The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-19 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-W 4

Clem Brea—Before Mr. Justice pile sad a Special Jar]
DOB DIX. 8111/110117, Barr., V. CUAKBLIS.—EJECT-
'amt.—This was en action of ijeament, in which the vali-
dity of a number of leases for three lives granted by the
plaintiff's father, the late baronet, were questioned. The
lessor of the plaintiff claimed, as the lord of the manor of
Baltenhall, and the land and premises in question, he con-
tended, had been taken. from the waste lot the said manor.
To prove the fee simple was in the plaintiff, Mr. Oodson,Q.C.,
produced a deed executed in the year 1766, which showed that
at that time the fee was in Sir T. S. Sebrigbt, Bart., the
grandfather of the plaintiff. In the month of July, 1793,
the father of the plaintiff, by a deed executed just previous
to his marriage with Miss Harriett Cross, eonveyed the manor
above-mentioned to two trustees, upon certain trusts. Its
principal effect was to give a life interest only in the estate
to the late baronet; he had power only, therefore, to grant
leases of 21 years, whereto he had taken upon himself to
grant leases for three lives to the defendant and others. The
late baronet, Sir J. S. Sebright, died on the 15th of April,
1846; his father, plaintiff's grandfather, died in 1794, and
the estate became vested in the plaintiff. It consequently
became apparent from this that the grandfather had the fee,
the deceased only a life interest, and the plaintiff the estate.
An admission by the defendant was put in and read, to the

effect that he claimed to held the premises in question, by I
.iituo of a tease from the deceased baronet to our
Mil. Whateley, for the defendant, char icterised
the action as the mast unrighteous that had ever been
lir night. The plaintiff came Lire court virtually &educing his
dead father of a fraud, for such it must have been on his part
or on the part of his attnrney to convey what he had no
right to do. The learned counsel said he was able to prove '
' that the property really formed no ',art of the manor of Bxl-
tenhall, but am parcel of the manor of Swinetherzl, the pro-
perty of the Bishop of Worcester.—His lordship here inter.
rupted, and said that was of no consequence ; here there was
' en acknowledgment of title by the defendant under a lease
from the plaintiffs father. After a few further observations
by counsel of a very emphatic nature, Mr. Justice Erie
cautioned the jury from permitting any other consideration
than the evidence to bias their judgment, as however hard it
might occasionally be to decide such action, upon the strict
rule oflaw, much greater wrong would arise not of a departure
from it. The jury found for the plaintiff, end requested
their foreman to add, that they hoped the plaintiff would
give compensation to the defendant —A second case was
then proceeded with, of the same nature as the above, with a
simil,r result. By these verdicts other caws are also de.
cided, which have stood over by judges' orders to abide the
event of these two. In these trials great interest was eli-
cited; in fact, they have been the pet causes of the assizes.
WILLIAMS O. GRAVATT.—LIABILITT OF AN ENOINSER-
IN-CHIEP. TO A SUB-ENOINEZIL. - This was as action
brought by Mr. E. L. Williams, an engineer, of this city,
against Mr. William Gravatt, the eminent engineer. of Par-
liament-street, to recover a sum of 6641. and interest, for
laying out and making sections of twenty-four miles and a
half of a line of railway now abandoned, called the Wor-
cester and Leominster Railway. The defendant, who had
been appointed the chief engineer of the company in Aug.,
181.5, informed Mr. John \Vbecly Lea, one of the mann,„ing
committee, that it was totally impassible, in consequence of
the pressure of other professional engagements upon him,
to undertake personally the sections of the line. In conse•
' queues of this, Mr. Lea stated that he knew a gentleman well
qualified for the duty, if his other engagements would allow
him to do it. The defendant requested that the party
might be communicated with. This was done, and the con-
sequence was the plaintiff's employ.—On cross examination,
Mr. Lea stated that a Mr. Herbert had been employed as the
surveyor to prepare the ground plans, and had received for
that 8001. from Mr. Oravatt ; and further, that plaintiff wax,
it was understood, to peeped° the plans for defendant in De-
cember gratis. No shares were issued, but the fun.ls neces-
sary were provided from the resources of the Worcester,
Warwick, and Rugby, and Great Eastern and Western
Railways.—Mr Herbert was hinuelfcalled as a witness, who
seemed to place the question of retainer beyond all doubt,
for the defendant, in the course of conversation touching
the preparation and completion of the plans and sections
by the then eventful 30th of November, informed him that
he had obtained theservices of Mr. Williams, of Worcester,
to whom he would look for directions.—Mr. Alexander,
Q.C., addressed the jury for the defence, and urged that the
company were the parties to pay, not the engineer-in-chief.
The credit was given to them, as the plaintiff himself clearly
showed, by sending his bill in to them ; betides, he put in
some correspondence between the parties, amongst other
letters, one in which the plaintiff, in writing to the defendant,
said he considered himeelf engaged and retained by the com-
pany as acting engineer.—The jury, after Mr. Justice Erie
had summed up, found a verdict (or the plaintiff for the
amount claimed, 6641.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LINCOLN, Ju' 17.
The judges entered this city about one o'clock, and imme-
diately opened the commi..aions for the county and town.
There are about 12 criminal cases in the county, and 2 in the
city, which latter were disposed of in the course of the day. The
principal cam in the county calendar is a charge of poisoning.
It is expected there will be about a dozen causes, several of
which will be special juries. The county hilliness does not
commence until Monday (this day).

