The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-29 00:00:00

-Jt•DomENT.

This appeal from the Ent division of the Court of Session
was argued at the bar of the house on the 2503 anti 31st of
March, 1831. The question, which is one of considerable
importance, is as to the legal effict and opt ration to be
given to various testamentary writings executed by the late
Mrs. Agave Bell, widow of Dr. Andrew Bell, of Madras,
so well known fir his benefactions to the cause of educe.
thus. Mrs. Bell, who had for many years been separated
from her husband, and was childless and without near rela-
tives, resid din Leith-walk, Edinburgh, and was en terms
of intimacy with the family of the appellant, Nis,. Martha
!Madded. In the year MS Mts. Bell was possessed of a
moiety of 8333/. 6.. 81. of Three per Cent. Catexolidated
Annuities, held for her by trustees; hut which, on Dr.
Dell's death, in February, 1832, came to her absolutely,
mid the stock was transferred to her name. This stock was
subsequently increased to 12,6231. Ba. I Id., the amount at
the date of her death, in M 181 d. It also appeared
that she euededed In considerable property by the death of
her mother, as that by the year 181.5 there was an accumu•
lation of personality to the amount of upwards of 20,0001.,
beaides a considerable real estate.
In the course of the years from 1828 to 1814 Mrs. Bell
executed five ti stamentary deeds or writings, the subject of
the legal inquiry which had resulted in this appeal. It is
nereesary to refer to them a little in detail.
Ist. The brat, dated 13 h August, 1828, was a special
disposition or assignation of her moiety of the sum of
8,333/. 6s. 811. before referred to. By this she inter ulia
daponed, assigned, gave, granted, and bequeathed " five
hundred pound. of the said Three per Cent. Consolidated
I Annuities to Miss Martha Stoddart (the appellant),
daughter of the Isle fhontas Stothlart, Esq., residing in
&rear bstreet, Leith." The word her was written "Ble "
in the haudwriting of the testatrix.
and. The wood was a holograph writing, dated in July,
1837, and the question which arose epos this instrument
was whether it was to be held as having been subsequently
revoked or superseded. By it she provides that " whoever
other legacy or whatever else I may afterwards name on
this or any other piece of paper, the trustees will have the
goodness to order to be paid." By this deed Mrs. Bell
granted Miss :gadded the yearly sum of 501.
3rd. The third deed was also 3 holograph writing, dated
2nd January, 1840, and although its original validity and
sufficiency were alleged to be indisputable, yet the same
question. arose in respect of its force and operation as those
which uR elect the second. The tedatrix in this document
granted Miss Stodelert the further sum of 20!. yearly
4ffi. The fourth, which was dated in 184_, was in like
manner a holograph wilting, and the same questions arose
on it. It was denominated her last will and testament, but
contained a mere bequest of furniture.
'fbi. wee a deed of disposition and settlement, dated
June 20, 1811, by which the testatrix assigned and disposed
to "Mrs. Janet Bryce or Swanston, presently residing
with me, widow of the late Swanton, pilot, in Leith,
but that in lite rent only, during all tho days of her life-
time; and iu case only of her being in my service at the
time of my death ; whom failing, either by death or by
her leaving my service, to Mime Martha Stmblart, residing
in Charlotte-street„ Leith, but that also in life rent during
all the days of her lifetime • sail (Ailing both, then to Misses
Jean and Ann Glen, resieling in Teviot-row, Edinburgh,
daughters of the deceased Capt. Nisbet Glen, Royal Navy,
equ illy between them and their heirs in fee, all sod whole,
the dwelling-house, No. 3, Georges-pi tee, Leith-walk, now
occupied by me, with the gardens and pertinents thereof."
By this deed the testatrix also assigned and conveyed to
Janet Bryce, on the same conditions, whom failing to
Martha Stoddart in life rent, whom failing to Jean and Ann
Glen equally between them and their heirs in fee, the whole
household furniture, plate, linen, etc. in the house at the
time of her death, with the exceptian Of such articles "'she
might " hereafter otherwise deatMe."
6th. By the sixth deed, dated 3rd May, 1813, the testa-
trix, inter slid, left and bequeathed to Cm Martha Stud-
ded, of Charlotte-street, Leith, during all the days of her
lifetime, and after her death to her brother, Mr. Richard
Modeled, of Leith, during all the days of his lifetime, a free
yearly annuity of 30e.
There was no express revocation in any of the writings.
At the end of a separate paper executed by Mrs. Bell, con-
taining the nomination of executors, the following words
are written: "The money or the stock le only to he trans-
ferred into the name of the leg.," meaning by the last word
legatees; but it appeared that in none of her testamentary
writing. had Mrs Bell bequeathed stock to legatees, except
by the dec.l of 1828 (No. I).
The appellant, Mira Stoddart, therefore, claimed under
thew various deeds 51t01. of stock, three annuities amount-
log to 100/., and the life interest in the house, dd., under
the conditions named in deed No. 6.
. _ . . . .

