The Express.
London, England, 1852-04-19 00:00:00

RaU3 intelligence.


EQUITY
sarong tux Loam femme es Yeast.
I.:SMALL v. Winton.
This was en appeal from a decision of his Hamm the
Master of the Rolls refusing an ceder for an interim insane-
tied to restrain the defendant, Mr. Jamie Buck Wilson,
tram infringing the patent of the plaintiff, Mr. Robert
Marling Newell, dated in 1810, fee improvements in the
Meaufecture of rums of untwisted wire. The Master of
II» Rolls considered the cue to be one in which the title of
tbs plaintiff should be established by the result of an action
anneflt-fore the mistime* of this court by it...junction could
ba Abided to the plaintiff ; and, although the grout
d is plaintiff's patent was dated so far
bark
ge HMO, and had since that time been sue-
giethally asserted as a valid patent in several proceedings,
both at law and in equity', slimiest parties alleged to be in-
fringing the NNW*, the Muter of the Rolls refused to grant
an interim injunction until the trial of an action to be
brought by the plaintiff. The question was whether this
interim imunetioa should be granted or not. The argu-
ment soon the appeal was opened by Mr. Bethel!, Mr.
Respell, and Hr. Cairns, for the plaintiff, on the 31st
ultimo ; and in the report of the ease in the
/May Noes of the Ist of April it will be seen
that at the eoneltedon of Sir Alexander Cockburn's
address for the defendant an arrengement was agreed upon
between the parties, by which the defendant undertook to
obtain two solvent and substantial sureties that, in ease
matters should be allowed to stand in their present position
till the 20th April, when an action wss to be brought, the
defendant, whose so'vencv was distrusted, should perform
and pay whatever the decree of the court might ultimately
direct. The motion was directed to stand over in the
meantime. The sureties not being forthcoming within the
period agreed upon,
Mr. Selwyn now resumed the argument for the defend-
ant against the motion. Ile contended that the evidence
failed to establish tie novelty of the patent at the time it
was granted, or that it had been all along in the emissive
enjoyment rat the plaintiff.
Their lordships held that the successful assertion by the
plaintiff of his right under the patent in the various pro-
ceedings he had taken, both at law and in equity, to sup-
=coupled with the other circumstances shown in en.
was sttlaciaat to establish a prima fade ease of ex-
cise*" adayassas by the plaintiff, and to bring the cam
within the ride laid down by Lord Eldon in " Ilarmer v.
Playas," sad "Thompson v. Hill," in Vesey's Reports,
which rule was to the effect that whet* exclusive enjoyment
of a patent for a long period by a patentee has either been
acquiesced in by the public, or been successfully maintained
spinet them, that is a sufficient prima facie ease of title to
induce the court to interfere by interim injunction, where a
proceeding at law is directed for the purpose of establishing
the title. An interim injunction would, therefore, be
granted in the terms of the notice of motion, with an un- '
dertaking by the plaintiff to speed in procuring the trial of
the action.
EVANS r. THR NORFOLK ESTUARY CONTANY.
The argument in this part heard ease was concluded. It
will be remembered that the object of the appeal motion is
to restrain the defendants from carrying on their drainage
and embankment operations in a manner alleged to be dc-
ti imental Iv the navigation of the river Ouse and the bar-
boar of Lynn.
Their lordships said, they observed that by the provision
of the act of parliament, incerponding the company rime*.
vented by the d,f. ndanu, dimes* se ter the mode of car-
rying on their works were, in the Ant lunatic*, to be re-
fined to a tribunal to consist of three engineers, of
alma sue was to be appointed by the caramimioners of the
4384% geed; a second by the iserparatitta of LTan, and a
**defendants ; and in case the decision of the
eggilitinge appointed should not be unanimous, then the
=was to lie submitted by way of appeal for the de-
the Lords of Admiralty`. Theis lordships were of
aphiaa that they had no jurisdiction to entertain the wee
lien until the mode of trial pointed out by the stateililleil
been tried and failed. They could only act in ass tin
Lords of the Admiralty should refuse to exercise the**
diction conferred upon them by the statute. The setae.
was t'lco directed to Maud over, in order that the trial of
the question might be proceeded with in the way pointed
out by the waste.

