The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-16 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 16, 1853

Kau futeiligence.

KQULTY COU KIS.— Esr E 1).%T.

SSIMAS TIM UMW CILANC.LIAPIII ASS Int 1.1104 It • I:CM 111, st

The Court was occupied oho whole d.ty with tie &rot
meats is a part-heard CAS* of ..flooluva L,e," rod welch
was aot concluded at the rising.

The Court was occupied nearly the whole day in diVoi-
Mg of the maw of " Mellersh v. Sunman," the fat, of
which are wholly uninteresting, except to the parties imme
disdely concerned in it.

Wrote TtCLCHAXOII.I.O2. 9111 IGH FITAIT.
LETT/ r. TUN LONLON CI)UN IMCIIANOI COMPANY.

---- -
The London C.irn Exchange was erected in the yuir
1826 by the Locidin Corn Exchange Company, under
powers given to them by an act of parliament, on • site on
which, prior to that date, 10 houses had stood. From that
date until the year 1837 • certain sum was paid annually as
tithe to the r' ctor. In that year the plaintiff became the
rector of the parish in which the Corn Exchange was elm-
ated, and the seine sum was from that date paid'
to him until recently, when 'be plaintiff contending
that his tithe ought to be paid in respect of the
rent received upon the lettina of the stalls in the
Exchange, tied his bill, seeking • declaration by the
court of his right accordingly. The case was heard before
the Lord Justice Knight Bruce IP ben Vice-Chancellor, when
his Hosour thought that the plaintiff was precluded from
raising the question by his course of proceeding, and dis-
missed the bill. The plaintiff then appealed to the Lord
Chancellor, and his lordship thought that the plaintiff was
not precluded from raising the question, and it was referred
to the Master to ascertain what was due from the com-
pany in respect of the tithes. The Master by his report
found that the income of the company from the rents of the
Corn Exchange wu between 2,4002 and 3,0002 per annum,
and be fount that the company was bound to pay tithe in
respect of the net rent.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Humphry now appeared in support
of exc,ptions to the Master's report on the ground that
although the Master had deducted from the gross rent the
rates and taxes, and an estimete in respect of the repairs of
the building he had not deducted from the gross rent vari-
ous expenses to which the company were put, such es the
costs of insurance against fire, expenses of newspapers and
other expenses of that kind. Another question raised was
whether the open area in the centre of the Exchange was
liable to tithe. The rector's right to tithe existed under' de-
cree of the council, which was embodied in 37 Hear, VIII.,
c. 12, which provided that the citizens and inhabitants of
London and the liberties of the same at the time being shall
yearly without fraud for ever pay their tithes
to the parsons, vicars, and curates of the said
city and their succinct'', for the time being after
the rate hereafter following, viz., "for every 101.
rent by the year, of all and every house arid houses, shops,
warehouses, cellars, stables, and every of them within the
said city and liberties, Is. 41. And of every 201. rent by
the year, of all and every such house and houses, shops,
warehouses, cellar", stable*. and every of them within the
said city and liberties, 2s. Bd., end so on above the rent of
'2Ol. by the year, according to the rate aforesaid." It was
clear that this aet never contemplated that the tithe should
be payable on ,the
_profits of the bushing carried on in the
house or premises, but that it should haltered merely on the
buildinn and nets. .

Mr. Daniel aad Mr. Speed, for the rector, were not called
On.

—The Vies Chancellor said, the only difficulty with him
was to see grounds for the application. The Master had a
difficult task to perform, and it was said that he made an
error in respect of the property in the whole of the area
which constituted what was called the London Corn Ex-
change Company, and that be ought to have conciuded it
prior to the calculation of the annual tithe. For hie part
he thought the Master would have miscarried, considering
the terms of the decree, which in plain terms declared that
the Leaden Corn Exchange Company was subject to the
tithe. The Loudon Corn Exchange Company consisted of
the whole of the area which was lighted by a light ; and
the value, in his view, must be included as to the receipts
by the owners, after proper deductions of the outgoings.
He thought the Master had acted on this principle. Then
it was mid that the Master ought to have allowed what
was paid to the managing directors, as a part of the out
goings ; but the view taken by the Muter was right. There
might be some doubt as the minute calculations made by
the Master, but he could not satisfy himself that he was
wrong ; he should therefore disallow the exceptions with
Natl.