The question at issue arose on an action of rnultiplepoind-
log rai-ed by the executors of the testatrix with the view of
determining the legal effect of these writings. Two questions
arose—tint, what w itings were to be held as composing her
will and testament ; and secondly, what construction and
effect wre to be given to tleose writings if found to possess
a tesmmentary character. The lords of the first d" • on on
24th Feb., PM% by the interim-liter now appealed from,
fjord that the succession was to be regulated exclusively by
the three last deeds or writings, and that the others of date
anterior to the 26th of J une, 1544, were not to be held to
any extent as subsisting testamentary writings. The
opinions of the learned lodges appeared to rest on the
view that the writings executed by Mrs. Bell formed a
sue ession of wills, each revokiug its predecessor by impli-
, cation. . . .

rateable proportion of all the espenves incurred by the ma-
nning committee in and übJut the formation of the coin•
pan, from the time of the provisional registrat:ou down to
the final abandonment.

Mr. C. Parton Cooper (with him Mr. Morrie) was heard
for Mr. Bright; and Mr. Bethell (Mr. lloatourgh with
hint) for the villein! manager.
The Lord Chancellor at the close of the argument sub-
mitted a ease for the opinion of the judges, the statement of
facts being nearly as we have reported the cue. The ques-
tion was—Do the Lets above stated chow sufficient evidence
to warrant a verdict to the effect that Ais liable to con-
tribute to expenses incurred beyond the amount of his
deposit ?
The learned judger retired to eomider the question, and
were absent about an hour. On their return,
Mr. Baron Parke after reading over the statement of
facts submitted, said Her Majesty's judges were unani-
mously of opinion on the authority alone of the decision of
this house in Hutton r. Upfill, the Lets stated would
warrant a vcr.lict finding A liable. But for that case,
which having been pronounced by the supreme court of
upped as binding on every inferior court, they should have
been of a contrary opinion.
The Lord Chancellor, it moving the judgment of the
twine, said in this e ise in which their lordships had just
heard the opinion of her Majesty's judges, a question of
great importance remained to be decided, whether, on the
facts stated, Mr. Bright was or was not liable to pay a share
of the expenses beyond the amount of his deposit? He
paid his deposits, but oa that point nu question was asked.
Ile was a provisional committeeman, and hail shares allotted
to him which he necepted, and on which ho paid his de-
, p sits, but did no farther act. Ho (the Lord Chancellor)
understood the opinion of the learned judges to be, that but
fur the decision of this house in Uptill's Cale, Mr. Bright
would not be liable. Centre case might be considered as a
mixed one of law and feet, and it might net therefore be so
difficult to deal with the present case. Now,though the house
co doubt, speaking generally, was bound by its own decision
he would venture to say that it was not bound by any rule
if it should see reason on a subsequent occasion to depart
from that decision. The house was at liberty, like every
other court, to correct an error, if it saw that au error had
been committed. lie beliesed that there wits scarcely one
learned judge erase court before whom or before which n
question of this nature hail been brought who or which had
not subsequently differed en some point previously enter-
tained, lea there was sn little of settled haw to direct par
ties, and so much longing in favour of a quasi partnership,
that it was nut surprising that there should hese been •
departure from what was considered a settled rule of law.
The opinion expressed, is the answer just given by the
;earned judges, was one which their lordships should
follow in giving judgment in this ease, namely,
that Mr. Bright was not liable beyond the
amount of his deposits. Ile therefore proposed
that the house should dismiss the appeal of the official
manager requiring Mr. Bright to pay a larger sum then
the amount of the deposits.
Lord Brougham mid, when he advised the house to come
to the decision in Uptill's case, he wan auoporteil by the
high authority of the late Lord Chancellor Cottenham ; and
he recollected that at the time he had a letter in hie posses-
sion from that noble and learned lord, espreseing an opinion
going • great deal farther than lie (Lord Brougham) was
disposed to go, on the question of liability. Whether lie
hail altered the opinion then entertained, it would he super-
fluous for him to say. The learned judges having given un
unanimous and an unhesitating opinion us to the non-liabi-
lity of Mr. Bright, it was not for him to say whether be
agreed with them or not, but he entirely approved of the
course which it was proposed the house should follow.
Lord Campbell entirely concurred in the opinion ex-
pressed by her Majelity's judges. This house, as the
highest court of appeal, could nut decide one gray one d iy,
and another way theneet(for that would leave her Majesty's
subjects in uncertainly), but a solemn deention of this house
was binding till it was altered by the legislature. But he
did not consider that that view of what he took to be the

