The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-01 00:00:00

THE EXPREK FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 1; 1861:

taitied in thin eountrs, waiting fur the trial; and in
its stein allowed only four guineas for four day.
detention. his opinion lieioa that the defendant 'bolld
ha.. bees examined lidos: a master, laid In. evidence after.
wank rent to the jut.. On behalf ;if the defendant, hoer.
ever, a rule was obtained snlliug upon the master to review
his timeline upon these two points, and to-day alum woe
shown against the rule being mole absolute.
The Solicitor 4 :emend and Mr. D. Kelkii• appeared to show
came and Kr. Coleridge to support the rule.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the general rule that a
party should lie examined before• neuter, instead of staying
in this country foe a long time waiting for the trial, wee
very salutary rule ; but it was subject to ems
There were uses the exigencies of which required that
there should be oral examination before the jury; and in
sorb case. the muter was at liberty to make au exception
sad allow sulatintrece.rooney. The master in this use would
review his taxatioe. in reference to the sum charged for
the lloulvie renunuing in the. country. but he would in.
quire whether the 'footsie had remained in this country
solely no aeoisiet of this trial. and in the event of his
having been so detained he would allow a proper charge
for subsistimee•moner only. The charge for copying the
Chancery proceedings had Ivan properly disallowed.
Rule absolute accordingly.
Sittings at Nisi Prin. in Miskllcaex. --(Beton Kr. Justice
Byles sod a Common Jury.)
VAIN r. [NIGH HE PAPAL CHIROPOIMITS.

This was an action to reArrer damages for dander, and
the plaintiff alleged that she h.iil sustained the special
lamogc ul hat log been obligot to leave her burinese pre.
mises, in consequent,' of tii.• slander. The defendant,
among other &loop, pleaded that he was justified in what
he bad dom..
Mr. netpant P.irrir and Mr. Butler Rigby a for
Mai plaintiff ; and Mr. Wordsworth and Mr. Robinson for
the defendant.. .

It 11111/ rtaled by counsel that the plaintiff, Mir Emily
Bath. had been for five rears in the service of a lady named
lampoons Hill, who was of such great eminence as a chiro-
podist, that she rut the OWNS of the anstocracy only—
thinghter) —and it was believed that she was theorigmal .
from which the character of Mn. Moocher, in 'David
Copperlielsh" was drawn. (Renewed laughter.) This lady
died un the 14th April Ist, possessed of considers-
ble property. the bulk of which she left to the
steleuilaat's wife. The plaintiff had had the oppor-
tunity of seeing bow Mi. $. Hill cut corns, and
in Aurst last she started for herself in the business, and
VIA apartments for the purpose in Marylehose-road. The
name in which she mitered into business was Mi. Ends,
else always having been called at Miss Hill's Emily, or Bile
Emily. After Mies v. Hill's death the defendant also
started in business ae a ‘sien cutter, in partnership with a
rased 11.1 wood ; and ma the October, the de-
i'isersilus lant called on the plaintiff. and use a great deal of
abusive language, the consequere of which was that the
plaintiff's landlady gave her notice to quit. The words
used on this occasion formed the slander complained of.
Mr. Wordsworth, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's
case, submitted that there was no evidence of special
damage, ina.much a the special damage alleged was not
the rearry, certain, and proximate result of the words
spoken.
His Lordship, however, thought there was evidence for
the jury.
The courtl on each side addressed the jury for their
cheats, but no witnesses were smiled for the defendant.

His Lordship held that moat of thewonls spoken), though
mouse and abusive, were nut actionable, unless the jury
thought that the special damage spoken to had resulted
from them. Part of the words were these, "Where did
you get that watch front'." he did not think that this
meant, as the ylsintilf contended, to insinuate that she
stole it, hut if the jut.) thought otherwise, the words
would then he actionable.

