The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-28 00:00:00

her, and he discovered her cohabiting with the prosecutor ,

Hills. The prisoner was prosecuted for bigamy, as he said,
at the instigation of Hills, and he sufftred two months' im-
prisonment for the offence,. Ha subsequently found that
Durwood had left Hills, and ho then took away his son, but
employed the mother to work for him. On the 21 July he
went to fetch a pair of the boy's trousers from the mother's
residence, in Gloucester-street, Hackney-road, and he there
encountered Hills. Words ensued. Hills had a stick and
the prisoner had a saw which he had just taken out of
pledge. They brandished these weapons, and Hills received
a cut in the forehead from the back of the saw, which
caused a wound 4i inches in length, and one which pene-
trated to the bone.

The Assistant-Judge left it to the jury to say whether
the wound was caused• intentionally or accidentally.

The jury found the prisoner not guilty.

Tho woman Durwood was examined, and admitted having
slept with Hills in the same room in which her son by the
prisoner was sleeping, and having written to Hills for
money shortly before the 2d of July, when this occurrence
took place.
A remarkable circumstance connected with the case was
that the first wife of the prisoner, wbo is still in respectable
service, was present at the police court when this matter
was under investigation, and has visited him since at the
House of Detention, in order to provide him with some
trifling extras, _ _

The prisoner, who seemed elated at his acquittal, thanked
the jury, and said to the woman Durwood that she might
go with Hills if she liked.

The Assistant Judge said his advice to her was to have
nothing to do with either of these men.

Patrick Roberts, 20, was convicted of stealing a gold
watch and chain from th 9 person of Mr James Grant, the
editor of the Morning Advertiser.
Lockyer, the prison officer, proved numerous convictions
of the prisoner from 1856 to the present time in the names
of Brien, 0' Brien, Anderson, Williams, and Jones.
The Assistant-Judge, after sentencing him to five years'
penal servitude, said that the public were much indebted to
Mr Grant for the manner in which he had followed up the
matter and brought the prisoner to justice.
(Before Mr Payne.)
Patrick O'Brien, 21, a shoemaker, was charged with
assaulting Thomas Curzons, 318 D, when in the execution
of his duty.
Mr Cooper prosecuted; Mr Bosley defended.
The prisoner was drunk and fighting with another man
in Barrett's-court, He struck the officer several times in
the face, and in the struggle they both fell. The constable
was for 16 days unable to perform his duty.
The prisoner was convicted, and four previous convictions
for assaults having been proved, he was sentenced to nine
months' imprisonment with hard labour.

James Roach was charged with stealing a coat, waistcoat,
trousers, and a comb, belonging to Thomas Fitzg,erald,
Mr Cook prosecuted ; Mr Starling defended.
Tho two men lodged in a common lodginghouse, and in
the absence of Fitzgerald, Roach broke open his box and
stole his clothes, The comb was found upon hina.
The jury found a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced
to six months' imprisonment.

The hail cases are appointed for Monday next, and, as all
the other cases have been tried, the court will not sit again
until that day.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—MAIDSTONE, July 27.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr Baron Martin and a Common Jury.)
HALL V. HOBBS.

This was an action to recover damages for an assault.
The Hon. G. Denman, Q.C., and Mr Willoughby ware
for the plaintiff; Mr M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr Sergeant
Parry, and Mr Philbrick for the defendant.
The parties in this action both carry on , business as
masons and builders at Deptford, and it appeared that some
ill-feeling existed between them in reference to trade trans-
actions, and owing to one of them having obtained a certain
contract with the local board of works for which the other
had sent in a tender. The case, on the part of the plaintiff,
was, that on tha 28th of May the parties met, and after a
few words had passed between them the defendant kicked
the plaintiff on a certain part of his person. The defence
was that the plaintiff was continually annoying the defers'
dant, and that he said something offensive to him on every
occasion when he met him, and that before the assault was
committed the plaintiff had called the defendant a -
sweep, and that, irritated by his conduct, he gave him a
kick; but it was said that he only had a slipper on at the

time, and, therefore, could not have done much mischief.
A good deal of laughter was caused during the trial by the
cross-examination of the plaintiff by Mr Chambers, who
insisted upon knowing the exact spot where the kick took
effect ; and it appeared that, pursuant to an order made by
one of the learned ju :ges the plaintiff had undergone an
examination by two medical gentlemen with a view to
ascertain the actual amount of damage that ho had sus-
tained, and, according to their evidence, he had not been by
any means so seriously injured as he represented ; but at
the same time it should be stated that this examination was
not made until several weeks after the occurrence.

