The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-28 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, IFRIDAY EVENING, NOV EMBER 28, 1862.

tab; Intention.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Nov. 27.
Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westraia' ake.—(Bstar• Mr. Harm
Martin and a Special Jury.)

=OH r. soar.—ALLICILD 111:DOCTION.
After our report left yesterday,
Robert Hubble, the groom, was milled. He said, I
entered the defendant's stenos a month after he came from
India. 1 resided with my mother at Walthanistow. On
the Bth of July, 1861, I saw Emma Leigh in town when
Wright was with me. I had before seen her in June in
Gray's-inn-mad. I did not recognise her until she spoke to
me. I walked home with her, and we called at two or
three public-hoses. We had a pint of ale and a biscuit at
one place, but I am not positive whether I had any cheese.
(Laughter.) I met her between four and five in the after-
noon. On the Bth of July she was with me from four in
the afternoon until ten at night. I met her in Sidmouth-
street, Gray's-inn-lane. Wright was with me. We went into
andPuid some bread and cheese. She had remand ham.
Leigh did not tell me where she had been. I saw her bir
tween three and four in the afternoon. Wright was left at
a coffee-home in Holborn-hill. I walked home with her. I
left her about 100 yards from her father's house in the
Roman-road, Old Ford. We walked all the way. It is
three or four miles or four and a half mile, from Gray's
inn-lane. We got to Old Ford at ten o'clock at might.
We called at one or two publiohousee on our way. We had
biscuits and chew*. We had some ale. She poured it oat
herself. I had walked with her before this. I once called
when I left my work. On Bth July 1 and Wright nuns up
about the prosecution at the Old Bailey. I never drove
Emma Leigh to 2, Regent-square.
erces-examined—l know it was the Bth of July when I
saw her. I cannot say why lam so certain. I don't keep
• diary. (laughter.) The major did not tell me it wee the
Bth of July. I cannot say what is the date today.
(Laughter.) It runs in my head that it was the Bth of July.
(laughter.
Re-examineel—l came up with Wright to take care of
him. (Laughter.) He had to attend the trial at the Old
Bailey.
Win. Wright, a little old man, said—l do any sort of work
shout Mrs. Thorp's place at Waltharostow. I have been
abut the place 47 years. I recollect coming up with
Hubble to the trial. We met Emma Leigh.
Cross-examined-1 reoollect fter blossom time
Emma Leigh ill the garden with thud. The major might
have been there, but I did not see him talk to her.
Mrs. Hubble, the mother of Robert Hubble, said she saw
Emma Leigh's mother at her (witness's) hone; at Waltham-
stow, In July, 1862. She t4d me that my son bad dnven
her daughter to 2, Regent-square, on the Bth July, 1861,
that she was drugged and seduced by Major Thorp, that
she went there again the next day, and that she blamed her
for going next day. Emma Leigh has called a number of
times at my house. She seat a boy to the door for my
son. He was not as home. I went down to see her. I
asked her if she was Emma Leigh. She said "No," and
bidding me good-bye, went away. I saw her afterwards,
and I asked her how she could deny herself. She said, " I
may as wall own it ;it was me." She called a number of
times, and I said I had a great objection to her coming so
often to my house. She always wanted to see Robert. I
said it had a had appearance, and I did not like it. I said
my son did not want her.
Cress-examined—My son is now in the employ of the
major.
Mary Hubble, the daughter of the last witness, said—l
remember Mrs. Leigh calling on my mother. She said
that she blamed her daughter very much indeed for going
the next day to Regent-square after what happened on the
Bth July.
Mrs. Leigh, the mother of Emma Leigh, was recalled at
the request of Mr. Serjeant Parry, and asked by the
learned judge whether, when she celled upm Mrs. Hubble,
she stated to her that what Emma had told her se to
what happened in Regent-square was told three or four
dayr after her confinement, and when she was quite in a
sane state ? The witness replied that she did.
Mrs. Herring, the landlady of 2, Regent-square, deposed
to a young woman calling to see Major Thorp in July,
1862. She was Emma Leigh. The major's servant went
up and told the 171/1q0,4 and then Emma went upstairs.
She remained a very abort time, 10 minutes or a quarter
of an hour. In 10 or 14 days she called again. Witness
• • " • " • " '

saw her at the door u she wail leaving the h'ouse. She told
her that she bad better knock at the door, but ahe believed
the major was not at home. That was her belief ; never
saw her again, and wu very certain she never did call after-
wards. _ _ .

