The Express.
London, England, 1849-05-03 00:00:00

IN RI L--,-APPLICATION AGAINST ANATTEINIT.

Mr.J. J Johnson applied for • rule calling upon an at-
torney of the cant, whose name he did not mention, to show
muse why he should not answer certain manses in the affi-
davit, or why he should not be struck off the rolls. The
learned rump.' stated that be applied on behalf of a widow
lady, whose name did not nanspire, and whore husband had
died in 1836, leeriest property to the amount of 2,0001.,
1,0001. of which was left to the widow, sad had been plaited
in the hands of the attorney against whom the present ap-
plication was made for the purples of investment 2501. had
been at first lent to a parson of the name of French upon
mortgage. and 1001. was farther advanced on the same secu-
rity, making altogether the sum of 3501. 'That mortgage
was paid off he French, and the 350/. was again invested in
• mortgage without the knowledge or consent of the appli-
cant ; and it was subsequently tound out that the property
upon which the 3501. had been so advanced had, at the
time, a prier encumbrance upon it. The sum of 6501., the
residue of the 1,0001, remained in the hands of the attar
ay, and he had duly, for a length of tints, paid the interest
on both the 6501. and 3501 ; but had lately discontinued to
do so. Oa being requested by the applicant to state who
we. the Fifty with whom he had effected the second mart-
gage, he stated that the money had been lent to a gentle-
man who did not wish to have his name disclosed. The lady
on whose behalf the present motion was node had, in the
year 1838, married again, but was now a widow, her hus-
band having died In 1847. Upon her marriage, the attorney
bad prepared • marriage settlement, of which he was himself
the troops. The affidavit of the applicant further stated that
the attorney in elusion had been is partnership with a
gentleman whose name the learned counsel did not mention,
but merely said his initial letter wu M, and that disputes
having arose between the attorney and his partner, they
had diseXved partnership. Their affairs subsequently got
into Chancery, and it wee now charged against the gentle-
men whose prehmional cionduct was impugned, that he
told the applicant what answers she was to give to certain
interrogatories put to her by the Court of Chancery, direct-
ing her to say that his partner, Mr. —, was in ao way
concerned in any of her affairs. This the applicant, at the
time, stated, having full confidence in the integrity of her
attorney. Subsequently, repeated applications were made
to this gentleman to endeavour to obtain payment
of the interest due to her, and an account of
the way in which her 3.501. had been invested,
but without success. She then consulted another
attorney, her present legal adviser, who wrote to the party
now called on to answer the matters in the affidavit, requir-
ing bun t° give an amount of the manner in which he had
applied this lady's funds. In to that letter he stated
that money had bees rammed by him, 0114 of her Property,
to his partner id—, whichwas in direct contradiction to
the statement he had desired the applicant to make, when
examined by a tommiedos of the Court of Chancery. It
was found. on inquiry, that no money had been lent to the
partner X ; and the applicant concluded hear affidavit by
swearing that she believed the attorney had used her money
Mr his own purposes.
Mr. Junes Coleridge mid he would grant ante calling on
tits attorney to show came why be should net answer the
matters in the affidavit.—Rule masted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—TunrazDAT.
_sow la Ilia

NORM V. lisso.—lNPThisTisT To Tim LIBPIIII OP
LUNATIC AMMO.
_ _

nu, mis fki-sassultiart sod falsely
imprisoning Um &bars . INS the hots disclosed

