The Express.
London, England, 1861-01-30 00:00:00

DECLARAT!O OFDIV I LEN DS.

T 8.1119 LAW &MICH. iiiiKide;:L;lMantirrer ironmonger-
-Ist dividend of 7a., any Thursday, at Kinnear's, Binuintham.
CHARLICIP BICCR 14taffoni, cabinet maker—ist dividend of M ed.,
any Thursday, at Kinnear's., Birmingham.
WitLitz Mitnamv, Fuishaw, Cheshire, rattle dealer—lst divi-
dend of 10. 4}0., Feb. 12, and any subsequent Tuesday, at
Fraser's. )lanegm.
NAricui IsinuAmix and Zan= Dims, New-cut, Lambeth, as
Otter---Ist did Wend of b.1+6., any Wednesday, at Whitmore's,

Marna° Arrollde rut DMILTIUO. New Bread street. City, Diet,
chant -Ist dividend of Is. ed., any Wednesday, at Whitmore's,
Basinstballatreet.
rssaia, Doerldea Beds and Lakin. Bedfordshire, straw
plait dealer—lst dividend of ia lid., any Wednesday, at
Whitmore's. Basinithall.dreet.
WILLIAM OGIITY ?MALAWI, 0111Telleatl. dik stent—lst dividend
of Yid.. any Wednesday, at WlDassores, Basinghalletreet.
DIM/IMM.
- .

Feb. s . D. Roughen, N;;;lch7cite7 ;Ist Feb. 20. J. Chamber-
lin. kupert.street, Haymarket, wheallnight—Feb. U. C. T. Col-
lins, Venchurchetreet, City, and Worcester, win* merchant
Feb. b. J. Filet, Brierley-11111, Staffordshire. liCtMlSell victualler
—Pet. SI I'. Umpson separate sedate . Stroud, Glotiosstershire,
shawl manufacturer—Feb.ll. .1. K PtWryter, Tredegar. Mon-
mouthshire, draper—Feb. Id, J. Wells, Liverpool, toy limiter—
Fob. W. W. Wright, Ptockport. Cheshire, grocer—Feb. E.
IL Abram, Manchester, cabinet maker—Feb 22. J. Wood. Bel-
ford, I.ll.oesshlre, timber merchant—Feb. 21. IL. Walker. ebakey-
bridge, Lancashire, grocer.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, Wino cause be slant to the
oestrary on or before the day of nieetiag.
Feb. Id Z. Mavens, liewich. Suffolk. innkeeper—Yeb. 19 W.
Treadle. jun., and A. Buys, iilengallroad, Poplar, builder—Feb.
26. R. Meek. Cork-street, Camberwell, extractor of wool from
rags--Feb. WE C. States, Aidershott, Hampshire, club-house
keeper—Yob. IS. C. Heath, Sonthampton, coffee-house keeper
Feb. W. T. & Pattison and F. Mlles, Lawrence Pountney.hill,
City, wholesale stationers—Feb. 16. W. Arnold, Newchurcb
West. Monsiouthablre, innkeeper—March Is. A. B. Harries and
W. A. Harries, Pembroke Dock, Pembrokeshire, Umber suer-
ciliate—Wank 5. S. P. Phillips, Cardiff, Glansurganshire, bonded
storekeeper—Feb. 27. It Laker, Barnstaple. Devonshire. general
snob—Much 6. W. N. Evans, Colyton. Devonshire, twunr—
Feb. 27. 0. M. P. Daniel. Ca addford. Cornwall, Ironmonger—
Feb. 20. O. Wilkinson, Maccleuleld, Cheshire. Joiner—Fob. 11.
F. Coker, Worcester, builder—Feb. 21. S. Perry, Woodfield,
nbropshire, manure dealer—Feb. 21. J. T. Brown, Coventry,
watch manufacturer.