Crow-examined—Men I met the young woman ►t
my door, I might have been sway an hour before I re-
turned. It might have been twelve or one when she
came.

William Henry Oakley, clerk to the registrar of the Court
of Probate, and cousin to the defendant, said the defendant
consulted him with regard to the letters which bad been
read.

Mrs. 'Thorp, the motherof the defendant, examined, said—
Emma Leigh was in my service. I gave her notice to leave
me on account of her being so familiar with the men-
servants. I had repeatedly complained of that, and said
that she should not go out of the nursery and gossip
with the men. The man she talked to was Robert Hubble.
_ _

I did not make her sleep in my room when my son and Mr.
Oakley were sleeping in the house. I may have bad a
servant sleep In my room, but not Emma Leigh.
This being the evidence for the defence,
Mr. Berjeaut Parry and Mr. Tindal Atkinson addressed
the jury on behalf of their respective clients.
Mr. Baron Merlin, in summing up. said this was an action
for the seduction of the plainiiff's daughter, and the
damages claimed were confined not merely to the loss of
her services by the plaintiff, but extended to the loss he
bad sustained by being deprived of her society,
and the dishonour be suffered. It had been said
by the late Lord Eldon in • ease of this kind
that the jury might take into consideration the feelings of
the father in losing the comfort and services of his daughter,
in whose virtue he would have no further consolation, and
by whose example his other children's morals might be cor-
rupted. The seduction of a daughter was • legitimate cause
of action, and the jury were entitled to assess the damages
in that manner. The present case was oue in which there
most be most wicked and wilful perjury on one aide or the
other, and they would have to decide, looking at ell the cir-
cumstances, on which side the truth lay. Two persons
swore directly contrary to each other in a matter as to which
there could be no room whatever for doubt, and it was ex-
clusively the province of the jury to say which told the
truth. He was bound to say that the case had been grossly
exaggerated on both sides ; for assuming the girl's story to
be true she bad done a very improper and imprudent thing
in going to the defendant to inquire about a situation. If a
Eoung woman of considerable personal attractions like
mma Leigh went to the lotWoirs of • young man for such
a purpose, she could scarcely be said to take proper care of
her virtue, and one could not be much surprised if under
the circumstances the result took place which she swore.
Stress bad been placed upon the fact that in the first instance
she accused the defendant of giving her some drug
which made her insensible, and then violating her person;
but he did think that was a material matter, as in these
cases a young woman told to her parents the story most
favourable to her. What told against her was that she
made no communication whatever to the defendant during
the time that she was in the family way with • view to
seeking some money, or some kind of assistance or comfort
in the state in which she was ; and what meet told against
the defendant WAS that he had not answered the letters
sent to him after the confinement ; and the jury would con-
sider whether the explanations of counsel were satisfactory
upon those points. It was said that the young woman
often called for the groom Hubble, was on friendly terms
with him, and had gone with him into public-houses
to drink, and the object of that evidence seemed to be
to prove that she had sexual connexion with him, but they i
ought to dismiss that entirely from their minds, because I
Hubble made no statement to such an effect, and the learned I
counsel emphatically said that Hubble had nothing to do
with the girl, and he would be prepared to swear it. The
supposition that Hubble was the father of the child should,
therefore, be thrown entirely aside. His lordship then went
over the evidence, and, as to damages, said even if the jury
thought that the defendant had sworn falsely they ought
Dot to give vindictive damages, bemuse he might perhaps
in taking advantage of the young woman's presence in his
lodgings, have thought that her coming to him was a sort of
challenge, but they would form their own opinion as to
that, and looking to all the evidence as to the conduct of
both parties, say to what sum the plaintiff was entitled.
The jury then retired.
Mr. Serjeaut Parry afterwards came into court, and said
the learned judge was wrong in his voodoo of what fell from
him as to Hubble being the father of the child. He did
not say that Hubble was not the father, nor that it was to
be inferred that he was not, but that, if asked, he would
probably deny that be was the father. It was not for the
defence to prove who the father was.
At the request of the learned counsel the jury were re-
called, and the correction made by Mr. Baron Martin, but
his lordship said he was certainly under the impression that
the learned counsel made the statement he inii.uted to
him.

