The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-09 00:00:00

rHE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY &ENING, MAT; 9, 1860.

NAVAL AND MILITARY.

ADIMIALTT, MAT a —APPOUITICUTI. Lieu-
tenant H. A. Trollops to be fias•lfsatenent to Heu•Adminl
Mr T. Maitland, al Cammaader-ioChisf in the Pacific.
Muter J. W. Read, to be additional to the Amu&
Aubilant-Paymaster T. J. Chanter, to the itepettpuble,
unperannonary.

WOOLWICH, MAT 8.
The Pluto, paddle steam vessel, Lieutenant
Commander C. H. Simpson, is ordered to be paid off at this
yard on Saturday next.

CHATHAM, MAY 8.
INST2CTION Of TER CORPS OF ROYAL KNot-
mae balf•yearty inspection of the corps of Royal
and Indian Engineers took place this morning at Brampton
Barracks by Major.Gemnl Eyre, commanding the district.
SUICTDII BY A SOLDER—A determined act of suicide
was committed retort's,' afternoon by a private of the
36th Regiment, named John Ilefferan, 12th company,
stationed at Chatham Barracks, who during the absence of
his comrades blew out his brains in the barrack-roam with
his Enfield rifle which Its fired with his foot by means of •
piece of stung teetered to the trim: An inquest was
held on the body this shampoos by Mr. Thomas Bills, the
coroner, when the jury returned • verdict that the deceased
destroyed himself in • fit of temporary ingenuity.
•

PORTSMOUTH, MAT 8.
The SwetliAh corvette Najaden, Captain Ekman,
eaSsel from Spithead this excrete for the North Sea.
The Queen, MOS, screw, Oaptein C. F. Hillyer, got under
weigh at daylight thia but touched on the edge of
the alet shoal, which her until seven o'clook,when
she sailed for the Mediterranean.

A court-martial &rambled on board the this
morning, to try Lieutenant Patrickson, of her Na}or s ship
Asia, on the theme of drunker:~ After the forma-
lities had been gone through the court proceded to take
evidence, and was examining Commander Gardner, the first
wirer, when the prisoner wenaeized with a fit. He was
removed from the court, and the surgeon afterwards re-
potted his unfitness for farther examination to-day. The
mart was consequently adjourned until to-morrow.

lath inttlliVnt6

lIIIIXII 11X2TCH.
Bit at Mei Prie ln Vilditeim and London, before the
Hilt Won. Air Alexander llnnimi Cockburn, Dart., Lord Chief
Jtudice of her Liners ClueS d Qom% leash. to and after
Tiszr.,. ,Na la Tana—la Middlessa a—lat fitting,
Til . Mar IC fed "Mar. Wahredayair: ard sitting,
w seas • the >•tleire/ aver . In London .-
Ist sitait klmintillfre is; sag , June 4. After
Tenn— 161121esen t—Withetadeviliftune la. In London :
Ilooday. Toe IL Ile oat srm above 10 o'clock every day.
The after la the Vet Mr sash of the sitting days in term,
V at used et is them days, will be tried by adjournment on
Oa days Mowing each of each sitting days.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-MAy 8.

Sittinp in Beam.—Wore Lord Chief Justice Erie and
Jo/tiara WWiams, Wilke, and Keating.)
ax PARTS SWAN AND THN NORTH 81L1778H AONTIALLS

