The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-04 00:00:00

THE SIIN,
_LONDON, TUESDAY EVE NINO, NOVE MBER 4, nal:

by his own Government, affirm that the despatches
put forth in his name are rarely hitiown fabrication.
I am told by the highest authority that the official
statement, comprising the most minute details of
the Confederate loss at the battle of Antietam
Creek, estimates the whole loss in dead, wounded,
and missing, at 6,000 men. Another circumstance is
noticeable, A Federal loss of infinite magnitude
would evoke no sigh of sympathy, no moment of
sadness, except so far as it was supposed to defer
the restoration of the Union. But the whole Con-
federacy bewails the 6,000 victims at Antietam

Creek with brotherly affection and sympathy. Nor
is that appalling indifference which amazes and

paralyses the spectator in Washington and New
York affected here► Scarcely a lady but wears
mourning, proud to display that she has lost a re-
lative fighting in a cause dearer to her than life—

scarcely a person but speaks sorrowfully and with
affliction of a loss which seems to them appalling,
though not more than one-third of that inflicted

upon their poco curante foe. That the battle in

question was no Federal victory is best evinced by
the inaction on both sides on the following day.

Thursday passed and no attempt to press Gen. Lee
was made, notwithstanding the enormous numerical
superiority of his foe. At length, slowly and un-
molested, on the night of Thursday, having effected
the reduction of Harper's Ferry and fought on
equal terms with his enemy, the Southern army

- -
was drawn to the southern bank of the Potomac

without losing a cannon or wasting a life.
We come next to an episode in the war which is
naturally ignored by Mr. Stanton and the Northern

press. It appears that, discovering that his enemy

had retreated across the river, Gen. M'Clellan, on

Saturday, the 20th of September, threw some 3,000
men across in pursuit. The movement was observed
by General A. P. Hill, who left a few field-pieces
in position, from which he fired feebly upon the

advancing Northerners, giving orders to his
men to retreat hastily as they approached. The
Federals rushed on the guns, and followed eagerly
after what they imagined to be a broken and panic-
..

struck foe. But when they had got aboat a mile
and a half General Hill opened upon them with

grape and canister, and the slaughter is described
as having been the most appalling which the war

has witnessed. lam assured that not one-tenth 01

the invading force escaped—that the river was
literally choked with the bodies of the dead and

dying, who had rushed into the stream and struggled
frantically with each other to escape the pursuit. It

is evident that the lesson taught on that day to
General I\l'Clellan has borne bitter fruit, and that

his pursuit will henceforth be more wary. In fact
there is great reason to suppose that his next move
. ...

will be,-not against General Lee at Winchester,

but against Richmond by some new approach.
We hear that a large force is gathering in Hamp-
ton Roads, and it is thought that the next ap-
proach against Richmond will be by the south bank.
of the River James. With his right resting on the
river, and his left thrown southwards into the in-
terior, M'Clellan may attempt another advance.
It would ill become me to disclose the preparations

