The Sun. — London, England, 1850-03-28 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, March 27. (Before Mr. Commissioner FONELAICQUE.) IN RE T. GILL. The bankrupt was a commission agent and beer house keeper, in Castle-street, Leicester-square, and Gerard-street, Soho. He had been seventeen years collector to Messrs. Thorne and Co., brewers, at a commission of 11i per cent. His debts are now about 1,2001., the assets available for the liquidation of which are less than 2001. Messrs. Thorne and C). are cre ditors for 8001. Mr. Cooke opposed ; Mr. Bagley supported the bankrupt's application for his certificate. It appeared that he left Messrs. Thorne and Hawes's house upon an attempt being made to recluse the rate of his commission, and transferred his services to Messrs. Wood, brewers. Whilst collector for Messrs. Wood he had not kept any cash or other proper books, hut had made memorandums from day to day upon pieces of piper, which had been destroyed. He had had a loss of about two hundred sovereigns by being thrown out of his gig, when the sovereigns flew about the streets. He was stunned by the fall, and had several witnesses present to prove that the event had occurred. The bankrupt was being examined respect ing the quality of the articles in which he had dealt, when Tne Learned COMMI3SIONER stopped the inquiry by jocosely remarking that he feared they were not as sembled to try the beer. Mr. B A.GLEY addressed the Court, and His HONOUR gave judgment. He said that against the conduct of the bankrupt as a collecting clerk there was no imputation. With respect to the man ner in which he had kept his accounts, although licensed victuallers and beer-sellers might habitually neglect to keep accounts, the fault was very much owing to the brewers and distillers. If they insisted upon the point, it would very generally be done. It was to the bankrupt's credit that he had kept a till book, although he had not kept a cash-book. A. cash book was the key of a bankrupt's accounts, and the importance of keeping one could not be too forcibly impressed upon traders. In no instance would he grant an immediate certificate where a cask-book had not been kept. The bankrupt's travelling expenses, 51. 53. per week, had been too large, but considering the peculiarity of his occupation, and the disburse ments incidental thereto, not so excessive as to call for any suspension of the certificate on that ground. He should suspend the certificate for the shortest period— three months from the date of the examination meeting, on the ground of imperfect books, and would repeat that when large houses brought these charges against small traders, of not keeping regular accounts, they should bear in mind that the fault very much rested with themselves. If they were to refuse credit un less books were thus kept, they would soon succeed in correcting the evil. Protection would, in this case, be granted ; but the certificate would be only of the third class. IN RE SAUNDERS. The bankrupt was an engineer at Brixton. Mr. WILT IN now applied that the trade assignee might be removed. Mr. DUNCAN, who appeared on behalf of the as signee, Mr. Hoskins, said he would offer no oppositicn to the proposal. His HoNouit made an order accordingly. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, March 27. (Before Mr. Commissioner LAW.) His Honour sat to-day to clear the paper of the arrears, and, on rising, his Court adjourned with the other ourts for the holidays. IN RE ISAI.kII HENRY COHEN. This insolvent, who was a tailor and china and glass dealer, in Blackmore-street, Drury-lane, was • opposed by Mr. Cooke for Messrs. Bower, Messrs. ' F ell, and Messrs. Todd. He was supported by Mr. Lucas. The complaint on the part of the creditors was, that the insolvent had obtained goods from them in a fraudulent manner, and had made away with the same. The case occupied the Court till a late hour on Tuesday in consequence of the evidence given. The debts of the insolvent, which were contracted in a short period, exceeded 5001., and the material question was the disposition of the goods obtained from the creditors. He had a shop in Blackmore street, and a warehouse in the neighbourhood, where he deposited goods, and which goods it was alleged had been made away with. The insolvent had lately been, as he alleged, a shopman to an earthenware dealer in the Lower Marsh, Lambeth. It was urged against the insolvent, that he had conducted himself in a most fraudulent manner, and for the protection of 4 ,- trade an exemplary judgment was prayed. Mr. Commissioner Law considered that it was a rt,ivery serious case of fraud. Both complaints had been established, namely, fraudulently getti❑g the goods, and then fraudulently making away with them. His Honour adjudged the insolvent for his fraudulent conduct to an inapiisnument for tv.-enty calendar months from the vesting order, which was made a month ago. The insolvent was removed to prison to undergo the judgment. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. )•• •NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 2;. CROWN CO URT.— (B-2fore Mr. Baron ALDERSON.) • EXTRAORDINARY CASE. The Rev. Aloorhouse James, perpetual curate Of Redford, in the parish of Leigh, in this county, was incliCred for having, on the 14th of August last, un lawfuliy refused to marry Henry Fisher and Ann Hardman, on the production of the certificate of the superintendent-registrar of the district that they had . given the requisite notices, and complied with the forms of the Act of Parliament in that behalf. The defendant, who had surrendered to his bail, and who sat near his counsel, pleaded Not Guilty. . Ur. it: nowles, Q.C., Attorney-General for the county Palatine, and Mr. Crompton prosecuted; and Mr. Bliss, Q.C., appeared for the defence. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in opening the case, said this was an indictment charging the defendant, a clergyman of the Church of England, with a misde meanour in refusing to solemnize a marriage between vvo.persons who had presented themselves to him for that purpose, and who had previously complied with , the, requirements of the Marriage Act (6 and 7 William IV., c. 85), and had obtained a certificate from the superintendent-registrar of the district in the • -place of banns. The case was one of some importance, • not on account of any special difficulties which it might involve, because he believed when the point was fairly looked at, it would not be found to involve any, but because he was informed that the defendant and other clergymen had conscientious scruples as to the line of duty which they were called on to follow ; and it was therefore desirable that those scruples should be settled by the right interpretation of the law, and the defendant and others would then, no doubt, act according to what was decided to be the law. Until 14 or 15 years age the mode in which Marriages were solemnized in this country was regu lated by an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of • 'George 11. (26th of George IL, c. 33), and under the . prOvislons of that Act all parties except Jews and Quaker's might not then, as now, be married accord ing to their own usages, but they were required to be married in some church or chapel either by banns or by licence. By special licence or dispensation parties might be harried in any place convenient. Some classes of Dissenters found this a grievance. They were not members of the Church of England, and :perhaps had no very great fondness for any of its forms, and they were anxious to be able to marry in their own way, in th e i r own c h ape l s , an d accord i ng to t h e forms oI their own churches ; and for the purpose of removing that glievance, and for other considerations, an Act of Parliament was. pasaed 14 or 15 years ago which introduced very great alterations indeed in the _ mode by which marriages were then, and may now be, celebrated, and at the same time an Act of Par liament was passed which provided for the better re gistration of marriages, births, and deaths. By the last-named Act a registrar, a deputy -registrar, and a superintendent-registrar were to be appointed, and for • the purpose of marrying in many cases the Legisla ture availed itself of this new machinery, and allowed • parties, if they chose, to be married before the super • intendant-registrar of the district. They might also he married in their own chapels on following the forms pointed out by the Act of Parliament. The old forms were, of course, preserved in the church, and parties might still be married by licence or banns in church, and many respectable Dissenters still pre ferred to be married in the church, in face of the church, and by a . clergymau of the Established Church ; and he should have thought that it would have been wise in any clergyman rather to foster than to stifle that feeling.; for he did think it was worthy of grave consideration for clergymen to en courage persons to go to church for any purpose, rather than to