The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-04-06 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.-LIVERPOOL, MONDAY.

. rf

.„. '

NISI PLIUS COURT.

defendant was in no way interested as partner in his
father's business, but was simply promised by his father, •
on the attainment of his majority, that he should give him,
as a present,r half the profits which should be realised on
the imports advised in July from America, and was in no
way.taleteletletresponsiblo for any losses which might pos-
sibly, be incurred. Aletrei; fromtliFfilifelTraiThet in le—
show the existence of ,suoh a promise. and ,the defendant
was examined as tn the thee of partnership. It watt stated
by counsel that the defeidant was at present in possession
of hie father's business and mill,-which, it could be shown,
were purchased from the .assignees by his friends, and that
he had never received ' any money on account of the con-
signments per the Perthshire ataithe Admiral. His Lord-
shipsaid the evidence went to confirm, in every, Way, that
the defendant was not liable for the Claim against the
I fathi,r, and there was, therefore, no case for the jury.
MAVROOORDATO V. HINDSON.—SPECIAL JOKY.—The par.
ties in this case are merchants, of Liverpool, engaged in the
corn trade. In November, last year, the plaintiff, Mr.
MavrOgordato, had a shipment of barley, which he gave
to a Mr. Bell, a broker, for sale. Mr. Kennedy, the clerk
of Mr. Bell, was entrusted to force a sale, if possible, and
saw the defendant, Hindson, from whom he obtained 'an
offer of 4s 4d per quarter, terms, cash on delivery.
This offer which was made on the 14th -of
November, was immediately telegraphed to Mr. Bell's
principal, the plaireiff, and a communication received
accepting the offer made. The defendant Hindson was
informed on the following day of it, and the contract was
thereon closed, A boUght note was sent in rgreemrnt with
the terms of the eff r ; " cash on delivery," to which he
demurred, thinking it might give rise to a question
whether he .should he called upon to pay before it was all
delived, or as delivered, from the ship. He therefore
desired Mr. 13ed's clerk to insert the words " of the whole"
after "cash on delivery." This, aler c msulting the
plaintiff, was done, and immediately sent to Hind3on,
The defendant afterwards objected, and returned the
hotight note, and now sought to he released from the
contract. The barley was afterwards sold at a less price,
and the difference in the price, amounting to £431, was
now claimed by the plaintiff. Mr. Tomlinson and Mr.
Wyld appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Hill, Q C., and Mr.
Mill ward for the defendant. Tile jury, after consulting
together for a few minutes returned a verdict for the
defendant.

rtEppRE MR. JUSTICE 011,011 P CON AND A SPITIAL JURY.