PARTRUSHIPS DI/MOLTS:D.
B. Simpson and R. F. Aldridge. Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk,
eclumbnaiders-I. Russell and 0. Teach. Edinburgh, Mon.
mongers, and Binnir.gliam, nierehanta-W. Howard and W. L
Howard, Hermon'. and Huntnn-bridge. Hertfordshire. mil/ors-
J. Granger and W. North, holy Flintaldre, coal maaters-R.
Warren and C. Banbury, Little Toweretrat, city, wholesale
groan -D. Stoneham and H. Pocock, Rotherhithe-wall, Rather.
hlthe-J. Tyson aril E Bitch, Birmingham, cabinet makers-
W. H. Worth and J. Mead, steorpirt, Worcestershire. carpet
imaitufactarse•-T. Smith, J enlist). and P. Smith, Dewsbury,
Yorkshire, scribbling milk re, so far as regards J. Smith-D.
Rhodes. J. Rhodes. W. H Rhodes and C. L Rhodes, Dewshwy
and Earls rc Yorkshi woollen manufacturers. so far ma
mitarda D. RhnderL Cledkill and E. (lanai, Leeds. boot man..
factarers-L Benjamin and A. Benjamin. Betts Marks, City,
watch manufacturers-J. :ink:Dothan' and R. fleaketh, Mani
chmter. cornsalasion ageots-J Rawl' and 0. Russell, era.
Meek and Hawkbaret, Kent milhsys-A. Marks and H.
G.
Huichinaowstreet. Houndaditch, waistcoat manufacturers-LG.
Itracebrklice and J. Eracebridge, Red Lionetreot, Clerkettwell,
watch mannfactarere- I Walker and .1. Walker, Basta. bar-
itones keepers-R. Haller and B. Balky, Worcester. plumbers-
W Nadler andU. Wilklesion. Klupton-apin.HialL stack arson
-W. D. Ratar and J. W. butler, Invernisearrace, Bayswater,
linen drapers-J. Revell an.! W. IsartLiftfordetreet, snakebite's
-A. Seat and J. Vitirace, Liverp.sil, "dip bakers-W. T. Walley
and S. P. Walley, 11.di4.y. St.dfordabire. ilia', factors-O.
Praia 6l,ardner, nut T J. Marshall. Illshopegateetraet
Without. City. and Maoist. re, Kent. ensinocis-W. R. Baker
and L. Morley. litueen• terrace. Bayswater, and Nating.bill.
terrace, oneon-U. Hyde and H. Rust,
Tesiellirlie le 1.1"errool. beevers-J. A. Cotton and
A. H. all. Casinowstreet. City, phangraphic apparatus
dealer" -C. Healey and 1. Haley, Itimenshms, maanfac.
misers-T. Walks, sad C. Walker, >lamb...der, manna*
manufactigas -T. Miller. W. Bowman, and L Hermon,
Pronto . Manchater. . and Lo.slois. rasschante, en far so regards
E, Mennen-J. Aaltobus and A. Aare's'''. Birmingham. jewellers
-L Hacking and R. Reeking. Blackburn, Lancashire. stens
mann. -J. Leacimar, ft Laos. S. Swim J.Parory,J. Itersaida. an.,
J. /trysails. sea. and J. Swim Mackerf Lenemaire (Kirk-
ham 'fail tkral and iron Company, so far as Ifllerde J. 11=
new Bala ,F.
, . Pryer. P Butler, and J. a .
drat, *ay, so far as repaid" P. Mucky-C.flals:lBPyori J. H.
Mena, P. Butler, and A. Menai-Mon. Canamnatreet, Illy, on
b.,. awns P. pejkii-iv. II Young and R. Mille, idinburgh
and Gleams, nianotactur re of inns work-R. Black, A. Wingate,
J. Clack, J. B. Wingate, J. Wingate. suit R. Macbraine, Was-
py, membanta, so far as mans A. Wingate.
1100TCII SRQUIRTIATIONS.
MUT cram; Dander, chemist, Feb. k, at the Royal Hotel,
Dundee

IrilieWitabli. 1111nd:tele, itilrtinphire, !firmer. Feb. 2, at tbe
Black bull Nobel, Illintravie,"Hrtioeshire.
Tlloll.i Catirrnt., Palley, 'triter. Feb. b, at the Globe Hotel,
. .

G 1,1.011 VOICRINT. Giamow. spirit merchant, lab. 4. at the
Farahy of ketcurstors' Hall. G lasyno.
E,,alrlir !Cilia wool, and Watt 111111roOT. Glamor, 0301-
miss:n awn's, Feb. 1. at the Faculty Hall, Glamognw.
eareelOn, Falkirk. distiller and nail Illamsfacterer,
Feb 7. at the Crown Inn, Falkirk

AMR atiaNaoB4 Thuree,honse camenter, Fib. 8, at Trattaes
Calcambia lon. Thurso

WILLIAM NIiCMITMUI and DAVIT MACMIBWII, MMIAMOw, slam
nuatatteturera, Yeb. 4. et the raculty lieu. Glasgow,
iggyaa imam% Daman, clothier. Yeb. d, at the Royal Hotel,
Dundee.