001IPLICT.—nffOSTONT QOZSTION AS TO SLIM
The facto of the case were shortly these. Mr. Swan bad
purchased 1,000 shares in the North British Australian
Company, for which he became duly registered, and deposited
the certificatesx, in • box, which was kept at his tankers.
Subsequently he discovered that then shone had been
taken from the box, and had been trandenved by his broker,
Oliver. who was subsequently convicted at the OM Bailey.
The deeds used for this purpose had hem sigma he Monk by
Mr. Swan, with the view of Inneferring soot other shares.
Since this time the shares had bees lota trans-
ferred in a bone Me maw to other pantheesse for
valuable consideration. A rule was however moved for,
calling upon the company to show as.. wip they ahead not
rectify their register by reeinenting the ems of lir. Swan
as owner of those shares. The make was signed, and
subsequently, at the moose et the cow* there we • epo-
de' argument upon the quietism whether the mike weld
have their rights decided by. say prossednge et law Of in
equity other than by Janice in this eon* sad without ap-
peal. Today the judge. pee their Malin&
The Lord Chief Jostles mid, that sithonik the deeds of
transfer as between Swale and Oliver were null sod void,
yet as between Swan and • par:chant for nine an the faith
that they were valid, they might be valid to pen the pro-
pert if not directly yet indirectly, by enoppig liven from
setting up his right against sore perchani.- Him lordship,
after referring to various authorities ss to ne-
gotiable instruments, said that, in his opinion,
the principle of the decisions applied equal
t& to instrumen which were not negotiable. The print
whose negligence had enabled his agent to cheat a t '
party acting with ordinary caution, was universally eetopped
from denying the authority of the agent. This doctrine of
to validate transfers seemed essential, for otherwise
rstererelof shares might possibly receive the purchase money,
and yet afterwards recover bath the .ehassec of their value
should rise or he should wish to rescind. The doctrine of
exonerating the party who has acted with due care, and of
throwing the loss on the party who has caused the loss by
wilful imprudence, must always operate to promote the sub-
stantial interests of commerce without introducing any per-
nicious uncertainty. Then came the question, did Mr. Swan
by his negligence enable Oliver to cheat the parties to
whom he sold the shares, by means of the transfers
in question? He thought the answer must be in
the afiirmative. According to the bth and 6th re-
gulations of the company, the holder of a share
might transfer it, and the transferee might accept it by •
deed of transfer, in the form approved of by the directors.
The transfers executed in blank by Swan, and entrusted by
him to Oliver to fill up, were in the form approved of by
the directors, and they alone would pan the property.
Mr. Swan gave to Oliver the number of transfer deeds list
he asked for, without inquiring whether they were more
than were requisite fur that particular purpose then in
hand. He took no are by inquiry, or by examination of
the register, or in any way, to see how they had been need
He put them into hie heed,, not only to be ailed up, bet
to be attested, although the filling up of •.deed by
not authorised by the deed would be void, and al h the
attestation would be signed by • witness that not
truly attest. Furthermore, although the certificates were
locked in a box at the hank, yet Swan trusted the key to
Oliver to get the shares that ewe to be tranderred,
and at the same time, or by the same key, he probably bad
an opportunity to take the certificates of the other shares
now in question. In this he thought Mr. Swan was guilty
not only of the negligence of extreme trawl in Oliver, but
also of misconduct in planning that Oliver should issue
teaaden ea valid which were neither properly executed nor
atteseed. This negligence and misconduct were as Jinni-
Testily neweeted with the cheat by Oliver as the wrongful
filling up of • blank acceptance was with the attempted
cheat of the holder. Then did the third party act with
ordinary care in paying on these transfers! They were re-
ceived by an established broker, fully accredited by Swan;
they were aped, sealed, and attested, exactly the mine as
those which lir. Swan intended to pass as valid, and in
respect of which he had received the purchase-money.
Mr. Swan intended that • purchaser might properly receive
and pay for them, and he could not afterwards say
that there was any apparent difference between them and
the transfers now in pute. As to one set of transfer.
Mr. Swan said he authorised them, and as to the other that
he did not ; but that was a matter which the purchaser
could by no examination of the documents discover. Neither
was it negligence in not going to the attesting witness to
inquire about the deeds, for there was no evidence of such
• course being usual. It was objected that the certificates
were stolen, and that no property in them could be acquired