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Wixenzantn, Jove 17.

riisTian;;;lliefore Chief Justice Wide and a Special Jury.
HARVEY V. JOHNbTON.—BREACH OP PROMINE OP MAR-
RIM/E.—This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for an alleged breach of promise of marriage. The
declaration stated that the plaintiff wan sole and unmarried,
and resided at Toronto, and that, in consideration of her
leaving America and returning to Ireland, for the purpose '
of marrying the defendant, he (the defendant) promised to
marry ker. It went on to say that the plaintiff did leave
America and return to Ireland at the defendant's request;
and that the plaintiff had thereby lost the good-will of a
butanes' as a milliner and dressmaker. The pleas were,
that the defendant did not promise; that the plaintiff did
not arrive in Ireland within a reasonable time after the
making of the promise; that he had not received due notice
of her arrival in Ireland; that the plaintiff was not ready
and willing to marry him; that the defendant had
not due notice of her intention to marry him; that
a reasonable time for the defendant to many the
plaintiff had net elapsed before the commencement of
this suit; and, lastly, that the plaintiff had absolved him
from the completion of the contract.—Mr. Cockburn stated
that he was justified in bringing this ease before the jury, so
one of the most aggravated of the class to which it belonged.
In the whole course of his experience he had never heard of
a case of a more serious and disgraceful character, an regarded
the conduct of the defendant. The plaintiff, Miss Jane
Harvey, was a young lady of about thirty years of age, the
eldest daughter of a respectable farmer living in the county
of Tyrone, in the north of Ireland, and the defendant was a
surgeon in the navy, now on board her Majesty's ship
Spartan. He had formerly resided in the lame neighbour-
hood in which the plaintiff lived, and the intimacy between
the two parties commenced as far back as the year 1838. At
that time the plaintiff's mother was taken ill of a Amer, of
which she aherwartlx died, and the defendant (who was con-
nected with the family by marriage) was employed to attend
her in his medical capacity. From this circumstance
he became intimately
considerable
with the plaintiff,
aoul; woman
r p
of onsusithinionblateeypersoat attractions,toer
and
He paid his addressee to her, and • correspondence
was maintained between them until the year 1841,
when he became intimate with another young lady in
the same neighbourhood, and a coolness was from that time
manifested by him towards Miss Harvey. He discontinued
those attentions which he had previously paid to her, and
the intimacy was broken off. Some time, however, in the
year 1842, the defendant having, as it appeared, repented of
his conduct, took an opportunity of renewing the acquaint.
ance. One Sunday morning, as the family were preparing
for church, the defendant called, and he was received with
some degree of coolness. Miss Harvey and her sisters rev
to go to the place of worship, and the defendant persisted in
following them. He entered into conversation with Miss
Harvey—expressed his contrition, and acknowledged that he
had treated her very unkindly. A reconciliation took place,
and the defendatit was again admitted as the suitor of the
plaintiff. The intimacy continued until the year 1843, and
a correspondence was kept up between them. As the letters
he (Mr. Cockburn) was about to real were of a
somewhat extravagant character, he would remind the jury
that the writers were eubjects of the mister isle. The Celtic
blood was apt to flow in a more exuberant current. The
feelings of an Irishman being warm and enthusiastic, he
had some little tendency to exonerate. The whole of the
letters, however, which came from the defendant were
written with a view of pledging his faith in the most pas-
sionate and ardent terms towards the object of his affection.
The following letter, dated Aug. 13, 1843, was written by
the defendant from a watering-place called Bundoran, where
he had gone on a visit:
Dearer hnsin—We arrived oafs here an Min at 9 o'clock,
and ea Ys sow evening got oaredvst geed In aririmble lodgings.
AU I wsng marr to complete my hoppiner is my own sweet Jeanie.
0! hot I swim* feel the want a/ may Jamb ethos I see others
sweets of their War 101165. 01 hank, it was
LT= So sweets
622 wen tang balms the raft rano let In, to have
the plasm" el year solely lee a her werriro ark place. I
had a err assausliag Mt night I I had la • root
uopieriat erred with my Mirk abaci yen have awe 24 es
that my Jamb my see that cake is still uppermost k sr rind;
but why do I me fret myself about her when the lees me
she dor net lore me near an dead, r she hesesely did I Is
my root rust affeetke fee horn this bridisd 2 vela 1 O!
3. In rile of an I tad, my salation hr yen is warn stronger
and sinorm I think Jeanie bolt re She Alm dor she coos loved
me sawn i Yea earthly relatives. Of him dose, write to mon and
tell sea orenety, and without ordvarim owl her rte bottom d
your Immt. arbather you yes 0 t I ens
dad me gimes Is my heart kir say year ledy I re ban, but ke
Jeers also" Om Jorderisen melt lose we not, ee is her heart
turned inno abort al duet 1 0 1 huh, If I veriasseinosd that
Your love was ha the boat degree diminished, It real render me
Only mhenhin 01 hank, If you could areas Is arm bare as
soon as padre. bon hippy would it mate ao—whatable Tammy.
Then followed the esSioined vent:
The last links aro learn that Irani me to thee (no no),
And the wartime bar bare rendered me tree
' That bright &or an others any shine (no),
Those eyes mid rhoodinn err lam loot from mine.

If my ie. weallenaff lablimm, that error is o'er;
I've wit/m.llft saldnam, an/grins this Do more (yes, yes) ;
Oh I hamast loved Waft I'll think on thee yet,
And pray for this nightly, till life'. sun bath set ((roe, true,
true, I hope).
Tommy being thus overwhelmed with grief and sorrow
that Jenny has thus estranged herself from him, she speaks to
Tommy a follows :
When thy bosom heaves the sigh,
When the tear o'erflows thine eye,
May sweet hope afford relief,
Cheer thy heart and cairn thy grief.
(flow can it be cheered when absent front Jeanie 1)
After some stanzas in the Scotch dialect, which the de-
fendant, though an Irishman, seemed very fond of adopting,
the epistle concluded with these words:
" '

Adieu my best beloved Jeanie. Hard am thou art, I cannot but love
my Jeanie. True, true. true.

