticia t 0 t ige 000 # nouncement of several failures, In",, cli e, l i ef° , 1);0 tensive concerns in Londen, there. , t hall L A., / little more disposition to do basin 0 1 pa l s octir past, and sales of cloth were more r tb , Eas . ett ard very law prices. Yarn, suitable f0r.,,, 0 b1e i-ottri , „ fr. l' Was also in fair request, and a c oror we ejt. .. i , Ow yr? ness was done at the full rates of laa b b ot th dA er v ost f t 'ter', tions are still very heavy of "L D INO '05,141°4 tee cif4 change in prices.—Rocnnart.rbt-aeioegooa:Hl teski#4o.,ii —We have no improvement to-day. There is very little demanu f oe' roe l'fr' e d trly' _/ 1 4 ' have been upon a very limited scal e. very but tc' plain, and not without cause, at the ; 5 but in wool. There is little change in Pr ic ' downward.—Manchester Guardian. CO' i --------- 1) 11 4 1 13 „ 111711 .0. 5 8: of S ifAblli' 10' 7 1 On the 27th ult., at the Y icar - 7 - 9 on. r o-p - Ifr the lady of the Rev. H. KnapP9 ° ,„ o f PO ~. of , On the 2',ith ult., Mrs. James DAL" the f ol° I street, Southwark, oat daughter. ir_e„, 0 r ies , 0 b `t,A On the 30th ult., Chislehurst, Jr A y o l w n a t r h d e , 3 E O s t q h . , alt.,s ra rg e a o t n k o n f i c a k d e arbuogch_hte,er,:oConat,t.°°l.l9;edel 94;1" road, Regent'a-park, Mrs. George " . ''''.'cy - , Fot u iii° c, On the 30th ult., the lady of I ter. 6 t he .A of Lawrence-Pountney-hill, of a Lodg e, e' l O r On the 30th ult., at Sholden IA 1 581 Banks, Esq., of a son. bill, t...- , On theist thelst inst., on Sydenbarn arolle for° Price, Esq., of a son. w• - b • I On the Ist inst., at South -bridge , r e, V' F. F. Austin, of a daughter. 01 ° Iite r° I 111/1111Diineocer-datog ,o'. On the 2d inst., at St. George_tbarieet • s olli:, S. Whitmore, Esq., to Elizabet „ to cbt4 Ew late Lieutenant-Colonel Brovv Ph , i ' e ipi syntilotrli:eE2s9qth, sUoirtg.,eoant S t t o . 5 .1 . i e n P r a n j r i r e i Fennell, 'Esq., late of Limerick': ehtrt'e'su-11:Arteior v or D IF ,Th.c or follt , t Aptl' tl of OFnredthereic2sWthalukletr.,, Ea tsciT.,oeftfLoreawl,li:sscroar, bor e o ri t ;gh• _ etoic e, er' ° On the 28th ult., at the B e l ' s S° ° a el Sparrow, of Ripon. t. Gregor.' ' siclfr o f On the 28th ult., at Stoke 0 Do r of fle Rev. o n N t V h . e 1 2 1 9 a t l fhb alt.ea d , 3raigaerdiate, unotirkalgiret... 0 we Der. ' Ila ll ' •tof ' P r Thompson, Esq, of Kirby s i frOknent,h of f3lovtehs Nest-street, P ' fi abeekthn,e;!::•ethird otigbter lop' hs tlb r , On the 30th ult.,eAE4inziaja Stacy, of Tottenham. e, 13 Tot ft ° o' 1 tile I C Oid °r •cr ° , John Hodgkin. 'T College, On the 30th ult., at ,ew Ag neo ,rell 1 ,,F1 On the 30th ult., at Bruce-gra Price, M.A.,"'aged 39. 0001 ~,,,,00 Debor ah, E. 0. Y id, Sa sse. " ' On the Ist inst., at Lickfie tai ? l n it t . h H e . 1 . sßtairneslta.),,,at.F.Nar.eliara, -.-- St a. g ,3(0t1,111,10V .itivp.c,ols4o London: Printed ana Published bY 112,11",ili Strand, Printer, at The Sun P . Ofileel,',oo oso of the Savoy, in the tal ly of ." 4, 1846. , ,y,;~i.i~+~ MIDDLESEX SESSIONS. - Yesterday George Elliott, a sailor, was indicted for stealing a chest, 13 shirts, and various other articles, value 71., the property of John Balls. From the evidence of the prosecutor, who is also a sea man, it appeared that he had placed his trunk, containing the articles in question, together with a hammock, on board an outward-bound vessel, but having absented himself, his oods were sent ashore, and left at a house kept by a Mr . Browne. Upon learning that fact, he went to inquire for them, but was told that they had been taken away. He met the prisoner afterwards, and asked him what he had done witlf his clothes. He told him he bad left them at Browne's. The prosecutor ultimately gave him into custody, and, upon searching him at the station-house, one of the:pro secutor's shirts was found upon his back, and another con• cealed upon his person. The jury found him Guilty. Sentence, three months, with hard labour. Jane Edmonds was indicted for stealing a counterpane and a quilt, value five shillings, the property of Job Rawlings. This was one of the many cases of robbing furnished lodg ings which came before the Court. The prisoner, a poor-looking creature, wept bitterly du ring the trial, and in her defence said it was poverty -drove her to commit the act, but that she intended to remove them. The police-office stated that there were no less than fifty six duplicates found upon the prisoner :or various articles of of wearing apparel and furniture. The jury found her guilty. The