The Express.
London, England, 1862-08-21 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS,. ,TEURSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 21, 1862.

pat' some questions to Dr. Winslow, Is answer to which he
stated that he never saw the prisoner before the interview on
Saturday. but he was quite satisfied that he was of unsound
mind. He entertained serious delusions. Oise of them was
that he was Jesus Christ, and that he had been crucified.
He also told him, in the comae of conversation, that he had
descended from Heaven to execute judgment upon the world.
Mr. Metcalfe—Are you satisfied that this is not assumed,
and that the prisoner really entertains the delusions you
have mentioned

------ •
Dr. Winslow said he was perfectly satisfied that they were
real deluaions.

Mr. Gibson, the surgeon of Newgate, said that be had
oonstantly sett the prisoner since his committal, and be
was satisfied that he was of unsound mind. He wee also of
opinion that the delusions he entertained had completely
perverted his judgment, and that he was quite incompetent
to understand what was going on, or to plead to the charges
that were preferred against him.
By Mr. Metcalfe—Witness was of opinion that the
malady of the prisouer was of long standing, and from what
he saw of him he considered he ought to have been placed
under restraint long before.
Mr. Metcalfe then addressed the jury, and said he did
not think he could struggle against the evidence that bad
been laid before them relating to the state of mind of the
prisoner, and the circumstances under which the offences
appeared to have been committed, namely, that the pri-
soner appeared to have discharged a loaded pistol at two
prsons, and to have struck at hones and everything else in
his way with an axe, without any provocation, seemed to
confirm that evidence. At the same time he could not help
remarking that it was rather strange that some of the friends
of the prisoner, or some medical attendant who had for-
merly attended him, bad not been called to give some expla-
nation bow it happened that such a dangerous person as be
seemed to be was at large.
The jury then returned a verdict, that the prisoner was
of unsound mind and unfit to plead.
Serjeant Ballantine informed the court that the prisoner
had been confined in a lunatic asylum, but was discharged,
as was suppoeed, cured, and be did not exhibit any symp-
toms of relapsing until about a month before these occur-
rences took place.
The prisoner then essayed again to address the court, and
said that upon this question of his sanity or insanity he
should like to be permitted to say a few words to the jury ;
but, upon his being told that be would have an opportunity
of saying anything he pleased when his trial came on, he
quietly walked away from the bar, and the usual order was
made for his being kept in safe custody.
William Atkina. 17, a tall. powerful man, was charged
with feloniously and burglarioualy breaking into the dwell.
ing-hoe of Samuel Gregson, with intent to steal.

Mr. Metcalfe conducted the prosecution. The prisoner
was defended by Mr. Edmund Bailey.
William Short deposed that he was butler to Mr. Samuel
Gregson, M.P. for Lancaster, who resided at No. 49, Upper
Harley-street, Marylebooe. On the night of the 6th June be
fastened up the house as usual, and about 2 o'clock in
the following morning he heard a noise in the kitchen,
and he got up immediately and went there. When
he got to the door he heard a mares voice from
inside the kitchen say, "Its only me, don't lock
me in." Witness locked the door of the kitchen and
went upstairs and rang the alarm bell, and he then
again went down stairs, and found that the door-poet of
the kitchen door had been forced out, and a man was in
the act of coining out of the kitchen, and he struck him in
the face with his Bat. The man instantly rushed upon
him, and they struggled together into the pantry, and the
man proved to be stronger than he was, and threw
him upon ► table. He continued to struggle with him,
and he was thrown on the Boor, and the man then said, " If
you don't give up the property I have • irate as
sharp as • num, and ru cut your throat." Witness
observed at the time that the man had • knife
in his hand, and be got the poker that was in the pantry
and struck at him with it, but, as it was nearly dark, he
wee unable to say where he struck him. About this time
the cook and housemaid 01111211 down stairs with a light, and
when they saw him struggling with the man they screamed
and ran up stairs to the front door, and opened it, and
called for the police, and the man then ran up after them
and rushed into the street and escaped. He had left a
small lamp in the pantry when be went to bed, and this
had been lighted by the person who got into the house, and
by the light it gave he caught a glimpse of the face of the
man with whom he had the struggle, and he be-
lieved him to be the prisoner. He would not swear
punitively that he was the same man, but to the
best of his belief he wee. He heard the prisoner speak
when he was under examination at the police court, and his
voice resembled that of the men who was in the house on
the night in question. During the struggle he struck the
roan in the face, and it was bleeding as he ran out of the
house.