Thus the courtship went on until the month of 'lute, 1844,
when the plaintiff- made up her mind to leave the country.
Her father bad married again in the interval between the
commencement and the renewal of the acquaintance with
the defendant, and his circumstances had become much re-

...-
duced. Feeling that she was a burden upon her family,
and feeling, moreover, that in all probability her
union with the defendant would never take place,
his friends having refused to give their assent, the
plaintiff thought it advisable that they should separate,
Though devotedly attached to the defendant, she had con-
siderable reluctance to enter into an alliance with a family
by whom she was not likely to be received with heartfelt
welcome. Having a brother settled in Toronto, the plain-
tiff and her sister sailed for that place in the month of June,
1844, with a view to commence business u milliners and
dressmakers. Previous to bet sailing, the defendant wrote
several letters to her, and after she had arrived in America
he continued the correspondence with so much ardour that
the effect was to make the plaintiff discontented a ith her
position, and ultimately to induce her to return to Ireland.
One of letters written by the defendant before the plain-
tiff left Iceland was dated April 3, 1844

UMW% hinsistisak inest of eres. separated trots hia
driztrbeinel ism* sod probably fbr ease—Alas alas Let
me with *se or le 01. last. 0 ! (Tommy added, springing
horn Ma stet sof ids arm. wildly upward.), oh ! to die
thu., thus is the Emil of life, with N mach happiness within
rn7 greaO—eo t full of love—to kw my all, and that is my