CRUM PALLCL ONE SHILLING DAIL
TURADA; JAM 28.—Adatinior on payinout, 1,081: ditto
by mom Yoko% 742 ; total metal, 1,811.

lab, Enttlligtnct.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-JAN. 29.

Sittiap l Bunoo.—Wore Lord Chief Justice Me, sod
•Juation WMiums, Wines, sad Keating.)

COVD•NoltIll F. NPOICK.4.—LANDLORD ♦AD TENANT.

This was an action to recover possession of the Belvidere
Tavern at Nwihead, upon the ground of want of repair',
and that there was considerable rent in arrest, and no suffi-
cient distress on the premises. At the trial the defendant
defended himself in person, and it appeared that there were
three quarters rent 0014 due at Michaelmas last. On the
11th of October a distress was put in, and W. realised,
leaving the balance due 33/., whilst six months' rent would
be 44Y. His lordship held that there was no right of re.
entry under these circumstances, and upon the question of
repairs the jury found for the defendant. Subsequently •
rule was obtained to enter • verdict for the plaintiff upon
the ground that under the circumstances there had been •
forfeiture of the lease. To-day this rule came on for argu-
ment.

The defendant appeared in person to show cause ; and Mr.
M. Smith and Mr. Prentice to support the rule.
The defendant submitted that, under the Common Ltw
Procedure Act, there must be six months' rent in arrear
when the action was brought, and that there was not that
amount of rent due in this case. He further submitted that
the eleintiff, by distraining, had treated the tenancy as still
continuing.
Mr. M. Smith, on the other hand, contended that there
had been no waiver of the forfeiture by the distress, inas•
much as the forfeiture waa not completed until it was found
that there was no sufficient distress.
The Court took time to consider the matter.
RUSSELL r. THE GREAT SHIP COMPANT (Lninto).-31ORZ

LITIGATION.

Mr. Lloyd applied foe a rule to consolidate three actions
brought by Mr. Scott Rummell against the Greet Ship Com.
pariy—one upon the award which had been made in the
plauitiff's fAvour to the extent of 18,000/. ; another to re.
cover the price of extra work beyond the contract, and
daniages for the injury done by admitting the public to
visit the ship ; and the third to recover damages in cense-
(memo of the plaintiff not having been allowed to transfer
certain share*. It was submitted that the three actions
arose out of the same transactions, and should be tried in
one proceeding.
Mr. 13,11 showed cause in the first instance.

Some discussion took place, in the con;;;lwhich it was
suggested by the court that the question of the validity of
the award was one of law which could be raised upon a
special case ; and that the best course would be to stay any
other proceedings until that question was determined.
The Lord Chief Justice ultimately said that the order
which would be made was to stay the trial in all the actions
except the one, but the parties would be allowed to plead
the issue.
Rule accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—JAN. 29.
Sittings at Nisi Prim at wstmirter.—(Before Yr. Baron
Bramwell and °amnion Juries.)

NORRIS, Aoransranoz, T. LIRNITIL -THE LAIN JOHN
NAMUR. N.P.

This was an action brought t.; recover the value of certain
horses by the plaintiff, as the administrator of the late John
Radii, M.P., and which the defendant had wrongfully
sonverted to hi own use. The defendant pleaded not
guilty, sad that he did not detain the horses as alleged.
Mr. Beriant Shee and Mr. J. Brown were counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Avian(' represented
the defendant.

