The Express.
London, England, 1852-05-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 18, 1852.

IRELAND.

Dr OLIN, MONDAY AFTERNOON.
A deputation waited today on the Lord-Lieu-
tenant with the memorial for pardon to Smith
O'Brien and his companions. His Excellency replied
that he did not consider himself justified in recom-
mending the prayer of the memorial to the favour-
able consideration of her M‘jesty.

Mr. George Herbert Kinderley, who has been.dc-
scribed in the Irish papers as the man-of-all-work of
the Earl of Derby, has issued his expected address
to the electors of Tralee. He professes himself to be
a supporter of Lord Derby's government; but in al-
most the next sentence he declares that ho is opposed
to any attempt at reimposing a duty on foreign
produce, and a little further on he announces that
ho is favourable to the Maynooth grant. The simple
I minded electors of the capital of Kerry are puzzled
to make out from the address what either Mr. Kin-
&riff's, or his master Lord Derby's principles
can bc.
Mr. Mogan has again addressed the electors of
Westmeath, but I believe his case there is hopeless.
Mr. Vance, the tory candidate, has commenced his
canvass in Dublin, but as fur as can be ascertained
front the registry, Mr. Reynolds's seat is quite secure.
Mrs. Chisholm has been received by all classes
since her arrival in Cork with the most marked re-
spect. She has visited the charitable institutions,
the embroidery schools, and other establishments of
public industry. Numbers of ladies and gentlemen
have waited on her, and all seem to take a deep in-
terest in her benevolent mission. The Cbrk Reporter'
says :
Yesterday Mrs. Chisholm received letters from her hos-
tmed, Captain Chisholm, darted Melbourne, Port Phillip,
January 12, announcing that gold dust to the value of
1,0401. was about to be sent home by persons who had emi-
grated, to assist their friends to go out to them. This
day's post brought another letter, received by the Earl of
Shaftesbury, forwarding 4101. for the same purpose.l
Amongst the Irish remittances is one of 1301. from a man
to his friends in the county of Tyrone. Captain Chisholm
had been only five weeks in the colony promoting the ar-
rangements made by his amiable lady when this large sum
was made up.

SPORTING.

TATTERSALVS-MONDAL
SOMERSET'S/LIRE STAILE&

3 to 2 apt lidt-‘771-17-ea;t7;II;R(V)---
6 to 1 Waltman's Chief Justice
6to 1 Mr. T. DIWPOIei Tom Finch
6to 1 Mr. brae Day's Waterfall
II to 1 Mr. Hole's Grand Duchess
Enter was declared not to start about half past 2 yester-
day (Monday).
OWL
to opt Mr. Merry's BMW Nato
to Lard Oder" threes (16 to I)
10 to Mr. Amid% Vido liziggerforlyl
le to Dohs at ilielareffa
II to lad Ilallideaellaverhowee
14 to Mr. Stallnee Alfred the Great
110 to Lord laillisettelr'e lictiraton (a)
20 to Lard Insisels Stockwell
50 to lwi Milidd'a Augur (t, and aft off )
10 to Mr. L aintron's King a Tromp. (t 25 to 1)
23 to Mr. Davies% Ma Mom Sichatun
23 to Tereemea dee liff Ye
Site Mr. 3. Chorill Sleet
! 50 to lewd 1111Mkala1s Saab (t)
1000 to 1 Mr. P.lloolaa KWh. (I)
300 to 200 at Mateo 112Mbe adapt AlMed the Great in their
pima
340 even MMlntlakond Wok&

fora large amount at 6 to 1,
and firmly maintained his position es first favourite. 10
to 1 wa laid to several hundred pounds against Little
Harry, 14 to 1 laid against Alfreddm Great to 1001., 16 to 1
to upwards of 1,0001. against Kinglike, and 20 to 1 to six
or seven hundred pounds against Augur, the layers in
every rase offering to go on. Offers to take 9to 1 about
Aleovanand 12 to 1 about Claverhouse, and to lay 10 to 1
against Harbinger, and 20 to 1 against Stockwell.
OAKS.
6 to 1 apt Duke et Richmond's Red Iliad.
7 to 1 Mr. Johalkott's Sonstress
10 to 1 liir G 7iloark's Gossamer it to 200/.)
Is to 1 Lord Westminster's Attack.
The Subscription Room will to opened every day this
week; Friday and SAturday will be "comparing " days.

lab) inteilmence.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—YZSTEZDAY.
Baroas Till Low, CNANCVLIAIN. Till Manor or Koawtom, Law,
MADA.DAID AND LOAD ON.VILJJL
HAWKims• Dtvuscs.

