The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-30 00:00:00

SAW iinteliteence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YzarziumT.
a man TIM Loup esaseasaaw.
gainwn IP. Dawnisat AND OTNIIIIIII. COMPOSITION '
DZID.--OVAZANTII.
This appeal against an order of Vise-Chancellor Knight
Bruce was opened on Saturday. The question arose
in this way: Lane Dewhent, being largely indebted
to several persons, and, among others, to the Halifax blank-
ing Company, a deed of compile:non was agreed to
by the creditor' consenting to take As. in the pound,
and the payment was guaranteed by William Dewherst.
The bank held the notes of one Capper for .5001. of
the 1,900 t. which Isaac Dewherst owed them ; and
the main question in the cause is whether they
should give up these notes and tile the composition
on the whole debt. The arguments concluded yesterday.
Mr. J. Hawaii and Mr. Follett having been heard fur one
side, and Mr. Swanston and Mr. Willcox for the other,
The Lord Chancellor said he would give his judgment on
Monday.

Bemis Inas Classmate IV.MCIIANCELTAC.
COOKE a. CHOLNIUNIISLIIT.—As Tu Till VALIDITT or SIR
6111SGOILY PIIGITUIXIIICY WILL.
This suit, which has so often been before the court upon
di&•rent branches of the case, came on now upon further
directions. It will be recollected that a question was
raised as to the validity of the will, on account of its having
been ezecuted at a time when a cummi•sion of lunacy was
podding. Au issue was directed to the court of law to try
the validity. and the di ekion had been in favour of the
will, and a reference to the Master was now asked, to have
the trusts of the will carried into effect.
The VioeChancellor directel the reference accordingly.

COUItT OF QUEEN'S BENCII—Y ESTERDAT.
Immo* on Iwno.—lnurna• Inn Cursau, Ma. IL.oce
rex, Ya. Jena WP.IsTMAN, APO MIL. ASTMS LILL.
BAUPIBIL.K CANN.
An application was made on the subject of the rcadmis-
mission of Mr Barber as an attorney.
lord Campbell ndd that if there was any fresh matter to
be brought lorwarn, of course the court would hear it ; but
so far us the old emitter waa concerned, the court considered

it ww judteata.
It was intimated that fresh facts would be brought

TO AN

Dims Ma. SALON MAarix •F 4 •
X; Meta si x orWoN it•l.
WOODS r.F INN IS •s I) A NO OTHEIt.—LIAMLITT or SUF.III ITS
Filet THE Acts or limit Orriezits.
Thin was an action against the Sheriffs of London and
Middlesex to recover a sum of money alleged to have been
extorted by a sheriff's officer from the plaintiff when ur
rooted on a writ of ca. NM., and to recover compensation in
damage* for a wrongful imprisonment. The defendants
pleaded nut guilty ; that they did not extort the money;
that a sum alleged to have berm paid in satisfaction of
the debt was not Maid to the defendants ; that they did not
diacharge the plaintiff from custody On payment thereof ;
that mote, the plaintiff in the original action, was not
willing to receive the looney ; and that the fesi were paid
to the shunts sheer iu eunsequvaco of a contract between