Crose-examined—Another man was taken into custody,
and wittier said that he was about the sine of the man he
saw in the house, but be never laid that he wits the same
man, or that be recognised him by his voice.
The cook and housemaid of the establishment were then
examined, and they proved that upon caning down stain
they saw the butler struggling with • man, and they heard
the latter say that he was not a thief, and that the butler
had insulted him and would not let him go out of the
house. They were frightened, and ran up stain and opened
the streetdoor and called for the police, and the man they
had seen down stain rushed past them and got away. They
both stated that they observed as he went by them that
his face will bleeding. They both expressed • polities opt•
aim that the prisoner was the same man.
A police-constable of the 1) division proved that he went
to the home on the morning after the burglary, and he
found that an entrance had beeneffitained at the beck, and
that the burglar, whoever he was, had dropped through a
ventilator, the glass of which bad been forced out, by
means of • rope that was found in the pantry. It
was also proved that a few days after the affair happened
the prisoner was at • place celled West Bergholt. is Essex
where it appeared his friends resided, and that it was ob-
served that be had received several injuries upon the face,
and he accounted for them by saying that be had been
knocked down by a cab.
Joseph Lambert, • police sergeant of the D division, de-
posed that from information he received he went on the
25th of July to • bones in Weston-street, Bermondsey,
when be found the prisoner. Witham was in plain
clothes, and he told him that he was an
officer, and that he should apprehend him upon
the charge of committing • burglary in Harley.
street on the 6th of June. The prisoner replied, "that is
near Cavendish.equare," and witness said that it was. The
prisoner then said, " I know the who has put you on
me—it is quite true that lam living with his wife, but you
will have to prove that lam the man." He then searched
the prisoner, and found a life preserver in his breast pocket,
and the prisoner said that he had procured this instrument
in order that he might "give it" to the who had given
information about him. The witness then produced the
letter that appeared to have been written by the prisoner to
the wife of the man he referred to, and it was put in and read.
It commenced " Dear Nelly," and went on to express the
prisoner's love for her, and his desire to be with
her, but the material portion of it was that the prisoner in
this letter spoke of his having recovered from some severe
injury that he had received, and stated that he had reed an
account of the occurrence in the newspaper, and that it
was pretty correct, and that he did get a " clincher," but
that he gave the other a warm one in return.

The butler Sharp was re-called to explain this matter,
and he said that when he wee at the police-court, upon the
occasion of the first man who was apprehended being
examined, be made use of the expression that at the claw
of the struggle between him and the burglar, he gave
the latter ' • clincher," meaning a violent blow.
Mr. Braley made a very able speech to the jury on behalf
of the prisoner, and he contended that, although there
might be some suspicion, still that the evidence as to his
identity was not sufficiently conclusive to justify them iu
convicting him on so serious a charge. lie also urged
that it was not at all improbable that the man whom the
prisoner was supposed to have wronged by taking away,
his wife might have got up the ease spinet him, and
give. information to the Folios, out of a feeling of revenge.
The learned counsel then proceeded to call the attention
of the jury to some discrepancies in the evidence of
the principal witness, the butler, and the female ser-
vants, with reference to the question of identity, and
conAuded by stating that the real question for them
to decide was whether they could rely upon the testimony
of these witnesses as to the prisoner being the man, when
it was perfectly clear that they had a very slight oppor-
tunity of seeing him, and that he was not taken into custody
until nearly six weeks afterwards.
Mr. Justice Williams having summed up, the jury de-
liberated for • considerable time, and then asked his lord-
ship to inform them whether the cook in her evidence did
not profess to speak positively to the fact of the prisoner
being the man who ran out of the house ?
The learned Judge referred to his notes, and said that she
did no, but he at the earns time thought it right to remind
them that she had also @wowed an opinion that the first
man who was taken into custody was the guilty party.
The jury retired at half-past 5 o'clock to deliberate upon
their verdict. They did not return into court until Wl-
pest 9, when they found the prisoner Guilty.
A certificate was then put in, by which it appeared that
the prisoner had been previously convicted of felony.
Sergeant Cole, of the C division, informed the court that
he was sentenced to six years' penal servitude, end was
only discharged in May last, about a fortnight before the
commission of the offence of which he was now convicted.
It appeared that he only served four years and a half of
his previous sentence.
The learned Judge said that the prisoner had been con-
victed of an exceedingly bad offence, and he quite concurred
in the verdict. He then sentenced him to 15 years' penal
servitude.

