The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-02 00:00:00

docume•its which he had stated in his answer to be in his
posse.eion. It appeared that M.rs Bknkinsopp had in 1843,
lar*.ituted proceedings in the Consistory Court of Durham,
r,gainst her husband, a gentleman of fortune, residing in the
bounty of Durham, near Bishop Auckland, for divorce and
alimony ; and the suit being successful, Mr. Blenkinsopp
carried the came by way of appeal to the Prerogative Court
of York, and from thence to the judicial committee of the
privy council, but without mow. Pending the proceedings
in the suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, Mr. Blenkmsopp con-
veyed his estates to Messrs. Trotter and Fenwick on trust, to
sell, and pay his debts ; and as to the residue of the proceeds
for his own benefit. The object of the present suit ass to
impeach the deed of trust, and to have the benefit of the
decree in the Ecclesiastical Court for alimony,out of the
estates comprised in it. The documents of siblM the Pr-
duction was now sought, were some letters written_ by sar.
Blenkinsopp to Trotter, relating to the to,' • the rtlesiss-
tical Court ; two cases laid '• behalf of Mr.
Blenkiarson 011
trotter, and his CO-trustee, as to the pro.
A"- -9" '7:the If:celesta' stical Court, with the opinions of
thereon and some documents relating to the ecolesias-
ue..si snit. Tr otter, who acted as the solicitor of Mr. Blenkin-
isopp,previo•Jsly tern e institution of the ecclesiastical snit% at
not in the managent of it, insisted that the above e.ocu_
ents came within the rule of the court, granting pro'„ootion
'is confidential communications between solicitor a•
d.,ispute.—
d client,
and to papers relating to matters in litigation rx
Mr. Kindersley appeared for Trotter.
The blaster of the Rolls ou the above rule,
which he thought was very often suppressive of justice,
rather than contributory to it. It was better to have a dis
closure of the whole truth. The rale had, however, been
established by wiser judges than himself, and he was bound
by it. lie did not think the answer of Trotter was alone
sufficient to protect him from producing the documents ; hut
there was enough in the affidavit which he had made in aid
of his answer, to show that they came within the privilege,
and he must, therefore, refuse the motion for their produc-
tion.
OFTLET e. GRAT.—PROTECTOR INSURANCE OFFICE.—
PATMENT OF POLICY,—The facts of this case Were reported
in this paper on the 19th ultimo ; they were shortly es fol-
lows :—Mr. William Campbell Ottley being indebted to his
uncle, Mr. Warner Ottley, assigned to him a policy which
he had, by arrangement, effected on his life in the Protector
Insurance office, by way. of trust to secure the debt ; and
power was given to Mr. W. Ottley to give a discharge for the
amount of the policy, with a promise exonerating the com-
pany from enquiring whetherany part of the debt remained
due. On the death of W. C. Ottley, which took placel
in 1843, Mr. Warner Ottley applied for payment of the pocy;
but the office conceiving that the executor was a ne-
cesssry party to concur in the receipt, refused to pay the
ndence
policy without his concurrence. After some correspo
this suit was instituted, and, though the office offered to pay
on a proper indemnity, it was prosecuted, and the executor
being made a party to it by supplemental bills, the cause
now came on to be heard. It appeared that no resistance
was made to Mr. Warner Ottley's claim to the amount of
the policy, but the costs of the suit formed a very important
question, as they amounted to a considerable sum.
Mr. Turner and Mr. Stevens, who appeared for the com-
pany, contended that they were right in requiring the con-
currence of the executor; that thu was the usual practice
with all insurance offices; and that Mr. Warner Ottley
ought to pay the costs of the suit —Messrs. Kindersley and
lieathfield, on the other hand, maintained that Mr. Ottley,
as the assignee of the policy, was fully competent to give a
discharge without the executor, and that the conduct of the
company was vexatious and unreasonable.
The Master of the Rolls thought the suit was commenced
in error, and the more so, because the plaintiff had, in the
progress of it, made the executor a party. At the same
time he thought the company were in a position in which
they might have safely paid the money. Though it might
be that as authority such as was contained in the deed, con-
nected, as it was, with an assignment mortgage and trust,
was not ono with which they were bound to be satisfied.