IMPORTANT TO THE CORN TRADE.—MARTIN V. FRAN
GOPULO AND NOTHER.—This case, which was opened on
Friday evening, was resumed on.the sitting of the court at
nine o'clock on Saturdaymorning It was an action to recover
damages on a brach of contract. Mr. Attorney-general
Knowles, with Mr. Millsvard and Mr. Baylis, anneared
for the plainalffs; and Mr. Wylde, Q.C., with Mr. Quaine,
for the defendants. The plaintiffs were Messrs. Martin,
the rice aaid cora rnilleis of this town, and the defendants,
Messrs. Frangopulo and Bingham, corn merchants, also
carrying on busini•ss in this town, and the action was to
recover the difference in price between the value of a
cargo of wheat supplied under a contract between the
parties and the price paid.for the cargo under the contract
—a cargo of wheat known in the market as Saidi wheat
In 1855, the defendants informed the plaintiff that th y
had a cargo of Saidi wheat to arrive from Alexandria,
by the Cassandra, and sheaved them a sample of wheat,
as a portion of the cargo which the plaintiff agreed to
purchase. The wheat was of the best description, and
they accordingly agreed to give a price higher than that
which then ruled in the market. The contract
did not contain any reference to the sample, but
it was the custom of the corn trade in Liverpo
that the cargo should be equal to the sample, although
not so directly stipulated in the contract. The Cassandra
having arrived at Cork, in the close of July 1855, the
plaintiff had a sample taken from the hulk and forwarded
to Liverpool, and he then found, on examination, that it
was greatly inferior to the sample, and not at all of the
quality of Saidi wheat. Seidi wheat was white—this was
in a great degree red, and wss otherwise very inferior.
Mr. Martin had, in the meantime, paid for tha wheat ;
and, on the 20th of July, he wrote to the defendants,
stating that he had seen the sample from the bulk, and it
was.sp very inferior to that which he held, that he-must
decline to receive it. He at the same time requested
repayment of the money he had paid defendants, and
informed them that the ship.'s-documents were at their
disposal. No notice was taken of this communication,
and plaintiff then proposed they should arbitrate. This
also was disregarded, on which he served notice on the
,defeadants that he had appointed Messrs. Hubback and
Seger, of the Corn Exchange, his referee's, and these
gentlemen had called in Mr. Daniel Powell, and he
asked defendants to meet them on a certain day. They
did not do so ; but the meeting was held, and
an award made. Mr. Powsll, however, having
~since, died, they had been unable to rec ;ver the sample,
which he retained. Mr. Hubback and Mr. Segar would
be produced, and would tell them what it was. Towards
the close of the year Ur. Martin served defendants with
• notice that he was about to work up some of the
wheat for sizing, and that he would proceed against them
_for the difference. He lied previous'y itiformed them he
had warehoused it at their risk. The defendants upon
this sent a party to see the bulk, and he (plaintiff)
would call him also ; so that he would aft ird the jury
all the aid in his power to arrive at a decision. The
case was one of great interest to the trade. In the
action, besides the question counsel had stated, there was
a claim on account of short delivery, and a second like
claim for short delivery in a cargo purchased previously
by the same buyer of the same seller. Mr. William
Makin of the house of Robert Makin and Sons; corn
brokers, was then examined, and et teed that he was the
broker, and had drawn the contract, which was produced
and read. He stated that the price was 535-3 d per qr.,
which was 3.e to 4s over the price of the day. The con-
tract was for the delivery of 2,484 •ardebs, equal to
156,492 qrs., and the amount £3,750 15s sd. Mr. Makin
said the wheat arrived was not Saidi wheat,
it wss Beheira wheat of low character. Mr.
Martin, the plaintiff, was also examined. Mr.
Hubback was examined as to the quality of the •wheat.
Mr. Segar, vice-president of the Liverpool Corn
Exchange, was called to support the evidence given by
Mr. Hubback, as to the quality of Saidi,wbeat, and also
as to the cargo of the Cassandra. Samples of the latter
were shown to the wituesir who pronounced them to be
Mixed, and not Saidi wheat. Mr. John Patterson, corn
merchant, of Liverpool, deposed that all Saidi wheat
.was liable to be mixed with grains of red or Baheira
wheat. He stated that the sainples produced from the
bulk of the cargo of the Cassandra was not Seidi wheat,
and mold not pass in the Liverpool market for anything
but mixed wheat. Mr. Harris, corn merchant, of Liver-
pool, described Seidi wheat, and stamdeliat belied seen
the bulk of the cargo in question, and did not think it
was Saidi wheat. Saidi wheat he stated ,to be worth
from 3s to 4s per quarter more than mixed wheat. Mr,
Bell, corn broker', of Liverpool, deposed that he went to'
examine the cargo of the Cassandra, lifter its being
warehoused, and did not consider that the wheat there
• was Saidi wheat. He deposed that he had refused to
sign a certificate presented to him, and also
refused to accept the fee which was offered
to him far having inspected the, cargo. Other witnesse-i
Were examined to the sime 'effect, and several depoeitioes
were read of a commission taken for the purpose of testing
how far the cargo in question was accordirion the contract.
Mr. Bingham, one of the partners of defendant's firm, was
examined on the part of the defence for thee purpose of
proving that although there were some grains of Beheira
mixed with the cargo, the great bulk of the 'cargo 'was
Saidi wheat, and the Whole was entitled to class
as a cargo of Saidi wheat. Mr. Blain, cora broker of
Liverpool; was examined,. and gave it as his opinion that
the cargo would rank in the Liverpool market as Saidi
whf a'. There were stare grains of B ,haira wheat mixed
with it, bat the greater panel the -red grains mixed with
it_Were grains of Saidi wheat. S :vend other witnesses of
alike character were examined for the defence. After
Mr. Wylde' and Mr. Attorney General Knowles
had : replied to evidence, his lorrishio - summed
up at considerable length. He said the jury should discuss
from their minis all question as to the wheat having been
sold by sample, the transaction having simply been a
contract to simply Saidi wheat, of course of the character
usually recognised in the market. V it were of that
character, they should find a verdict. for the defendants;
on the other "land, if it were not of. that character, then
the 'verdict should be feu the plaintiff. The jury, after sonic
deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, dame.ges
£195 10a; or at the rate of 2s 6tl per quarter 'on 500
quarters.'
RAINES AND CO. V. THE ROYAL `EXCHANGE ASSURANCE
COMPANY. - This was an action brought by Messrs. James
Baines and Co., of Liverpool, to recover from the defen -
slants the sum of £1,862, Is 11d. -Mr. James, Q C., witn
Mr. Manesty, appeared for the Waietiffs; and Mr.
Attorney-General Knowles, and Mr,lNTylde, Q.C., for the
defendants. • The plaintiffs on the sth of Noy , 1853 when
their celebrated ship, the Marco Polo, was about to sail for
Melbourne, effected two policies of •iesurance for the sum
of £2,000 each with the Royal Exchange Assurance
Company, in addition. to other p dieies with the Under-
writers at Lloyd's, to the extent of £6,000, in all £lO,OOO,
on the passage money. The Marco Polo sailed • from
Liverpool . for Melbourne about the' date above men-'
tioned, and on the 25th- of 'January following
she made Shortlaird's Bluff, in • Hobson's Bay,
about forty-five miles from Melbourne where she anchored.
Unfortunately, on the following day she took the • ground
and it being considered that., in this position; she would be
in.great danger if it carafe on to.blow, the captain, with the 1
eenseut of the agent in Melbourne, empleyed several steam
tugs, and other veraele, to land the passengers; of whom I
there were 616 on board, .and to get off the ship. - The.
passengers were safely' landed,- the ship 'got off, and taken 1