him and the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is u builder, who was engaged in 1819 in
some building spieulations in the neighbourhood of W:11111.-
worth. Judgment having been obtained against him for
671. Os. at the suit of a Mr. Foote, a snuff manufacturer,
he wens on the 23rd of June in that year arreated on a writ
of ea. sia. by William Henry White, an officer of the
sheriffs, and taken to White's "lock-up" in Chancery lane.
The plaintiff thereupou communicated with Mr. Webb, his
attorney, who sent him a cheek for 751. The plaintiff then
paid to White the amount indorsed on the writ, and in
addition to certain charges incurred in the lock-up" the
balms ing fees" If. Is. as caption fee," 3s. 6d. for it
"mash at the aberitrs (Ace, and is. 6.1. for discharge. On
the payment of these bums the plaintiff wss discharged
from custody. White. however, did not pay user the
money to toots or his attorney, and a concurrent writ
having been issued in London, the plaintiff, on the 3rd of
August, was arrested by an officer of the sheriff, and
taken to Whitetross-street Prison, where he was detained
until the following day. The plaintiff now sought to
recover damages for that imprisonment. It appeared
from the statement of some of the witnesses that the 11.1 A.
alleged to have been extorted were customary fees under
the circumstances. Mr. Berry, the attorney for Foote,
prayed that White had nut paid the sum received from the
plaintiff. and he only was made aware of the payment after
he heard that the plaintiff was in Whitecrow-street
The plaintiff WAN arrested about four o'clock in the after-
noon of the 3rd of August, and discharged front the prima
at half-past eleven o'clock on the following day.
Mr. Bramwell submitted that there was no ease for the
jury. 'there was no pretence fiir saying that the fees were
taken by authority of the sheriff. The sheriff was nut
Imund to 'levies. the money, and White had no authority
from them to do what he had done. it was a contract he-
' tween the parties; in a onsideration of the tuouey paid
down, and the tees, White allowed the plaintiff to go.
Mr. Kam Martin dial not think it was a bargain at all.
lle should, however, reserve leave to the defendants to move
the mart.
Mr. Bramwell then addrcased the jury in mitigation of
damages.
Mr. baron Martin told the jury that if they were of
opinion that the sum of 1/. 9s. was demanded by White as
a matter of course—as the demand could not he justified in
point of 6w—it would he their duty to find fur the plaintiff.
With respect to the damages, as the sr • had not been
brought against the person who committed the wrong. they
would, perhaps, think it was a case which did nut call fur
very severe damages.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
for I?. 95., the amount el • •al, with damage', 50/.
Mr. Bann Martin gave the defendants leave to move the
court on any ground that might relieve them from the act
of White, or to reduce the damages.
Mr. Willes asked his lort6hip to certify that it was a pro-
per case for trial in this court.
Mr. Bunn Martin—lf you are found entitled only to
U. 95., 1 should not feel inclined to grant a certificate.

EXCHEQUER CHANIBER.7I:EstEaDAY.

Berms nu Jr 114.1.71 or 11.11.C.br11t.1.0.1.41..1111.1.41 •111./ 1t.11111031

-•• • • ••••
16.1101.1 or i2C11141 RP.

Tut QUEE; r. 171131ALT011 AND CORFORATION OF
Li, 11 COMPF-XSATIUM FOY LOSS OF °VIRE.—
,11:110141011.
This ease came before the court on a writ of error from
the Queen's Bench, which gave judgment for the defend-
ants On a demurrer to a Tatum to a mandamus.
Mr. Baron Parke now delivered the judgment of the
Court of Error. The mandamus to the mayor, aldermen,
and citizens of Lichfield recites a previous peremptory man-
damus to the council of that city, stating that at the missing
of the Municipul Corporation Act (5 and 6 Wm. IV.),
Charles Simpson, the prosecutor, had the office of town
clerk, that he was re-appointed to the office, and after the
pausing of the act he continued to be such until the 20tb of
January, 1814, when he was removed, and was entitled to
compensation to be assessed by the council; that the coup.
ell took into consideration and disallowed it, and the
recited writ then commanded them to assess an adequate
compensation. That the council assessed as a com-
pensation the annual slam of 30!. 4s. 3d. ; that the pro-
secutor appealed to the Lords Commissioners of the Trea-
sury, who heard the appeal on 31st March, 1849, and
ordered that the said Charles Simpson should receive the
sum of 501. 18s. 3d. per annum, such annuity to commence
on 9th September, 1835. That order was duly signed, and
bee.une valid, and was transmitted to the mayor ; and also
that notice then of was given to the prosecutor ; and the
mandamus then commands the mayor, aldetmen, and citi•
eons to execute and deliver to the prosecutor a bond and
obligation, in a sufficient penalty, for the payment to him
of the said last-mentions-4 annuity, commencing 9th Sep-
tember, 1833. Tu this mandamus the corporation returned
that, before any order was made by the lords commissioners
an appeal—namely, on the 23rd March, 1849—a Treasury
minute was made, which is set out at length, and state the
average of fise years profits of the office, prior to the
passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, on which they
calculate the annual amount, to be 971. is. 4d., and
making a deduction of disbursements of two thirds as the
=anal compensation, being equal to 501. 18s. 2d., and order
an annuity of that amount to be paid, to commence on the
sth of September 1835, and that an order alma be drawn
to that effect, and delivered to the mayor, with a copy of
that minute. The order is also set out, and the return then
avers that the minute and order did not truly express the
trait immest and meaning of the commissioners in making
the same, sad that the date of the 9th of September was
inserted by mistake and inadvertanoe of the commissioners,
and with iaanst that the prossentor missuld receive such
amenity tams the day he ceased in held the office of town
sink, wed that the date wee awned smiler the belief that
the Otis espeewalwe was that day. The sealant then stated
that 1118 the Slat of Masa a copy of she maid edema was
transmitted W the prosecutor, Mr. flimpen, and ails=
of the sasistrial part of it to the lt thaw
that coa the 10th of April, 1840, Comileasee
diesoseeed their error, and the laid Leak Csamissisam
awls • seemed Waste, whisk is sat eat, ow
inoo, and rodesin the emits to sewmweeltan fs
of the ileaseaseers Ames ha m vat eta
so my. Isimpom waseelka. The NUM Mot
es to state that es the of MA. YIN. at • =maw of
the esuaell. it was ceders& tire the swami at 801.