by the pleadings, it appeared that one of the inmates of the
defendant's lunatic asylum, at Burgh Hall, in the county of
Lancaster, described as Elisabeth Drury, escaped therefrom,
and married the plaintiff. The defendant pursued, and tad
her taken beck to the asylum. The present action was the
result The defeadeat pleaded " not guilty," and also a
notification, alleging that he bad not used more force than
was necessary for the ninon of peening the plaintiff's wife,
and that she had been taken back within 14 days after bar
escape. To that plea there was a special demurrer, and the
emetics raised was whether, under the 87th and 99th w-
hom of the General Lunacy Am (8 & 9 Viet. A 100) the
keeper cf • lunatic asylum was justified in retaking • person,
ands his ears, after having escaped.
Mr. Cowling supported the demurrer, and contended that
area though the lady in question bad ben a lunatic (of
which there was no averment), the plea was no answer to
the action; for the section relied on was not at all in-
tended to apply to • ease of this kind. If the plea was
held to be good, the keepers of lunatic asylums, ones
having persona under their care might neon to any extant of
force, even though the parties escaping should be perfectly
sane. There was se evontsdc except by habeas corpus, and it
was doubtful whether even that means. In this case the
order and medical certificates described the party as Elisa-
beth Drury. Tke defendant had no power under them to
take her away from her husband, for she was not " Elisabeth
Drury " when retaken. The Justine' order and the certifi-
cates should set forth the hue name and description. They
had not done so here, and they were therefore valueless as
an authority for the defendant to retake the plaintirs wife.
When she was retaken there was, in fact, no order oe certi-
ficates properly dersibing her. The act did not authorise
the keeper himself to arrest or take • party, under any sir
miestanees. His duty was merely to " reeelve," at the Tequila
of the justices, or any one else; but he had no power
whatever amide the precincts of his establishment. He was
a men volunteer, acting under the orders of others, and he
should thrushes be doubly careful not to trend his duty.
Sir F. Pollock, C.B.—There is no Tustin as to identity ;
the practical question is this : Ifa man finds a lunatic wan-
dering about and marries her does the marriage put an end
to all the steps taken for the protection of the woman herself
and the public at large ?
Hr. Boca Parke.—lt cannot be contended that the
keeper of an asylum Rust be responsible for the truth of all
the allegations is the order and certificates.
Sir F. Pollock said the court were ale of opinion that there
was no objection to the plea in subs'axice or form. The art
of parliament referred to was clearly Intended as •
protection to the proprietors of lunatic asylums in
all actions takes against them for receiving or
detailing patients duly entrusted to their charge.
A man whose wife was placed, without his interference, in a
lunatic asylum (as is the peacoat am) should resort to legal
means to get petered= other, and he bad no right to re-
take her himself after she had soaped. The grounds of the
demurrer were that the plea was ambiguous, as it did not
den that the individual in questions was the plaintiff's wife;
sad testhe, that it did not aver with sufficient certainty
that she was a lunatic. It never was intended to throw upon
the beeper Ombra. the espwrive inquiry whether parties
yew et imensi Wed of est. All that wee necessary for
the jaltheatien eneeepen wee the requisite order and me-
dial efftilleries. Thaw bathed then is receiving patients
and In lashing ass within feetthess daps if they should
have escaped. Fr these reasons, the Court wee of opinion
that the plea was feed, and that the defendant was entitledte Judgethet.
The lamed Wan ascarted, and judgment was
entered for the defendant aneerdiagly.