to Melbourne.. In effecting this, an expense of £4,678 2s
7d was incurred. The plaintiffs considered that their
policies of insurance covered all expenses and risks, as well
as insured against the absolute leas of the vessel, and they
accordingly made application to the different insurers for
-repayrnent,of-the-expeaseseas-ah ive incurred. They also,
empinyed an eminent av_•rage stater, in London, Mr,
Richards, and he reported that <&,704 I4S 3d, was the
proportion due by the underwritera at Lloyd's, and £1,862
lid by the defendants. ' The former paid their proper
tion, but the defendants refused to do gO, and hence the
present aetidn, The defendants!peid X2OO inte court, The
depesitious of the Captain of the Marco Polo, stating the
partiCulars of the accident, and the attendant circumstances,
was put in and read: Mr ,Lncaa Murray, one of the firm
Who then acted as agent in Melbourne for the Black Ball
Line, was examined. He corroborated the statements as
set forth in the captain's depositions, and said that it was
essential for the safety of the passengers, that they should
be removed froth the Ship after her grounding.
Mr. James B tines, one of the owner's of the ship, was ex-
amined as to the pelicies effected on her. ICI addition to
the policies effected on the passage money, whidn
amounted in gross to £13,543 Is., less £1,941 ss. first
claes passage money, there was about £13,000
insured on hertelfa The plaintiffs then Called Mr.
Richards; of London, by whom the average statement
was made, but the defendants objected to his
evidence being ;recdved, on •the ground that his state-
ment was made out from data to which they objected
After some contention., ,the question involved in the cast
being ono of law, it, was agreed to take a verdict for the
plaintiffs, subj.-et to a special case. It was also agreed to
take the evidenCe Of Captain Taylor, of the " Eagle Line,"
in order that it.might be 'put in the judge's notes for the
defence. Ha was examined as to the point 'arriving 'at
which a vessel would be supposed to have made Melbourne
Harbour. Mr. James observed that this defencalc mid not
be Ira- set up, as the defendants, by the payment of the
£2OO into court, had admitted that it was an accident at