constitution would at all preclude the house from following
the course proposed.
Lord Cronworth said the appeal in the present cam was
from en order made by himself in the Court of Chancery.
It was in the nature of en order by consent of parties con-
firming the order of the Master, in order to have the
question brought for the derision at this house. On several
occasions he bad• expressed double in reference to Upfill's
caw, whether all the facts had been rightly considered.
The house had decided in that case, as a matter of law, that
persons under certain circumstances were liable on points of
fact. He rejoiced that this question had been brought be-
fore the house, for it would go far to settle doubts which had
occasioned much expense and uncertainty in winding up
concerns of this nature. He did not think it necessary to
treat the decision to which it was now proposed the house
should come as a variance of the decision in Uptill's case,
for that case was a matter of law and fact, though he
thought It was an erroneous decision in point of fact. The
opinion of the learned judges, however, left the house quite
free to take the course now proposed.
Judgment accordingly.
The house did not conclude its judicial sitting until are
o'clock, having been thus engaged as a court of appeal 71
hours.

EQUITY COURTS.-YIIBTERDAT.
areas THE IlArria Or THE KOWA.
GxAT T. 11.4110.-HAIU O. GRAY.

The hearing of these causes, which commenced on Fri-
day, was resumed. Mr. Gray is a merchant and commission
agent at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and he was employed by
Messrs. Ilaig and Pon, distillery, of Loehrin, near Edna
burgh, as agent for the rale of their spirits in the north of
England from 1831 to 1818. The transactions were on a
large scale, and amounted in the aggregate to more than
' 500,0001. Some disputes arose between the part'es as to the
amounts to be aFowed for commission as to certain
charges for carterage, journeys, &e., incurred in
carrying on the business, and as to which party was to
suffer by certain bad debts which had been made. Mr.
Gray thereupon filed his bill in the first mentioned putt,
praying that accounts delivered by him be discharged and
falsified, on the ground that items for commission had been
omitted—that there should be a reference to the Muter to
take an account of all dealings between him and the firm,
and that in the meantime an injunction should issue re-
straining Messrs. Haig and Son from proceeding at law
against him to recover the amount guaranteed by him as
agent. Haig and Son subsequently filed a cress bill,
alleging fraud against Mr. Gray in the preparation of the
accounts and in the destruction of his books, which had
entailed loss upon the firm, which they prayed he might
be declared liable to make good.
Rio Honour made a reference to the Master in both casts,
directing accounts to be taken, the Muter to report spe-
cially whether any fictitious sales had been 11 , and &,1
whether any and what loss had been incurred to
insolvent parties, reserving the question of co 'on
and the other questions in the cause.