COURT OF QUREN'S BENCH.--BATuatiAy.
serum. u BA.m.—Baron LAID Riatrf.
MAW, MIL Jcsnrx taut.D Ma. Jrmat Caosirmi.
Tat QUERN O. ON Da. ACHILL!.
- •

Sir A. E. Cockburn applied to have this ease entered in
the general list of causes fey trial at the sittings after the
present term. The court would remember that this wee an
information for a libel filed against the defend.nt by 1)r.
Achilli, and it embraced transactions spread over many
years. The number of %intern would, therefore, be very
considerable, many of whom had been summoned from
Italy, and were anxious to return. They had come over
in the expect►tion that the case wouldbe tried at the sittings
after last te-m. _ _

Lord Campbell—lt wu not entered. It was not in the
Wt. _ _ . • " •• •

Sir A.B. Cockburn admitted that it was not ; and he did
not impute that as a fault to any one ; but the result was
the same to the witnesses. Ile applied on behalf of the de-
fendant, but with the full concurrence of the prosecutor. As
this was a special jury cause it could not be tried except by
order of the court earlier than the month of Jens; the wit-
nesms were unwilling to stay until that period ; and if they
wore allowed to go house, be feared the parties would never
be able to get them back again. Under these circumstances
he applied for the extraordinary interference of the court.
A long discussion ensued as to the power of the court to
interfere in the way sought for; ultimately,
Lord Campbell said that the ease might be entered in
the list. Sir A. Cockburn could essamiusicate:with the
other side; and if he found that he could undertake that
the cam would not occupy
.more than two days, he (Lord
Campbell) would, under the special cirministenoes, take
it; but it that undertaking could not be given, it must fol-
low the ordinary course, as the court emiM not sacrifice the
interests of the other suitors.