CONSISTORY COURT.—MAV 1.
Ware Dr. L
CATON C. 11117017.a1VORCII.
This was a alt pa ssal by the husband watt the wife
he dam by news of adultery. The whole of the evidence
amid la tar edam, in Hilary Term last. Today
The Snip (Dr. Lashingtou) gay* his judgment. In
Ming a be went over the whole of the allegations. He said
She ass bed occupied his anxious consideration, not as to
the dud if the culpability imputed to Mrs. Caton, but from
thedilliatty he had experienced in lookiag over the mi.
amea. with rellsomee to the averments In the libel, he had
le asthma the day of both judge and jury. It was not
smash to lea meal evidence before him, but it
met be supported by legal evidence. The parties were
married in 1831, sad mad ddldren were the issue of that
marriage. Mr. Cates was edginally a medical °Meer at.
Inched to the Guards. Not hag after his marriage he re-
tail from the service, and resided with his father-in-law at
Iselhaill sad his death, when he left that neighbourhood
and went to Brunswick-square, Brighton, with the mother
of Km Cam, where he was in the habit of receiving at his
hones various edam of the army who were quartered at
Beiglitem, with other tries& Mr. Broadby Harrison was
one ef those, who was a mast in the 11th Light Dragoons,
thou occupying the berrala end an improper intimacy, it
was alleged bed, aloted between Mrs. Caton and this gea-
denim. There was a emempemihnes between these parties,
mad there wee letters hand is the pomades of the wife,
yid& trim deer User did net sitabM actual criminality,
thengh they • stress atteekasst ou the part of Mrs.
Caton libilevrison, and also an estrangement °farm-
tics Eras ber bashead and children. (Here the learned judge
read the letter that hod been written by Mrs. Caton to Mr.
Harrison, whir hem bass already published, expressive of
strait attalamost Smash tins, and which had been inter-
riled )lt Hey(.l3l;* illustot,"l"6
is L;triocahtldsivrojer te
ahn lt. cue
of
given judgment, a jaggiest which cannel be toe frequently
studied, and would well may those was esomilled It. The
same eats betas the toot 21 yeas we, whoa he (Dr.
Ludington) reassabseed being essied fer the hus-
band, as which ecoram be felt greatly dhoggeinted at the
result. Sir .1. Niebeß m that 01116111911 mid that a corre-
spondence was not salisiont to Madill adultery. tamp-
meted by mime other semphorative evidssee. At the time,
be (Dr. Dethisiton) esid he was Kompelstedi at the result,
but spas dm madman, he was sodded that that judg-
asat was headed on just poineides. There wee a correspou-
dam between the paths ea that media, to ea this, and the
Wombs AM moo wore eireehed in avenger leafage than
fa thee. It amoebae aortal these coma rests be to re-
ales adloquets pad ef metual anima, mai bear in mind
Ks principle Stare laid down. Here was a oorrespondenos
Whisk proved undue intimacy or improper familiarity ; but
OD proof of einitery, only clandestine correspondence be-
ams them. It was mated in evidence by Mn. Ridont
that Mr. Hudson man almost daily to make open visits,
whin was hews to Mr. Caton, and it was admitted there
lON all impessisty in their conduct. But the counsel in
this ma yaw properly_ stated that they depended mainly
ama somiste of Mrs. Caton's later, and the contests
May. Thee bar he (Dr. Lushington) admitted proved a
Malaria on the part of Mrs. Caton towards Mr.
smil hatred towards her husband; but it did not
my use mad to 'hew actual criminality. Ie the ease be
had rehired te, the language was meek amearr far
dam we es astual Miami= of guilt. Ke Jae
lilehi ellsened, that many women will peat
Metre, bat step shert of the last step. J this
b= not auk& that adultery had Isom
The ht se wee lead Ly Mrs. Caton, addhemed te Mr.
Lab" et the sa, s, which letter had being=
Se the beethsts ofher Caton with and Mr.
=KUM teeming to the bands of Mr. Hudson; the
theism which he (Dr. Lustiness) would some
tedismte these peados knew it °masa se