The house now gave judgment, reversing the interlocutor
of the court below, but without costs.
MritRAT v. OILANT.—UNDIProNED EIRCOTRY.
This appeal arose out of the preceding ewe. The appel-
lants are the neat of kin of the late Mrs. Bell, and the point
raised was as to the right of her executors to take in virtue
of their office, and of the net 1617, e. 14, a third of the un-
disponed ',cute,. After satisfying all the debts and le-
gacies left by the testatrix, there remained a very consider-
able amount of residue of executry as to which no provision
had been made. The court below found that the statute
referred to was not in desuetude, and that the executors
were entitled to onc.third of the free eircutry, deducting
therefrom their legacies rispectively.
The house gave judgment affirming that decision, and
dismissing the appeal with costs.
BROWN v. HEX 141.1.1rwry's ADVOCATIK•GLNERAL.-13-
YRNITUIIT DUTT—JUDOMINT.
This is a writ of error from a judgment of the Court of
Exchequer in Sentland,floding the plaintiffs in error liable
for the cum of 240.., double the amount of stamp duty, al-
leged to be payable on the inventory of certain personal
estate, which it was contended belonged to Miss Orme
Browu, of Craighead, in the county of Lanark, one of the
listen of the p aintiffs in error. The facts were reported in
the Daily News of Monday, last week.
The Lord Chancellor, in moving the judgment of the
house, said, after giving the ease his best consider dim, he
was of opinion that the judgment of the learned barons of
the Court of Exchequer could not be maintained, and the
appeal must therefore be allowed with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
The learned judges attended to advise the house on a
point of law involved in the following appeal:—
HM(IHr e. ihrioN, AND iII:TTON V. BRIORT.—Tea
Wirintio-or ACTS.—LtABILITIRS or PROVISIONAL COM-
M!

Dom Vice-Ciammuat Tamers.
Stiervos v. Dionnoir.