The jury in the result gave a verdict for the plaintiff,
with damages.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIMES.—The jealous watchfulness of the House
of Commons has undoubtedly discovered a grave
fault in the Extradition Treaty between Prussia
and this country. The inviolable asylum afforded
by England to political refugees is a fact of which
we are all justly proud. It is extended with impar-
tiality to absolutist and revolutionary exiles—to
fugitives from the terror of Pfinces and from the
terror of mobs. The most popular Minister of his
time has been driven from office because he was sus-
pected of an intention of tampering with the pro-
tection which we grant to all political offenders.
Prussia cannot expect to receive the concessions
which have been denied to France. There is, in-
deed, a precedent which ;ally covers the Convention
Parliament is now called upon to sanction. The
Convention made with Prussia this year is iden-
tical in terms with a Treaty made with Denmark in
1862, and we may be suspected of mean and un-
worthy motives in refusing to approve it. If it be
necessary, we must submit to such a misconstruc-
tion. The clauses of the Extradition Treaty with
Denmark passed per incuriam, and it would be
better that they should be immediately reformed
than that the error once made should now be re-
peated. No one will question the wisdom of an Ex-
tradition Treaty when confined in its operation to
criminals accounted such by all nations. Least of
all would its propriety be doubted at a time when
our policemen are speeding across the Atlantic in
pursuit of the murderer of Mr. Briggs. The Con-
vention between England and the United States
provides for the surrender of such an offender, and
it would be a reproach to the civilisation of both
communities were it otherwise. It cannot be of
advantage to either nation that men guilty of acts
which are accounted crimes by both should, by
. Passage from one to the other, escape punishment.
Yet if Muller, instead of flying to America, had
betaken himself to his native Cologne, we should
have been unable to substantiate any claim for his
surrender. No apter instance can be adduced of the
desirability of an Extradition Treaty between
Prussia and England, provided its operation was
properly fenced and guarded. Had the treaty
which has been drawn up been similar to the
conventions between England and France and
between England and the United States, it would
have been adopted without a question by the House
of Commons. Unfortunately there is a material dif-
ference between it and them. The Prussian Treaty
does not sufficiently provide for that which on
abstract grounds must appear desirable, and the
necessity of which has been proved by experi-
ence. The Power called upon to surrender
a criminal should be satisfied of the crimie
nality and substantiality of the offence with
which he is charged. It is not enough that we
should demand the surrender of John Smith, who
has taken harbour in New York, unless we can show
that there is evidence against John Smith sufficient
to render him liable to be tried for the same offence
in New York if it had been committed there. In
the same way, when Anderson, the fugitive slave,
was demanded from the Governor of Canada by the
President of the United States, the Colonial Judge
before whom the case ultimately came rightly re-
leased the prisoner on the ground that the offence
charged against him was not murder according to
English law. The Treaties between this country
and France and America, and the acts of Parlia•
ment giving effect to them, provide that the magis- 1
trate who may be called upon to commit a supposed
offender shall be satisfied that there is evidence
against him which would justify his committal for
trial for the crime of which he is accused if the
alleged guilty act had taken place in England. It is
strange that Sir George Grey should have asserted,
in answer to the criticism of Mr. Seymour Fitz-
gerald, that the original Treaty between England
and France, which was ratified by an Act of 1843,
was no longer in force. The Home Secretary said
that a later Treaty, of 1852, to which effect hair been
given by an Act of 1853, had supplanted the former,
and the old safeguards had been abandoned. If the
later Treaty has any existence; it seems certain that
it has never been ratified by Parliament. The only
modification of the Act of 1843 which has been
made is to allow a metropolitan police magistrate
to commit an alleged offender ; the nature of the
evidence justifying the committal has never been
in the slightest degree varied. The law remains
now as it was 20 years ago, and before the requisi-
' tion of a French Ambassador can be complied
• with an English magistrate must be satisfied that
' there is evidence against the accused of having coin-
r mitted an offence which is a crime at English law.
• The Convention with Prussia departs from this
> sound principle. By it the English oovernment
. not only binds itself to give up a person accused,
i on haying satisfactory evidence of his being
1