With a little management the suit might have been put an
end to at the beginning. lie would read the answer and
endeavour to decide as to the costs.

Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.
RUSSELL v. SMITH.—INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE
PERFORMANCE OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS, DISSOLVED.
—The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment in this case,
which was argued on the 22nd of November last, said the
question was whether the injunction should be dissolved or
not. The hill had been filed claiming the exclusive right to
publicly represent several songs, and an injunction was
granted in general terms, and then an application was made
In April that the injunction might be dissolved; and it was
dissolved as to the music of one song, called " The Maniac,"
and also as to a song called " Man the Life-boat,"
but the injunction was continued as to the other longs, and
an order was made that the plaintiff should proceed with
the action he had commenced, and should bring such other
action as he might be advised. It appeared that the plaintiff
had deliberately discontinued the first action, and in the
second action he had entirely omitted to include one of the
songs, called "The Sea King's Burial," with respect to
which the injunction had been granted. This was a contra-
diction of the order of the court as regarded the form of the
action. It was manifestly not framed so as to try the only
point intended by the court. The action which had been
brought was to try the right of performing at any place of
dramatic entertainment, viz., Crosby-hall, the Horns at
Kennington, and other plates. It certainly was not the in-
tention of the court to have an inquiry whether the Horns
Tavern, and such places, were places of dramatic entertain-
ment, but to ascertain the plaintiff's right of publicly per-
forming the songs anywhere, and that question would not
be tried by the action as it at present stood. The injuction
must therefore be dissolved with costs.
PARIENTE V. LUREOCK.—COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS.
—BANKERS AND AOENTS.—This case related to certain
complicated transactions, which arose under these circum-
stances : Judah de Jacob Pariente, a merchant in London,
became indebted to the plaintiff, Jacob de Joseph Pariente,
a merchant of Gibraltar, and as security for this debt, as well
as to induce the plaintiff to incur further responsibilities,
Judah de Jacob Pariente assigned to the plaintiff, Jacob de
Joseph Pariente, a debt of 41,2041. owing to him from his
father, Jacob de Judah Pariente, a merchant at Tangiers,
and in pursuance of the agreement between the parties,
Judah de Jacob wrote a letter in August, ISt I, to the defen-
dant, Sir John Lubbock, whe acted as his agent as
certain well as
agent for the plaintiff, directing him to receive
expected cargoes of bark and wax, and hold the proceeds of
such cargoes when sold for the plaintiff, subject to any claim
on him which the defendant might have thereon in respect
of any balance due to him from the said Jacob de
Judah Pariente, of Tangiers. The question in dispute was
whether the defendant was justified in retaining any monies
which came into his bands for the sale of consignments of '
cargoes, in liquidation of advances made to Judah de Jacob
subsequently to the before mentioned agreement with the
plaintiff. The defendant commenced an action at law against
the plaintiff; and cause was now shown against dissolving
an injunction obtained to restrain that action.—Mr. Bethel)
and Mr. Buller appeared in support of the injunction, and
Mr. Stuart and Mr.Rargreave contra.—The Vice-Chancellor
said it was clear from the dealings between the parties, that
the advances had been made by the defendant to Judah de
Jadob on the credit of the assignments from his father, Jacob
de Judah, and he considered there was no ground whatever
for sustaining the bill, and the injunction must be dissolved.

Before Vlee-Chanellor
HIJOHES V. Ltracousz.—VENDOß AND PtrltCßABllll..
By a decree in the cause a mortgaged estate was directed to
be sold to the highest bidder, the sale so be conducted by
the plaintiff. A bidding of 4001., which was made by the
mortgagor, had been rejected by the plaintiff's solicitor, on
the ground that the mortgagor had no right to bid at the
sale. After which the property had been knocked down at
3951.-Mr. Cole, on behalf of the party whose bidding had
been rejected, now moved in the alternative, either that the
bidding! might be opened, or that the sale which had taken
place might be set aside for irregularity, and that the costs
might be paid by the plaintiff and his solicitor.