This house met yesterdaiiortbeiarperis of hearing fur-
ther evidence in support of the bill now before parliament
to dissolve the marriage between Lieutenant Septimus
Moore Hawkins, of the 97th Regiment, and Harriette Ls-
viola, his wife, on the ground of adultery with the Viscount
Malden. The leading facts of the cue, as disclosed by the
evidence adduced at the sitting of the house on the Sod of
April lard, and fully reported at the time in the Espress
were these -
Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins (a daughter of the late Lieut.-
Colonel Bennie) were married in September, 18t6, and re-
sided in the isle of Wight until the beginning of the follow-
ing year, when they Joined the regiment in the Mediterra-
nean. In June, 1848, they returned to England, end
resided at Clatterford. near Cariebrooire, till October, then
removing to Bow-chureh, at which place they continued to
reside till March, Ibl9. After a visit of three mouths to
Mr. Hawkins' brother at Alresford Hall, in Esse:, they
retnrned to the Isle of Wight, taking up their residence at
Shide, near Parkhurst, where they met Viscount Maldon,
who was there with his regiment. Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins
continued to live together at Shide till May, 18,30, when
the former sailed with a detachment of bis regiment for the
headquarters at Frederickton, in New Brunswick ; Mrs.
Hawkins, who was in a delicate state of health, being by
medical advice left at the Isle of Wight. Mr. Hawkins
joined his regiment in America in the month of July, 1850,
and remained with it till March, 18d1, when he returned to
England on the 23rd of that month. He joined his wife
and continued to live with her till the 3rd of June, when,
greatly to the astonishment of every one, she gave birth to
a male child.

It was proved in the eon'se of the evidence that in the
month of September, 18.50, Mrs. Hawkins went to London
and took apartments iu Coa's Hotel, in Jermyn-street, ac-
companied by her little daughter and her maid. The
waiter of the hotel proved that, immediately on her ar-
rival, she sent a note to Viscount MaldoL, that his lordship
imini diately afterwards came to the hotel, and that they
remained alone toecther for upwards of three hours, fur a
considerable portion of the time in the dark. It was also
proved that in an action for criminal conversation insti-
tuted by Lieut. Hawkins against Lord Mahlon his lordship
consented to a verdict against him with 5001. damages. A
divorce, a mensa et thoro had also in the present year been
obtained in the Ecclesiastical Court.

The further consideration of the 'AI was postponed in
consequence of the iiiness of Mrs. Haukins's maid, who
was to speak as to the personal appearance of her mistress
prior to the birth of the child, and also to allow an oppor-
tunity of producing more certain evidence as to the date of
Lieut. Ilawkins's departure for America, and as to the pay-
ment of the damages in the action against Lord Maldon.
The house now met for the purpose of receiving that evi-
deuce, and for the considering the divorce bill.
Mr. Talbot and Mr. M'Queen appeared of counsel for the
petitioner, and adduced the following evidence :
Mr. Tomkins, a clerk in the banking-house of Gos-
ling and Co., proved that a cheque for 7361. 16s. was
paid in by the banking-house of Praed and Co. It was
made by Lord Essex in favour of Mr. Lowe.
Mr. Sharp, of the firm of Sharp, Field, and Jackson, at-
torneys-at-law and solicitors, said he acted as attorney for
Lieut. Hawkins, in the action against Lord Meldon. Messrs.
Lowe were the attorneys fur his lordship. The sum of
7361. 16s. was the amount of damages and costs incurred in
the action. He made application after taxation for pay-
ment, and was answered that the amount would he paid in
the latter end of the month of March. On the 25th of
March Mr. Lowe called and gave a cheque for the
amount, putting witness's banker's name across the cheque.
This was paid into Puked's. Witness subsequently paid
4001., the amount of the damage., into Lieutenant Hawkins's
banker..