ItTtPiSaiv,4from the cue for the plaintiff, Mr. Anthony
Norris, • solicitor of Bedford-row, that he was a
creditor of the estate of the late notorious John
Badleir, who committed suicide, and lie sued the de-
fendant, who is • stock dealer residing at Muswell-hill, for
the value of three horses which Ssdleir had kept for bunt-
ing at Leighton Buzranl, in Bedfordshire. On the death of
Sadleir these horses had been sold by a Mr. Rhodos, who
managed the establishment at Leighton, and who claimed
in them • joint property. The question was whether the
title of the defendant in the bones was good, the right of
Rhodes to dispose of them being dice ted.
The following evidence wee
Mr. John Mormugh was the examined. He mid--I am
a solicitor in Dublin. I knew the late Mr. John Sadleir.
In 1852, I was at Leighton, when Mr. Sadleir had • hunt-
: ing establishment. That establishment was managed by
Mr. Jame% Rhodes. Mr. Sadleh's groom was named
Kenyon. I hunted the horses in 1862. In that year I saw
three hones which Mr. Sadleir had bought in Ireland.
There was a chestnut gelding, which cost 13) guineas ; •
black gelding, whih cost 1118/. • and a bay mare, which
cost 80 guineas. Besides those I 'bought a brown horse, in
April, 1855, for 1201., which I sent either to Rhodes or
Kenyon. Kenyon is now in the service of the defendant.
Cross-examined - I believe the defendant gave 300/. for
these horses. Ido not know whether Mr. Rhodes engaged
Kenyon and paid his mgr. lam only aware that Mr.
Rhodes bad the general superintendence of the establish-
ment. The chestnut and black geldings were purchased in
the last week of October, 1851, and the brown horse on the
15th of April, 1855. I was at Leighton Buzzard early in
the years 1851 and 1852. I dkl not go with Mr. Sadleir. I
knew Mr. Rhodes very well. The given by the defen-
dant for the home was, I should say, their full value.
Mr. Augustus Fabian examined—l am now the manager
of a discount company at Brighton. lam the manager of a
'branch of the London and County Bank at Leighton. I
became so about four years previous to Mr. Sadleir's death.
I have seen Mr. Sadleir riding the black gelding and the
brown horse. There was an account in the books of the
London and County branch at Leighton in the names of
Rhodes and Kenyon.—(The books showing the bank sc.
count, commencing Jan. 1, 1852, 'of James Rhodes,
per William Kenyon, was here produced and identified by
the witness, as well as certain cheques drawn by Mr.
fieelleirj—l have heard Rhodes say that the horses
belonged to Sadleir. I do not know if he meant these
three.

The oorreepondence between the solicitors of the plaintiff
awl defendant wea then real

il;;;;.ElTeeneyeLiml;l7—l knew the late Mr. John
Sadleir, and also Mr. Janice and Mr. Clement Sadleir. I
was in It,. Jobs Sadleir's employ at Leighton. I was with
Mr. James Sadleir at No. 11, Oloucesteraquare. I brought
up two saddle horses from Leighton to Mr. James Sadleir.
That was about three years before Mr. John Sadleir's death.
The hones were hunters, a black horse and a cheenut. They
wore seat afterwanls to Hackney, and from thence to
Leighton for a hunting season. I went to Leighton two
messes' between the time I was at Gloucester-square and
Mr. Sadleir's death. Kenyon had then the charge of the
horses. There were hone cloths sent with the horses, and
the initials were J. S.

Cress-exanuned—The horses stood at livery at Hackney.
Edward Gardiner examined—l have been for 16 years a
groom near Leighton. I knew Mr. Sadler, and Kenyon, a
groom. I knew the three bonne. About three days beton
Mr. Sadleir's death I saw him riding a black horse. I saw
him ride the other boner the same season. I have seen
Mr. Keating and Mr. Rhodes riding the horses. The mark
on the clothing on the chestnut and black borne was
"J. S." I cannot say what was the mark on the brown
horse's clothing.