After about an hour's absence, the jury sent in a note
stating that they were unable to agree, and on being brought
into court his lordship told them as they were not likely to
agree, he did not feel justified in detaining them any longer.
It was just one of those cases in which a conscientious
difference of opinion might prevail, and he should, therefore,
discharge them.
The jury were then discharged.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Wore Mr. Jetties Ades.)

ElirabetA Simms' 20, a good-looking young woman, was
charged with the wilful murder of her male illegitimate
eiaL

Mr. Rowden conducted the prosecution. The prisoner
had no counsel.

The learned counsel In opening the cue expressed his
opinion that the evidence was not mfficient to support the
charge of wilful murder, as although there would probably
be no doubt that the death of the chit(' was the consequence
of violence inflicted upon its head. the surgeon who
made the postmortem examination was unable
to state with an degree of certainty that those injuries
were not inflicted accidentally. The case would, therefore,
resolve itself into the question whether, although the pri-
soner had not been guilty of the mare serious crime imputed
to her, au) had notrmadired himself amenable to • coanctiou

for misdemeanor, in having unlawfully concealed the birth
of the child in ghettos.
Prom the evidence adduced it appease! that the prisoner ,
was in the service of a family residing in West-equals, and
that on the 113th of October she appeared to be ill, and was
taxed by 1101110 person connected with the establish-
ment with being in the family-way, but she denied
it, and said that she bad been taking some medicine
for a pain in her inside, and that she should soon be better.
Very soon after this further circumstances were observed
which increased suspicion, and the prisoner was 'gain ques-
tioned. and she then admitted that she had been delivered
of a child, but she said it was dead and she had placed the
body in the walling-copper in the kitchen, and a search was
made there and the dead body of a chid was discovered.
Dr. Wakem, a medical gentleman residing in the neigh-
bourhood, was called in, and be made a post-
mortem examination, and the result he arrived at
from all the appearances that presented themselves
was, that the child had oome into the world alive,
and that there ware certain injuries upon its head
which would account for its death, but he would not under-
take toerees anything like a positive opinion that these
in juries might not have been occasioned accidentally. Some
of the witnesses for the prosecution described the prisoner
as being a kindhearted, good tempered girl ; and one of
them also stated that the prisoner informed her that she
was ignorant of the fact of her being so far advanced in 1
pregnancy, and that she intended when she received her
wages, which were about to become due, to have left her
place and gone home to her friends in the country.
The prisoner, when called upon for her defence, replied
that she had nothing to say.
Mr. Justice Byles, having briefly addressed the jury they
returned a verdict of Not Guilty of murder, but guilty of
endeavouring to sauces! the birth.
The prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprison.
meet and hard labour.
WWiam Barrington, 31, was indicted for the man-
slaughter of William Hammon.
Mr. Edward Healey prosecuted, and Mr. F. H. Lewis was
counsel for the defence.

The prisoner, it appeared, carries on the business of a
armor at Barnet, and be has another similar establishment
in the neighbourhood of 'shun/ton, and on the night of the
4th of November he was in a pony cart, which he
was driving, with another man, at Upper Hollo-
way. It was about nine o'clock at night ; cad it
that the deceased, who was 73 years
of and rather deaf, was in the sat of crossing the
road, and had passed the pole of an omnibus that was I
going in the same direction as the pony cart when the shaft
of the latter knocked him down, and he was so severely
injured that he died three days afterwards. It was ad-
mitted that the prisoner called oat to the deceased the
moment he saw him, and that he pulled up directly the
accident happened; but it turned out that he was drunk,
and upon has being taken to the pollee-station he was de-
tained upon that charge. According to the evidence of
some of the witnesses for the prosecution, the prisoner at
the time of the accident was driving at the rate of ten
miles an hour, and according to others eight only, but
there was no doubt that when the occurrence took place he
was driving at a good sharp pace.
lifv. Lewis, in his address to the jury for the primmer,
ed conteed that the affair was purely the result of accident,
and laid that although the prisoner was in a state of
intoxication at the time, still it appeared that he did
everything that a sober man could have done, and he
urged that the fact bad really nothing whatever to do with
the ease. _ .