BAIL COURT.-YE3TERDAY.
AT SII PILICII.-11110111 312. nryncs lIILS

NIVOHU AND ANOTHER D. LUMLIY AND

M•JUTY'S TILATII.-IIICTMIXT.
Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Unthank appeared for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Hoggins, Mr. Lush, Mr. Wise, and Mr. Raymond
for the defendant.
Mr. Bramwell, in stating the use for the plaintiff, said
that this II al an action of ejectment to recover ion of
the Italian Opera Home, In the Haymarket. he plaintiffs
were Mr. Hughes, an attorney residing at Worcester, Messrs.
Lyons and Barnet, attorneys, and a Mr. Storer, a gentleman
of fortune. Mr. Lumley, the defendant, was well known as
the teem and manager of the Italian Opera House. The other
defendant war a lir. Fish, a person under the control of
Mr. Lumley. It Appeared that each of the plaintiffs had
severally recovered judgments against Mr. Lumley, and
they had all issued writs of extent against his property.
They had also all joined in bringing this action. As far as
he could see, the only question in this ease would be which
of the plaintiffs would be entitled to succeed. Hughes had
beta the first to register his judgment for 1,1431. 10s., as
the 10th of August, 1862, in the Court of Common
nod in Middlesex ott the 11th of May, 1852. One of the
other plaintiffs, Mr. Storer, registered hie judgment fen
2,5691. in the Cunt of Common Pleas, on the 22d Judy,
1862. and in Middlesex on the 4th of January, 1853, sad
another judgment for 22,4821. was registered in the Common
Plea on the 18th December, 1862, and in Middlesex on
the 20th Deeember, 1862, by Mean. Lyons and Buses.
The writs were delivered to the sheriff, who did not extents
them until the 26th January, 1853, ea which day they were
all put into execution without notice to Lumley, according
to the priority in which they had been delivered. The in-
quisition, were taken in the same form, and stating that
when Hughes' writ was issued there were no other writs in
the *See.

fir. ilOggias, for the defendant, submitted that Mr.
Hughes was not entitled to recover in this action. The first
gameticn was whether the three plaintiffs, or which of them,
would be entitled to recover, and that would depend upon
the sunning to be put upon the statute of let & 2nd Vie-
toris, c. 110. Hughes' case stood In this form : his judg-
ment was registered on the 10th of August and Storsr's on
the 22nd July; and by the 11th section of the statute, the
sheriff wee empowered to deliver exeestion to a judgment
creditor, but the section, after reciting that the law was de-
fective in not providing sufficient means for a judgment '
creditor to obtain satisfaction for his judgment, enacted that
the sheriff should deliver execution to the person seised at
the time of entering up the judgment. On looking at this,
it would appear that Storer s judgment was anterior to
that of Hughes'. The 10th section pros ided that
no judgment, by virtue of this act, should affect
any lands unless a memorandum of minutes should
be left with the Muter of the Common Pleas. It was pro-
vided by the 14th section that a judgment should operate as
a charge upon real estates, to., to which the party should
be entitled, and then it gave a remedy in a Court of Equity.
Thus it would appear Sturar's jadgment must have priority,
and in that cue it would be the duty of the sheriff to have
executed storer's writ before Hughes'. The sheriff had not
delivered possession to Lyon and Barnes, in consequence of
Hughes and Storer having a previou possession.
Mr Justice Brie said that the construction of the statute
mast he left to the court above.

