The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-04 00:00:00

eke for payment into Messrs. Wiliis and Co.'s bank bad not
bden complied with. On continuing the lIINISSRU, the re-
ceipts appeared upon the alderman's examination to have
abiounted to 1,2141. 16s. Id., and, after deducting the
a cunt for which he claimed credit, there remained a
anoe of 9341. Bs. ltd. due from him, in respect of
these receipts.—Mr. Lloyd on behalf of Alderman Gibbs,
opposed the motion, and said that as the alderman hid not
been di•charged from being trustee, and as his removal had
nqt even bee, asked, on behalf of the Attorney-General, at
the hearing, there was no ground whatever for depriving
him of the custody of the fund. An inquiry was now pending
before the master to ascertain why the direction of the covet,
as to the payment into Mows. Willis and Co.'s banking-
house, had not been complied with. If this were the proper
time to enter into that question, it could be 'hewn that such
payment had been impracticable.
The Vice-Chancellor : I suppose in the tense in which that
word bused in polite sogety.—Mr. Lloyd : The result of the
inquiry will satisfactorily explain this part of the case ; but
while the inquiry is pending the present motion is prema-
ture. There is no suggestion that the fund is in danger ;
nip is it pointed out what the court weld do with the money
except hand it back to Mr. Alderman Gibbs.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the result of the enquiry,
directed by the original decree, had been that Mr. Alderman
Gibbs had duly applied all that be bad received, and had in
fact male payments beyond what be bad received. Some of
these payments were such as the master thought—and the
I court -had agreed with him—could not be allowed, but there
was no imputation upon the intentions with which they had
been gads. His Honour bad then asked whether the for
arder, r to the payment to Messrs. Willis and Co., had
been emptied with, sad being informed that it had not, his
Mown bad directed an inqiury upon that subject, and or.
dead the RISPIRia to be continued. Now, neither party
had appealed ken this order, end in the course of its prose-
cutimatbe deindent had put in his examination, from which
it appeared, by kis own ststement, that his receipts exceeded
his expenditure by 9341. Bs. 11d. No reason for retaining this
sum appeared spas the naminetes. tinder these circum-
stances, without 'grins what adskt have been done but for
the dinettes aneuisid in the minimal dorm his Honour
thong**, neer amen been was ts Abed tbe balance,
appearing bile dm, to be pia Ws emit.
GOMM/ IP. Isenrg—Onnines O. SlllTR.—Ortxxses'
Broue.-11z. Beghillibt maned In these causes for injunc-
tions to made th'.,.-,.arts deendanta from selling porter
under the arm ef Glimaien grad Mr. Miller appeared
tor the ishadans is ten mom and tusiseited to the in-
;modem being grads& with sesta.
Dunn OF BIAVFORT V. PRILLIPB.—DrcaRR FOR OPRCI-
PIO PRZFORICARCZ CONSIMUTZO a JODOMART Dzmr.—By
a dooms et Mink 3,1283, theeent bad erased the sped&
eta eni nut enisnid ins by Mogan disdain
dirrarTamag
isrehaem den 'ambits Giersasinantm esiesdnil In
the Dabs of Iluorkat's nealese esedensg ; red the awns,
was thseeby greeted In teeming Wean en the parshers.
gamy, waft wee 'edged that, on tlie nesiniss erne con-
veying In the MMUS, the defendant sigma pay what
should be band due as taking the ammo ; and theplain.
tiffs' seals wen * be taxed, and paid by the defendant.
Before the empietion of the purchase, the de-
fendant died, and his estate was in the course
of administration in another suit. The present bill was
then filed to have the original suit revived and for a resale
of the estate, with a declaration that the plaintiff was en-
titled to stand as a specialty creditor for the difference be-
tween the proceeds of the sale and the original purchase
money, interest, and costa—Mr. W. M. James appeared for
the plaintiffs. Mr Ruch, for the defendant, referred to
" Jones v. Williams," (11 Adolphus and Ellis ;) " Rome o.
Young," (4 Youngs and Collyer, 205) ; and (Williams on
Executors, p. 805).