BAIL COURT.--BXtUaDST.
SUMS Ml. JUITICE CAMMICKIS .4.1> • OPINION 317111%
HAMMON f. Mom—Faux= leave.
This was a hired Lone, brought to try the right to cer-
tain turnitare in Vera Lodge, Brampton. The impiety
had belonged to a Mr. Howard, the heir to the earldom end
estates of Lord Wicklow. lie had given a warrant of at-
torney to the defendant, who was a cigar dealer, for 1601.,
and he put in an execution, when he was met by en wily,
went of the property to the plaintiff, Henry Harrison, a
pawnbroker, in Werdour street, Soho, for an alleged con-
sidenfisa of 2,901. The *idler then went before the
Judge. who dreamt this hem
- Mr. Bushey sad maker barna eseasel appeared for
the *lade; and Bk. Junes, Mr. Ihnettine, and Mr. Bar-
ton for the decedent.
The cue will be best nallarteed Om dee 'videos*, whisk
we give in detail.
Henry Harrison—l am the ~IL On the 11111 of Au-
gust Inn 1 discounted seas Mlle ad eseitearb sae draws
30th of June, 1851, for MOM. a *MI 11111111011111, by C=e:
eepted by Howard,lsiersel ley OlinteXedleyolail
and Dobrie. Another bin he 560 L, MI et Jay. 1861,
drawn by Clarke sad essepla by JIMA* lerineed by
Clarke, Keeley,
_end __alas. I diesemeal Ilea he
Keeley sad Chita I Maw Mr. Heemel, abe h ant
heir to the earldom of Whitlow. I bad a mass of at-
torney foe the 800 E whet Howard. I gave he hille to sly
eat=Henke= sad Dottie. I disowned gra by a
91001. leveed nether desk for 1144eur gat eels
tor 8:4.8,Vat alit., a desk kWh 14e., and is granatity et
Ink sad weleseapkiee it lif., 41.tapitila pot a
shook ea r.l`itt of the Oulabilleffiet.ortide I halesksia
of Make a few days Whew These bib haw ass ham
pad. Oa the Ist of fielemehee I bad era appanage helm
Clarke sad Keeley rents
are set Is Mani ea the
bills foe throe weeks. -I
leek the Lotter la my
sad Ist the matter I. lair Yale, I them het i=
ties he seeelser kik Oa the Ildb it Nevembee I woe ap-
plied% tar smother &haw
Creeeiresmined—l ern me balsa se pawnbroker end
eilesamith at 96,
_Warleurareet, Sobs.l don't dc
mash. Denim haat Lass Chas ; he is a Me.
eiewifee. IMa diesseatel largsly en Mr. Clash
Bees es Dente& Vas, to Devapesa. Dane set sees Ilm
Ike fa menthe. Wesley h ea ermiseatiaral implement
meter is o:fora-street. He is a MIL ellies=
Choke's dither-in-taw. He veal=
The wawa of attorney is darned IN* J=ll.ll.filereakarair
abate Shelia I did not hare* up eteressys is Mayen
the werteat of attorney, ad I des% halm low it ease to
be prepared. 1 hod so other esearity. I have act a se-
Canty he 16,0001., butsy attorneys Iwo it. They had it
as Se 10th of Anat. I had suite no other ad-
verse' bet the two slams. The semerity was takes for Mr.
Chain I have no lama In it, bat I believe lus meting
es tiessese he Clerks's sitlieres. I ma not on intimate
terms bath him, and have easy bees ONO is his home.
This heathen was at Vero Lodge, Hampton. It was
Heemerie furniture. I leak know that it Wail Cheeke'll/4
bat I Misheard that M sae Chetee's ar isaltra. I dent
lease this rtt's awe had han MiNaweeiL I mar
seW the hesitate. I lM ant pat Sams Dessmet tie pea
swim tamped II per eat ea des leamelisa
Gear Debeh—l ea ewe a the i atharga he the plas-
tid'. I attested the elevates of Medea is imam agar
other. I had aim the semmen dallenties of 114.11serard.
I save Mr. Howard as the - time ere argues he 8011. Ned
4631. 181. Teo money was to be laid is one math from
the date of the dad.
Cron examined-1 did -set seal ally poses to see the
furniture. Howard, Cleo& IMAM ispell. eel ampart,
see were present when the deal Will OM& I shall my
Howard was 30 years of ape. CWMs bandaged him to
me. I saw Clerks at sue ells het week ; he Wee sub-
I have not men Ma Mast My leaser heated
5:
=Dem* he take ' et h • we. My post-
war gat the seek tier the ' le ' ainimalwasi• liowlird.
whiles' rem* ersditare in es mew she. Clarke
emientsd the dam foe 418 l eihibeerlei it =
the planter he sacmoy be Me. Heeremil lad
the Anse to Clarke. The levy wee made ea *slim De-
in/maw. Then was power to enter ea the 1196 Deemober.
The deed wee siseed the 6th Jarmo, ISM ~
WNW Kee& ZeaOreee-1 as Moray he the phis-
UM le} is ay bather. I was present when them bills
were liessas4 I bed the warrant of attorney
on the 80th Jar, ia of these bills being dis-
mounted. I it. I ultimately prepared the
bill a emit sad mews to Emma Hemet% who was
stated by Ilareedie he kis .

