The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-26 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 26, 1862.

L Bbarps, and Elsa Finance, Pembury and lambertturet, Lent,
and Trant, Sure; farmers—'11. B. Yorwood, A. B. Torwood, and
W. B. 110,1700 d, Lireepool, merchants, so fox as Muds T.
Forwood—A. J. Bysrd, T. Osir, 'T. H. Allan, and R. H. Powys, I
Madras. commission merchants, so far as regards EL H. Powys—
Bates and J. Bates. Heaton Norris, lancashlre, rope =nurse-
tnrors—E. Haigh and J. Wild, Haddersileld, cloth manufac-
turers—E. Ouy, Blida J. Ony, and H. D. Leaman, Aldermanbury,
is fair as regards g. ouy—H. Edwards and IL Lusor, Bristol,
general merchants.
SCOTCH SEQUISTRATION&
Joan gum Dundee, stationer, Dee. 2, at the British Hotel,

Duodee.
AFige4D MACILta, Gliagow, grocer, Dec. f, at the Faculty

Hall, Memo*. -
Pre& Hanna, htliport, labor, Dec. I, at the Bat* Hotel, Rothe.

Cabo Inttiligenct.

EQUITY COURTS.—Nov. 25.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir R. T. Hindersley.)
THE ATTORNET•GFIIERAL V. LTELILIUDGF..-PARTICULAR

BAPTISTS.

The arguments in this cue were resumed to-day, this
being the eighth day that they have occupied the attention
of the court. The object of the suit, it will be remembered,
is to obtain a decimation from the court that no persons but
particular baptists shall be admitted to the Loves supper
at Cavendish Chapel, Ramsgate. The came for the plaintiffs
was not concluded when the court rose.
The Vico-Chancellor said he would proceed with the ease
after the motions on the first seal in the nut sittings.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.)
BIDDULPH V. VESTRY OF ST. ciroaCt, HABOVIB-BQUABIL
Mr. Malin. (with Mr. Martindale and Mr. Haynes) moved
to restrain the vestry of the above parish from erecting a
urinal in Orcevenor-place.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Schomberg for the defendants.
After some discussion, it appeared from a minute in one
of the parish books that the consideration of the
question of erecting the urinal was postponed till
the first meeting of the vestry in 1863, and thereupon the
counsel for the plaintiff proposed to postpone the motion, in
the hope that the intended erection would be abandoned.
The motion stood over accordingly.

(Before Vice-Cbanoellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
KERNS I. LEIP.-110 MMUS 1.177 orrice.
This was a motion on behalf of • policy-bolder in the
Argue Life Assurance rem, to restrain • transfer of the
business of that Wilco to the Eagle Insurance Company. As
is usual in this branch of the court, the quasi popular nature
of the case drew together a crowd of onlookers, reeking
with curiosity and redolent of bad smells. As is no less
usual, the custodians of the court showed their considera-
tion for the public by allowing it to thrust itself into every
available seat, and by abandoning the bar, the solicitors,
and the other business occupants of place to
the tender mercies of their gaping auditory.
Ushers are but men, and to render Vios-Chancellor Wood's
Court endurable seems beyond mortal power ; but they
might do something for those who are obliged to be there,
and being certainly not, as appendages to our judicial sys-
tem, ornamental, should at least attempt to be useful.
Sir H. Cairns, Mr. &gallows, and Mr. C. Barber appeared
in support of the motion ; the Solicitor-General, Mr. Bolt,
and Mr. Erskine were for the Argus Company.
The suit stands over upon the question whether the motion
should be turned into a motion for decree.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 25.

Sittiopin Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice Cock-
burn, and Justices Wightman, Blackburn, and Mellor.)
This was the last day of term. The nisi prius after•term
sitting commence to-morrow (Wednesday).