from the thief ; but the answer was that the certificates were
neither the shares nor the title to the shares, they were only
as indication of title, which a purchaser with ordinary
care would inquire for. In this cue he did so, and it was
probable that Mr. Swan by incautious trust enabled Oliver
to produce them. For these reasons he had come to the
conclusion that Kr. Swan had not proved his title to the
shares in question, and that the rule should be discharged.
Mr. Justice Keating concurred in thinking that, under
the circumstances, M.r Swan had not entitled himself to
claim the assistance .of this court as against innocent
parties, in order to get rid of the consequences of his own
negligence and the effects of his misplaced confidence ; and
that therefore the rule should be discharged.
Mr. Justice Williams was of • contrary opinion. The
affidavits disclosed that Mr. Swan's name was formerly on
the register as owner of 1,000 shares, bat was removed
therefrom and other names substituted for his, by reason
of tnnsfers purporting to have been executed by him, but
which were forgeries of Oliver, who had on other oc-
casions acted as Mr. thean's broker. The application
to reinstate Mr. Swan's name was resisted, upon the
ground that the forged transfers paned the shires to bona
fide buyers of the shares, and that Oliver was enabled to
perpetrate the forgery by the carelessness of Mr. ftwan,who
had been induced by Oliver to one for another pupa's
transfers in blank, which he fraudulently filled up with the
transfer of the shares in question; and it was contended,
first, that under such circumstances the transfer was bind*
as against bone fide buyers, according to the principle In
Young v. Grote, and other cases. It wee farther said that
the court ought not to deal with such a serious qua-
Jinn as this on motion, eepeodally as there was no appeal
against their decision. The court must necessarily feel
nest reluctance to decide without appeal questions of this
kind, on which the right to property of an enormous amount
might depend, but the language of the legislature admitted
of no doubt that it was made their duty so to de-
cide. But the question remained whether Mr. Swan
bad lost his right to the shares. His lordship, after
referring to vinous cases as to bills, maid it seemed doubt-
ful whether the case as to the liability of • man who signed
a blank bill or note or cheque was founded on the doctrine
of estoppel or on the law merchant, but it was, however, plain
iVabie that none of tile decisions as to the effect of ' instru-
ments in blank extended beyond the case of in-
urement., and it seemed to him that it would isomer
nient and dangerous to apply the principle of them any
further. He thought that the conduct of Mr. Swan in
signing the blank transfer was not such that a man of ordi-
nary prudence and caution would have been taken advan-
tage of by filling up the blank with a transfer of the
shares in question. When that had been done two things
more must have happened before the transaction would
hare been ]perfected. Some pence must have been
found either an dishonest or so careless as to at-
test Mr. Swan'. execution without any letter or
voucher from him in any way authorising or recognising
the transaction ; and secondly, the bankers with whom the
certificates of the shares had been deposited must have
been guilty of negligence in allowing them to be abstracted.
It was one thing to say that a MD should be auswerable for
such immediate consequences of his seta as a reasonable
man aught well foresee and dread, and would therefore
shun ; bat it waa another and a very different pro=
to maintain that • man should forfeit his property
he had duce an act which would not In perilous unless
others were also guilty of misconduct which that act
did not cane. He was of opinion that the rule ought to
be made absolute, bantams he thought that the title of the
shares had all along remained a the applicant. Bat it was
said that inasmuch as by this statute a motion might be
mule either in a court of law or equity, the
legislature must have intended that the rights of
[ the penises should be regulated by the doctrines
1 of both courts, and cases were cited to show that in • court
of equity no relief would be afforded to the applicant I.
this case as spinet an innocent purchaser for vales. Bat
it was not proper, be thought, to inquire whether the Court
of Chancery would afford any relief in the exercise of it,
ordinary jurisdiction. If the statute meant that the courts
• might be required to rectify tie register by makiag an eider
i that the name of him who should Ise town' to have the right
to the shares should stand them, both court' must take the
• same COUP* of ascertaining who Ind the title, and making
I or refusing an order scierdingly; only with the obvious
• consequence that, if the applecetion be made in a court of
• law, regard mast be had tolled as well as equitable title.
i Mr. Justice Willem coat:owed in thinking that the rule
I should ha made absokte.
_ _ .. .. .. . .