The Vice-Chancellor said the decree amounted to more
.than a judgment quod computet ; it was substantially an
order to pay a definite sum, and the plaintiff must be treated
as a judgment creditor.

Retort nee-Chancellorlgram.
FARMAN O. WlOOlNs.--ConeTnucnow OP WILL.—Wm.
Wiggins, the testator in the cause, by his will after directing
all his just debts, flamed, and testamentary expenses, to be
fully paid and unified, devised and bequeathed to his
trustees and executors certain specific articles of furniture,
together with all his estate whether freehold, copyhold,
or leasehold ; and his personal estate of every descrip.
tion upon trust to permit his daughter Hannah and his wife
Rebecca to enjoy the furniture for the life of the latter,
the daughter being to reside with, and have the care of, her
mother. The testator then directed his trustees to pay cer-
tain life-annuities and legacies to his wife and children by
name ; and concluded by directing the residue of his estate
to be invested in government securities, and the whole to
be divided at the death of his daughter Hannah between his
two grandchildren. The question was whether the legacies
and annuities given by the will, were made a charge upon
the real estate. Messrs. Rogers, K. Pryor, Terrell, and
Elderton, appeared for the different parties to the suit.—His
Honour made • decree declaring that the whole of the real
end personal estate et the testator was charged with the pay-
ment of the legacies and annuities given by the will.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Ex FARM ILEINING.—HABRAS CORPUS.—COMMITTAL
UNDER TH. SMALL Dawes ACT 07 1846 FOR NON-PAY-
MENT OP AM lIIIITALMINIT 07 A DM' ORDRRID YO DI
PAID BY INSTALXI3I7O.—PTOO a return made to a writ of
habeas corpus it appeared that a judgment coeditor of the
prisoner had applied under the 8 & 9 Viet. c. 127, to
the judge of the Sheriffs' Court of London, for an order to
compel payment of the judgment debt. That order was
granted on Feb. 4th hut, and directed that the debt should
be paid by instalment', and that in default the debtor should
be committed to prima for forty days. That order remained
=executed until the 27th of April, when it was put in force.
Mr. Pashley now moved that the prisoner be discharged, on
the grounds that-1. The prisoner ought to have been sum-
mated to show cause ago cwt the enforcing an order which
bed so long remakes& delpistied, inasmuch as circumstances
might, since the date oi lilko order, have taken place which
weal& alter the aolaiaa of the judge as to the propriety of
committing; and 8. net the order directed the debtor to
be committed, in agora of payment, to the prison of the
plies where he lad bow reent at the time the original
jedgmtat was gives, eel net, as he submitted that the sta-
tute required, to the prim of the place where lee was resi-
ded at the time of the sear made. Mr. Petersdorff was
lewd in support of the commitment.
Lard Denman repotted that the opinion which he was
abed to same was sue ha which the whole bench did not
ZesHe that thejurkslictiim sufficiently amend;
. the residence inkmassi wee that which existed at the
original trial ; and that, notwithstanding the looseness
with which the act was framed, the proceeding under this
statute wee; as Mr. Baron Alderson had described it, a
limited aeries ad satidaciendum, limited to forty dap, with
poem* 00.170.10007 or judge to reduce that imprison-
Biwa, sis a Math* of indulgence or compassion. He wee
of *aka, *mime, that the power of the judge to
commit had been eampletely exercised in the first instance,
and the power towhees the order then completely given.
Mr. Justice Patton differed from hie lordship on both
points, but wills soirees Tema and didblence. He thought
the clause of the ad under e==lision mast *artificially
drawn, and that the framer bad wholly II:mottos that when
an order was made for paying a debt by many imitelments
a considerable time might elapse before all the beftiosnts be-
came due, and that circumstances might arise between the
time of making the order, and that for paying a /Mote te-
stament, which would well excuse default in teepees of the
latter. If this commitment was good, no such elsoanniances
could ever be brought to the mind of the judge. W 1 re-
gard to the other point, the debtor was to be committed to
the common gaol, &c., within the county, &c., in which
Ruth debtor IUI.I be sident, and that he understood to
mean the gaol of the place of his continuing residence.