bet se admission of adulteress ewasalm ; if
Imola been mi. they would salsa essemind te nee
the bass delivered up. This was the only esseasion that
he could mem to. Dlr. Caton had never seen that letter;
it would have been better it he had consulted some one on
this measles. but be (Dr. Lushiagton) eeald not blame him
for amalgam blo loothooriwkw, and yielding to a neer
ciliation. nese brothers did not thalt disk vests bad
been 'untie aintinality, although Kip tried
and iadieerallios ; there was also Mama 11111911dria
of throwing the letter out of the window to Mr. Rer-
rhos, and of *Wag the savant to let him into the
house at twelve &clash at night,
e and of the servant's reimal.
Now he could not help tlii•it on looking at all
demo, that it did not appear 'hi the e
they Mei ever come bar
Ka after this attempt, nor was there any potability of
their meeting. The evidence of Mrs. St. Rose the court
meld not rely ape, and he must look upon it with great
easition. In August, 1843, Mr. Caton went to Paris, where
be resided in a house with Madame St. Rose, and also her
son, Major St. Roes, and his wife, with whom it was said an
adulterous intercourse had taken place. The familiarities
which had taken place had excited the madam el Mr.
Caton, who then left with his ehildren, and smputtei his
wife to accompany him, which she refused. It was ma
grave conduct on .the part of Mrs. Caton, in follow-
ing a course her husband did not approve, and very
naturally excited strong mapicion ; but there was so
proof of adultery. After this she took other lodgings, where
it was slid she was accompanied by her mother, and that
Major Si. Rose also resided there. Now, in all ordinary
cams it would be euppoeed that a mother and the widow of a
clergyman would be some protection to a daulyhter, bat she
had not been examined. It was her duty to have protected
her daughter from committing adultery, and the proof might
have been given to the court, hut has net. He (Dr. Lush.
ington) referred to that part of the evidence with pais, bat
he was compelled to do so ; he felt it could not be pima
over without comment. The 14th, 15th, and 18th addle
the wee great intimacy between Mrs. Cates sad
rictiverre
St. Rose, as well as with the mother of Mn. Caton.
llama were two children also residing with them, one of
which was only six weeks old ; the elder of these two had
been sent back to Mrs. Caton, under the belief
that it was net the offspring of her husband.
but the coat was kept in the dark with
to that. It was proved that Major St. Roes respect
10
take the child of six weeks old in his anus ; that he accom-
panied Mrs. Caton out with it in their walks; that he was
prima when she gave it the breast. This was an indelicate
set, but the porter who spoke to the fact was present also.
It was deo asserted he was seen to go into her bedroom, and
remain a considerable time ; the question might arise, was
this • proof of adultery ? Mn. Ride'r's lady's maid had de-
posed to other acts of impropriety on the part of Mrs. Caton,
sad of the intimate terms in which Major St. Rose lived
with Mrs. Caton and her mother. Nothing could be more
army; than this evidence, taken in emanates with the pre-
°Wag *videos,. Mrs. Caton was well aware of bar has-
hand's simpiekma. She became pageant by Major St. Rose,'
and gave birth to a Mild on the 16th of October, 1846, the
Miami somas that he had not cohabited with his wife
Wow des 7th elDeamber, 1843 ; it was, therefore, mist
,if
Mohamed, that Mrs. Caton must have oriamitted
wife mate use. He (Dr. Lushiagtou) had erect
ten toil with the manner is which the 'vides*. had boo get
op. Itmleti be said, what matters how the pleadings aro pos
"pi if lbws MINI slid intulta t The mown fa. thg ere of
Lev-
E. 4 .L7:1111:: wasand esesatW
salkient etkierlee ea
prove that thaw
bees so MIMS on the part of the husband to the MA,
tad he must come to the cosciusioa that be had se law
leans with his wife, sad the 18th arid* proved the Kii