(cons hie father's funeral, when ha was arrested at the suit should be granted and secured by a bond orobligation under
of the plaintiff, to whom he was indebted iu the sum of the common seal of the corporation, commencing as the
2,6601. Wheu be wu arrested he offered to ensign an an- 2lth of January, 1844, the day when the pesenele I
nuity of 3001. a year, which his father had kft him. This ter ceased to hold the office, and that they bed's,
offer it was agreed should be accepted, if his brother, the always been ready to execute that bond. The return ad.
Rev. Henri Cavities Bingham would give his consent. This mitt it the matter. recited in the peremptory mandamus to
gentleman, however, said lie must go .over to Derby to consult be true. To this return there was a special demurrer. Is
his attorney, and upon his return he refused to give his'emneent the argument in the Court of Queen's Bench, Justices Pate
to the annuity being assigned, but it was then discovered I *coon and Wightman pee no conclusive opinion on dm
that Mr. William Bingham had escaped from his brother's question whether it was competent for the Lords Comanissl
bowie, which, we should state, was in Leicestershire, sad he . stoners of the Treasury to alter their order alter it was
went to Fronce. At the trial the jury found a verdict for •• made and published, by correcting a mistake of fact, but
the plaintill; damages 401. decided the demurrer against the prosecutor, on the ground
in the course of the present term Mr. Serjeant Byles had that the original order was bad, as the Lords Commissioners
a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that his lordship had no power under the statute 5 and 6 William IV., c. 76,
had misdirected the jury, in leaving it as an element for sec. 66, to give a compensation by way of annuity for lessor
their consideration that the plaintiff, after the escape, had , office before the time that the prosecutor was actually re-
not himself taken any steps to recapture Mr. William • moved from that office. On that judgment a writ of error
Bingham. In consequence of this alleged misdirection, it I was brought. On the argument it was contended-1. That
was contended the jury had not given as large au amount of the order was valid. 2. [hat the Lords of the Treasury
damages which they otherwise would have done. I having once made and published it to the parties affected
Mr. Serjeant Channel and Mr. H. 11111 now showed i by it, were functi officio, and could not afterwards vary it,
cause against the ruk, and contended that the Chief though for the purpose of correcting • mistake of fact ; the
Justice was right in his direction to the jury, as it " order when completed being " binding on all parties " by
was the duty of the plaintiff, atter the party had escaped, the terms of the statute. 1:pon the latter question we think
to have exerted himself to have had him retaken, and not it unnecessary to give any opinion, -beatuse after a
have rested satisfied because the sheriff was liable to him... very full cmisidemtion of the first question we agree
Mr. Lush and Mr. Karelake, in support of the rule, con- in the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench,
tended that it was not the duty of the plaintiff to have that the order of the Lords Commissioners of the
taken any steps to retake Mr. Wm. Bingham, but the Treasury, so far as relates to making the annuity
sheriff ought to have followed him directly and have at- payable retrospectively beyond the 21st January, 1844, was
tempted to recapture his prisoner. if he had not been al- void. If we look at the order itself, as set out in the man-
lowed to escape when first arrested, the execution creditor, Janus, and to that alone, we should not think it void. By
the present plaintiff, would have got all his money, as Mr. sec. 66, cap. 76, of the sth and 6th Wm. IV., " Every
Bingham had then the means of paying the debt. When officer who shall be in any office of profit at the time of the
he was arrested afterwards in Kent, at the suit of a Mr. peening of the act, who should be removed under its pro-
Benson, that gentleman had obtained the amount of his visions, shall be entitled to have an adequate compensation
debt. Under these circumstances the learned counsel sub- to be assessed by the council, for the salary, fees, and
mated that the sheriff had been guilty of a great neglect emoluments of the office which he shall cease to hold, '
of duty, and the rule fur a new trial ought, therefore, to be regard being had to the manner of his appointment to the
made absolute. office, his term and interest therein, and all the other cies,
The Court took time to consider their judgment.
eumstances of the case ; and, in the event of an appeal, the
Lords Commissioners of the Treasury may thereupon make
COURT OF EXCHEQUER —YESTERDAY. • such order as to them shall seem just, and such order,
ternem is hence. signed by. three or more, shall be binding on all parties."
BaAittitOST o. 680k0f..--COUNTY Cocoon. Under this provision the Lords of the Treasury might make
Mr. Macnaniari mood, on behalf of the plaintiff, for a an order to pay a sum in grass, by way of compensation, or
rule to show cause why the Master should not tax the an annuity for life, of fur a less time, or make the annuity
plaintiff's cats. The action was brought to recover commence at a future or bygone time. They are left with
it 12s. Gd. The defendant paid 21. 12s. 51d. into court, and a complete discretion on the subject, to be exercised with a
pleaded as to the rest. The plaintiff took eat the sum paid view to all the cirtunistances, including the state of the
into court, and entered a none prosequi. Ile received corporation funds and the position of the appellant. In
4/. 4s. 4.1. as costs of the nolle pressequi. An applicutiun was some ewes it may be just to both parties, and more conve-
