The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-25 00:00:00

PRIZE DECISIONS.

On the 25th of May ,jndge Marwin gave judg-
ment in the case of the Dolphin steamer, captured
by a Federal steamer near Porto Rico, while osten-
sibly prosecuting a voyage from Liverpool to
Nassau. The vessel and cargo were claimed by
Mr. Grazebrook of the former place, and the cargo
was consigned by him to Messrs. Chambers and Raw
of Nassau. It consisted of a general assortment-
-46 cases containing rifles, and 20 cases of cavalry
swords ware described in the freight list as " hard-
ware." The Judge said,—" If it was the intention
of the owner that the vessel should simply touch at
Nassau, and should proceed thence to Charleston or
some other port of the enemy, then the voyage was
not a voyage prosecuted by a neutral from one
neutral port to another, but to a port of the enemy,
begun and carried on in violation of the belligerent
rights of the United States to blockade the enemy's
ports and to prevent the introduction of munitions
of war. The act of sailing for a blockaded port,
with a knowledge of the existence of the blockade,
and with an intent to enter, is itself an attempt to
break it, which subjects the vessel and cargo to cap-
ture in any part of the voyage. So also the offence
of attempting to carry articles contraband of war
to an enemy is complete,and the vessel liable to cap-
ture the moment she enters upon her voyage. The
offence consists in the act of sailing, coupled with
the illegal intent." The master swore that the
voyage was to terminate at Nassau ; he was to de-
liver the steamer to Messrs. Chambers and Raw,
and the crew were to be sent home. The mate and
other witnesses confirmed this testimony, the mate
stating that his engngement was from Liverpool to
Nassau and his passage home. But the Judge said,
—" It is hardly credible that this vessel was to end
her voyage at Nassau. For what was she going
and how was she to be employed there ? It is not
suggested that she was going there for sale. Was
she to be employed in making short voyages, suited
to her capacity, to and from blockaded ports, in
like manner as so many or all the other steamers
of about her size which have lately come out
from England to Nassau have been employed in
making until captured ? Except such voyages, it
would be difficulty to think of any trade she
could engage in at Nassau, or at any other port in
the West Indies, by which she could defray the ex-
penses of running. What was to be done with the
cargo ? It was to be delivered to Chambers and
Raw. But what were they to do with it ? Nas-
sau furnishes no market for any such cargo as this.
It is a small town. The adjacent islands possess
but a small population, dependent on it for sup-
plies. Probably, not three merchant steamers ever
arrived at that port from any part of the world,
until after the present blockade was established,
except the regular Government mail steamers. Was
her cargo to be sold in Nassaa, including the 920
rifles and the 2,240 swords ? These are questions
which it is not unreasonable that a prize court
should ask and expect some reasonable solution of
in a case like this." But the judge considered the
letters of the shipper found on board to be conclu-
sive. In those of earliest date he addressed the con-
signees as likely to get rid cf the cargo, and employ
the ship in carrying rum to the French army, or
trading between New York and Nassau, or bringing
coals from Prince Edward's Island to Nassau, but
said nothing of paying off the crew or sending them
to England. " These letters," said the judge,
" were evidently written to be shown to our
cruisers." But there was d letter of later date, per-
haps unknown to the master, in which the shipper
wrote, referring to the former letters, " 1 now cancel
those instructions; I shall send you a power ofat-
torney for certain purposes by next mail. I hope
you will be able to get some more goods on, instead
of taking any off." The judge said, "The studied
effort to conceal the ulterior destination, the swords
and rifles found on board, and denominated in the
freight list hardware,' the almost certain impossi-
bility of employing a steamer of this class and size
in any trade in this part of the world by which she
could earn her expenses even, other in the trade and
business of violating the blockade, all point with
unerring certainty to Charleston or Wilmington as
the ulterior destination of the vessel and cargo. Con-
demnation of the ship and cargo follows." The judge
then proceeded to the case of the Pearl, seized on the
voyage from Liverpool to Nassau, with no cargo but
a few sailors's jackets on board. He said—" I think
the law is, that if an owner sends his vessel to d
neutral port, with a settled intention to commence
from such port a serves of voyages to a blockaded
port, he thereby commences to violate the blockade
and subjects his vessel to capture, notwithstanding
he may also intend to unlade the vessel at the neu-
tral port, discharge the crew, and give all other ex-
ternal manifestations of an intention to end the
voyage at such port. Now, it is a notorious fact that
a considerable number of steamers, near the size of
this, being swift sailers and drawing but little water,
have lately come out from England to Nassau, and
have entered at once upon the business of running
the blockade at Charleston or Wilmington, and have
continued regularly in that business until they have
been captured. We do not hear of any of them en-
gaging in any other business or trade. Indeed, it
is very well known that there is no other business or
employment at Nassau for steamers of the size of
this in which they can engage, with a reasonable
prospect of clearing the expense of running even.
Add to these considerations the facts that part of the
crew concur in saying that although they were hired
only fora voyage to Nassau, yet they bekieve that
the business of this vessel was to be in running be-
tween that port and Charleston or Wilmington ; and
some of them give as reasons for their belief the con-
versations had on the subject and the circumstances
attending the late purchase in Glasgow of the vessel
by the present claimant. Some of them say, too,
that there was a Confederate flag on board, put on
board in Glasgow as a part of her fitting out. They
concur in saying that it was the common opinion of
the crew, although they were not bound by their
shipping agreement to go any further than to Nas-
sau, that they would have an opportunity there to
reship in this vessel or other vessels employed in
that trade. Neither the master, the mate, nor any
other witness examined pretend t' give any reason
for the vessel going to Nassau, nor any opinion as
to what her voyage or employment was intended to
be. The claimant, Mr. Wigg, simply says, in refer-
ence to the subject in his letter to the consignee in
Nassau, " You will have received instruction by re-
gular mail in regard to this vessel." Now, it does seem
to me that the testimony as it stands, taking all
the facts together, does raise a very strong presump-
tion that the owner was sending out this vessel to
Nassau with the settled purpose that she should be
employed in running between that port and the
ports of Charleston and Wilmington, in violation of
the blockade." But the Judge determined in this
case to give time to the claimant to produce further
evidence touching the use he intended, at the time
of the capture, to make of the vessel after her ar-
rival at Nassau, the trade or business he intended
sne should be engaged in, and for what purpose she
was going to that port. The New York Herald re-
porting these decisions, says :—" We doubt, after
all, whether instructions from the Navy Depart-
ment to our cruisers not to capture any vessel sail-
ing between two neutral ports (except in the clearest
case of continuous voyage to an enemy's port) would
not be wise and judicious. Too rigorous an asser-
tioa of the last title of prize rights may return some
day to plague the inventors."