Ihe Lord Chancellor having minutely examined the
entries in the banking books produced, relating to the
transaction,
Mr. Talbot said he should next tender evidence with
respect to other parts of the case.
Mr. G. S. Ward, master of the ship Alarm, deposed that
he was chief officer of the Earl Durham, in which the
detachment of the 97th Regiment was conveyed to New
Brunswick. Mr. Hawkins came on board at Cowes either
on the 12th or 14th of May, 1850. Mr. Hawkins did not
leave the ship until she arrived at Halifax except for a
short time off the banks of Newfoundland, when he went
on board of a French vessel to purchase fresh fish for
the troops.
Ann Young stated that she had been lady's maid to Mrs.
Ilitwkios for about three years prior to the birth of the child
41 June, 1851. She saw Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins part
from each other, when the former sailed for America in
May, 1850. This witness was examined to account for
Mrs. Hawkins' residence from the departure of Mr. Haw-
kins down to the period of the journey to London in
September. The learned counsel was proceeding to
examine her with respect to the occurrences at Cox's
Hotel, when the house intimated that the evidence already
adduced on that point was conclusive. The witness was
then examined as to the state of Mrs. Hawkins' appear-
ance during the absence and after the return of Mr. Haw-
kins. Witness was daily in the habit of dressing and
undressing her mistress, and it never occurred to her that
she was in the family way. Latterly she had changed the
style of dressing; she wore looser dresses, but witness
thought this was owing to her Illness. The birth of the
child was the first intimation of the pregnancy, and it sur-
prised her as much as it did every one else.
This was the ease in support of the bill.
The Lord Chancellor, in moving the second reading, said
that after the evidence on this and a former occasion, the
house could have no difficulty whatever in at once arriving
at a satisfactory conclusion were it not for one circumstance,
a very extraordinary one—namely, the fact of Mrs. Haw-
kins being pregnant, which seemed to have escaped the
knowkdge of every one, and even of her husband himself,
until she actually gave birth to a child. Lieut. Hawkins
left England on or about the middle of May, 1860, to join
his regiment in America, and did not return till the 23rd
or 25th of March, 1851. It was manifestly impossible that
he could be the father of a child born on the 2nd of Jane,
1861, and therefore that an act of adultery had been com-
mitted was beyond all question. The time of Mrs. Haw-
kins' delivery so corresponded with the time of the sup-
posed act of adultery in London (for, though there was no
direct proof, yet the evidence was such as to satisfy his
mind), that there could be no reamer able doubt that an set
of adultery did take place in the early part of September,
1850, at the place and under the circumstances to which the
attention of the house had been called. Now, the extraor-
dinary circumstance of the enemas, that this lady hail had
two children; one of them died the other was living. Her
husband had cohabited with her during these two progenitive
yet he was ignorant that she was in the family way until
she actually was easdined. It was evident that when Mr.
Hawkins returned from America his wife meat have been
gone with child six or seven months. He resumed coha-
bitation with her, and it was proved that they occupied the
same sleeping apartment, in which there was only one bed,
down to the night before ; indeed until a few minutes of
the birth of the child. It would not, perhaps, seem so very
extraordinary that the persons who were about Mrs. Haw-
kins should not have discovered her situation, the more
especially as the fact occurred to them that her husband
was abroad at the time ; yet it did seem very difficult to be-
lieve that lily. Hawkins should not once during the re-
mainder of the period of gestation from his return till she
gave birth to the child, have suspected the fact. Singular
as it might seem every body seemed to have been deceived
by the personal appearanes of the lady. The
noble and learned lord then referred in detail
to the medical evidence and the testimony of the
landlady at Boachurch in support of this fact. The
only risen remaining to be accounted for was Mr. Haw-
kins himself, sad on that point the house was left In a great
measure to conjecture. It seemed very difficult to believe
that, placed as ho was during the months of cohabitation
down to within a few moments of the delivery, and with
his previous experience, he should have had no suspicion.
Nevertheless it was perfectly manifest—difficult though it
might be to credit the fact—that he was as much misled as
other persons with respect to the situation of his wife. Far
in the first place, no preparation whatever was made for
such an event. Mrs. Hawkins, apparently in a false secu-
rity, left everything to chum*. No medical attendance was
secured, no nuns was provided, nor baby linen, nor were
a_ of the preparations made neesseary on ands occasion.
What took plus when she was delivered appeared perfectly
ooncluaive.As soon as Mrs. Hawkins got her husband out
of the room, she vainest anxious that the matter should
not be immediately made known to Mm; she desired :the
landlady not to break the intelligence suddenly, because, as
she said, he bad a heart complaint, and it might kill him.
The house had ample evidence of the heavy blew the in-
tellMence was to him. Under these circumstances he (the
Lord Chancellor) had come to the conclusion that Lieut.
Hawkins, singular as the cheumstance might appear, was
wholly unconscious that his wife was in the family way un-
til she actually gave birth to the child. This, therefore,
was a ease in which ho could with perfect confidence re-
commend to the house that the bill be reed a second time,
with the view of giving to Mr. Hawkins the remedy he was
clearly entitled to.
A noble lord having seconded the motion,
The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Monday.
lientia v. vita OREAT NORTIIIRN RAILWAY C
—FORPZEMILII AND CANCILLATLON OF Sithuzi.—Ai.ez-
RATION UP lISUI..—DILIGENCI.—EICEPTIONII.—J