Mr. Justice Byles having summed up, the jury, after a
short consultation, found the prisoner Guilty.
His Lordship, in passing sentence, said there could be to
doubt that a man who drove through the streets of London
in the dark, in a state of intoxication, at the rate of eight
or ten miles an hour, acted in a very reckless manner, and
if an accident occurred he was responsible for the come-
quencee. Still, however, the use was not of an aggravated
character, and taking into consideration the period the pri-
soner bad already been io custody he should only sentence
him to be further imprisoned for the space of three weeks.
Eli-Nagai Welton, 36, was charged with feloniously casting
a child twelve months old, named Annie Welton, into the
water, with intent to murder her.
Mr. Ribton and Mr. Oppenheim conducted the prosecu-
tion ; and the prisoner was defended by Mr. Sleigh.
It appeared by the evidence of a woman named Jane
Robinson that on the 30th of October she was looking
out of the back window of her house in Bacon-street,
Bethnal-green, when she saw the prisoner and a young man
in the back garden of an adjoining house ; they appeared
to be quarrelling, and the man made use of most foul and
disgusting language to the prisoner. She had the child in
question, which was her own child, in her arms at the
time, and while the quarrel was proceeding she rushed to
a water-butt that was in the yard, and which was nearly
full of water, and threw the child into it. It struggled,
and got its hands to the edge of the water-butt, when
the prisoner, according to the evidence, forced them away,
and pressed the body of the child into the water, and then
left the spot. The young man who had been quarrelling
with the prisoner immediately ran up to the water-butt and
took the child out ; it appeared to be nearly exhausted
but eventually recovered, and did not sustain any material
injury. It was stated in the course of the inquiry that the
man who was referred to was the prisoner's step son.
Mr. Sleigh, in his address to the jury for the defence,
urged that it would be monstrous to come to the conclusion
that the prisoner intended to murder her child, when several
persons were standing close by her ; and be contended that
the true explanation of her conduct was, that, goaded almost
to frenzy by the foul and irritating language that had been
used to her by her son-in-law, she dashed the child into the
water, hardly koowiog at the time what she was doing, and
without say definite intention.
The learned judge then summed up, and the jury, after
deliberating for a few minutes, found the prisoner Not
Guilty.

George Robert Rllrby, the late clerk at the Westminster
Bridewell, who was convicted on Wednesday of having, in
an unfounded fit of jealousy, shot at and wounded a per-
son named Henry Cook, with intent to do him grievous
bodily herrn, was brought up for judgment.
lir. Justice Byles, in passing sentence upon the primoner,
said he bad carefully read a statement that be bad had
forwarded to him, and he felt the deepest commiseration at
the prisoner's position and that in which his family had been
placed, but he must protect the public, and he was respon-
sible to the law for the sentences be pronounced. If the
jury had convicted him of the intention to murder the pro-
secutor he should most certainly have sentenced him to
penal servitude for life. The jury had, however, convicted
him of a mach lees serious charge ; but the only point that
be saw at all to be regarded favourably was that it had
not been made out that the pistol was loaded
with buck shot, as was originally supposed, but with
small shots only, that were not calculated to do so much
mischief. The prosecutor was, however, very seriously in-
jured, and the surgeon stated that although he was at pre-
sent in tolerable health, his condition was such that &age-
rous symptoms might come on at any moment ; and he must
inform the prisoner that if this should be the case, and
Cook should die within a year and a day, he would be liable
to be tried for murder. He then sentenced the prisoner to
be kept in penal servitude for five years.

NEW COURT.
tße(ore Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
GAROTTE ROBBERIES. _