The foreman, after a few moments' consultation with Ids
Mother pirymeu, said their verdict wa• for the plaintiff—
damage.. 20/.
A Juror, however, mid that this !statement had been mode
without hie went. and consequently the jury were looked
up that they might further consider the matter.
In about Wf.an•batr's time they returned into court,
and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 20/.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
.Ity. 31.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SITIIGE AITRIAS AND MIELLIK

Mr. Sturge, the petitioner, is a musical instrument maker
at Bristol. He married the respondent in Feb., 102, and
bad several children by her ; but only one BUITiVOS. • boy
tee or eleven year. of age, who is subject to fits. The co.
revondiret, a compositor, lodged at his house from June,
18514, till Jau., 18:0 ; when he left, and was soon after fol-
lowed by the respondent. They have since lived together
se inan and wife at Stoneham*. The respondents in their
pleas denial the adultery. and alleged coarlima ecins
timer,. and also a counter-charge of adultery againstion, t the
petithreer.
Mr. Field appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Kerslake for
the respondent, sod Mr. Thtmfor the co-respondent.
The awe a-ainst the as t having been established,
Martha Thesis was ca led by the petitioner, and denied
that she hod ever committed adultery with the petitioner.
fibs was • dremaker, but in Jam, IS7O, she accepted a
situation at the petitioner's, to attend to hi. *bop and to
Wee charge of the little boy. She did not sleep in the
house, bid she had all her meals there. Her wages were
121. • veer. She used to go to breakfast. la the afteruoou
she chilaged her dress in the petitioser's bedroom, but that
was bemire there was no other convenient place in
which to do so. Her master was never there
when she did it. nor had she ever slept in the seine
NM with him. Had never been called Sarah Ann
Dedweeth. The petitioner had sever called her "Old
girL" Left his eniplo went became two tipry women auto
ewe day, and after asking her whether ohs was Mrs. Slurp
(which the denied), called her • fad moo She thew west
to Loam bet after • time she nose beak to Bristol to look
alter hoe clothes. Saw the little key la the Omsk and he
told her that his mother. who bad retuned fee • short Woe,
hod away agaim Sbe took the led ham, sad at the
pelitiwet'• request agreed to re-eater his soda a the
some torero se u leer. W.,. now is his waploy.
Per the reepsibeet Mr. Karslake called
Woe liberge, wise of the ,how odd Oak alter
her rot Whom is Jaa., she (oiters) used to go
to the hose der the popes, of attoodiss to the Maher%
Miss sheet three weeks, two we ea, the witeter
shows sad her Nitro ISM sod spoke to the
loolitioner Ohl whoa that Tho me was Mush otiisD:obs
worth, of Plymouth. Sarah Arab Meese liked the ped-
dleer if he each lie wide had " pealed modwal?" end peti-
tioner mid they had set 1M Besse told witness Mod ale
weld est he woried spin, sod she owed Ow
he the bows. Oae owswieg, however, she wesillg=t
shot Ztassit lord Meng Asa in bat, irdthopetlikitor
hia hreskfaet. At hell be maids
" C=6•ldliti• 4:=8:1° IPA ad Weediest is really
triton?. fie* revarleses rotas h woe, sad bee mood
petitioner told warm that he hod gives Or (re.
=lit) • sovereign, wad NO her of to Meths
fter that be slowed whams hie erifes lima, sad
told her that he had promised to send it et to the Nowa-
dent After the iatervel of • Ally or two he teid Olsen
that he hod seat it her. Sarah Ara hod elan lived at his
be...