manufacturers, fp - Bermondsey, lied confided the sale of
*nue of their goo& to the defendant Williams, who carried
on the business of a factor in the Rannoch on a del credore
commission.' The other defendant, Balch. was a clerk in
the service of the defendant Williams, and the conspiracy
alleged aiminst them was the rendering of fictitious accounts
of sales to the prosecutor, with charge of cartage, and other
expenses, which were false, and with the alteration of the
books of the defendant Williams, to make the entries
correspond to the accounts of sale so rendered. This dis-
covery was made when the defendant Williams became
bankrupt, in the early part of the present year. The pro-
ceedings in bankruptcy were formally proved in evidence,
and they showed that Williams attributed hisbankruptcy
to the failure of a person mimed Hunter, Who since the
proceedings has absconded. The facts related were
proved by Mr. Edward Barrow, jun., who, how-
ever, in his cross-examination admitted that the charge
against the defendants had been heard on two
occasions by the magistrate presiding et the Southwark
police-court, who bad dismissed the can and discharged the
defendants, against whom, however, the present indictment
had been preferred. Witness further admitted that his
father and family had been on friendly terms with Wil-
liams long anterior to any business transaction between
them. His (witness's) father was still a member of the firm,
hut was not present here to-day. A protracted scrutiny of
the amounts and the examination of a host of witnesses to
show the practice and custom of the trade closed the cam
for the prosecution.

Mr. Siontsgu Chambers, Q.C., addreesing the court and
jury on behalf of the defendant Williams, denounced the
prosecution u being vindictive, and complained in very
strong terms of Mr. Barrow, ten.. not having been pre-
sent to be subjected to crams-examination, from which
he (Mr. Chambers) was instructed he should
have been enabled to show that the elder Barrow
had given to Williams the right of trading in a way not
strictly in accordance with the regulations of the trade,
and to sell and dispose of the goods in the best way and at
such prices sa he could obtain. Under thew circumstances
he submitted that his client was entitled to an acquittal.
. .

Mr. Serjesat &Mintier) made a roost energetic appeal to
the jury on behalf of the younger defendant. Balch, whose
only crime was that of obeying the instructions of his master
and employer without deriving the smallest benefit from
the result. He warn the son of a highly respectable Merchant
in the City, and in 1881, he went into the service of W ahem&
as clerk and nothing else. It was a vindictive feeling which
the Barrows felt towards Williams that had led to his client's
present unhappy position ; but having made up their mind
to to for conspiracy, they had no alternative but to
ude the unfortunate clerk in the indictment. He (Mr.
Serjesot Bella rtine) regarded these proceedings as being
most scandalous. There had not been a tittle of evidence to
show that Balch had the slightest interest in what Williams
had done. The indignation which he felt, led him to ex-
press himself with a warmth beyond that which became an
advocate. He felt the case most deeply, and when shown
to the jump the high character the young man had borne
through life, he felt convinced they would not have the
slightest he in acquitting him.
A large number of highly respectable gentlemen, in-
cluding several clergymen, were then examined, Mai gave
the defendant Balch the highest possible character for in-
dustry, probity, and integrity.
The Common Serjesnt, in summing up, said that be did
not see that the evidence afforded soy just grounds for the
attack made on the prosecution for including the defendant
Belch in the indictment. Whether or not Williams could
have been indicted in another form, was not a question for
them now to consider. The learned judge then went very
carefully through the evidence, copiously reviewing the
counts, and pointing out to the jury the law of conspiracy.
The jury expressed a wish to retire, and on their return,
after an &beams of about ten minutes, delivered a verdict
of Mot Guilty in favour of both the defendants.
The verdict was received with some manifestations of ap-
plause, which were, however, immediately repressed. The
defendants were ordered to he discharged, and eft the court
amidst the hearty congratulations of a numerous body of
friends.