GLOVER V. COUNT DR PIELSIGNT AND N. RILLAULT—THE
"MORNING CHRONICLE" AND THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT.
This cue came before the court on a question of proceed-
ing against foreigners by • British subject in the English
courts, and on the Common Law Procedure Act, ISM. Mr.
Gray on Saturday obtained a rule to set aside an order of
Mr. Justice Crompton so as to restore an order made by
Mr. Justice Mellor to allow the plaintiff to proceed in
the action. It appeared that the plaintiff, Mr. Serjeant
Glover, was lately proprietor of the Moraine Chronicle,
and he brought an action against Count de Persigny
and M. Mull to recover the sum of 14,0001. for work done
and money expended by him in conducting the Morning
Chronicle. the Morning News, and the Evening Journal,
and for writing and translating from the French and print.
ing in the Moreing Chronicle certain articles, and also in
writing certain other articles, to be translated into the
French language, for insertion and publication in the
IMoniteur, Conatitutionnel, &c. The Count de Persigny had
appeared to the action, but M. Billault bad not been
served, and as personal service could not be effected upon
him, the plaintiff had made an application before Mr. Jos.
tic. Mellor at chambers for leave to proceed as if such ser-
vice had been effected. The application was made on an
affidavit by the plaintiff that the work had been done and
the moneys expended and laid out in England, and that the
cause of action arose in this country—that both the &fen-
dente resided out of the jurisdiction, in Paris, and that the
co-defendant Billault could not be personally served, but
had knowledge of the proceedings. There was no dispute
as to the knowledge of the proceedings, but it arose on the
question whether the cause of action arose within the juris-
diction of this country. The learned judge made an order for
the coutinuance of the proceedings, as if genies bad been
effected upon the codefendant. M. Billault then caused
au application to be made to Mr. Justice Crompton at
chambers to set aside that order, on M. Billault's affidavit
that he never owed the alleged debt, and that he bad Dever,
verbally orrin writing, made or authorised the plaintiff or
any. one to make on his behalf any contract for the claim set
up in the declaration, and that the claim was wholly with-
out foundation ; that he bad never been in England, and
that the cause of action, if any, did not arise within the
jurisdiction. Upon that the learned judge set aside Mr.
Justice Mellor's order. Mr. Gray, when he moved on
Saturday, did so on an affidavit made by Mr Serjeant
Glover that the whole cause of action had arisen in Eng-
land ; that the claim was for articles inserted in the Morn-
ing Chronicle and other papers on the order and authority
of the defendants, through their agents in this country, and
afterwards confirmed and recognised by M. Billault in an
interview in Paris with the plaintiff. The whole matter
was transacted in this country by agents, and the facts
showed that the cause of action arose in this country.
The rule came on to-day for argument. Mr. Hodgson
showed cause against the rule ; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C.,
and Mr. Gray supported it.
Mr. Hodgson said the particulars of demand were dated
from the 9th May, 1857, to the 23rd October, 1858, and
were for work and labour, and materials provided and money
paid for the defendants at their request in and about the
printing and conducting certain nommen called the Morn-
tug Chronicle, and two other newspapers, the Morning
News and the Evening Journal, and in and about
the writing and translating from the French language
oertaio articles in the said Morning Chronicle
and two other newspapers for and on behalf of the defen-
dants and at their request, and in and about the writing and
translating from the French and printing and publishing
certain other articles in the said Morning Chronicle and

other two newspapers, for and on behalf of„ the defendant.,
for the purpose of their being translated into the French
language, and inserted and published in certain French
newspapers called the Moniker, the Constiltdionnel, the
Pays, and certain other French newspapers, at the value of
8001. per month ; total 14,0001. The plaintiff will also
seek to recover the amount in the declaration in the account
stated, and damages for loss sustained in the depreciated
value of the above.mentioned Loudon newspapers in fulfil-
ment of the contract entered into between himself and the
defendants. (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Wightman— Are these the particulars re-
ferred to in the affidavit ? . . .

Mr. Hodgson—For doing work
cedars of demand.