Crawsnoised Was net im geed tom with bar awls
wad bed set boa OD for a year. Owild set math ray bow
s,ltres Noe witness sewIOW& Wla bed. Witseses
bid remind a lOW hoe her husband. who w at
Itersassa, oil ideal pet Bose Ms sower it for bar. Ihst
we the rams why tritons west le the he that meet.
lag. Mena bed lobed at the pedtiosoos lows He bad
hit Were the Negmalest west away. INN told whom
that she wee rig St Melba's.
Hy the Jullpi--The petitioner said he bed seat his wife
to Melba Mow she iould not make herself happy, and
was very dilemma with him.
Sir C. Creswell considered that the corater-eharge of
adultery. and oho the plea of coonivanoe, OA best made
oat, and Moira the petition. in the course of his other-
vatioae tlie leathed juste remarked that one e( the evils
that might liethafter result from the facility of divorce was,
that if wows he a eertsiu posiuou in life found that when
their OWIllic“ dissolved and they had married their
pasemenin WOO received amongst their friends just r
well as if they a llreenamed perfectly pure, they might
M mon tveldeee than ever in deserting their husbands
sad mmisittthe est/Mary. He was afraid that that was one
of As ersesquincee that were likely to follow from the ope.
votive el the present law.

her doubled fist—(laughter)—made his nose bleed—
(laughter)—got his head down, tumbled on top of him,
wretched his face and pulled out his hair and whiskers.
(Great laughter.) This continued until two butchers, with
great difficulty, pulled her off him. (Laughter.) The
plaintiff was taken away after he bad been rescued from the
woman, and according to his account he was not the same
man for twelve (lays. The woman outride the shop abused
him and created • mob for half an hour, when she was taken
away. The plaintiff's attorney wrote to the defendant for
an apology and compensation, and no notice was taken of
the letter, and instead of any contrition being ex-
pressed, the plaintiff, when he smune into court, was
asked if he had not been bankrupt or insolvent.
He said that was • very insulting question ; that he had
been two years in his shop and nine years in the game
street, and that he had been neither bankrupt nor insol-
vent. The learned counsel for the defendant, in his speech
to the jury, declared that the action was • very trumpery
one ; that the woman should have been taken to the po
court ; cod that his client was a man of respectability and
substance. The fury found for the plaintiff, with 100/.
damages. Not a single word of regret was expressed at the
trial ; on the contrary, it was alleged that the plaintiff was
a very trumpery fellow, and that the defendant was a
highly respectable man. (Laughter.)
hfr. Day said that as the action had been brought against
the husband and wide, he could not lay all the circum-
stances before the jury, oche was satisfied there would have
been no such verdict. He could not show that the husband
had not received the letter.
Mr. Baron Martin—lf your client is a man of substance,
100/. will not hurt him. (Laughter.)
Mr. Ay—He is a tobacootust, in Clerkenwell.
Mr. Baron Martin—What do you say to the indignity
offered toe man at his own door by • woman tlying at him
like a tigress? (Laughter.)
Mr. Day—No doubt there Irma certain amountof affront.
But the plaintiff says the woman was drunk, and no doubt
an insult from a drunken woman, as far r the indignity
pea, is not ea peat as if she were sober. (Laughter.)
11 a drunken man assaults you in the street the indignity is
not so great as if • sober man marks you for deliberate as-
sault. 100/. a very hire saga der the plaintiff to receive
for • passing injury, and It is • lugs sum for iny client to
Fay. My client does eat wish to go down to trial rain, and
would be quite istisded to leave it to Mr. Baron Bramwell,
who tried the canes, to moms the desnage•
Mr. Baron Martia—ls is quite impossible for us to my
that the damages were areessive—that wee quite • matter
for the jury. n, it is add the assault was committed by
the wife, and not by the hushead, but that does not alter
the thing. When • man memos • woman he is responsible
for her assaults. (Laughter.) There is one law, and one
measure for both.
Mr. Baron Wilde concurred.

Mr. Baron Brainwell—lf the jury bad given 50/. I could
not have said the damages were too small. They gave
100/., and I cannot say they are too large. I think that
the male defendant was sot so much to blame as the
female ; but this I do feel bound to say, that a more insult-
ing and offensive thing than this was throughout, rode.
”odently of the beating and mobbing, there could not have
been. No apology was offered to the plaintiff ; questions
of a most insulting character were ,put to him, and he was
finally told be had brought a trumpery action.
Rule refused.