was that of Major St. Rose, aided, se that article was, by
the corroborative proofs. He felt that this long in be-
tween Major St. Rote and Mrs. Caton could not have bean
kept
ie: thou% the connivance of the mother (Mn.
Mont, and if there had been no adulterous intercourse be-
tween it would have been the duty of all patsies to
have respected the suspicions of Mr. Caton. l'isteefue,
taking all the eirenmstances into consideration he felt it
raised a strong prison facie cue of proof, and on the
part of Mrs. Caton than. has been no attempt to „onto.
Mrs. Ridout and other parties who could prove whether
these charges wire sound or not. He must, therefore, pro-
Bounce for the act of adultery with Major Se. Rose, though
he would say that he had arrived at it with some difficulty,
but he had at led felt satisfied that this decision was a cor-
rect one.
MILLS o. Csurrnst.—Nta.mov OF Ifrutiann.
This can has already been before the public. Mr. Mills
married a lady of the name of Harrison in the Island of
Jersey, she then being the wife of a Mr. Chilten, key has-
bend - g alive at the period of the second marriage. The
court pronounced for the nullity.

PREROGATIVE COURT.—TESTERDAT.
DENIM to. Fain.
The argnmeats in this case were resumed to-day by Dr.
Addeac, cad had •ot concluded at the close of the court.

ADMIRALTY COURT.-MAT 1.
TB■ WILLIAM AND DWILI/D.--BALTAGIB.

Dr. Hayford, en the part of the master and crew of two
yawls, applied to the ooart for salvage in saving this vessel,
whisk, with her cargo, was valued at 4431. 16e. 2d., what off
Loma* in a severe gale.
Dr. Jamey was fir tits steam tog Robert Owen, which
claimed far Meng her whist* harbour.
Dr. Adams was beard it opposition to the claim, and said
that tero MOM kad Wm commenced for time trifling ser-
vices, eme Ise 1101.
TM Nan am& a salvage service had beta rendered,
It wash therein" award M. for the yawls and 301. for
the tag.

WADI.

This was • eau; of ;Wings for wish:es rendered to the
Primes& by a mark by towing her into the harbour of
Whitstable during • ple is January list. She met with
severe weather, aid lost one of her anchors ; 601. had been
tendered.
Drs. Haggard and Robertson were heard for the owners of
the mask _ . .

"-Dn. Reitinson sad Twits for the Primrose.
The Court tlit there was no doubt that saleige ser-
vice had been rudersd. There had beta is atiereetnoas
weather, she had been obliged to earn eat two mites, and
was nuking a great deal of water what the Imola was ren-
dered. She was thea eseepelled to Mart from Imo starboard
mho?, and after Nue time slipped her other either, and
was then towed into harbour, where she was In pent dagger.
It mast, therefore, award 251. mon than hod be. tailored.
Salvage of 751. was awarded by the wart.

SECONDARIES' COURT—Yummy.
Beton Mr. Searodary Potter.
RAMSES v. ROPltall.m-LulttLITY or ♦ Pormoxixo

CZSDITOI..

This was an aetlos Pb. Humber, one of the
massagers to the Court of Bankruptcy, to Tethys' of the do-
*Want, who was stated to be a solicitor, fa Billiter-street,
the rem of 91. 14s. 10d., the efertaineeseges in-
curred in ennui= with a flat ialmskrepley, km* against
a perms named Saimaa. spa the petition of the defendant.
I* sapport of the ease of the *Jeff, the original docu-
ments enamel* with the id were produced to show that
the delledamt was the polkimieg creditor ; and • clerk
I. **Omit of Beakreptey, teriawly a clerk in the service
of the pleistlf, proved that sad* the fiat, Mr. Heather was
pat in pessoseket of Salmon's property, and that the
is raped* whisk this action wee brought would certhiglyi
be issaarei by Mr. Busher whilst so in pesemisa.
Oa Iles port of the defendant, it wee sataitted to the
Isearelleseadary that the proof which had bees Maimed by
the pate show that the defendant was the petitioning
creditor was not sufficient ; that there wee no evidence
whatever of a privity of contract between the parties; and
that, suppeeing that it were admitted that the defendant was
the petitioaism meditor, he was not responsible in point of
law„ the mignon beingsaid the proper parties to be sued.
Tbe Beeondary he considered the proof good, and
should wait it ; and, as to the point regarding the legal
liability, be cassidered that the defendant, as the petitioning
creditor, wee liable tor the preliminary oasts of the fiat until
the final appointment of assignees.
The defendant's advocate requested that a note of his ob-
jections might be taken.—The learned Secondary assented.
There was no defence on the merits, and, under the direc-
tion of the court, the jury returned a verdict for the sum
claimed.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Yarnion.
Betas Mr. Cosi:ardour Holm&
DISTI7TID ADJUDICATION.

