The Sun. — London, England, 1850-04-03 00:00:00

INTELLIGENCE._ HOME CI U I T.—Kingston, April 2. C FLOWN .SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice MAULE.) Thomas Denny, 32, was indicted for the wilful murder of a certain unbaptised male child, by stabbing it in the throat with an awl. A woman named Eliza Tarrant was originally in cluded in the charge, but the grand jury ignored the bill against her. Mr, Locke conducted the prosecution, on behalf of the parish authorities of Ewell. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Clerk. The Learned Counsel for the prosecution having opened the case in a calm and temperate address, the following evidence was adduced : Anne Dunfurd stated that she was a widow, and resided'at Ewell. On the 16th of August last, in consequence of some communication that was made to her, she went, accompanied by Sarah Trigg and another pennon, to a loft over a yard belonging to a person named Moore, at Ewell. She there saw a woman namett Eliza Tarrant, lying apparently in a helpless state, with a newly-born babe by her side. She observed that the child bled from the nose and mouth, and none of the usual precautions in such cases bad been taken with respect to it. The prisoner was also in the loft, but at witness's suggestion he went away. She was in attendance upon Eliza Tarrant about an hour, and witness's daughter then took the child to her house. The child was carried down the ladder leading from the loft by one of the women, and not by the prisoner. Witness shortly afterwards washed the baby, and then observed a wound in the neck, and she also saw that it was bruised upon the body. After she bad done what she considered necessary to the child she took it back to its mother, and it died about an hour afterwards. The prisoner then went away and made a coffin, and he said it must be buried. Witness told him it would be necessary to have the death registered, and he made some answer which she did not hear. Mr. Lane, the surgeon, afterwards came to the loft, and she showed him the body of the infant. • Cross-examined—The prisoner fetched her to see Eliza Tarrant. She was lying upon straw in the loft, and the child's throat appeared to have been scratched by the litter that was lying about. She stated this at the time. The prisoner went with her to a gentle man's house in the neighbourhood to get some linen for Eliza Tarrant. She remembered saying to the prisoner that she did not think the poor thing would • live, and he replied "It will be e.happy thing, for it can never go better than now, with no sins to answer for." James Denny, a son of the prisoner, was then placed in the witness-box to be examined. He stated that he was eight years old. Mr. Justice MAULE put some questions to him with a view to ascertain whether he could properly be examined upon oath. He stated that he could say his ABC, but he did not go to school. He appeared to be an intelligent child for his years, and the Learned Judge eventually decided that the oath should be administered to him,..and that his evidence should be taken. He was accordingly examined—He said the pri soner is my father. Eliza Tarrant used to live with my father. We all lived together in the hayloft at Ewell. I recollect Elizs Tarrant having a baby. I went to my father when it happened, and told him to come home directly as mother was very ill, and he did so. When we got back I saw Eliza Tarrant lying in the loft, with a baby by her. My father took up the baby in his arms. He then took up an awl.—(Here the poor child became much affected and cried bitterly, and it was some time before he could proceed with his testimony. At length be went on.) —My father took up the awl and killed the baby with it. He stuck the awl into the baby's throat. The baby cried when he stuck it with the awl. My father then took the child to Eliza Tarrant, and asked her if he should make a coffin for it. Before he said this, he asked her if she would help to kill it, and gave her the awl. She did try to kill it also. My father gave her the child and the awl, and she did the same that he had done. I was very much frightened at what I saw and ran away, and when I came back found Eliza Tarrant in bed. Cross-examined—While my father has been in custody I have been in the union workhouse. I could not say my alphabet when I was first taken to the workhouse. I can say the Lord's Prayer—(He did so at the request of Mr. Clerk). My mother taught me the Lord's Prayer. My father made the coffin the day after he killed the baby. I did not tell this story until after I had been in the workhouse. lam sure Eliza Tarrant did something with the awl to the baby's throat. Re-examined—l . have been at a workhouse in Suffolk, a long way from Ewell. I have never talked about this affair since I have been in Suffolk. Mrs. Trigg was not present when my father used the awl. Eliza Tarrant, the woman referred to, was then called as a witness. She appeared to be very weak and ill, and it was found necessary to allow her to be seated while she was giving her testimony. She deposed as follows :--I am a single woman, but for the last two years I have been living with the pri soner as his wife. He Was in the service of Mr. Moore, farmer, in August last, and we occupied one of his lofrs. I was delivered of a child in that month. Before I was delivered I had bought a piece of cotton print to make clothes for the baby, and the prisoner tore it and threatened me, and made use of very bad language, and said that I should not have the stuff to make up for the baby. This was about a month before the child was born. I had bought the print with money of my own which I had saved. The child was born on the 10th of August. On the morning of that day I had taken the prisoner his breakfast, and when I returned I became very ill, and soon afterwards I was delivered. No one was present at the time but the prisoner's son, and I sent him to fetch his father, and they both returned together. When the prisoner came into the loft I was lying uron some hay with the child, and he came and took up the child and carried it to the other end of the loft, and I saw him hurt it. There were severals awls in the loft, and the prisoner took up one and stuck it into the child's throat. I was lying down at the time. I saw the awl again the same day. Very soon after this Mrs. Trigg and Mrs. Dunford came into the loft, and the child was taken away. Cross - examined—Prisoner had been a shoemaker, and he used to mead his own shoes. He used to make drills and other agricultural machines, and fre quently mended the straps belonging to them: Before we went to Mr. Moore's we had been living at different public-houses for two or three months. It was on a Sunday that I was at work upon the print, and the prisoner told me that Mr. Moore was a strict religious man, and that he should get into trouble if 1 continued at it. Thi s was the reason why he was angry. The prisoner came to the loft in a very few minutes after I had sent for him. His back was turned to me when he went away with the child. I was charged with this offence myself, and I made a statement to the policeman who took me into custody. This was not my first child. I had another three or four years ago when I was in the Hartley-row Union, Hampshire. I did not know the prisoner at that time. That child died of water on the brain. About a week ego I expected to be tried on this charge myself. Tne prisoner's son was then re-called, and, in answer to further questions that were put to him, he said that when his father stuck the child with the awl he was standin g close by the window, and so was his father; and he said that both his father and Eliza Tarrant knew that he was in the loft. He was not hid in any way, and they must have both seen him. He did not say anything when he saw his father stick the baby with the awl. Sarah Trigg deposed that she was a widow, and resided at Ewell. On the 16th of August she met the prisoner near Mr. Moore's premises, about four o'clock in the afternoon, and he asked h e r t o go with him to the loft, and she did so. She there saw Eliza Tarrant lying upon some hay, with a child in her lap, and she observed a small quantity of blood upon its nose and lip, and it cried very hoarsely, as though it had a bad cold. She had never heard a child cry in the same manner before. It made a sort o f peculiar noise in its throat. The next morning, when she again went to the loft, she found the child was dead. Cross-examined — Witness had said to Mrs. Dun ford that she did not observe any mark on the throat, and if there had been any one she must have seen it. Mary Buckland, the daughter of-the witness Dun ford, deposed to having taken the baby to her house wrapped in a shawl. She saw blood flowing from its nose and mouth, and noticed that it made a very cu rious noise in its throat. She also said that she ob served a mark on the neck of the child, which at the time she thought was a scratch from the hay or straw in which it had been lying. She likewise stated that when the prisoner w ag told to go to the clerk to see about burying the child, he replied, " It will be