The Express.
London, England, 1861-12-04 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 4, 1861.

Rata intetlignue.

BAIL COURT.—Dec. 3.
Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster.—(Before Mr. Justice
Blackburn and a Common Jury.)

ATTACK r. BRAWAELL
This was an acuun for an illegal distress, but long before
the case could bu completed, the learned judge had to leave
for chambers, and the covet adjoured about one o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Dec. 3.

Bitting, at Nisi Prime in Middlesex.—(Before Mr. Justice
Bytes ands Specud Jury.)
• '

The whole day was occupied with the trial of the case of
Maitland r. Bramwell, which was an action against a lady
for libel ; but, aa the matter was nut completed when the
court rose, we postpone our report.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—Dec. 3.

&Wily at Nisi Prius at Wortminater.— (Before the Lord
Chid Baron Pollock and a Cummuu Jury.)
BARNES V. lIVERLI7.

This was en action to recover the sum of 73!. 116. 941.
for goods supplied. The defendant pleaded never indebted.
Mr. Muddleston, Q.(., and Mr. Holl, were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Sorieant Shea and Mr. Philbrick were
counsel for the defendant.
Mr. Hudilleston having stated the plaintiff's cue to the
jury, called the followin,, evidence.

- The plaintiff deposed—l am an upholsterer carrying on
business in the Llty-reed. la 1659 a gentleman purled
Levi took a hour, in liosbury.square. and 1 supplied him
with furniture. In March last Mr. Levi called upon me,
and asked me if I would allow him 10 per cent. commission
on the introduction of a customer. I declined, saying 5 per
cent. was the usual commisaioo, but 1 ultimately agreed to
allow him 7i per cent. 1 met the defendant by agreement
at the house be bad taken, 115, Piccadilly, and was there
introduced to him by Mr. Levi. At the defendant's re-
quest l made an estivate and sent it in for the painting,
papering, and decorations, but it was never carried out., be-
, 1.741/10 the defendant afterwards informed me that his father,
who is a large builder, had sent his men iu to do that
work, and that he should only require furniture from
me provided we could agree ea the prima Between the
30th March and the Bth May, when the first order was
given, the defendant and Levi frequently mine to my ware-
house, and looked at various articles of furniture. At that
time I was supplying Levi with furniture, and ou the 4th
June I drew two bills on him—one for 20f. and another for
19/., the balance of the account. Before that Levi had
ordered a sideboard and wardrobe. On the 2nd August 1
saw the defendant, and in the course of conversation he
said, " Of course you have booked all the goods to Levi."
replied •' Certainly not ; 1 have Welted them all to you."
Defeudant had never before suggested that Levi wee to
pay for them. He naked me if Levi had out offered to
bring me the moony for them. I said, " Yee ; Levi
wished to pay me, and I was never more surprised
in my life." He said, "If Levi says so I
you will believe him." He asked me to go and se=
but I declined. When I returned home, after that couver-
Nation, 1 found on my desk a letter from Mr. Levi's solicitor,
inviting me to attend a meeting of his creditors. 1 celled
on the defendant the nest day and asked hint what be
meant by referring me to an insolvent MAD for the money,
to which he replied, "Oh, Levi says you have given him
as account of all the goods, and drawn bills on him for
the amount."

The Lord Chief Baron said ie thought the plaintiff's
counsel need not go further. fie presumed it was not die.
puted the good. were supplied, and that the question
with whom was the contract made.

Mr. Sorjeant Shoo—Precisely so.

Mr. Huddleston mid in that ems be would not
occupy the court further with the examination of the
Cruse.eiuunined by Mr. Berjeant Shea—l sent a statement
of the goods to Levi, dated the 14th of June, shortly after
they were auWied. When I sent it in I knew Levi was
Insolvent. The statement produced is the one I sent in,
but it had not the words, " Mr. Levi," written on the top
of it. Levi did soot say that he bad contracted the debt,
sad that his mein must be put on the account. The body
of the statement is in my handwriting. "Mr. Levi^ is not.
I don't know whose it is. I swear I did not write the
weeds " Mr Len' at his house in the presence of himself
and wife. The defendant never mid he had not to pay for
the goods, but that Mr. Levi was answerable. The
fast time 1 heard el Mr. Levi being responsible was after the
insolvency. Levi never said that he was indebted to the
defendant, sad would have to pay for the goods. He said
the defendant MO a reepoesible man, and was the son of Mr.
Everett, the well-kaown boulder. I would not have looked
to Levi for payment. Everett did not my other goods must
be charged to him. I did not tell him that 1 understood he
had nothing to do with the payment. The order wee not
Wand when I sent the statement to Levi. I thought Levi
wee anxious to have the statement to know what his corn-
minion would amount to. I drew two bills of 25/. each on
Levi, not for this account, but for the sideboard and
wardrobe I was making for him. They were not delivered.
I kept them beck to see if the first bill would be disho-
noured. It was dishonoured. I have received about 1001.
from Levi. He gave me in writing that he would pay me
Everett's account within ten days from the receipt of the
statement.