Mr. Hoggine would then submit his defences with regard
to Hughes alone. It was enacted by the statute of Anne,
a. 16, see. 1, that no person should take directly or indirectly
for the loan of money more than b per cent. per annum,
and all loans, &e., securing more should be void. The de-
fendant did not seek to set aside t:iii i
iidgment on the ground
of usury, however frightful it ht have been, but he
said the law did impose this restraint upon him, that he
should not obtain a priority over other persons.
Mr. Justice Me said that it bad been decided that this
only applied to a loan upon land.
Mr. Hoggins submitted that this was a judgment upon a
warrant of attorney, dated the 25th of June, 1852. The
advance was 1,0001., with a defeseanee for the payment of
1,1401., the whole of which was to be repaid within two
months. The learned counsel then called
J. P. Hughes, who said that the sum he advanced was
advanced upon an agreement and bills of exchange. He ad-
vaned 1,0001., and was to have 1,1401., payable weekly
within two months. That would be more than 5 per cent.
per anima. That was including expenses of the prepara-
tion of papers and jimmies. There was an agreement,
signed by Mr. Lumley and Dr. Barker, and subsequently
one with Mr. Oye, under which he (Hughes) rrceived
from Mr. Oye 5,000/. for his interest in the theatre and for
a lease. He had to pay the rent and insurance. He con.
sidered the 5,0001. as applicable to the payments be had to
make in respect of the theatre. Mr. Oye had demanded
the repayment of the 5,0001., because he could not give him
possession. He knew that Mr. Oye did not enter into the
agreement with him in order that the theatre might be
closed.
Mr. Margins then submitted that Mr. Hughes' evidence
clearly proved that be had been paid out of the 5,0001. he
had reesived from Mr. Oye.
A groat deal of discussion having taken place, it was
eventually agreed that a verdict should be taken for the
plaintiff Hughes, with leave to the defendants to set aside
or alter the verdict.

CONSISTORY COURT.-YESTERDAL
DMZ, Oa. LtiIIISOTO..
CIOCCI W. CIOCCI.

The arguments in this cue wen rimmed this morning.
Dr. Phi'Limon, in reply, said it was his duty to answer
the objections which bad „been raised on behalf of the hus-
band, and to remove the obstacles which he bed endeavoured
to interpon between the much injured lady for whom he
appeared bad the emomplishaseet of bee prayer. The de-
fence had eineleted of two classes, meeting the two spoke
of elle genies soplest Mr. Ciocci. That person wu eineged
with reputed ens et cruelty and adultery. These disaris
bad bees met by a distinct denial with respect to
es esamcrt,
aid urehreace to the imputed adultery it was te
prim Mettle ohms was the sank ef a anspireay Is
the cep ulallen et Ilos nenneene. ISbad has mod
lees on musuoesntabk ease, ineinielblee was aims* elliew
twal dines% and Ms. Caen led Ilape_suit le Oro law
liesissetesekierights. BuSlosidellbillaiSSONlMl