about a shilling. I can make the - coffin myself." Cross- examined—Very little blood appeared to have flowed from the wound in the neck of the child. Sergeant Kennedy, of the V division of police, said that he was present at the inquest upon the body of the child, and he heard th e p risoner made a statement to the coroner' s jury. H e said that he went to the loft, where he had been living with Eliza Tarrant, on the 16th of August, when he was sent for, and he was in the act of putting on his jacket when a quan tity of powder fell from the pocket, and on replacing it he pricked his finger with an awl which was in the pocket. He said that after this had happened Eliza Tarrant told him to bring a shawl to wrap the child in, and he did so, and placed the child by the side of it 3 mother on the hay, and then went out to the neighbours to get assistance. In answer to a question put by Mr. CLERK, the witness said that the loft was 24 or 25 feet long. Williams, another police-constable, deposed that the prisoner told him that he had never been in the loft but on the day before his wife's confinement. Mr. Charles Lane deposed that he was surgeon to the Ewell district of the Epsom Union, and he was called upon to examine the deceased child on the 17th of August. It was a very fine male child, and the body appeared to be in a healthy condition. On the front of the neck he observed a small scratch, near the lower part of the right side, and there was also a small dark line on the back of the neck, and likewise a slight bruise and discoloration. Upon removing the skin of the neck he found that there was a wound underneath, corresponding with the external mark. This wound had penetrated into the substance of the neck, and had passed upwards into the large vessels, and it was about an inch and a half in depth. In witness's opinion the wound must have been made with a curve-shaped instrument. (Some awls, found in the loft, were here produced, and shown to the witness.) He had no doubt that an awl of the de scription just shown to him would have made the wound he had described. One of the awls appeared to have blood upon it, and another appeared to have a stain of rust. tie was decidedly of opinion that either of these awls could have produced the wound, and in the absence of all other perceivable cause, he could only attribute the death of the child to that wound. There were no other appearances upon the body of the child to account for its death. Cross-examined—He discovered the wound upon the neck immediately he examined the body. There was a very small quantity of blood upon the awl. He had no doubt of its being blood. He bad examined it with a microscope, and had also tried experiments, the result of which left no doubt that the matter upon the awl was blood. . . _ Re-examined—The mucous membrane would heal sooner than the skin. The aperture was not percep tible externally, and he did not discover it until he had raised the skin. The track of the wound ter minated abruptly beneath the mucous membrane. The effect of such an injury would be to occasion bleeding from the nose and mouth, and also a choking sound in the throat from the blood settling there ; and the sounds deposed to by the first witness would be such as would be likely to be produced by an injury of this kind. By the JUDGE—There were no appearances of un , healthiness in the child. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. CLERK then addressed the jury for the pri soner. The principal points he relied upon were that the case rested entirely upon the evidence of the woman Tarrant and the prisoner's son, and he con tended Oat, under the circumstances in which they were placed, the jury ought not to give effect to such testimony. With regard to the woman, he said she had herself been charged with being concerned in the murder, and it was not until after the grand jury had ignored the bill against her that she was thought of as a witness ; and with respect to the boy, he sub mitted that his evidence was of a most improbable character ; and he asked the jury to bear in mind that the woman Tarrant had declared that he was not in the room at the time the occurrence was represented to have taken place. One witness was called on behalf of the prisoner, who gave him a very good character. Mr. Justice MAULE then summed up the case to the jury, who retired, and after being in deliberation about half an hour, they returned into court with a verdict of Guilty. His LORDSHIP having put on the black cap, passed sentence of death upon the prisoner in the usual form, at the same time informing him that he could not hold out the slightest hope of any commutation of the sentence. The trial occupied nearly ten hours. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, April 2. (Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and a Common Jury.) THE BEY. JOHN SETON KARR V. RUTHER.—SLANDER - ON THE VICAR OF BERKELEY. Mr. Keating, Q.C., and Mr. Grey were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Whately, Q.C., and Mr. Hud dleston, for the defendant. This was an ;action for slander, brought by the plaintiff, the vicar of the village of Berkeley, in this county, against the defendant, a labourer, for words, imputing to him (the plaintiff) that he had got Sarah Knight, his housekeeper, with child, and obtained medicine from a Mr. Hicks, a surgeon and apothe cary at Berkeley, and given it to her in order to procure abortion. The defendant pleaded " Not guilty ;" that Sarah Knight was not plaintiff's housekeeper, and that Hicks was not a surgeon and apothecery. On these pleas issues were joined. Mr. KEATING, in stating the case, said the plaintiff was the highly respectable vicar of Berkeley, who was obliged to bring this action in order to vindicate his character from calumnies of the most infamous cha racter, which had been circulated against him by the defendant. It would appear that the plaintiff had bad in his service for several years a housekeeper named Sarah Barrow. She married a man named William Knight, in May, 1849. After her marriage she still continued in the plaintiff's service, but slept with her husband, in the village. About the month of July she exhibited symptoms of being in the family-way, and Mr. Hicks, a,surgeon and apothecary of the greatest respectability, who had always at 'ended Mr. Karr's family, attended on her, and pre scribed for her, and the defendant, who was a la bourer in the plaintiff's employment, happened to be the person who, on several occasions, was sent for the medicine for her ; and on this slight foundation did he build up the infamous charge which was now the subject of inquiry, and for which he (Mr. Keating) was instructed to say there was not the shadow of a foundation. Some time towards the end of July the defendant received notice to leave the plaintiff's ser vice, and from that moment he seemed to have formed a determination to injure the plaintiff in every pos sible manner, and repeatedly expressed his intention of doing 50.., There was a gentleman of the name of Gaisford, in the village of Berkeley, whom the defen dant believed to be anxious to collect information against the plaintiff, and he on one occasion threatened that he would go to Mr. Gaisford and give such infor • mation respecting the plaintiff as would strip the gown off his back. About the last week in June, 1849, he first put his threats into execution. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to comment on the state ments made by the defendant to the several witnesses, and which will be found detailed in their evidence. After going through the narrative of the several state ments, the Learned Gentleman observed that the plaintiff, feeling secure in the uprightness of his own conduct, did not take any notice of these slanders until he actually found that a professional gentleman was sent down to Berkeley, to make inquiries on the subject, with a view to institute a charge against him in his ecclesiastical character. Then, and then only, did he think it his duty to challenge discussion, and to call upon the defendant to establish the truth of his calumnies if be could. They would hear a great deal said to-day about the poverty of the defendant, and his inability to bring forward witnesses to prove the truth of his statements ; but when they saw him re• presented by such eminent counsel and by London attorneys (Messrs. Bush and Mullins were the at torneys), they could entertain no doubt that, if the truth of any one of these charges could be proved, money would not be wanted for the purpose. If Ituther, or rather those who set him in motion, could prove the truth of his calumnies, they would have done so; but they had not dared to do so ; they had flinched from the attempt, and bad not even ventured to place upon the record a plea of justification for a single one of these calumnies. The defendant pleaded merely that ' he had not spoken the words, which meant either that he did not speak them at all, or that, if he did, he ' did not speak inthemhe admitted the sense h attributed if he didbutedtot speak them by t t h h e e m p , la a in nd intiff; but the