James Pacsman, late in the plaintiff's employ, proved the
delivery, hc., of many at the goods.
This was Use plaintiff's owe.
Mr. Serjeant Mee addreemd the jury for the defendant.
He the questioa was to whom credit was given. He
should be able to prove that Levi, who was indented to the
defeadast, offered to pay him is goods ; that that offer
wee accepted ; sad that then Levi smut to the plaintiff, who
agreed to supply the goods ea Levi's credit. It was • dis-
tills* transaction from the estimate for the deooratiosia &c.
He should further be able to prove that the plaintiff wrote
the words "Mr. Levi" the statement in Levi's house,
is the presence of Mrs. Levi. The learned counsel then
celled the following evidence.
Mr. Freda:Mk Everett, the defendant, deposed—Previous
to April in this year 1 had bed truism:Mons in the way ed my
beenseas with Levi, who owed me in Aped last about 3401.
I had them takes the house, 115, Piccadilly, which I wished
to furnish. Levi wished to mad some furniture to the
house iu payment am, debt. I consented, and be told me
ha had arranged with the plaintiff to seed me the goods,
and charge him with them. Plaintiff was a stranger to me.
Levi took me to the plaintiff's shop, and on my second
visit there I saw the plaintiff, and looked at the geode
only. Nothing was said by me or the plaintiff as to my
arrangement with Levi. la July 1 accidentally
met the plaintiff a few doors from Mr. Levi's
house, and said I thought I should require
some more goods—this was after the supply
of the goods sued for—and if Ido au they will have to ho
charged to my own meanest. I have nothing to do with
those you have already supplied ma He said, " I under-
stood if Mr. Levi did not pay me you would." I replied,
" have nothing whatever to do with it ; you have trusted
Mr. Levi in this matter, and if you are nut quite clear
about the arrangement you had better go with me to him."
Plaintiff said, •'Oh no, I know Mr. Levi to be an honour-
able man. I have dune bushel's with him." I again said,
" I have nothing to do with the gouda, and if you will come
with me to my office I will show you his receipt." He made
no reply, and we parted. The next time I saw the
plaintiff was the troiniug Levi was garotted, on
the 2nd of August. 1 hail not then received
the invoice. Plaintiff then came to my office at the Royal
Exchange, and I asked why ho came to me, sod why he
had not sent me the invoice, if he considered me liable! He
and he thought the order was nut completed. I replied,
" Then why did Ton send the invoke to Levi, and draw bills
upon him!" He mid he bad not. At this time I had
given Levi credit for the goods off niy auvunt.
Craw-examined—Levi owed rim the money for ash ad.
Tamed to him, and not for stock-jobbing. Suruetinies I
took plate flan him for security. I doe% know if be got it
from tradesmen. At other times I have lent him money
on his 1 0 U's. He now owes me fruin 201. to
auc I took some et Lis own furniture fur my
debt. T adopted the beet course I could to pay my-
self. Messrs. Sadgrove supplied me with some goods.
I referred them for a portion of the payment (ab out 101.)
to Levi, which has been allowed to use in the eettlerneut
of the account. Levi has paid me in cash off the debt
about4lso/. The last cads payment was in June. I had
210/. of his own goods in May. Then, again, 250/. and
I T2I. worth ~f his own sonde. l had 34!. His. of diamoods
from Lim; there was 731. Ils. 3d. of goods from Heroes.
A similar amingernest an that made with Barnes was
made with Hedge and Reed, sod with Hoots and Co. I
believe Levi has not paid Mews. &Agree.. I Mal no idea
of his bankruptcy. Levi was a general dealer at S. Fins-
liery•pm ernent. He is now living in Bleoneibury•aquare.
I have advineisi over WO/. to Levi.
• By the Judge—Levi haa written letters at my office, but
he was not in the habit if regularly doing so.
Mr. Joseph Levi—l am a dealer in jdate, jewellery, fur-
niture, diamonds. antiques, &c. Refine this transaction
I bed had dealings with the plaintiff for two years. 1 was
, in debt to Barn. ideoit 3:1/. when I furnished the gouda, I
was then iu debt to the defendant about 320/. I used to
give lent as security plate, jewels, furniture, and 1 11 U's.
It was not convenient for me to pay Ms debt, and I pro.
posed to furnish his house, as that would give me time to turn
round. I was in credit with tradesmen to do so. Thu de.
fondant accepted mer, sod goods were sent in from
Meanie. C0C0.,22/.24.3.1.; from Moon. Hodge and
Reed, PJ:. 13e. Masora. Sedirrove and (Jo., 101. They have
been discharged—sonic in full sal some out, but
by • composition His. in the pound. The witness
was examined in detail as to this particular transaction, and
' swore positively that he agreed with the plaintiff to he
answerable for the amount, the plaintiff alwing bins 7e
per cent. fur the risk. The words. " Mr. Levi. for," were
written by the plaintiff in roy house, at my request, and un
my giving him an undertaking to pay the amount. Main-
tiff had repeatedly applied to me for money, and as it was
not convenient for one to pay biro, ho drew two bills upon
me at short date., for 25/. each. These lolls were doom
for this debt alone, and at that time my private account
with him was settled. The bills were 1..4 given for the
sideboard and wardrobe.