near.
The house then proceeded to givo judgment in this ap-
peal from the First Division of the Court of Session rn
Scotland, argued at the bar on the 19th and 20th ult. The
facts were fully dated in our report of the argument.
The Lord Chancellor, in moving the judgment of the
house, said this was an action by the Great Northern Rail-
way Company against Mr. Inglis, the appellant, as the
holder of eight shares, to recover the amount of certain
calls. The right of action was given by the 9 and 10 Vict.,
c. 71, which was the company's act of incorporatimi ;
although some argument had been raised on this point that
there was no provision authorising such a prosecution,
it was clear that the first section gave all the
remedies provided by the Companies Clauses Con-
solidation Act of 1815. The action went to trial
on the WILIC, " Whether the defender is tho holder of eight
shares of the said Great Northern Railway Company, and
as such is indi bted and resting, owing to the pursuers in
the sum of 18/., being the amount of his proportion, effeir-
ing to his said shares of a call of 21. fr. per share, made on
the 28th May, and payable the 30th June, 1847 ; as also in
the sum of 161., being the amount of hie proportion as
aforesaid of a call of 21 per share made on the '27th August,
and payable on the 30th September, 1847, with interest on
the said two several sum' ?" On the trial of that issue a
verdict was found for the defender ; but a bill of cam
Sloss having been taken, a new trial was granted.

torespondents)reisethequestion
qth.n applied have the
lane u altered r( end° the
fender was the holder of the shares t. at the date of makiug
ten whether to
the d
the calls," on the ground of the forfeiture and ceseellation
of the shares under the provisions of the act, that when it
should happen that the market price of shares which might
be forfeited fur non payment of calls should be such as to
render it impossible for the company to sell the some so se
to realtee a sum equal to the arrears of calls due, then the
shares shall be cancelled, and so many new shares issued of
such nominal amount as the company should thiak fit. The
defender, in his answer, alleged that the pursuers had
raised in virtue or in place of the shares in dispute, a larger
sum than whet, recording to their own showing, was repre-
sented by these shares, and he contended that the motion
for the alteration of the issue was not only incompetent in
itself, but was also uncalled for by anything in the existing
state of matters. The lords of the first division allowed the
issue to be amended as craved. Thereafter, with a view to
recover evidence of the facts averred by the defender in his
answers relative to the forfeiture and cancellation of his
shares, he moved for a diligence ; but their lordships re-
fused the application. These formed the first two interin-
cuter. appealed tram. On the trial of the imams as amended,
the jury found for the pursuers. The defender took vari-
ous exceptions to the ruling of Lord Itobeitson at the trial,
and these were afterwards disallowed by the learned judges
of the first division. The tapes' was therefore against the
interlocutors allowing the alteration of tho issue, and refus-
ing diligence for the production of evideuee, and for disal-
lowing the exceptions taken at the trial. With respect to
the first objection raised, that the statute gave no power to
alter issues, several cases were cited, but these did not ap-
ply to the case before the house, and in his opinion the court
had the power to do so, sad therefore that the objection
could not be sustained. The appellant maintain. that,
under theCompaniee' Clauses Consolidation Act, the respon-
dents had no power after forfeiting and disposing of the
shares said to belong to him, to insist for payment of culls
which had previously become due on these shares. The
27th section of the act provided that it should be sufficient
to entitle the company to sue a shareholder for payment of
calls, to aver that he was the holder of one share or more in
the company, and by the 28th section it was enacted that
on the trial of such action or suit it should ho sufficient to
prove that at the time he was the holder of one
share. It was insisted that the cencellation of the
shares dissolved the contract and destroyed the right of
action. Unless some solid distioctien could be shown be-
tween forfeiture and cancellation, it seemed to him that the
same rule must apply to both, and it did not appear to him
that this was an objection which it was competent fur the
appellant to make. The interlocutor had reserved to the
appellant the means of enforcing any rights to which he
was entitled. At the trial, c-rtain evidence was objected to,
and formed the ground of the exceptions. The fourth and
filth exceptions only were wanted, or, as remarked in the
court below, the directors had power to make calls and to
delegate that duty to a finance committee. It seemed
enough, in the first place, to prove that the call was in fact
made ; and, in the s..cond place, that tile minutes should
bear ex facie that the parties by whom it was made were
members of the committee. Here the call was made by the
finance committee, and signed by its chairman, as the mi-
nutes :proved. The remaining exceptions were technical
ones. It was objected to the production of the register of
shareholders, that the register was in several volumes, and
that the last only bore the mark of authentication required
by the statute. But he thought it would be contrary to the
intention of the act to put this restricted meaning on it.
It sou then objected that the evidence of the appointment
of the finance committee was not admissible because the
minute was not signed at tho particular date ; but the
meeting was adjourned to another day named, when it was
duly signed. His Lordship concluded by moving that the
judgment of the court below be affirmed, and the appeal
dismissed with cost..