THIRD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
Mary Ann Harris, aged 37, and described as married,
wes indicted for feloniously attempting to kill and slay bar
infant child, and also for attempting to kill and slay Insult
The prisoner, on being placed at the bar to plead, made no
reply to the usual questions, and appeared to be totally in-
different to the proceedings.
A jury was then empanelled to try whether she was in •
sufficiently sound state of mind to plead.
Mr. Cooper, who had been instructed by the crown to
conduct the prosecution, called
Mr. John Gibson, the surgeon of the gaol of Nurgate,
who, having been sworn, deposed that be bad been called
up to attend the prisoner since she had been in custody in
the gaol, and since the Bth instant he was dearly of opinion
that she was not in • fit and responsible state to be placed
upon her trial.
The learned judge explained to the jury the nature and
effect of the question they had to try, and recommended them
to find a verdict in accordance with the medial testimony
they had heard.
The jury accordingly found • verdict to that effect, and
the prisoner was conveyed back to the gaoL
It will be remembered that the was the unfortunate crea-
ture who, in a fit of desperation and destitution, had thrown
first her child and then herself into the Serpentine, Hyde-
park, but, bung seen by one of the park-keepers, was rescued.
S' he then stated that she had not had food for some time
previously, and having tried to give her infant the breast
without any avail, she could no longer bear up whist the
agony of her mind, and hence had cast both her child and
herself into the water.

spinster, was indicted for &hail-
, oualy kitkoand slaying James Manna.
Mr. 0• • prosecuted, and Mr. Lilley defended the pri-
soner, who • remarkably mild-looking young woman, and
who cried bitterly when called upon to plead, said that she
' was guilty, but that she meant to kill the deceased.
Mr. 'Alley observed that this might be taken as a plea of
guilty, as the remarks he had to make were more for the
court than for the jury.
Mr. Orridge said he had no objection on the part of the
crown to such a plea being taken.
The prisoner was again asked to plead, when she spin,
in a piteous tone, earnestly asserted that "she never meant
to kill him," and repeated it several times.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that under these circum-
stances it was best the case should be tried, and the prisoner
was given in charge to the jury.
Mr. Orridge briefly narrated the circumstances which
gave rise to the prosecution, and having done so, called
Mrs. M. Vincent, who stated that she lived in the Great
Dower-road, and that the deceased Munos had •
warehouse at the back of her shop, and that
on the %h July the said to him, "Hero la your wife,"
pointing to the prisoner, who came in with another female.
They came in and sat down: in witness's parlour, and she was
called into the shop. The deceased and the prisoner began
quarrelling on the 'abject of his absence from home all
night, and the prisoner complained that she Lad been left all
day with only two shillings, cad that she had had nothing
to eat. The deceased then asked the prisoner what she
would have, and she replied she would have • romp steak,
and the deceased went out and procured one, as well as
some beer. On his return the prisoner objected to the
meat, observing that it was a beef steak an I not a rump
steak. The deceased said be could get nothing else, on
which the prisoner replied that she could. The deceased
then gave her some mosey, and at that moment the witoess,
who was still in the 'hop, heard something, and entered
the parlour, when she maw the prisoner crying and ex-
claiming, "Oh, I have done it," and addressing the dummied,
she added, " Oh, my dear, I am afraid you are dying."
The deceased walked out, but almost immediately fell.
The prisoner begged of witness at ouce to run for a doctor,
but in the meantime the police were called in, and the de-
ceased removed to Guys' Hospital iu a cab, the prisoner
accompanying him.
In her cross-examination by Mr. Lilley, the witness said
that the knife produced was one which she (witness) bad a
few minutes before been using to scrape some potatoes, and
which she had left in a basin on the table close to where
the parties were. It bad been recently sharpened for use in
her business of a greengrocer.
The evidence of the other witnesses went to show that the
deceased had re,eived a stab wound between the eighth and
ninth ribs, which had passed through the right lung into
the liver, and according to the evidence of Mr. F. Buzzard.
the house surgeon at Guy's Hospital, it appeared that the
deceased had lived eight hours after his admission into that
institution, but eventually he died from the effecta of the
I wound. It further appeared that just at the time the pri.
sonar stabbed the deceased be lied thrown a glass of beer
in her face, using an offensive expression. They had been
cohabiting at Brompton about a fortnight previously to this
occurrence, and they were about to be married.
Mr. Lilley having addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner,
,• _