Cross-examined—l have discharged Heels and eo.'a, and
Reed cod Co.'s debts, by • .ads payment of es. in the
pound, and r.. in the pound on promissory notes, to be
paid in twelve mouths. 1 lave eras defendant at various
times WU!. worth of furniture owl of my own house. My
furniture was worth WOK AbontleOl. worth went to my

creditors. My debts were about 1,0001., and my assets
besides my furniture from MU. to MC 1 was
bankrupt in 'KU. In 1852 I west to Constantinople, and
remained till 1,7,5. I then came back, and went again back-
wards and forwards to Constantinople. I traded at that
time at Constantinople and London, sod in that bankruptcy
I paid 14.. in the pound. My debts were about 50,0001.,
and my assets in money and securities to 30,0001. My certi-
ficate was at first refused in consequence of some in-
formalities in the proceedings, but I afterwards got a third-
elms certificste. I will swear my creditors did
not receive so little as Rid. in the pound. The Ottoman
Bank was paid 15s. in the pound ; the Constantinople
creditors 4s. 10d., and the London creditors over 12s. Some
were paid 205., sod some did not prove. 1 have superseded
my last bankruptcy.
Other witnesses having been called is support of the de-
fendant's use (including' Mrs. Levi, who swore to the name
being written on the account at her husband's house),
The learned counsel addressed the jury for their respec-
tive clients.

The Lord Chief Berm summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

COTCHIN r. nEwsov.
In this cue, tried yesterday, the verdict was by mistake
printed 1501. instead at 2:01.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
Dec. 3.
(Before She Jodp Ordinary.)

OTAJNES V. NTZWART MW JON (CLENR.)-BERTINCI.

This was a question whether Mr. Mathew Staines, who
had previously been • clergyman, and who died at an ad-
vanced age on the 10th of September, 1860, did or did not
destroy his List will dated on the 7th of November, 1838.
The defendants were the executors, Mr. Stewart being •
solicitor in London, whose sons were benefited by the
alleged testament. The plaintiff was the son of the deceased.
The cause was heard last month, and was duly reported at
the time.