Mr. Junco Coleridge was of opinion that u the summons
which founded the jurisdiction to commit must issue from
that court within the district of which the debtor was
actually resident, so the warrant to commit must be limited
by the like condition of residence. With regard to the other
point, he thought that if any judicial act which affected the
liberty of the subject wee to be done, it must appear that the
person whose liberty was to be affected by it had had an op-
portunity diming heard against it ; that this was a judicial
act,. because it was the removing a suspension from a writ of
camas ad satisfaciendum, after the lapse of a time within
which facts might have taken place that would affect the
mind of a judge on the subject of allowing that suspension
to be removed, and also, if removed, on the subject of the
period not exceeding forty days for which imprisonment
under it should last ; and that, however great the expense
might be of repeated investigations, the evil must be deemed
unavoidable, if no ether means existed of preventing the im-
prisonment of a debtor wrongly charged with default, or
against whom, on some consideration, he creditor may have
consented to forego further demand of unpaid instalments.
On this point, then, he thought that the execution had been
improperly enforced.
Mr. Justice Erie was of opinion that the return to the
writ of habeas corpus was valid on both points. The objec-
tion to it in point of form related to the question of residence
and the limits of the jurisdiction, and on that he thought that
the proper construction of the act was, that the judge who
had jurisdietion over the matter might comidt the debtor to
the gaol tithe district where he was when the proceedings
commenced. Upon the other objection, which was one of
substance, he thought that, as the conditional order for
"pies bad been made in the first instance after due
inquiry by the judge, a summons, on the condition
eriing to show cause why it should not Wee,
wield only tend to make the order inoperative. Common
experience showed that in the cue of sense debtors,* mkt to
show cause would only be a warnWgW lawn W withdraw
from the pursuit of their creditors. Hefts 1844, a median
who bad recovered a judgment might issue a *pies spirt
hie debtor; the statute of that year restricted this power bit
cases in which the amount recovered exceeded 201. • dm
came this statute, which in certain came, and by a eerie&
proceeding, removed that restriction. When that restriction
was temoved, and to the extent in which it wee removed.
the old law must be taken to be again in operation. U sag
injustice was occasionally caused by this, it would be
counterbalanced by the fact, that the attempts of fraudulent
debtors to cheat their creditors must as often be defeated.
He had no hesitation in adopting this view, because any
wrongful imprisonment of a debtor could at once be reme-
died by the judge. He, therefore, was of opinion that the
prisoner ought to be remanded.—Prisoner remanded.
The like judgment was, as a matter of course, pronounced
in the case of another prisoner brought up on a similar writ.
DAVIS ACTION FOR SEDUCTION.—Mr.
Welsby showed cause against a rule which had been obtained
for setting aside the nonsuit in this case. The plaintiff com-
plained of a trespass and wok committed on his daughter,
her seduction thereby, and the consequential loss of her
services during the time of her confinement. At the trial,
which took piste at the Caernarvonshire assires in the spring
of 1846, it was proved that, at the time of the trespass com-
plained of, the daughter was net in the service of the
plaintiff, actually or constructively, but at that time, though

she returned to the plaintiff be fore confinement, bad been
in the service of another person.—Lord Denman, who tried
the case, was of opinion that the loss of service was not con-
' sequential on any unlawful act done by the defendant against
the plaintiff, and ordered a nonsuit to be entered. This
ruling, the kerned counsel submitted, was correct—Mr.
Townsend was heard on the other side.
' The court was of opinion that the nonsuit must not be
disturbed. The right of the father or mother to sue in such
• ease was no more than the right of a master or mistress,
stranger in blood, who could not have maintained this action
if the servant had been engaged after the wrongful act of the
defendant The right of action depealed on the loss of ser-
vice being a consequence on a wrongful act of the defendant,
by which was meant a wrongful act as against the 'plaintiff ;
but however immoral the act of the defendant had been, it
was not, for the reason already given, wrongful as against
the plaiLtiii.—Rule discharged.

BAIL COURT.
Before Mr. Jude, Miebunsn.