Altr-TREASURES AT MADRID.—The possession
of forty pictures by Titian would of itself be suffi-
cient to establish the reputation of the Madrid Museam.
Ucavenly byo Cthhearlves V, and and his family to the
uptlictaltm:rl,ed
, 1 r 1
e,
is a del i g
heatanh
tbdiyyjthalavoehi
ntßehetiaeyasysreaceen.eoh s
even
with
tihr,e,lEnmpsehroorw,ss
rheloiwgiosnt.rainhgeelrys
coa erf re
se mheor 1 :
In
many,
" The going into the
where the sturdy wives
depicted on household cares
ehathof featherbeds fastened
"Lord's Supper,"
intent, and being under
on to their backs. Juan de Joa'ng
considered by many to be equal toss
Laedrrdo
adaheVadin, cti':e.
Pasi:vrlards the
In the golden halo surrounding each
name is inscribed—a needless precagurtiipoinnig
loving features of St. John, and the
pression of Judas. One wearies of the endlessarlsZuidiziesemo;
Ribera from emaciated skeletons writhing in anguish, a
looking more like St. Simeon Stylites than Christian a:L-
and martyrs. In damp and gloomy chambers are stowed
away a perfect wealth of works of minor Dutch painters,
all doomed to certain destruction from want of air and
light.—Once a Week.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—June 24.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Special Jury.)