This was the last day of Hilary Term, and the Nisi Prius
sittings after term for Middlesex comments, tomorrow.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.-J.ex. 31.
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
IN KZ THOMAS MASTERS.
This insolvent, the well.knewn confectioner whose case
was reported on a former occasion, wan further heard.
Mr. N'Lean opposed, and Mr. Robertson Griffiths sup-
' Pre.d*
The point was whether the insolvent had vexatiously
pleaded to the action brought by Mr. M'Leao, the looking-
ear maker of Flest•street. The costs exceeded 701.
Mr. Bicker Caarten opposed for a creditor named Hollo-
way, and asked for some amendments.
His Honour ordered some accounts, and refused to enlarge
the baiL
Subsequently Mr. ill 'Lean said he had no objection to the
bail being enlarged, and at his intercession the bail was
renewed.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Nichols.)
IN Mt LUCY MAY.
This insolvent, whose case was before reported, was again
heard.
After some discussion a sum of OW. a year was set aside
for the trade creditor.
The protection was renewed to the 31st July.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
Bent!, Bart, an elderly man, who was stated to be an
attorney, was indicted for wilful end corrupt perjury.
Mr. Ernest Jones conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Sleigh and Mr. Taylor were counsel for the defendant.
The prosecutor in this case was Mr. Merton, the landlord
of the Castle public-house, in Portugal.street, Lincoln's-Inn-
fields, and the charge against the defendant was preferred
under the following circumstances:—lt seemed that he
carried on his profession in the neighbourhood of the prose-
cutor's house, and that he was inthehabitof frequenting the
Castle, and was on somewhat friendly terms with the prosecu-
tor. In °doter last, Mr. Merton hedreceitedabill terra 10s.
from a lodger who was indebted to him, and afewdeysbefore
it became due the defendant asked him to let him have pee-
session of this bill, no doubt with the object that in the
event of it being dishonoured he might take legal proceed-
ings and obtain the profeetional costs to which he would be
entitled. The prosecutor consented, and the defendant
handed him' 31. 75., the sum of three shillinge being kept
beck for has expenses in going to the City to
ppaane~seesst the bill ; and there was au understanding
betweenass that if the bill was paid, Mr. Mottos was to
keep the etraey the defendant had given him and if it was
noh, that this the money was to be returned. and the de-
fendant was to take legal proceedings upon the bill. When
the hill wee peeesartsd, it was dishonoured, and on the fol.
km* day the dekeidaet went to Mr. Merton's, and he gave
him bask the wasey he had received from him, and the de-
dendsmt gave him a paper iedemnifying him front all legal
liability for oasts ir any proosedlep that might be takes
upon the bill, and the defendeat ales gave him a reesiO for
the wan al TX. Rh. The prosecutor, after this, heard
aothiattaant apes the matter andl the present mouth,
sepia, las received a names to attend at
Oenety Court to show muss why las should
set the dolmen* the sum of 3/. 10., which he elainied
as w balsas of the was ol 231. 104., which he had re-
ceived from the defeiniant under the circumstances above
stated. The ra ta emir on, in due muse for
hearing at the gaudy emit, and the defendant
Ikea swore that Mr. Merlon only paid him 20/.,
and that this wee done about three weeks before
the summon we honed, and not in the month of October,
when the bill was dishonoured; and, with tepid to the re-
cap% he admitted that the signature was his handwriting,
bat be lance that he could Doi sesesat foe Mr. Merton
having pmeemion el it in any other way than that he had
stales N has his slice. The result of the hearing at the
eamaiy aeon wee, that the present defendant was nonsuitod
--ce ether, a verdict we. given in favour of Mr. Merton,
sad
the the peanut 1111121116 me immediately preferred against
illeleadest.

