The Express.
London, England, 1849-02-14 00:00:00

Rain lintentgence.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OE THE I'RI VY COUNCIL
The Judaea present were Lord Broughams. Lord Langdale, the Bishop
of London, Mr. Lushlngton, and Mr. Pemberton Leigh.
CRAIG V. FAHNALL.

Dr. Hatgard, who was with trieitiorney-General, ap-
peared in this case, ia which the Rev. J. Kershaw Craig,
late minister of the new church of St. John the Baptist, at
Burley, in the county of Southampton, was the appellant,
and Mr. 0. Rorke Fantail was the respondent, to move on
behalf of the latter for leave to rescind the hearing in the
court below, kr the purpose of entering new charges against
the appellant, the motion being made on the ground
of several affidavits sworn by Mr. Moses Sims, to
the effect that the witnesses in the care had
been improperly tampered with. The appeal which gay.
rise to this motion was made to the council, prayiag them
to overrule the decision of the Court of Arches, by which
the appellant was suspended from his office as officiating
clergyman of the new church of St. John the Baptist, at
Burley, and adjudged to pay the sum of 2.501. as costs, on its
appearing to that court that the appellant had conducted
himself indecently with a certain woman, named Charlotte
Sims, who lived in 'the opacity of servant in the
Ir.use of the sppellant. The new charges sought
to be admitted by the respondent, implied that
the appellant had on various occasions committed
adultery with Charlotte Sims, and had, for the purpcsa of
carrying on his illicit and adulterous intercourse with her,
contrived to bring her to London on one occasion, where
her sister, Jemuna Sims, was remaining for a short time
with the intention of undergoing an examination by the
committee of the privy council for educational purposes, to
test her qualifications for the conduct of one of the national
s:hoola. The learned doctor also moved for the production
of certain letters alleged to have been written by the appellant
to the committee on behalf of Jemima Sims, and proceeded
at great length to dwell on the evidence, which tended to
prove the truth of the allegations contained in the fresh
charges, the principal evidence being that of Mr. Moses
Sims, who lived with the appellant, and who swore that on
one occasion he witnessed the act of adultery by the appel-
lant, and cn another occasion saw the parties Implicated in a
position which left no doubt that the set had jest been com-
mitted. The counsel was in the course of his adeirass inter-
r u tad b
Brougham, who stated that it was quite clear that the
'thread counsel was speaking. against time, and wished to
prolong his speech till the arrival of the Attorney-General.
It was his duty to say that it °medalled a great Ices of public
time. The learned counsel net only turned his face round
to see whether the Adman- was coming, but he con-
tinued to turn the Name points ever and over again. It was
not Dr. Haggard's usual course; he should be aware that he
would do better service to his client by not repeating the
same things over and over again. Dr. Haggard then con-
cluded by quoting instances to show that in criminal es well
as civil cases, new chines were allowed to be brought fgr-
ward after the cues as they before stood had been adjudicated
Without h eegg Sir F. Thesiger on behalf of the appel-
lant, Lord Brorougham said that it was the opinion of
r the that so ease had been produced to show that
they the autkosilyer power to rescind the hearing of
the below for the purpose of allowing fresh charges to
be e, end if it had been proved that they had such a
power the eirculistantes of the ease must be such as to in-
duce them to exercise that power. They had no hesitation
in missies both applications.
Sir F. maagff —With costs ?
Laid Brougham.—Oh, yea, certainly. We say nothing of
the-meritsof the appeal ease. It may be all right or all
win g. Mr. Craig may have been punished too heavily or
hear
too ligthe htly; that, however, wo dull see when we come to
appeal.
After suns conanitstics it was agreed that the appeal
should now on for bearing on the Ist day of Muth.

=_r.