which await him at Drury's Bluff (called by Federa
papers Fort Darling), and elsewhere; but it is safe
to assert that he will find the lower bank more
difficult of access than he has alieady found the
upper. Nothing is more likely than that the with-
drawal of many troops before General Lee will open
Maryland again to the latter. The Federals have
just as much as they can do to keep roofs over their
heads in Washington during what remains of fight-
ing weather. The mysterious announcements of
the Northern papers that some great movement is in
contemplation excite little interest or apprehension
here. The experience of the past gives such con-
fidence about the future that it is felt no Northern
army will ever capture Richmond without such an
effusion of its own blood as would change the howl
of Northern exultation into a nation's wail of woe.
Well may a nation be confident of winning its in-
dependence which can exhibit such a spectacle as
every day produces wherever a Southern army is in
the field. There, in poverty, hunger, and dirt,
shoeless, with shirts ragged and rent, often without
hats, their feet bleeding as they drag their weary
limbs through dust and brier, are serving in the
ranks the gentlemen of the sangre azut of the South.
Many a man who, until the commencement of this
war, had scarcely a, thought beyond the Cafe Foy
and the Boulevards of Paris, and to whose morning
toilet every diversity of cosmetic was as necessary
as water, has for months been marching under a
musket, without one single change of raiment, feed-
ing often on green maize and raw pork, lying at
night on the bare earth, with a single blanket be-
tween him and the canopy of heaven. Where all
are fearless it were invidious to select one State in
preference to another as bearing away the palm;
but it seems generally conceded that General Butler
has converted the sons of Louisiana mothers, the
husbands and brothers of Louisiana wives and sisters
into demons of more than earthly ferocity.
And these men, many of them bearing some of
England's most honoured names, and descended
from England's best families, are in the field, and
have been so for 19 months, fighting against mer-
cenaries who have repudiated England as though
she were governed by a Nero, and have escaped
from German penury and conscriptions. Whatever
mal have been the truth last winter, it is not pre-
tended now that the Northern armies are not
mainly composed of men of foreign birth ! Where
are the native Americans of weight and influence
serving in the Northern ranks ? Why does not
Wendell Phillips take the field ? Men older than
he is are serving by dozens in the Southern ranks.
Where is Charles Sumner's musket ? The Senate
could spare Senator Baker, in nowise Mr. Sumner's
inferior in intellect, and it were a noble answer to
the South, which sneers at non-duellists for want of
courage, to show how one of that class can comport
himself upon the perilous edge of battle_ It is but
too probable that with unopposed command of the
sea and great rivers during their autumn floods the
South may lose thousands more of her sans, in ad-
dition to that great sea of blood which has already
been cheerfully poured out in her defence.
But let her be left without a single city or village,
with nothing but her internal fastnesses and her
immense area of territory, and though every man in
the North under 50 were to take the field, they
would be insufficient ever to make such a nation as
the South lie at the feet of her enemy.
The two races have come into collision ; on one
side an aristocracy, agricultural, sparsely settled,
given to field sports, living in the saddle; on the
other, a democraey, which has been travelling down-
wards for 80 years, which is numerically four times
as strong as its opponent, which breathes only an
atmosphere of dollars, and has no aspirations be-
yond commercial gain. Which is the more fit for
the conduct of war ? It is not too much to say that
but for their gunboats the Yankees would, before
this time, in American phrase, have been " whipped
out of their boots" by a population scarcely more
than one-fourth of their number. But in the South,
in spite of its lawless population, a certain rough
discipline is
not impossible, and an incident which
occurred two days ago in this city
shooting of two deserters, and the administrationhas never
attempted in the Northern hosts—the execution by
50 lashes to a third. Such
South; theexecutions have
already
not been unfrequent inwhereas,i n t
he
North, after the defeat of Pope, hundreds of de-
serters crossed the Potomac
every
night,
of whom it
is not improbable that 40 per cent. have again en-
listed, accepting the enormous bounties
profferedby
the North. If any man desires to gauge the reck-
less and extravagant waste which has from the first
characterised all the Federal operations in the field,
let him notice the fact that on both sides the Poto-
mac it is hard to meet a man or boy among that am-
phibious who has
phibious population not a Federal jacket,
cap, or pair of trousers. It is safe also to assert that
in mere practice the Federal officers, naval and
military, have fired away more powder than has
er by the South.
been expended in ang

[ADVERrisiKENT.l—Holloway's Ointment.—ln bad
legs, ulcers, scrofulous sores, and glandular swellings,
that this
ointment operates surely, and with a rapidity re-
sembles magic. It should be rubbed into the parts affected
atter they have been fomented with lake-warm water. The
purifying and curative powers of this tuuivalled ungufair
ent
have never been disputed by any one Who has given it a
trial. It contains not a particle of any substance of, a
noxious nature, nor is there a case 011 record in which it has
done the slightest harm, while there are authentic. reports
of
mnydra i
innumerable cures effected by it in all countries. It is
as
effects n its action as it is powerful and beneficial in its
.