RIDGWAY V. ABINGTON AND OTHERS.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Pigott,
and Dr. Tristram appeared for the plaintiff; Mr.
Karslake, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks for the defendant,
and Mr. Sergeant Shee for Mr. Wedgwood, an in-
tervener.

This was a suit instituted for the revocation of
probate of a will and codicil of Joseph Mayer, late
of Hanley, near Stoke•upon-Trent, in Staffordshire,
dated respectively the 23d of April, 1800, and the
26th of June, 1860. Probate had been granted to
the defendants as executors, and the plaintiff, who
was the son of a deceased cousin of the testator,
pleaded undue execution as to the will and codicil,
and incapacity and undue influence as to the codicil.
Mr. Mayer died at the age of 85 on the 28th of
June, 1860, leaving real and personal property of
the total value of about £200,000. He was un-
married and had no near relations, and by the will
he divided the whole of his property among his first
cousins and their descendants. On the 23d of June,
1860, he executed a codicil, but as it was not alto-
gether satistactory to him another codicil was pre-
pared, which was executed on the 26th of June.
By that codicil two annuities of £2OO, one of £lOO,
and one of £5O, were given to different relations and
friends; smaller annuities were given to servants;
to the plaintiff's uncle, John Ridgway, was given
£20,000; to the plaintiff Edward John Ridgway,
i-5,000; to each of the three executors, Leonard
James Abington, Paul Smith, and Thomas Goddard,
£1,000; to William Ridgway, the father of the
plaintiff, the income of £lO,OOO for life and the
capital to his children, except E. J. Ridgway, after
his death; to various charitable institutions, legacies
to the amount of about £12,000; and the whole of
his real estate, of the value of about £50,000 to Leo-
nard James Abington and Abner Wedgwoou, as
tenants in common. The codicil contained clauses ex-
cluding those persons who were namedin it as legatees
from their share in the residue as cousins under the
will, and directed that any of the legatees who dis-
puted its validity should forfeit his or her legacy,
which was in that event to fall into the residue. The
deceased bad accumulated his fortune in the pottery
business. Mr. Abington had succeeded to his busi-
ness, and had been his intimate friend for 30 or 40
years. Mr. Goddard was his medical attendant, and
Mr. Wedgewood was the brother of a lady who had
lived with him as his adopted daughter until her
death, and had always been treated by him with
great kindness and affection.

- The witnesses who were examined to-day in sup-
port of the will were Dr. Walker, who had attended
the deceased during his last illness, Mr. Taylor, the
attorney who had prepared the instruments pi ()-
pounded, and Mr. Leonard James Abington, the
defendant. They proved that the deceased was, in
their judgment, of perfect testamentary capacity.
Mr. Taylor, who stated the manner in which he
had received the instructions for the will and codi-
cil in the first instance from Mr. Abington and those
from the deceased, to whom he had read them over
and explained them before their execution. He was
one of the attesting witnesses, and Mr. Abington's
son was the other.

Mr. Abington, upon being cross-examined by Mr.
Chambers, positively asserted that he had used no
influence whatever to induce the deceased to make
his will or to arrange his affairs, and that the de-
ceased was quite competent to attend to business
up to and at the date of the execution of the codicil.
Mr. Abington, who is in business as a potter, and
whoialso describes himself as a Baptist preacher and
lecturer, said that he had never attempted to " per-
suade" the deceased in any way, for he was a very
selfwilled man, who would not even listen to the
word persuasion, but he had sometimes acted as a
mediator between deceased and his relatives. At
the end of his cross-examination Mr. Chambers put
some letters into his hand which he had written to
a member of the family in June, 1860, just before
and just after the codicil was executed. In them
he had stated that the deceased was unable to at-
tend to business, that he and Mr. Goddard had
used their utmost endeavour to get his affairs pro-
perly arranged, but in vain; and as to those who
had claims on him, but who were not related to
him he could only say, " Alas, alas, alas !" In a
letter of the 24th of June he said, " Now all is
arranged and." Mr. Abington said he had no ex-
planation to give with regard to these letters ; and
immediately afterwards turned very pale and fell
down in a fit in the witness-box, and was carried
out of court.