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL

Croarszasainad—Mr. 'toward Is is • Fran* but
I don't know at whose suit. Thin is • dad
which was executed August IS. I hold It Ike olio
has a great many attorneys. I hold It wy as
waste* for Clarke. Emma Bentatt is the sister dam wo-
man with whom Howard was living. I don't knew that she
went by the name of Mrs. Clarke.
J. F. Keeley—l know Howard, and know of kis raising
money.
Crommumined—l am father-in-law of Clarke, He is
net be Insist. I saw-hint in Leaden at say pia., in 01-
teeisarmaM. pent Howard mosey as a friend. I have been
Mani ere in pay these hills by the plaintiff, and I have
OA Ism bulk to the plaintiff in chews. I hold ono K-
ama, of Ur. Howard for 11,0001. I sold Vice Lodge to
hha I Wail* it of Rickards and Walker. I took it for
rarrisy_duste no. It never belonged to Clarke. It cams
ken Mr. Anorsittliar.
Ito.exantioni Oinking at ►the bills)—lf I paid these bills
rsy ars.aarbasker's book. Efolll my practice to pay
bills I I bad paid them. lam afraid I have
stated diet is wrong. I am afraid I have
laboured maim a mistake. I don't think that I bare paid
them.
Hy the Judge—l was nervous. Now lam more collected.
I never paid these bills. I sold the furniture to Howard
for 3.1321.15 e. I did not get bills to the amount of 8,0001.
for it. I got it in cosh—not from Clarke—he was indirectly
a party to the transaction. I think the cheques were passed
to Clarke, sod he paid me.
Mr. James then addressed the jury for the defendant.
lie designated the deed us a gross fraud and a sham. It
rested upon the plaintiff to sustain this deed, but he
submitted that thu machinery surrounding it proved
It to have been fraudulent. Bills of exchange were
now resorted to as a system of fraud, and the plain.
tiff hail lent bius.elf to this transaction. Clarke alone
could not commit the fraud, and who were his tools?
Keeley and the plxin•iff had lent themselves to it. Clerks I
and Keeley had proposed, and bad given the instructions
fur this assignment. lie would ask the jury whether they
would believe that tie plaintiff, • shrewd pawnbroker,
would advance a large sum of money upon furt.iture he had
never seen, and would have entrusted it to the safe keeping
of the sister of the person who was living with Mr. Howard ?
Ile submitted that these were facts in the ease which would
induce the jury to my ibat the plaintiff's ease had not been
made out to their satisfaction.
Mr. Justice Coleridge having summed up,
The jury retired, and after some time came into court,
stating that they could not agree. They were sent back to
their room, and eventually returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—SATURDAY.
Berms Da. Lemmata,.
STVLS AGAINST SencErste.—JUDOURNT.
A full report of the Nets of this case recently appeared in
our journal.
The Court delivered its judgment to-day. It would
commence by stating s i many of the undismited facts as
were necessary to show the praise nature of the questions
under discussion. Mr. John Stull, the testator in the suit,
died at the age of 61, on the 16th of April, in the year
1819, at his residence at Norwood, in the county
of Surrey. Ile left a widow, but no children,
and two sisters, the only parsons who would be
entitled to dietribution under an intestacy. The amount
of property passing under the will propouuded had been the
subject of much diseussion, but all the court need say at this
stage of the proceeding was, that in any view of the case
such property was wee considerable. The will hearing date
iith July, 1848, and a osdieil thereto dated the sth Septets-
her, in the same year, were propounded on behalf of Mrs.
Stull, who was very largely benetittAl under them, and
they were opposed by Iwo of the deceased's sisters. One of
than sisters had since n ithdrawn from the suit, but en up-
pearanee had .been given in on the part of one of the
nephews of the deceased, and the trustees of the Tailors'
Benevolent Institution had afterwards intervened. The
opposing parties had very different views, for the two
eidero we re not legates in any testamentary paper whatever,
their interest being solely in an intestacy; while the trustees
of the Tailors' iknevolent Institution, and the nephew op-
posed the present instrument, on the ground that they
would take a larger benefit under a former will. The al-
legation given in opposition pleaded the making and mew-
, non of the will and codicil propounded ; that in the mamma.
of 1846, the testator, whose health had been giving way for
' some time, became subject to epileptic fits, from the effects
of which, upon his reasoning powers, though he sometimes
tallied, he never mainly recovered; that Mrs. Stele, in
the latter part of 1817, took advantage of his state, and ob-
tained a complete cootrol over him; but that notwith-
standing such reduction of bodily and mental power, the
testator was cenapetent to transact business of an ordinary
character, and even to make his will if properly aided
end advised, until the end of that year, and
that he did so execute a wil in August, 1847, but that he
afterwards became incompetent to transact business of any
moment or concern, and unequal to thu management of
himself or of his affair'. With regard to this article the
court thought that on a portion of it, it ems neat to impos-
sible any evidence could ho produced; for how could any
one undertake to fix opal that degree of mental power
which would just leave s man incompetent to make his will
properly, aided, and advised ? The 17th article alleged that
the will and codicil propounded were written by the direc-
tion of Mrs. Stutz and her solicitor, and that the testator
never knew or approved of their contents, and was
not of sound di posing mind on the days they re-
spectively bars date. Many specific facts were
ate pleaded with the intention of proving the
main averments contained in the allegation, and unques-
tionably if the Principal portion of it should be tatisfac-
