The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-04 00:00:00

still holds the office of curate of the chapel at Islington.
My church was very well attended while I officiate].
It was a very large church, capable of holding 2,000 or
3,000 persons, and generally 1,400 or 1,5i0 attended.
I never opposed the power of the bishop, but objected
to his right to remove me. I received a second letter
from Islingtma. I had no other means of obtaining
a livelihood except the ministration of this church.
I ultimately left. The statement in the letter of
the defendant, that I had intimidated my pari-
Ehioners, and induced them to sign memorials in
my favour, is not true. There was only one
memorial in my favour, and I did not even know of the
fact until after it had been sent in. My parishioners
were very much attached to me. When I took the reei-
deuce of the curacy, it was a mere shell, and I had to
paint and paper it, and laid out a large sum of money for
a poor curate. I wanted to be paid for these repairs and
for my furniture before I left, and I applied to the de-
fendant with that object but could not obtain the money
and the defendant merely renewed the offer of the mis-
sion to Chichester. My salary at Islington was ss. a-day,
and there were certain dues which would raise my salary
to about 1501. or 1601. a-year. I was obliged to take
all my furniture away with me, and all the money I
received was 601. ; 301. of this was due to me for E•a-
lary. I had to pay my solicitor 201. for his coste,
and the 101. was all I had for fixtures I left in
the house. Cardinal Wiseman was aware of my in-
tention to educate young gentleman f)r the universities,
to enable me to pay the rent and taxes of the house, and
he promised to Kassist me in this endeavour. -Before I
left Islington, Cardinal Wiseman withdrew my faculties.
The reason for doing so was because I asked for the
money I had expended on the house. Before the cardi-
nal went to Rome, I wrote him two letters of apology, I did so with he utmost sincerity, and actuated by
a desire to be re-employed. After these letters had been
written, I saw the cardinal at his palace in Golden-
square. I was shown into his reception-room, and I
went on my knees and asked him for pardon and for-
giveness. We were both affected, and I left the house
with Dr. Doyle, who had accompanied me, and I
thought all was forgotten and forgiven, and I had done
nothing whatever to provoke him or annoy him until
the period when the libel was published. After I was
removed from Islington, by the permission of Dr. Grant,
the Bishop of Southwark, I read masses in that district,
for which I received about 401., and that is all. I had
to live upon small donations rom my friends. After
this action was brought, I was prevented from perform•
ing this duty, and I have had no means of supporting
myself.

Cross-examined—l was ordained in 1833 at Stony-
horst. I was not a professed Jesuit in the society to
which I belonged. I bad not taken the solemn vow
that is required before a member is considered as a
professed Jesuit. I had been employed in missions
connected with the society in England before I left it.
The Rey. Dr. Lygo was provincial master of the society
in England in 1847. He called upon me to take the
last solemn vow to place myself at the disposal of the
Pope for foreign missions about this time. I was aware
that if I was called upon to take the vow, and refused,
I was subject to dismissal, and it would be considered
discreditable to be so dismissed. I was never called
upon to take this solemn vow; but I told him that if he
commanded me I would take it, bat if it was ou-
tional I should decline doing so, for reasons which
I stated to him. I left the society in consequence of my
asking to be released from my vows. When Dr. Lygo
was aware of my objections to taking the solemn vow,
he at once released me from taking it, and allowed me
to leave the society. I was appointed second priest at
Islington, under Mr. Lee, after this. He was an aged
man, and lived in lodgings, because he would not incur
the responsibility of keeping up the vicarage-house. The
latter was under repair, and Dr. Griffiths gave me 1501,
which he expected, no doubt, would be expended in re-
pairs, but there was no understanding between us to
that effect. I was under a vow of poverty when [ left
the society, and I was received as such. It is a disputed
point whether a clergyman of our religion in England is
removable at the mere pleasure of the bishop, and the
clergy have petitioned Rome on the subject, and no
answer has been received. The clergy consider that
the bishop has not the power to remove a clergyman
arbitrarily. In a regular hierarchical system a bishop,
of course, has the power to discharge a curate at his
pleasure. Ido not consider the defendant had any
moral or religious right to remove me. I expended
my money upon a distinct understanding, and I
should not have done so if I had thought I was liable
to be removed in such a manner. I laid out altogether
between 3001. and 4001. for the repairs of the house
and furniture. Ido not think there were more
han twelve or fifteen hundred Catholics in the parish
of Islington. In one of the letters I wrote to the de-
fendant I expressed my decided disinclination to leave
the curacy, and I disputed his power to remove me. I
had no document to satisfy him that I had made any
arrangement with Dr. Griffiths that I was not to be re-
moved. In our church an inferior would not dare to ask
for such a document from a superior. We are much in
their power and control that no priest would dare to say
to his superior, "Put this in black and white." He
would not do it, but would most probably say, "This is
not the man for me." Dr. Griffiths died about 6 months
after my appointment to the curacy at Islington. The
affairs of the church were reported to be in a bad condi-
tion at the time when I was removed, and my salary
was in arrear.