and third letters of Mrs. Ciocci should be looked at as well
ss her first replies, and from these it would appear that on
the very day of her marriage, when they came to London. 1
this min sb-rated himself from her, and ttid not return
until late in the evening. She lived in the greatest dread
of his institution this suit for the restoration of conjugal
right*, which it was made a merit that he did nut bring,
and Mrs. CiOeti had evaded the danger by concealing the
place of her abode. With respect to the letter writt-n by
Ciocei, from which the court was to infer that he was •
man of the character which be had been pleased to describe,
this was plainly written to form a part of the evidence
which Cioeci bad manufactured fur himself. Copies of all
these letters bad been kept, and it could not be
doubted that Ciocci had been endeavouring, in the
letter he bad himself written, to forestal the time
when the veil of hypocrisy would be removed front him,
and he would be seen in all his naked deformity. Dr.
Phillimore proceeded to combat the objections which
had been raised to the evidence produced ou the part of
Mrs. Ciocci, and contended that the fact which coloured the
whole of the transaction from beginning to end was that
the character which Ciocci had set up for himself was one
of grow hypocrisy, fur the evidence of the medical gentle.
man proved that he was far from being the saint be pre-
tended to be. Having gone •hrough the whole of the most
material evidence, and urged with much emphasis that the
facts which had been disclosed abundantly proved the
guilt of Mr. Cioce, the learned doctor concluded by saying
st had been contended that this was • suit which ought
not to have been brought; but it appeared to
him that no person who examined the evidence,
who lifted the veil with which it had been sought
to shroud these transactions, who looked carefully and
minutely into the facts—into the many undersigned coinci-
dences which had been proved on the one aide, and con-
trasted all the circumstances with the grossly imprtirable
story which had been brought forward on the other—no
candid and intelligent person, be said, who gave due con-
sideration to this ease would fail to come to a very different
conclusion, and to be of opinion, not that the suit was one
which ought u to have been brought, but that it ought
never to have boon defended.
Dr. Deane followed on the same side,and the judgment of
the court was reserved.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YzeTzaDaT.
/WM I. NNOINSIONIN ITAJI.
IN HR POLLARD.

This was the last examination meeting in the cue of
Charles Pollard, of the Old Bell Tavern, Wellington
North, Strand. The accounts extended over two years prior
to the failure in September last, commencing with a capital
of 5001. The amount due to creditors is 2,6121.; property
estimated at 1,6171. The profits had been 2,0631.; expeasts,
2,9021.

Mr. Taylor, for the air ignite, complained that the ac.
counts were unsatisfactory, and asked for an adjournment,
in order that they might be amended.
The bankrupt was examined as to the removal of goods
from his premiaes, and stated that the only removal bad
been to Chobbani, during the encampment.
The examination meeting was adjourned for 7 weeks.

(anon re. comnewowea DOLOOTII.
IN AZ CHAMIENN AND CRANIUMS.
There was an audit meeting in thu old bankruptcy,
owing to • large sum having come to the estate through the
result of a chancery suit. The bankrupts, Abraham Henry
Chambers the elder, and Abraham Henry Chamben the
youngen, were bankers, in Old Bend-street. The bank-
ruptcy occurred in 1824, when the amount of liabilities of
the firm was found to be two hundred and twenty-four
thousand pounds. Dividends amounting to lia. 4d. in the
pound have been already paid, and on the separate estate
of A. H. Chambers, jun., 20s. in the pound. The official
assignee (Mr. Groom) has recently received from the
accountant-general of the Court of Chancery the sum of
34,7711., being the amount of principal, interest, and cats
(after deducting income-tax) in the suits of " Chambers v.
Waters." and Waters e. Taylor." After deducting ex-
penses, an amount 34,6631. remains applicable to dividend ;
and this, it is estimated, will yield a dividend of 2s. 6d. on
the joint estate. The dividend meeting takes place in
about a fortnight.

IX 111

CATTLI MARINT.

Thu was the last examination meeting in the case of
Henry Kirk, described as a hay-dealer, of St. Jaws's-
square, sad late one of the directors of the Islington Cattle
Harlot. The wasetutta not being Sled, an anjournmost
wee necessary. The examinations was adjourned for lire
weeks.

MU)DLESEX BEBERONEL—YEarERDAY.
.170.3 ma. SOBIZAST ADAM. AlllfliaNT J 111,91.

Andrei. Petrie Ageism, 44, was indicted for hawing
fraudulently obtained from Elisabeth Rumen 51. and other
moneys, and from Eltaabath Brown be., with intent to de•
fraud.