Mr. Rhodes used to ride the horses more
frequently than Mr. Sac!kir.
George Grace, a blacksmith, at Leighton, was next ex-
amined-1 shod horses for Mr. Sadler,. I shod • horse for
Mr. Rhodes in 1862. I made out accounts against Mr.
Sadler,, and received the animate from Mr. Fabian, at the
Londou and County Beak. I shod Mr. Sedleir's horses until
the year before be died, and my bills were paid in the same
way. There were • black horse, • cheenut horse, and •
brown horse. The horse clothes were marked "J. S."
Croes-exarained —ln 1852, 1863, and 1864,1 made out the
accounte to Mr. Rhodes. I received my orders for work
from Kenyon during those years.
Reexamined-1 made the entries spinet 3lr. Sedleir. I
made the bills out against Mr. Rhodes at his own request.
Leaded,
Court—The account commenced in 1849. It wm
" &disk, Esq."
Edward Charles Porter, • saddler at Leighton, said he
lied worked for Mr. Sadleirr, up to the Monday before his
death, when he spoke about • saddle being repaired. Mr.
Sedlsir was at that time riding the black horse.
Cron-examined—My account was paid by Mr. Fabian, at
the Landon and County Bank.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Edwin James then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, contending that he had given • fair price for the
hones which Rhodes had a joint interest in, and was entitled
to sell on Sedleir's death.
Mr. Edward Walker Lerniette was then examined lam
the defendant. lam a stock dealer. I reside at Muswell-
hill. 1 ant a nephew af Mr. Rhodes. I recollect the death
of Mr. Sedleir. Shortly after his death 1 bought the horses
and hone clothes. I gave 3001., which was their full value,
Ise this. There were no letters or marks on the clothes.
Mr. Ithethre impaired to have • right to sell them. Kenyon
imamieend ray service.
thetheramiutsl— I sold one horse for 1501. Another died,
sad I save the brown horse away. I received • letter from
Mr. Keating, telling me be had requested Rhodes to sell the
hams at Leighton. Mr. Keating was • cousin of Mr. Sad.
and was very intimate with him. I spoke to Keating
abeedthe hones, and the horses being for sale I agreed to
peethme them. I spoke to Keating scout the hones, and
as far as I recollect it was understood that the hones be-
longed jointly to Sadleir and Rhodes. I will riot swear to
that. I wished to have Keating's sanction. I know that
James Sedleir disappeared shortly after John Sadlei's
death. Ido not know that Keating was the only relative
of Stelleir's in England.
Re-examined— I had dealings on the Stock Exchange for
Saclike. I believed that the horses were the joint property
of Sedleir and Rhodes.

Mr. James Rhodes examined—l was • director of the
London and County Bank. 1 ceased to be so in March 1836. I
knew B•dlair. I rode his Ilona; at Leighton as well as my
own. In the autumn of 1851 Sadleir proposed that we should
keep our horses jointly. I received a letter in 1851 from Sad-
leir, proposing that he, Keating, and myself should join in
keeping a stable. Keating did not join, but I did. The two
horses were sent over. I engaged Kenyon as groom for our
joint stable. Sadleir never saw him until I sent him to
Ireland for the horses. It was arranged between Sadleir
and me to open an account at the branch bank at Leighton.
I opened the account in my own name. The pay.
meets were debited to me. The balance against
me on closing the account was 300 f. I hunted more
frequently than Sadleir. The clothing that was bought
lifter the partnership commenced was not marked with

&dines name. Besides the 3001. due to the bank, I paid
over 0001. on the Joint account which was due to me at the
time of &Weir's death.
Cross-examined—l had • private amount with the Lon-
don and County Bank. I had only paid the 3001. on the
joint amount. Not ow farthing of mine ever went to the
joint account at Use branch bank. can only produce the
letters in evidence in support of my account of the arrenge-
ment. I have nothing to show that I paid anything
as my share in the horses. There was no statement
of account between us about the bows. The under.
standing was that Sedleir was to pay for the horses, and I
was to keep them, and the balance to be struck between
us. There were expenses on the joint account, which I
paid by cheques on my private account at the chief office of
the bank. These 'minion/mated to over 600/. I produce
the cheques for such payments. I paid Kenyon's wages.
I also paid for the keep of the hones when they were in
London, for the use of Mr. James Sadleir. I had large
pecuniary transactions with John Sadleir. I never filled
up cheques for hundreds of pounds, signed by Sadleir
in blank on no specific account. I may have
done so on some occasions. If any such cheque is produced
I can explain it. The cheques were all endorsed with the
specific purposes for which they were to be applied. Then
endorsements were not fictitious. I left the banks month
after Sadleir died. My reason was that I was mixed up
with the Swedish Railway which Sadleir had so involved
that my name might have injured the bank. I retired
voluntarily. I owed when I left about 7,0001, or 8,0001. to
the bank. Ido not know whether I owed the bank 20,0001.
Ido not think I owed the bank 50,0001. Sedleir owed
the bank between 200,000/. and 300,0001. The bank
would get; it all repaid. Sadleir and I specu.
laced largely. His transactions were always large.
Sadleir found the money. It was not with the money of
the bank shareholders we speculated. I knew Keating very
well. I did not want to get Keatines sanction to the sale.
I thought I had a right to sell the horses, became they
were joint property, and a Urge sum was due to me on the
joint account I thought I told the plaintiff that I had sold
the horses. I had not kept the matter back from the
plaintiff. I did not tell Fabian that the horses belonged to
itledleir. I have told him that they did before 1852 belong
to Sadleir. I never told Kenyon that the horses were
Sadleir's.

