The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 28, 18

A. HUSBAND SHOT DEAD-JEALOUSY

AND REVENGE.

A shocking affair occurred at No. 256, Broad-
way, third floor, yesterday afternoon, involving the
life of Peter C. Real, a well-known manufacturer of
gilt braid. Mr. Real, it appears, was busily en-
gaged at work, about three o'clock, when a young
woman, named Mary Stewart, entered the work-
shop, and accused him of having deserted her. Some
exciting language then followed between them,
when, finding that the workmen were listening to
the conversation, they retired to the hall. Here
the excited conversation was renewed, and soon
the workmen were alarmed by the discharge of
a pistol. Upon opening the door to ascertain
the cause of the explosion, they were horrified
to find their employer on the floor weltering in
blood. The injured man was removed to his office,
and a physician sent for; but before medical aid
could be procured he expired.
The noise of the pistol attracted the attention of
the Fifth Precinct police, who hastened to the spot,
and arrested Miss Stewart before she could make
her escape. Upon being brought to the Tombs the
prisoner stated that she was the wife of the de-
ceased, who abandoned her, and treated her in the
most shameful manner. She made this statement
in extenuation of her crime, and conducted herself
with considerable dignity and self-possession for
one placed in such an unpleasant position. She
also said that she met Real on the Jersey City ferry
the day before, in company with a strange woman,
and that she accosted the latter and exposed the
real character of deceased. Real refused to recog-
nise her, and denied that any relationship existed
between them ; but she persisted that he was her
husband, and the lady left his company i❑ order to
avoid any unpleasant consequences. The meeting
between the deserted wife and her husband had the
effect of changing whatever love she had for him
into intense hate. Burning with revenge, she went
straightway to a hardware store and purchased a
pistol, with the view of killing the deceased on the
first opportunity. Yesterday morning she waited
at the Jersey City ferry nearly two hours with the
intention of intercepting Real as he came over to
business, but somehow or other he escaped her notice
and managed to reach his office unmolested.

A post mortem examination of the body showed
that the ball entered the left breast, between the
first and second ribs, one and a half inch from the
median line. On opening the cavity of the thorax
the wound was found passing through the upper
lobe of the left lung, in a downward direction,
penetrating the left pulmonary artery, and lodg-
ing between the fifth and sixth ribs, near their ar-
ticulation with the vertebral column. On making
an incision through the back the ball was found and
extracted. The left cavity of the thorax was filled
with coagulated blood, and the right one partially
filled. Both auricles and ventricles of the heart
were empty. In the opinion of the physician death
was almost instantaneous. The only words that
deceased was heard to utter after receiving the fatal
wound were—" lam killed, I am dead." Indeed,
so sudden was his death that the workmen had
scarcely seated him in the office when he expired.
The prisoner, who is a woman of more than ordi-
nary intelligence, informed the police that she was
married to Real some years ago; that during the
last six months he had treated her in. the most cruel
manner, abandoning her for other women, and leav-
ing her upon the cold charity of the world : that he
seldom returned home after business until a late
hour at night, and frequently stayed away from her
for a week at a time. She thinks that she is per-
fectly justified in the course she has taken, and is
sanguine of regaining her liberty when the matter
comes up for investigation.—New York Herald,
June 14.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 27.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)

BUTCHER V. THE GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATIONCOM-

PANY.-ACCIDENT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to
icenvi,da.mßpes for injuries which he had sustained,
in consequence of the alleged negligent,. ‘,r ~be
fendante'servants—the crew of one of their steamers,
plying between Yarmouth and London.
The defendants pleaded not guilty of negligence.
Mr. iloggins, Q.C., and Mr. T. J. Clark, appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C.,
and Mr. Craufurd, and Mr. C. Pollock, represented
the defendants.

