The Express.
London, England, 1868-08-04 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING-, AUGUST 4, 1868.

the doctor's tunings lasted; but it was suddenly cut short
by Plumb, w4O stumped him cleverly (five for 67).
Griffith opened his account with a snick for 4, and
Mr. (lilted Grace made a late cut for 8 off Grandy. The
' for put Cu 21 by two fosse, five twos, &c., when be
wag oaugfit at Faint off a lofty hit (six for 103). After
getting three singles, Pooley's whckot wee disfigured by
Woottos who np to this time bad taken every wicket
(retell for 110). Plumb's wicket-keeping was A 1.
C. Payne was the last man who went in* and at half-past
6 the stomps were drawn for the day Mr. Gilbert Grace
hsingr not out, 41, and Payne 2. The total was 112 for
esvin wickets, as will be seen by the accompanying score:
n.—First innings.
Rev. M'Oensielt, bE. M. Once. 127
O. c Pesky, b Lillyirtutu . 0
C..t owned, cE. Ovarreomb . .46
Mc C. P. Nines, b I • 4
lir. R. A. Mitchell, CSRTZer . 22
T. Heave, c Jul*, b It. Over . IC
I'. Phainh, eW. Graft, b 11. M. Rises ...... 1
Mi. If. N. Tennent, b Withdrize . 0
J. (trendy, c Reeky, b E. M. 0ne5............2
O.' Hewitt, c•Pot bE. M. Dynes ..
b 4, I-1;b.

• 2tAt
..00,..._},==...: .....
Yr. W. 0. them, not out 4l
H. Jupp, b Wootton 4
T. Humphrey, at Plumb, b Wootton 1
Jame. hillywhile, b Wootton
H. Charlwood, b Wootton 14
Yr. E. H. Omee, at Plumb, b wawa. ls
0. Gran. e Howitt, b Wootton. AI
Z. Peaky, b Wootton . ...... ... ....
C Payne, mot out 2
b 10, 1-to 3.

Total .. . . 119
There was a large attendance of opectutore, including
Many ladies, and a number of equipages, amongst whisk
were several four-in-band drags. The entire arrange-
ments were admirably carried out.

THE AUSTRALIAN ELEVEN v. THE NOTTINGHAM
COMMERCIAL CLUB.
A match between the Australian Eleven and the Not-
tingham Commercial Club was commenced yesterday, at
the Trent-bridge Ground, Nottingham. The Nottingham
team went in first, and was disposed of for the small
score of 91. The Australians followed, and the first four
wickets foil for 33. Score up to a quarter pest sia euleek
COUUTIRCIAL CLEM—First Luning,"
Mr: L Bard, b Lawrence . .. .
Mr. R. Brittle, run out
Mr. C. P. Daft, blawrente
Mr. W. WillilUSlN I b w, b TaliTellre
Mr. R. Tak y, at Curing., b 'Lawrence
Mr. T. Wright, b Mullagb
Mr. W. Clements, b Mußagb
Mr. A. Filar*, b Mallagh
Mr. 0. Rowell, b Mullagh
Mr W. T. Palmer., not out
b 3,14 3

. 6
.

Total • 91
ACRTIAIit Innings.
Redcap b Williams.
cart nitierkite), not out . .... .......
!ark-a-Dirk tyellow), c Clements, to Wright . 1
If ullagb Mark Wee), ninon. 6
Tiger (pink), run out 4
I mamma (captai.), Tolley . . 0
b Twopenny (plain). Tolley
D 5, 1-b 2 . . 7

Total

JOCKEYS v. IHE SPORTING PRESS.—Morrnsv.
Tho annual cricket match between the Jockeys of
England and the Writers of the Sporting Press came off
te-day at Lewes. The bad luck of the Prms, gentlemen
did not leave them on this occasion, as for the third year
in succession they sustained an ignominious defeat in
Sumer. The match, which is a moat friendly affair, was
the subject of much conversation in turf circles, and
amongst those attracted to the cricket field were Lord St.
Vincent, Sir Charles Legard, and Mr. James Bland; the
latter gentleman presiding at the dinner, and acting as
field steward. The "dark" colt introduced this year by
the Jockeys was 7oung William Closter, whose bowling
was highly effective, no fewer than six wickets falling to
him, whilst the seventh man was caught by him. The
chief scorer of the Jockeys was young Jobe Day, whose
play was even more brilliant than that of his brother
Leonard last year, as he put together 156 runs. The
Jockeys altogether obtained 318 runs, and the Press 102;
the form displayed by both sides being superior to that of
any previous year.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GIJILDFORD, A URIUKT :1
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Bye List Jury.)