Sir C. Cromwell now gave sentence. He considered
that the two witnesses who had been called to
support the revocation of the will, namely, nisei
Ohn, the mistress of the decea►ed, and her brother-
in-law, Auguste Siebert, were not to be implicitly believed.
It might be said that an unfortunate attachment did not
necessarily detract from • person's credit. In many
eases that was quite true ; bat each must be determined by
the circumstances attending it. In this the connexion of

Plan with the the court to be a
calculating sale of her respectall to
or what the could get
out of him—it wu, in fact, an attachment to his property
rather than to himself ; and her position did therefore
diminish the confidence to be placed in her testimony. Still
move so that of Siebert, whom the evidence plainly showed
to have procured for his sister-in-law the situation of mis-
tress to this aged gentleman ; and whose conduct showed
each an amount of calculating moral depravit as rendered
him to a groat degree unworthy of belief. Evidence had
been tendered of a subsequent declaration to the landlady
of the deceased ; but as it had been held that a similar de-
claration could not have teen received in support of a se.
mod will containing a revocatory clause the court did not
see bow it was admissible to prove a revocation by bunting
or cancellation. The facts of the case did not give the
least colour to the statement of Moho and Siebert,
that the will bad beau extracted from the testator by
Mr. Stewart ; but they did strongly corroborate Mr.
Stewart's averment that the deceased had merely given hie
son a life interest in the estate because be knew that he
would squander it away if he could get possession of it. Be
(the judge) must, therefore, declare that the will had sot
been destroyed by the deceased.
It was stated that the son had died since the termination
of the suit.
MORRIS C. MORRIS.
-111 a
In this case, which was the petition of Mrs. Morris, the
wife of Mr. Morris, of Loddiogton-ball, Leicester,
The court ordered the defendant to pay the petitioner the
sum of 2,000/. in lieu of a provision by way of permanent
alimony.

DEIISTER t'. DEJISTZIL

The petitioner sought a dissolution as the ground of
cruelty and adultery. The wife bed condoned the cruelty,
but had not been aware of the adultery till • subsequeut
period.
Sir C. Creswell, after • careful examination of the
authorities, thought it was necessary that the whole of the
husband's delinquency should be know to the wife in
ostler to make her condonation valid. lt was not, however,
requisite to decide that point, because, while he was satis-
fied that the petitioner bad proved her case, Le wee not
satisfied, in the terms of section 31, that she had bees
&memory to, or bad connived at her husband's offence ; or
that she had condoned the adultery, or had prosecuted her
suit in collusion with him. He felt, therefore, bound to
pronounce a decree nisi, with costa.
HOTTICR r. HOTLY! AHD FOXALL Cpßi QT.TRICeB PROCTOR

Dr. Twin, on behalf of the petitioner, moved for leave
to withdraw the petition.
Dr. Spinka, for the Attorney-Gener►l, said the Queen's
Proctor had alleged that the petitioner bad wilfully deserted
his wife, and had been living in adultery for 20 year.. The
Attorney.thineral was willing, however, to consent to the
motion on payment of the Queen's Proctor's costa.
The petition iris accordingly dismissed.

LAITON r. LAITUN.

The decree le this cue, which wee the petition of the
wife of a barrister for cruelty and adultery, wu made
absolute.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—Dec. 3.
(Before Mr. Comminaioner Niollol/1.)
171118 MT MASTARD FEII4.XSON.-111.1101:LAk CAPIC.

This insolvent, whose sue has beeo reported in our paper,
sow applied to be discharged on sureties.
Mr. Bolden, an attorney, the detaining creditor, appeared;
and Yr. Dowse supported.
This was a singular case. The insolvent had been nearly
twelve months in prison, and it was alleged that she had
considerable property. She alleged that she was the wife
c 4 a member of parliament, sod had been the widow of an
caber in the navy named " !dastard." She had a daughter,
end had made over to her a house, and there was besides
large sum in a Scotch bank. The insolvent's daughter,
Mies Masten), was willing to give up the property, but her
mother requested her not, and there were law proceedings
la Scotland to recover the property.
Kr. Bolden informed the court that Mr. Miller, the regis-
tree at the Court of Bankruptcy, had suggested the present
appliestion, and considering that the insolvent had been
' twelve months in prison he should not oppose the appli-
cation.

Mr. Commissioner Nichols remarked that be bad only to
carry out the law. The party bad ample property, and no
matter whether she had been twelve months or more in
prim), it was for Mr. Bolden to my whether be conaeuted
to the application.
Mr. Bolden said he could not, after the imprisonment,
reset the application. The proceedings would go on, and
the property be recovered.
Nominal bail was accepted; and in consequence of the
proceeding' in Scotland the Nee was adjourned tt. the sth
Yarch.

IN RE WILLIAM IDCHOLAY.