Ito-examined— I had incurred 9001. expense. on the joint
account &Weir never !mid me one farthing on that ac-
count. I consented to the hones being brought up to Lon-
don for the use of Mr. and Mrs. James Sedleir. The plain-
tiff and f belonged to the same club—the Reform Clot.
The plaintiff knew that Hadleir had a hunting establishment
at Leighton Buzzard.
By the Judge—Salt& was only out of pocket the price
of the horses and 150/., whereas I expended 900/.
William Kenyon—l am now a groom in the defendant's
service, and was engaged in 19.51 by Mr. Rhodes to super-
intend the establishment at Leighton. Mr. Rhode. paid
me my wages. There was no mark of "J. S." on the
horsecloths.

(toss-examined —I might have said at first that I thought
the horses were Sadleir's. I cannot swear to whom they
belonged. I have not said to any one since &Weir's death
that the hone* belonged to him. Ido not know whether I
told Mr. Fabian at Brighton that they did. I have said
there was • lawsuit about the henna, but I do not think I
maid Mr. Rhoda would get into trouble about them. I
have talked to Mr. Fabian about the hones and about Mr.
Rhodes. I did not say "we all know very well that the
horses belonged to Mr. Sadleir." Nobody told me to say I
knew nothing about the conversation. The defendant has
not examined ms as to what I should say. I have not corn.
plained that Mr. Rhodes was not so liberal to me as other
gentlemen.
The defendant's case having concluded,
Mr. Fabian was recalled. He stated—l met Kenyon at
Brighten. He did not allude puiicnisrly to these horses.
He said that some of the horses at Leighton belonged to
Sullen. He told rue there was a lawsuit about the horses,
and that they were the property of Sadleir. I did not tell
the plaintiff's attorney that eadleir had over and over again
told me the horse* in question belonged to him. I have not
stated that Kenyon complained to me of Rhodes's want of
liberality. The horses used to be called Sadleir's stud.
Mrs. 'Taverner, so innkeeper's wife, deposed that she had
heard Kenyon say that the horses belonged to Sedleir.
Crossasarnined-1 made out bills for the horses' keep
against Mr. Rhodes. . . .

Mr. fleleant Slice proposed to put in some letters for the
purpose
tso.roncolamw.celrgeolinsteFr:Cratga.t although Mr. Fabian
might be a hostile witness, be could not receive the letters.
The learned counsel on both sides having addressed
the jury,
Mr. Baron Bramwell summed up, leash?g it to the jury
to say whether the defendant had a title in the horses, such
title depending on the right of Rhodes to sell them.
The jury then retired, and after a brief deliberation
returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 2751., being 3001.
the value claimed fur the horses, less 25/. the value of the
clothing.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JAN. 29.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
ALDRIDGI V. ALDRIDGE AND DAMANT.