Jeanie. 'Ti. indeed bitter! Would that I had never been (0!
perhaps such a prayer is sinful(—would that we lad never met!
0! Jeanie, I fear dent wilt suffer much for me. Thou wilt not soon
forgot thy dear Tommy. Would to hod. for thy mkt, dear- 0, we had
never met! 0: Joule, thee: will, indeed end in Meth, be the Fen-
anent' of thy Tommy's heart, If parted item his Jeer dud beloved
Jeanie!!! JUIIINNTO,
In another letter, the defendant thus *sprayed himself
0! my Jeanie, do not doubt the sincerity of my affection for, In-
deed and to truth, I prim my beloved Jeanie above all the world. 0! '
I will give my Jeanie sufficient explanation when I have again the
pleasore of reeled! her. 0 ! Jeanie, I say again, doubt not my love.
0 ! it is only too great; it is aln:ul ; it is strewr than death.
On the 25th Sept., 1844, after the pLintiffs arrival in
Canada, the defendant addreseed a letter to her, of which
the Ai:lowing is n small portion
Beloved, although you are now in • far distant land, still I bore
the strong hope that you may still he mine, if you continue faithful
and true, if the Lord has not willed otherwise; for his will be done.
Beloved, my mind has been much disquieted at what you soft to me
the last time I saw you—sia that you would kit knew if at any
time mu got married in Canada. Beloved, I th you had not the
most 'distant Idea of such • thing, after what you told your Tommy.
.
In this same letter, the defendant wrote a sort of diary, m
which there were inch entries as the following:
Awed :S.—Dreamed of having my Jeanie in my new., Ah, be-
loved ! pet see the distance at which you are removed makes no
change in your Tommy's affections." " riepternher 4.—Dreamed last
night of receiving • letter from Jeanie ; also a hog containing a vex
rose. flat the Lord would put it into your boat to come home to
rout Tommy, who ought, and I trust will yet be yours. 0I come—
eome, end you will see you will net be disappanted. 01 than dear
hared of treasured love !"
This diary contained numerous other passages of a similar
description. For example:
0! beloved, come—come, and console your brokenhearted
Toonny."—" lapt night 1 dreamed you had come home, and I met
you, and implanted a alas on your sweet ruby hpa."—" Dreamed I had
you in my arms. 0! I wish I had, I would never again allow you to
\TIMM on the great deep."—" September 24. I dreamed I saw our
late mother ; she looked better than ewe I saw her site appeared to
be in a perspiration, and held an infant at her breast;."—" Beloved, it
would be my great desire that we should be united, and that you
should be Independent of the world."—" I am merificing all the young
ladies of this place for my Jennies sake."
On the 31st of December, 1844, the defendant wrote the
following :
0! beloved, how the tears ran down your Tommy's cheeks what
he spied the tea-things In • drawer which Jeanie was wont
to handle KO adroitly in company with her Tommy. Oh! beloved,
how I lament your absence. 0! I do, I do, true, true. 0! would
that you had never crewed the sea.
0! dims bide tang in Toronto, my Jeanie;
0! diva bide tang m Toronto free me,
For I lo'e thee sincerely, I lo'c thee o'er dearly, gee.
In another letter written about the same time the de-
fendant said :
"The new Marriage Act takes effect on the let April next, so that
licenses will have to be obtained, and the ceremony will be per-
formed in the different horses of womb p."—. My mama knows of
my sending you this, and has no object:lcm to my writing to you.
I think they had the idea that it was you was after me, and that I
did not care so much about you; but I affirmed that such was not
the case, that you had never in the alighteat degree monde use of any
undue means, but it was entirely my own doing."
The letter concluded with a remark respecting certain
newspapers which the defendant said he had sent the plain-
tiff from time to time, and which he trusted his beloved
Jeanie" had received. It appeared that it wan his prsctiee
to write upon the covers of the ntwspepers in new milk, and
the words became intelligible if held to the fire, thus afford-
' ing a fit representation of the burning pension that consumed
the defendant. In one of those newspapers the defendant
distinctly stated that his family had consented to their
union, and that there was no longer any obstacle to the
plaintiff's returning to Ireland. On the 21st May, 184.5,
the defendant addreweed a letter to " My dear Lily" (the
sitter who accompanied the plaintiff to America), requesting
her to encourage Jeanie " not to purchase any more goods,
but to Pell out what she has and come away." On the 27th
May, 1845, he wrote to the plaintiff again :
My beloved Jeanie—shall I ear my spouse!,-1 ham obtained my
Mend.' consent, and there is nothing to prevent your corning. Sell
off what goods you have on hand, and return to my emus. Now,
beloved, • glum of hope ernes in my hitherto disconsolate bosom.
You hare nothing to fear on your arrival. We sill have oar union
enenummated as speedily as possible after your arrival. Beloved,
you wit lure very deorlr bought your Tommy n you get him.
Now, beloved, do not strive any mar to quench that 2.10ec which has
been so long burning in your lovely harem.
Two days afterwards the defendant wrote to any that the
consent of his friends had been withdrawn, " but," he added,
" after all, what should we care about their convent. We
can live independent of our friends." On the 31st May, 1845,
he addressed the plaintiff in the following words, which he
wrote. as before-mentioned, en the cover of a newspaper
My friends' order is new, "send for her if you cannot lire without
her.. Now, belored, I cannot posedhly lire without you and be happy.
Oh ! no, I must have you now. Beloved, come to me; you shall not
he dhopininted—no delay. Oa your arrival it will be done as
mon as pcositik. .