NARY C. MARIV-AC7ION TOR si.sxnea KRUTHIMA.
This was an action of slander brought by Mr. Francis
George Ilsre against his brother Augustus Hare, and
from the position of the parties and the circumstance.,
connected with the case the proceedings created a great
deal of interest.
Serjsaat Parry and Mr. Butler Rigby were for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Hawkins, (.1.C., and Mr. Mathew were
for the defendant.
Bailee Martin, after the pleadings had been opined,
raid be had looked at the record, and he could not help ex-
pressing his opinion that the ease wan one which would be
settled much more satisfactorily by the interveution of
some gentleman who was • friend to both patties.
A 'hold consultation upon this took place between the
learned ciffantel on both irides, but it appeared that they
were unable to agree upon terms.
Ranee Martin raid that be should have thought that
both parties would have desired to avoid public inquiry.
The alleged slander appeared to have been contained in a
letter' addressed to • lady named Montgomery, who
ought not to have exhibited it.
Mr. Hawkins said, in addition to this the inquiry w‘iild
involve • consideration of what occurred at the death-bed
of the sister of parties only in May last.
Baron Martin, observing that the counsel on both sides
did not appear able to come to any satisfactory
.arrange-
meat, repeated that he had stated what his opinion was,
and he should say no more upon the subject, but should
leave the parties to take their own course.
Serjeant Parry accordingly addremed the jury on behalf
of the plaintiff. He said that be fully appreciated the
course that had been taken by the learned judge on this
matter, with a view to some amicable arrangement
being entered into, because he felt that the case was one
of a very painful nature, and it was rendered dill
lore so by the relationship that existed between the
plaintiff and the defendant, who were brothers. He
believed, however, that if all the matters connected with
the case were gone into the jury, in the result, wouldoomo
to the conclusion that the plaintiff was perfectly blameless
in the matter, and that, having regard to the very serious
character of the imputations that had been east upon him
' by the defendant, he had no alternative but to adopt the
present proceedings, in order to clear his character with
his friends and all who were acquainted with him. The
learned eerjeant then proceeded to state that the plaintiff
was the son of Mr. Hare, a banister, who was the brother
of Archdeacon Hare, and who died in 1841, leavijn/ya
large fortune, which was divided amongst him fa
The plaintiff was formerly in the army—he was an officer
in the Guards, and when he came of age ho came into
possession of a considerable property. He poised a good
deal of his time in enjoying the gaieties of life both here
and'on the continent; but although he, no doubt, had
wasted a good deal of his property
.in those pursuit";
he believed that not the slightest insinuation could be
made against his honour or character in any respect.
The mother said the sister of the plaintiff lived a good
deal abroad, and they eventually became converts to the
Roman catholic religion and the plaintiff subsequently
, did the same, but, although be mentioned this fact he
might state thatno question of a theological or religious
chatheter was involved in the enquiry. The learned ser-
jeer& went on to state that the enter of the plaintiff and
the defendant, the lady whom he had mentioned as having
beers a convert to the Roman catholic religion, died in
May last, and this occurrence appeared to have led to the
pub 'cation of the letter that was the subject of the present
action. This lady had originally been poeseesed of con-
siderable fortune, somewhere about 16,000 L, but it
occurred that she had, as many, other ladies,
he believed, had done, engaged in speculations
on the Stock Exchange, in which she had been
unniccessful ; and at the time of her death it turned
out that she was in possession of much less property than
was anticipated by her family. Within a few hours of
her death this lady made her will, by which she be-
queathed a portion of her property to the plaintiff, and
another portion to the defendant and other members of
the family. After her death, and down to the time of
the funeral, the plaintiff and the defendant appeared to
be perfectly satisfied with what had taken place • and it was
not until the day after the funeral that something was said
by the defendant relative to a sum of 1,0001. that had
been borrowed by the plaintiff of another member of
the family, and which it was represented had not
been satisfactorily accounted for; and the plaintiff at this
time stated that he had borrowed the money for his sister,
and that lie bad paid it in to her account at Coutta's. The
libel complained of was written by the defendant on the
12th of June following the death of his sister, which took
place in May. It was addressed to Mrs. Montgomery, a
lady of high position, and related to Lord Leconfield and
the Earl of Mayo, which gave it a much more serious sig-
nificance. The learned serjesnt here read the letter which,
for obvious reasons, should not be given in full. It will be
sufficient to state that it represented that there were
rumours about as to what had occurred at the death-bed
of his aster, and to the disposition of her property,
and that for some time before her death his astir
would not see the plaintiff, and that she shrieked
when his name was mentioned. It also represented
that the sudden death of his sister ought to be
cleared up, and that the " Superior of Precious Blood"
(this, it wee afterwards explained, referred to the Lady
Superior of a convent of nuns, who had been with the
deceased previous to her death)—had bad a message of a
fearful character intrusted to her by the:deceased lady to
be delivered to the plaintiff, and that the state of his
health had alone been the reason why this message had
not been delivered to him.