prosecutor, addressing the. Court, begged to recom mend her to mercy. The COURT wished to know upon what grounds. The prosecutor said that he had made inquiry relative to the prisoner's circumstances, and found that she was an honest, industrious woman, but in very great poverty, and that all the articles she had previously pawned were her ewn property. The JUDGE certainly considered that a very strong ground for recommendation, and would take it into consideration. He would, therefore, only sentence her to one month's im prisonment with bard labour. Eliza Kent was indicted for assaulting Thomas Cansdell, of the Hoop and Horseshoe Tavern, Queen-street, Tower-hill. From the evidence, it appeared that about ten o'clock on the evening of the 24th instant, prosecutor was in his par lour with a few friends, and, hearing a noise in the tap-room, he proceeded thither, and found defendant lying on the floor, she having been knocked down by her husband. The com plainant kindly offered her a seat, in order that she might adjust her clothes, when she seized hold of a quart pot to throw at him, but, being foiled in the attempt, she con trived to get possession of a mustard-pot, which she hurled with great force at his head, and which inflicted a violent ' blow on his forehead. Medical aid was had recourse to, and ' complainant was confined to his bed for two days. The jury found her Guilty, and the prosecutor having re ' commended her to mercy, she was sentenced to be impri soned for one week. SURREY SESSIONS. (Before M. PUCKLE and a full Bench of Magistrates.) Yesterday George Willis, alias Wild, aged 21, a well dressed man, was indicted for stealing from the person of Thomas Limey, at Patton, a purse containing two sovereigns and nine shillings. From the prosecutor's evidence it appeared that on the 14th of October he went int sone Dolphin beer-shop, at Banstead, where he met the prr and two other men, all of whom were strangers to him. That he invited them to partake of some liquor, after which they entered the skittle ground at the rear of the house, when he pulled out his purse and paid for what they had to drink. Soon afterwards he was robbed of his purse and its contents by the persons whom he had treated, but not knowing which of the men was the party who had stolen it, he followed the prisoner into the road and accused him of being concerned in the robbery. The prisoner, however, denied the charge, and in proof of his innocence produced the contents of his pocket, amongst which was a purse, which the prosecutor identified as his property, and claimed its restoration. The prisoner, how ever, refused to give it up, and an altercation taking place, the former knocked down the prosecutor, and was imme diately afterwards taken into custody. The purse was produced in Court, and the prosecutor identified it from a portion of it which he had sown up with thread. At the time it was found it was empty. Three witnesses, however, were called upon the part of the prisoner, who, although they could not swear positively to the identity of the purse, still they said they had fre quently observed one similar to it in the possession of the prisoner. The CHAIRMAN, in summing up the evidence, remarked upon the fact of the prisoner having knocked dawn the pro secutor when the latter claimed the restoration of the purse; but that if the jury had any doubts on the subject, they would give the prisoner the benefit. The jury, after a short consultation, Acquitted the pri soner; and the CHAIRMAN, addressing him;said he had had a very narrow escape, and advised him as to his future conduct. Albert Grainger, aged 24, was indicted for stealing a va luable watch, a guard chain, and seal, the property of John Post Thomson, at Kingston-upon - Thames . The prosecutor deposed, that on the evening of the 13th of November, it being fair-time at Kingston, he went into the Old Crown Inn, in that town, in the large room of which a number of persons, male and female, were assembled, dancing. He joined in the amusement ; but had not been long in the room, when a dispute arose concerning a lady present, and prosecutor being mixed up in the affair, he was surrounded by several persons, among whom was the pri soner, and he was compelled to have recours to his fists, to defend himself from the attacks of his assailants. When the affray was over, he immediately missed his watch and guard-chain, and was informed that the prisoner was ob served to have taken something from the hands of a person, WORSHIP-STREET. A middle-aged woman, named