The Lord Chief Justice—And when you refer to that, you
see that it is work done at the request of the defendant.
Mr. Hodgson said the plaintiff did not undertake to
say that it was work undertaken for them, but that he did
it for them. The affidavits ought to state that the work
was done at the request of the defendant, either expressly
or implied ; but the plaintiff only said that he did the
work comprised in the particulars of demand.
The Lord Chief Justice—At the instance of the defendant.
Mr. Justice Wightman said, the only question was,
whether the learned judge at chambers was satisfied that
the affidavit and particulars of demand were sufficient.
Mr. Hodgson said they ought to show the (cause of action
which they embraced. These, however, showed none ; they
only showed that certain work comprised in the particulars
of emend were done.

The Lord Chief Justice—The affidavits state that the
action is brought for the work done that is specified in the
particulars of demand.
Mr. Hodgson submitted that it was not so. It stated
that the work was done • but not that the action was
brought for work and labour done at the request of the de-
fendant.

The Lord Chief Justice—ls that not necessarily implied?
Mr. Hodgson said the plaintiff carefully guarded himself
against that. The act required that the whole cause of
action should arise in this country, but from the affidavits
it appeared that only a portion of it arose within the juria-
dictiou of the court. . .

Mr. Justice Wightman—ls it not • question that the
judge at chambers has to satisfy himself about ?
The Lord Chief Justice—lt is a proceeding that does not
require en affidavit to be drawn like a piece of pleading. If
the judge is satisfied on the whole, that is sufficient.
Mr. Hodgson still contended that the affidavit showed
no cause of action. The answer to the plaintiff's
affidavit was, that the defeodant, H. Lillault,
altogether and entirely denied ever having made,
either verbally or in writing, or having authorised
either of the other defendants to make, such • contract for
him. The learned counsel then read the following affidavit,
made by M. Billault, dated the 7th July, 1862 :—" I alto-
gether and entirely deny ever having made, either verbally
or in writing, or ever having authorised the other derail-
! dents, or either of them, or any other person, to make on
my
behalf any contract or agreement to the purposes or
effect alleged in the declaration, or to contract soy of the
debts mentioned in the dad:ix:aeon, or the particulars of
demand, or cur part thereof. That the claim made by the
plaintiff is, a. for as 1 sin concerned, altogether without any
foundation whatever. 1 have never been in England, end
I say that the came of action, if any, in this case, did not
arise within the jurisdiction of the court." The plaintiff made
another affidavit, dateddnly 24,1862, which was as follows:
"I, William Glover, of 29, Great Cosaatideeet, is the