close the doors upon them and expel them. As the law now stood, if a person were minded not to be married by banns or licence, the mode of proceeding was this :—he was required to go to the superintendent-registrar of the district, and to give entice under his hand, accordin g to the form given in • the 'schedule of the Act of Parliament, in which he specified his condition in life, rank,' or profession, his age, dwelling. place, and length of residence in it, • and then came a very important requisition as re garded this case, that he should state the building, church or chapel, in which he wished the marriage •to be celebrated. This was entered in a book called " the marriage entry-book," and, after the expiration of twenty-one days, during which period this notice was hung up in the superintendent - registrar's-off i ce, and read at the meetings of the board of guardians of the poor, the superintendent-registrar was required to issue a certificate under his hand, which was also to be in another form given in the schedule of the sta tute, in which must be stated the rank, age, dwelling place) and building, church or chapel, in which the marriage was to take place. This certificate certi fied that the marriage was duly entered in the notice book, and that the requirements of the statute had been complied with. Then, by the statute the Ist Victoria, cap. 22, the issuing of this certificate was to stand in the stead of the publication of banns to all intents and purposes, and every clergyman was bound to solemnize such marriage after such notice and certificate as after the due pub lication of banns. He believed that there could be no doubt in the world that the intention of these Acts of Parliament taken alto gether was that the notice to the superintendent registrar and his certificate were to stand in all re spects in the place of the publication of banns, and that the clergyman was bound to marry parties who pre sented to him this certificate, just as he would have done before after the proper publication of the banns. That being so, he would now call attention to the facts of the case, as to which there was no dispute at all. On the 14th of May last a person of the name of Henry Fisher gave notice to the superintendent registrar of the Leigh district that he wished to marry Anne Hardman, and thereupon the superintendent registrar duly entered this notice in his book ; 21 days after that Fisher obtained from the superinten dent-registrar the certificate required by the Act of Parliament, and having got that he called on the de fendant, who is the officiating minister of the church of Sr. Triorteas, aelford, and gave notice to him that he wished to be married next morning. He (the Learned Counsel) was sorry to say that there was a very good reason why Fisher should not wish the marriage to be deferred, for the woman to whom he wished to be married was far advanced in pregnancy. It was desirable on all accounts, whatever the faults of the parents might have been, that the child, innocent as they must take it to be, should not have visited upon it the conse quences of their fault. The defendant inquired of Fisher if he had been baptised, to which he answered that he had. The defendant then inquired if he had been asked in church? Fisher said, " No, at the board of guardians." The defendant then asked if he had been confirmed ? Fisher said no, he had not, and then the defendant said he would have nothing to do with him, and that, as he had been asked at the board of guardians, the board of guardians might marry him. He (the Learned Counsel) was sorry that the defen dant should have treated such a subject with levity, for so only could he understand it, that this was meant as a joke; for nobody but the defendant, the Rev. Mr. James, could marry him, because the notice to the superintendent-registrar had been given for the marriage to be solemnized at the church of St. Tho mas, and he could only be married in that church by Mr. James. Fisher went away. On the evening of the same day he again called on Mr. James, and again expressed his wish to be married, and no doubt Mr. James then well knew the reason why. On the 19th of June Mr. Hayes, the superintendent-regis • trar, called on Mr. James and explained to him that all the proceedings had been regular; still the defend ant refused to marry them; and on the 23. of August Hayes, Fisher, the woman, Hardman, and a solicitor, went to the defendant, and formally requested that a day not later than the 14th of August, on which day the time the certificate was valid expired, should be fixed for the marriage to take place. The defendant then said to Fisher, " I will marry you when you have expressed a wish to be confirmed, and not other wise." This was a denial of the ceremony to him. The parties were not married, and to this day they were not married ; and, unfortunately, a child had been born with a stigma attached to its name entirely through what he must call the scruples of Mr. James to marry them. Taking, then, these to be the facts, he understood the refusal of the defendant was thus grounded—that according to the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer they would see that the rubric it the end of it admonished or recommended parties to partake of the holy communion at a " convenient" time, or as soon as they conveniently could ; and he believed the argument for the defendant would be, that inasmuch as a person not confirmed was not in a state to par take of the holy communion, Mr. James considered this declaration of the rubric as an injunction ad - dressed to him, and that it was his duty not to marry parties who were not in a state to become partakers of the holy communion. He believed that was the ground of the defence. He (the Learned Counsel) could not imagine how such a defence could contra vene the express directions of an Act of Parliament. But let them for one moment consider what the state of the world would have been if such an excuse as this had been held to be a reasonable excuse. If it were a good excuse now it would have b , en a good excuse before this Act of Parliament passed ; and only let them think what the state of things would have been if the Church had here tofore held amongst its officiating sons men with such scruples. How could a Dissenter have got married at all ? They were not confirmed. They were, therefore, in this respect in the same condition as Henry Fisher, and if Mr. James was right in his ex cuse to-day, then half the population of the country— much of its intelligence and of its respectability— never could have been married at all, because before this statute they could only be married in the church by priests in holy orders ; and if a clergyman had said, " You are a Dissenter, you have never been confirmed, you cannot partake of the holy commu nion, and I will, therefore, exclude you from the right of marriage," one-half the people of the country could not have been married. He need only mention this to show the absurdity—using that phrase without disrespect to men who acted from conscientious scruples—of such an excuse as this. Probably also Mr. James might set up this defence—" If I do not marry you you now can be married elsewhere ; you may be married in your own chapel, or in any building duly authorised ; or you may go to the superintendent-registrar's office to be married ;" and probably it might be said that Fisher might have taken this course. But he could not. His notice must express where he wished to be married, and he therefore could not be married at all elsewhere under that certificate, or without commencing de novo, and giving a fresh notice stating some other place in which he wished to be married. He would make no further observations on the case ; but he could not help thinking that it would be much more wise, on an occasion like the present, when the Church was agitated by many dis sensions both within and without, rather to throw open the portals of the Church than to close them, and to encourage parties to come to church for any purpose than to shut them out. That, however, was not the place to consider such a question, and he made the remark with great deference to those who had deeply considered the question, and he would now proceed to call his witnesses. When he had given his evidence it would become a question for his Lord ship, or fir some other tribunal, to set this question at rest, and to instruct Mr. James as to his duty ac cording to the law of the land, which he and every other subject was bound to obey. Mr. Haves, the superintendent-registrar of the district of Leigh, and clerk to the board of guardians for that district, stated that on the 14th of May he re ceived a notice of marriage from Henry Fisher. The notice (pursuant to the Act 6th and 7th of Wil liam IV.) was produced and read, describing the church in which the marriage was wished to be so lemnized as St. Thomas's Church, Bedford. This notice was entered in the marriage notice-book. That was the book kept under the .sth section of the Gth and 7th William IV., c. 85. His LORDSHIP—The Act of Parliament requires that the party must have resided more than seven dip in the district in which he gave the notice. It is not mentioned in the notice how long he had resided. The ATTORNRY^GENERAL—The notice WAS in the form given in the schedule of the Act. His LORDSHIP thought that was sufficient. The notice entered in the marriage notice-book was read at three weekly meetings of the board of guardians. hii LORD3HIP—Is that a public meeting? 