It appeared that the plaintiff, who is an embosser,
engraver, and enameller of glass bottles and labels,
bad, in the summer of last year, gone, with his
wife, on an excursion to Paris. On their return
to England they stopped at Yarmouth, where they
remained a few days. Plaintiff's wife then re-
turned to London, leaving plaintiff still at Yar-
mouth. He, at the expiration of that time, took
his passage:on board one of the defendants' steamers
which plied between Yarmouth and London ; and
when they arrived opposite Woolwich the steamer
came into collision with a schooner. The crash
was violent, and plaintiff was knocked down,
and so seriously injured as to be rendered
insensible. The accident took place about two
o'clock in the morning, and he remained in a pros-
trate condition until 10 the next morning, when he
was removed, and conveyed in a cab to his house in
London.

Plaintiff was called to corroborate the statement
of counsel. He appeared in a nervous and debili-
tated state, and.when under examination frequently
put his hands to his head, complained that he suf-
fered in it from pains, which he believed to be the
result of the injury to his system, that his hearing
was impaired since the accident, and that he was
not, since the injury, able to attend as formerly to
his business. His income, derived from his business,
had been from £3OO to £4OO a year, but it had
fallen off in consequence of the injury he had sus-
tained.

In cross-examination it was elicited that plaintiff
had, in 1860, sustained an injury by being knocked
down by the 'alleged negligence of one of Messrs
Combe and Delafield, the brewers' drayman, in
driving his dray. The wheels of the dray came in
contact with his head, wounding the scalp on both
sides to a considerable extent; and he was then so
seriously injured that he was conveyed to Guy's
Hospital, where he remained some time under sur-
gical treatment. It was also elicited that ho had
suffered in health from an attack of rheumatic fever.
From Messrs. Combe and Delafield he received £lOO
in consideration of the injury he had sustained by
the alleged negligence of their draymen.
Mrs. Butcher, wife of the plaintiff, was called, and
gave evidence in corroboration of his sufferings,
arising from the shock to his system by the acci-
dent on board the defendants' steamer.

The medical gentlemen who attended him after
the accident—one of them a surgeon at Guy's Hos-
pital, under whose treatment he was while in that
institution—were also examined, and they gave
evidence as to the nature of the injury he had sus-
tained.

Witnesses were also called who worked as jour-
neymen in plaintiff's employ, some of whom stated
that they had earned £3 to £4 a week from him by
assisting him in his business.
The plaintiff's caie had not closed at five o'clock,
and the further trial of the action was adjourned
till to-morrow (this day).

ticular circumstance which had not been already
stated.

The plaintiff's wife, his daughter, and one or two
other persons gave evidence in support of the case.
As far as could be gathered, the plaintiff com-
plained he was a victim of what he called the com-
mon practice of locking sane people up in lunatic
asylums, and he protested that his duty to himself,
his family, his country, and his Creator, compelled
him to expose the system ; and he said he appealed,
like Sophocles, to his works (the letters which he
had written to various official persons) to show con-
clusively to any sane mind that there was no ground
for sending him to Bethlehem. He protested that
the question of insanity was one to be determined
by one's common sense, and not by medical testi-
mony ; and he warned any medical men who should
venture to be witnesses that he might perhaps
prove them to-be insane. He complained that in
Bethlehem he had been compelled to take warm
baths, and this in order that his pockets might be
rifled of his papers ; that he had been compelled to
walk in the yard ; that he felt the cold ; that he
had a mug to drink from instead of a glass ; that on
some occasions the criminal lunatics were allowed
to see some fireworks exhibited at the hospital,
whilst he and others were not allowed the privilege;
and he also complained of other things which were
evidently done in accordance with the rules of the
hospital. He also asserted that these things were
done in order to induce him to commit violence, but
without effect; and to cause him to die. He admit-
ted that on one occasion, having failed in his appeals
to the governor of the prison, he had said that if
there was no law to afford him protection, he would
shoot the first man who insulted him ; but he com-
plained that the meaning of these words had been
cruelly perverted against him. A further complaint
was, that the proceedings in lunacy had been taken
under the wrong act of Parliament.