Jane Clarke, the keeper of a house of bad repute, in Gregg's - court , St. Luke's, was placed at the bar, before Mr. Broughton, charged with having been concerned, with two other women, not in custody, in stealing between 401. and 501. in bank notes and gold, from the person of a gentleman named Stephens, residing in City-terrace, City-road. The prosecutor stated, that after dining with some friends in the City on Saturday evening last, he was driven home in a cab, from which he alighted at the corner of the terrace, and was about to pay the driver, when a sovereign dropped out of his hand, and rolled into the kennel. After an un successful search for the coin, in which he was assisted by two w , men, who came up at the moment, he entered an adjoining public-house, to obtain change for a 51. note, and in doing so unavoidably exposed the contents of his pocket book, consisting of bank-notes to the amount of 601., which he carefully replaced in his breast-pocket, but after discharging the cabman, he was followed by the two women before referred to, who requested him to treat them for the trouble they had had in searching for his money. He consented to do so, and they conducted him to the house of the prisoner, where he sent out for wine, gin, stout, and sandwiches, in succession, all of which were brought in by the prisoner, but he had no sooner liar taken of a small portion of the spirits than he was seized with a sudden stupor, on recovering from. which some time after, he found himself still in the company of the women, who then led him out of the house, and at the corner of an adjoining street suddenly disappeared. The moment they had left him he was accosted by a third woman, who in duced him to accompany her to some oyster- rooms in the neighbourhood, on entering which he discovered that his pocket-book had been transferred to another pocket from that in which he bad placed it, and that the clasp had been partly wrenched off, and besides all the loose cash, that the whole of its contents, with the exception of two 101. notes, which had been fortunately overlooked by the thieves, had been abstracted. Ho gave immediate information of the robbery to the police, who succeeded, after considerable dif ficulty, in taking the prisoner into custody. Police-constable Brown stated that on apprehending the prisoner, she denied all knowledge of the robbery, and declared that she had remained constantly at home ever since the prosecutor had visited her house on Saturday night. Police-constable G 135, however, proved that he had been engaged with other officers in searching for the prisoner, who had absented herself immediately after the robbery, and only returned home on the preceding evening. In answer to the charge, the prisoner denied all know ledge of the robbery, and protested that she had never left home since the night it was perpetrated. Mr. BROUGHTON said that he considered the case was re plete with such strong suspicion against the prisoner, that he dad no hesitation in remanding her for a week, but had no objection to accept substantial bail for her appearance, herself in 801., and two sureties in 401. each. SOUTHWARK. Richard Flinn and William Blumstead, two respectable looking men, were brought before Mr. Cottingham, charged with having in their possession, and carrying, two gallons of illicit spirits, without a permit. Mr. William Packstock stated that he is a chemist and druggist, at Millpond-bridge, Bermondsey, and that Flinn had been continually calling at his house since he suc ceeded to the business, representing that he used to supply his predecessor with various articles, consisting of plaisters of various descriptions, ointments, and spirits of wine. On a late'occasion Flinn called on complainant, and said that he had a quantity of spirits of wine, 52 degrees above proof, a sample of which he produced, and that if he became a purchaser he would let him have it at the rate of 15s. (id. per gallon. Complainant having formerly filled a situation in the Excise, considered it his duty to give information to Davis, an officer of that department, having previously ar ranged with Flinn to bring a quantity of spirits of wine to his house. On the preceding evening the two prisoners called at the house of the complainant, bringing with them two gallons of spirits of wine, which was contained in bladders. The complainant having called a policeman, gave both the prisoners into custody. Flinn said that he only went to the complainant's house to sell some plaisters, and that he knew