3lty everybody go there? Witness—No. His LORDSHIP—How is a father to know when his child is going to marry ? Witness—The marriage notice-book is open to the public at all proper hours. llis LORDSHIP—Yes, that is if a father knows his child is going to marry—knows what is true—he ?nay go there ; but how is a father to know his child 15 going to marry ? Witness—l am not able to answer that question. his LORDSUIP—No, nor anybody else. The banns were published that all people should know. This is one of the evils of change. But go on. Witness—Henry Fisher had after that applied to him for a certificate, which he gave to him. (The certificate was put in and read, and was according to section 7 of the Act, and the form given in schedule B.) On the 19th of June he called on Air. James, the defendant, who is the officiating minister of St Thomas's Church, Bedford, in the Leigh district, and saw him. He told Mr. James his name and office, and then told him he had been in correspond ence with the Registrar-General in consequence of his refusing to marry Fisher and Hardman, and that the Registrar-General, as advised, did not consider the non-confirmation of the persons, or either of them, was any objection or legal impediment. He said he had seen Fisher before on the subject, and he declined to say anything in reply. Witness then said that Fisher had something to say. Mr. James, however, refused to hear Fisher, who was about to address him. Mr. James then retired and closed the door of his residence. On the 2 , 1 of August he again went to Mr. James's residence, accompanied by Henry Fisher, An ne Hardman, and Mr. Whitehead, a solicitor of Tinsley. They saw Mr. James, and Whitehead introduced the business, and wished that some arrangement could be made by which the par ties might be married under the certificate. Fisher produced the certificate, which Mr. James, the de fendant, said he supposed was all right according to law. Fisher then made a distinct and formal de- mand that the defendant should celebrate the mar riage on or before the day named in the certificate— the 14th of August, when it would expire, and Hard man made a similar demand. The defendant said, " I will marry him when he (Fisher) has expressed a desire to be confirmed." The parties made no reply. At witness's request they both repeated the demand. Mr. James then said, "I have given you my answer." Cross-examined by Mr. Buss.—Did not Mr. James refer them to the rubric of the Prayer-book as his reason ?—Not in my presence. Did he not say, "You will find my answer in the printed forms ?"—I am not aware of it. Mr. White head might have said, " We are aware of that." Mr. James allowed the certificate to be valid, but, notwithstanding, he refused to marry the parties. Mr. James had been minister seven years. Witness attended the Wesleyan chapel. He was present when the notice was read at the board of guardians, and read it immediately after the minutes of the previous meetings. Re-examined—My Learned Friend has thought it worth while to ask you if you attended the Wesleyan chapel ; did you once attend the church ?—I When was it you left?—About four years ago. His LORDSHIP—Is that material ?—fthink The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Why did you leave the Church? Witness—l have reasons, but w ould rather not express them. His Loensuie—Do let us try this case as if it were an action between John Thorn is and Peter Jackson. What can this inquiry have to do with the question ? Henry Fisher stated he lived at St. Thomas's crescent, Bedford. He was a stripper and grinder, and had lived there eleven years. Had known Anne Hardman two years. She worked in the same place as he. In May last he and Anne Hardman had agreed to be married. Previously to that she had lived at Tinsley, and before the 14th of May she had lived a•month in Bedford, at St. Thomas's-crescent. The notice produced was signed by him, and he gave it to Mr. Hayes on the 14th of May. The certificate produced he got from Mr. Hayes on the 12th of June. After he had got it he called on Mr. James, the defendant, the same night. He was not at home, but he saw him the night after. He told Mr. James that he was come to give him notice that he intended being married at St. Thomas's Church next morning. Mr. James asked him if he had been baptized. Wit ness answered "Yes." He asked witness what his name was, and he told him. He asked him if he had been asked at church. "Witness said "No." He asked him where he had been asked, and witness said at the board of guardians. He then asked him if he had been confirmed, and witness said `• No." He then said " He could have nothing at all to do with me." Wit ness asked for what reason. He told him he was not compelled to tell me his reason. Witness said, " Very well, I will go to the board of guardians and see what they say." He said "If people will be so foolish as to get asked at the board of guardians, I must go and let the board of guardians marry me." He saw him again, and he was again referred to the board of guardians. He afterwards went with Mr. Hayes, and also a fourth time, to see him, when Anne Hardman was with them, and demanded him to fix a time to marry them on or before the 14th of August, and Anne Hardman did the same. lie said he would marry them when witness had expressed a desire to be confirmed. Cross-examined—His father was living; his mother was dead. He used to go to church some time ago, for about twelve months. He did not go to Mr. James to learn his catechism. He never learnt the Church catechism. His LORDSHIP—How is this material P However, I will give you credit fur asking it with some motive material. Mr. Buss—My Lord, I think it is. Witness—His mother never went with him to Mr. James to learn the Church catechism. After the first notice, he gave another to the guardians on the day he should have been married, on the 14th of June, to be married at Tinsley Chapel—a Dissenting chapel. His father did not attend that chapel. He did not attend that chapel himself. He himself went to the Methodist chapel in Bedford. Tinsley Chapel is two miles off. His L3RDSHIP—Then why were you not married ? Witness—Because they wanted this case to be tried on, whether Mr. James would marry us or not. His LORDSHIP—Then you and your child are the victims of this case ? Witness—Yes, to be sure. His LORDSHIP—Then I think there is folly on both sides now. Anne Hardman, a good looking girl, very young, was sworn, but not examined. Cros.-examined—Her child was born on the 18th of October. She was not married yet. She had been confirmed about six years ago. His LORDBII/P-Why were you not married, my poor girl ? Are you under orders from anybody not to be married till this cause is tried ? Witness— Yes, till this is tried. Ills LORDSHIP—So then you are living in a state of sin, in order that this cause may be tried ? Are you living with the young man now ? Witness—Yes. His LORDSHIP—So they have kept you in a state of sin in order to try this cause. Very well ; if that is not a sin, I don't know what is. It is disgraceful. At the present day there is a determination to drive everything to extremities. Perhaps the young man won't marry you now. "Witness—Yes, he will. Henry Fisher was recalled, and, in answer to the Learned Counsel for the prosecution, said he was living with the girl, and had not marriffd her until this cause was tried, because of his ow❑ personal feeling in one sense, and because it was ordered he should not be married till this was settled. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Who ordered you? Witness—Why, I had warning from the registration• office. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Buss then addressed the jury for the defence. He said the case required more nerve than he pos sessed, not to feel embarrassed on rising to address them on such an occasion, for the subject was one which involved subjects strange to that Court, and which he felt himself neither able nor quite worthy to urge. The consequences of their verdict to the defendant, for his interests in this world, were most serious, for he believed the defendant would count their condemnation of his conduct as one of the greatest misfortunes of his life. The consequences were also important to the order of which he was a humble, a faithful, and an earnest member, to the Church itself, and tosociety at large, which the Church had been the means of reclaiming from barbarism, infidelity, or superstition. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to contend that the enforcement of the doctrines of the Church and of its strict discipline had never for these objects been more required than at the present day, when His LORDSHIP said he supposed there was no dis pute about the facts, and he should like to hear the legal objections raised. The Learned COUNSEL then, at great length and with much ingenuity and research, which our limits do not enable us to do justice to, proceeded to contend that the defendant had committed no legal offence ; that he was bound by the canons and the rubric ; and that if he were wrong his offence, if any, was cog nizable only by the ecclesiastical courts. By the ancient law of the Church the communion was re quired to be administered at the marriage ceremony ; and now it was by the rubric enjoined that "it is convenient that the new married persons shall receive the holy communion at the time of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage." This change had been made to meet the objections of the Puritans in Charles ll.'s reign. That requirement presupposed a certain degree of fitness in the parties to receive the communion, and it was imperative, under the canons, before a party received it, that he should be so far advanced in Church doctrine and discipline as to be fit to partake of it, which Fisher was not, never having been confirmed, and he evi dently having lived in a state of fornication. His LORDSHlP—Unfortunately in this case the ob jection taken by the defendant was only that one party had not been confirmed. He don't object to the parties having lived in fornication. He swallows the camel. Mr. Brass contended that. it was not too late for him now to take that objection. It might be that the defendant had refused to marry the parties for a bad reason when he could have urged a good one. His LORDSHIP—If the good reason had been as signed the parties might have amended their lives. Mr. Buss then contended that a clergyman was not bound by the statute to administer the solemn rights of the Church to persons who were not in a fit state, to persons of any or no creed. Otherwise lewd women might demand to be churched after giving birth to their bastards. His Loansuir—l do not see any reason why a woman may not thank God for her safe deliverance. Mr. Bid3s the❑ contended that this was an offence at common law. The certificate was put in the place of banns, and a clergyman was not bound to marry where the banns had been published, but was required first, by the 62nd canon, to see that the parents give their consent, if the parties were under age. He had a jueicial power conferred upon him, with his exer cise of which the law would not meddle ; and if he did wrong his error was only cognizable in the eccle siastical court. His LORDSHIP expressed himself to be with the Learned Counsel on that point. He, however, could not he 1p thinking that it was very unwise to raise these points either in one court or the other. The best way in such matters was to use good advice, and to exhor t men to do right. He - could not but ex press his utter disapprobation of persons continuing to live in sin for the purpose of raising such a question as this. It was shocking. Mr. Buss then: said he had taken the objections he was, instructed to take, but there were others which, as an advocate, he felt it his duty to take. He then o'njectea, that the defendant's refunl to marry was not sufficiently proved ; that the parties should have presented themselves at the proper hour, on the 14th of August, at the church to be married, as the defendant had until that time to marry them ; that the consent of the parents was not proved, as was re quired by the 62d canon ; and that it was not proved that the Church of St. Thomas, Bedford, was licensed for the performance of marriage, or that it was a parish church. The vicar, the Rev. James Irvine, was called by Mr. Knowles to prove this, and that gentleman, of his own knowledge, did not know, as he had never per formed marriage there. The churchyard had graves in it, and there was a font in the church. His LORDSHIP said these were evidences of a parish church. Mr. Bliss then objected, that the notice to the regi3tar was insufficiently set out in the indictment. Having taken these points, the Learned Counsel the❑ addressed the jury on the facts, and contended that it was duo to the members of the Church that their re ligious scruples should be respected as well as those of other •ec.:rians, and that it would be an infringement of civil and religious liberty to compel clergymen to celebrate one of the Church's most sacred rites to persons who were unfit to receive them, against their consciences, and against the canons by which they were bound. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in reply merely stated, that those who had instructed him had not been ac , tuated by any of those feelings which had drawn down his Lordship's censure. His Lohnsriir, in summing up, said he was quite sure that the Government of the country, whom the learned Attorney-General represented, would not be guilty of so unworthy a thing. Most of the objec ticns urged by the Learned C iunsel with great in genuity and talent appeared to him unfounded ; but they might turn out to be worthy of more attention than they then appeared to him to be on the case being heard elsewhere ; and he should reserve them. If now called on to decide whether the defendant were right in re fusing to marry, as at present advised, he should say he was wrong. He should, however, now advise the jury not to consider one of the parties not having been confirmed to be a good objection ; and his reason for thinking so was, that the universal practice of the Church had been not to take that objection at all ; and the practice of the Church was the best evidence of the rule of the Church. As at present advised, he was strongly of opinion that this was a matter solely of ecclesiastieal cognizance, and if he were to act on his opinion now he s h ou ld direct an acquittal, but if so he should deprive the parties of the opportunity of raising the question. In order therefore to raise the question he must act contrary to his opinion, and direct them to find the prisoner guilty, and if wrong be could be set right by a superior court. With re spect to the other objections, they were such as ought to be reserved, but he should confine them to those which the defendant took at the time he refused to marry. The legal objections raised he should also reserve. The jury then found the defendant Guilty, and he was bound over in his own recognizance to appear and receive judgment when called upon. His LORDSHIP then said that he could not suffi ciently express his utter abhorrence at the conduct of those, whoever they might be, who had prevented the two young people from being married for the purpose of trying this cause, and thereby made them to con tinue to live in sin. Robert IValmsley was charged with having, at Longridge, on the Ist November last, feloniously shot at Isabella Taylor, with intent to murder her. Mr. Segar and Mr. James conducted the prosecu tion ; Mr. Overend defended the prisoner. The circumstances of this case will be better under stood by detailing the evidence of the several wit nesses. The first witness called was the prosecutr;x. Isabella Taylor—l re3ided as servant with the Rev. Mr. Bache, at Longridge, last year. The prisoner had a small farm about two miles off. He is a mar ried man, and used to come to my master's house about once a fortnight to work about the garden, and when my master and mistress were from home he used to come to sleep to take care of the house. I was confined of a child in February, of which the prisoner is the father. Two days before the Ist of November I told the prisoner that I was in the family way, and that I was determined to go to Preston to he examined by a medical man, to see what really was the matter with me. Prisoner said, in reply, that he would not advise me to go to a doctor, as I should b 2 get ting both myself and him into a hobble. I said that if I found I was in the family way he (the prisoner) would have to pay for it ; to which he answered that there was no way to make him pay for it. The next day I saw the prisoner again a little before dinner, in the stable, and told him that I was going to Preston on the morrow. He looked at me from head to foot and smiled. I did not see him again. The prisoner knew what time Mr. and Mrs Bache drank tea. About six o'clock I took away the things, and went into the pantry with some bread and butter plates. I had a candle in my hand. Persons outside can see into the pantry from the road. After I had put some bread and butter plates on the shelf and was going to the pantry door, I was shot in the chin. A good many shots entered my face, and I heard the report of a gun. I ran to the dining. room door, and fell down. Mr. Bache was from home, but returned about nine o'clock, and at about eleven I told him of being in the family-way by the