The Express.
London, England, 1868-08-24 00:00:00

CENTRAL 00lIter.
(Before Mr; deities Lust)
Alfa Malt ruilii••••4, 62. wee charged with uslewhillt "
eissercheig and dispedvg of etrealls property, Mar having
.11reen adjudiested a•beakrupt, with intent to &baud Li
pitiLlitlasteg.elia,tird.r=A-leseassited. The
and Mr. Waist I
The testa this camiTavebesis gives very WO withiii
Orb* dew dogs
I .111mjisq deesod thepeimwer Swags tsetse vase
Vises menthe' impriesommitsed feud Isteres."!. "it?
Merp dem Aderresa 4, • wee -.Maisel with On • smut
deueda of !Merge Peacock.
• Mr. Starling 'inducted the persecution.
The .priesser sus a married Ironton, add the eiffid
whose death Ism the mildest et inquiry wwr.ss
mats sae, wheels heel been palmed her..eitorgeary lib
mother to Miss we cad. sad stairs* Abe eras ka banehies
paid 3.. 6d. per week. Subsequently the mother of the
child caressed her inability to pay to much, and the
vinare. eonsented to take baffics-crown per week, but 4
seemed tole admitted that • this caller amouned was not
regularly peed._ It was tillesed thatast.Wiegoor halmt
taken proper sere of the child, that eke had neglested ,t 4
give it food, and that she left it in a dirty end memorable
eoaditioa Mr several hours • and the ease on the pert of
the locomotion weir that this • uegle4t' ' was the
cause of death .It did not appear to he dia.
puled, however, that the primmer and her blighted, who
resided at Bethnal-green, were inicembly poor, and the
prisoner stated to some of the witoesem that the mother of
the child did not allow sufficient money to buy food for
it, and that she was obliged to go ant to wort for ter own
tivebbood. It wee stated that the primmer hod given the
child boiled bread and milk, and had apparently dime as
much es in her miserable condition she Ism atde,to de Mc
the deceossi chiig. • ' •
Thelealmed judge ruled that, under these eircumetancev,
the present charge could not be supported, and the jury
therefore returned a verdict of liet.lty.

Before the Commealderjeaut)
Aeons Porter, •Ireepectable-looking young women, sur-
rendered to take her trial upon en indictment for mis-
demeanour in having committed wilful and oorrupt per-
jury in the Divorce Court.
Se cant Tindal Atkinson was specially retained, with
Mr. Bilden, to prosecute ; ferjeant Weigh wee also
specially retained, with Kr. Montagu Williams, for the
defence.
The facts of the case were of • very peculiar character.
The prosecutor, Mr. William Bewicke, was a gentleman of
pennon, and lonnerly a magistrate for Northumberland,
and rowed at Thmeywoonbai, in that count). It sp.
that la. had been twice married, the first time in
peered
lar 1866, and his wife died in 1868, and in 1864 he
=riled but it seemed that the second marriage
was • very a one, and in the year 1806 the pro-
. secutor arid kin wife agreed to separate, and be took her
to her friends in London. A short time after-Ward
the wife appeared to have instituted proceedings in
the Divorce Court to obtain • judicial separation on
the ground of away, but that suit was abandoned
and • fresh one inatituted by the wife to obtain
• divorce on the ground of adultery. This cause
came on to be tried in June last, and the present de-
fendant was examined as a witneee, and she swore that
in the month of February the prosecutor had gone into
the bedroom of • person named Mary Latham, who own-
pied the position of housekeeper in the establishment, that
be bad also carried her out of her bedroom down stairs to
the drawing-room, and also that upon a particular day
she had seen him commit an act of adultery witla.th.
Mary Latham; and these were the three allegations of
perjury upon which the present indictment was founded.
It appeared that the Judge-Ordinary of the Divorce
Court made a decree of judicial separation between the
parties ; but the prosecutor appealed against that deci-
sion, and preferred the present indictment against the
defendant.

Mr. William Bewicke, the prosecutor, was examined as
a witness, and he stated in the moat distinct and unequi-
vocal manner that there was no foundation whatever for
the statements that had been made by the defendant be-
fore the Divorce Court with reference to his conduct to
the woman Latham. He also stated that no act of impro-
priety ever took place between him and this woman.
The prosecutor was subjected to a very severe cross-ex-
amination by Serjoant Sleigh, and some extraordinary
statements were made by him. He said he had had a great
many servants, and discharged them when they had stayed
with him a very short dine. The defendant and another
young woman were engaged as servants by Latham
at Liverpool, but he did not like their appearance the
moment he saw them, and they y were o in his house
a few days before he lisch them. He had charged
his wife with adultery, and employed a detective,
and in consequence of the information he received from
him he issued- a handbill offering 1001. reward for evi-
dence against her, and he sent copies of this handbill to
all his friends, but ultimately did not attempt to establish
the charge. His first wife died in the autumn of 1866,
and at this time Mary Latham was living in his house,
but she left shortly afterwards. The prosecutor admitted
that he had been convicted of shooting at some sheriff's
officers who had .some to execute process upon him ; but it
appeared that he subsequently:indicted the parties for per-
jury, and theywereconvicted, andafterhe had been incon-
finement 12 months he received a free pardon, and the
House of Commons awarded him 1,2001. as compensation.
He said that the reason he accused his wife of adultery
was that she told him when' they parted that as lie chose
to leave her she should study her own inclinations. One
of his children died, but for reasons of his own he de-
dined to follow it to the grave. The woman, Mary
Latham, was about 40 rain of age, and be had dined
with her at the Hall, and had walked out with her, but
he declared that nothing ever took place between them.
They were friendly, and he used sometimes to call her
" poodle." (Laughter.) The reason he did so was be-
cause he thought the was like a poodle. (Roars of
laughter.)
There was a great dial more to the same effect, and in
the course of the cross-examination the prosecutor ad-
mitted that he had two illegitimate grown up children.
Mary Latham was called, and she declared most posi-
tively that nothing improper had ever occurred between
her and Mr. Bewicke.