EQUITY COUETl3.—Yarrimumm.
Defers Viee.gbeasellor KW* Brom
DlntoAit w. LtritnitY.—Asart Pans. Czmwrzar.
This ma a suit instituted by the woman of the late Er.
William Clowns egoism the armors of the Abney Park
Cemetery Company, aseking indemnity oat of the meets of
the company, is reopen of a haudOsat salt a 60 *um
beloogieg t• th• Nagar, sad tmealsmed by the fraudulent
act or a late summary to the aompoty into the name of a
drastic TO defendants dammed for want of equity and
wait of parties. Amman, to the Matmaints of the bill, the
comp y was fantod in 1838 to establish a cemetery for the
intarment of perms of ell persuasions. The deed of the
a-11 Wes dated in February 1539, and presided that
hap us puma Amid iot be jointly entitled to any
that meg person on being admitted a proprietor
meths a mortified* signed by three directors; that
,h s of sham was dmlress of parting
with 017 Amy ha &NM en ways N OW

mon
I!'"! i

company of the eels and lesidease of the party to
wham they were to lellangehamit that whoa way Ise not
• regehaser keno the beard ',dine= dosedd have been ap-
b7 tire bora as fit to beetles a proprietor, sad the
*AM wren, se ether alteration in of the purchased
fawn :Medd bembesa male byte beard in the share
rtakdaelarek the lent premiere ef theatres, and all claim-
ing by or awls lie ether thaw the party approved ea pro.
isler, shed& not lave any claim the company,
wasp in rupee of the dividends or mode declared previ-
cagy is the Wee, ensue, or semi ea, and the certificate
was deemed evidence of seek areittenes or discharge ;
that eve y eaery,theuret, or ether alteration appearing upon
the en elpiiaatororthepurchwafasyshareorshareswhich
should lave been made by the dlreaten in the share righter
book thauld, m between the company and the last proprie-
tor of seek share or thane, and all claiming by or
under him be conclusive, and the valility of such entry,
erasers, or alteration, when celled in question, slicald not
authorise an inquiry as to the previous observance of the
rules sad r ; bat that the last proprietor, or those
claiming an er him, might sue for any neglect or default by
reason of which such entry, &c , had been improperly nude,
the action or snit being commenced within one year. The
bill stated that the testator had 100 shares In the company,
and was duly registered in the share regiater.book in respect
of them; that the plaintiffs, in July, 1847, left the certia-
eßse for the shares with Mr. Conquest, the secretary and
menthe of the company, for the purpose of having them
registered in the named one of the executors; that in March,
1848, Mr. Conquest evoked whether the executors would sell
the shares at W. each, if a purchaser could be met with, and
that the plaintiffs expressed their willingness to do so ; that
on the 26th of May, the plaintiffs received information from
the directors that their secretary and solicitors had absconded,
having sold 60 of the shares of Mr. Clown to a Mr. Dyer at
91. 7s. 6d. each, without accounting for the purchase money,
such sale being entered in the transfer order book without
any signature, and the transfer to Mr. Dyer having been ap-
proved by the directors.
Mr. Austell and Mr. Miller, in support of the demurrer,
contended that it was act clear from the statements in the
bill that Mr. Clown's estate was at all prejudiced. If the
executor had not concurred in the transfer, the shares still
formed port of the estate, and the purchaser, who wits not
before toe court, was the only party injured.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Collins, far the plaintiffs, cited "Davis
et. Bank of England" (2 Bingham 393) and other eases.
The Vies-Chancellor said it was not necessary for him to
intimate ea opinion as to the legality of such a company, nor
had he formed any. It was sufficient to say that the bill was
demurrable on account of the purchaser net being made a
party. The demurrer must be allowed, but the plaintiff
might take leave to amend generally.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Visrensir.
lfrm Price.—Datore Mr. Justice Erie end Special Juries.
Tun Quante e. Trifttna.—Plata CAT.
Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., arid Mr. Henniker, were counsel for
the prosecution ; and Mr. Serjesut Shee, Mr. Ogle, and Mr.
Fish appeared for the defendant.
This was a prosecution for perjury, alleged to have been
committed by the defendant on an affidavit sworn by him,
on an application for a criminal information, which had
been made to the court sums time ago. The facts of
the fisse, which were of a painful character, from the rela-