The learned counsel stated that the bidding had
been made by the mortgagor, not on his own behalf,
but as agent for another party and he insisted that the
sale, as it had not been made in conformity with the terms
of the decree, wee.void ab smile. If the court should hold
the sale to be valid, still the bidding, should be opened, as
the party on whose behalf the motion was made was willing
to advance 501. upon the price. Mr. Hominy for the plain-
tiff.did not object to the biddinge being opened at the ad-
vanced price, but insisted that the costa of the motion should
be paid b 7 the mover, who appwred to have no interest
whatever in the estate. Mr. 1:31, for the purchaser.
His Honour thought that the bidding( should be opened
at the advanced price offered by the mover, but reserved his
decision as to costa till he should have read the affidavits in
the owe.

QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in Banco.
FLANDER n. BC?OwIitY.—EXBMPTION FROM TITHES.-
In this ,case a reference had been made to Mr. Vaughan
"Waliamt, now a judge of the Court of Common Pleas, to
-take evidence and submit the results for the opinion of the
.court. The matter in dispute was the right of the dere,—,
-to tithes of a certain part of the parish of Mild,
-Suffolk, called the Burnt Fen. The evidence submitted by
-the referee raised several questions of law, of which the two
~chief were—lit. Whether the particular lands were not free
cfrom tithe as having been formerly part of the property of
the Abbot of St. Edmund's Ia ; and, 2nd, whether they
we not, at ell events, dim& by the fact that no claim
tithe was made in respect o them in the year 1807, when
a u allotment of lands in lien of tithes took place in the
p, Neat appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Ai whew', Q.C., and Mr. Woelledge for the defendant. The
sit, lament lasted the whole day, and had not been concluded
at Ow ening of the court.
!linings at Yid Prim. Before Mr. Justice Eric.
JE MUMS O. MAY.—MAINTIINANCE OP A WIPE.—In
this c me the plaintiff was a bookseller at Bristol, and the
defeat but was a retired tradesman at Sheffield. The action
was bn men to recover 781. Ms. for board, lodging, clothing,
and oth sr necemaries supplied to the wife of the defendant
for a ppee -led of sixty-three weeks. It appeared that the
1.; and his wife did not agree very cordially together,
and the wile left him and took up her abode with the
plaintiff, who had married her sister. It was alleged on
the pert of the plaintiff that the wife was compelled to
leave her husband, owing to his violence and cruelty—she
having been beaten and turned out of doors by him, and
that he bad refuted to supply her with any means of sub-
sistence. Three actions hadbeen previously brought by the
present plaintiff; for similar necemaries supplied to the wife,
which had been either settled, or verdicts recovered against
the husband. It was admitted that the amount claimed
wee reasonable sad proper, it being at the rate of 255. •
week. That the questions were, whether such violence and
cruelty bad Wen used as to justify a wife in leaving her
husband, in which case she would be entitled to charge
_him
with her maintenanwe ; and whether, if that were established,
there was 'Rich • reasonable hope held out to the wife, that
nth conduct would not be repeated, as ought to have

induced her to return to him. There wu a con-
siderable conflict of evidence the witnesses for the
laintiff distinctly proving several acts of ill-usag
e eand
ance : and those for the defence (principally the sons and
daughters of the defendant), denying such facts. The jury,
however, found both questions us favour of the wife, and
returned' a verdict for the plaintiff for the full sum claimed
Owing to the number of witnesses called, the ease well.
pied the whole day, and the court did not rise till near %even

COIJRT OF COMMON PLEAS, Weltrwserma.
sittings at NW Prius. Before the
he Jury. Lord Chief Justt,A wilds, and a
spec
WAREHAM O. PRANCE, COLLARD AN.D NASIL—Taz
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY ROBBERIEP,.—i LLEOED FALSE
IcraisoNgrarr —Mr. Serjeant Mr. James, and Mr.
Hawkins, for the plaintiff; Mr S. cant Talfourd, Mr. Sex-
joint Chaeeell. and • 'le tb„ defendaliv,
n ace
tiosiae, nor •
Serjeant Murphy and Mr. T. d. Fader
pueseativsoftothdit.aindeqiutiry_a
ronradestithee:nollearose;::leurentodatnhti, -4;14
thofethwe
mittea that, insomuch ",91e defendant ash appeared by
the same attorney as the defendants, and as each had
fence into arate cases.—dr.
erja awns
sub.
pleaded the same peas, only one counsel ought to be allowed
to address the jury in answer to the plain e
ti 's ase.