71ea Judaea Were tharefore aoaa➢y divided in opinion, and
amesquantly no dead= was arrived at..

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—MAT 8.
(Mere Kr. Commissioner Murphy.)
RI JANOS KllVERlAo..—coerre rot • JUDICIAL

SITAILLTION.
This insolvent, who bad been • licensed victtaller at
Kingston, was opposed by Kr. Snood, as the part of his
wife, Emily ifitchelson, sad supported by Kr. Nichols.
The insolvent'e wife sued for • judicial separation at the
FOIALIki of cruelty and obtained the lame at en CIFOIIIIO of
The insolvent lu.l entered Mr. Young, attorney, of
Parliament street, as the creditor, but that gemtlemeam &-
dared that the wife was the actual creditor, and that ma
attachniont bed been used on her behalf.

Mr. Nichols submitted that the wife could not be a cre-
ditor, as she wee still the inaohent's wife.
A clienaisios followed, and it was contended that a man
who was indebted for coats in a proceeding in which cruelty
was the foundation ought not to petition under the Protec-
tion Act.

A somewhat similar (Mae before the Chief Commissioner
was cited, and for the mike of uniformity of practice, Mr.
Commissioner 'Murphy referred the point to him. In order
to pat the cap_ on all fours " with the one quoted, in
winch tlip pMete was dismissed, it was necessary to enter
the wifeen • aeilliiar. The general schedule was therefore
amended ankthe wife ineerted as &creditor. _ _

Mr. Olocamisioser Murphy said be woo bound to follow
the proudest and to dismiss the potition. The Protection
Act wee not intended for such cum _

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.—(YzerzaDAT.)
(Before the Recorder.)

The following additional evidence was brought forward
in support ti f the prosecution of the Weimensteina
Auguste Bodfeldt deposed that she lived in the same
house with Elise Weltzenstein, in Oherlotte-street, in the
year 1867. She had a child. Madame Jourdan used to
visit Madame Weltsenstein, and ads told her to tell the
" old gentleman," when he eanm that the child was not
hen but Madame Widtamstela'a Mamas Jourdan and
Mr. Stohwaaeer came to the hems me day, and witness
was told to go and say to him, formally, that the
child was not her child. Madams Jourdan, at the same
Mine, said to the child, "11; child, don't look at your
resisona, but look at your aun Madame Weltmnstein, and
sathat she is your mamma. The child was then taken
into the room where Mr. Stohmesser was, and Madame
Weltasnatein took her in her arms and kilned her.

Crossmaadmd—The Waltneadelm lib time pawed
openly as seen end wife, but soresagail MIMS ellgbeltr emee
M. Weltseagda. or as the witness salmi Mga.Y. Mee
feldt, went down into the kitchen. Whams MI auk mike
that she " lent" bar child ; the child mak mundi hem ear
room to another. Nair witness as be it had ever
received saq_memes ban Y. Stamemim er ray German
society, in the *Me elf Mid, rime this deism. Wit-
ness's child mud M eat ler mm► mat merely an en-
dearing expulsion. a Lip .
What*, went into the
room with the dal poisted to witness
and said, " Is sot MO year ailliPemi thei pointed to
MadameWeltsensteb bd said, "Is not that year mother r
and the latter thee took her in her arms and kissed her.
Witness was told that it was a joke, but she understood
that something was to be done, but she did not know what.
Reexamined—For some time the Weltsensteies posed
asst[. and Madame Sternfeldt, and afterwards they pissed
by the name of Weltgenstein. The defendant Frisk lived
with them all the time, and used to take his meals with
them, and he went with than to Eccleston-termee.
By the jury—Vitae= never heard that Frisk was re.
lated to the other dstendants.
Edward Bodfeldt, the husband al the LA
rwilamsar,A4
that in ammeter* of smoothing be head Ids
Mild, he spoke ImModame Weltmostein era
ead mid whoever had given him such informetiom
told Ike. Witness had told her that be had hosed that his
child had tem made use of to create pity or to deceive
some one, and she mid it was not true, it was all a &brier
thin and a Ile, and she had never done so. She at the same
time wished to have the child back, as a proof that witness
did not believe the tale that bad been told him, and witness
eamasted to let her have the child. Madame Wellnenetein
at the mme time told him that M. &ohmage . had been
very kind to her, and he would withdraw hie kindness if
any lies were told about her. When Y. Stobwasser came
to the hens. Y. Weltranatein was always called Sternfeldt.
Cross-examined—Witness bad beard that Weltaenstein
left Austria under some distressing circumstances, and this
was the reason he 'slimmed the name of Eltemfeldt, but be
and Madame Weltsensteln always passed openly as man
and wife, and she railed herself Stertifeldt. This wee at
Eccleston•terrace only. They were known by that DIMS
in the neighbourhood as well as anybody was known in a
neighbourhood in London. (A laugh.)
Re-examined—Weltsenstein never told him what the dis-
tressing circumstances were that had compelled him to
leave Austria.
Another *Ansel proved that the defendant, Elias Welt-
eandein told bee the* she had adopted the child in order to
excite Rift by sYYsg that her husband had gone to Ame-
rica sal swish be. It also Fared that she had told
the dal OM II she me said what she told
bet la 11. filsimmerr, she shout have some new frocks.
Mr. Eitiek • Mead of the prosecutor, deposed that in
Week U ,the diliMmt, Edward Weltseastein, called
mien bier, W eehei Ilia to interpose with M. Stoliwaseer
to Mit sem ramer term him to enable him to set up a
Opir ship Whom harmed what claim thehad upon
• iftelweeter, mil Whether they thought that he was in
whim to lend mameyto any me who asked him for it ;
NA
be sopped that he id not think WM, MI X. Btohwas-
ger was a rich man awl they were perm omit he had so iden-
tified himself with their stidertime that he was sure he
would not object to sire lime a little more mosey as a
final thing. &bre be treat away he mid that if Y. MM.
maser di net mist lit be would pity a aspirate game,
and he had Mime is bin poemerio• that would entirely
destroy IL Efitimaser's character if they were mede
The sum he mated was 50/. or 801. He was not particular
which. (A laugh.) Madame Weltrenstein had been to
him previously, and she wanted him to get M. tittohemaser
to let her have 301. or 401. to enable her to leave her
husband.