His lordship, however, decided this point against
him, and said that the only question for the jury
was, whether the plaintiff was in fact insane when
he was taken to the hospital.
The defence was, that in Jan., 1856, the plaintiff
made several complaints to the prison authorities
that persons had used indecent gestures towards him
but, upon investigation, no foundation could be found
for the complaints. On Jan. 24 Mr. Lalor, a pri-
soner, complained that the plaintiff had called him
a murderer, and had threatened to shoot him ; and,
in the presence of Captain Hudson, the plaintiff
said that he would shoot Lalor, or anybody else
who insulted him. Thereupon Captain Hudsou
consulted Mr. Wakem, the medical officer of the pri-
son, who called in Dr. Griffiths, and, upon their
certificate, he was removed to Bethlehem, where he
was treated with kindness, and nothing was done
that was not in accordance with the rules of the
hospital. One of the principal complaints of the
plaintiff was, that he had not foi some months been
allowed to see his wife and daughter, but defen-
dant's counsel explained that this occurred in this
way. The wife and daughter had frequently taken
into the hospital acts of Parliament, documents,
and, on two occasions, knives, all of which was con-
trary to the rules. It was not thought that the
plaintiff himself would make any improper use of
the knives, but there was the danger that they
might get into the hands of other patients. In con-
sequence of this the visits were forbidden. It fur-
ther appeared that the plaintiff had some of the
acts of Parliament and papers addressed to another
patient named Hind, a circumstance which made
Hind's malady worse, and this caused the plaintiff
to be removed to another ward, a thing which he
now strongly complained of. It was stated the first
time the plaintiff was known to have complained of
insulting gestures, was before he went into the pri-
son, the plaintiff having made the charge against a
person named Timberlake, whom he met upon one
of the bridges—the gesture complained of being
that Timberlake put his fingers into his mouth.
Singularly enough, when the plaintiff went to
Bethlehem he found Timberlake a patient there,
and the plaintiff alleged that the gestures and other
annoyances were continued after this.
When Captain Hudson was giving evidence, the
plaintiff cross-examined him to show, as he said,
that the captain was in the habit, when anybody
offended him, of sending them to Bethlehem.
At length, when the case had lasted a day and a
half, the jury stopped it by saying that their minds
were completely made up.
The Lord Chief Justice said he quite concurred;
there was no doubt the plaintiff had proved himself
to be of unsound mind.

A verdict was thereupon entered for defendants.
The plaintiff said he understood that his lordship
had reserved the question of law for the full Court.
The Lord Chief Justice, however, said he had
never said anything of the kind. He ruled that the
proceedings had been properly taken under the
Queen's Bench Prison Aet, instead of the General
Lunacy Act.
Thp plaintiff prpt.Qtnil that he had been very un-
fairly treated, and that he must appeal.
The Lord Chief Justice believed that every person
who had come in contact with the plaintiff since
1855 appeared to him to be the worst of mankind;
and no doubt the judge and jury were in the same
category.

The Plaintiff asserted that he had been cruelly
treated ; but having packbd up his papers he retired.
Half an hour afterwards he reappeared, and asked
for two or three days' time to prepare a bill of ex-
ceptions to his lordship's ruling; and this having
been refused, he asked to be allowed at once to ten-
der the exceptions, and he offered to hand in the
document.

The Lord Chief Justice, however, declined to re-
ceive a bill of exceptions after the verdict had been
given and the jury. had gone.
The plaintiff then left the court, declaring that he
should appeal.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
DOUGLAS V. DOUGLAS AND WIN STANLEY.
The petitioner was a leather-seller, residing at
Liverpool, and he applied for a dissolution of mar-
riage on the ground of his wife's adultery with the
co. respondent ; to which the respondent pleaded,
denying the charge.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr. Martin for the respondent.
The evidence was to the effect that the marriage
was solemnised in February, 1857, and that shortly
afterwards the respondent contracted habits of
intemperance, and in 1859 her conduct became so
violent that a separation took place between the
parties. The husband then commenced a suit for
judicial separation, which he abandoned on his wife
consenting to enter a reformatory for some time, but
on her return home she resumed her old habits, in
addition to which she formed an illicit intercourse
with the co-respondent, who was a man over 60
years of age. The petitioner then determined to
institute the present proceedings.
The case was fully established, and the jury found
a verdict for the petitioner.
The Court pronounced a decree nisi without costs.
TEDBURY V. TEDBURY.
In this case the petitioner prayed for a dissolution
of marriage on the ground of her husband having
committed incest by an adulterous connexion with
her.sister. The respondent denied the charge, and
pleaded condonation.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard appeared
for the petitioner; and Mr. Henry James for the
respondent.
Several witnesses were examined, and their evi-
dence was to the effect that the petitioner was the
daughter of a respectable upholsterer, named Sad-
grove, who was in business in London. She was
married to the respondent, Charles Hollingsworth
Tedbury, the son of a dealer in artificial manures,
on the 16th of December, 1851, and they cohabited
until the middle of April, 1860. Her sister Louisa
Sadgrove lodged in the house of a Mr. Griffiths,
when she was visited by the respondent, and during
his stay he occupied the same room in which she
slept. While at his house she was confined.
The learned counsel on both sideshaving addressed
the Court,
The jury found a verdict for the petitioner.
Sir C. Cresswell said it was a disgraceful case, ,
and pronounced a decree nisi with costs.