The learned juage held that as this was a cam in which
a verdict might be entered for one defendant and not for the
others, each party having a totally different interest in the
matter, both of the learned serjeants who appeared for the
defence were entitled to be heard.—Tbe facts of the case, as
proved by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, were as fol-
low : The plaintiff was a plumber and glazier in humble
circumstances, and the action was brought against the defen-
dants, Mr. Vaughan France, a solicitor at Nether Stowey,
in Somersetahire, Joseph Collard, an inspector of police, and
Charles Nash, formerly a clerk in the office of Messrs.
Maples and Stevens, solicitors to the Great Western Rail-
way Company, to recover compensation in damage for false
imprisonment. The defendant pleaded several pleas, which,
in substance, went to justify the act complained of, on the
around that there was good reason to suspect the plaintiff of
having been concerned in the depredations committed
on the Great Western Railway in the year 1845.
On Wednesday, the 20th Aug., 1845, the plaintiff and his
wife resided at the King and Queen publie•house, Foley-at.,
Fitzroy-sq., where they fiad been living for some months pre-
viously. Between seven and eight o'clock in the evening of
the day mentioned, four persons, consistingent to of the
the three
ouse
de-
fendants, and a policeman named Buford, w h
in a cab. They entered the bar, and the defendants went
up stair!, leaving the policeman below ; they were followed
by a waiter, named George Gardener, who stated in evidence
that the defendants went into the plaintiff's bed-room, which
was then occupied by Mrs. Wareham, and the door being
partly open, he observed what took place within. The de-
fendants searched the room, and were about to examine the
contents of a bundle which they found there, when Mrs.
Wareham said, " Do not open that, it is nothing but dirty
linen," but nevertheless, the defendants insisted on opening
it, as they wished to make a thorough search of the premises.
They afterwards took Mrs. Wareham down stairs, where they
had some refreshment. In the meantime the plaintiff came
in, and he as well as his wife was taken into custody. The
parties then went away together in the cab, the plaintiff and
his wife under the surveillance of the three defendants.
[The learned counsel who opened the case stated that, after
leaving the public-house, Wareham and his wife were taken
to the Great Western Railway station at Paddington, where
they were confined all night, and that on the following
morning they were conveyed to the office of Messrs. Maples
and Co., who discharged them on the ground that there was
no evidence against them. The witness subpoenaed to prove
this part of the case was a man named Joseph Davy, an
inspector of police attached to the Great Western Railway,
and this person, being unwell, did not make his appearance
when called upon to give evidence.) These fact- went to
establish the fact that the plaintiff had been apprehended
by the defendants, and the evidence which followed
was adduced to prove that the plaintiff was in-
nocent of the charge made against him. Two per-
sons, named Maynard and Garrett, were in custody on
a charge of being concerned in certain of the robberies
committed on the railway, and whilst they were confined in
the Giltspur-street Compter, the plaintiff went to one of the
superintendents of the Great Western Railway, and stated
that he could give some valuable information respecting
Garrett. The superintendent referred him to Messrs Maples
and Co. Maynard and Garrett were both convicted at the
Central Criminal Court, and sentenced to fourteen years'
transportation. Amongst the persons who had appeared to
prosecute, was Mr. Vaughan Prance, who had lost, whilst a
passenger on the railway, a writing case, containing about
2,0001. in money and negotiable securities. The expenses
of the prosecution were borne by the Great Western
Railway Company, who agreed, through the medium
of their solicitors, to indemnify Mr. Prance. On the
part of the defendants witnesses were called to prove
that Mr. Prance was not one of the party, alleged to have
twisted in the apprehension of the plaintiff. Colonel Lut-
trell, a magistrate of the county of Somerset, stated
that on the 20th of August, 1845, Mr. Prance attended as
clerk to the magistrates at a meeting which took place at
Nether Stowey, and that he was sure he could not have left
home in time to be in London at the hour when the plaintiff
was taken into custody. In corroboration of this statement,
a person named Oliver Vaughan Pugh (who was said to bear
a strong resemblance to Mr. Prance), gave evidence to the
effect that he was a lawyer's clerk, and that he, and not
Mr. Prance, was the party who accompanied the men
employed to apprehend the plaintiff. Several wit-
nesses were then called to prove that Mr. Nash, who