Tas QUINN v. THOMAS WELARTON SIOLRDEIL—Citna-
NAL INFORMATION FOR LIBZL.—Mr. Martin moved for a rule
calling on Thomas Wharton Smerden tosbow cause why a eel.
minal information should not be filed against him for a libel
at the instance of Miss Eliza Cook. The defendant was the
printer and publisher of a paper called the Daily Adver-
tiser. Miss Cook was a young lady of about twenty-five
years of age, and had written • number of poetical pieces,
which bad been much admired. The matter complained of
was of a most serious description, as it charged Miss Cook
with one of the most horrible crimes that could be perpe-
trated. In the paper of the 29th of May, a para-
graph appeared which stated that she had given birth
to a child, and that she bad murdered it. It was in the
following words " ELIZA Coos.—Considerable anxiety
bas been excited on the part of the public who do not read
the poetical contributions of the Dispatch to know what
really can have induced its proprietors to present their sub-
scribers with a portrait of • woman who has murdered her
own child. Such is fame among the messes • murderess is
a heroine, and a poetess unknown." The learned counsel
then stated that the affidavits of Miss Cook and several of
her friends gave the most explicit denial to anch fact, and
concurred in saying that there wu not the slightest ground
to suspect that Miss Cook at any penof her life
had bean guilty of anything which could entitle an
one to cast imputation on her private character, and
both she and her friends were moat anxious that a public de-
aial should be given to such a charge. It was probable that
the granting of the rule would terminate the proceedings, as
In the paper in question a statement waspublished yesterday,
positively denying that there was any truth in the accusa-
tion, and some communication had taken place between the
parties which it was likely would prevent any further pro-
ceedinp.—Rule granted.
NISI rms.
MEEILINGHAM e. TOWELL.—PLEA Or NO CONSIDERA-
TION IN .AN ACTION ON A BILL OF EXCHANOE.—Mr. Serjeant
Shee and Mr. Cole appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hum-
trey and Mr. Lush for the defendant. The action was brought
to recover 2501. on a bill of exchange drawn by one Walter
Dowling, and accepted by the defendant, Richard Willem
Powell, and endorsed to the plaintiff. It was pleaded, first,
that there was no consideration ; and secondly, that it was
endorsed to the plaintiff after maturity. The affirmative of
the issue being on the defendant, Mr. Hamfrey addressed
the jury, and said that the drawing of this bill had its origin
in a gambling transaction. The defendant, a very young
man, had accepted two bills on Oct. 10, at a public-house on
Holborn-hill, each for 2501. He wanted to obtain the money
for the purpose of sporting at Newmarket. Not having ob-
tained the money, an advertisement was inserted in the
Morning Advertiser of Oct. 21, charging Dowling with
stealing the bills, and cautioning the public against taking
them. Dowling was apprehended on this charge and
brought before a magistrate, and the charge was dismissed,
the attorney for Dowling stating that the bills were de-
stroyed, but this bill was presented for payment at ma-
turity. Witnesses were called to prove these facts, and also
that there was no endorsement by Dowling when the bill
was presented. Dowling was called for the plaintiff, but,
not appearing, was called on his stibprena. Evidence
for the plaintiff was then called to show that the bill
wu endorsed by Dowling when presented, but the jury re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON FLEAS.
Sittings in Banco.
IN RE THOMAS KINNEY.—APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE
A PRISONER COMMITTED UNDER A PROCESS ALLEGED TO
BE ILLEGAL.—Mr. Padsley applied fora writ of habeas
corpus to bring up the prisoner, in order that he might be
discharged under the authority of this court. The prisoner
bad been sent to gaol, under a warrant of commitment
issued by a judge of an inferior court, whose jurisdiction was
derived from the 8 and 9 Viet., c. 127, sec. 1. This statute
gave power to certain judges or commissioners therein named
to order persons to pay debts by instalments; and if it
should appear that any party against whom such an order
is issued, has the ability to pay, and becomes a de-
faulter, the commissioner shall commit him to prism for
any period not exceeding forty days. In the present
case the debtor had been a defaulter in respect of one instal-
ment, and this application was made upon two grounds—
first, that he had been committed to prison without having
previously received a summons requiring him to show cause
why he had not paid the said instalment; and second, that
the warrant did not properly state whether the debtor re-
sided, at the time of the commitment, within the jurisdiction
of the court by whose order he was in custody. The same
question had been brought before the Court of Queen's
Bench, but the learned judges of tbat court were divided in
opinion. Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justice Coleridge
held that the debtor was entitled to be called upon
to show cause against the commitment in execution; and
he (Mr. Pashley) submitted that such was the true construe-
tion of the statute. Upon the second question, also, he con-
tended that the party would be entitled to his discharge. The
act required that the warrant should distinctly state the par-
ticular county, city, borough, or place within the jurisdiction
of which the party bath been resident at the time of the
commitment. In the original summons on which judgment was
obtained in the present case the debtor was described to be re-
sident in Fleet-lane, in the City of London ; whereas, in the
warrant of commitment, it was merely stated that the man
" had been residing in the City of London." The jurisdic-
tion, therefore, did not sufficiently appear, as the party
might have discontinued to reside in the City between the
time of the original summons and the date of the warrant.