William Smith, 24, labourer, Gibson Burley, 22, mailer,
sod George Needham, 22, sailor, were indicted for robber;
with violence of George Rowell, and stealing from him a
handkerchief sod a flannel shirk
Mr. Dickie prosecuted.
The prosecutor bad been drinking at a public-house in
Woolwich from 8 to 12 o'clock on the night of 2od No-
vember, and eventually left there in company with a prosti-
tute, with whom he went home. Directly after he got into
the room be gave the woman some money to pay her rent,
and she left him, and during her absence the prisoners,
whom he had seen in the public.house, came in, threw him
on the bed, and seizing him violently by the throat robbed
him of the trifling articles mentioned in the indictment.
The prosecutor gave his evidence in a very unsatisfactory
manner, and after a long inquiry the jury returned a verdict
of Not Guilty.
The prisoners were again indicted for a robbery with vio-
tepee on William Regent, and stealing from him • purse,
one half-sovereign, and divers silver coins.
Mr. Dickie also prosecuted in this case.
It appeared that after the prisoners were in custody on
the preceding charge, the pollee reoeived intelligent. of this
robbery, which had been committed order precisely similar
circumstances in the same house, a low brothel. The pro-
secutor had accompanied a woman there, and was followed
by the three prisoners, whom he bad known by sight for
I some time. On entering the room they knocked him down,
iseized him by the throat until he wasnearly strangled,
' and having rifled his pockets of the purse and money,
quitted the house. On seeing them at the police-station he
at once identified them.
. .

The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of
Guilty.
Inspector Lindry, of the P division, proved that Need-
ham had been no 1411111 than twelve times in custody for
felony sod for aseeults Six times he has been summarily
oonvirrted, and has served various terms of imprisoommit.
The prisoner Burley had been convicted at Muidstone for
felony in October, 1861, and was sentenced to six months'
impneonment. The prisoner Smith had been four times in
custody, and bad been twice convicted, and bad served six
months imprisonment. The pitmen were called up for
Judgment.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, remarking that this case was not
exactly one of the gerotting claw, said he therefore would
pan sentence at once. Oa Needham the sentence was that
he be kept in penal servitude for the term of ten years, and
that on Burley and Smith that they be respectively kept in
penal servitude for the term of three years.
Thomas Reclaims., 20, harness maker, Jorge. Dixon, 20,
clerk, and Charlotte &deism, 19, imiester, were indicted
for feloniously assaulting William Beam and stealing
from him pert of a watch chain and ls. Of. in money.
Mr. Daly conducted the prosecution ; Mr. F. R. Lewis
defended the prisoner, Thomas Redshaw ; and Mr. Mon-
tagu Williams defended the female prisoner. The prisoner
James Dixon was undefended by counsel.
The prosecutor iu this case is a young man employed as a
letter-terrier in the General Pat-office, and was returning
home along the City-road about 10 o'clock on the night of
the 99th September last, when he met the female prisoner,
whom be had known before, neer the City Arms Tavern,
sad agreed to go home with her. She made as amuse to
go iato the tavern to get, as she rid. her kerb sad aeon
alter rejoined him, and they precteetisi leptlist use they

reached a retired spot known u Globs.walk, into which
they erred and remained a few swede in ceserution,
when the prosecutor heard footsteps and saw the two male
. Dixon asked him what he wee doing
TZlrithiWilebioman, and they immediately seised him by
the throat, while the fermis attempted to passer herself of
his watch, of which be retained possessor by kerbs( it in
hie grasp ; the chain, however, was broken and lost, es was
also the money. The three thee went away, leaving the
prosecutor half dead ea the ground. From the violence he
suffered one of his eyes was closed and the other was full
of blood, so that he was unable to pursue the primmer
He crawled to • cab, and directed the driver to take him to
the hospital, where he remained under medical care for
upward' of a fortnight.
In his crearzerunation by Mr. F. H. Lewis, the prose•
cuter denied that he knew or bad any flirt connection
with • female named Maria Barrow, with whom Thomas
Redshsw cohabited.
. . .

In reply to Mr. liontaga Williams, the prosecutor stated
that be knew from the female prisoner that she lived with
the poisoner Dixon.
It was proved that the male prisoners were in the City
Arms Tavern when the female went in to get her key.
They were subsequently taken into custody on the informa-
tion al the woman, Maria Barrow, who now proved that
Thomas Redshaw cams home without his bat on the night
of the robbery, and told her that he had lost it in a row he
had had with a postman whom be had kicked and left for
dead, and be aleoattributed some spotsof blood she observed
no his stockings to this repoontre.
The learned counsel for the prisoners addressed the jury
on behalf of their respective clients, contending that this
was not a robbery, but an smolt by Thomas Redabaw in
revenge for the supposed connexion between the prosecutor
and the woman Barrow, and that Dixon had joined in the
attack when he found the prosecutor with his paramour the
twills primmer.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against all the
es.
prim
Sentence deferred.