teeny proved, there could be no doubt of the testator's in-
capacity. The responsive allegation denied, or attempted
to explain away, the forte advanced in imposition to the
will, anti pleaded other (Lets in support. The main grounds
of opposition appeared to be that the deccalied was of un-
sound mind, or, to put It in a more correct point of view,
of weakened and impaired mind, at the time of the execu-
tion, and that he was n..t a free agent, being limier the
control and undue influence of Mrs. Stolz. In the course
of the argument of the opposition, it was truly said that,
according to the established doctrine of these courts in de-
ciding whether a party was capable or not, his opacity
must be considered with reference to the set done.
There were no cases more difficult than questions of capa-
city proportionate to any given act, nor could he (the
learned judge) cone, ire anything more incapable of defini-
tion than what constituted undue Influence on the part of a
wife over her husband. All the court could do in the pre-
sent instance was, to tow the best judgment in its power
from the conduct of the testator himself, and from all the
acts done by him. Ihe opinions and conclusions of wit-
nesses were, for various reasons, little to ho depended
upon, and it would be very waste in ordinary cases to
make them the foundation of a iudgment. It was also a
wt of the duty of the court to ascertain how tar the evi-
dence was deserving of credit, and upon the successful pro-
secution of that investigation depended the question whether
the decision in this, end in a enultiOidty of other
cases was well founded or not. With regard to the ques-
tion of control and undue influence, a inenillist difference
existed between them—control necessarily imparting some-
thing approachiug to fame, dances, et fear; while un-
due =dance could not be expressed by any such strong
terms. This court would observe there were many parts
of the case which had received moth discussion by coun-
sel, into which it felt it would be unaecemary to travel
with any pavticularPy. It swam as to the execution of
various deeds, and the wane mesa% of the property
permed by the demised at the date of the will pro-
psuaded, or at any given period, and the court declined
undertaking this task because, after • sinful con-
sideration of the whole of the papal, he (the learned
=et found he had not materials for so doing
orily. The nee lect, however, to furnish this in-
festation wield net be of great importance towards the
altiemen kale ef the new. It appeared the testator was
Ufa is (cat possessed of very little property, and
that he came to is country to seek his fortune. He was •
person of se education, and did net appear to have made
mask imprevement denier hie residence has • he could
set read Beglidi well, and, although be could sign his
nears, yet be could write but little. Alter the lapse of
some yeas he became a partner in the house of Stun and
Company, the eruiueut Lukas, carrying on buena* in CBI.-
ford-street, and in preens of time gradually acquired semi-
derable wealth, and confirmed to reside here, with occa-
sional visits to his relations in Germany until hie
death. It was manliest that originally the testator
was a person of shrewd mind, active and admit la the ma-
nagement of bailie:as, of very reserved disposition, and
kind, generous, and charitable in the extreme, but unfor-
tunately very irritable soil utterly incapable af rest:mining
kis nelson* when under the effects of pawns. Upon cem-
Vlbe contents el the wilt of August, 1847, mid that of
ii;,4111148, it appeared Mrs. Stun, az.der the latter Wars-
meat, would receive an enlarged benefit to the extent• of
many thousaud pounds, while the legacies given by tke
former will would be considerably diminished. It bed teal
said, the only question the court had te decide new was
whether the will propounded was entitled to rebate.
This was correct, but the court could not shut'
its eyes to the consequences of its decision if it I
should be adverse to the will of 1848. In that
case It was cheer that the former will would receive probate,
sad the question therefore really was not between Mrs.
tools mid the neat et leis, but between her and the legatees
named Is the p will, especially the deceased's
nephews and niece ned the trustees of the radon' Benevo-
lent Institution. The esetator, whose marriage with Mee.
Stall took plow In 1.11, was accustomed occasionally to
ejele Ids nhatimis la Illinaany down to the year 1645, end
611111111111111.-1 i women he telt • gnat regard for some of
ardier
• '• This emeleviseed by his great generosity towards
bat how far that regard varied at times was a dalerilt
which, however, P would °abeam/amyl* go
' at that part of the case, nor would It be
gist die_ instil-. whether La made any declarations
talllViapia the season of his aster's hung made him•
Amer in his brother's inheritance. It appeared the testa-
tor and his wife did not lite lumpily together, and that
i alter one Irperation, its 1844, Mrs. Stuls in 1848, was tee-
' deed in a lunatic elbow, kept try Dr.: Sutherland. In
October in that year she was viewed, but did not return to
her husband until 1847. touting her *blew% Miss Warne,
who had bees si..ey pars duluitik'd in the house, continued
to reside with the its lour. 1 o May, 1847, Mrs. Stela re-
turned to the deceased, and „t ithout entering_ into detail,
the court would siVe the "openers of the will of 1848 the
Sail benefit nt tit, evidence upon the **staler's sets, elant
It said it dimity t he u... greatly alessedi at Me MVP,
sod extreme, site.. to is r return belmisa Oeleteer '
1848, and 51.9 , 1617. 11., such feedlnad willgileidle
whether from tle lernny vi. '•e-ice of her babe- l gip
temperate h. bit.,, or wheth, : de aim nuanigieg Os ospa ef
her mental termite., net I. Appear. In . Mod* la lisa
year the deceased ri deli it se .:a Regent'. Park, and ring
experienced a fit of so e: , • .- • character that apes bib
removal to 1141itoe .h a t • cowards his mind wow