In answer to other questions put in cross-examina-
tion, the plaintiff said that he should have given up posses-
sion of the house the moment he received the money he
considered he was entitled to. At one time he made a
demand of 6001., but he subsequently only asked 1001.,
and upon the cardinal pleading poverty, he said he con-
sented to take the 601., contrary to the advice of his so-
licitor, and he did so for the sake of peace.
Sergeant Shee then asked the witness whether he Fad
not requested some of his parishioners to write or sign
a remonstrance or memormi to the cardinal upon the
übject of his dismissal, and he put a letter into his hand
at the same time.
Mr. Boyle said he was quite ready to explain this
matter. The fact was, that, in the Roman Catholic
communion, where many of the parishioners were poor
and ignorant, they regarded the priest as their father,
and he was always looked upon in that capacity. He
frequently wrote letters for them, and he remembered
that he wrote this one at the earnest request of the party.
It contained a request to be allowed to go to confession
at Easter to witness instead of to a stranger. The
name of the person appeared to be torn off, and he
should like to know who it was, as it would show that
he had acted most ungratefully and unfairly in inducing
him to write the letter for the purpose, as it appeared,
of handing it to the cardinal, or his solicitor.
Sergeant Shee said he did not believe any signature
had been torn from the letter.
Baron Pratt, upon looking at the document, said it ap-
peared to him that the name had evidently been torn
from the letter.
In further cross-examination, the plaintiff said he bad
not heard it stated that the word made use of by the
cardinal in his original letter was " renvoye" and not
" repuls6," but he considered one equally as offensive as
as the other. He was never either expelled or dismissed
from the Society of Jesuists. He was answerable for
the costs of the first trial, hut his friends had assisted

him in getting up this present trial. He had received
assistance from Dr. Worthington, a clergyman of the
Established Church, and other gentlemen
mr.,4 Hyan, a gentleman connected withcotnbgeregioAautdin
ffi t-
octliand who was one of the plaintiff's
at Islington, said he had frequent opportunities of see-
ing him, and he always considered him a most pious,
zealous, and attentive clergyman, arid he was particu-
larly kind to the poor and the sick. He also said that
when he heard of the intention of Cardinal Wiseman to
remove him, he spontaneously drew up a memorial to
the cardinal, praying that he might be allowed to re-
main, and in a very short time this memorial was signed
by 1,100 of the plaintiffs parishioners. He said he re-
membered reading the libel that appeared in the Unirers,
and it caused him great regret. He had no doubt that
it was intended to apply to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was recalled, and he stated that when be
left his curacy at Islington, the defendant gave him a
sort of certificate of good character. He had some dif-
ficulty in obtaining one in the form usually given, and
the defendant wanted to make it appear by the docu-
ment that he had retired voluntarily from the curacy.
Mr. James, in summing up the case for the plaintiff,
expressed his astonishment that not a single witness
should have been called either to show that Cardinal
Wiseman was not the author of this libel, or to show
that there was any foundation for the charges that had
been made against the plaintiff, and he said the case now
resolved itself merely into a question of assessment of
damages. The jury will then have to consider what
damages ought to be awarded for the malicious attack
made by Cardinal 'Wiseman upon the poor harmless man,
who had never done him any wrong, but who he had
endeavoured to crush with the utmost malignity. The
learned counsel then made some remaixs upon the evi-
dence, and upon what he described as the contemptible
attempt to explain away the malicious intention of the
defendant, by endeavouring to show that the word dis-
missed had been used instead of expelled ; and he con-
cluded by asking at the hands of the jury for his client,
exemplary damages for the injury that had been inflicted
upon him by the defendant.
Sergeant Shee then addressed the jury for the de-
fendar t.