sense so attributed to them, they were false. There were two other pleas of a formal or technical charater, the object of which he did not understand ; one denying that Mr. Hicks was a sur geon and apothecary, and the other that Sarah Bar row, or Knight, acted as the plaintiff's housekeeper. As the defendant admitted, by his pleadings, that if he spoke the words in the sense stated in the declare- tion they were false, the only remaining question would be the- amount of the damages, and on this subject he wished at once to say that Mr. Karr brought this action to remove the imputations upon his character and to establish their falsehood, and not to look for vindictive damages; but be hoped the jury would give such damages as would satisfy every one who heard the trial that they were of opinion the ac tion was one in which the plaintiff was entitled to substantial and reasonable damages, and would show their sense of the malignity, wickedness, and false hood of the calumnies circulated against him. Anne Williams, examined by Mr. GRAr-I. live at Berkeley. Am wife of John Williams, who is in the service of the plaintiff as his groom, and was formerly in Mr. Karr's service in bis house. I left his regular service in 1845. From time to time I went to his house afterwards. I know the defendant well. He was in the plaintiff's service last summer, and left somewhere about midsummer. He told me that his master had given him notice to leave, as he would not marry. I was, after he had got notice to leave, in the kitchen with him one day, and be spoke to me. He began the conversation. He was speaking very ang;ily of master. He said six chickens bad died, and master had bought six more, and said he would charge him for them, but if he did, he (Ruther) would make him pay double for them, an d h e had ;therefore better mind what he was about. She asked him, " Has master been on with you about marryi ng ? " He said, "He had better mind what he is about, or he will get into it himself, for the medicine which Mr. Hicks used to send here was to destroy young ones. Master, Mr. Hicks, and Sarah ought to be tried for their lives—the one for giving, the other for sending, and the other for taking it. More than that, I know a person who asked Mr. Hicks to send one of the same sort of bleak draughts ..thAt A statement made by the prisoner, when under ex- Sarah had, and he would not let him have it." I said, amination before the magistrateF, was then put in. " Who can prove it r He replied, " There are It was to the same effect as that made by him before slough to prove it." I know Sarah Knight. She was the coroner. in Mr. Karr's service as housekeeper as long as I knew her, ever since I first knew llr. Karr, since 1844. She left his service last Saturday fortnight. I remember her being married. It was before the con versation I have mentioned. The conversation took place about a fortnight before Ruther left Mr. Karr's service. It was in the beginning of July he left. I do not know how long before that Sarah had been married. Before that she had been ill, and I gave her some advice. Before her marriage she lived en tirely in Mr. Karr's house. After her marriage she slept out with her husband. Her maiden name was Barrow—her husband's name was William Knight. The day before Ruther left he spoke to me in the laundry about Mr. Karr. I said to him, " Tom, has master been on again with you about marriage ?" This I said because he was living with a woman by whom he bad a number of children. He said, " Let him mind what he is at, or I will do for him ; he will find that lam a rum one. I will just go across to that little fellow Gaisford, and he - will be glad to take hold of him, and to take the gown off his back." Mr. Gaisford is a lawyer in Berkeley. I saw him the day he left. I asked him if he had left. He said he had, and that he would just go across to Gaisford, and see what he could do for him. Cross-examined—l have heard in the town that Mr. Gaisford's wife left her home in consequence of Mr. Karr's conduct ; Ido not know that Mr. Karr soon afterwards left his home. I know he went to London. I have not heard from Mr. Karr that pro ceedings are now going on against him on account of Mrs. Gaisford. I did not know Mr. Karr before be came to Berkeley. Sarahjeft home on more than one occasion for a week. On her return I saw no change in her appearance. I never saw her sitting in the dining-room with him. Medicine was brought by Mr. Hicks's boy in July last, and placed in the dining room. Sarah was then living at the house of a Mrs. Shepherd, and was at her house when the medicine was brought. She came to Mr Karr's after the me dicine was brought; he was at home. She went into the dining-room. After being there a quarter of an hour he did not come out and ask for a spoon and glass. I do not know that a spoon and glass Were taken into the room. She was poorly after she had taken the medicine. I remember, in a day or two afterwards, Mr. Karr's coming home from a party Ido not remember a quarrel about his dinner. It was my husband's supper. She was ill that same afternoon. Did you find it necessaryto clean the kitchen floor do not know what you mean. There were no droppings or stains on the floor. Jane Bay ley was -in the house at the time. Sarah Knight miscarried within a short time after that. Ido not know whether I and Ruther afterwards talked about it. Ido not remember it. I will not swear I had not a conversation with him about the miscarriage. I do not remember. Ido not know that the miscar riage was not the subject of frequent conversation in the neighbourhood. It was at Mr. Karr's she mis carried. She lodged at the time at Mrs. Shepherd's, but the miscarriage took place at the vicarage. Sarah Knight is between 30 and 40 years of age. lam 30 next May. She is a year or two older than I am. There was a quarrel between her and Mr. Karr a day or two before her miscarriage. She was a good deal excited. I never heard him swear in my life. She has sworn. Ido not remember her swearing at him. I will not swear she did not swear at him. I was not present at their quarrel. I was in the laundry at the time. It was across the yard. I heard them talking aloud in the kitchen. I suppose they were quarrel ling. I have no doubt they were quarrelling. It was a day or two after she took the medicine which was brought by Mr. Hicks's boy. She was boiling a . . chicli - en at the time. She did not cook it. Ido not know what the quarrel was about. After the quarrel phe was supported home by Jane Bayley. I cleaned the kitchen up. It was Taragon sauce that was on it. Mr. Karr came into the kitchen, and was going towards the laundry. I did not stop him. I do not remember saying to him that Sarah was not fit to be seen. I will not swear I did not say so to him. She was in the laundry, and he was going to wards the laundry-door, when I said to him, " She is poorly, and not fit to be spoken to." She was poorly. I cannot explain what I mean by poorly, as it is not proper. She was continually ill from that time till she miscarried. Mr. Karr is living at the vicarage now ; but he does not perform the duty at church. Ido not know who now performs the duty. I did not hear from Mr. Karr that there were proceedings against him in the ecclesiastical court on account of Mrs. Gaisford and Sarah Knight. Ruther was speaking to me about the matter. I never spoke to any one about the medicine that I remember. I will not swear that I have not. I will not swear that I have not said it was to prevent her from having children. I cannot remember what I said about it. I cannot remember what I said to Ruther, but I re member well what he said to me. (Tae witness here rapidly repeated over again the words of the conversa tion stated in her examination in chief.) Ido not know how often I mentioned those words. They were spoken in June. I dii not mention them to any one till after Christmas. I then mentionedthem to Mr. Jackson, a lawyer. I mentioned them to my friends at home —my father and mother. I have men tioned them twice since to Mr. Jackson. I wrote them down. I have not the paper. I burnt it. It was after Christmas I wrote them. It was before Wednesday last I wrote them. I repeated them at the vicarage on Wednesday. Ido not know that I saw Mr. Jack son there. I showed him the paper. I did not give it to him. It was soon after Christmas I showed it to him. 1 wrote them down the day I saw Mr. Jackson. Ido not know when I burnt them. I burnt them about a week or a fortnight ago—the day I saw Mr. Jackson. 