listship existing betwern the parties, were these The
prosecutor of the present indictment was a Mr. James Mcry-
weather, who had married the only daughter of the late
lb. William Turner. a gentleman of considerable pro-
perty, residing at Woodootedodge, in Surrey, and the
defendant was a brother of the di ceased Various
disputes had arisen between the prosecutor and the defend.
ant and Ms nephuw, Mr. J. H. Turner, who were executors
to the will of this late Mr. W. Turner. Those disagreements
had commenced In 1829, the year:in which the testator died,
and several nits had been instituted by Mr. Meryweather,
bath in the Court of Chancery and in the Ecclesiastical
Court, with a view of upsetting the codicil of the late Mr.
Turner, by which Mrs. Meryweather was only left the sum
of 5001. as • legacy and a small yearly Income. The prose-
cutor had, a week b• fore the death or Mr. Turner, charged
the defendant and his nephew, Mr. J. 11. Turner, with
having in the middle of the night, through the Agency of a
Miss Ethersey, the deceased's nurse, induced him
to sign 'event cheques which they had subse-
quent!y filled up for large amounts. It was also
alleged. by the prosecutor that the late Mr. Turner
was in such a state of mental imbecility some time before
his death as not to he eapahle of managing his affairs. In
the snits which bad been commenced against the defendant
and his nephew it was alleged that the codicil to the will had
been obtained by fraud, and that when it was made the
testator was not in a fit state of mind to execute such an
instrument. After the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical
Court had been brought to • clue, a pamphlet was published
by the prosecutor, eatitled " Extraordinary Case in the Ec-
clesiastical Court, by a Barrister-at-Law." Mr. Mery-
weather himself was not a member of the legal profession at
all, but he had induced one of his sons, Mr. William
Stephen Meryweather, who had just been called to the
bar, to allow the words "by a barrister-at-law" to be
placed on the title-page of the publication, as he thought
it would be en advantage it the pamphlet went forth
to the world as being the production of a barrister.
Upon the pamphlet being published the present defendant,
Mr. Turner, had moved tor and obtained a criminal informa-
tion, for a libel, against Mr. Wm. Stephen Meryweather,
who allowed the rule to he made absolut • against him. He
was then brought up for judgment and sentenced to pay a
fine of 2001., and also to be imprisoned in the Queen's Bench
prison for the space of three months. The pamphlet charged
Mr. Turner and biansphew,lsle J. H.Turner, with the miscon-
duct in reference to the affairs of the late Mr. W. Turner, which
we have already stated. During the time that the proceed
logs for a criminal information were pending the defendant
was called upon to make an answer to the court, which he
did by an affidavit, in which he swore: that the charges in the
pamphlet were not correct, and it was for the !tate= arts made
in that affidavit that the present prosecution was commenced.
The pamphlet, and also the affidavit upon which the i erjury
was assigned, were then reed; after which Mr. James Mery.
weather, the prosecutor, was examined, and afterwards cross-
examined at great length, but we forbear to enter any further
into unpleasant family details, inasmuch as the case was
withdrawn by Mr. Cockburn, upon his lordship observing
that the ends of justice did not require any further persever-
ance into an inquiry into matters in which a defendant, now
in his eighty-seventh year, had taken part twenty years ago.
Since that time death had removed nearly all the witnesses
who could have thrown light upon the question. If, upon
the evidence now before him (the learned judge) a convic-
tion were to follow, he should be far from being satisfied.
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YESTERDAY.
Jim Pawn—Before Chief Justice Wilde and Common Juries.
Yesterday was the first day of the 'Wings at Guildhall
The total number of causes entered for trial is 90, of which
61 are remanets ; of the remanets the special jury causes are
66, of those newly entered 13. Two short causes were die.
posed of, which were wholly devoid of interest; and the
rest of the day was occupied in the trial of " Poulter v.
Caldwell," an action upon a bill of eschange, in wnich the
evidence, as far as it went, as to the csnsideration for the
bill (the point in dispute) was molt contradictory. The
trial of this else was not, however, concluded when the
court roast.