Thomas Lester, 30, sailor, and Mamas Harvey, 19,
labourer, were indicted for a robbery with violence on
Daniel Solly, and staling from him a cap and six shillings
o money.
Mr.Orrida prosecuted, and the prisoners were undefendrd.
It appeared from the statement of the prosecutor that be
was passing through Lower Thames-street in the evening,
when the two prisoner' sprang out upon him, knocked him
down, and stole his cap and Cs. in money. Fle gave an
alarm, and the prisoners were followed and seen to go into a
lodging house known as "The Bsrraeks," in that neigh-
bourhood. The police secured both the prisoners there, one
of them being found eonoraled in the water-closet ; and the
prosecutor's cap was also discovered in the house.
The jury Acquitted the prisoners of the robbery, but the
lassoed judge ordered them to be detained, in order that an
indictment for the await might be preferred against them.

Joseph Hall,3o,labourer, and Robert Leat, 25, smith, were
indicted, together with • woman unknown, with feloniously
assaulting Edwin John Burt, with intent to rob him.
Mr. Sleigh, instructed by the City solicitor, conducted the
prosecution.
In this cue the prosecutor stated that he was au officer
in the Customs, and that on the evening of the 21st indent
he was in Fenchurch-street, when be was accolted by a
woman, of whom he took no notice, but passed on. She,
however, followed him, and on his arriving at a shop where
there WAS a light, he opened his purse for the purpose of
taking out a coin to make a purchase, and bid no sooner
done so than the woman snatched it from him and ran away.
He pursued, crying "Stop thief," but bad not proceeded far
when Hall carne out of a court, and, placing himself in
front, asked what was the matter, and endeavoured to pre.
ven: him from continuing his chase. The prosecutor en-
deavoured to push past him, but finding that he could not
succeed was about to turn back, when he found some one
behind him. This was the prisoner Leat. The two prisonen
were then on each side of him, when a third man came in
front of him, and the prosecutor, after • struggle with
them, contrived to free one of his hands, in which he had
• stick heavily loaded with lead. This he swung round,
and struck the man in front a violent blow. The man cried
out that he had been hit, and ran away. The prosecutor
retained his hold of the prisoner Hall for • moment, and
then he and the prisoner Leat started off, followed by the
prosecutor. They ran into St. Mary-axe, where Lest was
captured bya police-constable, and Hall, with the amalgams
of a gentleman named Alfred Taalull, was detained until
farther assistance arrived. . . . .

The prisoners were both convicted ; and it was stated
that, though nothing was known of Hall, it was believed
that Lent had before been tried for robbery with violence
at Glasgow, and sentenced to four veers' penal servitude,
and that be had only come out of 'Portland prison a few
months since. . . .

—The ;limner Leat denied the truth of this statement, and
declared that he could prove that be was keeping a shooting
gallery in Old-street-road at the time it was alleged he had
been in custody.
Mr. Benin Bramwell directed further inquiries to be
made, and postponed passing sentence.

Mr. Bambara asked if any other person had been appre-
heeded.
Beet, 34 M, replied that since the last muunination he
bad been on the look out for the prisoner's sermust., and
had ascertained that need them had spset a kite sum of
merry, but be bad been unable to tram im a 4 present.
The clerk to Messrs. Hureptiris asked for a further re-
mand, which Mr. Bambara granted, admitting the defendant
again to bail.

Williams Brown, • middle-aged man, was charged with
having in his • n • silver watch and gold Albert chain,
stolen from Mr. Edward lioldsworth during the late fire at
Blackfrian; also with having in his possession counterfeit
half -*consigns, with intent to utter the earn°.
Mr. Brennan, an officer specially employed by the Mint
authorities, went on Saturday morning last to No. 22,
Marketistreet, Borough-road, with • party of police officers,
and having gained admission they entered the front room,
and searched it, and in • drawer of the looking-glue he
found the two counterfeit half-sovereigns produced. On
searching the prisoner he found in his pockets • good sove-
reign, halftovereign, and fifteen shillings in silver, and in
hie waistcoat pocket was • watch and chain, which the
priaoner said wu all right, u he had bought them • long time
ago. Inspector Reed ranched the room am well as witness,
and found • bag of pepper, weighing 281b5., all of which
they believed to have been stolen.
Mr. Edward lloldsworth said that he was passing from
the Temple at the time of the fire, when he was surrounded
and robbed of has watch and chain. He identified those
produced as his property.
Mr. Brennan asked for a remand, as ninths; watch was
found on the wife, which he believed to have been stolen.
The magistrate further remanded him until Wednesday
next.