This insolvent wu opposed by Mr. Macrae, sod supported
by Mr. Dowse.
The complaint was that the insolvent in two actions by
hu opposiog creditors had put these to law expenses, seed
further that he had not accounted for his property.
The court pre a judgment of four months from the
vesting onto..

CC RE THOMAS WONNACOST.
This insolvent was opposed by Mr. Dowse, for a creditor
camel Christrues, and in person by a Mee. Daniel. The in-
solvent got • 2W. bill from Mrs. Dub, to do some work to
her house, nod raised st. on it. There had been law
expsoses.—The court save a judgment of six months.

observation was that be maw several eves ie the present
calendar which might be disposed of at the quarter sessions,
Rad which, consequently, ought not to have come before
him.

NURDILSOL:B ASSAULT NY • CONVICT.
George Burkett, 20, soldier, a determined-looking young
man, wee charged with feloniously cutting and wounding
John Cooper with intent to murder him. In other counts
the intent of the prisoner was laid to do grievous bodily
harm. _ _ _

Mr. F. Russell and Mr. Barrow conducted the prosecu-
tion, which was institued by the direction of the Home•office.
It appeared that the prosecutor was a warder in the
convict prison at Chatham, and the prisoner had been
sent to that establishment in June, 1859, under
a sentence of five years' penal servitude for a
robbery committed at Leeds. He had 'Macon-
ducted himself on several occasions, and the prosecutor had
been compelled to report him, and he had, in consequence,
been placed in solitary confinement and kept on bread and
water, and the prisoner had repeatedly threatened the prose-
cutor with violence. On the 22nd of June a gang of con-
victs was employed in some works at Chatham, under the
charge of the prosecutor and some other warders, and
while the former bad his back to him, the prisoner, who
was one of the gang, attacked him in a most savage manner
with a specie that he had been working with, and struck
him several blows on the head with the weapon, in-
flicting very serious injury upon him. The prose-
cutor raised his arm to protect his head, and he
then received a tremendous blow from the spade on his right
hand, which broke several of the bona. The prisoner
would, in all probability, have indicted still further injury
upon the prosecutor, if the dockyard guard had not come up,
and be was charged by one of the officers with a bayonet
before be would give up the spade, and he was then secured
and taken before the governor, when the only excuse he
made for his conduct was that he did not intend to murder
the warder. The prosecutor,. it appeared, was under
medical treatment for the injuries be received for four
months, and he was then found to be incapacitated for the
performance of his duty as a warder, and was discharged
the service.

The prisoner, when asked whether he wished to put say
questions to the witnesses, merely replied that he 6d
nothing to ask them. All that he urged in his defence wee
that he had a very short temper and was easily put out,
and the prosecutor was always "down upon him," and he
could not stand it any longer. He denied, however, that
he intended to take his life, and said that his object was
merely to assault bim.
The learned judge having summed up, the jury immedi-
ately found the prisoner Guilty of wounding the prosecutor
with intent to murder him.
Mr. Justice Williams, addressing the prisoner, said that
as the offence of which he bad been convicted was com-
mitted before the passing of the recent statute, he was
bound to order sentence of death to be recorded against
him. At the same time he thought it right to inform him
that the offence of which he bad been convicted was no
longer a capital one, and that consequently the capital sen-
tence would not be carried out ; but he must expect a vtir7
severe punishment, and very probably one of penal sem.
tude fur life.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—GLorerxrzit, Dze. 3.
(Before Baron Wines.)
The commission for this city and county was opened here
last evening, and his lordship proceeded with the business
to-day. There are 32 prisoners in the calendar, besides
ieueml brought by habeas corpus from Bristol. Amongst
them is a charge of murder al a polies officer against four
men who attacked him in the Forest of Dean, and a woe
from Bristol, in which a merchant is charged with sys-
tematic fraud. The grand jury found a true bill against the
accused to-day, and Thursday is fixed for the trial. The
true bill for murder was also returned this evening.
NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Lvararooz., Dgc. 3.
Mr. Baron Channel arrived to-day in Liverpool from Lan-
caster. He was mot at the station by the High Sheriff, Sir
H. de Trafford, the Deputy Sheriff, and the Mayor
of lAverpool. The commission was then opened in St.
°Gorge's-hall, and the court adjourned until next morning,
at 11 o'clock. Mr. Justice Crompton is engaged at the
Chaster Amebas, and is net expected in Liverpool until
Monday next. The civil cases will then commence.