acted as the agent of the solicitors to the Great
Western Railway Company was justified in the course he
had pursued, inasmuch as many circumstances of strong
suspicion had come to his knowledge in reference to Ware-
ham. He had learnt, in fact, that the plaintiff was an intimate
acquaintance of Maynard and Garrett, and that he had
visited the former during his incarceration in the Oiltspur-
street Compter previous to the trial. Garrett, who had not
then been apprehended, accompanied Wareham on one of
the occasions of his visiting Maynard. One of the turnkeys
of the prison then asked Garrett his name, and thereupon
be exchanged a significant look with Wareham, who
"nudged " him, and thereupon he described himself
as " John Smith, 75, Edgware-Yowl." In addition
to this evidence, • witnesses were called to prove
that Maynard and Wareham had lived together in
Rowland-street, where the former carried on business as a
" house-agent;' and one person, who was a lodginghouse-
keeper in the same street, stated that, on the day after Ware-
ham was taken into custody, he said " He didn't care a
d—n about it, for they treated him well, and gave him half-
a-crovrn to pay for his cab." In fact, be had made more, he
said, than if he had remained at home all night. Mr. Joseph
Halfpenny, the landlord of a public-house in Titchfield-
street, proved that, shortly before the apprehension of Gar-
rett, he (Garrett) placed in his hands a small leather case,
which he begged him to take care of until he or Wareham
should call for it. Subsequently it was taken away by I
Wareham; and, upon its being opened, it proved
to contain a considerable number of pawnbrokers'
duplicates. Certain statements made by the convicts
Maynard and Garrett, were then put in for the pur-
-1 Pose of strengthening the belief that the plaintiff had
a guilty knowledge of some of the transactions in which they
had been concerned. These statements were made upon an
examination before several gentlemen of the bar employ
far the purpose. The other witnesses willed in supports
the case for the defendants, were—Mrs. Maynard, (the wife
of the convict), who proved that Wareham and his wife
lived with them in Howland-street ; the landlord of the
house where Garrett had lived, who atated that Garrett
left his lodgings on thel2th Aug., 1845, after giving &week's
nodes; and an officer connected with the Great Western
Railway, whose testimony was to the effect, that the day
on which Wareham applied to give information respecting
the robberies was the 14th August : lastly, Mr. Bush, of
the firm of Bush and Mullens, solicitors to the Banking
Association, was called, and he stated, that being concerned
kr Hartley, a gentleman who had lost a case containing
a eadidderable amount of property, in railway scrip and
ether securities, be put an advertisement in the papers,
offering a reward of 1001. for the recovery of the same, and
that he afterwards received several anonymous letters signed
" Homo mundi " and " Parcheoli." In answer to these
I letters he caused another advertisement to be published,
and on Tuesday evening, the 27th May, about 8 o'clock,
Maynard called upon him, and said it was in his
power to restore the property lost, but that he should
expect more than 100/. Mr. Bush agreed to give
him 1501., which sum he handed to him, and Maynard gave
him in return a promissory note payable on demand. The
case containing the lost property was returned to him be-
tween 11 and 12 o'clock the same evening by Maynard.
The convict Maynard (who, being an old man, was not sent
abroad, but is a prisoner in the Millbank Penitentiary) was
in court under the charge of an officer throughout the day
and conversing with his wife. Garrett, it appeared, was
transported to the island of Bermuda, for which place he was
shipped on board the " Dromedary" in the month of Novem-
ber, 1845, with 199 other criminals.—The case for the de-
fendants having closed, the trial was adjourned at half-p"
..ant 15 o'clock until to morrow (this day).
Mildenhal, in

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Nisi Prim Before Sir F. Pollock, C. 8., and a Special Jury.
THE ATTORNET-GENEILAL O. ALLEN.—U NSCSTAINED
C HAROE OF A BRY.A CH OF THE REVENUE LAWS ET A
Pawx•ftogiss.—This was an informat;on filed by the late
Attorney-General (Sir Frederick Thesiger) against the
defendant, a pawnbroker, described as carrying on a !wry
extensive business in Clare otreet, Clare-market, for a violn-
, Son of the provisions of the Bth and 9th Vict., chap. a. It
appeared that on the 24th of October, 1845, so many its
1 thirty-eight diamond pins, and nearly a similar number of
diamond nags, had been seized by a custom-house officer,
named Davis, as forfeited to the crown, on the ground that
they, being of foreign manufacture, were ill -ally unshipped,
as the duty to which they were liable bad not been paid.