His Honour gave judgment in this case, and said it was
a bill filed against the directors of the Great Northern, and
the directors of the Ambergate, Nottingham, and Boston,
and Eastern Junction Railway Companies, preying for an
injunction to restrain them from carrying out an agree-
ment which had been entered into. This agreement had
been entered into on the sth of May, tetween the directors
Mlles two sad by it the Great Northern were to
boar homing Ambiggalt 011.911111 y against any liabili-
ties they Witt haw iwelined, 'bother s
in re
of the
Grantham sod Nottingham am* or otherwise; and,
until an sot et parliament could is obtained, were to work
the testae over the Ambergate line, from the let of July
next, paying such toll to the Ambergate Company as should,
after answering all expenses, furnish a dividend tit
per teat. on the Ambergate shares; and as soon as an act
could be obtained, the Great Northern undertook to
guarantee a dividend of 4 per cent. upon the paid up capi-
tal of the Ambergate Company. The Great Northern fur-
ther undertook to apply for an act of parliament to ratify
the agreement; and in case such act could rot be obtained
during the first session of parliament, then application to
be made again in the ensuing sisaion, always at the expense
of the Great Northern, unless the act should be lost by the
default of the Ambergate Company. The Great Northern
to have the privilege of ming off the Ambergate at par,
on giving six months' notice. No further calls to be made
in respect of the Ambergate shares. The case tame before
the court on the application for the injunction by the plain-
tiffe, as shareholders of the Great Northern, suing on be-
half of themselves and all the other shareholder., except the
defendants; and the injunction was asked in respect of
three things—first, to restrain the Great Northern from
working the traffic over the Ambergate line; secondly,
from employing the funds of the Gird Northern towards
indemnifying the Ambergate Company against any
liabilities, or paying a dividend on their shares,
under the pretence of toll ; and, thirdly, from employing
the funds of the company in applying to parliament for au
act to carry out the agreement. The first question to be
considered woe, whet was the general principle to be ap-
plied to the proceedings of great public bodies of this de-
scription ? He considered it must be the same as that which
regulated the rights of ordinary partnerships. Railway
companies were formed for specific purposes. They had
power to make a line, and to early goods and passengers
between specified points. In the ordinary case of a part-
nership formed to carry merchandise between one port and
another, no majority could bind the minority to carry the
traffic between different points. So in railway companies,
no majority could bind the minority to make the line or to
carry on the business between different places from those
specified in the act. lithe ease had rested there, he should
have felt no doubt, but reference hail been made to the
8 It 9 Viet., c. 20, ccc. 87, by which one company was em-
powered to enter into contracts with another, for the pas-
sage over its own line of any engine, coaches, wanons,oe
carriages of any other company, upon payment of such tolls,
and under such restrictions as shall he mutually agreed
upon. This being a general act applicable to all railways.
shareholders must be taken to contract subject to the terms
of it ; and it to some extent widened what would otherwise
have been the contract between the parties. For the plain-
tiff it was argued, that this only gave the carrying com-
pany power to carry their own traffic throughout the whole
length of the line to be traversed, and gave them no right
to use any int. rmediate stations ; but he thought that
would be too narrow a construction. The object of the act
was to enable one company to convey its own traffic meg
any length of railway, without being compelled to shift its
goods at every change of line. It must be taken to give the
right of passing over the line, with all the incidents which
usually accompany such right of passage. The right was,
in his opinion, a right to agree to pass over any other line,
but not, under colour of that, to acquire the trade of the
company over whose line it passed. The question, therefore,
must be whether this agreement wasan agreement bonii fide
to ant in accordance with the statute. He felt no doubt, that
the intention here was not to acquire the right to
paw over the line with the usual incidents of such passage,

In 1815 the Direct Birmingham, Oxford, Reading, and
Brighton Railway Company were provisimrally registered
under the Registration Act. The capital was to be
2,000,01101., in 80,000 shares of 251. each, with a deposit of
21. 12s. 64. on each share on allotment Of this deposit it
was intended that 2!. Ifts. should meet the deposit required
to be made by the standing o:dcrs of parliament, and the
remaining 2s. 6d. to be taken for preliminary earner , par•
sent to the Registration Act. The name of dee list ape
pellant, Mr. Bright, appeared in the printed no
a member or the provisional committee. At a hold
lon the Bth of October, the provisional coramMlneach
committee of management were appointed, the
was approved and adopted, and it was fecal♦ed that
until an act of parliament should he obtained the
affairs should be under the control of the managing di-
rectors, to whom power wiss given to allot the shares
and to apply the funds of the company in payment of all the
ezpenses incurred in its formation, and in the preparaUon of
the plans and sections to be submitted to parliament. The op
gallant was not present; and though it was stated la tbe
*report of the official manager that a copy of theposeemilne
was sent to each member of committee, the apyellwat oa-
t( odcd that these never reached him, or came to his know-
ledge. On 14th October he received intimation from the
secretary, by circular, that 100 shares had been appropriated
to each member, and on the same day replied by letter that
he was willing to take the shares. The letter of allotment
was sent on the 18th of October, and the appellant paid
2621. 10.. as the deposit on the shares. No part of that
earn has been returned to the appellant, nor had he
paid any further sum us account of the company. Of
the 80,000 shares, 61,830 only were allotted. De
posits were paid on 4,295 only. Nu act of par-
liament was ever applied for, and the undertak-
ing was wholly abandoned. The appellant alleged
that he was never present at any meetings of the
committee, nor did he in any manner whatever become a
I party to any contract under which any of such expenses
were incurred. she Vice-Chancellor of FMgland, on the
21st December, 1819, made an order for the draolution and
wiodinitup, under the provisions of the Joint-Stock Oar
i panics Winding-up Acts, 1818 and 1819. The ex up
to November, 164.1, were 10,1741. 11*. 51. la
the co-ts incurred exceed 2,0113/. Master Brougham gem-
. Bed that he war of opinion and found that the appellant and
the said members of the provisional committee, who had
accepted shares in the company, were lethdly liable to pay a
rateable proportion,aceording to the number of &seem( the
neeemary expenses of launching the commas OMNI* ib•
curved between 11th October, 1845, and Rib Slirtenfine,
1815, and that each was liable to pay a proportion of the
coat of winding-up. Ihe Muter, oa the 13th June, 111111.
mak an order for a call of IN. pet share upon each of
the eoatributerirs, including the appellase. On appall
to Lead Crunwarth, then Vice-Chancellor, his ined.
Alb ea lb* Srd July, refused to discharge the twit.
• igengdien ea the point whether the association eraeleillid
Me fof the Windingoep Arts was submitted le in
baud d MI Saturday, sad decided affirmatively, ao
ahonly reported. The argument was now proceeded Wl*
OR the Mr* ; a sommoir pug by Mr. Hutton, the oillatal
IneeteliM Wog ow= at the tame time. This was against
the ender of Lord worth of the 3rd of July, 1861, end
the object wee to is Mr. Bright with liability to pay a