NORTH WALES....-CIMTER, DEC. 3.
The winter anima for the county of Chester commenced
We day before Mr. Justine Crompton. The learned judge
having attended divioe vendee at the cathedral, proceeded
to the Castle, when the bushman( the anima at once com-
menced. There are 40 prisoners for trial, including a sin-
gularness of murder, in which Jamb= Morgau is Chemed
with poisoning her sweetheart, the deceased and the pri-
soestr having mutually agreed to die together.
The grand jury having come into court with a number of
bills, the trials were proceeded with, but none were of suffi-
cient public interest to all • report.

John UIIOIWOII, a watchmaker, carrying on business at
No. 14 Wormwood•atreet, was brought up on • warrant
signed by the Lord Mayor, charged with unlawfully detain-
ing three brooches, value 151.
The prisoner has had no less than forty-eight summonses
issued spinet him, including cases in which a second sum-
mons had been granted, within the bet twelve months, fur
detaining property ; and Mr. G. C. H. Lewis, solicitor, who
is the complainant in this case, has taken out three against
, him for the detention of the three brooches ; but as he has
failed to appear to answer either of them, a warrant was
granted for his appreliensioo.
Upon being mked by Mr. Goodman if be had the
brooches, the pnsoner'e wife handed them to Mr. Lewis,
and upon examining them, he said that two of them which
contained family portraits were not in the same state as
when left with the prisoner, one portrait being damaged,
and the other had been taken out and was missing. He
stated that the articles were left with the prisoner to be
repaired in November, 1860. Repeated applications had
been made for them during the last 12 months, but as
they were never forthcoming, he had taken a warrant against
him. The value of the missing portrait, he said, was a
guinea, and he should apply that an order be made,
and applied for costa, as be bad attended at the court
three days ; besides having lost a deal of time in calling so
many times upon the prisoner.
His lordship made an order for the payment of one
guinea, the value of the brooch, and one guinea costs.
The order was allowed to stand over for a day, to give
the prisoner an opportunity of producing the portrait,
as Mr. Lewis would rather have that than the guinea.
There was also a summons against the prisoner for de-
taining a watch value 31., to which he pleaded guilty,
and an order wee made out for its restoration, or payment
of N.

Upon these cases being disposed of a young man stepped
forward, and said the prisoner had also a watch belonging
to him, which the prisoner acknowledged, and promised to
give it up on Saturday.
ULEMBENWELL.
William Taylor, a low-looking but
_powerfully. built fel-
low, a costermonger, residing st HeirY.-Pbor, Conon-
hagenetreet, lalington, was charged before Mr. Barker with
violently assaulting polioe-sergeant, Witherington, 21 N,
and poltoe-conetables Pony, 23$ N, and pierce, 300 N, in
the execution of their duty.
From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner, who is •
noisy turbulent fellow, was the worse for Imour, making •
great disturbance and abusing his wife. The sergeant eked
him to go away, but he would not ; and on the sergeant
tithing him into custody he kicked and plunged very vio-
lently. In the course of the scuffle the prisoner kicked him
un the legs and thighs, and, with an oath, said that he
would injure him for life. After a desperate struggle the
other constables came to the sergeant's assistance, and on
the way to the police station the prisoner threw Perry with
pest force on the ground, kicked him twice in the inside of
the thigh, and otherwise illused him. The prisoner also
kicked Pierce on the legs, and on the way to the cells he
attempted to strike some other constables. The prisoner's
wife is • hard-working steady woman, but the prisoner, it
was stated, was an idle fellow.
Mr. Barker said that his defence made the matter worse.
He would do all he could to protect the police from the
savage assaults of drunken men, and should send the pri-
soner, without the option of a fine, to the House of Correc-
tion, with bard labour, for two calendar months.
David Illiagrorth, 35, a cab-driver, badge 461, residing
at 14, .een-street, Pitfieldetreet, Horton. was charged
with v cleatly assaulting police-constable John Manebridge,
145 N, in the execution of his duty at High-street, Islington.
The constable that morning was endeavouring to coal •
disturbance in High-street between some low prostitutes,
when the prisoner, who stood behind the constable, without
any provocation struck him • tremendous blow and pitched
him against the wall. On the constable partially recovering
himself he seised the prisoner, who threw the constable
with great force on the pavement. While the constable
was lying on the pavement the prisoner kicked him several
times on the back of the bead and body, and otherwise
severely ill-used him. When the constable got up the pri-
soner struck him in the face and made his nose bleed.
Assistance having come up, the prisoner was taken to the
station, but on the way to which he was very violent. The
constable was, from the effects of the prisoner's violence,
rendered unfit for duty, and it was found necessary to send
him home to bed and to apply leeches.
My Barker said, as the assault was so serious, and the
constable was in so bad a state, he should remand the
prisoner for • week.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Within.. Ha►ding, a young min, was charged before Mr.
Tyrwhitt with the following assault on • little girl named
Sarah Bye, living at 12, Little Pulteney-street.
It appears that the little girl was passing along Rupert-
street the previous afternoon, when the prisoner seized
her by the hair of the head and lifted her off her feet. He
thee threw her down with great violence and destroyed
her bonnet.