LAW IN7'ELLIGENCE.—Nov.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

WESTCOTT V. THE LONDON, BRIGHTOTT, AND SOUTH

COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.—ACCIDENT.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover damageS for injuries sustained by his wife
in consequence of the alleged negligence of the de-
fendants' servants.
The defendants paid £3OO into court, and resisted
the plaintiffs claim for larger compensation.
The action was tried at the last July sittings in
London, before Lord Chief Justice CoOkburn and a
special jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plain-
tiff, with damages £450, being £l5O more than the
defendants paid into court.
It appeared that the injury sustained by the
plaintiff's wife was a fractured leg, by which he
had lost the use of her services, and she had suffered
much. She had been conveyed to an hospital for
treatment, and was removed thence by her husband,
in compliance with her own importunate desire,
prior to the completion of cure, and against the re-
monstrances of the surgeons under whose care she
was, and in whose opinion removal was premature,
and might be productive of bad consequences to her
case.
The Lord Chief Justice, when the jury had re-
turned their verdict, asked whether they had con-
sidered the second part of the question submitted
for their consideration, namely, whether the symp-
toms of the conditions of the plaintiff's wife had
been aggravated by her removal from the hospital,
contrary to the remonstrances against it of the
surgeons:
The Foreman, in reply, stated that that had been
their main question, that they thought the authori-
ties in the hospital did not use sufficient remon-
strance, and that they ought to have spoken
strongly to the husband and to his wife, and urged
upon them the imprudence of removing her so soon
from the hospital.
The Lord Chief Justice then addressing them,
said, do you give the £l5O additional to the plain-
tiff in consequence of that ?
Foreman—Yes, we agreed to consider that ques-
tion.
The learned Judge thereupon made an order to
stay execution.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., now moved for a rule calling on
the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside and a new trial had, on the ground
of verdict against evidence.
The Court having heard the learned gentleman
granted a rule nisi.
THE QUEEN (ON THE PROSECUTION OF MESSRS. WATER.
Low) V. BRAY.