The prisoner was a Dutchman, and on the loth of October
he went to Elisabeth Russell, at No. 11, Gun-lane, Lime-
house, and told her that he had come from Rotterdam in
the Henrietta, which was lying in the East India docks ;
that he had left that vessel the day before, and wanted
board and lodging at her house. He further said that the
ship was going to be paid off the next day, when he should
receive pay to the amount of 11. be. On the filth of the
repreeentatioas, Mn. Russell not only lodged him for three
days, but provided him with board, end lent him nand
RUM of momey, amounting altogether to the sum of
2s. ed. The last lam he obtained rem U. he., which he
said he should require to bring his chest to the house, and
subsequently a chest which he brought was found to contain
nothing but dirty ad rags. The day on which, as he said,
the sh.p was to be paid off, he went out after breakfast,
and did not return. Early in the present swath he was
given into custody on a precisely similar charge of fraud
(for all his repreeentatioas were utterly false), and when
confronted with Mrs. Russell, he at first denied all pre-
vious knowledge of her, but at lon* said he would get •
ship and work and pay her NA Qp sawn whom he had
defrauded.

The pruner in his Wows Maly repeated this latter
offer.

TM jury found his Owl*howl as meat watsmood him
to six months' bird Mem

Charles ma, 2 sod Edward Magetisrd, 26, wen in-
dicted for tannin* breaking open and entering the dwel.
liag-house of Isms Seaward, and stealing therein two
coats and Maw
May
al., his
_Property-
Mr. Huey amend Maynard •i Hill pleaded guilty.
This praseanhor was a tailor in Remington-street, end
between Mild sod slag o'clock on the evening of the 6th
of thiamin*, es be was going up from the kitchen of his
house to the skip, the prisoner Hill sprang upon
him from the paring, knocked the candle out of his hand,
threw him down ad_ jumped on his chest, taking an op-
portunity while se Sobs to match his watch from his
pocket. He called out for assistance, and one
of his cbil,iren opened the street door to fetch
in • neighbour, when the prisoner, Maynard,
naked in and asked what he was making such •
row about. A neighbour entered at the same time, and
went to the eaststaace of the prosecutor, who was struggling
with Hill, and seeing this, Maynard went up to him and
sated what he meant by interfering, telling him that, even
was it • twelvemonth to come, he w...uld wait upon him for
it. Finding that the person to whom this threat was made
was not deterred by it from rendering the prosecutor all the
aid he could, Maynard made off, and was not apprehended
until Hill was plated before a magistrate, and Maynard
was recognised at the court. The goods in the shop were
tumbled about, and some of them, including two costa,
were packed up ready for removal. The entrance had been
effected by Hill from the back part of the premises, his
shoes haring been takes off his feet to prevent noise, and
the suggestion was that Maynard was aiding and abetting
as an mcompliee, and was wasting outside ready to carry off
the plunder. Title, however, wee indignantly repudiated
by Hill, who ~clued that Maynard was an entire and
total stranger to him.
Mr. Horry, for the defence, laid much stress upon this
amnion, and urged that there was not in the evidence
anything to prove it untrue.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
It was shown that both prisoners had been convicted be-
fore, and
The Assistant Judge sentenced them each to six years'
pawl servitude.
Elisabeth Mason, 20, Elisabeth Smith, 18, and Alice
Davis, 20, wen indicted for having stolen five gold rings
and two brooches, the property of John Thomas Blackmer*.
Mr. Salentine appeared for Smith and Mason.
It appeared that the prosecutor kept a fancy depository
in the neighbourhood of the Commercial-road, and on the
25th ult. the three prisoners went into the shop under pre-
tence of purchasing some article of trifling value, and they
purloined the property mentioned in the indictment from a
tray of such artkdos which was shown to them. Imme-
diately after they were goes the theft was discovered by the
prosecutor's wife, and information having been given to the
polio', the prisoners were within a short time in custody.
They appeared highly in.lignant when they heard the
charge, and Kama and Smith, palling money from their
pockets, said, " There, is it likely that we should go and
commit a robbery of such things while we have all that
money ?" None of the property hod been recovered.
Daring the examination of the prosecutor's wife, a
woman who appeared to be very nervous, Mr. Ballantine
repeated her answers to questions pat by him, to the jury.
The Assistant Judge stopped the learned counsel, sad said
he had not beard the witness give aa answer which he had
just repeated, to which Mr. Salentine replied, by stating
that ha was sure the jury. heard it, and that he did not
think he was doing anything bet his duty is repeater the
answers. A short conversation took place, from which it
' appeared that the jury did not bear the reply given by the
witness, but ens of the officers of the court did hear it, and
of course corroborated Nit. Salentine. During the exami-
nation of the police constable in the case, a statement was
made, which did not appear on the face of the depositions.
The constable was nose-examined by Mr. Ballantine upon
this, and he said, in answer to the court, that he had not
made the statement when he was before the magistrate,
because he was not asked any question respecting that to
which it related.
Mr. Ballantine, in his address to the jury, said, although
L he was wrong in saying that they had heard as well as
himself the an.wer which he had repeated to them, it wu
quits des that it had been given, tor the °eer of the
mart hoard it, though the jury and the learned judge did
sot, and ha had not meant anything disrespectful in saying
that the jury had heard it. It was necessary, he thought,
that he should repeat it, and it was to be regretted that the
construction of the court was such that ranch of what a
winces said did not reach the bench, and if ever in repeat-
ing an answer he wea unfortunate enough to be incorreet,
be should be Llad_to be coneeted by the jvAp. With ra-
te that *'lienwee sot is the depoddose, bat sow
herwool, listened apes the Jury to climbs it trop