Mr. Baron Platt, in summing up, said, that he and
the jury bad nothing whatever to do with either Pro-
testant or Catholic, and their only object was to discover
the truth, and to decide according to the evidence laid
before them. The plaintiff charge the defendant with
Gavin;published a malicious libel concerning him, and
he asked for damages for the injury he had sustained in
consequence of the publication of that libel ; and he
must say that he could not help expressing his regret
that a gentleman like Cardinal Wiseman, a scholar, and
a man of high attainments, should appear classed in the
same category with a malicious libeller. That the charge
made against the plaintiff amounted in law to a libel,
v.ritn 1;
there could be no doubt ; and a libel coming from the
rc:lncuollate ch
d a man as Cardinal Wiseman was, of course,
to have much more effect than if it tray
Y•andlnary parcrn The defendant had not I
would, therefore, co e. had pleadeda Justification,- -
that the charn,„ , and by that course ho admitted
and all the other faCitaler the
what made were false. The jury
nature of these charges,
their duty to say ann.he ease, and it would then be
was entitled to for the D 7,1" °,l damages the plaintiff
ejdu jury, after
verdict
tdfeolri btehreatinftoir n:
publication of the libel in itior Ya
t roffen, had:a:stained by the
bout twenty
returned
minutes,
damages
1,000/.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.— LIVERPOOL, Al./tit 2.
EVANS V. ROBINSON.
( Continued fio our impression of yesterday;)
Charles Frederick Field, late inspeotoi-of the metro:
poiitan detective police, examined by Mr. Sergeant
Wiikins—ln
_January, 1804, was employed by Mr,

Evans to watch the conduct of Mr. Robinson and his
wife. Was not then in the police force. On the,il7th
of January went to Cheltenham for that purpose ; and
on the 19th watched Mr. Carrington's house. About
half-past 10 o'clock Mr. Robinson went in there. I re-
mained about half an hour. Before that had seen Mr.
and Miss Carrington go out. About two hours after
met Mr. Robinson and Mrs. Evans riding together.
They were not attended. Watched the house from
January 19th up to March 9th. Was there every morn-
ing from half-past ten to two, and from half-past two to
six_ Mr. Robinson called every day, and sometimes
twice a-day. Saw him and Mrs. Evans riding together
three times, and walking ten or twelve times on the ter-
race. On Saturday, 28th January, saw Mr. Carrington
leave the house, and then saw Mr. Robinson come up
on horseback. He met two ladies coming out of the
door ; they were Mrs. and Miss Carrington. He went
in and stopped about 10 minutes. In the afternoon saw
Mrs. Carrington, Mrs. Evans, and another lady walk up
and down the terrace. Mr. Robinson caine up and
joined them. Saw Mrs. Evans leave the party and go
int) the house. In a few moments she came out and
whispered something to Mr. Robinson, who had stepped
rack. After walking a fc'.v yards, she then left him
again, and went into the house. She remained about
two minutes, and then, corning to the step of the door,
stood upon tiptoe and beckoned to Robinson. Robinson
went up to her at once, and entered the house. They
remained there about 20 minutes. The blinds of th•
first floor windows were down. When Mrs. Evans and
Mr. Robinson came out they walked towards Bay's-hill,
and be saw Robinson take her by the hand, swing her
round, and they walked back again. In June, received
an intimation that Mrs. Evans was in London, and on
the 26th of June saw defendant come out of his mother's
house, and followed him to his lodgings in George-street.
He then went to No. 2, Bryanstone-street. In about 20
minutes saw him come out with Mrs. Evans and a young
gentleman. They went to Hyde-park to a review of the
Essex Rifles. On the following day went to Mrs. King,
the landlady of No. 2, Bryanstone-street, and en-
gaged lodgings there. Engaged to pay her 251. a month
for the use of the whole house. Told her his name and
his purpose, and she said she could not assist it, hut that
he might engage the whole house, which he did. He got
a person named Mrs. Grocott, at two guineas per week,
to enter the house, and act as cook therein place of Mrs.
King's cook, who was leaving. Gave her a gimblet,
which Dr. Jones, of Manchester-square, gave him, and
instructed her to make a hole in the door of the draw-