The defendant, who claimed the goody, pleaded that they
were not liable to forfeiture, as they were of British menu-
' facture ; however, he did not appear, at the time of the
seizure (which was made upon the information of
a female servant in his employment), to be aware of the
history of the articles, except that a person, namedAbrahams,
had pawned them with him on the 25th of April, pre-
vious to their seizure. On the removal of the articles from
the defendant's premises in October, he consulted with
several members of his trade, and ultimately ascertained that
all the jewellery so seised had been manufactured at Clerk-
enwell, and that the man who had pawned it with him (very
nearly for the full value) had purchased it from one Keyser,
for whom it was manufactured. Under these circumstances,
the defendant represented to the commiedoners of customs
the great hardship to which he had been subjected, and
claimed the restitution of his property. However, the expla.
nations given did not produce the desired effect, and the
present prosecution was soon afterwards conmenced.
Amongst the articles seized there were a few watches, which
were returned to the defendant ; but all the others were
returned into this court for condemnation.

The Attorne-General (with whom were Kr. Watson,
0.C., and Mr. James Weide), in support of the infortnation,
called a witness tamest Benjamin ?Jamey, who had carried
on the trade of a goldsmith for upwards of forty years. He
deposed that all the articles seised were of foreign manufac-
ture. Some other witnesses, who are likewise, or had been,
jewellers for many years, stated that the articles were of
foretop manufacture. The principal mason assigned for ea-
' tastaming that opinion was, that " English work would not
be so very bad."
Xr. X. Chambers, Q.C. (with him Mr. Wordsworth),
Saiineasd the jury for the defendant, and examined a work-
fag jeweller, named Hickman, who deposed that he mans-
listured the articles (with one or two exceptions) at Clerken-
' well. This witness produced the "die, • and top of the
" female screw," which he had used in making it, and which
he had been using since in making other articles of a similar
desetttl„,n ; they were manufactured by order of s -----
named Keyser, who. dealt • •
Other witnesses e moos sort of matters.
- .:"Witn'e3 It Setting the diamonds, and ell-
' nThen7, l:nd positivelyim dgeptohs:d, from
mes
certain
qunestioliisdetritot-1
bore, that they had been manufactured by them under the
superintendence ofKeyser. After this evidence bad been given,
the Attorney-General stated, that, in the exercise of the
discretion with which he as an officer of the Crown was in-
vested, he could not, after hearing Mr. Chambers' state-
ment on behalf of the defendant, and the positive evidence
of the witnesses last examined, tidied the jury to find a ver-
dict for the Crown. At the very utmost, the charge was a
matter of doubt ; but there having been some rearm for in-
stituting it, all he sought wet that the learned judge would
now certify that there were just grounds for making the
seisure.—Mr. Chambers at once acquiesced and expressed
hsense of the manly, straightforward manner with which
learned Attornev-General abandoned the prosecution.
The Lord Chief Hiroo thought the Attorney-General had
done himself and the profession credit by his conduct in that
prosecution. There was no reason why the desired certifi-
cate should not be given, for although the defendant was no
party to any fraud upon the revenue, he dealt with the arti-
cles in question as if they had been of foreign manufacture.
—A verdict was accordingly entered for the defendant.—The
court was densely crowded with persons who seemed to take
a deep interest in this ease.

TOWER HAMLETS COURT OF REQUESTS.
RATCLIFFE v. THOHNE.—GEEEN-Room LITIGATION.