The petitioner, a miner and paymaster in the royal ,
married the respondent in 1851. They lived happy
together till 1868, when the petitioner sailed with Inc ship,
the Conqueror, and left the respondent with her children
at South Brent, near Plymouth. Before this he had made
the acquaintance of Mr. Darnant, an architect of some re-
putation in Plymouth, and who lived at about a mile from
the petitioner's house. On his return at the latter end of
the following year his wife received him with apparently
undiminished affection ; but • few days after she made •
communication to him which led to • quarrel. She then
left him and went to Mr. Dement's. Afterward* she re-
moved to her sister's at Tiverton ; but in a little time abs
eloped with theca-respondent, and nothing had since been
heard of the guilty couple.
In consequence of the communication made to the
husband, • correspondence ensued between that gentle-
man and the co-respondent, in the course of which lament
addressed the following edifying epistle to Mr. Aldridge :
" Were I capable of indicting the evil which you appear to
dread, I might feel anger at the harshness of your expres-
sions, rather than as Ido sorrow at haying probably de-
served them. I can feel, Aldridge, from the love I have for
her something of what must be your agony at her loss, but
I really believe that for the sake of all, it is beet things
should take their present course. Supposing her love to be
true to me as she believesouid mine to be towards her as true
as I conceive it, how could our respective homes have been
happy ? Had our separation not taken place, constant dis-
simulation on our parts, constant suspicion on yours, would
have made all our lives miserable, and have prepared us to
do that at last in anger which we now do in thoughtful
grief--grief at least that we should be the instruments of so
much torture to those whom we esteem and respect, even
if we love them not an should have been our duty. Do not
think that we commence our life together with an idea of
having a carver of thoughtless happiness. We have dbn
cussed our probable difficulties calmly, and have resolved
to meet them with patience and fortitude, and with a fair
reliance on Cod's mercy. We have sinned, but cannot re-
move the pain that sin has caused others. If your love for
her is as pure as I hope, yon will, I am sure, derive some
little consolation from the knowledge that our intention by
God's help, for which we have
_prayed earnestly together,
is to lead • life of holiness and sell-denial. Oh ! that it
were permitted to restore to you come recompense for that
which you have lost ! I trust I need not allude directly to
your appeal on the subject of my future conduct to her I
love. May God reward me according to my dealings with
her! May God console you! Farewell' "
Mr. K. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Coleridge appeared for
the petitioner ; Dr. Stinks for the respondent.
Sir C. Cresswell, after commenting in strong terms on the
1 above letter, pronounced for the divorce with costs.

HAWED" r. HAWKES.
This was a petition for a dissolution on the ground of
adultery and desertion. The parties were married at Fins-
bury Chapel, in February, 1843. The respondent was at
that time a law-student ; but be afterwards became a
partner with his brother-in-law, Mr. Stunsfeld, M.P., in a
brewery at Walhani-green. At the begining of 1854, bow.
ever, he took the Anchor brewery, at Chelsea, but in about
half &Isar he became bankrupt. Soon after this he wrote
to his wife, intimating his intention to live with a Mrs.
Batson. Evidence of his cohabitation with this person at
Chelsea, at Leighton Buzzard, in Burton-street, Burton.
crescent, and on the continent, h►ving been given,
The court dissolved the marriage.
Mr. Huddlestoo, and Mr. Aspland appeared for the
petitioner.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—J . 29.
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
His Honour sat again to-day mei disposed of the came in
his list, One was adjourned sine die end the other ad-
journ^d for judgment.
The leurnml Commissioner did not sit so late as on ordi-
nary occasions. It is to be hoped that in future he will
avoid late sittings.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Nichols.)
The learned Commissioner was engaged some time in
email debt matters.
In one also the defendant had with his wife an income of
40W. a year, and was ordered to pay.
In two other cases orders were made to pay.
The Court subsequently proceeded with a number of pro-
tection cases, which presented no important feature. The
debte were small. It frequently happens that when a
debtor is applied to for money, instead of exerting himself
to pay the amount he files a protection petition forthwith.

THE MURDER lle LIVERPOOL—The uncle of
Donegan still lies in a very precarious date at the hospital.
The inquest on the body of Cassidy will be opened today.
At present the young man Thomas Donegan, who killed
Cassidy and so seriously tiured his uncle, is at large,
[Advertisement. I—lioixowAY's OINTYINT AND
Pau.—lmperfect healt .—Common colds elicield never be neg-
lected sliaaatrous results are sure to follow any re-erposare to
the Inclemency of the welther. The mucous mutes* must he
thoroughly cured before the patient can be pronounced safe.
soothing Ointment, well rubbed Imes the throat,
back, and chest, has the most wonderful and salutary effect In
allaying Inflammation and subduing irritation. The teasing
irritable cough soon yields, the thickened expectoration Is more
freely ejected. while Holloway's Pills purify the blood, regulate
the circulation, and strengthen the system. These two inns
Inside remedies will leave the lungs and alurawaires sound and
healthy in ordinary colds, and effectually prevent their subsiding
into bronchitis, diphtheria, or asthma.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
Wore the Recorder.)