mg-room.
To Mr. Watson—When he engaged with Mr. Evans,
told him his charges were one guinea a-day, and 12s.
hotel expenses. It was finally settled that, as the case
might last tbree or six months, ho should have 15s, a
day and expenses. In London his charges were 75. 6d.
a-day and cab expenses. Does not expect any present
in this case beyond his expenses. Sometimes gets a
present. Has had 251. and 501. sometimes. People
generally do give something if he succeeds. All be has
got out of Mr. Evans as yet is 501. or 601. Never knew
Mrs. King until he went to her house in Bryanstone-
street—never, upon his honour. (Loud laughter.)
His Lordship—Don't speak of yosir honour, sir.
Witness—l meant my oath, my lord.
Mr. Watson—Don't talk of your honour, or there we
shall leave you.
His Lordship- -Honour with a man who carries on a
private business of that kind !
The witness was further cross-examined at consider-
able length, but nothing important was elicited.
A wooden model of the floor of the house, No. 2, Bry-
anstone•street, in which was the drawing-room in ques-
tion, was placed before the jury, and Mr. Field deposed
that it correctly represented the premises.
Sarah Grocott, High-street, St. John's-wood, one o
the witnesses examined at the last trial, deposed that she
was employed, as already stated, by Mr. Field, and that
she looked through the hole bored in the room, and wit-
nessed the act of criminal conversation. She adhered
to her former statement in every respect.
During the evidence of this witness, Mr. Watson re-
marked that it was a great pity there were several
females in court.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins—lt is a great pity they should
have to be reminded of it.
Mr. Watson said it wou!d be necessary for him to put
several questions to the witness which it was not well
that females should hear, and their presence was a re-
straint upon him in the discharge of his duty.
His lordship directed the sheriff to intimate that
females had better withdraw, and several women, re-
spectably dressed, and many of them young, whose pre-
sence up to this period had attracted considerable re-
mark, then left the court.
The witness described the peculiar manner in which
the act took place. She further stated that on the 10th
of August she was walking with Mrs. King in Portman-
square, when Mr. Robinson came up and asked why she
went against him, and why she caused so much talk
against him in the neighbourhood ? She said it was not
she; aid he asked why there was so much talk about
him ? She said, "Ask yourself the question, Mr.
Robinson. It is not you I pity, but the Carringtons
and the family." He said if she went against him he
would have clever men employed, and he would bring a
conspiracy against her. She said she bad gone out of
town to avoid the matter ; and he said, " Can't you go
out of town again ?"
To Mr. Watson—Did not mention this conversation
at the last trial.
The witness was cross-examined at considerable length
by Mr. Watson, in reference to the act which she de-
posed she witnessed, but she repeated her former state
meats,