19, 1862.

what animal la the It woodopowill that while se
I
dal= emaplained ot bring se-
gloated by. was moss sad Molten-
deo to him, sad tho Ws servant Darn-
ley went to show that he mama the sendiayrho:
Ai letter te Xis. Btuls, la Mr beak.
learned judp then referldi In
aiss
that pant, and said it .... wzikiiiic
return of Mrs. Btuls was tat Alm lam,
tary ace, nay dons than that it was en le e ea-
eirtion from the power then being ever Ms. The
will of august, 1847, which was eseppinek wee
by the confidential solicitor of dr eiii =el
MUM assume it to ham been oseanisi by it mope-
tent testator. This then woe Yr sea snug bum
which a more narrow emmillnien sr the *Mime eight to
be commenced. The marl dna went dart* diem It
the evidence against the leelnene's capacity fromi=
1817, down to July, 1848, mil add it was utterly
to come to say alter emaloam than that the eillempt to
prove general incapacity at die date of the le*/ will had
totally and entirely Wed. The court woad MI say that
at times he might not Wall been imam*, atalanctine
busine-s, but that it was imeetoontaly wed thee he was
a competent testator k itatbers k elkilLymedss no
testamentary act dm by di lie est sew en the
ground of !mental irgenprealg elm. The Abate decision
of this ewe however. ikupseded upon a awful review of
other full int 4rownwilailet besides men smell. There
might have Wee einiallorrine inBuencie, and improba- '
battles so peek OM Ilmt wont odd nut oesider this in-
strument the deed ea froongont. From the evidence he
(the learned Judge) had no hmitation in expressing his con-
viction that the testator was under the influence of Mrs. Stub'
at the time of hie death, and moreover that during the year
of her absence, ho was under the control of Miss Warne and
' others. It appeared, however, that although Mrs. Stula
exercised an influence over him in all domestic arrange-
ments, yet that many important and independent sets were
done by the deceased himself. It was proved that in July,
1817, lie gave I,ooof. fur the benefit of his nieces ; that he
occasionully went to the house of business, in Clifford-
street, and gave professional orders; and upon his wife's
complaining of his disposition to hie Herman relations,
under the will of 1847, that he would not allow any alters-
ton in the expression of his feelings towards them. Alter
giving important consideration to the evidence on both
sides, the court came to the conclusion that he was not so
subjected to the control of Mrs. Stub as to prevent his acting
independently when he thought fit su to do. The court
approached the evidence upon the execution of the will of
1818 with the conviction first that in Juno and July,
1818, the testator was generally competent to make any
testamentary disposition of his property, though to some
extent his faculties were weakened from MOM ; secondly,
that he wan in a great measure subject to the influence of
Mrs. Stub, but nut under her control in any important'
matters; and thirdly, that the probability was against the
will of 1848 if the testator had been left uninfluenced.
Alter commenting at great length upon the evidence in
question, the learned judge said he eutertained no doubt
that the will originated in substance from Mrs. Stole, and
was executed at her instance, but all this would not decide
the question of its vslitlity ; it appeared to have been per
redly understood and adopted by bin, without any coercion,
importunity, or even persuasion. Even putting the ease on
the lowest iuundetiou, let it be assumed that the will urigi-
. nate,' from the wife, that the instructions emanated from
her; still if it was adopted, and although it might have
been adopted reluctantly, yet the testator being competent
at the time, the instrument must be considered a valid will
in the judgment of the court. The learned judge pro-
nounced for the will and codicil. Ho would make no order°
as to costs at all. . . .

The Proctor for the parties oppos:ng the instrument'
gave notice of appeal.