This was a prosecution instituted by Messrs. Wa•
,erlow, stationers, against the defendant, for alleged
perjury, said to have been committed by him in his
evidence on a trial before Mr. Justice Mellor, at
Westminster.
A report of the case appeared in the Times news-
paper, and the solicitor of Messrs. Waterlow cut it
out, and submitting it to the learned judge (Mellor)
at the Guildhall sittings, asked him to certify that
the case was one wherein a prosecution ought to be
instituted against the defendant. The learned judge
having looked at the report certified as required.
Application was now made to the full Court to
rescind the learned judge's certificate on grounds
that it was informal; that it was not customary
with learned judges to grant certificates in such
cases on newspaper reports; and that the allegations
of perjury should have been made on affidavit.
The Court having conferred, concurred in the opi-
nion that it was not customary for judges to grant
certificates in such cases on newspaper reports; but
said in this case the facts were fresh in the learned
judge's memory, and that there was therefore
nothing wrong in his having granted his certificate
in the manner complained of. Certainly, it was al-
ways desirable that such applications should be sup-
ported by affidavits; but the learned judge, in this
case, did not consider there was any irregularity in
granting the certificate in the manner stated.
Order certifying affirmed.
HODSON v. TODD,-BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
spinster and household servant, to recover compen-
sation in damages against the defendant, a young
farmer, for breach of promise of marriage.
The case was tried at the assizes of Durham,
before Mr. Justice Mellor, and resulted in a verdict
for the plaintiff, with damages £l5O.
It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff,
who is the daughter of a poor man, a miner, lived
as servant in the household of the defendant, and
that becoming enciente, she pressed him to marry
her. She left the family, and correspondence was
alleged by her to have been subsequently carried
on between them, he addressing letters breathing
love and constancy to her, and promises of marriage,
notwithstanding what his " dear old mother" might
say to the contrary. Four of those alleged letters
were put in as evidence on the trial, and the jury
believing them to be genuine, and that breach of
promise was thereby established, gave their verdict
for the plaintiff.
Mr. C. Foster now moved on affidavits for a rule
calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the ver-
dict should not be set aside and a new trial had,
first, on the ground of surprise, the defendant de-
nying all knowledge of the letters; second, that
they were forgeries; and third, of verdict against
evidence. With regard to " surprise," the defendant
was not prepared for such evidence as that alleged
in the letters put in, and he (Mr. C. Foster) was fur-
nished with the affidavits of five persons who were
well acquainted with the defendant's handwriting,
all deposing that the letters were not written by
him. The learned gentleman then read the letters,
in one of which the defendant, as alleged, address-
ing
thnp
off writinglaintiffssaid " My dear, you will think I
am leaving to you ; but don't be uneasy,
I mean to marry you. I think the house is not
safe when you are not there, my dear. I mean to
make you a lady. Never mind what my old mother
and that before the child is born."
says. I shall make you my dame—l shall make
you my wife,
That letter was signed " Ant-ony," without the
h.e The child was born in April, 1861, and yet
some of those letters were dated in 1862. Looking
at all the circumstances, he hoped the Court would
grant the rule.
The Curt—Take a rule nisi.
Rule nisi accordingly.
IN RE JOBSON--MR. DISBAELI, M.P.—MANDAMUS.
Mr. Jobson appeared on the floor of the court, and
applied for a rule calling on Mr. Alderman Carter
to show cause why a mandamus should not issue,
commanding him to hear and adjudicate upon an
application by him for a warrant against Mr. Ben-
jamin Disraeli, for assigned perjury alleged by the
applicant to have been committed by that gentleman
in a prosecution in which he (Mr. Jobson) was the
defendant. It appeared that Mr. Disraeli deposed
that he had received numerous threatening letters
from him ; but he (Mr. Jobson) was prepared with
affidavits to prove that he had never sent a threat-
ening letter to him. He was wrongfully found gailty,
and sentenced to imprisonment for the alleged of-
fence. He submitted his affidavits of his innocence
to Mr. Alderman Carter, and that official said he
would take them home, read them, and give his
opinion next day. On the next day he said he had
looked into the affidavits, and that there was no case
to warrant him in exercising jurisdiction. Now he
(Mr. Jobson) had no satisfactory proof that Mr. Al-
derman Carter had ever read his affidavits, and he
therefore hoped that this Court would issueits man-
damus commanding him to hear his complaint. He
had also to call their lordships' attention to the con-
duct of Mr. Arnold, the magistrate presiding in the
Westminster Police-court. He had also applied to
that functionary to exercise his jurisdiction in the
case, but he refused altogether to hear him, and
ordered him t-± leave the court.
Lord Chief Justice—Perhaps you used violent
language.
Mr. Jobson—Oh, no, my lord, no more, I assure
your lordships, than I am using at this moment in
my address to your lordships. I was as mild and as
subdued as a man could be in my language, and
when he ordered me out of court I was as much sur-
prised as if he had given me a slap on the face.
(Laughter.) I therefore hope your lordships will do
me justice, and issue your mandamus to Mr. Alder-
man Carter to hear the case.
Lord Chief Justice—Do you say you never wrote
any threatening letters to Mr. Disraeli ?
Mr. Jobson—Never, my lord. I certainly threat-
ened to post him, and did post him.
Lord Chief Justice—And do you not call that
threatening ?
Mr. Jobson—But with regard to Mr. Alderman
Carter, my lord ?
Lord Chief Justice--We have jurisdiction to issue
a mandamus to a magistrate in a case where it is
shown to us that he has refused to hear a complaint
on affidavit ; but in this case Mr. Alderman Carter
said he would take your affidavits home and read
them. We must assume that he read them, and
finding that he the next day said there was " no
case," we must decline to assent to your application.
Rule refused accordingly.
Mr. Jobson then folded up his
papers, and left
the Court with a rapid step, evidently much disap-
pointed at the result of his application.
LOXLEY T. RICE.
This was
an action brought by the plaintiff, a
professional singer, to recover a sum of £B9,
claimed by him as salary alleged to be due to
him by the defendant, under the terms of an
engagement which he entered into to sing at Sad-
ler's Wells
Theatre. The defence set up was that
was wholly
the defendantetent as a singer
to fulfil the engagement into which he had en-
tered. The action, tried before Mr. Baron Bram-
weli, resulted in plaintiff's favour, giving him a
verdict, with damages, £5O,
Mr. Sergeant Shee now moved for a rule calling

Oft the* plaintiff to show cause why the verdict
tiboilld not he aside and a new trial had. The
plaintiii" had entered into an engagement to play
what was called the prinio tent;Te, and was to take
part in an operetta called " All's Fair in Love and
-War -" but the evidence was that he was utterly
incompetea t sing, and that another person had
to take the part. ri the morning, at the rehearsal,
he sang well enough ; but at night, when he came
before the audience, he could not sing at all. Such
was the evidence on the part of the defendant, and
it was supported by that of Mr. St. Luke, the
stage manager.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—Was there not
any evidence that the plaintiff could sing ?
Mr. Sergeant Shee said he was engaged in an-
other court when the trial was called on ; but he
was informed by a learned friend who held his
brief, that no one said the plaintiff could sing, but
himself.
The Court said they would confer with Mr. Baron
Bramwell on the subject, and give the learned ser-
geant an answer on a future day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
'Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Erle,
and Justices Williams, Byles, and Keating.)

NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.
Shortly after the sitting of the Court this morn-
ing, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Southgate, and Mr. Hob-
house were called within the bar, they having been
appointed " her Majesty's counsel learned in the
law."
CIIENEY V. COURTOIS,—POINT OF PRACTICE.
This was an interpleader issue which had been
tried before Mr. Baron Wilde, at York, when the
verdict was for the plaintiff.
Mr. Kemplay now moved for a rule to enter a
verdict for the defendant, on the ground that the
affidavit of the execution of the bill of sale was in-
formal, The affidavit was entitled in the Queen's
Bench, but was sworn before a commissioner for
taking affidavits in the Exchequer.
Mr. Justice Williams suggested that the entitling
of the affidavit was unimportant, inasmuch as there
was no proceeding in any particular court.
Mr. Kemplay said that such affidavits could be
filed only in the Queen's Bench, and it was always
the practice to entitle them in that court.
The Court took time to consider the matter.
WHITE V. STEELE—CHURCH RATES.
This matter has been several times before the
public, the circumstances being shortly these:—The
plaintiff was sued in the Consistory Court for his
contribution to a church rate made for the formation
of a new burial-ground. There was also an appeal
to the Court of Arches, the decision in both c, urts
being against the plaintiff. Thereupon he proceeded
in prohibition, and the issue in prohibition simrdy
raised the question whether upon the making of the
church rate a poll was remanded and refused. This
question came on for trial before Mr. Baron Martin
in Surrey, when the jury found for the plaintiff—
damages 40s.
Mr. Sergeant Shee now contended that the plain-
tiff, having recovered in prohibition, was entitled not
simply to 405., but also to £9O, the amount of ex-
penses which he had incurred in the Ecclesiastical
Courts, in proceedings which, it was now established,
had been wrongly decided against him.
The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion
that there should be no rule. There was no
authority for saying that the costs in the Eccle-
siastical Courts could be recovered as costs by pro-
ceedings in prohibition ; but the present plaintiff
endeavoured to obtain payment of such costs under
the name of damages. The statute of 1 Win. IV.
enacted that the jury might give damages ; but the
Legislature had not given t}ie slightest intimation
as to what were the matters in respect of which
the jury might give damages ; and, for his part, he
was clearly of opinion that it was not intended
that a plaintiff in prohibition should recover as
damages the costs incurred in the Ecclesiastical
Courts.
Rule refused.

A CASE FOR A DIVORCE COURT.