Mr. Kerre••B7, intnetOrol the K division, introduced to
the magistrate • y, named Victoria Julia Napier
Hawkins, and said she bad consulted him on her difficulties",
but he did not think it was a ease on which he should be
justified in giving advice, or interfering.
Mr. Selfe directed the lady to make known her wishes ;
when she timidly advanced to the witoese.box, and in • very
low tone and with much simplicity said she had been mar-
ried three menthe, that her husband had directed her to
leave him, and she did so. She bad had • fortune of 10,003 i.,
and he had deprived her of the whole of it.
Mr. Sella said this was • strange tale, and put some
questions to the applicant, many of whose sowers
were inaudible. She was understood to my that her
husband turned her out of doors last Monday
week. The woman of the house where they lived en-
couraged him to do so. The landlord of the house put his
fist in her face, used very harsh language, and said she must
leave her husband, who took away her watch and chain.
She had no father. Her mother was living in Frederick-
street, Caledonian-road, and she had been staying with her
since bar husband turned her out of doors. She was married
by banns at All Sainte' Church, Poplar. They lived for two
or three days in Flowers-terrace, Bow, and after that they
resided at Victory Cottage. Wellington-road, Bromley, where
her husband now was. She was married unknown to any
of her friends. Mr. Lewis, • solicitor, was to prepare her
marrlige settlement.
Mr. Selle—Which Mr. Lewis' There are so many soli-
citors of that name.
The lady replied, Messrs. Lewis, of Ely-plea", Holborn.
They were to be paid eight guineas for framing the marriage
settlement.
Mr. Selfe—Had you not better apply to them on the
subject?
The Applicant—l don't know what to do, sir.
Mr. Selfe —What is the name of your husband?
Applicant—James Hawkins,
Mr. Selfe—What is he ?
Applicant—He is • journalist.
Mr. Salle—And bow old are you?
Applicant---Twenty-three next birthday.
is Mr. Selfe—What the age of your husband, who has so
soon got tired of you?
Applicant—He is 62.
Mr. Selfe—Tbers is • great disparity in your ages indeed.
The applicant, in answer to further questions, said she
bad no means of purchasing common necessaries, and was
without • penny. Her husband detained everything belong-
ing to her.
Mr. Selfe—You should not have left his house at all. You
have a right to be where he is.
Applicant—The people in the house laid very disagreeable
things to me indeed. I said to ma husband,' Won't you
protect me against these people' He He said, " No, I wont."
and be told me to leave the house. The people said, "11
you don't leave we will send for • police constable and make
you leave."
Mr. Salle—Do you know anythirg of the man Hawkins,
Inspector Kerreeney ?
Mr. Kerressey—l do not. The lady complains that her
hoisted has deprived her of valuable bonds.
Mr. Selfe—What bonds are they?
The scant replied, 10,0001. worth of Mexican Bonds.
Her husband bad possessed himself of the whole of them,
and she was afraid he would obtain all the money upon
them and deprive her of it.
Mr. Belle was afraid that 10,0001. worth of Mexican Beads
ware not of much value at the present time. This was •
case in which be hardly knew how to interfere. If the lady
had been deprived of all her property and turned out of
doors without a peony, it was • very hard case indeed. Ths
only way to bring the husband to that court was upon •
warrant for refusing to maintain his wife and leaving her
chargeable to • parish, but that could only be done by •
relieving officer acting under the instructions of a board of
guardians. He would, however, direct Smith, an officer of
the court, to make inquiries about the case of the unfortu-
nate lady, and report to him the remit. He had the greatest
confidence in Mr. Inspector Kerremey. but he thought it
best an officer of the court should conduct the investigation
Daniel Smith, 415 K, then received the necessary direc-
tions from the magistrate, and left the court.

THE FORGERIES ON THE BANK OP ENGLAND.