Upon this point, as well as upon the other, the Court of
Queen's Bench were divided ; and the learned counsel urged
that the matter was one which ought to be determined. It
MIS a question of considerable importance, and one which
must arise under the new County Courts Act, as well as
upon the statute he had named.—Writ granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in BANCO.
BUSINESS OF TES COURT DORM) THE APTER-SITTIXOB.
—Yesterday morning, notice was given that the after term
sittings will be commenced on Friday, the 18th inst., and be
continued on um steseeding day until and including the
Bth of July (the 23rd of June and Sundays excepted). The
new Well and denenner papers will then be taken, and the
lemma b. me empowered to deliver judgment upon
spend eem, nsegises, and rides then standing over for that
Pur= O. GREEN.—IS • SCHEDULE, NOT ACTUALLY
silent 011 ATTACHED TO A BILL OF BALE, SUBJECT TO
Starer Durt ?—This was a feigned bane to try the right of
property in certain goods, seized under en execution by tke
sheriff of Middlesex. At the trial before the Lord Chief
Baron at the Middlesex sittings after last Hilary term, the
plaintiff tendered in evidence a bill of sale of the goods and
a schedule described to have been " annexed" thereto!). It
appeared the schedule, which, if " annexed " to • bill of
sale, was exempted from stamp duty, was not, infect, pinned
or otherwise attached to it ; and the learned judge, consi-
dering that it was not " annexed " within the meaning of
the stamp act, *seed it. The bill of sale assigned to the
plaintiff all the goods, plate, and household farniture, and
property then in the house of and belonging to the assignor,
and went on to state, that the " chief articles thereof were
enumerated in the schedule annexed thereto." The bill of
sale, without the schedule, was tendered in evidence, but
it was not received; and the Lord Chief Baron, hold-
ing that the plaintiff was bound to prove both documents,
as one was explanatory of the mode in which the
other was to operate, nonsuited the plaintiff. A
rule for a new trial having been subsequently obtained,
Mr. Well, showed cause yesterday, and cited several autho-
ring* in support of the Lord Chief Baron's ruling. Mr.
Watson, Q.C. supported the rule, which was made absolute.
The court observed that the bill of sale in question contained
an assignment of all the articles in the house, Bed it wee not
lug general or effective by stating that some of those articles
were enumerated in the schedule. There was en absolute
conveyance of all the property, whether stated in the schedule
or not. The bill of sale was, therefore, by itself, a perfectly
sensible document, and was improperly rejected, although it
would have been very different if the bill of sale contained
an awignment only of the articles mentioned in the schedule.
—Rule abeolute fora new trial.

WAKLZT, M.P., V. COOK AND ANOTHER.—LIBEL.—
This was an action by the coroner for Middlesex to recover
compensation from the defendants, as registered proprietors
of the Medical Times, fora libel published in that journal.
The facts of the ease have been frequently before the public,
two verdicts having already passed for the plaintiff, one for
1501. and the ether for 1761. A rule to show cause why the
latter verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had,
upon the ground of misdirection, by the Lord Chief Baron,
having been obtained last term, the Attorney-General
and Mr. Bramwell showed cause yesterday at length against
that rule, and Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., with Mr. Lush, sup-
ported it. The misdirection complained of was, that the
learned judge told the jury that they might import into the
consideration of the case as " matters of history,"certain oc-
currenoes relating to the plaintiff, which were not set forth
upon the record, or commented upon by the learned counsel.