ACTION FOR LIDEL.—ELY v, BELL—This was an
action to recover damages for libel, Mr. Atherton,
Q.C., with Mr. Millward, was counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Attorney. General Knowles, with Mr.
Aspland, for the defence.: Mr. Atherton stated the case.
He said that the plaintiff Was Mr. Richard Sheldon Ely,
agent in Liverpool for the. New Orlean's Canal and Bank-
ing Company, and the defendant was Mr. Robert Bell,
who was also engaged in btisiness in Liverpool, both being
natives of the United States, and the libel complained of
was contained in a letter addressed by the defendant to
Mr. James M'Henry, who was well known in Liverpoelo
for large commercial transactions, on the Bth of August,
1854. At first Mr; Bell was agent in Liverpool for the
New Orlean's Canal and Banking Company, , bat in 1852
the company thought proper to remove him from that
pesition, and to appoint Mr. Ely to the. office. There could
be no doubt that from that circumstance first arose the
dcfendan.'s to the plaintiff, and if he bad not been
removed from the office' which he had held in connection
with the company, he would never have written the libel,
the subject of the present action. In 1854, Mr. AP Henry got.
into difficulties, and sit Was necessary that he should
send a person to America to look after his affairs,
and to collect the large 'sums of money which were
then due to.him there. He employed Mr. Bell for that
purpose. Mr. Bell accordingly sailed for America by one
of the Cunard mail steamers, aed when within one
hundred miles. as the heading of the letter intimated, he.
forwarded a communication to Mr. M'Henry, containing
very libellous accusations against the character of the
plaintiff The letter remained in Mr. M'fienry's hands
until 18';6, when a dispute occurring between him and
Mr. Bell, they had recourse to Chancery for a settlement
and in consequence, publicity was given to all: their
documents, and amongst them the letter in question.
Abort this time the plaintiff saw a copy of the
letter at Mr. • WHenty's . office, and he at once
requested his solicitors, Messrs. Lnwndes, Bateman,
and Robinson, to write to the defendant, and call on him
to retract his libelloue accusation, which was contained in
the following paragraph of the letter :—" My dear fellow,
—Do not be a living illustration of Dean Swift's remark,
that it is useless to advise a man who will not be warned.'
I. regret that ',you have admitted into your confidence
R.S.E., as I showed you from documentary evidence that
he has been sent to England to commit frauds. ' Give him
no information of any kind. * * * He •never expe-
rienced a manly feo'ing of any kind, and is paid for doing
dirty work." The letter, it was true, was marked private
and confidental ; but he (Mr. Atherton) bad no doubt that
his lordship would tell them that, notwithstanding' that, it
did not come within the list of privileged communications.
Mr. Lewhrle,s wrote to the defendant stating that he-
was instructed by the plaintiff to say that if a h tter
of retraction, such as Mr. Fletcher of the Bank of Eneand,
or any other gentleman of character and icdependence in
Liverpool would dictate, were not immediately
written, an action for libel would he instituted against him.
The defendant took no notice of .the communication, and
the present action was in consequence brought against him.
In conclusion, the le trned counsel dwelt on the slanderous
character of the libel; ,and the injury which it was calcu-
lated to do to the plaintiff. Mr. Richard Sheldon Ely, the
plaintiff in the cause, was first examined. He said—l am
agent in Liverpool for the New Orleans Canal and Banking
Company. I have been their agent since October 1852. I
b came accniaintel with Mr. Bell in April l 849. We came
from Amerita together. I established myself in Paris. I
saw Mr. Bell afterwards there, and we became rather inti-
mate. Irt 1852 I was applied to to take the agency which
had been previously held by Mr. Bell. I at first objected,
bat ultimately consented to take the office. Mr. Bell at
first demurred to giving up possession. After I got-possession
I heard there were some rumours in the town, and I wrote
to Mr. Bell a caution. He replied that he would pursue his
own cours Since then I have not had a single transaction
with Mr. Bell. In July last I was at Mr. M Henry's office.
He thee showed me a espy of a letter from Mr. Bell to him.
It contained the paesige -already quoted. I owed Mr. lelllenry
nothing at the time. Cross-examined by Mr. Attorney-
General Knowles : I think the words " private and confi-
dential " were in the copy. Did you not say to Mr
M.Henry, you are acting very improperly, to show me
such a letter? No, I did not. ,Ded you not think it was
so? No, but I thought it was imprudent in him. ,I thought
it w. said do me injury, as -I knew that it had been seen by
others. Did you bring some railway bonds from America
with you, that you attempted to get in the market here?
I have no recollection. Upon your' oath, did "you riot
briiig or get from America railway bonds to a large
amount, that yet: endeavoured to introduce in the market
here? To the beet of my belief, I never had a railway
bond entrusted tome for sale since I came to England.
Did you get any railway bonds for any purpose from
America ? No. Aey bonds of any kind ? I have got
United States bonds to be negociated in London, but no
railway bonds of any kind. A y Pennsylvanian bonds ?
Mr.'A,herton : Notwithstanding the humour of Sidney
Smith, Pennsylvania, I believe,. did not repudiate her bonds ?
No ; hut delayed the interest, to the disgrace of the State.
There is noifoundation for the allegation that I was traffieking
in shares Mr..Jernes M'Henry, examined : had
c- nsiderable amounts duo Wino. in the United States. Mr.
'Bell offered his services to me .'to go and arrange them, and I
accepted the off r. Tho R. S. E ," I understood to
apply to Mr. Ely. Since-Mr. Bell returned, I had a dispute
with him, which has got into chancery. In these proceedings
Mr. Ely has-been in no way concerned. I found it necessary
to these proceedings to look up the correspondence that passed
between Mr. Bell and myself. I had occasion to
.send out
the correspondence to the United Siates: Among the other.
letters Leant out, the letter in question was one. I remember
Mr. E ly calling on me on Saturday, the' 21st July, last year.
I had preservA collies of the letters I sent nut, and I
showed a copy of the letter of the 8:h August, 1854, to Mr.
Ely, butt without the ' 'slightest, premeditation on my'
part. The letter was under my consideration immediately
before. I had it in my hand wlien he came in, and
' I showed it to him-Since the commencement of this action,
ono of my American counsel came over to take Mr. Bell's
evidence by commisSion, and.ha brought all the doeuments
with him. Cress examined 'by Mr. Knowles: When did
you get this letter bec's ? Late last August, or the foil:m-
ing month. -Did .not Mr. Bell go out in a Confidential
relation regarding you ? Decidedly so.
.With very full-
powers? .With full. rowers. You had Seen a goOd-deal of
Mr. Ely after Mr. Bell went out? Ares,- daily. And I
underetend this laser slumbered . until. you mentioned it to
Mr. Ely ? Slumbered as !'or as Mr. ,Ely was concerned', but
it was necessarily- circulating in America among counsel
employed.. by me. Did it eyer'ocenr.to you -that when a
I:eMs!t son,ls you a letter, marked "private and
cenfidential," it doeends On 'feu to IrOep it secret?
It depends on that set-cant'-&- honesty or dishonesty.
What amount of money did he collect for
you in America ? About 100,000, and destroyed for me
asonuch more. ellovin -did he edeetroylt ?' By rnisrePree
sentati in. Before he sailed you had ceased to have any
interest its what he went to-collect ? -No. Had you not
assigned. them over to Gardner and Co., your brokers ?
Only a certain portion. How much ? .£01,900. And
the Union 'Bank ? . Gardner and Company took it for
the benefit of the UniOn Bank. I
,believe Mr. Bell did
not return' until April, 1855. He returned in October,
1854. vii yore 'not offer to give up the letter for your
own purposes ? There was a proposition made to settle
the Chancery suit with Mr. Bell, but Mr. Ely's
matter was to be included in that settlement. Mr.
-Atherton then offered to put in as evidence the letter
in. question. Mr. Knowles objected, until the
opinion of the court was first expressed as to its being -a
privileged communication or not.' His lordship ruled
that the communication could not be considered privi.
leged; Mr. Atherton then addressed the jury on the
evidence, and urged that the libel had been still more
aggravated by the course which the defendant's counsel
had been insttucted to take in .his cross,examination:of