their minds. After his cross-eaanainatica of the policeman,
the judge asked, in a way which he (Mr. &Destine) well
undenund, lumina practised in that court a lung time, et
to a manner to produce • certain effect, tt You were not
asked that before the magistrate." lie understood why
that was asked, and he must way that although msnnerism
might be escuse.l on the nart of a concise' it could not sn
the pert of the beech. The leaned gentleman then pro-
ceeded to comment on the case.

The Assistant Judge before ramming up said he wished
to nuke a few obeersations on the remarks of the learned
counsel He said there was to be mannerism in the counsel
but not in the judge.
Mr. HaUsittine.—Not that there is to be, bat that it is
ezeusable in a counsel.

Tue Assistant Judge.—Unfortunately there was a species
of mannerism which was sometimes indulged in, and
which, though it contained no wit, had the appearance of
a great deal of malice ; and it seemed to him that, if Mr.
Ballantine would correct his mannerism, it would be of
great advantage to him. When a counsel explained that
he did not wish to insult a jury, but in a way which had
something like the appearance of an insult to the judge,
that was a mannerism which might u well be corrected.
When a judge said he had not heard a witness give a parti-
eular answer, and the counsel, with a supercilious air to
the jury, raid, " Oh, well, the jury did," when it turned
out they did not, there was a mannerism about that which
might well be dispensed with. There was no man at the
bar for whom he had a greater respect than Mr. Ballan-
tine, or one who practised mere honourably in hie putts-
lion; and this induced him the more to hope that this
mannerism of his might be corrected. The learned coun-
sel, he observed, had just left the court ; and, as he was
not in the habit of attacking persons in their absence, he
should say no more on the subject. He then placed the
case before the jury.
All the prisoners were found Guilty.
it appeared that they formed part of a regular gang of
thieves. Mason had been sentenced at the Old Bailey to
12 months' hard labour, in addition to three summary con-
victions; Davis, too, had been sentenced to 12 months' hard
labour; and Smith had been convicted twice.

The Assistant Judge said the prisoner., Wwas clear, bad
been associated with a gang, who, with their aid, carried on
• regular wholesale system of plunder on the public. It
was the duty of the court in such • cue to award • severe
punishment, and the sentence on Macon and Davis there-
fore was that they each be kept in penal servitude for four
years, and upon Smith that she be kept to bud labour for
one year.