prisoner. Cross-examined—l seldom had leave out, and had no friends about. I told prisoner of my condition several times before I was shot. The Rev. W. C. Bache—l am incumbent of Long ridge. Isabella Taylor had lived with me a year and three months. I occasionally employed the prisoner as a gardener, and he took care of the house when I and my sister were absent from home. On the night of the Ist of November I returned home about nine o'clock, and found that Isabella was in bed, and had been shot. I was for an hour-and-a-halt trying to extract from her whether she could fix her suspicions upon any one, and at last she communicated to me her connexion with the prisoner, and the result of that connexion. The bottom of the pantry window is about four feet from the ground. The glass is plate glass of peculiar thickness. Owing to that and the position of the girl the shot was arrested and prevented from having a fatal result. Cross-examined — The prisoner is a married man with two children, and has always borne the hiaiest character. The policeman and myself both endea voured to obtain from the girl her suspicions. Willi am Durham, a police-officer—l heard the re port of the gun, and afterwards went to the house and found one hole in the pantry window, as if a charge of shot had gone through, Five fingers could be put through the hole, or an orange. The gun must have been fired close to the window. A 100 shots hadpenetrated a door on the opposite aide of the pantry. About half-past twelve at night I went to the prisoner's house, in company with Kenyon and Kay. There is a projection at the door. We all went up as quickly as possible. I stationed Kenyon to answer any question from the window. I went up and got as close to the door as possible. I knocked, and placed m yself so that I could not be seen from the window. In about five minutes the prisoner came to the window and said, " Who is there ?" and Kenyon said, " You had better come down stairs, I want to speak to you. , lie then went into the room and I heard him conversing with some one. He re e y on s said ` there ' 1 ; - "e s re turned to the window and said, "Is it thee, boy ? ' 1n and the n p r i sone r sa id, " Is a policeman said yes and told him to come down. I had remained all the time so that I could not be seen. Prisoner did not speak from his own bed-room window. He then came down, and I charged him with shooting Isabella Taylor. He said, " I'm innocent of that, thank God!" I asked him where his gun was. He handed me one down, and said, " This is it—l had it out this afternoon." I said, " Robert, there's another gun hanging up," and I took it down. Prisoner said, " That's my brother's gun." I said, " I shall take this too ;" and he said, " It's no use taking that, it does not belong to me." He was very much agitated, and let the candle drop out of his hands. I took him into custody, and as we were leaving he asked tne if she was dead. At the police station I found in his pockets some shot loose. Ken yon took up some of the shot, and said, " Robert, do you use this shot regular?" He said, " No, but these are a few I got from Tommy Fenton." He also had four percussion caps. On examining the guns, I found that the gun he said was his own had not been lately fired off, but the gun which he said was his brother's had; both guns were loaded. About an hour and a half after I apprehended him p r i soner called me to him at the police-station, and said it was strange that he s hould be suspected. I said, " Robert, the girl told me that she is in the family way by you, and that she had a conversation with you about it on Sunday." He said, " I never had any connexion with her in all my life, and never had a conversation with her." At Preston police-office he said he could clear himself; that he went to a sale at five o'clock, and returned h ,me, w h ere he remained half an hour or better, and then went to Hothersall- hall to collect some tithe- ren t s , but that seeing I,ome of the daughters play in g o utside the hall, and hearing one of them say, " Here's papa com i ng home in a Whitechapel," he didn't like going in— and that he arrived home at about half-past eight or nine o'clock. I said, " Robert, some one must have seen you." And he replied, " I don't think anybody did." Cross-examined—There was a sale by auction that day, as the prisoner stated. Robert Dew—l am a farmer at Hothersalleliall. I had been from home from the day of the occur rence, and returned home at nine o'clock. My chil dren had gone to bed. The prisoner collects church rates, but no tithe-rates. He is a churchwarden. I did come home in a Whitechapel, and passed by the prisoner's house. Cross-examined—l did owe church-rates at that time. Prisoner is churchwarden of Ilibchester. It, was a moonlight night. I don't know whether my children would have been out playing at seven o'cleck. Another witness was at a sale at Cawood. The prisoner was there, lie went away between five and six. He bad an old blue coat on. Richard Billington—The prisoner was not at the sale at Cawood at half-past five. I went to the pri soner's house at forty minutes Fist six o'clock. lie was not at home. I stayed till seven o'clock, and he had not come home. John Herbert—l am a blacksmith. I drew the shot from the guns. I cannot say that the shots taken from the pantry-door are the same size as those I drew from the gun, Thomas Dixon—l am a surgeon at 'Preston. Ex amined Isabella Taylor, her face was much swollen, and had thirty-three shot-marks. I extracted the shot, which I have lost. It corresponded with some shown me by the constable. Mr. OYEREND, in an able speech, urged upon the jury the fact of the evidence being purely circum stantial and unsatisfactory, and that the conduct of the prisoner was that of an innocent man. His LORDSHIP having summed up, The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. This case did not conclude till a late hour last night. OXFORD atitCCII I:—lleretbrd, March 26. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.) John Horne was put to the bar to answer to an in dictment which charged that he had been convicted of housebreaking, at the Maidstone quarter-sessions, on the 15th of October, in the third year of her Ma jesty's reign, 1839, and sentenced to transportation for the term of ten years, and that he afterwards, to wit, on the 19th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1847, at the parish of Ross, in the county of Here ford aforesaid, was at large, without any lawful ex cuse, within her Majesty's dominions, before the ex piration of the term for which he had been so ordered to he transported as aforesaid. Mr. Powell conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Cooke the defence. This was one of those cases where many would re joice that the strict letter of the law was defeated by any technicality. It appeared that the prisoner had been convicted of breaking into a dwelling-house in the day time, during the absence of the family, near Tun bridge Wells, in 1839. The law at the time did not permit a shorter sentence of transportation than ten years. He was sentenced to be transported for that period, and was taken to Sydney. There, in conse quence of his good conduct and his superior intelli gence, he was put into the engineers' department, made an overseer of a gang of twenty men, and sent down frequently in a diving-bell to blow up wrecks. On one of these occasions, after he had served six years of his sentence, be escaped to an American vessel and got to New York. There he worked for some time, and then came to London as a common seaman. He then worlirl for several months on the London and York Railway ; after that on the Hast ings and South Coast Railway; next on the North Staffordshire Railway; and then, after he had been two years and a half in England, went into Hereford shire, and having no money, and being unable to get employment, and having been three days without food, he went on the 19th November last, after the expiration of the ten years, to the house of the super intendent of the police at Ross, and that officer being from home, he waited for three hours till his return, and then surrendered himself, and was taken into custody as a vagrant, and in answer to questions put by the superintendent, gave the above account of himself. The magistrates, on hearing the case, directed their clerk to communicate with the Secretary of State, who replied that it was a fit case for prosecu tion, and directed an indictment to be preferred in the usual course. Before the trial had proceeded far, Mr. Cowin objected to the sufficiency of the in dictment, on the ground that it did not allege that the prisoner was feloniously at large before the expiration of this sentence. The statute provided that persons escaping before the expiration of their sentence should " suffer death, as in cases of felony." This clearly made the offence a felony, and therefore it should have been charged as a felony in the indictment by the use of the word "feloniously." Mr. POWELL, in