Patrick John Ruddy, alias Readdy, alias Hen-
riques, an Irishman, about forty years of age, ap-
peared yesterday before Mr. Selfe, at the Thames
police-court, on a summons, charged with assault-
ing his wife Maria Young Ruddy.
Mr. Abbott, a solicitor, of St. Mark-street, White-
chapel, conducted the prosecution. Mr. Wakeling,
a solicitor, of Clerkenwell, defended the accused.
Mr. Abbott, in opening the case, said it was one
of a grievous nature. The complainant was a lady of
high respectability, and was married to the defen-
dant, then in poor circumstances, eight years ago;
she brought him a fortune of £l,OOO, and £4O
a year besides. The defendant had most grossly
illtreated his wife, and after turning her out of a
large-eight-roomed house, near the Victoria Park,
and proceeding to Scotland upon business, she was
obliged to seek a temporary shelter with her three
children in a stable belonging to her husband, and
to apply to the parish of Bethnal-green for relief.
All this time her husband was living in the most
luxurious style, and when she contracted debts for
common necessaries befitting her position and
nothing more, he caused to be printed and cir-
culated a bill, of which the following is a copy ;
" This is to give public notice that I will not be
answerable for any debts my wife Maria Ruddy
may contract, nor for any act she may do. I
therefore caution any person not to trust her, and
as she represents me as the owner of house pro-
perty, I take this opportunity of denying the same.
—P. J. Ruddy, 23rd January, 1862. N.B.—Pro-
ceedings are being instituted against those persons
who assisted the said Maria Ruddy in unia:wfully
secreting her husband's property." Now it was Lot
true that Mrs. Ruddy had secreted her husband's
property, or instigated others to do so. At the time
the bill was issued, the defendant was trading in his
wife's maiden name, as " Henriques and Co., ship
chandlers, and general railway and machinery fur-
nishers, 3, Queenhithe, Upper Thames-street, and
18, Great Alie-street, Mioories." Mr. Abbott put
in defendant's trading card as above, and sad Ruddy
was in affluent circumstances when he published
the printed bill, and would not allow his wife com-
mon necessaries. The defendant wished to drive his
unfortunate wife, a lady by birth and education, into
a workhouse, and, failing in that, had the audacity
to issue another printed bill as follows :—" This is
my third caution to guard the public against giving
trust or credit to a woman who goes about in hat
and feathers, and grand silk dress, calling herself
Mrs. Ruddy ; although I allowed her to call herself
my wife, she has no right to do so. She took from
me last January in cash £225, after breaking and
smashing the windows. She sold and made away
with the furniture of an eight-roomed house which
I then rented for her. She sold, to Dillon, the
beer-shop keeper, Green-street, and others, lime
and sand which cost me £5O, and was worth a good
deal more to me. She went round, assisted by a
house-agent named Brown, to the persons accus-
tomed to do business with me, stating the money
was theirs and not mine. She has taken the money
from some of the customers, and others who would
not pay her she abused and caused great disturb-
ances at their houses, and therefore prevented them
dealing with me. She declared she did not care,
provided she ruined me for her satisfaction. In her
efforts to get trust she said her husband was in a
large way of business, and the owner of house pro-
perty. Ido hereby declare lam not the owner now
of any house or other property.—July 27, 1862.
P. J. RUDDY."
Mr. Abbott said the placard was a gross and ma-
lignant libel on a respectable lady. The parties
were married, and he handed the marriage certifi-
cate to the magistrate. The defendant had made
his appearance before the City Chamberlain, the
courts at Westminster, police courts, and county
courts, as Ruddy, Ready, and Henriques ; he had
taken away two of his children and would not let
their mother know where he had put them, and had
finally assaulted her in a savage manner.
Mrs. Ruddy, a care-worn lady, corroborated the
statement, and gave a history of her privations and
ill-treatment since she had been married to Ruddy,
and said her marriage was a mistake and most un-
fortunate. She went to her husband's premises, 18,
Great Alie-street, which he had vacated and emp-
tied on Friday, 23d ult., and was sheltered by Mr.
and Mrs. Clare, who occupied apartments there.
On Monday, tho 27th, her husband, who did not
expect to see her there, arrived with five van loads
of merchandise, and upon seeing her called her a
stinking faggot, and a thick-skinned devil, and said
" I'll do for you." He then proceeded to use her
with great roughness, tore her dress, and throw her
with great violence into the gutter. She got up
and made an attempt to enter the premises. Her
husband closed the door upon her, and her dress was
caught in it. He wanted a police constable to take
her into custody, and he refused to do so. He then
seized her and threw her into the street a second
time. He had been in the practice of turning her
out of doors, and leaving her destitute occasionally
for several years Her only offence was, she had
outlived his liking. She was left destitute four or
five weeks ago.
In cross-examination by Mr. Wakeling, the wit-
ness denied that she was addicted to strong drinks.
She sold some woollen rags which she found in his
warehouse for £1 14s. Her husband was a general
merchant and a rich merchant.
In re-examination by Mr. Abbott, the witness said
t
her husband had been away from her a fortnight
before she sold the rags. She had never abandoned
her husband and children.
Mrs. Pearse Patchett, of 18, Great Alie-street,
confirmed the statement of the complainant as to the
assault on the 27th ult., and said Mrs. Ruddy
fell
near the feet of a horse attached to one of the vans.
Mr. Wakeling, for the defence, made an elaborate