The court took time to consider.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
Before Mr. lledeisherilf BmrkelL
Sisal, v. Dihhow.—THE REV, Du. Dru.olv.—The plain-
tiff in this ease is a baker and dealer in provisions in Wil-
liam-street, Notting-hill, and the defendant is the Rev. Dr. I
R. C. Dillon. The action was brought to recover 51. 7s. 6d.
for bread and provisions supplied to Mrs. Dillon. The de-
fendant
denied his liability. Mrs. Dillon lived apart from II
her husband, whose name some time ago was prominently
before the public as promoter of a snit against his
wife in the Ecclesiastical Court. The defendant brat became
acquainted with his wife when she was only 14 years old.
The defendant was a lodger in the house of her father,
Capt. Drury, R.N., at the time, and an intimacy which was
carried on clandestinely between them, finally resulted in
the birth of a child. In 1839, the dehndant married Mrs.
Dillon, who was then 18 years old, in consequence of
the interference of the Bishop of London ; but ever
since, Mrs. Dillon had lcd a miserable life, in con-
sequence of the alleged ill-treatment of Dr. Dillon,
and, subsequently, they very seldom lived together. Event- I

ually, Dr. Dillon was deprived of his gown. Captain Drury
was dead, and his widow had an allowance of 901. a year,
with which she maintained a family of eight children, and
mainly supported Mrs. Dillow and her child.
Mr. Prentice, add/easing:he jury for the defence, said the
presentable was one of great importance to his client, who
had been brought to the cedar et ibeituticia, by the eion.
duct of his wife. Since Ye had bean dielmern'd„ kk lams
bad bean very limited, and at the present time he mai Heins
in the vestry-room of a chapel in which he officiated, in
Spitalfields. It was urged that be was not liable, as he
allowed his wife as much as he could afford, and sufficient to
maintain her. It was then proved in evidence that the de-
fendant derived 701. a your from property in Ireland, 81. a
year from a chapel, of which he was the lessee, in Doctors'.
commons, and about 801. a year from a chapel in White's-
row, Spitalfields. Out of this he allowed his wife, on an
average, about 11. a week.
The learned Un‘ler-Sheriff having summed up, the jury
found for the plaintiff,—.another action, brought against the
same defendant, under similar circumstances, was called on,
but after the jury were sworn the defendant's counsel
agreed to a verdict for the full amount.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Beton Mr. Commission Yaw.
IN RE J. M. BLASIIPIELD.—EXTENSIVE FAILURE.—
This was a meeting for the choice of easignees in the matter
of this bankrupt, who was a cement manufacturer, and who
has failed for between 40,0001. and 60,0001. About two
years since, the bankrupt was in difficulties to the extent of
about 42,0001, and he offered a composition of 10s. in the
pound, which was accepted. One instalment of 3s. 4d. in
the pound was paid, and another of the Lice amount was
secured by certain property, is that, in point of fact, the
creditors will have to prove for only 13s. 4d. in the pound.

POLICE.r..-.YESTERDAY.

SOUTHWARK.—ALLIGID ROBBRILY OP IRON PROM A
RAILWAY COMPANY.--Jduesse Bishop, a smith at Battersea,
appeared upon his reesignimmeas 10 MVO, arsa,
stealing a quantity of law, the progeny et the
Western Railway Company.—On Oros-der samdastism,
it was stated that a quantity of is bad bean denvonsi to
the prisoner by the company's servants far the purpose et
making what were termed "points," and that instead of
returning the overplus or cuttings of the iron, he had dis-
posed of them to an iron merchant on Bankaide, asd at a
rate very much below the real value of each article. In the
course of the examination, the witnesem for the prosecution
all agreed in the fact that it was the prisoner's duty to have
returned the surplus iron into the company's stores, instead of
which he had disposed of some tons as already described.—
Mr. Cottingharn did not think that the accused was bound
to return the cuttings ; but he construed into a felonious
that the iron had been delivered to the accused for a
eular purpose; and after he had performed his work he
ept the surplus iron back, of which he had legal possession.