Mr. Jiistice Blackburn summed up, and the jury returned
a verdict of Guilty of manalaughter, recommending her to
mercy.
. .

The sentence was deferred.

Jane Bicknell, aged 38, widow, was indicted for felo-
niously uttering six forged receipts for the payment of
money, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Gifford, with whom was Mr. Matthews, conducted
the prosecution.
It appeared that the husband of the deceased, one John
Hooper Bicknell, was a blind man, and had been a pensioner
on the Blind Maa's Friend; Charity, receiving the
sum of 161. per annum. It was proved that sltbough
he died on the 20th of October, 1860, the
prisoner has continued to present herself every quarter to
Mr. George Henry Johnson, the treasurer of the society,
and to receive from him the quarterly instalments of Q. each,
which she was enabled to oirin on the certificate of the
officiating minister of the parish in which the recipient
resided, to the effect that the receipt had been
signed in his memo& The prisoner had thus obtained six
payments of 41. each, but from information received she
was given into custody, and it was now proved by the Rev.
James Amos, ineninbest of St. Stephen's, Southwark, that
the certificates which purported to be signed by him were sot
I. his handwriting, and that he knew nothing of the pi
goner, nor had ever tomaacied any badmen with bar.
The prisoner wee found Guilty, and motioned to twelve
months' imprisonment.
John Benno, 31, sweep, and We. Neville. 43, butcher, were
indicted for unlawfully ending to Newpte.market 51301b5.
weight of beef for ode for human food, well knowing the
mom to be unwholesome and unfit for human food.

Mr. (lilferd F;;;;Zsi Mr. mash
appeared for the two prapoosrs.

It appeared that on the 11th of July four quarters of
diseased beef ware seen being carried along Warwick-lane
to the shop of a Mr. Nick/ingot; and being unlit for human
food they were seised by Messrs. Fieher nud Newman,
the inspectors of the market. Upon inquiry it was ascer-
tained that they were the four quarters of a cow which had
died of disease in the neighbourhood of Kingston, and that
the prisoner Neville, who VW a butcher there, and Bengo,
who wee a sweep and assistant slanglitertnan, bad purchased
the al/Ma, and after dreaming it sent up the meat to New-
gate-market.
The jury retired, and after an absence of some time
they returned with a verdict, Acquitting Bengo, but find.
ing /feviUe Guilty.
The sentence was deferred.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MAIWN:HOI-SSE.