The arguments were resumed en tha disputed adjudication
spinet George Start, of the firm of Gibson and Start,
bankers, of St. Albans. Mr. Fonblanque supported the
adjudication: it was opposed by Mr. Wilkln, solicitor to
Messrs. Gibson and Start.
Mr. G. Bement, the petitioning creditor, proved a debt
of 3091. on a judgment given by consent. He was cross-
imansined, to show that before commencing the action he
had approved an agreement, signed by the vest of the
creditors, to forbear proceedings; but this was not clearly
established.
Mr. Cherry, draper, of St. Albans, proved that Bturt's
house was locked up after July last. The furniture had pre-
viously been sold. He had not seen Start there aim. He
was one of the inspectors appointed under the agreement,
bat they had no power. The partnership between Gibson
and Stun wee dissolved on or about Dec. 1, 1847; the latter
carried on the bank siz or seven months longer.
Edward &stall, builder, of New North-road, in whose
house Stun had lodged for some time, spoke te the fact of
his being denied by his son while in the house.
Mr. T. George, solicitor, of Chipping Barnet, proved a
refusal of Senn to declare his place of residence when the
action of Mr. Bement was brought against him. The
action wee fleet commenced against Gibson only, who pleaded
the non-joinder of Start in abatement, and it was then no-
orrery to make him a defendant. Before trial, notice wee
given that a fiat was issued.
Mr. Midst satemitled that Mr. Seat had bags entrapped
into allordstandzent hp delankos Sea masmtmad-
iag that no mad be taken spina him.
The debt wee siniallip due him, and Neilsen there-
fore form the beefs of -a
Sat In bankruptcy. He also denied
that any act of bankruptcy had been made oat. By the
Melmit reined to, Mr. Gibson had undertaken to
lseptlate peoperty Into the estate, the creditors binding
themselves not to take proceedings either against Gibson or
the firm ; and Senn was consequently released.
/Misses law given of this agreement, and of an audio-
rity_kom ties petitioning creditor to at[ his denature,
Mr. Beeniesque replied, contending that the authority
wee net s to bind Mr. Belmont, otherwise it would
have been pleaded by Bturt to the action. The act of bent.
nate, —leans his house and locking it up—wea placed
be any doubt.
bey
Honour thought the at of bankruptcy the most im-
portant point, and this seemed at first established by the
evidence of Mr. Cherry, but, as had appeared afterwards,
be might have left with other intentions than to defeat or
delay his creditors. Potting aside the question of the pe-
titioning creditor bavirg sanctioned the agreement, it was
clear Start believed himself pleased from all claims; and
hence he might not have left home for the purpose of de-
feating them. Under theta circumstances, be should hold
that this was not an act of bankruptcy, nor was the denial
spoken to by Mr. Email, or what afterwards mad with
Mr. George. The adjudication must, therefore, be an-
nulled.

THE POLICE CO URTS.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Cararry.-31r. Hammitt requested the reporter to notice
his receipt of a sum of fie. in postage stamps for the pow-hos
from "A. 5.," who wished to see it acknowledged in the
Expreu.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Tan Rovat,Biz:Cia-vii.iirro-iiiiierrri.inow.—Jantes
Locke, Jen , and his three sone, Edwin, James, and George
Curtis, were brought up for further examination, charged
with having conspired together with intent to defraud cer-
tain parties of sums of money by falsely pretending to apply
the money towards the support of a charitable Institution (Sr
affording medical moistened to married females at the period
of their confinement The principal facts of this case have
formed the subject of a report in the Express on two
former occasions. .

lie. sea,10, Hyd•-parkaquare, barrister, was the fint
mitoses examined. Recollected some persons called at his
house, about two months ego, soliciting subscriptions for the
Belgrave Lying-in Institution. Two papers, nos a prospectus
of the alleged institution, were given at the time. Witness
did not see the persons who called • but, from the particulate
in the prospectus, thinking the institution was good in its
objects, he signed the subscription-book, and sitrtiltuinea by
his footman to the parties who called. Had with his
mosey on Ike faith that the Royal Helpers ying-in Insti-
tution we a bond Ad* institution, and that he would be at
liberty to refer a married woman to the institution for relief.
Witness also believed the representations in the prospectus
that the institution wee under the immediate patronage of
the Ducham of Kent and other distinguished persons whose
names were set forth in the prospectus.
Several other winterise were called to prove that they had
paid mosey to the prisoners for the benefit of the institution,
and midge the same impression as that entertained by Mr.
Shea.