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 29, 1852.

but to scrim a right to carry the whole traMe. There
fore, looking to the agreement, he entertained no doubt.
But the defendants then put in an affidavit stating that
their intentions were to work trains in conformity with the
felts laid down by the Ambergate Company. That affi-
davit might qualify the agreement, if it was in other re-
spects within the act ; hut, in hie opinion, it was not, fur lie
thought that the psymcnt there prnpuecd to be made was not
in any manner such as could be called toll. flow toll ought
to be calculated under the act it was not nre2soary for him
to decide ' • it was sufficient to say that what was here con-
templated was not toll: Therefore on the two first points
the injunction must be granted ; and on the third point,
after carefully reading through the cases which had been
cited, and the distinctions attempted to he drawn, he
thought the injunction meet be granted to the extent of re-
straining the oirectors from using the funds of the company
for the purpose of applying for an act of parliament for car-
rying out this egreensent.

BLASI. VICILZBAKCIKLLOI. Rl{ JAW, PAMIR.
I+rTill MATTIR OF Tilt BRDPURD ClltillTiltS.

The argument on the petition of the Attorney.Generel
seeking an order ngrinst certain of the trustees of the
Harper Charities personally to refund the sum of 100/. up•
propriated out of moneys distributed among the poor of
Bedford to the payment of the costa which Merry and
Dimes, two poor inhabitants, hail been ordered to pay to the
Attorney• General, 11.4 s now ri awned.
Mr. Mains, Mr. Schoenberg, and Mr. Anstey, in conti-
nuation of Mr. Schomherg's argument on Saturday, con-
tended that the obi ct of the present petition, pre:4:lllW as
it wan long after the allegeti misapplication, was to place the
trustees in an unfavourable light Infore the court on auother
of the three petitions now before the court, and not for the
mere b, unfit of the charity, and that the sum was a very
small rum out of charities amounting to nearly 12,000/. a
yetr. They contended that virtual! y the 1004 had been
paid by the recipients, and that at least the charity was
neither the better or the worse for the appropriation.
The Vice. Chancellor said it appeared that there had been
considerable excitcinent in Bedford in connexion with the
administration of the charity, and that two persons, named
Merry and DMus, had presenred a petition to this court,
which had been dismissed with costs. It seemed to have
been an object, in which a great number of persons partici-
pated, that Merry and Dimes should not pay the costs of
that petition personally. That might have been a proper
object, but it had been effected out of the charity money,
soil by causing a deduction to lie made in tho sums distri-
buted, so as to make each recipient contribute his portion
towards the coats of the petition. to which Merry and
Dimes were personally liable. That object the trustees
c rried into effect. It might have been a voluntary act on
the part of the recipients, or there might have been a
bargain with the recipient+ whether they should or
not agree to that condition lidera their names
were allowed to be placed on the list of re-
Hsipients. However that was, it was a proceeding
o liable to be abused that the court could not permit it to
stand. There was no reason to suppose that the trustees
acted front any bad motives, or that they had been guilty
of any dishonourable conduct. They received no benefit
from the money; they only committed an error of judgment ;
but his Honour considered the court be bound to mark by
its censure such a course. The order must therefore be
that the money he brought hack and paid by the respon-
dents into the funds of the charity on the footing that it
was money which had not been properly applied by the
trustees. The respondents must pay the costs.