With regard to those cuttings, it was the company's duty to
have had a clear understanding with the prisoner on that
point, and to have en-tinged that the whole were to be re-
turned, instead of beinii considered as the perquisites of the
person whom they employed to do their work. They were
blameable in the transaction, therefore, in not cautioning
him on the delivery of the iron to return the overplus.
Under such circumstances, therefore, he felt bound to dismiss
the charge, and was further of opinion that there were no
grounds for accusing him of felony ; but that if the company
pleased they indict him at the sessions. At present
he was dim
LAMBETIrI A17231Fr ro utanan.—Mr. James
Loftus Brock, a half-pay lieutenant in the army, was
charged with attempting to murder his wife and stabbing her
through the left arm. Mrs. Ann Brock deposed, that she
a had been married to the prisoner, who had been lieutenant
in the army for upwards of 20 years, and was at present on
half-pay ; for the last three years his conduct towards her
and his family was of the most violent description. On
Tuesday night he remained from home; and on Wednesday
night he stopped away also, and did not return until near ten
o'clock next morning. As men as he entered thereon he,
as usual, commenced abusing her, and also made use of
threats about taking away her life ; and his manner was
such that she left the room, went down stairs, and
remained in the yard for nearly two hours. Hoping that
his anger had subsided she returned up stain, and was
in the act of preparing the dinner for her family
when her husband cams behind her and made a stab at her
heart, on the left side. Her eldest son, at the instant, struck or
pushed his arm, so that the blow fell upon her left arm instead
of between her ribs, as was intended, and the blade of the
knife passed right through the fleshy part. Her screams
brought the landlord of the house and other persons to her
assistance, and her husband was secured by a policeman.
The surgeon who dressed the wound said that if she had
been struck by the knife on the place where the blow was
aimed at, instantaneous death must have been the result, as
the instrument must have penetrated the heart. The
police constable here produced the knife, which was
about four inches long, quite taper, and sharp at the
point, with • ridge down the centre like a stiletto,
and both sides sharp, and deeply stained with blood.—
The witness said that her husband had evidently been
drinking on the night before and on that morning, but still
was perfectly well aware of what be was about. He had
frequently told her he was determined to take her life, and as
frequently told her he knew how to do it, by stabbing her
close to the fifth rib.—James Lincoln Brock, the MCC of the
prisoner, corroborated a great portion of his mother's tes-
timony.—Police. constable 88 L, who took the prisoner into
custody, said that at the house in Best-street, as well as on
his way to the station-house, and even at the station-house,
the prisoner expressed his regret he had not done the thing
effectually, and that if he had he did not mind being hung
for her. The prisoner, who declined offering anything in
defence, was remanded
to a future day.
WESTMINSTER.—Arreentxo A Menem or PAR-
LIAMENT.—Mr. Patrick O'Connor wan charged with wing
abusive language to Mr. John Patrick Somers, M.P. for
Sligo. The complainant stated that he went into the lobby
of the House of Commons on Tuesday evening, when the
defendant met him and asked when he was going to pay him
the money he had lent him. Comte:el:sant answered that so
far from his owing defendant any , the debt was on the
other side ; complainant further ask O'Connor whether he
denied having embezzled 1001. of his money, with w 'luck he
absconded to America. O'Connor, in a loud voice, said it
was false; he was then put out by the deputy serjeanteat-
arms. When Mr. Somers came out of the house the defen-
dant again met him, and shaking his stick, used similar
language. O'Connor had on two previous occasions annoyed
him in a similar manner, once at the Reform Club, where on
hfr.Somers being denied to him, he had threatened the porter.
Mr. Broderip said if the defendant had any claim on Mr.
Somers, he must pursue the remedy given by law.—De-
fendant I Now, are you afraid of my smutting you ?—Mr.
Somers : No, I am not; I am afraid of your provoking me
to assault you. After a pause, complainant added, with
great warmth, " le it • man from Sligo that would ask me
if I am afraid ? you are the only Sligo man that would ac-
cuse me of cowardice. I thought you knew me better."
