The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-07 00:00:00

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSES.

(Before the Chief Justice, the Baron, and the Judge

ordinary.)
lavas V. THE ATTORNZY-GISZRAL. - TEX " PROMS

ouvm"
Kr. Nethendift, the expert, was once more recalled, and
be masted his opinion that the signature of " J. Dun-
ning," asatteeting witness to the alleged will of George 111.,
wherein he bequeathed " to Olive, our brother of Cumber-
land's daughter, the sum of fifteen thousand pounds, com-
manding our heirs and successors to pay the same privately
to on: said niece, for her use, as a recompense for the
misfortunes she may have known through her father,"
was not written by the same hand that had signed Lord
Ashburton's own will.
Mr. Netherelift was next examined an to the following

Witness replied in the negaliew. Be left the berra:ks
clandestinely four days we.
Mr. Partridge asked if he had been putted as a
deserter. _ _

Witness replied that he had.
The prisoner denied being a deserter. He was only
absent without kayo. He had not done away with his

17.—Par7rIdge told bins that be adjudged him a deserter,
and a certificate would be forwarded to the War-office to
that effect.
Mr. Partridge asked if the sergeant would take charge
of him, and convey him to the barracks.
Sergeant Hardy replied that he would, and the prisoner
was given up to him.

miner :
"We hereby acknowledge having received to our joint 1
natation Olive, the infant child of the Duke of Cumber-
land, April 4, 1774.
(Witness) "J. WILMOT. " ROBERT Wismar.
" WARWICK. " ANNZ MARIA WILMOT."
comaring these signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Wilmot with
thole-to the register of their marriage, dated ten years
previously, he considered that they were genuine.
Cross-examined—There are differences between the two
signatures of Mr. Wilmot, but I might find other signa-
tures without those differences. I look at the general
character. There is • difference in the t and there is a
dot after it in the marriage register, which is not the case
in the paper.
The Chief Justice—That, we know, shows that it was
not an official document. (A laugh.) His lordship pointed
out that the name of Mrs. Wilmot in the register was
Anna.
Mr. Netherelift admitted that the A and X were quite
different in the two signature, but that did not affect his
opinion, because he saw little marks of agreements.
The Solicitor-General—And great marks of difference?
Witness—Yes.
The Chief Justice—You consider shat the signature to
the certificate is Utter than that to the register, notwith-
standing that Mr. Wilmot was older ?
Witness—l do.
The Chief Justice—lt is, however, very fair to remark
the register is written on paper, and that it was at •
wedding. (A laugh.)
Witness having compared the signature of the Duke of
Cumberland to his will with his alleged signature to his
marrlage-certificate, he said he thought the latter genuine.
He admitted, however, that in the word " Henry"all the
letters were different except the "r."
The Chief Justice observed that the will was only signed
" Henry." Ought not some evidence to be given to show
that his royal highness signed sometimes Henry," and
sometimes " Henry F'rederick."
The Attorney-General—lt is the habit of princes to sign
only by one name ; and I have here some proceedings
before the Privy Council in which his royal highness signs
himself " Henry " only.
The witness explained an answer which he bad given
some time ago. A forger would have taken one signature
and made it his model for all the series. But in this case
the signatures were all different, and yet he traced a com-
mon character in them all.
[The case was proceeding when our report left.)

THE POLICE COURTS.

(THIS DAY.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
HOW STREET ACCIDENTS ABE OCCASIONED.
William Marking, a coachman in the employ of Mr. R.
Mullinger, job master, of Chester-street, Grosvenor-place,
was charged before Mr. Knox with being drunk, and
incapable of driving a pair of horses attached to a carriage.
Sergeant Edwards, 2 C, said that while in Bruton-street,
Bond-street, the previous afternoon, his attention was
called to the defendant by a gentleman, who said he was
driving in a reckless manner. He went after the defen-
dant who warn in charge of a pair of high-spirited horses,
and found him sitting on the box, the horses going at a
trot, and the reins hanging down quite slack, the defendant
being helplessly drunk. He then took the defendant into
custody, and sent the horses and carriage home.
The defendant said he was sorry for what had occurred.
In answer to Mr. Knox, the sergeant said the streets
were very crowded at the time, and the defendant was
driving to the common danger of passengers.
Inspector Bowles said the defendant was very drank.
Mr. Knox said it was shown that the streets were
aowded and that the defendant was drunk and driving a
pair of high spirited horses, and the defendant might be
thankful that no accident occurred. The public must be
protected, and the defendant would have to pay a fine of
405., or a month.