1 saw him a second time. Ido not remem ber what-I saw him for. No one recommended me to burn it. I frequently make memoranda. Ido not know why I burnt it. Re-examined—l do not know of anything impro per having taken place between Mr. Ikarr and Mrs. Gaisford. So far as I know, his leaving for London had nothing to do with her leaving her home. He went to London at that time to marry his brother. Sarah Knight miscarried about two months after her marriage. She was attended by Mr. Hicks. After she was married she did not sleep at Mr. Karr's house. Jane Bayley was discharged from Mr. Karr's service. Ido not know that she is brought here by Ruther. Mr. Karr had occasion to speak frequently to Sarah Knight respecting the mode in which she did her business. After she took the medicine she was better. Between June and Christmas I talked of the subject to my friends. I never mentioned the words till I mentioned them to Mr. Jackson. He is the soli citor for Mr. Karr. ' He did not tell me to burn the paper. The miscarriage was very sudden. In answer to a• question from his LORDSHIP, at the request of Mr. Whately, the witness said sbe thought it was Mr. Karr who gave Jane Bayley notice to leave, and she did not rememember that he afterwards asked her to stay. Thomas Painell, examined by Mr. GRAY—I am a carpenter living at Berkeley. I know the defendant. Remember his leaving Mr. Kerr's service last summer. About three days before he left I was at work at the vicarage, and k he came to me and said, " I am d—d "if our parson had not ought to be hung, and Mr. Hicks too, for they be both b-- rogues, for I have been to Mr. Hicks' and fetched some medicine for master to give to the housekeeper to make her mis carry. , Cross-examined by Mr. HUDDLBSTON ••••• Ruther bad 12s. a week, and his board in the house. He lived in a house for which he paid the rent. lam a parishioner of Berkeley. Mr. Robert Carlisle has been doing duty in the church these two months. Mr. Karr has not been doing duty in church very lately. Igo to church when I think proper. Ido not know why Mr. Karr does not do duty ; I have not heard from Mr. Kerr that he is suspended by the bishop ; I have heard it from others. I first men tioned the conversation with Ruther five or six months ago to an uncle of mine; that was about two months after I heard the conversation. I did not write it down ; I alWays wrote it down here (pointing to his head). I was at work at the vicarage at the time the conversation occurred. Mr. Hicks used to attend my family. I never th oug h t i t worth while to go to Mr. Hicks or Mr. Carr about it. It did not trouble me mach. I never paid much itten tion to anything. I did not think of the words till Mr. Jackson reminde4 me of them. The conversa tion took place before the miscarriage. I live a mile and a half from the village. I did not hear of the miscarriage. It made no impression on me. I never asked about the report in the village. Sarah was the housekeeper. I suppose she was called the house keeper, and I suppose she was such. The other ser vants used to call her Mrs. Barrow. I asked no question. It was no business of mine. Ido not know whether sbe used to breakfast in bed. Re-examined—Ruther said to me what I have told the jury. William Bennett—l remember the defendant speaking to me in Farmer Jones's hayfield a few days after she left Mr. Karr's service. She said it was the housekeeper's fault that he left, and that Mr. Karr and she ought to be tried for their lives ; that Mr. Hicks did send the stuff to Mr. Seaton Karr, for him to give it to her to destroy the young one. Cross-examined by Mr. Wrrar er,v—l have worked seven or eight years for Mr. Karr. The other ser vants treated Sarah as mistress. I never saw her in the dining-room. Many people reported it about, but I never undeistood it particularly till I heard it from Rutber in the hayfield. Ruther used to do out-door work at the vicarage for about two or three years. I was not living at Berkeley when Mr. Karr came there. I have known Sarah Knight for seven or eight years. Ido not know that she is a very pretty girl. She is about the same as other people. Mr. Karr was the first person I mentioned the words to. He came to me a little before Christmas. About a month ago Air. Jackson spoke to me about them. 1 never men. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1850. tioned them, or the subject of them, to any one till I mentioned them to Mr. Karr. Sarah Knight was living at Mr. Karr's when the words were spoken. Thomas Bence, examined by Mr. GRAY—I am a labourer. I was at work in December, making hay. It was very late for haymaking. It was in December after Ruther had left Mr. Karr's service. About a month after he left he came to me as I was at work, and I said it was a bad job that he lost his place at Mr. Karr's; and he said it was the fault of that w— of a housekeeper, and that Mr. Karr and she would go into the parlour and get drunk till they did not know what they were about ; and that when she was ill Mir. Karr sent to Mr. Hicks for a black draught ; after it was brought Mr. Karr said to her " you must take it," and after she took it something dropped from her as she walked out of the house till I was ashamed to walk behind her. My wife was by when he began to speak thus, and she heard some of it and walked away. She is now ill, and at home. Cross-examined by Mr. HUDDLESTON—I am as sure that it was in December as that Ruther made use of the words. lam as positive of the one as of the other. I had forgotten the date till it was told me. It was the general talk of the country about Ruther raising the scandal about Mr. Karr. I have been often to the vicarage. I live about a mile from the vicarage. I used to call her the housekeeper. I was never in the house very early in the morning. I mentioned the words to Mr. Jackson about two months ago. I did not write them down. I did not go to Mr. Karr and mention them to him as soon as I heard them. I did not think it worth while. I was talked of in the country. By the JUDGE—The present month is September.— (Loud laughter.) John Cox Hicks, examined by Mr. GRAY—I am a surgeon and apothecary at Berkeley, and have prac tised there from Is2l to the present moment. My house is a quarter of a mile from the vicarage. I know Mr. Vizard, a solicitor of Dursley. He came to my brother's some time ago to make inquiries about Mr. Karr. I communicated to Mr. Karr that such inquiries had been made. Those inquiries had reference to an alleged miscarriage of Sarah Knight. Cross-examined byi Mr. WHATELY—It was a real miscarriage. I should, not think from what I saw • she was in •the family-way more than two months. Never before attended her when in the family-way. I do not remember her leaving home for a month and coming back again. Ido not remember that occur ring on two different occasions. I was applied to to send her some medicines in last July. lam not cer tain who came for it. Ruther did not come to me for medicines in the beginning of July. I saw Mr. Karr in the beginning of July—before I saw Sarah Knight—on the same day. I sent some medicine for her after I saw him. Ido not think I saw him that day after I saw her. It might be the following day. It was on the subject of her illness, She was then living at Mrs. Shepherd's. It was on the sth of July. She was in bed at Mrs. Shepherd's. The reason I sent the medicine to the vicarage was that I did not know but that she had gone back to the vicarage. It. was about eleven o'clock on the sth of July I saw her at Mrs. Shepherd's, and I sent the medicine a quarter of an hour afterwards. I sent the medicine by my servant. She is here. She is not in my service. She miscarried on the 18th. I attended her between those two days. She showed symptoms of miscarriage on the 7th and Bth. On the sth there were premonitory symptoms. Mr. Karr paid me for my attendance. I had known him for seven or eight years. .He brought her to the vicarage when he came. Some would have thought her a very pretty young woman. Beauty is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that she was e very pretty young woman. She was the housekeeper. I never saw her in the dining-room with him except when she answered the bell. I saw Mr. Vizard. He did not come to me. I have not spoken to Mr. Karr about an ecclesiastical suit that is going on. He has spoken to me about it. Ide has not that lam aware of said that it related partly to Sarah Knight, not that lam aware of. Her name has not been men tioned by him to me in connexion with it that I am aware of. He might have mentioned it. I have no doubt about it. He has been suspended from doing duty in the church some months. He still lives at the vicarage. Sarah Knight lived there till lately. Re-examined by Mr. KEATING—He never men tioned ber name in connexion with the suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, except in reference to the inqui ries made by Mr. Vizard. He said there had been scandalous reports with respect to himself, myself, and the housekeeper, and that it had been stated that I supplied medicine to his housekeeper, Sarah Bar row, with a view to produce a miscarriage. I had before that communicated to him the inquiries made by Mr. Yizard. I should judge that she had been in the family-way about two months. I cannot say positively when she was married, but it was about two, months previously. I believe it was in the month of May she was married. When I sent the medicine She was at the vicarage. My reason for sending it, to the vicarage Will when I saw her she was not very ill, and she said i f found herself bet ter she would get up and go to the vicarage. ller husband was living with her at Mrs. Shepherd's. By Mr. KEATING—Did you give her that medicine with a view to procure abortion ? Mr. WHATELY objected to the question, and said —I do not mean to impute to Mr. Hicks that he sent the medicine with a view to procure abortion. Ido the gentleman the justice of saying that I make no such charge against him. Mr. KEATING said that up to that moment the im putation had been relied on, and he had a right to put the question. Re-examination - resumed (question repeated)—l never gave her that or any other medicine with any such intent. Mr. Karr never attempted to induce me to send any such . medicine. He had always pad for all'medicine sent to his servants. I never observed that she was ever treated otherwise than as a house keeper would be treated. I had attended her before when she was unwell. Never attended her with symptoms of pregnancy. The servant I had at the time left my service. She did not come here with me. I saw 111 r. Vizard at my brother's house, which is opposite the vicarage. I was sent for ; when I ar rived I found Mr. Vizard there. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. WIIATELY then proceeded to address the jury. He said he approached the case with great pain and anxiety, because from the very nature of it, as pre sented by the plaintiff's own witnesses, it was one that must be most disagreeable to him, to the jury, and to all who heard it. They bad heard kora. his Learned Friend that the defendant was a labouring man, in the habit of earning his bread by the sweat of his brow, and who had been employed by the plaintiff for years, at weekly wages, and that the action was brought against him to redeem the plain tiff's character. This was strange indeed, for the question was whether, considering the evidence brought forward, "and the answers which the wit nesses. gave most reluctantly, and considering the evidence which the plaintiff might have called, and had not called, his character did not suffer more than it gained by - the investigation. He did not stand there to say that the plaintiff had given medicine to procure abor tion, or that he and Mr. Hicks conspired to give her medicine to procure abortion. He at once admitted that there was no ground for saying that they did so, but he begged of the jury to bear in mind that the de fendant was a poor, honest, ignorant man,,and did be lieve that the medicine was given, for the purpose. This would not entitle him to tbe verdict; but the jury in estimating the d amages would take it into consideration, and say that' the smallest possible amount would be sufficient to award against him. ht well bare be lievedgiven for the purp ose o f ___.... .. Looking at all the fa;t;,RUther might that the medicine was procuring abortion ; and if he really believed it, wher e was his malice in repeating it ? Was a man never to open , his lips respecting eft eighbour unless top ra i se him ? This was a sad case. Those who eared f o r wthaes a minister. Churchmusotf it. de What a strange story they heard.eply regret that this gentleman A clergyman, living with his housekeeper, a ve ry pretty young woman, on such terms that she used to quarrel with him, and swear at him. They h a d b een told that his object in bringing the actio n was to vin dicate his character. If so, why did he no t pu t h er into the box? She could have said whe ther the rumours were groundless— s h e cou ld have said whether th e y w ere calumni es on h er an d him. Why, even, wa s no servant other th an A nne Williams called, wh o c ould speak to th e manner i n which the plaintiff and she conducted themselves ? Why was not Jane Bayley called ? The reason why the defendant put the pleas on the record denying that Hicks was a surgeon, and she a h ouse k ee p er , was in order that th e pl a intiff might be obliged to call . them. Hicks had been called, but she had been care fully kept back; and this, forsooth, in an action brought for the purpose of vindicating the plaintiff's character. The Learned Gentleman having dwelt very effectively and eloquently upon the principal cir cumstances of the case, concluded by asking the jury to give the smallest possible damages, if they should find themselves compelled, by the nature of the plead ings in evidence, to give any. Mr. Justice PATTESON summed up. If the jury should find that the defendant used the words laid in the declaration, it was no excuse on this record that the defendant believed them to be true. The words seemed to be proved beyond all dispute, and there fore the next question would be the amount of the damages, on which they could form an opinion. Tile defendant had no privilege because he was poor to circulate stories to the disadvantage of his neigh bours. If he thought any of them guilty of a crime, he should go and give information to a magistrate, and not run about the country repeating slanders which he could not prove. The jury deliberated for af 3W moments. Verdict for the plaintiff—Dsw.ges 18. ' NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, April 2. Mr. Baron Alderson, having tried a few civil causes yesterday, left last night. NISI 1 5 RIUS COURT.—OeforeMr.Baron ROLFE: WOODROW V. THE LANCASTER AND CARLISLE RAIL WAY COMPANY. This was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff, a commission agent at Manchester, to recover compensation in damages from the defendants for in juries received on their railway in February, 1849, in consequence of their alleged neglect in having a faulty tender on the line, whereby the train was thrown off the rails and down an embankment, breaking the plaintiff's leg, injuring his spine, and causing him to lose a valuable appointment. The de fendants pleaded "Not Guilty," and, secondly that he was not a passenger on that occasion. Mr. Martin, 4.0., Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Lawrie appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles, Q.C., Mr. Atherton, and Mr. Rew, for the defendants. It appeared that the plaintiff, who was a commis sion agent at Manchester, having business at Glasgow, on the 10th of February, 1849, went to Preston, where he took a second-class railway ticket for Glasgow, the defendants' railway company being common carriers from Preston to Glasgow, and paying a mileage for that portion o f th e road beyond their own line. The plaintiff travelled to Carlisle, where he was required to get into another carriage belong ing to the London and North-Western Railway Company. The engine, tender, and carriages were examined at Carlisle. On arrivingn little beyond the Rocliffe station, a few miles beyond Carlisle, the engine and train ran off the rails and down an em bankment, breaking in pieces the carriage in which the plaintiff was, killing three passengers, severely in juring several, and breaking the plaintiff's leg and injuring his spine, owing to which injuries the plain tiff had lost a thriving business at Manchester. The accident was stated by one witness, who bad closely examined the wheels of the tender, to have been caused by one of the wheels of the tender not being firmly fixed on its axle, in consequence of which the wheel had been forced three inches and a quarter in wards. The effect of this was to make the tender run unsteadily on the line, and crossways, striking the sleepers and knocking the rail out, thus leading directly to the accident. From the evidence of the surgeons called it appeared that the plaintiff had re ceived a comminuted fracture of the leg, a contusion of the spine, a blow on the head, and a severe shock to his system, from the effects of which he would never, in all probability, thoroughly recover. He was laid up three months in Carlisle, nursed by his mother, and afterwards two months in Glasgow at his father's, where he was removed. He had recovered now, but looked pale and delicate. The doctors' bills amounted to about 801., and his lodging bill at Carlisle was up wards of 301. For the defence, the Learned Counsel contended that this fault in the wheel was not a patent one, and by no skill or care could have been discovered ; that the wheel must have been in its place at Carlisle, where the engine and tender were examined, and that the removal of the wheel on the axle must have been caused by some accident which the tender received whilst running. The defendants by no means wished to speak lightly of the plaintiff's sufferings, and none could be more sorry than they for what had occurred, and, had it been possible to settle this matter out of court fairly to the plaintiff, and justly to themselves, this action would not have been heard of. If, however, the jury thought that the accident arose from any fault or negligence of the defendants, they must give the plaintiff such reasonable damages as the circumstances of the-case demanded. His health was restored and his business at Manchester would be recovered. His LORDSHIP, in summing up, directed the jury that if, in their opinion, the plaintiff had made out that the accident arose from the faulty construction of the tender wheel and axle, the defendants were liable for any damages which arose in consequence. The mode of estimating such an injury by its value in damages was very rough ; it was, however, the only means of doing so, and if they were of opinion that the defendants were liable they must give the plaintiff fair compensati?a for the suffering and loss which he had endured. The jury retired, and after a short absence found for the plaintiff—Damages 5001. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. REEXAMINATION OF ME. WALTEZ WATTS. Walter Watts, late lessee of the Olympic and Maryle bone Theatres, who stands charged with stealing a cheque for 1,4001., the property of the Globe Insur ance Company, was brought up again on remand yesterday at the Mansion-house. The interest in the affair seemed to be still unabated, and long before the gates and doors of the justice-room were opened to the public an immense number of well-dressed people had assembled outside, and when the doors were unlocked the rush into the court was terrific. Mr. Alderman Gibbs sat for the Lord Mayor. Al dermen Copeland and Carden were also on the bench. The prisoner was brought up at half-past one o'clock, in the custody of D. Forrester. Mr. Clarkson, instructed by Messrs. Freshfield, appeared for the prosecution ; and Mr. Bodkin, in structed by Mr. \Vontner, attended on behalf of the prisoner. The first witness called was Mr. Henry Bien Reynolds, of Tottenham, who deposed as follows :—I am the ledger keeper of the bank of Glyn and Co. It is my duty to check off the entries in the pass books against the entries in the ledger. After the payment of a cheque of 1,4001. on the 14th of last February, I found that there appeared an entry of that payment in the Globe Insurance pass-book and in the ledger. I see a place in the pass-book produced where ithas been erased. The figures 4471. ls. 3d. have been altered to 1,4001. I see no other erasure in the pass book. I perceive at the bottom striking the amount upon the debit side. I see the whole amount has been written on an erasure. Ido not know Mr. Watts' handwriting. There was an entry of 4471. Is. 7d., as well as the 1,4001. when entered up in the ledger from the pass-book, on the 26th of February. That entry is also erased, and I find it entered upon the spot where the 1,4001. had been previously entered. It is usual to return the cancelled cheques to the customers. It was the custom of the Globe Insurance to send for their pass-book every Wednesday. Cross-examined —l am speaking of the general practice of checking in the bank. A person calls the items from the pass-book, and I check them in the ledger, and I see a mark on the ledger, which induces me to believe that the items I have mentioned were called. It is the duty of one clerk only to call the items from the pass-book, and I tick off the items in the ledger. Tnis ledger contains the accounts of all our customers. When I am away fur holiday the ledger is checked by some one else. Re-examined—The total in the pass-book when compared with the ledger, on the 26th February, was 22,0451. 73. 9d. on the debit side. I cannot say who it was that called the items, but a party calls the items in the pass-book, and I see that they correspond with the items in the ledger. The sums called on the 26th corresponded with those in the ledger. They in cluded the banking transactions from the 19th to the 26th. Mr. Henry Probin examined—l am a messenger at the Globe Insurance, and I was the person whose duty it was to fetch the pass-book of the company from the bankers every Wednesday. From January last, down to the present time, it has been my practice to fetch it from the bank. I apply for it at the coun ter, take it and carry it to the office. On each Wed s nesday as 1 obtained it I always gave the pus s book to the prisoner. Mr. Watts's office was in the third floor. I used to deliver to him the book down stairs, in the bottom. I believe the book was handed by Mr. Watts to the secretary. Mr. Watts generally waited for it is our bottom office, not in his office, and then he went up to his own office. That occurred always on the Wednesdays, so that when I came into the office from the bankers' I found Mr. Watts generally on the ground floor, wait ing to receive it. Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin—Generally speak ing I saw Mr. Watts. Sometimes I have taken the book up stairs to him. In this year, 1850, I:have generally delivered the book below. About ten clerks are engaged in the lower office, but sometimes I found Mr. Watts in the entrance hall. I bring the book open. The directors meet on Thursday. The book was given to Mr. Watts, to be laid on the secretary's table, where I have often seen it while the secretary was in the room. Re-examined—l have seen the book on the table on Wednesdays and Thursdays—generally on Thursdays. I have seen it this year on the table, but I cannot say whether it was on a Wednesday or a Thursday. Mr. Watts sometimes told me to go for the pass-book. My place is to attend the hall, and Mr. Watts has come from up stairs to tell me to fetch the book. generally speaking, I have always found him waiting in the lower office for the book, and when I have given it to him he has taken it up stairs. The office I have mentioned is on the right. hand side of the hall, and Mr. Watts, while waiting in that office, could see me through a glass-door, and he sometimes came out to Idea me. Mr. Clarkson said this was all the evidence he had to offer on the subject of the 1,4001. robbery, which he thought was sufficient to justify a committal on that distinct charge, and he called for one accord ingly. He was prepared to go into other matters, but he felt that he had advanced enough to justify the Alderman committing the prisoner for trial. Mr. Alderman Gibbs and Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk, then retired to consider the application. On their return, after a short absence, Mr. Alderman GIBBS expressed a wish to have another case proceeded with. Mr. Front Rothney, a cashier in the London and Westminster Bank, was next called. On the 26th of .., last February a cheque for 1,4001. on Glyn's was paid into the bank to the credit of the prisoner, but I can not swear whether it was a Globe Insurance cheque. I, however, produce a document that was delivered in with the cheque. That cheque was cashed at Glyn's, and the amount carried to the prisoner's ac count. The money has been drawn from the account, but there is still a small balance in the prisoner's favour. Mr. Roan, on being recalled, stated that the writ ing and figures in the erasures in the psis. book were in the prisoner's handwriting The paper produced was also in the prisoner's handwriting. This paper was a pass ticket for the cheque signed by thie prisoner. _ _ Mr. Rothney, in his cross-examination, stated that he was positive he received the cheque and ticket, as he entered the transaction in a book at the time. Mr. William Steele was next examined.—l atn a clerk in Glyn's house, and on the 26th of last February a cheque was presented for 1,4001. to me over the counter by one of the clerks of the London and Westminster Bank. It formed a part of a large charge presented on that day. I know a Globe Insurance cheque, and to the best of my belief this 1,4001. cheque was one of them. After pay ing the cheque and cancelling it, I pass it to another clerk, who enters it into a book, and then it goes to the ledger, which is kept by Mr. Santhory. After the cheques are written off our books, they are re turned to the customers. That is the practice of the bank. Mr. Reynolds recalled—On the 26th of February last there was an entry in the pass book pro duced for this second 1,400/. There has been an erasure. That entry is in our ledger, and was made by me. The cheque would be returned on the follow ing Wednesday with the pass-book. Mr. Probin recalled—l remember Mr. Watts leaving the office on the .sth of March. On the Wednesday previously I fetched the pass-hook from the bank and gave it to Mr. Watts. Ido not recollect that he sent me for it. As far as I can recollect it was either in the lower office, or close by in the hall, that I delivered the book to Mr. Watts. After I gave it to him I cannot say whether he went up-stairs. Cross-examined—l cannot swear positively that I gave the pass-book to Mr. Watts on this last oc casion. I have on some occasions given the book to other parties. I think I gave the book to Mr. Watts on the last Wednesday that he was there; but I should not like to swear that I did. Re•examined—l do not believe that I have given the book to any other person but Mr. *Watts since the commencement of the present year. Mr. Steele being recalled identified the cheque produced as the form of those used by the Globe Insurance-office. Mr. Roan recalled—l have searched through the cancelled cheques received by Messrs. Glyn and Co. from the Globe-office. It is the custom of the office to keep them as vouchers fur the payment. There is no cheque to be found for the 1,4001. alleged to have been paid on the 26th February. I have looked at the pass-book, and I perceive that there is an erasure in the item dated on the 26th February. Cross -examined—The cancelled cheques are kept in a drawer in the office. Re-examined—l am a clerk in the Globe Insu rance-office. So was