Judgment accordingly.
The noble and learned lord, for the first time since the
great seal was intrusted to his care, delivered a written
judgment.

THE POLICE COURTS.
_ MANSION-HOUSE.

Bursts, a WsOnring man, ;;brought before the
Lord Mayor, charged with having assaulted Mr. Arthur
Cooke, a public preacher.
The complainant said—l have been in the habit of addres-
sing the people in the streets on week days as well as on
Sundays, and I carry about with me a sort of portable pul-
pit from which I preach. On Saturday last, between two
and three o'clock, while I was proceeding with my dis-
course, in my gown and band, the defendant interrupted
me, wished me to desist, and used language of a most im-
proper and violent description upon finding that I was not
disposed to do as he desired. The man was evidently drunk
at the time, and I thought it necessary, for his sake as well
as for my own, to give him into custody, as there was a
great crowd of people who expressed great indignation at
his conduct, and some of them seemed disposed to lay bands
upon him. Se took an opportunity to come behind me and
struck me a violent blow on the side of this head, and he
leaped upon my stand and broke it.
The Lord Mayor asked the policeman into whose custody
the defendant had been given what he had observed upon
the occasion ?

Policeman—The man was very obstreperous indeed, my
lord, while the sermon was going on. I considered him to
be drunk too.

The Defendant—Well, I wu a little fresh to be sure,
but I felt that the preacher was going out of his line. I
did not see what right be bad to abuse the I'opo in the
public street.
Complainant—l certainly did in my discourse refer to
what had been done by popes in ages of great darkness, but
I made use of no language at all calculated to ofend any
one.

Defendant—l was going home quietly, my lord, at the
time, and I heard him laying it on the Pope as hard u ho
could, so I told him I bad a question to put to him, and I
then begged him to inform me where he had got his com-
mission to preach? lie replied from some place in Pell-
street, but I thought be might preach away, and let the
Pope alone, and I said so.
The Lord Mayor-11u he been in custody ever since he
was apprehended ?
Policeman—He hns, my lord.
Complainant—l as,ure your lordship that I said nothing
but what I considered neces.ary to illustrate my subject.
The Lord Mayor—lt is evident that the defendant has
acted unjustifiably, but I think if he pay the price of the
damage to your stand, you will have no wish to press for
any further penalty.
Complainant—Mot the least, my lord ; but he might have
been severely handled by the crowd, who were much exas-
perated at his conduct.
The defendant—l dare say it would have been all right
if be had just let the Pone alone, for I am a Roman
catholic ; but I didn't like him to be abused in his absence.
The defendant then paid for the repair of the com-
plainant's pulpit, and was discharged.
GUILDHALL. _ _ _

Antes Ogdes was committed for trial on the charge of
unlawfully obtaining 100 pieces of Orleans cloth, with in-
tent to defraud Thome, Barran, who already stands charged
with constructive larceny, and also with conspiring with
the prisoner and a person of the name of Robert Young to
defraud Mr. M'Oregor of the same identical goods, and
from whom they were originally obtained by Barra..
WORSHIP-STREET.