be no obstacle in the way. Take your Tommy's word fa
that. Do not fear Lily; she will oe provided foe, we will not see her I
destitute Be want of a home ; she shall have a share of ours till we
Pee what ran be done re r her. . . . . Anything that you have that you
Think will pay carriage and be useful to us, bring with you, such as
feather best, . Adieu.
On receipt of that letter, containing as it did a full and con-
! elusive promise to merry her, the plaintiff made up her mind
to return to Ireland. She gave up her house, sold off her
stock in trade at a lees of one half its value, abandoned a
business in which she and her sister were getting on pros-
perously, and left Toronto on the 28th of July, 1845. She
embarked at New York by the first vessel milieu, and she
and her sister arrived in Ireland on the 9th of September,
In the mean time, however, the defendant hod written to the
plaintiff desiring her not to return, as his friends had again
withdrawn their consent to the marriage, and as she had
stated in all her letters that she would not be united to him
without their consent. This letter, however, was not dated
until July 28, the day on which the plaintiff left Toronto,
and wan not delivered to her until after she had arrived in
Ireland. On September 10 the plaintiff's brother wrote to
the defendsnt informing him that hissistern had arrived from
Toronto, and requesting that he would drink tea with them
on the following evening. The defendant returned an answer
that he could not accept the invitation, as Mrs. Harvey (the
wife of the plaintiff's brother) had not spoken to him for
some time past. From that time the defendant never task
the slightest notice of the plaintiff, and, ere many days had
elapsed, he left the country ; but, before he went away, the
plaintiff's solicitor and a friend of the family wrote to him to
ascertain what his intentions were, but the defendant did
not condescend to answer the letter. On the 3rd of October
a writ was issued, tut the defendant was gone. Shortly
' afterwards he was traced to Linlithgow, in Scotland, and, at
a subsequent period, the plaintiff's hmily received an anony-
mous letter informing them that he had obtained an appoint-
ment in her Majesty's navy, and that the Teasel to which he
was attached was in Portsmouth harbour. He (Mr. Cock-
burn) thought the jury would agree with him that the de-
fendant had been guilty of the greatest treachery, cowardice,
and cruelty towards the 'poor girl in persuading her
to come across the Atlantic, for the purpose of becoming his
wife, and afterwards skulking away from the country
to avoid the consequences of his own mileonduct. He
was a man comeirtably placed in the world, and was capable
of paying damages for the breach of the solemn engagement
into which he had entered.
Evidence wax given that the letter. produced were in
the defendant's handwriting, and Mill Lily Haney,
the sister of the plaintiff, was called to prove the
facts stated by the learned counsel. In cross-examina-
tion the witness stated that she and her sister used to
laugh at the letters in question, not that they thought them
ridiculous, but very pleasing. A certain letter was then
placed in her hands, and she was requested to state whether
or not she believed it to be in the handwriting of her sister ?
After much hesitation and equivocation, she said she did not
believe it to have been written by her sister. The learned
counsel pressed the question very significantly, but the wit-
ness persisted in the name answer. The letter was evidently
in the handwriting of a female, but its contents were not read.
Mr. Serjeant Kinglake applied for a nonsuit, on the
ground that the declaration was bad. It alleged that, in
consideration of the plaintiff's leaving Toronto and coming
to Ireland for the purpose of miming the defendant, he
promised to marry her, but it did not state that the plaintiff
had entered into the contract -Mr. Cockburn submitted
that be ought to be allowed to amend the declaration.-Chief
Justice Wilde gave leave to amend, and reserved to the
defendant the right to move for a novella if the court should
be of opinion that the declaration was bad, and that the
amendment ought not to have been allowed.-Mr. Serjeant
Kinglake then addressed the jury for the defendant, and
said he regretted very much that this Irish cause should not
have been tried on the other side of the channel. The letters
which had been read were of so ridiculous • nature, that they
were sufficient to warrant a commission of lunacy respecting
the state of the defendant's mind. He contended that the
plaintiff had no ground of complaint against the defendant,
inasmuch as she had written to him, positively refusing to re-
turn, and es she had not waited for the defendant's answer to
that refusal. Had she remained in Americas short time longer
she would have received the defendant's letter, requesting
her not to come, u his friends.had refused their consent, and '
es she had exprea.ed her unwillingness to come. He had
afterwards told Mr. Robert Harvey, the plaintiff's brother,
that he had written to the plaintiff, and that he regretted
she should have been so hasty. This proved that the letter
written by the brother, inviting the defendant to tea, was
I only • trap to ensnare him, in order that a piece of evidence
might be concocted against him. He submitted that the de-
fendant was entitled to a verdict; but if the jury should
think otherwise, they ought only to give the plaintiff the
smallest amount of damages.-The learned judge, in sum-
ming up, said he was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled
to a verdict and the only question was as to the amount of
damages.-The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff;
damages, 4001.-The trial did not terminate until nearly ten
o'clock at night.