support of the indictment, con tended that as the indictment charged the offence against which the statute provided in the very words of the statute, it was unnecessary to allege that the offence had been committed feloniously. The case differed from most other statutable felonies in this— that statutes relating to such offences declared speci fically that whoever committed them should be " guilty of felony ;" whereas there was no such pro vision in this statute ; and it was by no means clear that because the punishment was to be the same " as in cases of felony," the Legislature meant to decree that the offence of returning from transportation should be a felony. The Learned Counsel added, that in a case of this kind, he wished simply to dis charge his duty, and not to exceed it; and that he would, therefore, only ask his Lordship, if he had any serious doubt on the question, to reserve it for the decision of the Judges in the Court of Appeal for the consideration of such matters. His LORDSHIP, however, said that he was clearly of opinion that the statute, in enacting that parties so ofTerfding should "suffer death as in cases of felony," made the offence a felony, and he had so strong an opinion on this point that he would not re serve the question, as it might be drawn into a pre cedent and might encourage the introduction of great vagueness and uncertainty in criminal pleading. There were certain words which had been held ne cessary for ages to be used in indictments. He thought this one of those cases ; the word " fe loniously" ought to have been inserted, and as it was not inserted the indictment could not be sustained, and therefore he thought the prisoner ought to be acquitted. He was then ordered to be discharged; and some benevolent gentlemen in court commenced a subscrip tion for him, to which several members of the bar contributed. The omission of the word " feloniously" was a mere accident of the copying clerk in the indictment office, as the word was in the precedent laid before him. (Before Mr. Baron PLATT.) George Cullicott, aged 28, was indicted for felo niously forging and uttering a counterfeit bank note for 51., with intent to defraud Messrs. Bailey and Co., bankers of Abergavenny. There were other indict ments against the prisoner for similar offences. __ Mr. Huddlestone appeared for the prosecution. Tile prisoner was not defended by counsel. On Saturday, the 22d of December last, the pri soner went into the shop of Mr. Maclean, a tailor and draper at Hereford, and purchased a coat for 11. Bs., for which he tendered in payment a 51. note, purport ing to be of Messrs. Bailey's bank, and received in exchange for it the coat and the difference in money. The same evening he went to the shop of Mr. Hooper, a grocer, and Mr. Hickson, a grocer, at Hereford, at each of which he bought a pound of tea, and gave forged notes of the same bank in payment, and received the difference He also paid a 51. note the same evening to Mr. Gethen, a draper, for two handkerchiefs, but this note had been paid away, and was not identified. Mr. Maclean discovered that the note given to him was a forgery the next day, and gave information to the police and a minute de scription of the prisoner, in consequence of which, in the month of February following, he was sent for to Birmingham, where he identified the prisoner amongst ten or twelve others who were there being arraigned before the Recorder of that borough, and he afterwards identified the coat the prisoner wore when apprehended on another charge at Birmingham, as that which be bad sold to him at Hereford. The prisoner, being transmitted for trial to this place, was on his arrival immediately identified amongst other prisoners by Mr. Hooper, and by the wife of Mr. Hickson, and was further identified to-day by an as• sistant of Mr. Gethen, who sold him the handkerchiefs. For the defence, the prisoner called a witness, who swore that on the 22d of December the prisoner was with him at a watchmaker's shop, in Birmingham, the whole of the afternoon ; but the jury disbelieved him, and returned a verdict of Guilty, in consequence of which the other cases were not proceeded with. His LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to 15 years' transportation. Mr. HUDDLESTONE stated to the Court, after the sentence, that simultaneous utterings of forged notes of the same bank took place on the evening of the same day, the 22d December, at Newport, Usk, Rag land, Monmouth, Merthyr Tydvil, and Bristol. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. Rose Hunt, aged nineteen, was brought before Al derman Gibbs, on a charge of having attempted to commit self-destruction. It appeared that the unfortunate creature had been for four years living a wretched life of prostitution in the eastern parts of London. Her history is a very deplorable one, and presents a melancholy example of the way in which the streets of London are replenished with victims. Rose Hunt states, es the Rev. Mr. Cohen, the en lightened chaplain of Giltspur-Street Prison, observed to the Alderman, that she is the daughter of a person who once kept a respectable inn in a country town, but who, by various losses, has become so reduced as to become now dependent upon parochial relief. About four years ago, when only fifteen years of agP, the defendant met a young woman at a fair in Suffolk, who endeavoured to win her confidence, and after wards abused it for the very worst purpose. By means of this female she was introduced into a house of ill-fame, seduced, and eventually brought by her to London. She was taken to a low concert room in Tower-hill, and left to a course of prostitution amongst the lowest class of the water-side district. About nine months ago, as she wandered about one Sunday af7ernoon, she saw the door of a chapel open, and went in to rest. What she there heard of mercy for the vilest sinners made such an impression as to render her most unhsppv under the course of life she had been pursuing. At last existence became in tolerable, and she resolved to put an end to it. The poor unhappy girl said she had had frequent conversations with the chaplain since her lite was saved, and that she seriously lamented the horrible attempt she had made to get out of her misery by a deeper plunge. She informed the Alderman that the woman who caused her ruin was at present in the city of Norwich, pursuing the same course with other poor thoughtless girls. Alderman G1;133-1: have been told by the chap lain that you are truly penitent, and that you detest the life you have been leading. The defendant—l would prefer death at this in stant. Alderman GIBBS—Very well ; you shall be pro tected. I shall refer you to " The Ladies' Patronage Committee," with a view to your reception into the " Elizabeth Fry Refuge" for the present. I trust it will be stated in the newspapers that the wretch who was the cause of all this calamity is now at Norwich, engaged in the same dreadful traffic of seduction. GUILDHALL. Albert Merminod, a Frenchman, was placed at the bar before Sir Chapman Marshall, charged with stealing two bills, one for 1501. and the other for 1001., and the half of a 300/. Bank of England note, having been remanded on a fortner examination on the charge of forging the signatures of Messrs. Cahn and Co. The evidence already adduced proved the prisoner's having the bills in his possession, and attempting to get them changed at Messrs. Coutts and Co.'s bank on the 20th of March ; and on finding that they had been stopped, taking them to Messrs. Cahn and Co.'s in order to return them and induce Mr. Cahn to pay his expenses from Paris to London and back. When the prisoner was taken the half of a 300/. note was found on him, in a letter which Mr. Cahn proved was intended for him, as he had already received another letter containing the corresponding half of the note, by the same post, as that in the prisoner's possession. Toe priso:er was now committed to take his trial at the Old Bailey on the charge of forgery. The charge of robbery fell to the ground in consequence of it not having taken place within the jurisdiction of the English courts. Application was made to the Alderman for a sum mons against the brokers of the Oriental emigrant ship, to recover 20L., being the amount of two deposits of 10/. each for passages out to Australia. It appeared from the statement made before the Alderman, that the applicants had paid their deposits for a passage to Australia in the ship Oriental, and that the original charterer had simce thought fit to transfer all passengers to the Tory—a vessel not more than half the size and tonnage of the Oriental, the convenience, comforts, and capabilities of the Tory being far inferior. The applicants in consequence hai endeavoured to obtain an interview with the brokers, but they were nowhere to be found, and on going to the Tory they were informed that unless they chose to go by that vessel they would lose their deposits, as the brokers of the Oriental were hank. rupts. According