The Lord Mayor said that there could be no doubt of the
prisoner's object, and he should sentence him to one month's
Imprisonment, two others haring been similarly sentenced
for a like offence.

GUILDHALL.

John rochrane, Janus Armstrong, and Andrew Coch-
rane, were charged with crating a disturbance in a betting.
°Mee. _ _ _

Mr. Palmer, who described hiwaelf as an independent
man, said he kept a betting-061m at 36, Farringdon-street,
and the prisoners came in with others and created a great
disturbance.
__

Alderman Humpbery—Had they been paying you any
money ?
, . .

CoMplainant—No, sir—not a farthing.
Alderman Humphery—But might they not have bought
tickets of other parties that would have entitled them to
some claim upon you ?
Complainant—That is possible.
Jobe Cochrane—l presented a ticket, your worship, that
I bought for 305., and the complainant immediately tore it
up and said when the person who sold me the ticket paid
him what he owed him, he would pay the amount of the
ticket.

Alderman Humphrey—Well, Mr. Palmer, is that true ?
Complainant—Yes, sir, it is—l did tear up the ticket.
Aldcrmau Humpher.y—Then why did you not tell us the
whole truth at once. It seems now that these men had a
right to be in your office.
Complainant—But they bad no Maim upon me.
Alderman Humphrey—l know they have no legal claim,
nor can any one from the manner is which betting
offieca are conducted. It's a very fortunate thine for you
that the new act for the suppression of batting-houses is not
yet in force, or 1 should most assuredly have sent you to
Bridewell for three months.

John Cochrane—How am I to get my money back, sir?
I have paid 11. on this ticket? .

Alderman licimphery—You must go to the County Court.
Complainant—Am 1 to be subject to this annoyance
again ?
Alderman liumphery—lt is very plain th►t you have
had these men's mosey, and it's hard fur them to Do robbed
of it.

Complainant—But we ought to have protection.
Alderman Iluinphery—You don't deserve protection, for
you take the 'none/ of thise people. and in many instances
men and boss are induced to rob their employers to enable
them to go to these betting houses, the consequence of
which is that many are utterly ruinel and the comfort of
thousands of families for ever destroyed.
Complainant—The holder of the ticket only sold it fer the
purpose of annoying me, aid if I am not protected these
men will mo►est me again.
Alderman Hompbery—And serve you right, you should
pay these men their money.
The defendants were then discharged.

BON-STREET.
Thomas Brooks wu charged before Mr. Jardine with
having attempted (in conjunction with a man not in cus-
tody) to break into the house of Mr. Harper, jeweller, 30,
Upper King-street, Bloomsbury-square.
The prosecutor deposed that he wee disturbed in his
deep at five in the morning by a rattling noise at his shut-
ters, and on going down stairs to the private door of the
house he saw two men run away in the direction of Blooms-
bury-place. He called "stop thief" and saw one of the
men throw something upon the pavement, which sounded
like iron implements. A policeman took up the chase.and
captured one of the men (prisoner), and afterwards another
°faker picked up a crow-bar, chisel, some wedges, and
other articles of the kind used generally in house-
breaking.
It appeared that one of the shutters bad been treed out
of its place several inches.
The prisoner, who was known to the police, wu com-
mitted for trial. _

WORSHIP-STREET.
Mr. Vann, the solicitor, accompanied by several master
boot and shoe manufacturers in the neighbourhood of
Shoreditch and Houton, applied for summonses against
certain persons who were alleged to be connected with a re-
cent strike for en advanse of wages, for haring entered into
an unlawful conspiracy for the purpose of injuring them in
their business.
_