POLICE.—SATURDAY.
MANSION-HOUSE.—Cusnoe or EMBEZZLEMENT.—
II" 'Mans Thompson, was charged with having embezzled
considerable sums of money, the property of Messrs. N.
Johnson and Sons, of Mark-lane, wine-merchants.—Mr.
Humphreys, (or the prosecution, stated that the evidence
comprehended a great variety of deficiencies in the accounts
of the prisoner, who had been in the employment of the
prosecutors between six and seven year,. The firm having'
some cause to disapprove of the manner in which the
prisoner's books were regulated expressed their dissatisfee-
tion to him, and on Saturday, the 13th of June, 1846,
directed him to give the necessary explanations. Instead of
doing so, he absconded, and on the day he disappeared re-
oeivell on the account of his employers the sum of 501. The
firm kept an account with Messrs. 11. and J. Johnson, of
Bush-lane, (mm whom the prisoner received the money.
It was the duty of the prisoner upon receiving any mosey
for his employers to enter the amount in the books, and in
the absence of one of the principals of the firm, from time to
time, to apply, if money should be required for the transac
tion of business, to Mean. H. and J. Johnson for the neces-
sary sum, and advantage had been taken of the power thus
given fo cause deficiencies of no slight magnitude.—The
Counsel for the prisoner submitted that it appeared the
prisoner had acted upon a general order, and that such being
the ease no embezzlement had been made out.—The Lord
Mayor said that distinctly the prisoner had not accounted
for the 501.—Mr. Humphreys said there were several other
cases which he should call upon him to answer at • future
day.—Mr. Judd said the amount of the prisoner's defalca-