to the 32d clause of the Passengers' Act, it appeared that the original charterer may transfer passengers to any vessel he may think proper, but that it must be "equally eligible," which was not the case with the ship Tory. They said application was made as much with the view of cautioning the public against similar impositions for the future, as of obtaining the deposits that had been paid. MARLBOROUGH•STREET Joseph Brooks and Ann Caddick were brought before Mr. Hardwick for final examination, charged with having been concerned in breaking into and entering the dwelling-house, No. 8, Leicester-street, Leicester-square, and stealing therefrom pistols and other property, valued at upwards of 2001., belonging to Mr. Charles Baylis Uther. The prisoners were fully committed. Mr. Reuben Amiss, tailor, Conduit-street, attended on an adjourned charge of assault, preferred against him by an elderly gentleman of fit-tune named Cun nington, residing in Kentish-town. The evidence, which on the former and present oc casion was very lengthy, was to this effect :—The complainant being desirous of seeing his nephew about money matters, called in Conduit-street, and spoke to the defendant, who was, as he believed, in partnership with his nephew. He remained in the shop some time, and some altercation having arisen with the defendant he was desired to leave the shop. He was seized by the arm and turned round by the defendant, who, as alleged, passed a handkerchief wet with something that smelt like putrid meat, over his face twice, and then with a forcible push he was turned into the street. He had not walked many yards before his eyes and nose pro fusely discharged—he staggered and became giddy, and almost unconscious. He reached home with dif ficulty by the kindness of a friend, and when he got home he became worse. In two or three days the symptoms became alarming; he felt as if be had been salivated—he lost taste and smell, and the skin about the mouth became sore and peeled off. He partially lost his senses, and on the sixth day he sent for ha usual medical attendant, and had been under his care ever since. Believing that his illness had been occasioned by some sort of poison on the handker chief passed over his face, he had taken out a sum mons against the defendant. The defendant denied, in the strongest terms, having used a handkerchief to the complainant. He had obliged him to leave his shop, but had used no more than necessary fore. A witness was now called, who saw the whole affair. The complainant was put out of the shop with out improper violence, and his face not touched by the defendant with any handkerchief. Mr. Norman, surgeon, of Duchess-street, never had heard of an agent that would produce the effects described by the complainant; he considered the effects might have resulted from cold, combined with great excitement and irritation. Mr. Cunnington, jun., stated that he was not in partnership with the defendant. Mr. HARDWICK said, except the singular circum stance of the alleged application of the handkerchief, there was nothing particular in the case. The com plainant had gone to the defendant's shop to see his nephew, a squabble had occurred, and the complain • ant was turned out of the shop. The complainant said violence was used, but that had been negatived by the witnesses. Then carne the allegation of the application of the handkerchief, and the subsequent effects from it. That would be a very serious charge if it was substantiated. Now this charge was either a fact, a hallucination, or a malicious assertion. With respect to the fact, a witness who was in the shop all the time saw nothing of the handkerchief. There was no known agent which would produce the effects de scribed, and there was no motive for the act on the part of the defendant. These circumstances all operated against the fact. He did not for a moment believe the charge was a malicious assertion ; and then came the question of hallucination. Taking the circum stances of the complainant's general enfeebled state of health, and the excitement consequent on the alterca tion with the defendant, in common with the medical evidence, that the symptoms might be produced by a severe attack of cold, he was hound to believe that the complainant had laboured under a delusion, and that no handkerchief charged with any irritating fluid had been used. He could not carry the case any further, and as he must attribute the effects described by the complainant to excitement and delusion, he should dismiss the summons, leaving it to the complainant to indict the defendant if he thought fit. MARYLEBONE. William Gulliver, aged 17, was charged with having embezzled various sums of money received by him for and on account of his ma=ter, Mr. Willgoss, a stationer and news-agent, 38, High-street, Portland Town. _ Evidence was gone into which dearly established the guilt of the prisoner, who, upon two charges, was committed for trial. WORSHIP-STREET. EXTRAORDINARY INV;STILTION—A young man of gentlemanly appearance, named William Langford Jenkins, who was stated to be an articled clerk to a solicitor, and a middle-aged man, named Charles Pound, surrendered to their bail for further examina tion before Mr. Arnold, charged with obtaining, under false and fraudulent representations, a sum of 8001. in cash and bills of exchange from Mr. William Newman, a colour manufacture r, in Great Curt street, loxton. Mr. Ballantine, instructed by Mr. Vann, appeared to conduct the prosecution ; Mr. Victor Hutchinson attended on behalf of Jenkins ; and Mr. Hawking, the barrister, with Mr. Games, the solicitor, on the part of the other defendant, Pound. From the statement of Mr. Ballantine, supported by the evidence of the prosecutor and his son, it ap peared that, about the end of December last, the de fendant Pound called at Mr. Newman's house, accom. panied by a nephew of the latter, who introdu ce d pr him as his solicitor, and during the intervie w duced a bill of exchange f or 4 51. 9 5 ., drawn by y Pound, and accepted by Jenkins, which he fe reques. to _h a vecashed,representi ng t h e acceptor to b e a- young m an who was about t o come i nto possess i on of a large fortune in a few mo n th s , an d i n corroboration of that statement he prod uce d a wr i tten document purporting to the will of Jenkin' w s u h r i p f o a h Ve n r g , to be a copy an iromaster a t D u d ley, under of 20,000/. wou ld b e pa id t o him on e his bequest attaining hi s ma j or i ty. As a further, voucher for the truth of his asser ti ons h e stated t h at the testator had l long banked w ith Willi ams, D eacon, and Co., upon whom the bill was ren d ere d paya bl e , and who enter tained such a hi g h es t eem f or t h e f am il y that they had recently a s i m il ar bill d rawn b y Jenkins, although he was a m i nor . O n t h e f a i t h o f t h ese representations he at onc e di sco unted the bid, and ab ou t a wet n k s afterwards was introduced to Jenkins at the house of Boon I, who advated, in the former's presence, to the , specific amount of the legac- : ,7 left him under his father's will, to the accuracy of which the first-named defendant tacitly assented. Jenkins subsequently called alone at his house, and on the occasion of his first visit induced him to advance him 2001. for the liquiciltion of sundry bills for wine, jewellery, a plawton, &c., which had been supplied to him by various tradesmen, and afterwards obtained at different interviews other sums in bills and cash, amounting in the whole to a trifle short of 8001. These he was solely induced to advance upon the assumption of the will produced by Pound being genuine; but circumstances having occurred to excite suspicion, he prosecuted minute inquiries, • which resulted in the discovery that Jenkins would only be entitled to a house at Brighton and about 3001. in the hands of the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, where the estate was under .litigation, Jenkins being one of the plaintiffs, and which sum would probably be all swallowed up in expenses; and it having been further ascertained that Pound was not only not an attorney, hut had no justifiable pretensions to such a character, instructions were given to the • police, and both defendants were thereupon taken into custody. An office copy'of the will of the defendant Jenkins's father was produced by Mr. Vann, and read by Mr. Hurlstone, the second clerk, from which it appeared that a mere general disposition of the property was made in favour of Jenkins, but the amount was not specified, and it contained no clause for any such sum as 20,0001. Mr. 0. Turner, managing Chancery clerk in the office of Messrs. Palmer, France, and Palmer, solici tors for the executors appointed under the will, was then called, and produced various documents and ac counts from the Accountant General's-office, to prove the amount of money to which. Jenkins would be en• titled on the final winding up of the affairs, which had now been effected, but their reception as evidence