Mrs. King, the party who let the apartments in
Brjanstone-street, and who was examined at the former
trial, deposed to the facts of the hiring of the rooms by
Mr. Robinson, his subsequent visits to Mrs. Evans, and
the act of criminality which she aleged she also wit-
nessed through the bole bored in the door. She also
corroborated the evidence of the last witness regarding
meeting the defendant and conversing with him, when
he said if she would find the cook and go away it would
be much better for her, because she would rue it if she
went against him. She said he asked what had ho
ch:oe that she should go against him ? and she replied,
" Ask yourself ;" and added that she was sorry for him,
but she could not help it. He said, no matter whom
Mr. Evans brought against him, he would.fig,ht his cause
out.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watson—Did not sayanything
of this conversation at the last trial. It took place while
walking from Portman-square to Cavendish-square. Has
borne the name of King for six or seven years. Her real
name is Walsh. Declines to answer whether Mr. King
visited her in Bryanstone-street. Lived in Brydgps-street,
Covent-garden, for a short time, and kept a cigar-divan
there. Carried on that business only a very few months.
In reference to the management with Field as to the in-
troduction of Mrs. Grocott, witness stated that she knew
Mrs. Grocott was introduced for the purpo.7e of watch-
ing Mrs. Evans, but she promised her (witness) that she
would not watch. (Laughter.) Never told Mrs. Evans
or Mr. Robinson of it, beaanse she had promised not to
tell it. She promise Dr. Jones, of Manchester-square.
She told her own servant of it, and several other per-
son-4.

Mrs. Ann Price, another of the witnesses of the for-
mer trial, stated that she came to the service of Mrs.
King during the time Mrs. Evans was lodging there, to
assist in making an inventory of her furniture, an d
while there met Field, the detective officer. Was in
the room adjoining tile drawing-room, when the cook
came to her, and called her to look through a hole
bored in the door, which she did. The witness then de-
scribed the act of criminality which she stated that she
witnessed.
Cross examined by Mr. Atherton—Saw Mr. Evans,
the plaintiff, within the last few moments; spoke t.) him,
but does not think he had time to give her an answer.
Her husband is in Australia. For some time before he
went bad been to a certain extent separated.
Chas. Jeffrey Morgan deposed that he took the mea-
surement of the drawing-room in the house No. 2, Bryan-
stone-street, and that the model produced is correct, ac-
cording to the admeasurement upon the scale of one inch
to a foot.
Walter Salmon, formerly in the employment of Mr.
Carrington, was examined to prove the frequent ♦isit4
of Mr. Robinson to Mrs Evans before her marriage. Mr.
Robinson o❑ ooming in every day gave a peculian whistle
which all the family knew, particularly Miss Carrington.
Miss Carrington was several times dressing when beeame,
and on hearing the whistl; came out with her outer dress
to meet him. Saw them most days going out together
alone. Sometimes Mrs. Carrington would go out, but
very seldom. Mr. Robinson and Miss Carrington were
sometimes alone in the drawing-room together.
Charles Crush, also formerly in the service of Mr. Cm.-
rington, deposed to Mr. Robinson's visits to Mrs. Evans
before her marriage, and that he bad seen Mr. litobinson
kiss her. He once saw Mr. Robinson follow her as she was
going up the stairs, and kiss her on the stairs. In 1853
frequently saw Mrs. Evans walking up and down in front
of the houses for come time, when Mr. Robinson would
meet her, and they would go off together. This was ge-
nerally on Sunday evenings, daring church time.'
To Mr.Atherton—Mr. Robinson appeared to be very in-
timate as a friend with Mr. and Mrs. Carrington. When
he saw Mr. Robinson kiss Miss Carrington he did not feel
much shocked, but thought it very wrong indeed for a
married gentleman to kiss a single lady. Did not men-
tion it to her parents, but told it to his fellow-servants.
Robert Boston, a fly-driver in Cheltenham, deposed
that he was four times employed by Mr. Robinson to
drive out on the road after a lady, take her up, and then
drive round the park with them—that lady was Mrs.
Evans. Once looked into the fly, and saw Mrs. Evans
with her bonnet off, and Mr. Robinson with his arms
around her, an .l his breast leaning against hers. This
was in July or August, 1849. He told some persons that
he would never drive them again, because three men on
the road cried out " -- them, turn them out, they are
making a brothel of your fly." (Laughter.) This oc-
curred on the day when he looked into the window, as
he had described.