thereupon made by the plaintiff at chambers, on the ground nient to one or both, to receive or to pay a principal sum, in
that the parties resided more than 20 miles asunder. But others an annuity ; and the commencement and the con-
Mr. Baron Martin, conceiving that he had a diacretemary tinuance of the annuity and its amount may be varied with
power, refused to make the order. On the authority of perfect equity in each particular case. The order itself set
lower e. Jones (16 Law Times, p. 493), which decided that out in the mandamus appears to us, therefore,
the county courts acts did not apply at all where money to be valid, though it telliMetleili from the 9th of Se
into ptem-
was paid court and taken out. the plaintiff proceeded her, 18.35, and the plaintiff in error was not removed until
to tax his cents, but the Master thought the question should he January, 1844, because' instead of awarding a sum in grow
brought before a judge. It was accordingly brought before as a compensation, the Lords COMMOAOIII rs might be pre-
Mr. Justice Wightman, who referred it to the court. In numed to have thought fit to distribute the burthen more
reply.tothe court, the learned gentleman stated that the equally, by making the compensation payable by way of
costs incurred amounted to about 71. annuity, yet not elm:tether so, but partly by a sum i n gross,
'1 he Lord Chief Il iron said he had ascertained from the viz., the arrears which are payable instanter, and partly by
Master that the costs of this motion would be 151. Where annual payments. Such an arrangement would be within
wee the use in trying to get 71., and paying 151. fur it? The the scope of the power given to them by the act, and would
plaintiff could tint have the costs of this motion. therefore be legal and valid. But it is clear that the legis-
Mr. Maenamara said the plaintiff hail been driven to this lature never intended the Lords of the Treasury to have
step by Mr. Justice Wightman. The case was of much ins- power to make a compensation to the officer for the loss of
portance. the salary, fees, and eniolumente of an office during the
Mr. llama Alderson said the practice at chamber* in time when he had not lost it, but continued in the full en-
future would he settled by this. Future litigants would joyment of its profits, and therefore, if the order had, on
have cause to thank God and the learned counsel that the the foci of it, expressly stolid that the Lords thought fit to
question was decided. give the appellant 301. lee. 24. fur the loss of office for eight
The Lore Chief Itaron mid, that if after what had been years and upwards, from September, 1835, to January,
Mil, the learned counsel felt inclined to take a rule, he 1844, that part of the order would be ultra sires, and bad.
might take it. 'though they may exercise their discretion as to the quan-
-Ihe 'court took the new trial paper, and heard the argu- tutu and mode of payment of the compensation fur loss of
meats in two eases. die profits of office, they have no right to give a compeusa-
Nisi rues AT tion for profits not lost. ''he question in the case, then, is,
whether the order is valid, looking at the 'treasury minute
23rd Marth, 1849, set out in the return, and made
before the order. It contains the resolution of the
Lords 'of the Treasury to make the under, and
the order is averred to have been made iu pur-
suance thieve'', and a copy of the minute as well as
the order itself, is by the memorandum ordered to be trans-
mitted to the mayor, and a copy of the minute wan iu fact
transmitted to the appellant, wo questions then arim —I.
Can we read the Treasuiy niinute in conjunction with the
ureter, and explain one by the other ? and 2. So
reading it, what is the effect? We think that it was clearly
intended by the Lonls that one document should explain
the other, as there is an order to transmit a copy of it with
the order itself, and we do not see any reason why that in-
tention should not be carried into effect. We ought not to
require strict technical formality in such a proceeding. The
tau instruments being read together, it appears that the
Lords ascertained the annual average profits for bee years
hefore the pawing of the act to be' 761. Tr. 4d., and they de-
duct one-third (no doubt in respect of the exemption by the
alp:Rant hereafter of all further trouble and lose of time
which the actual eleteige of the office would have cant him),
and they fix the annual net amount at 501. 18e. 2d., which
the Lords direct to be: the amount of the annuity. We do
not feel any doubt from the language of the minute that the
lairds considered 501. 181. 2d a year to be the full compen-
sation due to the appellant for the low of each year's profit
respectively, and therefore as they have awarded that sum
for each year (ruin the 9th September, 1834, they have
awarded compewiation fur a time for which they hied no
power to give it, namely a time during which the
appellant held the office and enjoyed the profits of it.
Taking the niinute and order together, it is equivalent to
au award by the Lord, of the 'treaeury, that for the loss of
the profits of the Ake from Sept. 9, 1835, to Jan. 29,1814,
being eight years and four months, he should have at the
rate of 501. Ma 2d. a year ; and an annuity of the same
amount fur the following year. For the period of time be-
tween the 9th Sept., 1835, awl Jan. 20, 1814, they had no
power to make any compensation at all, and pro tante their
award is bail. We think, therefore, that the judgment of
the Queen's Bench is right, and ought to be affirmed.
ERROR DAYS Aet Ell TEILM.
The court appointed the following as the error days after
term : May 14, for errors from the Queen's Bench - Mu 15,
(min the Common Pleas; and May 16, 17, 19, and 20, from
the Court of Exchequer.
Lord Chief Justice Jervis intimated that judgment will
be given in the case of " Turner v. the Liverpool Dock
Company," on thu find error day for the Court of Ex-
chequer.