was objected to by Mr. Hawkins, and was accordingly disallowed. Mr. Richard Almond, a clerk from Messrs. Wil liams, Deacon, and Co.'s, proved that no person of the name of William Jenkins had kept an account with their firm since 1835, and that, upon searching their books for the months of October and November last, he found no account of bills discounted or cashed for William Langford Jenkins during that period. Mr. Hawkins severely contested numerous points in the evidence affecting Pound, and addressed the magistrate upon the facts of the case, which, as eli cited in the testimony of the prosecutor and his son / he contended no jury would convict upon; and Mr. Hutchinson, on behalf of Jenkins, submitted that no case whatever had been made out against his client, who was not proved to be at all cognizant of the alleged false pretence, and was not even present when the document purporting to be a copy of the will was produced by Pound. The Learned Gentle man cited numerous decisions in support of his view cf the law as affecting his client, but the magistrate did not consider them strictly applicable to the pre sent case, and Mr. Bdllantine having requested a remand to enable him to produce the probate of the will and other formal documentary evidence, Mr. ARNOLD expressed his concurrence, and the fur• ther hearing was adjourned till that day week, the defendants being liberated upon the same amount of bail as upon the previous occasion, which was, Pound himself in 2.0001., and two sureties of 1,0001. each ; and two sureties in the same amount for the defendant Jenkins, who, being a minor, was himself bound over for his future appearance on pain of imprisonment. The case, which occupied several hours, excited great interest, and the court was inconveniently crowded throughout the proceedings. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. ----- LIVERPOOL, MARCH 26.—There has been a good attend' ance at market, and a better tone in the trade generally. Wheat has been sold to a fair extent at the full terms- of last week. Flour has moved off more freely, and must be quoted the turn dearer. Beans, peas, malt, and barley, dull, but withodt change in quotations. Indian corn has been in good request at rather better prices. LEEDS, MARCH 26.—Our arrivals of grain are small. The sale fur wheat is nit extensive, and prices do not vary !rout- Friday's rates. Barley steady. Beans, oats, and other articles , in limited demand, and no material alteration in value. NEWCASTLE CORN MARKET, MARCH 26. Owing to the continuance of contrary winds, the. arrivals were moat trifling; nevertheless, the trade continuei heavy, and no improvement on the prices of Saturday was obtainable. The outside price for best Norfolk wheat was 40s; and for finest barley 255. Oats were somewhat better to sell, but were not dearer. Flour was not so freely offered, and 'good household brought more readily 27s per sack. In other articles no change. ' NEWCASTLE CATTLE MARKET, MARCH 26.—The supply of beasts was large. The trade was exceedingly dull; at lower prices, and a great number remained unsold. The trade in sheep was sluggish, and prices looked downward. Beasts 910. sheep 3,800. Beef, 3s Od to 5s 3d per stone; mutton, 54 to bid per lb. EDINBURGH MEAL MARKET, MARCH 26.—There were the meal market to-day 33 sacks oatmeal, each weighing 2801bs. imperial, whereof 17 sold thus : 4 at 11 5s Od, 11 at 114 s 6d. and 2 at 11 4s Od ; average price of the whole 11 4a 6d 8-I2ths. 4 sacks flour, whereof 2 sold at 275, and 2at 25*. 12 sacks pot-barley, whereof 11 sold thus :—.l at 11 5s Od, 1 at 1/ 4s, 1 at 1 / 3 5 Od, and 8 at 1/ is 6d. EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW MARKET, MARCH Oat straw, from 7s Od to 85 Od per kemple of 16 stones trop; wheat ditto, 9s Od to 9s 6d; barley ditto, 6s 6d to 7s 6de Hay, from 9d to lld per stone. DALKEITH MEAL MARKET, MARCH 25.—There were 102 sacks oatmeal and 4 of potbarley at this day's market; sales ready. Top price of oatmeal 24s 6d; barleymeal, nate is market. Oatmeal, per sack, of 280 lbs. imperial .. .. Barleymeal, per ditto Peasemeal Flour ... Pot barley ... First Second ... 245 6d 23s 6d ... —s Od —a Od. ... —a Od —a Od ... —5 Od. —a Od 223 Od —s Od Third 223 Od —a Od —s ad —1- Od — 4 Od COAL MARE' Bate's West Hartley 15s Od Uarr's Hartley Hedley's Hartley New Tanfield l3s fid Ord's Redheugh Ravensworth'sW.Hart 15s Od Canfield Moor West Hartley West Wylam Wylam Wall's End, &c Acorn Close Brown's.. Bewicke and Co. Buraton Killingworth 155 6d Hebburn lss Od Hilda 153 3d Northumberland Original Gibson Percy Eden Main......... Bell Belmont l6s 9d. T.— YATERDAY. i Braddyll H etton Elaswell., l7B 9d Jonassolins Lambton Lumley • 1 65 041 Russell's Hatton Caradoc ..... fielloe 173 uu, South Hartlepool Thornley Whitworth 143 3 , 1 Adelaide Tees Seymour Tees St. Helen's Tees „ lss 9° Birchg. Graigola Cowpen Hartley Hartley ......... ..... ,Newport Steam Snapethorpe l4l 9 ', ,Sidney's Hartley Ships at market, 94. EXTRAORDINARY SWARM OF BEST NEAR LEI N. A few days ago a hive of bees belonging to Mr. Harwood' master of the Culcheth workhouse, swarmed, and after about for some time they knit upon the head and shoulder° t of a young man named if instanley, who was standing *W u ,: 109 yards from the hive. He walked about forty yards great fear, when his mother requested him to take off his NIP as quietly as possible, and lay it upon the ground. The be!! immediately began to leave his cap and person, and kW; upon an adjoining tree. He was thus fortunately rescue,' from his situation. —Manchester Courier. CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAlLWAY.—Traffic fot the ;week ended March 24, 1850 : —C. and H. Main 1,2751. 7s. 2d.; Mold, 88/. 18s. 10d.; Steam-boats, 07 " 58. Od. ; To: al, 1,453/. 11a. Od. [ADVERTISEMENT.]— Holloway's Pills an sonl A b . able Remedy for the Cure of Liver Complaints and Digestion.-51r. Wilson, a gentleman lately returned front Bengal, where he had been employed for several, years i n the Hon. East India Company's service, called at Professor got, loway's establishment a few days ago to state the benefit he bol, derived from taking thes e - Un p ara ll e l e d p ill s , h av i n g suffere d from liver complaint for years , ' with a digestion so impair"' that for months he could not make use of any solid feed; o ther remedies seemed to have no effect upon the disorder, but 110 1 : 1 loway's Pills acted so wonderfully in cleansing the liver an d strengthening the digestive organs that he is now quite re . ' stored to health. Sold by all Druggists. and at Professor Hal' loway's Xstablishment, 244, Strand, London. .000 BIETH3. On the 22d inst., at Addington Rectory, near Maidstone , the wife of the Rev. G. R. Paalson, of a son. _ On the 23d inst., at Dagangworth, Gloucestershire, wife of J. P. Haine, Esq., of a son. At Bath, on the 23d inst., Mrs. Alexander P. McEwen, of a daughter. On the 24th inst., at Gloucester-house, Kew, Sanay, 111r1, L. Neumegen, of a son. On the 25th inst., at the rectory, North Wootton, Lynn, the wife of the Rev. W. W. Clarke, of a son. On the 25th kat., in Camberwell-grove, the wife of CIPt . Tucker, of a son. At Marlborough-place, St. John's-wood, on the 25th in it. ' the wife of J. M. A' arr, Esq., of a daughter. On the 25th i ns t., at C onnaught-terrace, Hyde-par k. Oil wife of F. Palmer, Esq, of a son. On the 23d inst., Mrs. William Rutty, of Woburn-0 0. , Russell -square, of a daughter. D. At St. Mark' s , Kennin MARRIE ton, on the 23d inst., Augus t° John Ge orge , e ld est son of George Beste, Esq., of Park crescent, S ockwell, to E g l a ,ti ne Antoinette, only daughter of Francis Dupouy Lecave, Esq. DIED On the 20'h inst., at Berth, near Ruthin, Thomas Llort Fletcher, Esq., many years Major of the Royal Flint Militia. On the 2 1 st inst., at New-terrace, Camberwell, Mrs, Ana Strutt, fcrmerly of Farningham, Kent. aged 94. On the 24d at Little Plunsstead-hall, Norfolk, area 75, Sophia, widow of the late Philip Stephens, Esq., Admira l of the Red Squadron. On the 23d inet. ' in London, Colonel A Campbell , C .ll ' and K.[l., of the 9th ( Queen's Royal) Lancers. On he • ,, Ith inst., in Upper Grosvenor-street, aged 81, the relict of Richard Curran. Esq. On the 2 nth inst., at Fareham, Hants, aged 7 f, Eliza beth Holasworth, the wife of J. Paddon, Esq. On the 25th inst., at Walthametow, Essex, John Foulgers Esq., aged 68. On the 25th inst., in Weymouth-street, London. aged 0 4 0 Maria. widow of W. Bushby, Esq., late of Kirkinichaels Dumfries-shire. On the 26th inst., at Beaufoy-terrace, Maida-vale, Mn.l Stinten, aged 80. On the 26th inst., in the Albany, Vice-Admiral the lien• Donald Hugh Mackay. On the 26th inst., Henry F. Holt, Esq., of Great College' street, Westminster, aged 67. Tanadon; Printed and Published by MIIRDO TOIJII 1 ci •• • 112. -it Printer. at Tim Asp Moe. N `tread, in erecinci et the bitvoy, In the 0011011 M'aleatizi Thursday, March 28, 1850. THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 28, 1850, ..,- ~..