oontty of lildellesex„ gentleman, the above-named plalnliff,
make oath and say as follows :—ln the years 1856 and 1857,
preens representing themselves to me am the friends and
emplor's of the said N. Billault, then Minister of the In-
terior of the French government, and who I verily believe
were the employ...a of the said M. Billault, and were acting
with his knowledge and sanction, and by his instruction as
his agents in such negotiations, had divers interviews with
me m London, and they, as acting on behalf of the said de-
fendant, and I. on my behalf, did mutually agree that the
newspapers called respectively the Morning Chronic/4 the
Morning MCWI' and Evening Journal , should be employed
as the organs of the said defendant as such Minister of the
Interior of the French government in raglaad; that at
divers times in the year 1853 and 1857, I proceeded to Paris
11 and had divers interviews in the year 1857 with the said M.
Billault, who did then acknowledge and recognise the au-
thority and emploment of the persons referred to in the
first paragraph of, this affidavit, in making the agreement
mentioned in the declaration and particulars of demand in
this action. M. Albert Buoard, who was then the private
secretary of the said M. Billault, frequently in the year
1857, at the request and by the direction, and with the
authority, as I eerily believe, and in the name of the said
defendant, gave instructions to me verbally and in writing
for the purpose of having leading articleswritten, inserted,
and published in the Morning Chrome& newspaper on
behalf of, and in the interest of, and to further
the views and objects of the said defend-
ant, M. Bahian, and of the French govern-
ment, of which the defendant was then, as before-
mentioned, Minister of the Interior. That the persons
hereinbefore referred to, with the sanction, and by the
authority, as I believe, of the defendants, and especially of
the defendant Billault, wrote and published numerous
letters and communications to me at my then residence in
Cavendish-square, and at the office of the said Morning
Chronicle newspaper, in the Strand, both places being in
the county of Middlesex, and within the jurisdiction of this
court, for the p of carrying out the agreement here-
inbefore mentioned, and of aiding, abetting, and assisting
the objects and views of the said IL &c." The
learned counsel proceeded to urge that this affidavit was
insufficient. He contended that the plaintiff should have
stated the names of the persons described as M. Billault's
agents. He called their lordships' attention to an affi-
davit made by M. Wilma, dated 27th November, 1862,
which was as follows :—" That I have read the affidavit
of the above-named plaintiff, worn the 24th July, 1862.
That I did not employ, or authorise any person in parstb•
1856 and 1857, or at any time, to agree in my behalf as
mentioned in the first paragraph of the plaintiff's said affi-
davits. That I never heard from the plaintiff, or any other
person, that the said parson referred to in the first paragraph
of the plaintiff's agreement had made the agreement men-
tioned in the declaration and particulars of demand in this
action as stated in the second paragraph of the plaintiff's
affidavit ; that I have no idea who the said persona
are, and that if any such alleged agreement had been
mentioned to me I should have energetically dis-
avowed it. Thai it is possible, though I do not
recollect it, that in 1857 If. Albert Bonard, men-
tioned in the third paragraph, may have officiously given
to the plaintiff, as to the gentlemen of other foreign 0011/11•
papers, some indication for his newspaper, which the plain-
tiff was incessantly and gratuitously placing at the dis-
poni of the French government, of which I was a member,
but neither I nor the said Albert &wird ever beard of any
agreement, as alleged by the plaintiff. That 1 have no
knowledge that any persons have written or forwarded to
the plaintiff numerous letters and communications to the
plaintiff for the purpose of carrying out the agreement
hereinbefore mentioned, and of aiding and abetting and
assisting the objects and views of me, the said deponent, as
stated in the fourth paragraph at the plaintiff's affidavits ;
and I have never authorised or sanctioned the seine being
done." Their lordships would see that M. Billault gave an
emphatic denial to Mr. Glover's statement, and it was for
their lordships to say if this was a cause of action arising
within the jurisdiction of the court.
The Lord Chief Justice—To have a cease of action it must
be within the jurisdiction of the court, and the parties
who were here armed with M. Billault's authority were
within the jurisdiction of the court.
Mr. Hodgson again suggested that if there was any juris-
diction it was within the Court of Paris.
The Lord Chief Justice—No, not ratified. He recognised
them aa his agents.
Mr. Hodgson still submitted that it amounted to a ratifi-
cation. Suppose they were not agents.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—He has thought proper to re-
cognise them, and it is an essential part of the cause of
action. _ .

Mr. Justice Mellor—The interview at Paris is used as an
adoption of the original contract in England.
The Lord Chief Justice—And then it became a contract
in England, and the cause of action the fulfilment of the
contract.
Mr. Hodgson still urged there was no cause of action, and
after some further remarks,