The show hob wore clearly proved by Mr. Merton, who
paired tie Assussisto referred to ; and his evidence was
aufiestally maibined by his them, Mies Emma Merton. The
VMS meesausined at sums length by Mr.
h, but nethiag wheAsur w elated that in the
slightest decree tended to West his testimony.
Mr. Sleigh. in his address to the jury, said it was a very
painful thing to see an old man, verging, as he wee in-
formed, upon seventy, and who wee alau an attorney, and
whose name was at present upon the rolls of one of her
Majesty's courts of law, standing at the bar of • criminal
court charged with so serious a crime as wilful and
corrupt perjury, and he mid he felt assured that the jury
would not convect him of that offence unless upon the most
clear and positive evidence. The learned counsel then
called their attention to the facts of the case, and urged
that it was possible that the defendant, being very old
and decrepit', might have forgotten the real facts
of the matter, and that be had lint wilfully sworn
to what was false.
. -

The Recorder having summed up the evidence, the jury
immediately returned a verdict of Guilfy.
When the verdict had been delivered his lordship in-
quired the age of the defendant.
Mr. Sleigh said that he was informed that he was
seventy-two. He was also instructed to state that his
mental faculties were very much impaired by his age and
infirmities.

The Recorder said he could not listen to a mere statement
of this kind. There should have been some evidence, if the
feet was instated.

Mr. Ernest Jones said he thought it right to inform the
court that the prosecution had been instituted by the direc-
tion of the judge of the county court, who was well
acquainted with all the facts.
The Recorder then addressed the defendant, &Wald that
he had been convicted of an offence of the most serious de-
scription, upon evidence that was perfectly satisfactory to
the court, and which left no doubt that he had committed
the crime of wilful and corrupt perjury by deliberately
swearing that which he knew to be false in order to enforce
an unjust claim for 70s. His offence was greatly aggravated
by his position as au attorney of one of the superior courts
of law, whose duty it was to assist the administration of
justice, but instead of doing no be had endeavoured to
poison it at its very source by the commission of this
offence. Nothing but his age prevented him from puling
upon him a sentence of penal servitude, which undwabtedly
under ordinary circumstances would be inflicted for an
offence of this character, and he should also take into con-
sideration that he would undoubtedly receive another
punishment by not being permitted to remain upon the
roll of attorneys for another instant after this conviction.
Taking these facts into consideration, and also his great
age, be should refrain from passing upon him a sentence of
penal servitude, but his offence was • very serious one, and
be felt called upon to pass a severe sentence. He then
ordered the defendant to be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour fur twelve months.

CRYSTAL PALACE. ONX SHILLING
THCIISDA JAY. 31. —Admisions ou payment, 1,047 ;
ditto by isms Lasts. trl3 ; total viitors, 1,970.

TEE POLICE COURTS.

GUILDHALL.

- -
Joseph COVNISLOS VII summoned before Alderman
Phillips, Colonel Plilsos. Alderman Copeland, and Alder-
man flumphery, for that be was the proprietor of an omni-
bus No. 6,968, plying between Paddington and London
Bridge, the conductor whereof did unlawfully take more
than hislawkl krpz

Mr. Tiaosm,, d No. 1, Falcon.street, Faleon.square, maid
—I entered the defendant's omnibus on Friday night last
about half-pat 11 o'clock at Ratbbone-place, and on
arriving at the General Poet-office I tendered the natal fare
of 3d. The conductor demandedBd., upon which I told him
I had never paid more than 3d. and gave him a live shilling-
piece.
Colonel Wilson—How much did he take?
Complainant—He gave me 41. change, and said' "That is
bow I serve such men as you."
Conductor—He threatened to summon me, and as the
matter waste be contested I said I would charge him the
full fare of Is.

Colonel Wilma—Did the conductor tell you that the fare
was L. at the time you entered the omnibus?
Complainant—No, sir; and I was not aware of there
being a Is. fare.
Conductor—lt is painted on the door, and I have a right
claim it. The fare has been several imes disputed, but
I have convicted persons who have refused to it before
Mr. Henry, at How•street, and Mr. at Hazy-
lebone.
. . . _ .