Mr. Hubert Edmund Marks Kelly, • surgeon, praetis-
in; at Pinner, surrendered to take his trial for misde-
meanour, in having unlawfully received into his charge •
person of unsound mind, he not having a license for the
reception of persons in that oondition, and without the pro-
per certificate required by the act of parliament.
The defendant pleaded guilty.
Mr. Welsby and Mr. Giffard appeared for the prosecu-
tion, which was instituted by the direction of the Commis-
sioners in Lunacy. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Best were coun-
sel for the defendant.

It appeared that Mr. Belly was a highly respectable gen-
tleman, residing at Pinner, and in the course of his profes-
sional practice he was alled on to attend upon a gentleman
living in the same neighbourhood, who was suffering from
brain fever, and labouring under many delusions ; end an
arrangement was subsequently made that he should be re-
ceived into the house of the defendant, and be treated by
him for that malady, he not having a license to re-
ceive such patients, and there being no certificate u to the
condition of the patient, such as is required by the act of
parliament. It was stated that there were a great number
of witnesses in attendance to speak to the high character
and respectability of the defendant.
Mr. Weleby, on the part of the prosecution, after the
facts bad been briefly brought to the notice of the court,
intimated that he should be satisfied if the defendant
entered into his own recognizance in 1001. to appear and
receive the judgment of the court if be should be called
upon to do so.
The Recorder observed that it was • very proper prose-
cution, and it was highly necessary, for the protection of
latiorsons in the unhappy condition of lunatics, that the regu-
ns
required by the statute should be enforced.
The defendant having entered into the required recogni-
zance, then left the court with hie friends.
James Tag, 30, • showily dressed young rnan, described
as a traveller, was charged with stealing • silver box, value
U., the property of Richard Sivier.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted. The prisoner was defended by
Mr. Sleigh.
The facts of this case were given fully upon the occasion
of the examination of the prisoner at the Mansion-house.
It appeared that he and the prosecutor were both commer-
cial travellers, and that they met accidentally at Bristol,
where the prosecutor by illness was temporarily deprived
of his eyesight, and the prisoner volunteered to assist him
in his business, in the distressing position in which he was
placed. This necessarily led to a friendly intimacy between
them, arid it appeared that the prisoner took advantage of
this and of the helpless condition of the prosecutor to steal
the box in question from the prosecutor's bodroom without
his knowledge. He subsequently admitted to the prosecutor
that he had taken it, and wrote several letters to him promis-
ing to return it, but failed to do so, and it turned out
that be had pawned the box at the shop of a pawnbroker
in London, and hence the matter came within the jurisdic-
tion of this court, although the original act of felony was
committed at Bristol.
_ _

The jury returned • verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner was then charged with embezzling the
several sums of 271.135. 4d. and 41. 75., belonging to his
employers, Messrs. King and Co., wholesale stationers,
Queen-street, Cheapside.
Mr. Metcalf prosecuted. Mr. Sleigh again appeared for
the prisoner.
The evidence in this awe went to show that the prisoner
entered the service of the prosecutors in October bat, and
almost immediately afterwards it. was discovered that he
bad received 271. odd from one of the cus-
tomers which he had not accounted for. The cashier
wrote to him and asked for an explanation, and the
prisoner in reply admitted having received the money, and
said he had been going a "little too fast," and had spent
some extra money ; ho pressed the cashier not to let
Mr. King know of the transaction, and promised to make
it all right in a few days. He made repeated excuses after
this for not paying the amount, and at length, in conse-
quence of further information that was received by the
firm, they sent • circular to all their customers cautioning
them not to pay any more money to the prisoner. He was
at Maidstone' it appeared, when this circular was
sent out, and upon Lis arriving in London he was given
into custody. He then admitted that be had received the
sum referred to, cod other money, and promised to make
good the amount, and at the same time handed to the pro-
secutors cheques that he had received from customers on
their account during his last journey.
Mr. Sleigh upon these facts submitted to the jury that
the evidence did not establish the offence of embezzlement
such as was contemplated by the act of parliament, as the
prisoner had never denied having received the money, hut
on the contrary had admitted the fact and promised to
make good the amount. He contended, therefore, that
he was only civilly and not criminally responsible in the
transaction.
. . .

The Recorder having summed tip, the jury after a short
deliberation returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
There in a third indictment for felony against the prisoner,
which stands over for the preempt.