COURT OF EXCHKQUER.—TWERDAY.
Neu Pena.—Before far F. Pal?* C.ll, aaid a Middlesex Speetal

WABLIT, M.P. to. COWIEJury AND HELLET.—ALLEGED
LIBEL UPON TUB COILONEIL POE THE COUNTY OP MIDDLE-
BEL.

rhea case, which was part heard on Monday, was resumed
at 10 o'clock yesterday morning —the plaintiff's carte having
been closed at six o'clock the previous evening. It was an
action for the recovery of damages for certain alleged libellous
articles published in the Medical inn, commenting upon
the plaintiff's conduct, as coroner of Mid flews, in holding an
inquest upon the late private White, of the 7th Husain—
whose death in July, 1846, gave rise to much discussion as to
theypropriety of abolishing the system of flogging in the
arm and navy.
Mr. Tetuan, who had been examined on Monday, was re-
called on behalf of the plaintiff. He statod that he had mgt
Mr. Healey, one of the defendants, in St. Clement's
churchyard, some time after the apj Headers by the plaintiff
for liberty to file a criminal information for the articles which
were the subjects of this action. Mr. Healey said that Mr.
Wakley should be put down, and that he (Mr. Healey)
would become the coroner himself. That he was better
qualified than Mr. Wakley, as he was •• barrister, and had
had a goad deal of medial knowledge too.
Mr. fforjeant Wilkins commenced his address on behalf of
the defendants shortly after ten, and did not conclude until a
few minutes before four o'clock. He most earnestly solicited
the attention of the jury to the obtervations which he had to
address to them—not merely for his own sake, for he was
entitled to little consideration—not merely for the sake of
his clients, but for the sake of the interests necessarily con-
nected with the case, which for magnitude and la import.
arum bad of late had no parallel. He did not intend to imi-
tate the example of the Attorne743leneral in conducting the
defence. It mattered little to him whether Mr. Healey was
accused of being an ignorant and half-educated man, a stupid
lawyer, or a person refused to the lowest depths of poverty,
except so far as such acetuation tended to show that the
plaintiff had infused into this action a portion of his own
malignant spirit and disposition. Was a man's poverty to be
held up there as a reproach upon his character? In
order to show that he was no ignorant, helfoducated
man, he would refer to passages and sentences is the
articles now before the court, which Mr. Wakley might do
well to imitate instead of brawling aloud to mobs in the city
of London. Indeed of Mr. Healey deserving the abuse which
was heaped upon him, he deserved well of his country, if he
had, as he firmly believed was the case, removed the muk
from the face of a man in power—a member of parliament,
a coroner, and an editor of a public jourcaL After alluding
to the admissions which had been made on the other side,
ha said if they came to the conclusion that there was not a
desire on the part of the plaintiff to implicate and inculpate
some of the parties at the barrack', their judgment might
be warped with prejudice, and they must entertain
views entirely opposite to those held by the majority of poi-
sons. The deceased was a private in the 7th Hussars, sad
bore the character of a confirmed drunkard. Upon the let I
of June, 1846, he was in a room with a sergeant end mew&
ot'er soldiers, and he took up a poker and struck the ~teld
a violent blow in the chest, and but for the intsrpealtien et
parties present, he would no doubt have murdered him ea
the spot. The sergeant WAS OA d uty at the time, and could
it be empeeted that en event of this kind would les puma
overt A court-martial was constituted, and on bearing the
its:huge., direet
and thouixtitthwatas
pathancsur
°wryer should dtharteceisenveknl:
it was'aheolutely required that the act which made It anew
sassy should be put Into operation. On the 15th of Jane
he was flogged, and alter it, being a man of spirit, may 27
years of age, he went briskly into his room, whisding
on his way. The healing progresscontinued to go on
rapidly until the 4th of July, when lus beck was pit* welt,