THE POLICE CO URTS.
BOW.STREET.

Northcroft, a middle-aged female, having an infant
in her arms, was brought before Mr. Jardine on a warrant,
charged with conducting herself in a must barbarous man-
nee towards Andrew Alexsnder Northcroft, an intelligent
boy about 13 years of age, her steee son.
The complement, whose face exhibited marks of recent
ill-treatment, his right eye being scratched and the other
much bruised, in addition to a large patch on the side of
his head, from which the hair had been torn by el knee,
stated that after the death of his mother, his father, who
was slaw stationer, carrying on busineu in Chancery-Lae,
commenced an intimacy with the defendant, who, up to
that time, had been a servant In the family, and
ultimately married her. Oa Friday afternoon, while
he was engaged reading a book at the desk, defendant
rushed into the office, accusing ham of neglect, and seizing
him by the hair, tore a quantity from his head, pulling him
off the stool, and dashing the books about the MOM, which
obliged him to strike her to extricate himself, after she bad
torn his face with her nails. He then escaped upstairs;
and after leis father bed endeavoured to pacify her, but to
no purpose, he got out of the house, and applied at this
court for a summons. On returning home, and acknow-
ledging what steps he had taken for his future protection,
she laid hold of him by the beck of the neck, and furnished
his father with a cane, with which ho knocked witness
down, while defendant placed her knee on his mouth, to
prevent him making any noise, threatening that if she was
to be sent to prison for him, he should have a broken skin.
lie was then soundly beaten, and afterwards locked up in a
room until ten o'clock the next morning, when the appren-
tice happened to unlock the door, and he made his escape.
On former occasions she had frequently beaten him with
great severity, and threw a saucer at him, by which his eye
was dangerously wounded.
Henry Spence, the pprentiet, confirmed in every parti-
cular the account given by the complainant. lie was pre-
sent when the taus was used must uumeteltully, end the
defendant's conduct wail equally brutal towards her own
children.
Dennis, the warrant officer, said the defendant had been
brought to this court sod held to bail for her violent con-
duct on another occasion, and when he informed her why
ho apprehended her, she replied that the boy did not pet
hall enough of flogging, and that she would sull give it him.
lie had also spoken to her husband, who was an elderly,
deaf, and infirm man, upon the subject, but he seamed to
have no iIIthICLICI2 over her.
The defendant being called on, said the boy deserved a
good caning, and she had no notion to keep him reading a
parcel of rubbish when he ought to assist her in the house-
hold work, as she kept no servant, and for his dim' obedience
she boxed him well, when he should also have been well
thrashed.
Mr. Jardine said it was quite hopeless to rerun with such
a violent woman on the impropriety of her conduct, and for
acting in the brutal manner described she should find two
sureties in 2.51. each, and her husband in the sus of M.,
to keep the peace for two months.
LAMBETH.
. .

On the Hon. O. C. Norton taking his seat on the bench,
be inquired for the certificate that bad been received at the
County of Surrey Lunatic Asylum, In reference to the
state of mind of the matricide Thomas Cathie Wheeler,
when that person had been hat discharged from that in-
stitution. The following is a copy of the document pro-
duced :
" Surrey County Lunatic Asylum. April 16, 1862.
"This is to certify that Thomas Wheeler was discharged
from this asylum in ea uncured state on the Ist February,
1851, at the urgent request of his mother, who gave the re-
quired undertaking, in pursuance of the 71st section of the
Lunacy Act. "C. Senors,
" Resident Medical Officer, Male Department."
On reading this document, Mr. Norton observed that it
was much to be regretted that the law, as applying to luna-
tics, was sot more steingest, for to its Laity was evidently
owls, the frlghtfil mesh, that had taken place. From
the seldom that bed bees edducad in the mane of the
brignity, it wee pits clear that the andertenata =of
the =modem had, on two ossesione, °belies& the
of bar askew eon—first hem Botithilm. sad sea hem
the Ilene, Gaiety Asylme—w)ile in as enenewl and
milk state, sad nuke teams, to the wishes aril will of
her friends. That the ushelamste pees man was pat-
h**, want to be at large wee ebeeiently manifest from
the seeded be exhibited at she lows of his mother, and
bh Wag head carrying a pieta* sad alkalis about him,
sad the weeder was that holed act long before been guilty
of Sane dampest. outrage.