the prisoner. Ile left on the sth of March, and has not been there since. The paid cheques were kept in a drawer in the office, and it was the, prisoner's duty to check them with the pass-book. I have searched that drawer, but cannot find any cheque with reference to the 1,4001. of the 26th February. The book produced contains the form of Globe Insurance-office cheques, and there appear to have been two sheets of cheques torn out of it. Mr. Clarkson proposed to stop here with reference to the second case, but he had other evidence to offer both relating to this and other cases, and he should therefore ask for another remand. Inquiries were still going on, and new eases were gradually coming to light, and it would be a matter of convenience to the prisoner that a further remand should be had if the Court did not think fit to commit the prisoner on the first case. Mr. Alderman Gins said' he was in a position to commit the prisoner for stealing a piece of paper, namely, the first cheque ; but there appeared now to be evidence of the prisoner having been in wrongful possession of a second cheque, and he preferred to remand him on that case. Mr. Bodkin repeated that his client was quite pre pared to meet any case, and he had no objection to the remand. The prisoner was accordingly further remanded till 'Tuesday next, with the understanding that he would be then further remanded. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. Mr. BINGHAM yesterday proceeded to deliver his judgment in the ease of the parties apprehended by the police at 14, dermyn -street, alleged to be a com mon gaming -house, and fined the defendants ..51. each, with the exception of the doorkeeper, Jones, who, he said, under the provisions of the statute, was subject to a higher penalty--101. In default of payment the defendants to be imprisoned ten days, and Jones twenty days. With reference to the three found in the parlour, the magistrate said he hail not made up his mind, and therefore gave them the benefit of that circumstance, by ordering them to be discharged without a fine. Mr. Clarkson then said, with all due respect to the Court, he was bound to say the present judgment would he forthwith appealed against. Mr. BINGHAM was very glad such was the deter mination of the parties convicted. Three defendants—Goodman, otherwise Goodman Levy, his son, and another—were discharged without any fine. Monckton, Ord, and Lewis, three military gentlemen, Smart, Doncaster, and Johnson, and the doorkeeper, Jones, paid the fines under protest, and were liberated. WESTMINSTER. Walter Sallis, a foreman in the employment of Messrs. Rigby, the extensive builders and contractors, Holywell-street, Milbank, was finally examined, charged with stealing a great quantity of mahogany, the property of his employers. Mr. Sidney solicited the magistrate to take bail for the accused, which he refused, observing that he could apply to one of the judges if he thought fit. Prisoner was then committed for trial at the Cen tral Criminal Court. CLERKENWELL. _ Thomas and William Harding, low-looking fellows, uncle and nephew, were finally examined before Mr. Combe, charged with having been concerned in a wanton and daring outrage and assault on the police. They said nothing in their defence, were fully com mitted for trial, .and the witnesses bound over to pro secute. LAMBETH. Thomas Sutton, a stout-built fellow, was finally examined on a charge of stealing four saws, the pro perty of a marine-store-dealer, at whose house he lodged. It appeared that the prisoner had been an honest and hard- working fellow up to the period of the con viction of Rush, the notorious Stanfield-hall mur derer ; but during the trial and after his condemna tion he expressed the most intense desire to see that desperate individual. On the morning before the day appointed for the execution of Rush Sutton re ceived two sovereigns froM his then employer to pay for tw‘ tons of coals, and was desired to order two tons more from the coal-merchant ; but, instead of going to the coal-wharf at Bankside, he set off for Norwich, to be present at the execution on the fol k*ving day. His wish and anxiety being thus gratt fied3he made his way back to Lambeth, the money he had taken having just enabled him to do so, and confessed his guilt to his employer. He was given into custody and summarily punished, and since his liberation he again gave himself up on a charge of l i stealing a coat and was a second time punished. Iu the present instance he was not suspected of the robbery until he confessed-the fact himself, and also gave up the names of the pawnbrokers with whom he pledged the property, and by this means a clear case was made out against him. Mr. ELLIOTT fully committed him for trial. MONEY MARKET.—The premium on gold at Paris is 15i per male, which, at the English Mint price of 3/. 17s. 10Id. per ounce for standard gold, gives an ex change of 25.54; and the exchange at Paris on London at short being 25.52 k, it follows that gold is 0.06 per cent. dearer in Paris than in London. By advices from Hamburgh the price of gold is 4361 per mark, which, at the English Mint price of 3/. i Old. per ounce for standard gold, gives an exchange of 13.1 q; and the ex change at Hamburgh ou London at short being 13.111, it follows that gold is 0.46 per cent. dearer in London than in Ilamburgh. The course of exchange at New York on London for bills at 60 days' sight is 1081 per cent., and the par of exchange between England and America being 109 2340 per cent., it follows that the exchange is nominally 1.08 per cel.t. egainst Eng land. But, after making a l lowance for difference 0:* interest and charges of transport, the present rate does not admit of gold being exported to the United Slates. GLASGOW, MARCH 30.—Cotton.—We have had another very dull week in our cotton wool market. Specu lation is in abeyance, and consumers can obtain the limited quantities they require on rather easier terms than during last week, but the reduction can scarcely be specified figures. The market for g .ods and yarns is inactive, but as stocks are very light prices keep up to the old standard. Manufacturers are still fully employed, principally in com pleting former orders. Pig iron—There has been aslight de cline in pig iron during the week, and there still exists great indisposition to do business in the article. To-day mixed Nos. may be quoted 435. sellers ; hu7ers at 433., cash. There is little iron in the market for sale, but a small quantity would satisfy the wants of buyers at 435. Bars for ordinary brands sell at W. 10s. per ton. The point reserved on the trial of Sansome at Not tingham, and in consideration of which the prisoner was re spited by Lord Campbell, will be argued before the Court of Appeal in Criminal Cases, until the decision of which the opinion of the Secretary of State on till case will be necessa rily pu.spended. THE ROY AL HOSPITALS OF THE CITY. On Monday the annual reports were made to the Lord Mayor from the several Royal Hospitals of the city of London. The following is an abstract:_ CHRIST'S HOSPITAL. Children put forth apprentices and discharged from Christ's Hospital in the year last past 199, ten of whom, being instructed in the mathematics and navigation, were placed forth apprentices to commanders of ships, cut of the mathematical school founded by his late Majesty King Charles 11. Children deceased the year last past Children now under the care and charge of the Hospital:— In London and at Hortford To be admitted on presentations 1607 to this time l9B , IT. HAIITHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL. Patients admitted, cured, and discharged during the last year, 6,146 (including 478 cases of cholera) in-patients, and 71,564 medical and surgical out-patients, including casualities, most of whom were poor, sick, and lame persons; and many of them, being destitute of all relief, have been supplied with money, clothes, and other necessaries to enable them to return to their habitations, amounting to gether to 77,71 0 Died—from cholera In-patients from other causes .. 52 2 Out-patients patients Remaining under cure All fees on the admission of patients have b e en abolished, and the accommodation of the in-patients 30 extended as to admit 580, while their diet and general comforts have been very materially improved. '['he ex pense attendant upon the reception of cholera ea ses during the past year has been great, and great indeed have been the benefits conferred upon the public by their free admission. ST. THOMAS'S HOSPITAL. There hare been admitted, cured, and dis charged, during the last year, of sick, wounded, maimed, and diseased persons, 4,737 in-patients, and 59,109 medical and surgical out-patients, including caivalties, some of whom have been relieved with money and necessaries at their departure, to accommo date and support them in their journeys to their several habitations Died after much charge in their sickness 3Ol Remaining un d er cure In- patients Out-patients ...... 