that he sold them on the 15th September, 1859, for
£2,800, and remitted the amount to his brother in.
America, in satisfaction of an old debt he contracted
with him many years ago. He represented that a per-
son of the name of Fe.rster, whose address WI is am-
biguously given as the g." Far West," called up, .m him
and that he sent the la.ioney by that pel 'son to
his brother. When asked in the Insolvency Court
the name of the broker who .sold the shares !i'or him,
he replied, after some hesitation, that it was, an out-
sider on the Stock Exchange o f the name of Ash.
Other property was also disposed of in a doubtful
manner, but the Lombardo-Venetian shares would
be quite sufficient for the Dnrpos es of the present
charge. This was the account rendered by the in-
solvent Hawkins; but he was now prepared to
prove that although the shares i.•l question wore sold
on the 15th September, 1859, the v were disposed of
by Mr. Bunford Samuel, a stockl, roker, of Throg-
morton-street, and not by Ash, thy' outsiiirJr, who
was nowhere to be found. That the proceeds were
handed over to Miss Warren in th, '3
'ed, form of a
cheque, which she afterwards got cast.
receiv-
ing two Bank of England notes for £l,OO, 9 each and
one for £5OO. On the 3d of October follow. mg Miss
Warren instructed Mr. Samuel to purchase in her
name Mexican stock representing £12,000 in value,
for which she paid with the identical bank .notes
she had received in change for the cheque paid to
her in the first instance by Mr. Samuel, so tiiat
there was abundant evidence to show that toe
money did not go to the insolvent's brother in'Ame-
rice, but to the defendant, Miss Warren, to whom
the defendant Hawkins was engaged to be married.
The account as sworn to by Miss Warren and Haw-
kins was that the shares were otherwise disposed
of, and that the Mexican stock purchased in her
name was her own property, and that sh.e had sent
the whole of it over to Hawkins's brother in Texas
to realise and purchase land for her in ,her own
name. These being the facts of the case, he would
inform the Court that the charge he intended to
prefer against the defendants would be for contsPir-
ing to defraud the insolvent's creditors, for N,711-
ful and corrupt perjury, and against Hawkin s
for fraudulently omitting from his schedule the
account of the Mexican stock, and against the de-
fendant, Miss Warren, for aiding and abetting the
insolvent in sueh fraudulent omission.

Mr. Charles George Hatt, one of the clerks of the
Insolvency Court, produced the proceedings conse-
quent upon the filing of Hawkins' petition, and de-
posed to having administered the oath to Hawkins
verifying the contents of his schedule on the 12th
of March last. He saw him sign his petition and
schedule.

Mr. Chivers, a shorthand writer, then produced
and read his notes of the examination of the insol-
vent and Miss Warren before the commissioner on
May 3, 1860, July 30, 1860, February 11, 1862,
February 19, 1862, and March 6, 1862. There was
no examination on March 12, 1862 ; nothing beyond
the judgment.

Mr. Metcalfe called particular attention to a por-
tion of one of the examinations bearing upon the
disposal of the 280 Lombardo Venetian shares, when
Mr. Lewis interposed, and said the examinations
must be taken as a whole, inasmuch 'as it was im-
portant to know what Hawkins's affairs really
were in order to arrive at the fact whether Miss
Warren was or was not acquainted with his real
position. It was quite true that prior to his arrest
Hawkins was engaged to be married to Miss War-
ren, and that he settled this property upon her in
anticipation of that marriage, and it was now
sought to extort from her the means of satisfying
claims arising out of Stock Exchange gambling
transactions.