A respectably-dremedl;4l7years OF age, named Alfred
Garnhaon, a clerk, and Henry Read, 21$, an ostler, were
charged with having in their possession the handle of
silver table spoon, which was supposed to have been stolen.
Mr. Fry, silversmith, 108, Hishopsgate, said that at
about half-past 8 that morning the prisoner Garnham came
into his shop and offered part of a silver spoon for sale.
He perceived that it bad been recently broken, and asked
him where he got it. He said his mother had given it him
to dispose of for the pumose of purchasing a box of paints.
He was given into custody, and the other prisoner, Reed,
who was waiting outside the shop, was likewise taken.
Mr. Champ, a solicitor, from Ipswich, said the prisoner
Garish= had been in his service as clerk, and he bad an
officer from Ipswich with a warrant for his apprehension
upon a charge of embezzlement.
George Bulleotborpe, a detective officer from Ipswich,
produced a warrant signed by William Mnmfonl, Esq.,
magistrate, for the apprehension of Alfred Garnham, for em-
bezzling the sum of 41., being part of the rum of 104 which
he bad received on account of his employer, Mr. A. B.
Champ. He stated that the prisoner Garnhani was the lad
mentioned in the warrant, He knew the other prisoner,
but he bad no charge against him.
Mr. Goodman, chief clerk, asked Mr. Champ if he knew
anything of Reed.
He said he did, and upon being sworn stated that he knew
the two prisoners were companions at Ipswich. The prisoner
Garnham was a clerk in his service, and he believed if Reed
was remanded be could prove that be knew the other pri-
soner.had robbed him and that be had also received a por-
tion of the money. They both left Ipswich together and had
been living together since. He knew to whom the silver
spoon belonged, and he believed it would form a case against
Read.
°Arnhem was then handed over to the custody of Millen.
=to be taken before the magistrate at Ipswich, and
vas
remanded.

THE CASE OF THOMAS v. SHIRLEY.

Yesterday afternoon the arbitration in this carte
was resumed at the Law loetitntioo, Chanosry-laue, before
Mr. Patchett. Mr. Lewis appeared for Moo Thomas, sad
Mr. Pawle for Gemini Shirley.
Both plaintiff and defendant were preent.
Mies Thomas, crow-examined by Mr. Pawls, said that
General Shirley, the defendant, was at Aberdeen Villas
OD more than one ocossion. She made an appointment to
meet him in Oxford-street on the sewed occasion of his
calling. The meeting was to be at a music-shop in
Oxford-street. They met at Kirkman's. She did not go
on that day and dine with General Shirley at Greenwich.
It was a day or two after that she went down to Green-
wich to dine. She reached home about half-past ten o'clock
that night. She remembered meeting General Shirley oear
the Colosseum on one occasion. That was prior to their
going doer to Southend. When they met at Newhard,-
street station she bad not with her her apparel and the
night-dressee a lady would take. She took no box with her
to her hotel She did not remember what dress she wore
when she went to Southend. On the two following days
she wore the same dress she wore on the first del. She had
no other. Gemmel Shirley did not give her a wedding ring
on the way down, in order to induce periwig to suppose she
was a married lady. If Gerona' Shirley bad said so he told
au untruth.

The Arbitrator—Did he give you a ring on the next day?
Witness—Yea.
The Arbitrator—Whateort of a ring?
Witness—A wedding ring.
Examiestion continued—They occupied the 11111020.00 M
at the hotel at Southend after General Shirley had said he
would marry her. She bought certain articles at Rugby,
but General Shirley did not give her a 101. note for the
purpose of paying the bill, which amounted to 81.2 a. Bd.
She didnot remember that she told General Shirley when
she arrived at Rugby that she was entirely without money.
She had mosey at that time. She had dealt with Allen and
Pierce, of Wets 100-house, some time, and owed them 91.
when she first met General Shirley. Since that she had in-
curred a bill of 154 That made a bill of 241. After she
came to town she incurred clabta at Waterloo-haw to the
extent of 181. add, making the debt more than 40L 16e. 7d..
91. of which was incurred before she knew the defendant.
She adhered to the statement that while she was at Rugby
she never received any money or clothing from General
Shirley. The 91. she spoke of yesterday was reoeived after-
wards. On the 15th of March she went to Albsny-etrest.
General Shirley did not give her 51., but he did to on the
27th of March. Altogether she received 301.
Mr. Lewis objectedito such details, as it was impossible
for the witness toremember them.
_ _