The hon. member was about to Proceed with increased
warmth, when the magistrate stopped him.—Mr. Kelly,
of Camp-hill, Sligo, was called, and admitted that
after defendant had called him and another friend
of Mr. Somers's, swindlers and blacklegs, he (wit-
ness) called defendant " a deformed assassin."—Mr.
Fitzgerald O'Brien said there were many members
leaving the House of Commons at the time defendant at-
tacked Mr. Somers in the street ; he
gross an ontnge in his life.—Mr. Broderip asked defendant
what he had to say in answer to the charge ?—Defendaat
said he lent complainant 21., which he paid him back ; and
then complainant borrowed 101. of him, • him that
he should have it wk he wanted it. Complainant
afterwards invited him to dine with him at Bellamy's, and
bring a friend ; which he did. At that time he and com-
plainant were on the most intimate terms. When he wanted
the money complainant put him off for a few days,
and be (defendant) having contracted a debt at his
lodgings, complainant became answerable for it, and
gave the man a promissory note for his bill, which
was not paid. Defendant was again attempting a lengthened
statement of the account between them, when Mr. Broderip
observed: If your account that Mr. Semen owes you money
be true, it would be no justification for the attack.—Defen-
dant then endinued—lie wrote to complainant for the
money, being • balance of the 101., of which he was in great
need, and then went to the House of Commons and quietly
asked him for it, when complainant accused him of em-
heeding his money, and said he might have trans-
ported hini, in so loud • tone that the bar
people at Bellamy'e must have heard it. Defen-
dant then told him that he had borrowed his money,
when complainant stamped and put himself in a threaten-
ing attitude. After that, defendant left, and on coming
down again from Bellamy', met complainant by accident,
and when in the street certainly accused him of making
statements that were not true, when Mr. O'Brien shouldered
defendant awry. Defendant admitted that, much irritated
at complainant's behaviour, he had made use of language to
him which in his cooler moments he regretted. In con-
cluding his statement, defendant, looking at Mr. O'Brien,
who was sitting near him, said, " I told him, I don't
want any hangers on of Semen's ; I know you as a
blackleg."—Mr. O'Brien started up, and exclaimed in a
loud Me, " Yeu're a liar."—Defendant, in a subdued
tone, replied, " You would not dare say that to me if we
were elsewhere."—Mr. Broderip immediately called both the
parties to order.—Mr. O'Brien apologised for having
used the expression in the magistrates preeence.—Mr.
Broderip observed that defendant appeared to indulge in
gross personalities - and added, "If you did say the words
you have repeated to Mr. O'Brien, more shame for you ;
you appear to have no notion of any of the de.
cencies of life." Mr. Kelly and Mr. O'Brien were
both re-called, when Mr. Broderip put to each the
question : "At the first meeting of the complainant
and defendant, did complainant say or do anything to pro-
voke the conduct stated by the complainant ?"—Both —Both wit-
nesses declared that Mr. Somers did nothing to provoke it.—
Mr. Broderip called on O'Connor to find bail himself in 1001.
and two sureties in 60!. each, to keep the peace to Mr.
Somers and all her Majesty's subjects until the next sessions,
when Mr. Somers may exhibit articles of the peace against
him if he thought fit—Defendant was then removed, and
not being _provided with ball was sent to prison.
TEArdES.—Wonx ING AN ILLICIT STlLL.—Richard
Scott was charged with carrying en an illicit still at No. 11,
Plummer's-row.—Pargeter and Key, both officers of excise,
went to the above house, and on entering the back parlour
they found a etill at work throwing off strong spirit,. There
were also 100 gallons of molasses wash in a front room, and a
bladder of spirits apparently ready to be taken away. The
prisoner, who was in the room, denied all knowledge of the
still, saying he was only " a lodger," but he had his shirt ,
sleeves tucked up and his trousers were perfectly saturated
with the wash. The prisoner further declared that he had
bought the trousers of a man named Joon, who had run
away. A sample of the spirit. Wet produced, and was ap-
parently of • most deleterious nature. The prisoner was
fined 301., and committed in default for three months.