The trial was then adjourned, as it was after
'our o'clock.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)

THE ATTORNEY••GENERAL V. SILLEM AND OTHERS-THE

CASE OF THE ALEXANDRA.

In the Court of Exchequer yesterday, the Lord Chief
Baron in summing up, said this is an information on the
part of the Crown for the seizure and confiscation of a
vessel that was in course of preparation, but had not been
completed. It is admitted that it was not armed, and the
question is, whether the preparation of the vessel in its
then condition was a violation of the Foreign Enlistment
Act. The information is an exceedingly long one, but the
main question you will have to decide is this—whether under
the 7th section of the Act of Parliament the vessel as then
prepared at the time of seizure was liable to seizure. The
case you have to decide is no doubt one not merely of great
importance, but really it is a momentous question, and the
importance of it it is impossible to exaggerate. It is one
that produces varied sentiments—sentiments of the deepest
regret that such a question should have ever arisen; and I
cannot help expressing the deepest, utmost anguish which
one feels that such a question should have arisen by the
dissension among those who are conneeted with us by the
dearest possible ties that can bind nation to nation—a
common lineage, a common language, common laws, a
common literature, and, above all, by a strong desire for
constitutional freedom. I, for one, protest against the
doctrine that no man is to be convicted of any crime if
there is a possible solution of the circumstances by an
imagination of his innocence ; but there must be at all
times a thorough, sober persuasion and satisfaction with
respect to the guilt of the party aecuyed, and undoubtedly
you must act upon proof, and not upon suspicion. With
these remarks, Igo at once to the statute under which these
proceedings are taken. The statute was passed in 1819, and
upon it no question has ever arisen in our courts of justice ;
but there have been expositions of a similar statute which
exists in the United States. I will now read to 3ou the
opinions of some American lawyers who have contri-
buted so greatly to make law a science, and, indeed, I
may say an agreeable one. His lordship then read
passages from Storey and others. These gentlemen
are authorities which show that when two belligerents
are carrying on war a neutral Power may supply
without any breach of international law, and without a
breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, munitions of war—
gunpowder, every description of arms, everything, in fact,
that can be used for the destruction of human beings. Why
should ships be an exception ? I am of opinion, in point of
law, they are not. The Foreign Enlistment Act was an act
to prevent the enlistment or engagement of his Majesty's
subjects to serve in foreign armies, and to prevent the fitting
out and equipping in his Majesty's dominions vessels for
warlike purpose without his Majesty's license. The title of
an act is not at all times an exact indication or explanation
of the act, because it is generally at tached after the act is
passed. But in adverting to the preamble of the act I find
that provision is made against the equipping, fitting out,
furnishing, and arming of vessels, because it may be preju-
dici,bl to peace in his Majesty's dominions. The question I
shall put to you is whether you think that vessel was merely
in course of building to be delivered in pursuance of a con-
tract that was perfectly lawful, or whether there was any in-
tention, in the port of Liverpool, or any other English port,
that the vessel should be fitted out, equipped, furnished,
and armed for purposes of aggression. Now, surely, if Bir-
mingham, or any other town, may supply any quantity of
munitions of war of various kinds for the destruction of life,
why object to ships ? Why should ships alone be in them-
selves contraband? I asked the Attorney-General if a
man could not make a vessel intending to sell it to either
of the belligerent Powers that required it, and which would
give the largest price for it, would not that be lawful ?
To my surprise, the learned Attorney-General declined to
give an answer to the question, which I think a grave
and a pertinent one. But you, gentlemen, I think, are
lawyers enough to know that a man may make a vessel
and offer it for sale. If a man may build a vessel for the
purpose of offering it for sale to either of the belligerent
parties, may he not execute an order for it ? That appears
to me to be a matter of course. The statute is not made
to provide means of protection for belligerent Powers,
otherwise it would have said you shall not sell powder or
guns, and you shall not sell arms, and if it had done so all
Birmingham would have been in arms against it. The object
of the statute was this—that we should not have our ports
in this country made the ground of hostile movements be-
tween the vessels of two belligerent Powers, which might be
fitted out, furnished, and armed in those ports. The Alex-
andra was clearly nothing more than in the course of build-
ing. It appears that, according to " 'Webster's Dictionary,'
equipping is furnishing with arms, and furnishing is
given in other dictionaries as the same thing as equipping.
It appears to me that if true that the Alabama sailed away
from Liverpool without any arms at all as a mere ship in
ballast, and that her armament was put on board at Ter-
ceira, which is not in her Majesty's dominions, then the
Foreign Enlistment Act was not violated at all. The most
important evidence is that given by Captain Inglefield, who
vessel at
gave a very moderate statement, and has been spoken of
on both sides in the highest terms of approbation, and I
think myself his evidence was very fair and candid. After
reading
some of the evidence, his lordship said if you think
that the object wasoo: tt oh
that
i s
furnish,
a fi t out,different equip
matter and;
butarmi f thatyou
[ an
order
in
cot:1 Whatreally wua
sse tothbe build i ltdh
oausghhi
think the object
bought it to obedience to
t
p ance with a contract, leaving those who
Pt
ifitn of i it, , then