3,83 1 So that there have been, during the last year, of poor miserable objects. under the c ire of the said hospital, sod destitute of other proper care, in all 65,39 5 BRIDEWELL HOSPITAL. Received into this hospital during the last year, under the commitments by the Lord Mayor and the aldermen of the City, as criminal or disorderly persons, who have been kept to hard labour or received correction Apprentices sent by the Chamberlain for con finement Received into this hospital during the same period sundry poor persons who had been found wandering abroad, and begging in the city of London 28 1 --... THE HOUSE OF OCCUPATION OF DRIDEWELL HOSPITAI , Remaining in the house at Christmas, 1848, males, 8 6 ; females, 102. Admitted in 1849, males 50; females, 30. BETHLEM HOSPITAL. Admitted during the year, 150 males, 194 females. Discharged, cured, 70 males, 106 females. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. IPSWICH, Aran. 2. The annual horse fair at Woodbridge kept away a large number of farmers and merchants who usually attend oar market. Wheat was in Lair average supply, and sold on much the same terms, perhaps a trifle in favour of the buyer. Bar was in little request; it sold at about same price as last week. PER QUARTER.. . PER QUARTS* . Wheat, red ...... 37s to 39s Peas oos to 490 Ditto, white 42s to 44s Oats oos to 00 Barley, malting ... 22s to 236 Rye Ditto, grinding 20s to 00s Malt ....... Beans AVERAGES FOR THE WEEK ENDING MARCH 30, 1850. Wheat Barley Oats ....... — „ —s. Od. Beans Peas ...... ...... 45 ~ 255. Od. HULL, APRIL 2. Messrs. Taylor and Bright's circular states—Th e weather remained exceedingly cold until the 31st insC 4 since when the temperature has been milder, and during the past night some rain has fallen. There has been more firmness in the trade generally during the last week, without, however, resulting in much business' in the almost total absence of speculation, retail sales are effected at about late rates. The following are O il comparative imports into Hull for the first three montla , of 1849 and 1850, which at the present may not b e without interest, and we beli eve we may sa f e l y say. the ; stocks of all descriptions of foreign grain in warehouse here were never less than at the present moment 1849—Wheat, 80,251 ; barley, 44,544 ; oats, 8,059,' b-ans, 11,458; peas, 7,754; tares, 5 . 674; linseed, 16,905 , 1850—Wheat, 17,397; barley, 8, 671; oats, 788; bean/t:, 5,749; pea , , 2,352; tares, 1,718 ; 11,668,. Decrease in import—Wheat, 62,854;" barley, 35,8731 , oats, 7,271 ; beans, 5,709 ; peas, 5,402 ; t ares, 3 ,95 6‘ linseed, 5,234: or about 120,000 qrs. less than in thr, corresponding three month s o f 18 4 9 . F or this dayli market our farmers b roug h t a b out an average supply of: wheat, which met a fair demand at the currency of Is 9l Tuesday: not much doing in toreign, landed parcel. being generally held above their saleable value, an d there is no good afloat. Rather snore inquiry for barley' but as regards malting sorts, it is entirely confined Selected runs of heavy Seal, and at low prices. Brant are only saleable on very low terms, and for peas there is no vent whatever. A fair sale of linseed at late ra tes , Linseed cakes go off at our currency. There are some good foreign on the market. Rape cakes are the taill lower. Of bones we are without arrivals. The following are the present prices of grain 8. S. Wheat, English, red 34 to 37 Do. white 3B 40 Dantzic and Ko- & ,Peas, white and yel. 22 .1„" Do. grey Linseed, Black Sea 45 -- 46 nigsberg ... 40 45 Pomeranian and , - Do. Petersbuth ... 38 —1 7 Do. Riga &Archng jh I . 38 —4" Hamburgh .... 34 38 1 Danish, Holstein, & Friesland 3O —36 i Russian and Odessa 30 35' Oats, English ..... 10 12 Do. Danish.... . 10 12 Do.Friesland l2 14 Do. Russ. & Odessa 12 14 Barley,malting lB 20 1 Do. grinding l7 18' Beans 2O 24 Do. foreign ...... 20 23 Do. Konigsberg 36 —39 Per ton; Lins cakes, Hull 611016112 s 6 14 I Do. fine foreign Do. inferior foreign 6l u! Rapeseed Rape cakes...Bos Od to 00s Od Tares, English .3os -- 005 I Do. foreign 20s —3" Guano 6/ to 101 55 Bones, do ...... 00s Od to F. 55 0,1 Rye meal 5115s LIVERPOOL, APRIL 2.—The supplies to hand of grain, flours and oatmeal are scanty, both from Ireland and coastwise. A large supply of Indian corn has, however, arrived, and a large importation of wheat from the continent. Wheat has abated somewhat of its firmness, an advance, however, of Id per 701 b being established on the rates of this day week. The demand is moderate. Flour is in good request, at 6d advance per sack and barrel. Oatmeal 31 per load dearer. An advance of Is Is per quarter has taken place on Indian corn. LEEDS, Aram 2.—We have had a larger supply of grain at market to-day than of late, in addition to which, many samples have been brought from vessels down the river, owing to the change of wind. The wheat trade is dull, and in most in stances is per quarter lower than last week. Barley, oats, a nd beans unaltered in value. CoRK, Aran, I.—Flour—First 12s Od to 13s Od ; extra 145; seconds, Ils to 14. ; households 9s 6d to 103 6d; thirds, 6s to 9s per cwt. Oatmeal 1050 d to 005; Indian meal 6s 9d to 7 8 ; w heat , . meal, 98 6d to 103 per cwt. Indian corn 125 s to 132 s 6d per ton- Bran 3/ 1756 d to 4/ Os per ton. Hay—Farmers 255 to 375; average 33s ; dealers 34s to 40s Od; average 37s per ton. Sti aw— Farmers 18s Od to 24s Od; average 20s; dealers 005 Od to 008 Odi average 005 Od per ton. Bread—Wheaten loaf 6d te 60; household loaf 5d to 50 per 41b. Fresh butter, 9d to 103 per lb. Eggs-3s 8d to 3s 10d per hundred. Coals--' Newport 15s; Lydney 178 ; Landore 158 ; Best Nash Culm 14s per ton. Tallow 40s Od to 00s per cwt. Whisky, 25 o. p., 5s 9d per imperial gallon. Meat —Beef 4d to 6d; mutton 5d to 6d; veal bd to ; pork 3id to aid ; bacon 6d to 7d ; sausages 5d per lb. Hops 131 Os per cwt. Bangor slates 3/ 2s 6d to 315 s per ton. Bark—Barbary 7i 5s to 8/ss; Valonia 14/ to 0/; French 71 ss; English 01 per ton. Fleece Wool 103 to 12s per stone. Hemp 321 to 00/ per ton. Fish— Scotch herrings 16s to 171; re d ditto 20s to 22. per barrel ; Newfoundland 9/ Os to 111 per ton. Timber—Memel, 85s per ton; deals, first quality, 185; second quality, 16s per 100. Hides—Market 14s to 2 Os; salted 15s to 21s per cwt ; calf skins 2id to lid per lb. Potatoes, white 8d to 10d; Minions 12d to 13d; Guano.-- Peruvian, 111 10s; Ichaboe, 9/ per ton; Tar—Archangels 195 per barrel. 13111TH.S. On the 26th ult., at Castlemorton, Worcestershire, the wife of the Rev. Richard Holmes, of a son. On the 28th ult., in Brunswick-square, Brighton, Lady Westphal, of a daughter. On the 30th ult., at Heath-mount, Hampstead, the lady d A. Ray, Esq., of a son. On the 30th ult., at Winchelsea, Sussex, the wife of the Rev. W. Clarke, of daughter. Oa the 30th ult., at Gladwins, Essex, the wife of A. 11. White, Esq., of a son. On the 31st ult., at Loughborough-park, Brixton, the wife of H.. 1. Rogers, sq., of a daughter. On the Ist inst., at Clapham park, the wife of P. Ban bury, Esq., of a son. On the Ist inst., at Brixton-hill, the wife of R. Brown, Esq., of a son. M4IRIED. On the Ist of February last, at Madeira, in the house of the British Consul, Alexander Oliveira, Esq., to Henrietta, daughter of Henry Veitch, Esq., her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at that island. On the ult., at St. George's, Bloomsbury, Daniel Elliott Hedger, Esq., of Lloyd-square, younger son of George Hedger, Esq., of Russell-square, to Emma, youngest daugh ter of S. Linford, Esq., of the Wandsworth-road. DIED. On the 27th ult., Simon Dunning, Esq., of Wiuckleigh► Devon, aged S 3. On the 29th nit , at Fulham, Mrs. Watson, aged 81. On the 29th ult.,aged 80, Mr. Robert Smith, of St. Paul's place, Walworth common. Oa the 29th ult., Alicia Maria, the wife of the Rev. T. F. llorsford, of Burlington-street, Bath. On the 20th lilt.. aged 49, Peter Mallord, jun., son of Peter Mal lord, Esq , of WoodfOrd, Essex. On the 31st ult., in Chancery-lane, Emily, eldest daughter of Mr. G. Read. Strand. On the 31st ult., Mr. George J. Abram, of Southampton row, Russell-Square At Torquay, on the 30th ult., aged 27, Henry Fuller, the youngest son of Fuller Farr, of Park-lane, Bath. London ; Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, et The Sun Office, N, 112, ' , frond, in the Pes,e,nct a the Slivey, In the county of Bildlossx, Wednesday, April 8, 1850, 112 4 GRI ineloae, Covert ramph Se. Bd., many t Read of Gut it m a lowing Bye Sn the mo, or mak Me and :All 1( London kr-film The foll the autl " Sir, esteem the cho noPle. 7oura.a " To This I g i Stg. su 11 . Ilid DR. L) STE] Just pu Doctor burgt of du This Alators fortanal sauce ai sequenc clan foi neously art, alik alone it Medical practice once, Nv diseases Public 53, Pate street, hall-stri the Ant Di ,147, 11e price On Con] enrsions Forests, Trips an -Music hest, E, A Vrs JI. pep VOUbly-e the yo n , bitters o laUon c SITE3i cf the p, Ile entlOU a nd rem hOG Le on 3 re , hoiee figure :t P h3IIIQC Cases, g yn ( , 0124) . Matters, to Azg.4 ¶ If J 1! vire, of any bottle spirit, ba.ry, goittr, nurser pam pl Rae lierba 31r!. of Avg Till's postag The reedy' chides ,fe in the lift the of T day TM co w You) yor Script] one trailer The o'elocl EYEI TUB