and it was reported he would be fit for duty in th'
a few days. The weather was then extremely ho
88 degrees in the shade, and though relaxed very mut
his confinement, he insisted, duple of all recnonstrr
wash out the deathroom, which was very damp.
sequel in that operation about threr-quarters of
and next day complained of a pain in his aide.
extended to his head and left shoulder, and other,
of an impeded circulation made their appearance.
end other remedies were adopted, but he did not
and upon a post-mortem examination by Drs. Hall,
and Reid being made, they expressed an opinion ,
death was in no wise connected with the corporal ,
ment which he bad received, but arm* front infionaniel
the he. rt and pleura. Notwithstanding, however,
mule+ manner in which protudings had been
the milittry authorities, Mr. Wakley, instead
the scales of justice as even as possible, stated a.
that which he knew wu not true, in order to poison
minds and enlist their prejudices. But Mr. Wekleylovc
sweet voices of the people ; he cauld not live witnout
applause, and in order to obtain it he hunted out
gmums and abuses of this nature. He knew e'
sima nature, however, to be aware that ambit
desphod every obstacle to the attainment of any obi
weight have in view. They stopped at nothing, hoe
worthy, and whether their ambition was that of t
segue who saueht to enguiph his country in ruin
extol himself, or was that of a less aspiring natui
pediment was too great to surmount, and no eirc
too extraordinary to los taken advantaae of. But
ley's patriotism wee of the moth rn rchool, and he
appear to have studied the examples of the sncient
subjrct. The learned norjeant commented with a
of energy and eloquener. upon the mode in which'
Mr. Wekley had conducted the inquest, and call,
tention of the jury specifically to such facts as he
aubstantiated the pleas of justification flied by

dente—The following •+itneeees were then milli ci
Ca. Arthur Shirley exemiaed—l am colonel
Ha•aan, and remember the court martial held up.
Frederick White of that regiment. lie was fluri
pleaded guilty to the charge, and urged some ex
circumstance•, upon which he besought clemency
mitt-d that he was intoxicated when be corm

offence. I was present when White was forge I. I was
captain in the regiment then. The punishment was in-
fiic-ed in the presence of the entire regiment.
The Attorney-General objected to any evidence relating
to the flogging. The inquiry here was whether the inquest
was properly conducted by the plaintiff.
On the suggestion of a juror, the witness was interrogated
as to the cecurreeces which had taken place ou an•l teen the
but evening the coroner attended at Hounslow, and pro-
ceeded to say—l had never seen Mr. Wakley at the Cavalry
barracks at Hounslow before the inquest. I was Lot exa-
mined on oath. I waited upon the deputy-coroner, Mr.
Mille, by direction of Col. Whyte, to tender all the assis-
tance and information in the power of the regiment to faci-
litate the inquiry into the circumstances connected with
White's death. I was examined by Mr. Mills tit consider-
able length. I had been at least half an hour nod, r examina-
tion. I gated to him everything I knew with reference to
the subject matter of inquiry. I wrote no letter myself, nor
did I carry one from Colonel Whyte to Mr. Wakley. I was
present at the entire of the proceedings of the inquiry held
on the 20th of July. I did not attend again. I required to
be sworn as to what I had stated to Mr. Mills on um even-
ing of the first meeting. I was told by the deputy coroner
that when Mr Wakley, who had then gone with the jury
to view the body, returned I should probably be sworn as
to what I had stated, and asked some further qut stions.
Attorney. General —ln detailing these eiroutie emcee,
you must confine yourself to what occurred in Mr. Wakelay's presence.
Examination resumed—l remember Berfkant fetter, who
is since dead, producing some human skin in a bottle of
spirits of wine. The coroner remarked that it wee a most
suspie,oue circumstance that the skin produced did net ap-
pear to be one-filth of the six - of what had been removed
from the deceased's back. lie stated that he entletevoured in
every way to make it tit, but it would not. lie 'alel said
there had been very considerable delay at the hospital before
the piece of skin was obtained, and he thought th... Alen very
" suspicious." I know Private Matheson very a ell ; he
was in my troop. I know Private El'worth, t, (It was
proposed that the witness should describe the cliaratter thou
two men 'held in the regiment, but on the Attorney• General
objecting, the questions ware not pressed.)
dipunr o;ldriietetohlx It
ey ren
Its
part d
thatauYo— decorumfttheehw
urregiment.
tg Information?
m—Tw ea‘rVsny .uth inuer:
ou'adWuio
eddsl knoslo evidenceuse
L:wh. floe uomc ntha
31.711)w'
yec
outhj'iue.mt
dt
ip as
Ic improper
give
ortoa 1
e
laughing. I observed a good deal of levity in the inquest-
r tom. I think it was provoked by some jokes of the
coroner.