Complainant—The Is. fare is imperceptible to pawners
inside the omnibus.
Inspector Duddy said—ln consequence of this complaint
I have obtained a faithful copy of the table of fares in the
omni►ua in question, and the Is. fare is so small, so illegibly
painted, and in such a position as would render it impossible
for pamengets in the omnibus to read it.
Alderman Phillips (to Conductor)—Did you at find ask
for 6d. and Una take Is. !
Conductor—l did air. Ido not deny it.
Colonel Wilma—ls this a Loudon General Company's
omnibus!

Conductor—No, sir.
Colonel Wilson—They would not be guilty of each a
thing.
Conductor—No, air?
Colonel Wilson—No. They would be ashamed to prac-
tise such deception on the public.
Oonductor—Wis run after the London General Omnibus
Company, and I have done the same thing for the last 23
years.
Alderman Humphery—l don't believe that, or you would
have been found out before.
_

Alderman Phillips—lf you have carried on this imposi-
tion so long, it is quite time it was put • stop to. This
gentleman very properly tendered you the ordinary fare and
objected to your demand for 6.1., and because he trusts you
with a larger amount of money, you take la. I consider your
conduct exceedingly reprehensilde.
Alderman Copeland —I am inclined to think the gentle-
man would have been justified in giving you into custody for
stealing the money.
Conductor—l have only taken the fare according to the
provisions of the act of parliament.
Inspector Duddy—l wish to explain to the court that
Covington is the proprietor of two omnibuses, the numbers
of which are 6,988 and 6,234. They run from the Royal
Oak, at Paddington, to the Railway Terminus at London.
bridge. The ordinary farm by the London General Omni-
bus Company's vehicles and other omnibuses are 2d. and
3d., but the defendant's outside bills are printed with an in.
tention to deceive, for between the words "Farringdou-street,"
which appal! in large letters, and a large figure of "2d.,"
the words 'To the Bank" are introduced, in letters so
small as to be perfectly invisible to the general public
riding by them omnibuses. Whenever either of the de-
fendant's omnibuses arrives at the Bank complaints of the
passenger are sure to follow about the fires, and this
morning I heard several of the defendant's entomer. de-
claring it was a regular swindle. I rode in the omnibus
this morning for the purpose of obtaining • copy of the
fares. The ordinary charges appear to have been painted
by • professional hand, but the extraordinary fares com-
plained of are "daubed" in at the bottom of the door in
anything but a legible manner or • conspicuous position.
Colonel Wilson—Then • person would not be able to see
it at night time ?
Inspector Duddy—No sir, nor at any other time, from the
Maids of the omnibus.

The conductor said the omnibus was outside the court
for the inspection of the magistrates., who accordingly went
out to view it. They entered the vehicle, and having care-
fully observed the table of fares and its position returned
into court.

Alderman Phillips said—The nada of fares is not in actor-
dm= with the act of parliament, which requires them to
be painted distinctly. and in a conspicuous part of the om-
nibus. The fares, " Before 9, a. m., and " After 11,
p.m., and before 3, A.M., 1r.," are neither distinct nor
ma conspicuous position. I aml my brother magistrates are of
the same opinion with me that this is a gross attempt on
the part of the proprietor of these omnibuses to impose on
the public, and I therefore fine the defendant 20s. and costs.
Conductor—Will you indict a heavier fine, so as to enable
me to appeal, for I have had the point decided otherwise by
other magistrates ?
Alderman Phillips —But they did not see your omnibus.
I have decided, and the case is therefore at an end.