Mr. G. Schonswer deposed that he knew Mr. Robin-
son and the Carrington family before the marriage of
Mrs. Evans. Shortly before the marriage ho met the
defendant one Sundry morning at the club, and defendant

saki, "Lloyd Evans is going to marry Miss Carrington ;
he was a slippery fish, but we have hooked him at last."
Since the marriage, has frequently seen Mr. Robinson
and Mrg. Evans riding together, and has seen Mrs.
Evans riding a black mare of Mr. Robinson's.
To Mr. Watson—Has also seen Mr. Robinson with
Mr. and Mrs. Carrington as an intimate friend of theirs.
The remark at the club was made openly, and before
several gentlemen, and it created a great deal of talk at
the time. Is sure he 'said, " We have booked him."
The letter of Mr. Evans to Mr. Carrington, and the re-
ply alluded to by the Attorney-General, were then put
in.
-
The caseAttoionnb.eGheanife
Attorney-General summed up
ftheplainti ffh ere e
the
plaintiff'si
to the jury-, commenting upon theevidencse
closed.
The ey case
e adduced, and

contending that it fully supported the statements made
in his opening speech.
The Court adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

APRIL 3.

His lordship took his seat on the bench shortly after
nine o'clock, and Mr. Watoen proceeded to address the
jury for the defence. The case had been supported by
the testimony of the worthy Mrs. King, whose name was
assumed, and by the other company who acted as spies.
They were asked to believe those spies in order that the
plaintiff might get a verdict to do away with the settle-
ment, and then go to the House of Lords for a divorce,
but it would indeed make him blush if those gentlemen
who were the honour and glory of our land, entertained
the matter. What had been the relationship of the de-
fendant ? He had been the old and valued friend of the
gentleman before him (Mr. Carrington) ; he had been
the friend of the children since they were children ; he
had dined with them and taken tea with them, and had
that intercourse with them which existed amongst
friends, and which was done without any imputation on
their characters. Whether the defendant had been pay-
ing the attentions of a lover even before or after the
marriage, there had not been a single witless called to
prove it ; the fact wa=s the defendant Lad been west
intimate with the family, and the father now believed
in the innocence of his daught2r and in the honour arid
honesty of his friend. He then commented upon the
characters of the various witnesses that had been called,
end in the strongest terms denounced the conduct of
Field throughout the whole transaction. lle then con-
trasted their statements, which be argued shoWed many
discrepancies. He believed that the " whole set" had
entered into a conspiracy to carry out this action, each
well knowing, should it succeed, they would be well re-
warded. With regard to the remark about hooking the
fish, that might have come from Mrs. Robinson in the
most friendly manner ; but, at all events, it would have
been much better if it hat not been repeated. The
learned gentleman concluded in a powerful appeal to
give the matter their best consideration and attention,
for by the law he was unable to call the parties them-
selves, who would in the most emphatic manner deny
the slander that had been heaped on them, and he was
therefore confident of a verdict of not guilty.
His lordship proceeded to sum up. He said this was
an action for compensation in damages for the loss of
the affections and for the seduction of the plaintiff's wife.
The defendant, of course, denied that he was guilty,
and plaintiff was therefore bound to bring evidence to
satisfy the jury of his guilt, and the first question was
had he so established his case ; if so, what compensation
ought he to receive ? Towards the close of the case the
plaintiff's counsel brought forward evidence to prove the
existence of great intimacy between the defendent and
Mrs. Evans before the marriage. If that is ti be cre-
dited, it would be insinuated that the parties had crimi-
nal connection at that time, and it certainly was very
remarkable that when the marriage took peace there
did not appear to have been any suspicion of it. His
lordship then reviewed the evidence of some of the
witnesses, and remarked that the counsel for the de-
fence had alleged, that when the blind was pulled
down, when the parties were in London, it was to
keep the sun off. He left the jury to decide that.
He cautioned the jury against allowing their feelings to
lead their judgment. ,He said this because he could
not suppose that he could detail the rest of the evi-
deice to them without reviving the feeling of indigna-
tion which they must have felt yesterday on hearing
the account Field gave of himself and of his occupation.
For the first time in his life did be hear a rune avow
publicly that his profession was that of a hired spy. He
told you that, having been for 20 years an inspector of
detectives, he had retired on a pension, and when he re-
covered his health he had commenced on his own account
as "a detector of frauds," &c. What thought they of
the sort of profession of a man writing on his door
" spy," to be hired at so much per day ; for he said,
"My price is 7s. 6d. a day in London, but in this in-
stance I bargained for a guieea a day and expenses fur
keep, but finding it likely to occupy several months I
agreed to accept 15s. a day and 12s. allowance, for the
purpose of pursuing parties from place to place whom
I am appointed to watch." He was afraid it would
introduce an element into the state of this country
if they were to have people who made a pro-
fession of this. They found a person had been
introduced into the house in the capacity of
cook ; might not a footman, or the servant who
dressed their wives, be also introduced similarly ? And
to what base and villanous purposes would the services
of such people he turned when once introduced to their
confidence ! There was something so shocking, so re-
volting, to Aee a man standing up before the public, pro-
claiming himself to be a hired spy by profession. He
was afraid he was departing from the gravity of the
bench, but the matter made him anxious to remember
the caution—don't let their feelings be led against their
judgment. After explaining various parts of the case,
his lordship concluded by stating that if they thought
that criminal intercourse had taken place, they must so
return a verdict, and estimate the damages according to
what the injured husband had lost. If they did not
believe the witnesses, they must return a verdict of not

