The Press.
London, England, 1854-01-21 00:00:00

58

It being shown that the present bankrupt when ob-
taining the advances believed his house solvent, but
was afterwards involved through the recklessness of
his partner in the Mauritius, an immediate certifi-
cate of the first class was granted him.
CASES OF DESTITUTION are familiar to the eyes of
beadles, but, with all his experience in this line, the
beadle of Ratcliffe has encountered a specimen which
he felt compelled to bring under the notice of Mr.
Yardley, at the Thames Police-office, describing it,
with some justice, as the most shocking instance that
had ever come under his observation :
In one of the wretched alleys in his district (Ratcliffe-highway)
a poor woman named Ellis, the wife of au old man who gained a
precarious livelihood by selling fruit about the streets, was lying
dead nom want, in a room without a stick of furniture, no food,
and no fuel. The death was evidently the result of starvation.
It appeared that on Saturday morning, when the husband awoke,
he found his wife lying dead beside him ; and yet, to satisfy the
cravings of nature, he was compelled to go out and vend his few
oranges for food. The woman had been poorly for some time,
but all she had from the pariah was a loaf and some oatmeal,
with an offer of admittance to the workhouse ; but this they re-
fused, in the hope that the approaching fine weather would
enable the husband to carry on his humble calling with more
success.
Mr. YARDLEY :If this be true it is very shocking. The case
which you describe is one which should have been met with
immediate relief. Had application been made to me I should
have made a formal order to compel the overseer to do his duty.
Had this case been reported to me I should have shown the
parish authorities that I have the power, though I should be slow
to enforce it, to compel relief under such circumstances. The
ease is a most disgraceful and extraordinary one, and such as
would well warrant the relieving officer in going fur beyond what
he may conceive to be his exact duty.
nimble subsequently introduced the husband, whose appear.
ance betokened the utmost wretcheduesa and privation.
Mr. YARDLEY: is your wife dead 9—Yes, sir.
Mr. YARDLEY; And you say that she died of actual want?—
She did, sir.
Mr. YARDLEY: Well, if this case be indicative of the general
conduct of the pariah authorities in this district, I must say it
is most disgraceful. Oatmeal and a loaf to a woman in that
state! It is very shocking. Did the doctor see your wife 9—Yes,
'sir; Dr. Sullen knew of it for a bug time.
Mr. YARDLEY: That is very odd. In the distribution of the
funds which I am now making from the poor-box several of the
applications have been signed by Dr. Bullen, and I have always
attended to them. Why do you not go into the house, my poor
man 9—Ellis: I had rather not, sir. The spring is approaching,
and, with a little assistance, I shall be able to get on, now that I
have only myself to provide for.

Mr. Yardley expressed his regret that the poor
man had not told his tale before at the police-court,
and dismissed him, with U. from the poor-box.
THE "Ciocci C1.13E," which occupied the Court of
Arches for several successive days a short time since,
was decided on Wednesday by an elaborate judg•
ment pronounced by Dr. Lushington. In this case
Mrs. Ciocci sued for a divorce on the plea that her
husband, who was an Italian refugee, had been
guilty of cruelty and adultery. Evidence to a very
voluminous extent and of a most conflicting cha-
racter had been adduced by the respective parties
at the protracted trial, and Dr. Lushington occupied
nearly two hours in reviewing this mass of testimony
and the arguments that had been based upon it on
either side. Finally he pronounced the plea of
cruelty not proved, but granted the wife's petition
for a separation, on the ground of adultery, condemn-
ing Mr. Ciocci also to pay costs.

THE LONDON JOINT-STOCK BANKING COMPANY
received a letter from Dublin, enclosing a bill of
exchange for 301., purporting to be drawn by a cor-
responding bank in Australia in favour of Patrick
Dillon, and asking them to send the money for the
same under cover to James Daniel Lysaght, at
Ennistimon, in Ireland. The bank functionaries
easily detected that the bill was a forgery; never-
theless they enclosed as directed half notes for 301.,
advising their correspondent to call at the Ennis
bank for the remaining moities. By this ruse Mr.
Lysaght was caught with the half notes in his pocket•
book, and, being brought in custody to England,
stands remanded, after a preliminary examination at
the Mansion-house, on the charge of attempted
fraud.
THE GREAT OPERA-HOUSE CASE OF LUMLEY v. GYE
came before the Court of Queen's Bench once more
on Saturday last. This action, it will be recollected,
was broug ht by Mr. Lumley to recover heavy damages
against Mlle. Wagner, the celebrated singer, for
breach of contract; and for these damages Mr. Gye
was liable. The plaintiff had obtained a verdict, but
further proceedings were instituted, in the course of
which a commission had been issued to take the
evidence of Mlle. Wagner, who was now residing in
Prussia. Difficulties had, however, arisen in exe-
cuting this commission. The learned counsel who
represented the plaintiff refused to allow the exami-
nation to be taken according to the Prussian form,
while Mlle. Wagner on her part declined to be ex-
amined except before a Prussian judge and in the
language of that country. The first commission
having thus proved abortive, the proceedings on
Saturday took the shape of arguments for and
against a new rule which had been granted, whereby
a commission in a new form was ordered to issue,
directed to a Prussian judge, and dispensing with
certain formalities required under ordinary circum-
stances of similar character. Against the rule it was
objected principally that, under the proposed ar-
rangement, the plaintiff Lumley would have no
opportunity of cross-examining the witness, and,