the plaintiff. Not only was the libel not retracted, but
even other itneutations were sought to be cent on the
plaintiff's character, as was shown by the character of
his cross-examination, which was an additional prof of
the malice of the defendant. Mr. Aqorney General
_Knowles then addressed jury for the defence. Ha
slid that the case w7-ii abOut as scandalous a orie as was-
ever brought into a court of justice, and that if Mr.
McHenry were to be justified in the base
and traitorious condact which ha had displayed in. the.
matter, then there was an end of all confidence in the
relations of Man and man ; and they could give no cenfi
dentiai insti.-tf9tionl receive no confidential communication,
becauie they never Caul:: be certain that it would
be, turned into an engine fo employ the law
against some party or the other. He should
appeal to them whether this was not . a privileged
comtietinication, and whether in a case like this,
they could give more than one farthing damages, looking
at the manner in Which the action had been brOught; and
looking aso at the certainty that Mr. Ely had really
nothing to do with it, and that it was Mr. M'Henry who
was in this way pursuing the`man with whin' he was
engaged in litigation in chancery. Ia July, 1854, he sent
Mr. Bell with large powers, in a confidential capacity, to
the United States, to Collect large sums-of money. Oa the
voyage an opportunity occurred to Mr. Bell to wrtu a tel
the fist line of which was private and confidential," and
he (counsel) shou'd say that there was an end to everything
lute eoefidence if a letter written under such circum-
stances, by a confidential ngenf, were not to lfe
kept secret, or if confidence' being abused by the party
to whom it was written, the writer should be subject to an '
action of this sort. If the defendant, when he wrote the
letter, thought there was anything against Mr. Ely, he was
drly fulfilling a duty in communicating the fact to Mr.
M'Henry, not for the purpose of having it puhlished to the
world, but to put the employer, to whom he stood in con-
fidential relations, on his guard; and that was all the
defendant did. It was said that he did it in malice, becanae
of the loss of the agency. When was Mr. Ely appointed ?
Some two years before the letter was written ; and surely if
the defendant had entertained the malice attributed to him,
he would have taken an earlier period to gratify it. The
1 tter came to Mr. M'Henry. He showed it to no one.
He kept it, as he Was bound in houonr to (10,1
in his desk ; and it was tw t years after its receipt
when, from to Mr. Bell, he showed it to the
plaintiff. Was that publication > The original letter
was never shown in this country at all, until the action
was brought, and it would be therefore for his lordship
to say whether the actien would at all lie. His Lordship
here interposed and said, that the writing of the letter
to Mr. M‘Henry, and its receipt by him was a pUblication
within the law. Mr. Knowles then proceeded to urge,
that if any injury were. done to the plain ill's character,
it waedone by Mr. M'Henry, and that the action should
.have been brought against him and not the defendant.
Under any circuinvanceS heawas confident the jary
would net give more than nominal damages. His LOrd-
ship summed up at some length, and in the course of his
obse.rvatioas said, that he had no doubt it was a libel,
but still that was a point for the jary and not for
him to determine. He should go a tong way with the At.
ferns', General in thinking that such a letter should have
been kept secret. Nothing was more important than that when
a private letter was sent, containing improper and ausive
language of a third party, that letter should be kept secret.
If it were otherwise it would be a groat abuse of the coed-
deuce between man and man ; but they were not now
trying Mr. M'Henry, who, it was said; abused that confi-
dence, but the writer of the letter. It was shown by Mr.
Alltlenry without premeditation and by accident, and had
it being shown to him (his lordship) he would not have
thought worse 'of the plaintiff because of the abusive
language which it used towards him. The jury, after
some deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages, £lOO.
The Court adjoured at seven o'clock to nine o'clock this
morning.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Saturday.