The jury then retired (12 o'clock), and were absent a
considerable time. On their return into court, they gave
a verdict for plaintiff—damages, 5001.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.--A very handsome
young French girl, accompaoied by an interpreter named
Albert, made the following statement to Mr. Bingham
A short time ago she had been brou,llit to this coun-
try by a person who represented herself to be a countess
and who promised to procure a situation for her in Lon-
don. She was taken by this countess to a houso in
Newman-street—a notorious house which ha 3 been in-
dicted by the parish authorities—and was introduced to
the landlady, who engaged her after a short conversa-
tion with the countess. The applicant, before the coun-
tess left the house, contrived to overhear a conversation
between her and the landlaly, and heard a bargain
struck that the countess was to receive 500 francs for
introducing the nev inmate. Applicant heard enough to
convince her of tke true character of the house, and the
purpose for which she had been brought there. She
found means to quit the house almost immediately, and
having related her story to her friends, she was advised
to lay the particulars before a magi,trate.
Mr. Bingham was afraid that this case could not be
broudit under the operation of the new act relative to
the defilement of women, as the applicant bad not re•
mained long enough to sustain personal contamination.
The applicant stated that the landlady of the house
rudely examined her bosom without her consent.
Mr. Bingham thought this amounted to an assault,
and if the applicant chose ,he would grant a warrant
against the woman.
Applicant would take the warrant, and accordingly a
warrant was issued and placed in the hauls of one of
the summoning officers of the court.

SOUTHWARK.—SamueI Ktlland, the master of
the schoo-ner Ca,rDline, trading between the port
of London and Demerara, and ff ugh, Dunlop,
the mate of the same vessel, were broiglit up I,lr
final examination, charged with causing the death
of Samuel Sullock, cabin b aged 15, by repeatedly
assaulting and ill-treating him on board tha; vessel.
The prisoners were committed for trial on the charge
of manslaughter.
John Plaskett, a carman in the employ of a firm in
Seething-la,ne, City, was brought before. Mr. A'Beckett,
charged with causing the death of Sainuel Mansfield, a
boy two years and three months old, by driving over
him with a horse and cart.