Mr. Anstcy suggested t►at several of the trustees who
were respondents had not been present at the meetings at
which the appropriation questioned had been sanctiened,
hut his Honour mid it WAS impossible fur the court to go
into all the facts for the purpose of ascertaining the degree
of responsibility of ouch of these twenty individuals, but it
asked he would order a reference to the Master on the
question.
Mr. Molina declined to ask for such reference. _ .

The two other petitions presented in the matter of these
charities will be braid to-morrow.

THE POLICE COURTS.
CLERKENWELL.

James Murphy and Nary, wrie, were charged with
excessive cruelty towards James Collins, aged 10 years, the
step son of the termer prisoner.
The boy's person was exhibited in court, and was one
rams of severe cuts and bruises, and excited a senmatioa of
horror. It appeared that he resided with the prisoners, in
Orit.onil-yard, St. Andrews, Holborn, and the inhabitants
were con•tantly alarmed by his loud cries for help. On
Saturday last they again hearl hi. piercing cries, when in-
formation was given to Townes, 150 E, who took the pri-
soners into custody.
'lite boy, who seemed to be half starved, gave evidence
u to acts of cruelty by the male prisoner, who was fined
3/. or one month's imprisonment, and the female prisoner
was discharged with • reprimand.
Jobs 71Ainney, • well-known desperate character, was
charged with assaulting the police and attempting to rescue
the shot'- prisoners. The prisoner was severely wounded
on the head by a blow from a constable's truncheon, and
he was curereu with blood. _ _

A medical gentleman, who witnessed the affray, said he
did I ot come forward to defend the prisoner, whose conduct
was exceedingly violent, but for the protection of the police,
whose forbearance and behaviour were most praiseworthy
up to the time of the blow upon the prisoner's head with
the truncheon. A crowd of persons were ready to assist if
necessary, and there was nu necessity (or such violence
being used. As a surgeon, he wished to impress upon the
police that striking a drunken man on the head with such
a weapon might lead to most dangerous consequences.
John Sheehan, 442 A, an active officer, said that the pri-
soner was exceedingly violent when he went to Toomes's
assistance. The prisoner bit and kicked at him, and unless
his brother officer had struck the prisoner the consequences
might have been fatal to him (Sheehan).
Me Currie mid the prisoner that he was a moat dangerous
character, but in consequence of the severe punishment he
had ahead}, received lie would merely fine him 10s., or a
swath's imprisonment, otherwise he would have sent him
to prison with hard labour for two months.

- -
Naas of Ma.. (km'wr"thd.d Meng"'wthd.air state of Weather.
Ptoontrra
Poornearrrn ...... Gent!, man. Partially Cloudy
Ba:oitton &W. litrong Breast Ore art
thATINUS B.W. Fred% Breese Pastiolly Cindy
g vivo . &W. Strang Brea are .lartlalli Clang,
railf/0112
M••••~..•
GREENWICH . . &W. dentin Ilreeae Partially Cloudy
&mon W. Gentle Breeze Partially Mod?
OVIRCLit
Co.cusarto
Ctoniunna