Serjeant Parry then went on to state that he should
show by the evidence of numerous witnesses who were
in attendance that there was not the slightest foundation
for any of the insinuations contained in the letter, and
that, so far from the sister of the plaintiff desiring not to
see him, or shrieking with terror whenever his name was
mentioned, they were, on the contrary, on the most
friendly terms, and she wrote him an affectionate letter,
which he should put in evidence, on the Saturday previous
to her death. He should also call the medical gentleman
who was in attendance upon the deceased to show what
was the nature of her malady, and that there wan no
foundation for the insinuation which was undoubtedly
contained in the letter written by the defendant that she
bad come by her death by unfair means—in fact,
that she had been poisoned. He should likewise
call the Lady Superior of the oonvent, to whom the
terrible message was represented to have been given by
the deceased lady to be delivered to the plaintiff, and she
would prove that nothing of the sort ever occurred. He
should also produce evidence to show how the property of
this lady had been disposed of, and that a great portion of
it, as he had already rated, had been lost in speculations
on the Stock Exchange, and the remainder was fully ac-
counted for, and that there was not the slightest pretence
for the suggestion that it had been unfairly dealt with,
either by the plaintiff or any other person. The de-
fendant had not ventured to plead a justification, and
the only ob ect the plaintiff had in view was to vindicate
his from the serious imputations that bad
been cast upon it, and he would be ready to at once yield
to any suggestion either from the court or the jury that
the case ought to stop, when that object was accom-
plished.
Mrs. Fanny Montgomery was then called into the wit-
ness box, and sworn. She stated that she was acquainted
with the plaintiff and the defendant, and she was about to
narrate the circumstances under which she received the
letter that was the subject of the present action, when,
Mr. Hawkins rose, and said he had conferred with the
defendant, and he was now in a condition to offer to with-
draw all the imputations upon the character of the plain-
tiff that were contained in the letter, and to date that the
defendant was ready to apologise for having written it.
At the same time, he thought it right to state on behalf of
the defendant, that he repudiated altogether the interpre-
tation that was put upon some of the passages contained
in the letter by the plaintiff, and particularly that which sug-
gested that he bad made a charge of his sister having been
poisoned. The defendant was not in England at the
time his sister died, and he received a good deal of in-
formation upon the subject from other parties, and he
now believed that the information he so received was not
the truth, and that there was no foundation for any im-
putation that had been cast upon the plaintiff. Under
these circumstances he was ready, on the part of the de-
fendant, to consent to an apology being made for the
charges that were contained in the letter, and that a ver-
dict should be taken for the plaintiff.
Serjeant Parry said, on behalf of the plaintiff, he was
ready to accept the proposition of his learned friend, that
understanding being that all imputations upon the cha-
racter of the plaintiff should be withdrawn, and that it was
admitted that there was no truth in the charges against
him that were contained in the letter in question.
A verdict for 20s. damages was then taken for the
plaintiff.
wsums V. THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover damages for assault, and
false imprisonment under malicious prosecution.
Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Baker Greene
were for the plaintiff ; Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Joyce, and
Mr. Edward Clark were for the defendants.
The plaintiff in this action was an assistant to a
and one day in June last year, he bad gone with a friend
to Gravesend by the North Kent line, each having first-
clan tickets. On their return in the evening, an attempt
seemed to have been made to put a number of third-class
passengers, some of whom appeared to have been drink-
mg, into their carriage. They objected to this, and the
station master was appealed to, and an altercation took
place between the plaintiff and some of the officials; and
this, it was alleged, was the foundation for what afterwards
occurred. Upon arriving at London Bridge, it seemed
that a dispute arose between the railway officials
and some of the other passengers, and upon
the plaintiff and his friend making some ob-
t ervation in reference to it, they were recognised as
having made the complaint at Gravesend, and, according
to the evidence of the plaintiff, he was seised and violently
forced down the incline by one of the railway officials,
who also kicked him when they got to the bottom. U ion
this the plaintiff struck the officer in the face, and he was
given into custody for the assault, and the case was sent
for trial to the Surrey sessions, and the jury, after hearing
the evidence that was adduced for the plaintiff, stopped
the ems and acquitted him. It appeared that he was
locked up all one night at the police-station, and that the
plaintiff was put to considerable expense in I lefendal:4
himself upon the .charmo of w-Antilt that was p:ch rre I
against lam.