appears to me that the Foreign Enlistment Act has not
been broken.

The jury immediately returned a verdict for the defen-
dants.
The Attorney-General tendered a bill of exceptions to
the Lord Chief Baron's ruling.

Cock Fighting at Donington Hall on Sunday.

CONVICTION OF THE MARQUIS OF HASTINGS
AND THREE OF HIS GAMEKEEPERS.
LOUGHBOROUGH, Wednesday Evening.

This usually quiet town this day somewhat departed from
its ordinary character, in consequence of the legal proceed-
ings which had been instituted against the Marquis of
Hastings, a wealthy member of the peerage, and owner of
a vast amount of property in the neighbourhood, that noble-
man having been cited at the instance of the Royal Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to appear, in con-
conjuntion with certain other persons (amongst whom is a
magistrate for the county) before a bench of magistrates, to
answer the charge of being engaged in the cruel and illegal
amusement of fighting cocks at his mansion at Donington
Hall, the Sunday afternoon being selected as the occasion
when this should take place.

The proceedings were taken against the Marquis of Hast-
ings and John Storey, jun., for causing a cock to be ct uelly
tortured, under the 12th az d 13th Vict., chap. 92, sec. 2 ;
and against John Storey, sen., Robert Storey, Henry
Storey, Edward Platts, Joseph Farebrother, and James
Dumellow, for aiding and abattingin the said offence, under
the 11th and 12th Vict., cap. 43 (Jervis's Act).
The magistrates were E. C. Middleton, Esq. (chairman),
Charles Shakespeare, Esq.. and Thos. Caddick, Esq. (lord
of the manor), and there were present a great number of the
most influential persons in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Sleigh, specially retained, conducted the prosecution
(instructed by Mr. John Cclam, the secretary of the
society) ; Mr. Merewether (instructed by Mr. Fisher, of
Ashby-de-la-Zouch), appeared for the Marquis of Hastings
and the other defendants.