•
The Lord Chief Justice, without calling upon the other ;
aide, said the rule must be made absolute. We are really
asked by the learned counsel for the defendant to try this
case, and not to say whether under the act of parliament
a British subject may proceed against a French subject,
where it has been shown to our satisfaction that the contract
was made in this country, and that the cause of action arose
here. Upon the service of the process of the court upon a
foreigner residing out of the country the legislature has
thought proper to pass an enactment the propriety or non-
propriety of which it is not for us to question. Alt that we
have to decide is whether on the affidavit. there was suf- •
ficient to show the learned judge who heard the case at
chambers that the cause of action arose in this country.
On the affidavits some technical objections have been
made, but on the whole it appears to me that
he was right in holding that a sufficient prima
facie case bad been made to show that the
MUM of action arose in this country. The defen-
dant on being served with the notice has • right to
come here and show, if he can, that the proceeding is an
abuse of the process of the court, and that there is no pre-
tence for saying there is any cause of action arising within
the jurisdiction of the court, and that the proceedings being
vexatious ought to be set aside. If it had appeared on the
affidavits that there was no conflict of testimony, we should
have given effect to the defendant's representations, and we
should have considered that the first learned judge acted
rightly. He so acted on the materials that were before him,
but then other affidavits have since been produced,
dating that certain persons came to this country and en-
tered into a contract with the plaintiff in the name of 31,
Billault for certain services to be rendered in this country
by him as the proprietor of certain portions of the public
press ; and he states that although at first he assumed the
fact of their being M. Hillsides agents, afterwards in
an interview with that gentleman he acknowledged that
these parties bad been clothed with authority in this matter
as his agents. He, however, denies it, and no doubt upon
the view • jury may take on the question of fact between the
parties eventually the decision of the case will depend.
If Mr. Glover is right that these parties were the agents of
M. Billault, and that he afterwards admitted and acknow-
ledged that they were his agents, then the work, sod Labour.
and services having been rendered, and as there ni no objec-
tion in point of law to such a contract, the contract as made
out issgaiostM. Billault. Not only was therea contract made
in this country, but also a cause of action within the juris-
diction of this court. It all depends upon the evidence to
be adduced before a jury, it being for • jury to determine
that question, and not this court by its interposition in •
summary manner in the way asked for on the part of M.
Billault before Mr. Just ice Crompton. 1 think, therefore,
that with the materials before us we cannot atop this case
from going to ► trial. Mr. Justice Crompton was right on
L the materials that were laid before him in setting aside Mr.
• Justice Mellor's order which was made on other affidavits.
The other learned judges concurred.
Rule made absolute.
• Mr. Hodgson asked what time would be allowed to the
defendant to plead.
• Mr. M. Chambers said about a fortnight.

COURT OF COMMON PLRAE3.—Nov. 25.

Sittings in Banco.--(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie, and
Justices Williams, Byles, &net Keating.)

REGISTRATION OP DiCHRESOF TEI Drvoaci COURT.

Mr. Serjesat Shee said that Mrs. Holding having obtained
a divorce i vinculo from bee husband, Howard Ashton
Holding, and in addition 1001. a year alimony, she had
registered the decree embodying that decision in the Com-
mon Pleas under the Registration of Judgments Act. Mr.
Holding was a gentleman of considerable landed property,
and the consequence of the registration was that he was
much embarrassed in dealing with his estates. The present
application was fur a rule to show cause why the entry of
registration of the decree should not be struck out, and it
was submitted that neither the Registration of Judgments
Act nor the Divorce Court Act gave power to register any
such decree.

___ ....____
Rule granted.
BRAMPTOS F. BEDDOB.—BREACH OF AGREEMENT fVE THE
GALE OF A BUSINERB.

The defendant in this case had sold to the plaintiff the
goodwill of a haberdashery and hosiery business in Lucas-
street, Pimlico, and the agreement contained the provision
that the defendant should not himself, or fur or or behalf of
any other person, carry or, or assist in carrying on, a busi-
ness such as was then earned on in Lucas-street, within two
miles, under a penalty of 200/. The present action was to
recover this penalty, and at the trial yesterday the verdict
was for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court.
Mr. Hawkins now moved for a rule to enter a verdict for
the defendant, and stated that his client, having entered
into a negotiation to take a business in the borough, had
bought about 1501. worth of haberdashery goods, which were
sent to his lodgings in Thayer-street, Manchester-square.
The negotiation in reference to the shopin the Borough went
off, and both that place awl the defendant's lodgings were
more than two miles from Lucas-street. The defendant
went to some of his old customers to collect debts, and some
of them told him that they conlff not get things at Lucas-
street upon credit as they had been used to, and asked him
to supply them. He acceded to this, and sold about 1501.
worth of goods. It was for this that the penalty was
claimed, but it was submitted to the court that there had
been no "carrying on" of the business within Use two
miles so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover the penalty.
Rule granted.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Nov. 25.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
UPTON e. Tat AITOIIIII7.OI3IZRAL.
Mr. Honeymaa, for Mr. Henry Edward Montagne Cla-
ws/thy Upton, who weght a deehirstio• of hie legitimacy,

applied to the court to direct whom he should cite in addi•
teas to the AtioorserGeneral.
Sir C. Creswell—lt is not for the wart to say. Cite
whom you pleue.
Mr. Honeyman—We do not desire to cite any one.
Sir C. Creswell—Thos don't Only, if you do not, the
result of the investigation will bind no one. (A laugh.)
Mr. Honeyman—lt is a case which involves the succession
to a peerage • and we have only been desirous of citing the
Attorney-General.