COUItT OF BANKRUPTCY.—YES(ERDAY.
Bayous was 0,31111,.111:4Ell RIM auvu.
It HE CANHUALE.—PkoTECTION.
The bankrupt was a draper at Norwich. His certificate
was suspended fur six mouths, with an intimation that pro-
tection would be withheld until he had been one month in
prisn.
Mr. Alfred Jones, representing the assignees, applied fur
a certificate of execution against the person of the bank-
rupt. The court, he submitted, was bound to grant this
eertificate to the assignees, they being creditors, and the
certificate of the bankrupt having been suspended without
protection, and the period of suspension not having expired.
Mr. Linklater, for the bankrupt, urged that great
bwnl-
ship would result from the granting of this application.
According to a decision of Mr. Commissioner Fane, should
the bankrupt be taken in execution, the court had no power
to order his release until the lapse of the entire six months'
suspension, though it had by its judgment limited the pe-
riod of imprisonment to one month.
Mr. Junes said he would undertake, on behalf of the
assignees, that in the event of their availing themselves of
the power given by the certificate the bankrupt should be
discharged at the end of a month.
Mr. Linklater—But other creditors who have not given
that undertaking may still detain him in prison for a longer
period.
His Honour said the best course would be to leave the
bankrupt without protection for one month, on the under-
standing that during that period he should be accessible to
his creditors ; otherwise, the protection to be still withheld.
Mr. Linklater said this decision would practically amount
to no decision on the important point on which Mr. Com-
missioner Fane only had as yet given his opinion.
His Honour said the proper time to give his judgment on
a state of circumstances would be when those circumstances
should exist. Should the bankrupt be detained in prison
longer than a month by any other creditor then the
, assignees, then the question would arise to which Mr. Link-
later had referred.
Mr. Linklater said he would then appeal to the court,
under the circumstances of the present case, not to grant
the certificate prayed for.
His Honour said that the commissioners generally had
determined that it was incumbent upon them, in all cases,
to grant certificates of execution to any creditor who might
apply fur the same, whether the certificate of a bankrupt
had been withheld and protection refused. In this case,
therefore, a certificate of execution mug be granted to the
assignees, and protection withheld from the bankrupt for
one month.
Berea. Ma. C KIIIIISIOIfra Vera,.
IN BY Cut:CII3IIN.—ESIII.4.OIDINART CASE.
The bankrupt was described as a grocer and tea-dealer,
of Stroud, near Chatham. The hankruotcy had accursed so
long ago as 1836, but the bankrupt only now came up for
his last examination. His accounts, prepared by Wears.
Glover and Son, of Bucklembury, extended over only ten
months, from January to October, 1836. He then owed to
creditors 1,5591.; the assets were returned at 1681. is_WA
debts and 3721. in property. His profits had bees PM;
losses, 9461. ; trade expenses, 1591.; personal ditto, UAL
Mr. ltindmarsh, for the assignees, opposed. Irk 1111111).
plained that they had been taken by surprise, and hal Bat'
had an opportunity of examining the accounts which tile
bankrupt had filed after so long en interval. Since tits
bankruptcy he had been tarrying on the business of a
cheesemouger in Whitscrowstreet.
Mr. Lawrence, fur the bankrupt, consented to an ad-
journment sine die, on the understanding that the bankrupt
should furnish further accounts, and come up again when
so prepared.

LNSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT-YESTERDAY.

.
Beruee in Cam Cosuomsomea.
IN as J•MIN Hooltalt.--StNOCLAIL CABE.
This insolvent was discharged under the act in 1834. He
• to China, and was is buidoss rail 1868, whoa
he *ed. He had realised some praq and the Regisszar
of the Supreme Court at Hoag Ihrwardai to this
court his wets, amounting to 1,314 Ss., which etill re-
mained in the hands- of the provisional soignee. In May
1847 Mrs Hooker, the widow of the lambent, applied, as
adialaistratriz, to hairs dr mom peal to her, which was
raided as the part of dos oraditon Int as jiidgatoat on
the pumas atittary Si die ONO CI the dinikarg•
bed we bun mired up, as sees yes ands for the pa
mat et*o wary w the Taw. Two days
mad= Ma was mated sayeaelai the payment until

ampton Arms is not far from the workhouse.
By Mr. Iluddlestone.-1 leave off duty at nine o'clock at
night. It was half an hour before leaving off duty that Mr.
Eaton returned with the girl.
Mr. Donald Fraser, senior churchwarden of St. Pancras
parish, No. 1, Oakley-square, Camden-town, was present
at the investigation into the affair before the board of
directors, &e. Both Mr. Edon and the girl Smith were
present, and he cMr. Eaton) heard all that took place on
that occasion. NI itness put a great many questions to them,
all of which they answered. They were taken down in
writing by Mr. Seaton. Mrs. Price was examined. Wit-
ness asked her whether she had received any money from
the girl Smith ; she said She had received 2s. 6d. Asked
her when ; she said the day after she returned from Hamp-
stead with Mr. Eaton. She was quite sure it was the day
after she returned from Hampstead, and not the day after
she returned from service. Don't believe that Mr. Eaton
made any observation or statement with reference to the !
2s. 641. the girl alleged to have been given to her.
By Mr. Huddlestone—l Ie denied the whole of the charge
at the close of the proceedings.
Ann Webb sworn—She once lived as servant in a brothel,
in Brunswick-buildings, Cromer-street, St. Pancras. She
identified the girl Elita Smith as having been there.
Could not say when she saw her there. She (witness) never
sawthe gentleman (Mr. Eaton) at the bar in the house
with the girl. She was aecomranied by a fair man. She
descritted the dress she wore. She hint left three months.

Mary Sullivan, a nur.e in the workhouse, gave evidence
as to the corresponding dress worn by the girl.
Sergeant Brown, 45 S, traced the house in Brunswick.
building'.
Mr. Ballantine said this concluded the case for the
prosecution.
Mr. Combe said he would carefully and attentively
peruse the depositions before calling on Mr. Eaton for Ins
defence, and he remanded the ease until Monday next.
The investigation lasted till a late hour, when bail was
accepted fur the appearance of the accused. Crowds
araembled outside the court.