Soon after the proceedings commenced the court was
crowded almost to suffocation. The Marquis of Hastings
and all the defendants with one exception were present.
Mr. Sleigh opened the case.
The following witnesses were then called.
Mr. Wm. Love, examined by Mr. Sleigh, said—l am
principal constable of the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals. On Thursday, June 4th, about two
o'clock in the day, in consequence of instructions which
were received from the secretary, I came down to this county,
On that day I called on the defendant Platts, at a lodge be-
longing to the Marquis of Hastings, at King's Mills. I
sent an officer to his house before I went myself. I saw
Platte, and after making allusion to the state of the weather,
asked if he had a game cock to sell, or could tell me where
I could purchase one. I said afterwards, " I understand the
Marquis of Hastings had some cock-fighting at the hall a
few Sundays ago." He replied, " Ah, we had some good
sport a little while ago at the hall." I asked him how long
it was, and he said three weeks last Sunday. In answer to
further questions put by myself and the officer who accom-
panied me, Geo. Cloyce, the defendant, said, "We fought
six pair of cocks at the kennels, near to Old Bradley's house
and there were six cocks killed. The cocks had all steel
spurs put on them, and I heeled most of them. The mar-
quis put the spurs on one cock himself, and he put them on
the wrong way, when young Jack Storey, of Lockington,
who was there, said, "What the devil are you about; you
have put them on wrong." Dumellow and another keeper
held the cocks while we heeled them. Dumellow and the
keeper heeled the cocks. None of them were trimmed, only
heeled, and as they were fighting blood flew about to some
tune, I can tell you. Farebrother, gamekeeper to Lady
Edith, at Wellesley Park, brought 12 cocks in a cart, but
they did not all fight. The marquis and young Jack Storey
put the cocks together to fight ; in fact, they fought them
all. There were present, besides the marquis, old Jack
Storey and his sons Harry, Jack, and Bob. I did not see
old Harry while the fighting was going on, but I expect he
was somewhere where he could see it all, as I know he likes
it."

Mr. Merewether interposed, and objected to Platt's state-
ment as to what his imps essions were as to old Jack Storey,
Lord Hastings, or anybody else.
Evidence continued—He said old Bradley, the keeper,
was there. "He said, " The marquis has got twelve dark
places put up for cocks, and I expect we flail have a
rare go in at cocking when the marquis comes of age."
The next day I called, in compitny with Choyce, on Fare-
brother, at Wellesley. He gave substantially the same in-
formation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Merewether—l was formerly a
companion to a blind gentleman. I have the control of the
officers under the direction of the secretary. It is no part of
my duty to go to hotels and talk to gentlemen's servants.
I went by the name of Dillon. That was the name written
on a card on my portmanteau. I stopped at Donnington
about a week. I went to Packington on the Thursday
night and stopped one night there. Ido not find people
drink at the society's expense, except when I find it neces-
sary to do so. I think I did not find it necessary to treat
more than one of Lord Hastings' servants. I went to see
the hounds there, and I am not prepared to say they are
guilty of cruelty to a hare or fox. I called Platte "Ned
Platte," as if I had known him all my life. I took out all
the summonses, but I produced no evidence before the ma-
gistrate when I took them out, I saw Dumellow two days
before I took out the summonses. I may have asked him as
to his health, and how his peas were going on, If I asked
Dumellow if he had any cocks to sell, but I do not think I
gave him a reason for it. I did not say I wanted them to
fight a main of cocks at Birmingham. I said I had been at
Birmingham, where there was some good cock fighting. I
asked him if the spurs drew blood, and he said, "Oh, yes;
the blood flew out, and lay about in flakes," Ido not re-
member saying that if we got a cock from the head keeper,
and another two or three they had been talking about, they
should do for their main at Birmingham. I asked when Lord
Hastings came of age, and he said on the 22d. Fare-
brother accompanied me to the railway station, and I asked
him to have something to drink. He did not say any thing
about cocks not being bred about there, but he did say he
knew how to heel cocks. He said, " I heeled some of the
cocks, and Ned Platte heeled the rest." I said to him,
" I understand Lord Hastings had some good cock fighting
at the hall a few Sundays ago," and he said "Yes." They
did not all say that there were a great many cocks, but
they did not all fight. Platte said so. Dumellow said
there were 19 cocks. I did not go to Lord Hastings.
Re-examined—l have been 10 years in the employ of the
society, The president is Lord Harrowby, and the corn.
mittee is composed of noblemen and gentlemen, and I have
had their confidence for 10 years.

Geo. Choyce, another officer of the society, corroborated
the form,r witness.