Godwin, 206 C, corroborated the little girl, and said that
on asking the prisoner why he did it, he replied, became
the girl had followed him.
Mr. Tyrwhitt maid he should commit the prisoner for
si: weeks without a fine. It was • gross outrage without
My MUM.
Elizabeth Armand, • dirty little woman, was charged
before Mr. Tytwhitt with violently assaulting Mrs. Susan
Engle under the following circumstances.
The complainant, the wife of • bird-shop keeper, 40,
Great Bt. Andrew-street, said that on the previous night
the prisoner came into the shop and abused and struck her
several times about the head with her fist, and tore out a
quantity of her hair. It was the third time she had so
treated her.

limy 6;uriner said she heard the prisoner uk for Mr.
=mid on being told that he warn not at home she at-
Mrs. Eagle.
Prisoner—The complainant's husband bu bewitched me.
He ha. been murdering all of us for some time while io our
had..

Austin, 318 A, said the pri ner, both last night and that
morning. told him that Mr. Eagle had bewitched her and
set a spell on her.
Prue:ler—He has set a spell on me. I am enraged to
madness and can't live. lam bewitched. I live in Lam-
beth.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—You will have to find bail. Whether you
are crazed or not I cannot tell, but your conduct is dan-
gerous.
The prisoner, who is e strange-looking woman, was then
ordered to find one bail in 51.
THAMES.

The prisoners accused of being concerned in the great silk
robbery at the St. Katharine Docks last March were
further examined, and remanded. The solicitor for the
prosecution hopes to complete the ono next week.

LYING IN THE WAY OP TRADE.

At the Wakefield Sessions on Monday, before
Colonel Smyth, M.P., and a full bench, Angel Isaacs, a re-
spectable-looking man, described as a hawker of gas regu-
lates', of London, was charged with obtaining a sum of six
shillings from Mr. Hall, a newsvender, of Wakefield, by
mesas of false pretences. Mr. Thomas Beard, of Basing.
halletreet, London, defended the prisoner. Mr. Hall
stated that a short time since the prisoner called upon him,
and submitted to his notice some new gas regulators. He
said they would burn less gas and show more light than
any other in use, and affirmed that he had entirely fitted
tip the hamary carried on by Messrs. Fernandez, of Wake-
field. He also mentioned some other firms ; sod, in con-
sequence of his statements, witness purchased three gas re-
gulates' for Gs. Subsequently witness found that prisoner
had not fitted up Messrs. Fernandez's brewery : hence the
proceedings. Crou.examined by Mr. Nord—The gat regu-
-1 atorss did not save pa, but they gave three or four times
the light that the old burners did. Some merriment was
caused by an attorney's clerk, who was called as • witness
by the plaintiff, aud who was excepted to by Mr. Beard,
upon the groond that gas-regulators and law were not so
closely allied as to enable the witness to be judge in the
matter. For the prisoner, Mr. Beard produced high testi-
monials, and urged that if the gas regulators did consume
snore gas the light they gave fully bore out the statements
of the prisoner. Mr. Beard also quoted the ease of the
" Queen v. Bryant" and some others, in which the Queen's
Bench had laid down that the mere telling a lie to obtain
custom was not in itself sufficient to obtain a conviction for
false pretences. The chairman having paid a high compli-
ment to Mr. Beard for the manner in which he had defended
the prisoner, said a majority of the magistrates were of opi-
nion that the prisoner must go for trial. He was aooordingly
committed, but bail was accepted.