—gherust Beltenting admitted that • verdict mud pass
against the company upon the count for an as•nit, but
he urged in mitigation that they had not sanctions l the
conduct of their officer, although they were legally re-
monsible for it, and they had since dorrirred him train
their service.
The jury eventually returned a verdict for tho plaintiff
upon the count charging an assault, with 1701. damages,
and for the defendants upon the other two counts for
faire imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
Execution win stayed to afford au opportunity to
defendants to apply to the court on the ground that the
damage* were excessive.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—MmtnasuntT, Atrourrr 3.
(Now,' COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice Bytes.)
Tun KIM= OF a 0010III0OILL TIIAVKILFA IN
_ew=oP•Hl=B. . .

This morning (the third day of this extraordinary trial)
Beery, Barris was again placed in the dock upon the
charge of wilfully murdering Barrett Zusman, at
Striekley, on the loth November, 1867.
Mr. Matthews, Q.C., and Mr. Bingley appeared for the
proseeputr, and Dr. Kamaley and Mr. Young for the
defenqe.
On hie lordship taking his seat upon the bench,
Dr. Heneidey proceeded to address the jury on behalf of
the prisoner, prefacing a lengthy and elaborate speech by
dwelling upon the youth of the prisoner, his respectable
rarentage and position, his character as an open-hearted
generous man, and asked the jury whether they oould
believe it possible that such a man would suddenly
plunge 'into an abyss of guilt as that in which the
prosecution pictured him. Referring to the evidence
of Dr. Crewe, the learned counsel argued at
length. to show that the prisoner had in the remarkable
interview which the witness had had with him—an inter-
view with a prisoner charged with a capital offence the
like of which lie had never read or heard of in his life—
told a tale which wee not only probable but true. The
story was too dramatic in its details to be invented by a
man like Harris. The simple descripticn of the man
"smiling" as he confessed to being the murderer was
worthy of Shakespeare, and could have been given only
by another man who was describing what he had actually
seen. The learned counsel spoke for upwards of three
hours—an isolated attempt at applause, which was im-
mediately suppressed, greeting its conclusion.
The nature of the defence will be gleaned from the
following evidence :
Odes Pool, examined by Mr. Young, said—l was at
Fawley on the occasion of the second inquest upon
?omen. I was in the company of the prisoner and
Watkins. We went to a confectioner's in Dawle , and ea
we were coming out we saw Police-constable
The prisoner said he was so muckered about by the police
that if he knew who had committed the murder he
would suffer his heart to be cut out before he would split.
Croes-examined—Superintendent Baxter took a note of
my evidence before I was examined by the magistrates.
lie wrote it down, and read it over to me. I am sure I
then wed, " If I knew who had done it I would say."
John Bathurst, a grocer, hiring at Dawley was present
when the body of Zusman was brought in. It was laid in
a shed, and Dr. Davies, who was present, turned the head
over and said the man had been shot.
Harriet Moses, mother-in-law of the prisoner, remem-
bered the 16th November. The prisoner went to her hcuee
about three o'clock, and remained till about four o'clock.
In the evening of that day the prisoner had a rarty, and
my daughter was one of the guests.
Mary Anne Moses, sister-in-law of the prisoner, said
that on the evening of the 16th November she spent the
evening at the knee of prisoner. She went at a quarter
to seven and stayed all night, and remained in the house
all night. The prisoner went to bed at a few minutes
before eleven o'clock. _ . .