LIMERICK V. LIVERICK (EARL).
In this case, which was one of judicial separation for adtd-
tai7, the court awarded Lady Limerick alimony pandeute
lite, at the rate of 2501. per annum, being 501. in addition tolite,
her private income.
Dr. Wamby appeared for the countess; Mr. Harvey for
the earl.

BPIDDIND (emelt.. SPEDDING AND LANDER.
This was the case in w ich a medical man had seduced the
wife of the curate of the parish, and before eloping with her
had gone to consult the rector on the subject. The jury
bad awarded 1,0001.
Sir C. Creswell di that the damages should be paid
to the hueband in trust, to pay out of it all the costa which
he could not recover from the co-respondent, and the rest to
to be divided amongst the children, each to receive its share
as it came of age.

MEC/ RTZCIL —SENTENCE.
Sir C. Cresswell said this was a case in which a widow,
whose husband had left her some money, had been so silly
as to purchase the discharge of a dissolute common soldier
in order to marry him. Ms union had never been consum-
mated ; in fact she had only been twice in his company since
the ceremony, and on both occasions he had brutally u-
nsalted her. lawns clear, therefore, that cohabitation would
be anode, and is adultery bad likewise been proved, there
must be a divorce.
Decree alai„ with costa.

- -
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD 00 URT.