Gee. Young, examined by Mr. Sleigh—l am in the em-
ploy of the society. I called on Lord Hastings in St.James's
place, on Monday, the Bth of June. I was accompanied by
the secretary of the society, who said, " I am secretary to
the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I
received information that on Sunday, the 10th of May,your
lordship, a magistrate of the county, and other gentlemen,
had a cock-fight at Donington Hall. I always make it a
rule, whenever a charge is made against a gentleman, to
make him acquainted with it, so that he may have an oppor-
tunity of proving whether the charge is true or not." The
secretary then pointed out the Act of Parliament relating
to the offence, and his lordship said, " I did not know that
cock-fighting was against the law, but I knew dog-fight-
ing was." The secretary said the judges had decided that
it was not an offence under the 3d section, un'ess they were
fighting cocks in a place kept for the purpose. The mar-
quis said, " Well, that was not a place kept for the purpose."
The secretary said, "Certainly not, but the judges have de-
cided that a cock is a domestic animal, and the cruelly tor-
turing a cock comes under the 2d section of the act. I
am not going to say that your lordship acted cruelly to
any animal, but my information says your lordship
ordered the fight, and that you handled the cocks,
and that six out of 19 were killed." The marquis, in
answer said, " Well, I don't know how many were killed.
Thtre were a great many cocks and hens there fighting, and
neither I nor ray servants stopped them." The secretary
then said, "If I understand your lordship, you deny that
the fight took place ;" and his lordship said " No; there
was ene in the manner such as I have described. The
secretary then said, ‘, Your lordship denies taking
any part in the fight, or that there were any other persons
except your servants present ?" The marquis answered,
" Oh, no ; all the Storeys were there, as well as the keeper ;
and, as far as I am concerned, I dont care a —, but I am
sorry for young Storey." The secretary said, "So am I ;
but when cruelty to animals is. proved it becomes my duty
to prosecute, whether the offenders are rich or poor." The
secretary further said, .' I am told the cocks fought with
spurs and with extraordinary courage, and that 6 out of 19
were killed." The marquis said, " I do not know how many
were killed, it is so long ago ; but I should like to know who
gave you the information, then I should know my friends
from my enemies." The secretary refused to name his in-
formant.

Cross-examined by
Mr. Merewether—l was with the
secretary, and took a note at the time. We went to No. 25,
St. James's-place, and saw the Marquis of Hastings there.
Mr. John Colam, secretary to the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, examined by Mr. Sleigh
—I went with the last witness to Lord Hastings, and had
a conversation with him. The statement made by the last
witness is substantially correct.
A consultation here took place between the counsel en-
gaged on both sides, and at its conclusion,
Mr. Merewether said he thought that the bench would
find that the time his learned friend end himself hel been
occupied had not been wasted, and said, after the admission
which Lord Hastings had made to the secretary, he thought
he could not say that there had been no cock fighting; but
his lordship denied altogether that there had been any cruelty
used in the sense of the words of the information; there-
fore, after the admission of Lord Hastings, it would ill be-
come him (Mr. Merewether) to dispute the facts. He had
always denied the cruelty—he denied it then; and therefore
he (Mr. Merewether) should retire from the case, as far as
he was concerned, and could only say that he had uninten-
tionally transgressed the law on this occasion. As regarded
the detendauts Dumelow, Platts,and Farebrother,.he consi-
dered that evidence had been obtained from them in a very
improper manner.

A conviction against them was then entered.
Mr. Merewether then addressed the bench, and said tha

a Mr. Munday, a magistrate, had travelled all day to be pre-
sent, and he was ready to be called to state that Mr. John
Storey accompanied him on that Sunday afternoon from
Lockington ; that he never quitted him, and therefore that
he could not have been present to be a spectator or taking
part in such a sport on the Sunday afternoon. That being
the case, he hoped he would stand acquitted not only in
that court, but by all who knew him.
The Magistrates then retired to consider their decision,
and on their return, in about two minutes.

The Chairman said—On my own part I beg to say that
as long as I have been on the bench, which is now about 20
years, I can safely say that on no former occasion have,l sat
with more painful feelings and with greater regret than I
have done on the present, as there has evidently been a
gross violation of the law, and that has arisen in quarters
from which we expected other things. The Royal Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have done their
duty and no more, and therefore the bench now fines the
Marquis of Hastings in the full penalty, £5, and the three
gamekeepers—Platts, Farebrother, and Dumellow—in the
sums of £2 each.