Frederick Weston TuTti;rieti with cutting and wound-
ing an elderly man, named Peter Yates, living in West-
street, Mile-end, and his son George Totes, whereby both
their lives had been placed in imminent danger.
Maria Yates, the wife and mother of the respective torn.
plainants, stated that for a considerable time put the pri-
soner had entertained the must rancorous feelings of ani-
mosity towards her husband and son, and on the preceding
evening he called at the house in a state of intoxication,
and forcing his way into the parlour, in which they were
seated, commenced assailing them with scurrilous and
threatening epithets. They succeeded, with some difficulty,
in effecting his expulsion, but he immediately began batter-
ing the street door with large stones and other missiles, and
created such a disturbance that the complainants went out
and threatened to give him into custody, unless he desisted
from further annoyance. The moment the threat was
uttered, the prisoner made a rush at her eon, and raising
his hand, in which held an open clasp-knife, struck it with
all his force into the lower part of his pet son. He instantly
fell to the ground, exclaiming, "O, mother, I am stabbed,'
and the prisoner, after making a second stab at her eon,
which inflicted a wound in the upper part of his fuee, sud-
denly sprang upon her husband, and made such a desperate
blow at him with the knife as to snap the blade, and the
lower part of it remained lodged in his bead. The prisoner
then dragged him to the ground, and was proceeding to
further acts of violence, when several of the bystanders in-
terfered, and secured him till the arrival of a constable, who
took him into custody. The wounded men were then con-
veyed into the house, and a surgeon war immediately sent
for, who extracted the broken portion of the knife, which
was about two inches in length, from her husband's bead,
and having ascertained that her sea had received a dread-
ful wound in the abdomen, which penetrated the lower in
testines, he directed their removal to the hospital, to which
they were at once conseyed.
Police-constable Ford, K 341, produced the handle of a
large clasp knife, with the pointed part of the blade broken
off, which he had found upon the prisoner, and stated that,
from his inquiries at the hospital that morning, he had as-
certained that both the wounded men were in extreme
danger, and that the younger one had sustained such serious
injuries that scarcely any hopes were entertained of his
recovery.—liernanded.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET. _ _

Louisa Aubert, • fashionably-dressed yenta French-
woman, belonging to the class called unfortunate, was
brought before Mr. Hardwick, on the following charges:
Smith, 166 C, stated that on Saturday night about -half-
past 10, he saw the defendant loitering about the lower part
of Regent-street, for the purpose of soliciting gentlemen.
As witness had repeatedly spoken to her on the subject,
and warned her as to the result of a conviction, but to no
purpose, ho took her into custody.
Mr. Hardwick inflicted a fine of 71., which was paid
The interpreter who attended for the defendant said, as
the case had now been adjudicated by his worship, he (the
interpreter) was instructed by the defendant to prefer a
charge against the constable' but injustice to the latter, he
not understanding the French langua-e, end the discharged
defendant not speaking English, he should state the case in
English. The policeman, he was instructed to say, bad
been in the habit for some time past of receiving bush
money from the defendant, to allow her to follow her avo-
' cation. Since she had ceased to satisfy his pecuniary de-
mands, he had made a point of taking her into custody
every time he saw her in Regent-street. lie (the interpre-
ter)'had witnesses who would come forward and corrobo-
rate his statement. _ _

Mr. Hardwick said, if the woman had any charge to pre-
fer against the officer, and could bring evidence in 'ippon

thereof, she had only to lay her statement before the Com„
missioners at Scotland-yard, and they would cause the
strictest inquiry to be made into the ease. If it should ha
pruned that the officer bad acted in the
nor diseribzd, he would most assuredly be s.sertly
punished.
The imo rpreter saisl he should du as his worship 1111.1 tug.
gested, and go to the commissioners at once. Ile had al.
ready spoken to Superintendent Otway on the subject.