(Before the Recorder.)
William Shaw, 22, baker, was charged with • burglary in
the dwelling house of John Dunstan Field, and sing
four coats and other articles, his property.
The prosecutor in this case carries on the business of •
baker in the neighbourhood of the Clapham-road, and the
prisoner bad been in his service, end was consequently well
acquainted with the premises. On the night of the Gth of
November it was discovered that the house had been
entered while the family were asleep, and some coats and
other articles, worth altogether about 301., stolen. More
than one person was no doubt engaged in the affair, for
nearly • quart of spirits had been consumed by the de-
predators, and they had also opened a bottle of Curare*, but
this did not appear to suit their taste, for only • very small
portico of it was drunk. The prisoner was met by • polies-
constable in the same neighbourhood, shortly after the
burglary had been committed, very drunk, and as his con-
duct excited his suspicion, he took him into custody, when
• portion of the stolen property was found in his possession.
The jury found the prisoner Guitty, and he was sentenced
to four years' penal servitude.
Pietro Ansoni, 26, an Italian, was charged with felo-
niously wounding Timothy Murphy, with intent to do him
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. ltibton conducted the prosecution, and the prisoner
was defended by Mr. Sleigh.
This charge arose out of the Gsribaldian riot that took
place in Hyde-park on the sth of October, when it will be
remembered • somewhat serious struggle took place be-
tween the adherents of Garibaldi and the supporters of the
Pope, and several persons were very much injured by blows
from sticks and otherwise. It appeared that the prosecutor,
who is an Irishman, was among the crowd, and as he
described it, he of course stood op for his religion, and
called out "Up with the Pope," and it appeared that
the prisoner was an equally ardent Garibaldian. During
the scuffle there was a cry of "Knives," and the prisoner
was seen to stick the prosecutor with a shoemaker's knife,
which was broken during the affray. The prosecutor swore
positively to the prisoner as being the person who wounded
him, and he also declared that at the time the injury was
inflicted he was standing quietly in the crowd, and did not
give the prisoner soy provocation.
Mr. Sleigh, in addreeeing the jury for the defence, mid
be should not attempt to dispute the fact that if the pri-
soner really stabbed the prosecutor with the dangerous
weapon that had been produced, he must have intended to
do him serious bodily harm, and the only question he
attempted to raise was whether the evidence conclusively
established the fact that the prisoner was the man by whom
the act was committed.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of wounding the pro-
secutor with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, but at
the same time recommended him to mercy on account of
the state of excitement ho was in at the time the offence
was committed.
Mr. ltibton said there wu a second indictment against the
prisoner, which charged him with wounding another person
named Wardle upon the same occasion, and the prosecutor
in that case received much more injury than in the one that
had been just disposed of.
The Recorder said that perhaps it would be as well to hear
the facts connected with the second charge.
Albert Wardle, the prosecutor in the second indictment,
was accordingly sworn, and he stated that he was in the
park at the time in question, and when the cry of " Knives "
was raised, the prisoner, without any provocation, stabbed
him twice, and the second time he wounded him very se-
verely in the thigh, and he was still an out-patient of the
hospital in consequence of the injury he received.
The Recorder, in passing sentence upon the prisoner, said
that he had been convicted of • very serious offence, and
no excitement could afford any justification for his conduct
in stabbing two persons under the circumstances deposed to.
He, therefore, felt it to be his duty to order him to be
kept in penal servitude for four years.
toil Berbert, 50, • respectable.looking man, described
as an agent, pleaded Katy to an indictmen t which charged him
with stealing a book, value 75., the property of Benjamin
Thomas Clark, and also with having been previously con-
victed of felony.
Mr. Sleigh, who appeared for the prisoner, said that his
case was a very peculiar one, and he could not help re-
garding it as one of decided " kleptomania." The prisoner,
as he was instructed, was most respectably connected,
but he appeared to have a mania for stealing books.
On the present occasion he took a volume of the
London Journal from a coffee-shop, for which he could cer-
tainly not have obtained half-a-crown, and he left the hook
at another coffee-shop, where it was found. The family of
the prisoner was very respectable, and he could not have
had the slightest rational Motive to commit such a crime,
and when he was taken into custody he bad between 9/. and
10/. in his possession.
TLe Recorder said be saw that the prisoner on the former
occasion was convicted of stealing • book, and be did not
receive any punishment, but was discharged on his friends
undertaking to prevent him from again being guilty of •
similar act.
The prisoner said he had been drinking when be took this
book away from the coffee-shop. He did not know what
he was doing, and be merely carried the book to another
coffee-shop, and left it there. The next morning, when he
recollected what had happened, he was terribly frightened,
and went to fetch the book, and he was going to take it back
to the prosecutor's shop when he was apprehended.
The Recorder sentenced him to three months' imprison-
ment and bard labour.

Prisoner wu committed for trig, but admitted to bail in
sureties amounting to 4001.

MARLBOROUGH STREET.
Two women, named Margaret Adams and Sarah Wil-
liams, the latter with a child in her anus, were charged
before Mr. Tyrwhitt with being in possession of a quantity
of goods supposed to be stolen at tradesmen's shops in
Oxford-street, and not giving a satisfactory account of the
tame.
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, appeared
for the prisoners, both of whom are said to be known to the
police as profenional shoplifters.
Mrscroft, 165 E, said that on the previous afternoon,
while in Oxford-street, he saw one of Mastro. Grant and
Cask's (sillimeroers of Oxford-street) assistants following
the prisoners, who want into the bar part of the Oxford.
The assistant said the women were to be brought back to
Means. Grant's. As soon as the prisoners came out of the
Oxford they separated, and went in different directions.
He went after Adams, and asked her if she knew the
woman with the child (Williams), and. she said she did not.
Adams had two parcels in her pomemion, one of them con-
taining two pieces of silk han&erchiefs, four in each piece.
He took Adams back to Messrs. Grant's, and on the way,
notwithstanding she had denied knowing Williams, she said
the parcels belonged to her.
Sergeant Cole, C division, said all the articles had shop
tickets on them, showing they had not been sold.
Mr. Tyrwbitt remanded the prisoners for a week.
It is said that afters visit of the prisoners to Messrs. Grant
and Gaelic on a former occasion, 401. worth of property
was misted.