Elizabeth Lane, who had been a servant at the prisoner's
house at the time of the murder, confirmed the evidewie
about the party on the evening of the 15th November.
The witness identified three gold watches produced by the
counsel for the defence, one as being the prisoner's, one
his wife's, and one his late mother's. She also identi-
fied two silver watches, one as being the prisoner's wife's,
and the other the prisoner's father's. At the time the
prisoner's house was searched by the police, on the 20th
December, three of these watches—two gold and one
silver one—were upstairs in a drawer. Witnesses were
called to show when and how these watches had come
into the prisoner's possession.
Isaac Vaughan said—Three weeks ago last Wednesday
I went to work for the wife of the prisoner to finish a
chain. I worked for her 15 days. There are two work-
shops upon the premises, and I was working in both
shops. I never saw the iron-pot produced, till it was
shown me on the 22nd July by Police-constable Purchase.
The policeman went into the little shop and brought out
the pot, and asked me if I had ever seen it before. I said.
No, I never have. It looks to me as if it had been burnt
.red-hot and put there this morning.
Cross-examined—For the work I was engaged upon I
did not require to use the pot.
At this stage the trial was adjourned till this (Tuesday)
mornirg. It is expected that the verdict will be given
to-nigLE

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—HANCIIESTER, Auo. 3.
Caowx COMlT.—(Before Mr. Justice Rannen.)
111/112HT RIOTS AT ♦SHTON._

These trials were resumed. The only evidence new in
the case was chiefly directed to the identification of the
prisoners. All the prisoners in the second batch (Irish
catholics), except Hannan and Purcell, were found
guilty. Sentence was deferred. Hannan and Purcell
were ' .
Theierrtdtelindictment was against Orangemen (princi-
pally English)—Thomas Hittite'', Thomas Burnett, Bela-
y:min Ore, William Smith, John Littleuvoit, William
BiRMS, Thomas William Webb, and Henry Flint.
The indictment was for riot and assault. The bill
against them for the felony in beginning to demolish
chapel had been ignored by the grand jury.
Mr. Higgin, Q.C., and Mr. Edwards prosecuted. Mr.
Cettingham and Mr. John Gorse, nstructed by Mr.
Roscoe, of Ashton, defended.
The same witnesses, nearly all policemen, that had been
examined in the previous cases gave evidence in this. The
accused were all identified more or less as having been
seen during the attack on the Roman catholic chapel, and
afterwards with portions of the broken fittings of the
chapel in their possession.
The jury, after an absence of upwards of an hour, re-
turned into court with a verdict of Not Guilty as against
Littlewood and Flint; the other prisoners were found
Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy, in the cases of
Gilbert and Slaws. Sentence was deferred.

TheVouspbainant said be had bee a ii, and spitting
blood ever since. He was bruised on PATOCSI parts of the
bod.
In cross-esamination the comp) unant denied that be
bad called the defendant au Irish Fenian, or abused him
in any way, He also denied that he fought with the de-
fendant, all that he did being to pn.l the defendant, to
prevent him from again striking
Two witnesses were called, who that the com-
plainant had been " nagging" at the men that day, and
that before the defendant touched the complainant he was
called an Irish Fenian.

Mr. Balker ordered the defendaut to pay a fine of 2/.
106., or in default one month's imprisonment with hard
labour in the House of Correction.

Jaws Cape, a drover, wan charged with cruelty to a
sheep at the Metropolitan Cattle Market, Islington.
From the evidence for the prosecution, which was
uuti-
toted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, it appeared that the defendant as he wim
passing the sheep pens struck a sheep a violent blow on
its head with the thick end of a drover's stick. The blow
was so severe that had not the other sheep been close the
one that was struck must have fallen to the ground, and
it also appeared quite staggered from the effects of the
blow. The defendant when asked why he was guilty of
such cruelty said that he did not strike the animal for the
purpose, but while striking the railings he hit the sheep
in mistake.