LIVERPOOL.
BEFORE MR. "MANSFIELD.

Seatous ASSAULT.—Pater. Piukerman, who stood re-
manded on a charge of having dangerously assaulted a
person names Charles Brumsby, was broaght up. Th.,
facts of this case appeared in our paper of Saturd ty. Oa
the application of Mr. aaciere, the Primer was a Imitted
to bailgin two surdties of £2O each, so till resalt of the
•
injuries on the patient could be ascertained.
A VICIOUS LIT ILE GIRL. —:-A girl ,named Rizlbeth A.
Jones, about fourteen years' of age, the child of respectable
parents living at Fletcher street, was brought up by
detective officer Horn, on the following charge :—lt
appeared that the child was a pupil at the Corporation
Schools, Park lane, and that for some time past shawls,
mantles, and other things belonging to other girls were
missed from the schools, and at last it Pk as found
that the prisoner had ta`fen the articles, some of which
she pledged at Vr. Healings i t Park Lane, and oilers
she sold to a brok4. The officet said Mr. Healing was
very angry with his assistant for having taken in property
from such a child, and ordered it to be restored to the
owners wi:linut payment. The • mother of the child
wished her, to be sent to a reformatory, and the prisoner
was remanded for seven days,4in-order to see what could
be done for her.

STREET ROBBERY.—A well:known " duffer," named
Pat: ink Raz was :charged with having robbed Joseph
Guardhouse, in Manchester street. The prosecutor was
in the street, under the influence of drink when the pri-
soner came up and said he would see him safe home, and,
in doing so, he took 15s out of his pockk. The prisoner
wss sent for trial', being an " oil hand."
Mir Bureliell)' was
brought up by °facer Tilonips:m'ou a cq,rge of bring con,
cerned in a robbery that to ,k plan, in the house of Mr.
Robertson, Salisbury street, on :the evening of the 3rd
November last. The facts of this case have already
appeared, and were briefly these. On the evening in
question, the house was entered, and clothes, with
jewellery and other articles to the value of over £3O stolen,
Several persons are already awaiting their trial on the
charge, and it was now proved that on the night of the
robbry, the prisoner sent another woman to pledge a
suit of clothes which totaled part of the plunder. The
,
prisoner was remanded.