1-a-ipector Leslie said the house was very meanly fur-
nished. I. the room used al an MEN there wss a table and
half a dozen chairs. Them were no stirgical Instruments or
appliances. There woe nothing to indicate that a lying-in
institution was held there. Witness found a book containing
suliseriptions to the "linen fund," with her Royal Hishnem
the Decker of Lent to it as a subscriber. Witnem
also touad a letter from her Royal RAbsurs secretary, Mr.
C,wper, sommosilmg bar Royal H gha in's name to be
withdrawn km rerespeetraess of the Royal Belgrave
Lying•im Imadisieu The lake was dined 1343. Witness
had obtained prase that the preapwAsass had ben printed
within the last two vareiths, all of whisk bore her Royal
Rieman% ague as ilaseasu
Mr. Rankrisk asked*. elder Leeks if he wished to say
anything la rmy to die dues ?
The primer Liebe. nu, *IR he had net sees his solicitor
wines ileturda and than be had been mewled to moue
his Edam y IllmMAse Oa ha had but Mimed by his
Umber that she he rushed a letter from the Rut of Car
iklq slating that be lid gives fall permission far his name
Si be seed as a Neu et the iestitution. With respect to
the charge that due was no institution in existence, there

were ten midwives present who would prove that they had
attended thousands of cases, and had received hundreds of
pounds from the institute. Some cases had been attended to
within the last fortnight. Then, as to the deficiency
of funds, the midwives declared that that was to
be attributed to the stir made by Mr. Ryder, in 1844.
Mr. Ryder called them- together under the pica of ascertain-
ing if any debts were *wing to them, in order that he
might see them paid. Mr. Ryder's proceedings bad ceases-
rated all the midwives, m he had prevented subscriptions
from coming to the institation. Marty subscribers had with-
drawn their names, and others had not taken the trouble
to make inquiries. Thee, with reference to the blinds
having on them the name of her Royal Highness the
Duchess of Kent, as patroness, which blinds it was alleged
were carried about and exhibited In various localities, that
was not correct, as the blinds had been broken for some
time. With reference to the use made of the Duchess of
Kent's name, her royal highness had been • liberal
supporter of the institution for many year, and had
the privilege of recommending 30 women to the Institution.
Her Royal Highness did give 101. towards the linen fund,
and the midwives would prove that boxes of linen were pro-
vided for the women when confined. Having paid thislol.,
her Royal Highness became a life subscriber, and being en-
titled to six letters, her Royal Highness's name was kept on
the subscribers' list. He (prisoner) considered this • very
bard we. He bad devoted 17 years of his time and energies
to the institution without proper remuneration. A salary
had been proposed by the committee, and he had received an
allowance of 1001. a yrar, which did not conpensate him for
the services ha rendered to the Institution.

Mr. Hardwick said he wotil-cl7;nii;SiTti;e prisoner that a
letter had bean put in to stow that after her Roy al Highness
bad withdrawn her name, he had used her name to collect
subscriptions.
The prisoner said at the time the letter was received from
her Royal Highness it was delivered to the committee, who
submitted it to legal persons. The result was that the com-
mittee found they weld not undo what they had done.
Mr. Hardwick said he should further Teased the case to
Wednesday next, and then he would decide whether he
would convict summarily or send the we to a jury.
A person here produced 78 letters from midwives who had
not been paid.
Another midwife produced 12 letters, for which she could
get no payment
The pisonius were then remanded. A gentleman con.
netted with the Pimlico Lying.in Institution wished it to
be known that the charity he represented had no knowledge
of the Belgrave Lying-in Institution. He believed that the
prisoners had got subscriptions from parties who believed
they were subscribing to the Pimlico Institution.