The defendant said that ho was very sorry for what he
had done, hut if he was let go this time he would never
strike another sheep in his life.
Ur. 'Barker ordered hint to pay 75., or, in default, to
be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of
Correction for seven days.
The fine was
paid.
MAIIYLEIJON E.
_ _

Patrick laity, aniriiiiiabo;rer;;iiii charged with •
violent assault upon Yr. William Beauchamp, landlord
of the Ponsford Arms, Mal*len-road, Nentiih-town.
Prosecutor said between four and five o'clock on
Saturday the prisoner, with two men, entered his house,
and were served with a pot of beer. After telling tho bar-
man not to servo them with anymore he went to wash. His
attention was next called to the bad language prisoner
was using. He refused to desist, and prosecutor got over
the counter. Prisoner asked him why he got over, and he
told him to put him out if he would not be quiet. Ho
(prisoner) then kicked him violently? and inflicted severe
bruises on his legs. He was then ejected, and the doors
had to be kept closed for twenty minutes. At the end of
that time prosecutor went into the street, when prisoner,
who he thought had gone away, came behind and
struck him on the neck with a stone.

Mr. Mansfield fined him 51., with the alternative of two
months' hard labour.

Norris Arnett, carpenter, was charged with being
drunk, disorderly, and assaulting the police.
William Murray, assistant at Melbtush's, pawnbrokers,
Malden-road, said the prisoner called on Saturday even.
ing to redeem some pledges. One bad run out of date,
and witness refused to allow it to him. Ho became very
abusive, libido use of bad language, and had to be ejected.
He had been drinking.
Frederick Elton, 60 8, saw the prisoner, who was
drunk, with a mob of people about him. On being asked
to go home ho made use of filthy language, and was taken
into custody. He became exceedingly violent. They
placed him in a cab, the front of which he kicked out.
He also kicked and blackened witness's left eye lie well as
injuring his jaw. He, as well, kicked him about the
body, and rendered him almost unfit for duty for several
de/a.
Mr. Mansfield fined him 6/., with the alternative of two
months' hard labour.
W ESTMINSTER.
- - - - - - -

John Archibald and Samuel Parsons. two men well
known to the rolice, were charged before Mr. Arnold with
the following daring street robbery with violence to the
person
John Acrems, of 11, Buckingham-cottages, Vincent-
square, said that on Sunday evening, at about a quarter
past nine, he was passing through Victoria-street, accom-
panied by his wife and child, a little girl nine years of
age, when he observed the two prisoners and another
man leaning against the fence near Victoria-chambers.
As he approached, Archibald suddenly sprang upon him,
and, clutching his Albert chain, drew his watch from his
waistcoat pocket and darted off with it. Prosecutor was
in the act of following to endeavour to recover his pro-
perty, when he was stopped by Parsons, who gave
him • tremendous blow, and knocked him down, and all
three men eacaped. Witness gave information to the
polioe, and was called to the station on Monday morning,
when he picked the prisoners out from a dozen men who
were there assembled.
_ _ . _

Prosecutor's wife confirmed him in every particular,
and identified the accused in the same way as her husband.
Archibald (before convicted of a garotte robbery) said a
number of people could prove bia innocence.
Parsons, who bad refused his name and address at the
police station, called three witneeses to show that he was
:n a public-house in Orchard-street, near where the
robbery was committed, at the time of its occurrence.
Prisoners were remanded for a week, Parsons' own re.
being taken for his appearance.
ceVancelabet A Burton was charged with the following cruel
robberies:

On Tuesday night a poor mariner went with his two
little girls to a common lodging-house, at 63, Parkin's-
rents. The prisoner, who was a nightly lodger there,
took them upstairs to their room, and when they woke in
the morning their boots, stockings, and other clothing had
all been carried off, as well as every article possessed by a
poor woman who lodged in the next room. When tho
prisoner was apprehended part of this woman's property
was found upon her.—She was remanded.