—.--- -Madame Weltzmutein told him that
she was very miserable, but be did not recollect that
she told him she should be much more miserable A her
husband knew all, and that there wu something she could
not tell her husband.

Evidence was then adduced to show that the letters pro-
duced by the defendants Jourdan and Elms Weltneostein
at the trial in the Court of Queen's Bench aa haying
been written by the prosecutor to the latter were not in
his handwriting.
Mr. Bennett and Mr. Hibbit, the shorthand writers who
took notes of the evidence given by the defendants in the
Court of Queen's Bench in the action spinet the prosecutor
M. Stohwasser, were then called as witnesses, and the
transcript, which extended to very great length, was read by
the ofßcer of the court. The material portrons have been
given in the courts of the trial.
An interpreter named Albert proved that upon the mei.
eke oohs trial in the Queen% Bench the defendant Edward
Welternitein spoke tokinisen the subject of theaction, and
said that M. Pkokwireser offered him 200/. to settle the
matter, and that weer 1 . might induce him to consent
todo so.
In answer to questions put on behalf of the defendants,
this witness said that he had previously acted as interpreter
fer Madame Jourdan, and as she could not give him money,
he accepted some embroidery from her, which he afterwards
sold for 21.
Bows other documentary evidence was then put in, and
this closed the case far the praxutron. The court then
adjourned until this (Wednesday) morning.

THE ROBILST AT THE UNION BANE.
In the course of the day the grand jury returned three
true bills against William George "%Winger, the late
cashier to the Union Bank, for felony.
Just before the court was adjourned, the prisoner Wei.
George Ps!linger was placed at the bar, and he pleaded
guilty to all the charges preferred against him.
•
Sentence deferred.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

(Before the Arislent4odge.)

FAIT CASZ..