: I'

dons were oer:ainly hard upon LOIN. With the consent of
both sides the prisoner was remanded till the 10th of August.
OUILDHALL.—Bunditso SOCIETIES.-3/r.litratishery,
the manager of the Fifty Pound Building Society, Victoria.-
street, Ilelborn. bridge, web charged with embezzling 121. lake,
which ht had been entrusted with by the treasurer to pay
into the bankers on the 28th of June. The prisoner ek•
scosded n few day. ago, and railed from Southampton in
the American steam-boat, Washington, but she was obliged
to put back fur • fresh supply of code, and an officer went
on board and seized the prisoner. A second charge was pre.
(erred by the Times Building Society, held at the Guildhall
Coffee-house anal at Eleter.hall. Here a sum of 71. 10s. had
been paid to him by a member at his private residence, to
save him the trouble of attending. The prisoner cross-
examined the witness, to show that he had not committed
any offence, inasmuch u the treasurer should have paid the
first sum in person, and prisoner undertook the job merely
as a friend, and not in the course of duty. The other matter
was also a mere nothing. The society did not recognise any
payments made at any other time or place than the monthly
meeting, and consequently he took the money. not on behalf
of the club. but es the agent of the member. It was a mere
breach of friendship between them as in d vid uals.—Rema nded
till Thursday.
BOW-STREET. —CHARGE OP FORGERY.
Veipheolc, an artist, and John Finlay, a tailor and draper, ,
carving on an extensive business at 7, Monmouth.street,
Birmingham, were charged, the former with uttering, and
the other, on suspicion, with forging. two cheques fur 20s.
each, purporting to be drawn by Lord Skelmersdale, with in-
tent to defraud blesses. Coutts and Co., bankers. Triphook
presented a cheque about a week back, drawn in favour of',
hire. Wheeler, and endorsed, to be paid to the other prisoner,
which was cashed. No suspicion was entertained until the ,
other cheque was presented by the prisoner on Friday ; and
then, upon comparing them with his lordship's handwriting,
the f emery was discovered. The prisoner Finlay said that
he received both cheques in Birmiegham, (route man named
Wheeler, in the course of businese, and be was certain to
meet him again that evening, at his house in Birmingham, if
he was allowed. The prisoner's brother haying given evi-
dence to that effect, he was ordered to put in bail, himself in
2001., and two sureties in 1001., to answer the charge on
Thursday next. Sergeant Thompson proceeded with Fin-
lay to Birmingham. The other prisoner was discharged.
WEST NI I NSTE R. ()Ross OUTRAGE.— Waller and
James Barnes, brothers, were charged with violently as-
saulting and threatening to stab their mother.—Mn. Harriet
Barnes said that on the previous evening the defendants were
fighting in the street, when she tried to persuade them to
deskt, hut finding they paid her nn attention she asked a
young man to bring defendant James into the house. Upon
this Walter struck her a violent blow in the face. The
young man succeeded in getting James into the house, and
complainant endeavourcd to prevent Walter entering, but he
forced his way in. James then ran into the back parlour,
and uttering the moat horrid imprecations seized a knife,
and, swearing he would stick her, attempted to carry his
threat into execution. She struggled with Lehm to take the
knife away, when Walter came behind her and struck her
two violent blows on the back of the head, after which he
jumped out of a window on to the roof of a washdiouse,
stripped off the whole of the tiles, broke some windows, and,
after pouring a torrent of the moat vile and filthy abuse upon
his mother, swore ho would kill the first person who dared
to interfere with him. A party of the police ultimately suc-
ceeded in getting him down.—Walter was proved to have
been repeatedly charged at this court with various offences ,•
but, in reply to the charge, he said that he was drunk, and
did not know anything about it.—Mr. Burrell said he should
fine them 51. each, or commit them for two months, and fur-
ther require them to find good bail to keep the peace for the
next 12 months.—They were sent to prison.