NASINO4 /lorry, who said her age was 17, but who did net
appear more than 14, described as a meant, runthncL.t 34,
Payne-street, Islington, was charged before Mr.
court with atomism • pair of boots and other artioles7;arie
11., the property of Mr. Thomas B. Barker, Coegregathmal
minister, residing at Brunswick House, lionsaa-road,
Islington.
From the evidence it appeared that the primer was em-
ployed during the frost toget some water and clean the steps
of the door of the prosecutor's house, and thus had the op-
portunity of stealing the articles mired. The police were
spoken to, and the prisoner was traced by police-constable
labridge, 145 N, and when told the nature of the charge,
she denied any knowledge of the house or of the minium
articles. She afterwards said that • can could be found
at a certain place, and on the constable going there the
can was found. The inquiries that the constable had made
showed that the prisoner had been going to cheap plays,
and bad also paid for another girl to accompany her. This,
it was supposed, she had done out of the mosey she had ob-
tained from selling the articles she had taken away.
The prisoner denied taking the boots, but mid that the
psil which she was alleged to have stolen she had left on
the prosecutor's door step.
Kr. D'Synoourt said it was a case for further inquiry, and
remanded the prisoner for a week.
WESTMINSTER.
The master of St. Margaret's and St. John's Workhouse,
Westminster, applied to the magistrate under the following
peculiar circumstances :
Applicant said that on the previous nights, woman's children
were admitted by order into the house, when be found that they
were in the most loathsome and filthy state. The woman
had been, with her children, admitted into the workhouse
no less than twelve times since last JUDO, and when her
children were again and again provided with proper clothing
she sold it.

Kr. Arnold—What do you wish me to do
The Yager—l wish to masa against her in any form
you may diet de for wilfully neglecting to take proper care
of her children.

Mr. Arnold—The application is a very novel one. What
were the consequences of the neglect! Did it lead to had
health !

The Master—l am provided with a medical certificate on
the subject.
The medical certificate was handed to the magistrate, and
after reading it,
Mr. Arnold raid—This certificate states that they need
medical treatment and care, but it does not say that it
arises from neglect on any person's part, or that the chil-
dren's health has been in any way prejudiced by the con-
duct of the mother.

iimilisaterl;:liall be able to prove that when you con-
sider it n
Mr. Arnold— a case of this peculiar description I shall
require medical information on oath before I can cant a
warrant. You bad better consult the parish solicitor on
the subject.
Applicant then withdrew.

SHOCKING CUM or MANKLAITGHTIK.—An in-
quest has been held at the village of Pickworth, DOW Stain-
ford, by Dir. Hough, the coroner for Rutland, on view of
the body of John Young, labourer, aged 79, whose death
took place under the following circumstances. The deceased
was employed in stone breakiug on the Pickworth road, and
be and a fellow labourer, named James Alexander, 73 years
of ago, were at work together, when a quarrel took
between them ; high words led to blows, and it is
that the deceased was the aggressor, he hanog struck
Alexander with hie shovel. Upon this, the latter knocked
his assailant down, and falling upon bim with his knees in
the region of the abdomen, such internal injuries were pro-
duced that Young died two days after the affray. A past
mortem examination of the body, made by Mr. Jackson,
surgeon, of Stamford, showed that death moulted from in-
flammation of the bowels, apparently caused in the manner
described. After hearing a mass of evidence the jury re-
turned a verdict of " Manslaughter" against James
Alexander.

E XTRAORDLNARY SU IC I DE. —AS II mall WWI
walking in a field near Limington Church, Hamster, on
Wednesday, ha notice was attracted by the strange beha-
viour of his dog, which kept running backwards and for.
wards to the river. Thinking that it had found an otter he
went to the afoot, and there discovered the body. of a man,
tied seek end limb and hands together. It was immediately
brleVas the& of Mr. Brake, a farmer, of Uchester, whn
niiiiiiag for six weeks previously. As the unfor-
tunate man bas been conined several times in the Wells
Lunatic Asylum, there is no reason to suppose but that the
rash act was biz own. He appeared to have made slip knots
in the rope, to have placed his head, feet, and bands in then,
and then to have bundled himself into the water. At the
nquest on the body a verdict of " Found drowned" was
returned.

A GIGANTIC GIItAVIAO DOCK. —The Money Dook
Bawd ate about to construct a gigantic graving dock at
Birkeeheed. It into be 750 feet long, 86 feet wide, and
106 feet &sp. The estimated cost in 84,01101. There will be
accommodation for two mwe of vessels on gridirons at each
side of the dock, the construction of which ill to be pro.
ceeded with as promptly ae passible.