—This was a summons taken out against Mr. Richard
Thorne, the lessee and manager of the PaonTheatre, by
Mr. John Ratcliffe, to recover the sum of 6s. Bd. due by the
defendant to his wife, who is known as Miss Pettiffer, who
was engaged by the defendant to play the chambermaids
and other comic parts, at • salary of 21, a week. During
her engagement she had been east to play Ophelia in
" Hamlet," and had refused to do so on the ground that the
character did not belong to her line be
of business, and should
have been assigned to the principal singing lady ; such ing
the rule in other theatres. She was in consequence fined a
night's salary—the amount claimed.—The commissioners,
after a short consultation, came to the unanimous opinion
that a lady engaged to play chambermaids and sing her
music incidental to such parts, ought not to be cast such a
character as Ophelia, and could not legally be compelled to
undertake it ; therefore, they should orJer the amount
claimed to be paid, with costs.

POLICE.-YESTERDAY.
MARYLEBONE.—A GENTLEMAN IN THE KITCHEN.
—Yesterday, a gentlemanly-looking young man, named
James Oliver, whose address did not transpire, was charged
before Mr. RawEason, with having been found on the pre-
mises of Mr. Pritchard, of Canterbury Villas, Edgware-road.
The complainant, on getting into the witness box, stated that
be had no wish to give any evidence, as he and defendant
had arranged the matter between them.—Mr. Rawlinson
Very likely, sir; but I must insist upon knowing why you
have caused this person to be locked up.—The complainant
then said that on the previous night, as he was about to
retire to rest, he heard the voice of a man below stain, and
on going into the back kitchen, from whence the sound pro-
ceeded, found defendant with the maid servants. He seemed
excited, probably from having partaken too freely of wine,
and as he could not, or would not, explain the reason for
being where he was, he was desired to quit the place. Com-
plainant at length succeeded in getting him up stairs, and on
putting him out at the front door, he exclaimed " Now, come
on, old gentleman," at the same time striking him (com-
plainant) on the back. Re was then given into custody.—
Mr. Rawlinson : Now, tell me, if you please, the nature of
the arrangement to which you had come.!-Complainant:
The gentleman is willing to give 21. for the relief of the poor
Irish; and taking all the circumstances into consideration, I
will, upon his doing so, with your permission, withdraw the
charge.—The Magistrate consented to the adoption of this
course ; and the money was handed to complainant, to be
appropriated to the purpose named.
THE LAW or THE CAII-STAND.—Charks Gore, a cab-
man, was charged on a summons, obtained against bins by
a gentleman named Stewart, residing at No. 3, Gloucester-
crescent, Camden-town.—lt appeared complainant had been
in the habit of riding in chariots, in preference to cabs, when-
ever he could procure them, and that on the 20th instant he
sent his servant to engage one. It happened, however, that
there was no chariot upon the rank at the time, and, in con-
sequence, defendant was called; he, however, refused to
move from his place, although he admitted that he was not
hired, and told the servant to look out for a chariot ; another
cab in the rank was then hired.—Defendant, in reply to the
charge, said the servant never came near his cab at all.—
Defendant was fined 205., tother with cceta.—Complainant
applied for the penalty
.to be mitigated, but the magistrate
declined to alter his decision. It was requested by complain-
ant that his moiety of the fine might be put into the poor-box,
LAMBETH.—THE SUSPICIOUS DEATH AT DULWICH.—
Yesterday, Mr. Robinson, the superintendent of the P divi-
sion of the metropolitan police, attended at this court, and
placed before Mr. Elliott, the presiding magistrate, several
documents which had reached him relative to the death of a
youth named George James Benwell, whose body had been
found in April last in a pond near Dulwich, under exceed-
ingly suspicious circumatances.—A lengthened inquiry took
place before one of the coroners for the county of Surrey,
and from the facts elicited it appeared that the deceased
youth, whose friends were respectable, lived with a person
of eccentric habits, named Evans, who at that time wan a
manufacturer of pique, or herb tea, rosiding in the vicinity
of Dulwich. The lad was admitted to be of cheerful and
lively habit, and had been left at home in care of the house
one evening, while his master and his son proceeded in a
pony chaise to Sydenham, for some groceries, and on the re-
turn of the two latter the former could not be found. On'
the foot-board of his bed there was a chalk writing to the
effect that his body would be found in a pond close by. This
I caused Evans and his son to go to the pond, and on reaching
it they found a board floating on the water with the follow-
ing written in chalk, in a legible and bold hand : " The body
of George Benwell will be found near this." The pond, as,
it was called, but which was nothing more than a shallow
flant pool, was in consequence searched, and the lifeless
body of the unfortunate youth was found in the centre with
a 28th. weight made fast round the neck, and both the
hands made fast, but while one wrist was tied fast, the
other was secured by a running noose, so that it was not im-
sible for the deceased himself to have accomplished the
fastening, and the jury, after a lengthened investigation,
returned a verdict of suicide. Some weeks after, the cue
was brought under the notice of Mr. Elliott at this court, I
when circumstances of a suspicious tendency were disclosed,
but not sufficient directly to implicate any individual.—A
female named Theobald, who had been a witness in the for-
mer case, and who has taken much trouble in the matter,
has latterly forwarded to Mr. Robinson several written com-
munications,
and amongst them soma writing from a near 1
relative of the deceased, which bore a similarity to the chalk
writing spoken of at the inquest.—Mr. Elliott, after care-
fully reading over all the documents placed before him, and
comparing the writings, admitted that there was a simi-
larity, but still did not think that this would be sufficient at
I present to bring home the to the parties suspected, and
in conclusion desired the police would keep the cup in view.