Mr. Pawls said his object was to show that she had a
great deal more.
Examination continued—She never remembered receiving
201. by &cheque. She received 101. in ► letter. She had
not been to Rugby siuce the 30th of June. She was last
there in May or June. She was quite sure it was before
this action was brought.
Re-examined by Mr. Lewis—When they were going to
Southend, General Shirley told her that be was going down
to Southend. She never had more than the 301. from him.
General Shirley we. never liberal enough to give her 201. at
one time. She went down to Rugby in May or June to
get her clothes, not to see General Shirley.

Mr. Lewis—Yon had no desire to see General Shirley
Witness-Certainly
?
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. L.wls—la that General Shirley? (pointing to a tall
man who was sitting at the end of the table.)
Whams—Yin, it M.
By Mr. lawm—lt was the day after be had rained me
that General Shirley gave roe the wadding ring. That wee
five days after he had promised me marriage,
(A letter written by Miss Thomas to Gemmel Shirley, ap-
pealing to his generosity for money to maintain her and her
eluld was )
Mr. Lewis—ln answer to that he offered her ten shillings
a week. A liberal offer truly 1 I call for the letters in
answer to that letter.

Mr. Pawls refused to produce them.
By the Arbitrator—Since she had received the letter she
had spent 2/. a week in maintaining herself and her child.
This was the came for the plaintiff.
Mr. Pawle said, in reply to the Arbitrator, that he did
Dot Wend to call any witnesses. He bad brought General
Shirley forward, and if Mr. Lewis liked to call him he could
do en.

--
Mr. LIPWII. declined to adopt this course.
The Arbitrator suggested that Mr. Yawls might call
°enema Shirley as his own witness, and allow him to be
cram-examined.

Mr. Pawle declined to do so.

Lewis=WillGeneniSbirley be put in the box and
asked whether he did not seduce the plaintiff under a deli-
berate promise of marriage?
Mr. Awl* said that had nothing to do with the ease.
Mr. Lewis, in summing up the case, said this was a pro-
c.=
to recover the paltry sum of I3W. 175., for which
Ho abley was the debtor of the plaintiff. General
Mirky had chosen to come to that court to bear the re-
marks he (Mr. Lewis) had to make, but he did not suppose
be would feel them at aIL He was there, but be would not
admit bis liability to this young, lady, or deny it upon his
oath. The circumstance, the mode, the manner in whiob
he contracted the debt would be most dishonourable

on the part of a person in the most menial condition of
society. Yet this was a debt contracted by a person holding
the high position of a general in the army. The story of
this young lady was a most painful one. General Shirley
introduced himself to Miss Thomas as a widower, but he
was • married man, separated by deed from his wife. He
to marry her, and fixed • day for the •
f2heddare to contradict that statement on oath? Did he
promise ber marriage, and then as a married man did he
seduce her ? It had been stated that Miss Thomas went to
Southend with General Shirley as his mistress, whereas she
went as his affianced bride. He challenged General Shirley
to deny that. He had wronged this poor girl, and she had
to pledge almost her last gown in order to maintain herself
and hie bastard child, yet he bad not the courage to come
forward to contradict her statements. The child was
christened Rosalie at his request, but bis refusal to pay
the claim for its maintenance @bowed how little he eared for
it, or what became of it. If it bad not been for a few
friends who had come forward to assist her, she would have
been left to starve in the streets, while General Shirley kept
in his pocket the money he fairly owed her. He asked a
verdict for the plaintiff for 139/. 17a, less 301. which Mies
' Thomas admitted she had received from General Shirley.
Mr. Pewle said he bad advised Goma Shirley not to
put himself in the witness-boa to be abused and vilified.
He then proceeded to raise many Mohnical objection to the
claims set up, arguing that Mies Thomas had no legal right
to recover, she not having paid the amounts. Many of the
items General Shirley would be liable for, and all the items
Mies Thomas said she had paid were, with the exception of
rent, 81. at Rugby, 101. for baby clothes, 41. 10s. 6d. for
hood and cloak, 11. 18s. W. for boots, H. IN. for •
cook, and 31. 15s. for the support of the child. He
contended that nothing MOO* could be recovered. Hs
then read a letter which had been seat to Miss
Thomas, dated August 12, 1862, offering to allow
her 2/. a week for twelve months, and that if within
that date Miss Thomas did not obtain employment the
i allowance would not hastily be discontioued. Sbe was also
' offered 301. • year for her child, so long as it was well cared
for, and the general had offered to invest 1,0001. for the
benefit of the child on its reaching twenty-one years of age.
This was the despicable offer spoken of. It was ay after
more than General Shirley could be expected to pay after
the manner in which he had been tissue&