WORSHIP-STREET.
THE STOLEN KEY.
Elizabeth Hayward, a young and pretty woman, was
charged on remand with stealing a key, value ono shilling I
the property of her muter, Mr. William Lovelock, I
resident at 17, Albion-road, Daiston, a clerk in the Bank
of England.
The prosecutor said—About three years since the pri-
soner was in my service, but her aunt, who is in a good
position of life, requiring her as a companion, she
left. Six months since she returned, and on the ,
29th ultimo, I unintentionally left • bunch of keys at
home. In the evening I perceived that one of them, be-
longing to a private drawer, was missing from the bunch,
and that another had been substituted. Prisoner denied
all knowledge of the circumstance and subsequently, on
endeavouring to open the door of the wine-closet, I found
that the lock had been tampered with, for I could not
open it. Clue to my foot at the doorway laid this pick-
lock, which I had never before seen, and these combined
facts induced me to give the prisoner into custody.
Taylor 454 N—l saw the prosecutor attempt to open
the door, the key would not turn in the lock. He said it
was the substituted key. We broke the door open and
took off the lock, here it is. Prisoner said nothing then,
but on the following morning told me she bad tried to open
the lock with the wrong key, which, breaking in the lock,
she sent for a smith, who after taking the lock off and the
piece of key from it had replaced and fastened it with the
picklock found by her muter.
Mr. Cooke—ls that man here!
Constable—No, sir, I can't find him.
Prosecutor—lf the prisoner's statement is true I think
that he ought to be found and prosecuted.
Mr. Cooke—l shall remand the girl for that purpose.
Prisoner was removed without uttering a word,
• and now the constable produced a young man
who said—My name is Thomas Howes, I live in Fox-lane,
Kingsland, and am a locksmith and bell-hanger. On the
29th of last month, prisoner came to me and said, " We
have got a key in a lock and can't take it out." I went to
the house and found that the bow of a key in a lock was
broken off. I took the lock off, and the key out of it;
it was not the right key. I afterwards re-adjusted the lock
and closed it. I don't know bow I came to leave the pick-
lock behind me. I thought that the family had sent for
me.

Prosecutor—The substituted key was furnished by this
person and likewise the ring—the key I miss did not open
.he lock of the wine closet. Pri,oner has robbed me I
before, but I wished to save her, and forgave the act—this
is my reward. I now miss at least a dozen bottles of wine
from a stock laid in last October.
Mr. Cooke (to prisoner)—This charge, although a v
very
proper one, does not in my opinion amount to felony—it is
for stealing a key. Clearly the intent was to steal the
wine. If you had been charged with that, and it had been
proved, I would have dealt with it very severely. It is
for the prosecutor to reflect whether he will do so or
not. You have been under remand a week. I now
discharge you, and you leave this court and your
situation, I presume, with a base and degraded character.
With respect to you (the locksmith), it clear to me that
you endeavoured to screen this girl from discovery and
blame consequent on it. Such conduct is most repre-
hensible. Be careful for the future.
The locksmith left the court declaring that his inten-
tions and acts were equally blameless.
SOUTHWARK.
A DESERTER FROM THIS GRENADIER GUARDS.
John Ban, a private of the 2nd battalion of her Ma.
Piety's Grenadier Guards, was brought before Mr. Par-
tndge, charged with being a deserter from the regiment.
Sergeant 'lardy, of the same battalion, said that on the
previous evening he was at the London-bridge station,
when he saw the prisoner loitering about. Knowing him
to be absent without leave he went up to him and asked
him why he had not returned to the barracks and re-
ported himself. He turned round to witness and abused
Witness then asked him to remain quiet and go
with him peaceably to the barracks, or he should be com-
pelled to cell a constable, and give him into custody. He
refused to comply with his request, and attempted to run
!way, hut witness called a police constable and gave him
into Custody.
Mr. Partridge asked if he had a furlough.

THE- EXPRESS, TIIIIRSDAt ' EVENING, JIVE 7,

WARE Lisra—(THlS DAY.)

CLorkpea.

~~