Cross-examined—The inquest was held at the George IV.
public house. It was open to everyone. I was there about
an hour the second day. I think Potter, the hospital-ser-
geant, was being examined when I entered the room. I
left when his examination was closing. I mann recollect
what the jokes were. They were of • personal character.
Mr. Clarke, the solicitor, of Brentford, erne appointed Col. Whyte to attend oa behalf of the officers. On the fib
night the coroner said it was requisite that seine relative of
White's should be present, and that some surjenn uncon-
nected with the military should be examined. The jury
then named Mr. Day.
Col. Whyte examined—l was colonel of the 7th Humus
in July. 1810. My adjutant made me acquainted with Mr.
Wakley's intention to hold an inquest on the body of private
White. I had not communicated with Mr. Wakley, for I
had previously done all that was necessary in a military point
of view. Tho matter was then in Mr. Wakley'a hands. I
directed Col. Shirley (the last witness) then to go to Mr.
Wakley, and I wrote him a letter, offering all the assistance
and information in aid of the inquiry the others could give.
I had not had previously any conversation with Mr. Wakley.
I think the first day I attended the inquest was the 3d of
August. I was not present nt any meeting held previous to
that. About two o'clock in the afternoon of that
day I was informed that I would be admitted.
I had been waiting in readiness for admix/cm
and I then immediately went. Cu the 20th of July I woo
refused admission. I was told that no officers would be ad-
mitted. I did not go to the inquest in consequence of
receiving any intimation fr.on the coroner that I might
attend. I had been all the previous time ready to attend om
the 31 of August. I hearl private Matheson make a state.
ment in Mr. Wakley's pretence, but I think it would be
difficult to remember it at this distance of t nee. After
Matheson made that statement, I asked Mr. Wakley, 'think
upon the last day, to rrmit me to make an explanatory or
counter statement. Matheson said that I had sent for him
in the morning, and had offered to make him a corporal.
That I had asked him to sit down near me, r.nd various
other absurdities of that sort, tending to show that I wanted
him to suppress ST induce him not to give his evidence. Not
one wart of any part of that statement was tree. I produced
the office clerk, who was present the whole time Mathews
was is the room, and he swore positively eve re word of
Matheson's statement was false. I told Mr. Waltley I
wished to make some observations in contradiction of what
Matheson had stated. He permitted:me to state to the court
that the statement was false, and to produce evidence to
prove it, which I did.
Mr. Dearsley—Did you require to be sworn to that atate-
meet ?—No ; because Mr. Wakl y had previously to'd me
that none of the officers of the regiment could be examined
or sworn.—Mr. Dearsley What is your opinion of the mode
in which Mr. Wakley conducted the inquiry ?—My 'Gyres-
'ion was that he introduced a great deal of extesneous
den. e, for the purpose of damaging our characters and intim-
encdeg the jury In pronouncing their verdict. To the best
of my belief and recollection, when we (the officers) were
admitted into the court, Mr. Wakley addressed us and
stated that we could not be sworn or examined upon oath, as
we might be inculpated. I don't think I was ordered to
leave the room frail the time I was admitted into ie. It was
about the middle of the day when I was admitted. I had
been prepared for several hours before, and left an orderly at
the door to inform me when it sou ordered I could be ad-
mitted.