Mr. Vann stated that a bandhill bed been circulated
which bore the signatures of John Connelly, chairman, and
William Marlow, secretary to the committee of the turn-
outs, and which after a brief statement of the matters in
dispute, proceeded as follows:—" We therefore earnestly
request the public to support us by not dealing with those
shops who refuse to pap such a trifling advance to their
workpeople, at the same time charging the public so much
more than those shops that pay the full wages; and the
journeymen shoemakers are also earnestly requested to oo-
operate with us, by not working for the undermentioned
shops." Then followed in large capitals the names and
addresses of all the masters who had refused to submit to
the demands of the workmen. Not satisfied with this the
committee had employed several men to stand before
the doors of their late muters in order to dissuade the
public from entering their shops to make purchases,
and some of the men who were satisfied with the existing
rate of wages and continued in their employment, had been
subjected to such gross maltreatment and insinsidation,
that they had returned their work in an unfinished state,
and had declined to execute it. Under these circumetaaees
be was instructed to apply for summonses against Connelly
end Marlow.

Mr. D'ltyncourt—Are you in a condition to prove that
the persons complained of took any part in the circulation
of the offonsive placards, or were stall privy to their pub-
lication ?

Mr. Vann—l have been auured by Mr. Richmond, the
printer of the bills, who appears to have acted in entire
ignorance of the law, that he received direct instructions
for their publication from the man Connelly, and it will
also be shown on a future occasion that Marlow, the secre-
tary, was equally implicated in the transaction.
Mr. D'Eyocourt said that it wee a cue of great public
importance, and be had no hesitation in directing a sum-
mons to be issued against the parties.

SOUTH WARK.
Alfred Glemster, a cal~drlver, was brought before Mr.
Cumbe, charged with cruelly working a horse in an unfit
state.

Police sergeant 11 L said be was on duty near the stage
entrance of the Surrey Theatre, when be saw defendant
with a horse and cab. Perceiving that the animal was
very weak he examined it, and found sores under the collar
end on the legs. It was In suill a tottering condition
that it could hardly stand, consequently he took the horse
and cab to the Green-yard, and the prisoner to the station-
house.

The owner of the horse and vehicle laid the animal bad
an accident in the stable • short time ago, and that it was
only out last night fur • little exercise. Re would, how-
eve!, consent to have it killed.

Mr. Combs aeoordinglp discharged the prisoner on that
condition.

Philip Grinney, who hu gee; for nearly three weeks in
custody for a desperate attempt, while in a paroxysm of
jealousy, to murder his wife by cutting her throat, was again
remanded._

James Hickman, the driver of cab 3,319, and the owner
of badge 8,260, appeared to answer a summons for charging
more than his legal fare.
Mr. William Hall, • gentleman residing at No. 13, the
Oval, Kennington, deposed that on Saturday last the de-
fendant drove him and another person to the Blaekfriars-
road, a distance much within two miler, and witness gave
him a shilling, together with a gratuity of fourpence, se the
night was rather damp. The defendant, however, de
mended is. 6d. as his legal fate, on the ground that three
persons had ridden in his cab.
Defendant—Well, sir, that is tree. The servant who
called me off the rank rode home in my cab.
Mr. Elliott said that if three persons had ridden at one
time he would have been *raided to the extra sixpence. As
it was, he was tined 10s. and cats, or seven days' imprison-
ment.
The money was paid.

HAMMERSMITH.
James Langton, aged 39 years, a labourer, living in
Hensel' New Town, wu charged with having umulted his
wife. The woman wu unable to attend in consequence of
the injuries she had received.
The prisoner's son, a youth about 16 years of age, stated
that his father came home about 12 o'clock, and ke believed
be was sober. He thought his mother was not
sober. The coffee was not ready, ant his father told
his mother to get it for him. She told him that he might
get it himself ; upon which his father abused her, and after
striking her with his fist two or three time,, he caught up
the hair broom and heat her with it. She went to the door
and called '• Police," and he then hit her again. She
again called out " Police," and fell down, and hie father
took her up and carried her to the bed. He then got into his
(witness's) bed, and the police came and took his father into
custody.
Mr. Beadon remanded the prisoner.