.lompis Lucas, ;13, described as a clerk, but who was
stated to be • commissioned officer in the army, was in-
dicted for stealing a portmanteau and other articles, the
proltertfienry John Wilkinson.
Cooper, instructed by Mr. Wakeling, was for the
prosecution. The prisoner was not defended. The prose.
cution really was by the Great Northern Railway Company..
The prosecutor was Captain Wilkinson, of the 9thßegi-
ment of Foot, and it appeared that he aims to London
from the north on the 31st of Jenuary by the Great
Northern Railway. Os arriving at Hieg's-eroes he missed
• portmanteau, which he had seen ode on the rail at Dar-
lington, with other portions of his logpge, the value of
which, with what it contained, wee over 60/. The port-
manteau (produced) was the one be lost. It was re-
turned to him about • month after the theft, mid several
articles (produced) formed part of the contents. The prisoner
on the night of the robbery took up his abode at the Timis-
tack Hotel, Covent-garden, and had with him the portmanteau
I in question. After staying there some days be wee missed,
and the portmanteau, which he left behind, was ultimately
given up to Mr. Williams, police superintendent of the
fOireat Northern Railway. The prisoner pawned many of
the articles taken out of the portmanteau, and he was taken
into custody on the 26th of April. through the instru-
mentality of an assistant of Mr. Attenberough's, 19, Picca-
dilly, with whom he had pledged some of the things, on
his offering another pledge. A cal driver, named Peter
Hughes, proved that on the night of the 31st January, on
the arrival of the train (nen the north at King's-cross, he
took the prisoner, who had with him the portmanteau pro-
duced, which was placed en the cab by one of the porters,
to the Tareitook Hotel, and a young woman, between whom
and the prisoner there had been an intimate connexion,
proved that he had given her furs which were part of the
contents of the portmanteau. The prisoner, when before the
magistrate, said, " I received the portmanteau the night
it was stolen without knowing it had been so taken, for the
purpose of disposing of its mutants. My cormexion with
the person from whom I resolved that portananteeu has
since become of such a nature that I must allow the law to
take its course without giving any. information as to the
person from whom I did receive it."
The prisoner, in his defence, mid— My lord, the unusual
coarse adopted by me in declining all legal assistance moat,
I have no doubt, appear strangely inconsistent with the
statement I made at the police court, and to which I now
solemnly adhere—namely, that in sue unfortunate transac-
tion for which I am here to-day I was but an agent, with-
out guilty knowledge or intent. I am, therefore. constritined
to trespass for • few moments upon the time of
the court with • view partly el engdithaing to
tome extent this strange courlact, ma for
the purpose of making a few oboes-
venom upon the port I have orsasd in this
painful bunnies. Against the evidence that has been

brought forward I have no objection to urge, It proves
beyond all doubt or question the possession and disposal by
me of the lost property—points, my .load, whisk I have
never disputed. I acknowledge having received the port-
manteau upon the platform of the great Northern Rail-
way, disposing of a portion of it. contenta, and receiving for
my own use a few trilling articles that have been accounted
for 112 the evidence ; and for the purpose of furtheringa
private object I agreed to remain some days at the Ta•
restock Hotel, provided my expenses were paid by thorns
for whom I acted—my own means not enabling me to bear
any unusual expellees. In pursuance of that agreement,
upon my leaving the hotel I wrote to its proprietors to date
that my bill would be settled b a friend. Such, my lord,
being the case, it will natoxallj be sighed why I, the in-
nocent agent, would not coossat to prove myself so by at
once denounsig the grionipals, and permitting the law
to deal with theta as well sa with me according to our de-
serts. lam painfully aware that such would be the course
most coosistent with reason, with innocence, with mom
antecedents, with that dog which I owe to my
family end to society, and that any other course
armed to have its origin either in insanity or guilt. Fully
appreciating this rearming, end knowing that the course I
have adopted must,. without something approaching to a
miraculousinterposition, end in my own ruin, why do I
persevere in it? I can only reply, my lord, that in d
what would appear the honest and straightforwardacotethif
should be incurnng greater moral guilt than if I had redly
committed the crime with which lam charged. It would
answer no purpose, your lordship, even were I at liberty to
do so, to detail the history of my connexion with those for
whom I fear I must suffer. Suffice it to say, then,
that the compact by which I am bound eriginated in
no tie of wilt, though it has terminated in undoubted
crime on one side and its most fearful conescietenoss upon
1 the other. It is my intention, as soon as my Este is dr
I tided, to furnish such information se may at leant lead to
the recovery of property which I have now at kest reason to
rasped hes been unlawfully sapient. And though, my
lord, it is to me forlidden to give 10 *ea the actual per-
petrators of the crime for which I ,am here, I. have but
little doubt that before the expiration of the punishment
which I fear the law must award to me, their career shall
have been closed, and the secret of my apparently strange
conduct be made clear. .

—The-Lcfe then gummed up the evidence, gad
said, irrespectively of non-denial of the fact by the pri-
soner, it would be bard to come to any other conclusion
than that, upon the use am proved and not disputed, the
prisoner was guilty of the charge.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Mr. Cooper said Inspector Williams, of the Great
Northern police, had on the preceding evening succeeded is
discovering the prisoner's lodgings, where he found a great
quantity of property, value between 1001. and SPOOL, the
produce of railway robberies, and it might be necessary for
time to be given for further inquiry, am other indictments
would be preferred. No doubt an extensive system of
plunder had been discovered.
The Assistant Judge said that was not only a reasonable
but a very proper course to adopt, and the sentence would
be deferred until the next session.