Mr. Serjeant Sleigh addressed the jury for the defence,
and after a reply from Mr. Serjeant Tindal Atkinson, an
immediate verdict of Not Guilty was returned.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCITIT.—LINTERrooL, Ato. 22.
NlBl hulls Comr.—(Before Mr. Justice Hanueu.)
BRADBURY AND ANOTIGUI O. THIS GREAT NORTHERN
RAILWAY COMPANY.-WECINGETJL DELIVERY Of GOODS
HY A RAILWAY costralff.

Mr. Masnsty, Q.C., and Mr. Macrorie were for the
plaintiffs, who are the assignees of the estate of Messrs.
Sikes and Harrison, woollen cloth manufacturers, of
Huddersfield; Mr. Millward, Q.C., and Mr. Edwards for
the defendants. It was an action to recover the amount
of damage alleged to have been sustained in consequence
of the wrongful delivery of goods which had been con-
signed to the care of the defendants. The goods in ques-
tion were consigned by Messrs. Sikes and Harrison to the
London depOt of the defendants to await delivery order;
but it appeared that notwithstanding this instruction, the
defendants delivered the goods to the person for whom
they were eventually intended, and owing to whose
bankruptcy the value of the goods had been lost. It was
stated that the intention of the consignees was that the
' should not have been delivered until they had been
paid for.
A verdict was given for the plaintiffs for 1621. 11.. lid.,
the amount of the claim.
ACTION AGAINST • MAILMAN COMPANT—IINAVT DAMAGES.
In the case of " Pearson v. the London and North
Western Railway Company," Mr. Holker, Q.C., and Mr.
Leiesche were for the plaintiff, Mr. Robert Banks Pearson,
an auctioneer and appraiser at Wigan; Mr. Aspiniill,
Q.C., and Mr. Mellor, for the defendants.
The action was to recover compensation for personal
injuries sustained by the plaintiff while traveling on the
defendants' line, and for loss which had resulted hem his
subsequent inability to attend to business. The defendants
admitted their liability, but left it to the jury to sewthe
damages. On the 14th of December last, Mr. Pearson,
accompanied by his wife, travelled by the train from
Manchester to Wigan, which usually arives at the latter
place at 8.30 p.m., and it appeared that, owing to the
negligence of a pointaman, the train, on arriving at
Wigan, instead of passing into the station, was turned
down a branch line leading to a goods yard, and there
came into a collision with some trucks. It did not tran-
spire whether Mrs. Pearson was injured, but her husband
sustained a severe shock to his nervous system. His
bead had come into violent contact with some iron material
in the carriage, and ho was rendered insensible. lie was
immediately conveyed to the police station, where he re-
ceived medical treatment, and he was afterwards con-
veyed to his home, where Le kept his bed for some time.
Haviiig sufficiently recovered, he removed to Derbyshire,
then went to Buxton, then to Blackpool, and ultimately
back again to Derbyshire for the benefit of his health, re-
maining up to the present time at the latter place. All
this time he was accompanied either by his wife or a
friend. When he bad somewhat recovered his strength,
the plaintiff tried to resume his business, but found himself
utterly incapable of application to his ordinary work. rt
was stated that the profits of his business amounted to
60W. a year, and that he had also been compelled to de-
cline the post of sheriff's officer which had been offered
to him. The medical evidence showed that partial we-
ir& had resulted from the injury, and that the *lad!
would never be able to carry on his burins as before the
accident. On the other hand, it was contended that the
lessee to the plaintiff's business in consequence of the in-
juries he had received had been exaggerated, and that he
would recover his former strength in about six months.
The jury assessed the damages at 1,000/.

LAW NOTICES.

METROPOLTTANCOUNTT COURT.
(Bitting day appointed for the present week.)
Firceirorrce, Oldeitreet-road.—Tuesday. August 2..
Claus►ser..Ll. SISSIONS.—Monday, August 24.

DrisTILLE and Co. Belfast, are the largest
holders of Whisky to the wadi Their Old Irish Whisky isreciont•
wended bp the medical proferkea in prtlerenoe to French Brawl,.
caeks and oases far home use or exportation. Quota-
tkass on application to )L s. Danville and Co.. Delfast• or
lleallicet-bulklinia wank London. W.0.--(Advertirtartak]