Mr. Lewis skid that the general owed her 13W. for costs,
and that was the reason why be had said it was a despieable
offer.
Mr. Pewie said be presumed the Arbitrator would make
his award before he left town for the vaeatioo.
Mr. Lewis hoped be would make it as soon as possible
as Mir Thomas was almost without a shilling.
Miss Thomas, in answer to the Arbitrator, said ahe wan
living on her friends.
The Arbitrator raid he would make his award with as
little delay as possible, and the proseedinp then fermi-
sated.

CONVICTION UNDER THE NNW POACHING ACT.

MALVERN, Ammer M.

The fret conviction under the New Game Aot,
which came into operation a few days ago, has lust been oh-
Mimed here, the offender being • painter of this town, who
was detected amusing himself with • bit of sport on • Sun-
day morning, on the third day after the new law had come into
operation. The magistrates before whom the case was heard
were Sir Henry Lambert, Captain Candler, C. M. Barring-
ton. Esq., and J. V. Hornyold, Esq. Thomas Freeman was
charged by Police Impactor Turner with having in his pos-
session same unlawfully captured, and also having
in his possession • gun which he had used far
the purpose of destroying game nalawfultposll.
prove the charge the policeman was called. He
that on Sunday morning, the 10th inst., having been at
duty Dear the spot from one o'clock to ix, he met, at the
latter hoar, the defendant in • public footpath, aanyhig •
gun. He had seen him shoot shortly before, and asked him
what he was about. The defendant said he had no right to
search him, but the officer told him that he had, sod pro-
ceeded forthwith to exercise the right, and found in the
defendant's pocket • deed rabbit? warm and bleeding. He
took the rabbit and gun from him, and sold the rabbit by
order of the magistrate (Sir H. Lambert). Defendant by
his attorney. Mr.lloawley, denied that he bad shot the rabbit,
end brought a witness to swear that he bad been talking
to him in a different direction to that where the policeman
seed be saw the defendant shoot at something. The
'magistrate decided that the charge was proved ; but as it
was the first ease that had bssa brought before them
under the new act, they fined the defendant in the mitigated
penalty of 15., ordering the forfeiture of the rabbit and the
destruction of the gun. It was represented to the Moth
that the gun had been placed in the defendant's bands to
elms, and the magistrates were asked to order it to be sold,
se they had the option of doing, instead of destroying it, so
that the right owner might have a chance of bnylog it.
This however the magistrates refused to do, and ordered
it to be destroyed.

NITS Acr TOR 7111 RBOOVIRT 07 POOR RAT7B.--•
Amen Oho row onto of whiniest jest pabliobed Gee far
" the mere eareinaloal reerney et poor WAS sad caw
local rein and time. le furore ell rites dee by eee penes
asp be underbid io the mere proceeding. end tro owns grebe
be allowed le err +ben all the ranee mold be leashed la
11110111111IIMS. bliMlSlStiegy werssat, er Giber liesusait.