TEAM ES.—ROIFIBILItT OP A LABOL'ItEII'S SAVINGS.—
George Heads, an agricultural labourer, lately in the employ
of a market-gardener, at Bromley, was charged on suspicion
of stealing 30 sovereigns, the property of a fellow-labourer,
named Daniel Fitzgerald.—The complainant stated that he
had been upwards of 19 years in Mr. Bedford's service, and
during that time he had contrived, though baring a family
to support, by temperance and diligence, to save 301. The
money was safe in his chest on Sunday, but on coming home
on the evening of Monday, he found three of his chests
broken open ;thirty pounds in gold were taken from one,
and is. in silver from another, but though there was a quan-
tity of valuable clothes none were removed. Suspicion at
tacked to the prisoner, the key of whose door fitted that of
the prosecutor, and who, though out of employment, had
been lately observed to be flush of money:—The prisoner ac-
counted for the possession of a sovereign he hail changed
shortly before he was apprehended, first by saving that ha
bad worked hard for it, and afterwards that he had picked it
up on the road about three weeks previously.—The prisoner,
who was defended by a solicitor, was remanded for a week.

MONEY MARKET.
TUESDAY EVENING.

-- -
As the day approaches when the transfer books will be
closed, in preparation for the dividends, parties having to
purchase either for delivery or for investment, will incline
rather to hasten their operations, and to this, among other
causes, is the improvement of the Consol market ascribed in
some quarters. It has maintained the same favourable ap-
pearance to-day, with no more fluctuations from the opening
to the close than the 1 difference at which Consols have been
alternately bought and sold, although the transactions have
been marked by considerable activity and some importance.
They left off at 951 to 1 for money, and 954 to 1 for account,
which were the closing quotations of yesterday, as well as of
the opening this morning. Reduced Threw, 931 to 1;
Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents., 951 to 1. The govern-
ment broker took 15,N01. Three-and-a-Quarter per Cents
for the savings banks, and 1,2001. New South Sea An-
nuities for amount of the reduction of the National Debt.
Bank Stock, 206 to 7. India Stock, 258 to 60. Long
Annuities 91 to 15-16. India Bonds, 17s. to 225. pm.
Exchequer bills 6s. to 10s. premium.
In foreign stocks the variations have been unimportant,
and the dealers more occupied with the winding up con-
cerns of pay-day than with active dealings in bonds. Spanish
bonds maintained the improvement gained yesterday; the
Fives, 261 to 1 ; the Threes, 371 to 1. Portuguese have
nominally advanced, and are now quoted 37 to 9. Mexican,
211 to 2. New Granada, 181 to 191 ex. div. Ecuador, 34
I. Venezuela, 39 to 41. Dutch Two-and-a-Half per Cents.,
591 tot; the Fours, 911 to 2/.
Foreign exchange was in decline to-day on several of the
chief continental cities. The rates were lower on Amster-
dam at 12.31 to ;on Rotterdam, at 1211 to on Ham-
burg, at 1311 to 1; on Viea:na, at 10.3 to 1. They remain
the same on Antwerp, at 2513;1 to 90; on F-ankfort. at 1201
to 1 ; on Paris, at 2510 to 821; on Madrid, at 86 to 1. They