Cmg&evinifirad—l believe the last witness entered the
inquest-room with me. I think Sergeant Potter was under
examination. Nobody interfered with me while I was in
the room. I think Elsworth'a evidence was extrineous.
His evidence was mainly respecting himself.
The Attorney General—He came to make • complaint of
you, did he not P I believe so. I wished to make a state-
ment in explanation, but Mr. Wakley said he had not time
to listen to ft. I wished very much to have an opportunity
of rebutting what Elsworth had stated. Mr. Wakley mid he
could not permit me to do so, as the statement itself was alto-
gether Irrelevant t a the inquiry. I have had no experience
whatever of the mode in which each Inquiries are conducted.
don't think Mr. Clarke was allowed to examine or cross-
examine any witness upon behalf of the °Moen. I cannot
be quite sure, but I think not. My explanation relative to
Matheson was received by the coroner. The only applies.
tion I made to be permitted to make a statement wee
with respect to Matheson and Elsworth. I have nothing in
the world to do wills this action ; I k now nothing whatever
of the parties to it. The first I ever hoard of it was a letter
from Mr. Healey, one of the defendants, a few days ago.
Rob. rt Darling examined : I em a sergeant in On 7th
humus. I attended the inquire with Matheson, Elewnrth,
and other men of the regiment under my charge. The two
I have named were about to be examined, as I node=
aid they were placed under my charge. During the
meeting there was a short adjournment about the arm.
noon, as far as I recollect. I was standing in the pangs
close to the room in which the inquiry was held. On the
adjournment taking place I saw Mr. Wakley. Matheson
and Elsworth were both near me. Mr. Wilkie, was
tand-
log inside the inquest room. Soon afterwards he csme out
aid went u n stairs, and was follow dby Matheson. They went
into Mr. Wakley's private room together, and I followed up
the stairs but not into the room. The door was shut after Mr.
Wakley and Matheson had entered it. They remained thew
together upwards of flee 'ninnies. if not move. Matheson
then came out and called oat for Elsworth, who was standing
in another room with the rest of the man. Elsworth Imme-
diately answered, and then both went one after the other
Into the private roam in which Mr. Wakley was. The door
was again closed, and the three remained there together for
upwards rd liraminutes more. They came out all three n-
atter the other. I heard their voice' inside, but I co-'
hear precisely what they. said. There was a go- "
joking and leughter during the inquest. Mr.
to have caused much of it. H. frequentl-
Potter while reading Dr. Warren'a
ner In which he checked him

Cromeuraised—Bonelatigl
Whyte was uked whether he'

to Which he replied, that he hi d
was Another row of laughtet upon
statement made to him had been
mother " the person who t
Batley, the landlord of the George
see him go up stairs with Mr. WI
who followed him wee fdathesou,

. They on*
came out iiraUee r voices inside, but I could not
. There was a good deal of
Is inquest. Mr. Wakley see..
• frequently interrupted 1..6_, Al A" mi
rren's statement, ands
.. "A.L. , I caused much laughter' ..• 1,,,, ..-,
;bier was eatued wh , ~, , T'
...ii,,,
had ever been ilogg .r ,
~,,,. , , mg
hd " deviliehly well. :;,' ~ ,6 i _ rg
epon the coroner eta .„ , .
been heard from tho .0-, . . . . ~ , T.
rho made it. I k
.4. _ .., .., A
~/ T.
Worse the Fourth. I ..„ ,
~,,4,..-;
Wskley. The out
.....•.......
ion, who called Ms .".‘" %

3
1""I"".lIl110 Course if
hot, being
much front
rousnee, to
p. He wee
A an hour,
The pain
r symptoms
Heeding
not recover,
11, Warren,
m that his
teal punish-
tmm.tion of
er, the very
o taken by
of holding
to the jury
poison their
leylovcd the
itnout their
out alleged
re enough of
bitious men
object they
Rowever %UV
the demo-
s io order to
err, no im-
reentrances
A Mr. Wak-
he did not
Unita on this
• great deal
h he alleged
lied the at-
m contended
)y the defen-
d:
of the 7th
alum private
dogged. He
extenuatiug
cy Ile ad-
mmitted the
rge I. I wee
lent waa
once rcla.ing
r the inquest
. ire terro cratavl