nothing, about the spirits of wine. The other prisoner said that he knew nothing about the wine. The MAGISTRATE fined the prisoners 251., and in default committed them for three months. Thomas Cox was charged with having intermarried with Jane Miles while his former wife was alive. The first wife only was present, but the certificates of both marriages were produced; and the prisoner said that his first wife was a woman of the most profligate habits; that he had scarcely been married to her six months when she left him, and went to live with another man, with whom she had been living until his decease ; but upon the death, of the man she immediately claimed support of him (the pri soner), and because he refused to contribute to her mainte nance, she adopted the present proceedings. The first wife's brother was called, and he admitted that his sister had aban doned her husband, and went to live with another man, and that she told him (the witness) that she was also married to the deceased. Mr. Corrixamtm said, that although the first wife was of the profligate habits represented, and that she went and lived under the protection of another man, still that her husband was not justified in marrying another woman. He, how ever, had an undoubted right to refuse to contribute in the least to her support. Under all these circumstances, he (the Magistrate) should, instead of sending the case for trial, ad judge the prisoner to enter into his own recognizance, 501., to appear again on that day week to answer the charge. It i 3 a fact worthy, perhaps, of a passing notice that the whole of the land in and about the neighbourhood of Conception Bay—very probably the whole island —is rising out of the ocean at a rate which promises, at no very distant day, materially to affect, if not render useless many of the best har bours we have now on the coast. At Port-de-Grave a series of observations have been made which undeniably proves the rapid displacement of the sea level in that vici nity. Several large rocks, over which schooners might pass some thirty or forty years ago, with the greatest facility, are now approaching the surface, the water being scarcely navigable for a skiff. At a place called the Cosh, at the head of Bay Roberts, upwards of a mile from the sea-shere, and at several feet above its level, covered with five or six feet of vegetable mould, there is a perfect beach—the stones being rounded and of a moderate size, and similar to those now found in the adjacent land-washes—Newfoundland Ge neral Advertiser, Nov. 7. CONSUMPTION—.THE SCOURGE OE HUMANITY.— Not one of the many ills which flesh is heir to, is half so hopeless in its progress, half so terrible in its fatal issue, as that scourge of the human race—Consumption. The first faint suspicion of its presence reduces the affectionate rela tives of the " stricken one" to despair. And why ? Simply, because the treatment usually adopted by the faculty has hitherto failed to arrest its invidious progress. But is there, indeed, no hope? Let those who are sceptical consult the "Observations on Anaspasia in the cure of Asthma and Consumption," from the pen of Dr. Cronin, the well-known Physician to the Dispensary for Consumption. Even were Dr. Cronin's facts less conclusive than they are, the impor tance of the subject would render apathy on the part of the afflicted wholly unpardonable.—Morning Chronicle. STRIKE OF THE CARMARTHEN WEAVERS.— During the last week the flannei weavers of Carmarthen, amounting to a considerable number, struck for wages. We understand that it has hitherto been the custom of some master weavers to give but a small pittance in money to the journeymen, at the same time compelling them to board in the master's house. The men finding trade in an unusual state of briskness, and learning that hands were scarce, took the opportunity of insisting upon being paid in money, and also of having an advance of Id. per yard. To this demand the masters demurred, and a strike was the consequence. During the week groups of discontented weavers have been seen at the corners of the principal streets in deep and earnest conversation, and we learn that already three masters have complied with the demands of their workmen. — Cambrian. Lord and Lady Ashburton are entertaining a family circle at the Grange, near Basingstoke. M ay ATltitt SiQI4 Q I 1 v t „, 4 t121 1 , sat A fter me au t 4 krtt ri 4l Ye trd it ttpk it t o tt 114, t 4 `~~ O bV1:1 1:1 4 . 11 :1 4 4Z U a "i c u t h i t klitto 44 11 4 Prie k l)1 1 q11: 4 1 41 road X11:1441 c) NgTt j