MONEY MARKET.

SATURDAY ETRNING.

The liquidation of the account was finally com-
pleted on this, the pay day. So far the settlement
has been unattended with any casualty of greater im-
portance than the failure of a jobber in a small way
of business, and of credit limited accordingly. The
extent and complication of the accounts to be adjusted
must have rendered the settlement a work of much
labour, and would seem to have somewhat relaxed
the usual energies of dealers and speculators, to judge
from the extreme paucity of the transactionstO-day. To
this inertness of business it might be owing that the
higher prices obtained yesterday were not supported.
Console were called 1- lower at the opening of the
market, and so remained, with scarcely a variation,
to the close of business, 883 to 9 for money, and 894
to for account. Reduced Threes, 891 to 4. Three-1
and-a-Quarter per Cents., 914 to 1. Long Annuities,l
9 1-16 to 4. Exchequer Bills 9s. to 12s. premium.
Bank Stock, 196 to 8. India Stock, 244 to 46.
The dealings in foreign stocks were of the smallest
extent, as may be seen by reference to the official list,
where not a dozen bargains are reported. A sale of
Chili Bonds was made at 924, the quotations being
91 to 3. Equador Bonds were done at 34, which
shows a slight improvement. Spanish Fives were
213 to 2; the Threes, 313 to 2. Portuguese,3o4 to 1
Dutch Two-and-a-Half per Cents, 574t0 8; the Fours,
903 to 1. Mexican were stationary at 19 to 4.
The Vienna Gazette gives the following details of
the situation of the Austrian Bank on the 30th of
June :—The bank-notes in circulation amounted to
7,614,413 florins. The expenses of administration on
the passive side of the account are stated at 205,504
florins. The bills discounted at Prague and Vienna
amounted to 161,886,583 florins. The balance dis-
posable after the payment of interests due on the Ist
of July was 257,912 florins, which carried the divi-
dend of the half-year to 40 florins per share.

111001 244

C Rd. Asap. 153 i
3 per Ct. Cowls Ames . del I I
rte. Slyer Cl Anne., gle I I
Leap Anne.. esp. Jam.4.11130.11.111i
Do. 30 Jean, exp. Jan... IMO, Si_

M I
ae. 13111 s. L 1.0 .14.,1 13
Ditto, 1.3043, 14
Ditto, f' .11, IS 111/

2 per Cr. ChM.* Bonds, 11l
prr Dwelt Equador Bonds, 26
pee Q. npnnlsh No•da, Die. from
Nev., IMO. 212