After our report left yesterday,
Mr. Freshfield said this was all the evidence be bad to
adduce before asking the alderman to commit the prisoners
for trial. lie asked the alderman to commit Williams
separately, for having fraudulently engraved the note, and '
the other prisoners together for having forged the notes.
Of course at the Old Bailey they would be indicted sepa-
rately.
Mr. Pater asked whether this was the whole of the evi-
deuce to be adduced against Buncber. As a matter of fair-
ness he thought Buocher ought to know whether farther
evidence was to be brought forward to support the charge.
If further evidence was necessary he should ask for a re-
mand, in order that that evidence might be adduced.
Mr. Freshfield contended that a sufficiently substantial
case bad been made out against Boucher to justify the
mag:strate in committing him for trial.
Alderman Cubitt considered that sufficient evidence had
been adduced to authorise him to commit Bundler for trial,
I and he should do so.
Mr. Pater made an able and ingenious defence of Bundler,
endeavouring to show that no evidence of the notes had
been traced to him, and that the evidence of the approver
ought not to he relied upon.
Alderman Cubitt said be was satisfied with Barber's
complicity with the others, and he considered it his duty to
send the matter to a jury.
Mr. Lewis urged that Brewer had not committed any
offence cognizab e by the court. If be stole the paper, It
ought to be inquired into by the justices in the country. It
bad not been proved that be stole the paper with a view
to a forgery of notes. He contended that forgery of Bank
notes upon genuine Bank paper was not a felony under the
act.
Alderman Cubitt said Mr. Lewis was displaying much in-
genuity, but he did not think it was of much advantage.
Mr. Lewis complained that neither Mr. Portal nor an
person from the mills had been called to show bow much
paper bad been abstracted.
Alderman Cubitt thought such evidence would be un-

nemesary.
Mr. Lewis then urged that, if committed for trial, Brewer
might be admitted to bail.
Alderman Cubitt said he had no moral doubt that Brewer
had been extensively connected with the transaction.
The whole of the prisonem were then committed for trial
under various sections of the 24th and 25th Victoria. c. 98.
The tral will take place at the masions of the Central Cri-
minal Court which commences on the 13th of December.

THE GLASGOW Mumma Cast.—The agents of
the old man Fleming have bad a correspondence with the
Home Secretary. On the commutation of Mrs. M•loc.hlsn's
sentence being made known, they wrote to Sir George
Gray, pointing out that this change of sentence threw un-
warranted suspicion no their client, who had not been
represented at the secret inquiry, and requeetiog a renewed
inquiry. The reply to this communication states "that
Sir George Grey instituted the inquiry to which you refer,
under the very peculiar circumstances of this case, in order
to assist him in deciding whether sufficient doubt existed as
to the share which the prisoner Jessie felechlan had in the
comnussien of the crime, to justify a commutation of the
capital sentence. The result satisfied Sir George Grey that
the whole facts relating to the case bad not been submitted
to the jury at the trial, and that sufficient doubt did exist on
the point which I have mentioned to justify him in recom-
mending a commutation of the sentence to penal servitude
for life. But the result of the inquiry was far from
re-
moving all uncertainty, nor could it be justly held to fix
share of the guilt on any other person, especially_when wok
person was not represented at the inquiry. With relenace
to your present request, it is not in Sir George Grey's power
to direct a judicial inquiry to be held into the gat or into-
ceoce of any person not charged with any °fiasco—eye-
daily when, as in the present case, according to what be
informed is the law in Scotland. the person on whose behalf
you Made the request, having been examined as a Wi•••••
in a criminal trial, cannot afterwards be subjected to •wrbid-
nal prosecution in respect of the matter of saelt

IHHVOTtiliblllBllk. J.—.IIOLLOWAVB OINTMILVT AND
pmts—shooting Piling—These frequently divert attention from
the true sent ci disease. Many cams of " dying pains "In the
hack, shoulder. neck, and head me daily cured by nibbles
Holloway's Ointment over the pit of the stomach end N
A patient writes: •• After trying the most e•
tionen and gairanista in . ain, your Ointment, is
over the right side, completely removed the iniansimed
from the head and shoulder, though I believe per PI
fated my cure." This testimony is as anomie** as easolidleth
almost all the low. nervous, irritable teenage ci wetly mar
kind appeeffmg hum defective action in the Dear, MA 11•111 1114 he
reoedtd by diseriag that cepa ad vitiated or ruplisilik.