Mr. "Metcalfe said that remained to be proved.
He had no objection to the whole of the examina-
tion being put as evidence, but he wished to save
the time of the Court.

As soon as Mr. Chivers had concluded reading
his notes an adjournment was suggested, in which
all parties concurred ; the young lady being libe-
rated on bail, and the insolvent taken back to the
Queen's Prison.

LAMBETH.—THE EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF
ALLEGED WHOLESALE POlSONlNG.—Catherine,
alias Constance Wilson, alias Taylor, alias Turner,
who had been tried at the late session at the Cen-
tral Criminal Court on a charge of attempting to
poison Mrs. Cornell, but acquitted, was again
placed at the bar before the Hon. G. C. Norton on
a charge of causing the death of Mrs. Ann Atkin-
son, a respectable married female by administering
poison.
Mr. Chipperfield, as on the former examination,
attended for the prosecution, and Mr. Nellie for the
defence.

The court was much crowded during the exami-
nation.

Mr. Nairne, the medical gentleman who attended
the deceased, and who gave evidence on the former
examination, was recalled, and said his first.visit to
at the house of the prisoner, was on
Monday, the 15th of October, 1866, when he found
her to be labouring under what he believed to be
" choleraic diarrhoea," and continued his visits two
and three times a day up to the time of her death,
which took place an the following Friday night,
and gave a certificate in her case, assigning her
death to " choleraic diarrhoea." Arsenic adminis-
tered in small doses would produce the effects under
which he found the deceased labouring when
called in.
Mr. Norton—ln your former examination, Mr.
Nairne, you said the deceased told you she had been
taken ill at Rugby Station, and also robbed there.
Now, are you quite certain it was the deceased
told you this, or might it not have been the pri-
soner ?

Mr. Nairne—l am quite sure that it was Mrs.
Atkinson who said so.
Mr. Norton—Did she say the amount of which
she had been robbed ?
Witness—She did not mention the amount.
Mr. Joseph Atkinson, the husband of the de-
ceased, and a respectable-looking middle-aged man,
was here called and sworn. He said—l am a tailor
by trade, residing at Kirkby, Lonsdale, Westmore-
land, and the deceased, Ann Atkinson, was my
wife, and at the time of her death, which took place
at tho house of the prisoner on the 19th of October
last, she was 55 years of age. She carried on the
business of a milliner and dressmaker at my resi-
dence, and it was her custom to visit London once a
year for the purposes of her trade, and she was
always in the habit of taking with her a large sum
of money. My wife had been acquainted with the
prisoner for about seven years, and when she came
to town was in the habit of stopping at her house,
10, Loughborough-street, Kennington. On Satur-
day morning, the 18th of October, 1860, my wife
left Kirkby for town, and on the Tuesday morning
following I received from her the letter I now pro-
duce:—