It appeared, from the evidence of several witnesses,
that about six o'clock on Monday evening the child was
running in the road-way in Kent-street, when the pri-
soner was driving a horse and cart laden with lead. lle
saw the child seven yards of?, and called out, at the
same time pulling up his horse; but before he could do
so the deceased was knocked down by the animal, and
the off-wheel passed over it. One of the inhabitants
endez.voured all he could to save the child, but owing
to the prisoner pulling up by only one rein,
it was on-
possible. When taken to a neighbouring doctor's the
child was dead.

The prisoner said the child was standing in the middle
of the road, and as soon al he saw it, he called out and
pulled up, but unfortunately the wheel pas,ed over it.
He was extretne'y Lorry for what had occurred.
Mr. A'Beckett saidte WAY surprised the mother should
allow go young a child. to run about the streets, and he
wondered that such accidents did not more frequently
occur. An inquest would be held by the coroner, there-
fore he should remand him until Saturday.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.—A Court of the Governors of
Christ's Hospital was held yesterday. His Royal High-
ness the Duke of Cambridge presided, but it was merely
for the admission of children who have obtained presen-
tations for the present year, and no public business was
transacted. It is expected that
a special court will
shortly be held, to take into consideration the report of
the committee on the affairs of the hospital.
[ADVERTISEMENT.] Tlll3 WAR IN TON EAST. —POWERFUL
PATENT RECONNOITRING GLASSES.— Messrs. S. and B. Solo-
sons, opticians, 39, Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Observe
opposite the York Hotel. By her Majesty's Royal
Letters Patent for valuable and extraordinary improvements
in the most powerful and brilliant Telescopes, Camp, Race-
course, Opera, and Perspective Glasses, to know the distances
of objects viewed through them—of great importance to the
army, navy, and others. These telescopes possess such extra-
ordinary powers that some 31 inches, with an extra eye-
piece, will show distinctly Jupiter's moons, Saturn's ring,
-and the double stars ; with the same telescope can be
seen a person's countersue° three miles and a half distant,
and an object from 16 to 20 miles. They are of larger and all
sizes, with increasing powers accordingly ; while their vary-
ing rom 4 to 6 inches enab!o us to discover more than the
above, and the Georman, with his 6 satellites, &c.—The Royal
Exhibition, 18b1.—Valuable, newly-invented, very small,
powerful waistcoat-pocket glass,the size of a walnut, by which
a person can be seen and known 1 miles distant ; they answer
every purpose on the race-course, and at the opera houses,
country scenery, •and ships are clearly seen at 8 to 10 miles.
They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to
sportsmen, gentlemen, gamekeepers, and tourists. Opera,
race-course, camp, cud perspective glasses, with wonderful
power.—Newly -constructed Spectacle Lenses of the great-
est transparent power. The valuable advantage derived
from this invention is, that vision becoming impaired is
preserved and strengthened, and very aged persons are
chg. lessu e t me ahgannigf ye
8-
ipnast i
po
en
w—ecra—
an suede
twh ietyh
dthosenot l e
in.
esqe su
hoof
enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occu-
to the dangerous effects of further powerful assistance. Deaf-
tah em uf
lc.
Deaf-
ness—New Discovery.--The Organic Vibrator, an extraordi-
nary powerful, small, newly-invented instrument for deafness,
entirely different from all others, to anrpass anything of the
kind that has been, or probably ever can be, produced.
Being of the same colour as the skin, is not perceptible ; it
enables deaf persons to hear distinctly at church and at
public assemblies ; the unpleasant sensation of singing noises
in the ears is entirely removed; and it affords all the assist-
ance that possibly could be desired. 39, Albemarle-street.
Piccadilly 91M0179 —013204it0 the York Rotel.