"My dear Joseph,—l am glad to tell you that
Mr. Taylor was at the station to meet me. It was
well, as it rained in torrents, and such a heavy
night. I think I should never have got a cab. I
took the express, as they informed me at Rugby
that it would be half-past 11 before we arrived. I
was glad I had when he was there waiting for me.
I em getting well nursed to-day and not going
out, that I may be fit for a good day's work to-
morrow, if all is well. Mr. Taylor is not well. He
is engaged to-day—some of the machinery is broke.
They came to call him this morning, and he is at
work to-day, and you must look out for some good
apples and pears. I shall have to send them a ham-
per when I come home. Tell Jane on Thursday to
get 12 quarts of plums for them. She has got apples
2d. per pound very poor, and three pears a penny,
damsons Bd. per quart. So she will pay us to send
her some when I return, but I thought better to
mention the plums for fear they might be over
before I returned. I am glad I have come to
her, as I am as well as at home. She is so
kind, and Taylor as well. Tell Mary to cut a
little off the black silk skirt that Martha took in
pieces of Mrs. Hodgson, as I forgot, and I have to
match for waste, and to look if it will require in
shore in the skirt. Mr. and Mrs. Taylor beg to be
remembered to you and Aunt Jane, and believe me,
0 Your affectionate wife,, A
" ANN TKINSON."
Next morning I received a telegraphic communica-
tion from Thomas Taylor requesting my presence in
London as early as possible, and in consequence I
immediately started for London, where I arrived on
the same night, and found my wife at the house of
the prisoner.
Mr. Norton—Did you see the prisoner on your
arrival at her house?
Witness—l did, sir.
Mr. Norton—State as nearly as you can what
took place on your seeing her ?—Witness—l first
asked her if my wife was alive, and she said she
was. I then told her to go up and tell my wife I
was come, and she did, and on my going up-stairs I
found my wife in bed very ill, and I told her not to
put herself out of the way. I asked the prisoner
who the doctor was who was in attendance on my,
wife, and she replied a very eminent man 'who al-
ways attended her family. I attended my wife,
who did not think herself in danger until Friday
morning, when she complained of a violent pain in.
the back, and said she did not think she should re-
cover.

When you first saw the prisoner did she say any-
thing to you about anything happening to your
wife at Rugby, or her having been robbed there ?
—Not a single word, sir.
Did your wife tell you anything about her being
ill on her way to town ?--She did not make a
word of complaint of her being ill or being
robbed. Oa the Thursday my wife complained e _
of the things---the bar)ey-water and beef-tea—
prC-
pared for her by the prisoner, saying they were
mere hogwash, and I in consequence went down

stairs and made some arrowroot myself for her. The
beef •tea was very poor, and I requested the pris on er
to send out for a couple of pounds of beef to m ake
some beef-tea of a richer quality, but she said b 'he
had plenty in the house.
Mr. Nairne was here recalled, and in reply to a
question from the magistrate said that the " Fow -
ler's mineral solution" might be mixed up witl
beef-tea, or barley-water, or arrowroot, withou t
palpably changing( their flavour, particularly
mixed up in quantities, and they might be taken
without causing suspicion.

Atkinson—On the Saturday morning rafter mN
wife's death the prisoner asked me to go up stait..a
to see how they laid out my wife. I went rip, ar id
while in the room the prisoner asked me if niy V
had told me or said anything about being rol )bee, a t
Rugby; and I told her she had not, and ask ea hr
about it. She said she was sorry she did n at tr ;11
me that my wife had got very sick and ill at R zgt Jy,
and went to a water closet, where she was foil
by a lady, who took her round the waist, and wl ten
she came out a gentleman asked if she had lost 1 ter
pocket. The lady at this time came forward, as d,
giving up the pocket, said she. was taking care of 'it
until she came round. _

Mr. Norton—Did she say how much your N7i fe
had been robbed of ?
Witness—No, she did not.
And though you had been in constant attenda ace
on your wife from the Wednesday to her death on
; Friday night, she never said a word about her I
ness or the alleged robbery ?—Not a syllable, I
assure you. After telling me about the robber y,
the prisoner opened a chest and took out a bag co n-
taining wearing apparel belonging to my wife, a ad
amongst the things I found my wife's pocket, in
which there was a small purse containing 19 SON •e-
-reigns and about 20s. in silver.
Did you examine the pocket to see if it had b 3en
torn P—l did, but it appeared to be perfect.
Have you any opportunity of knowing w :hat
amount of money your wife took from home 'w ith
her P-1 have not, sir, but I feel quite sure it •was
more than £lOO. I should say £l2O or £l3O.
How was she in the habit of carrying it ?
Always sewn' up in the inside of her stays. The
same morning Mr. Nairne, the doctor, came up
stairs, and after expressing his sorrow for my l oss,
12e suggested opening the body, saying that her
diecase might be of long standing, when I sail I I
shout's' speak to the prisoner on the subject. 1 spake
to the vrisoner about it, and she said, " All doct ors
are alike in London ; they would open them aIL I
would not have her cut up, poor thing." Not st us-
pecting anything wrong at the time, I said it v /as
of little use or consequence, and as I thought it
might have caused some trouble in the house I 'id
not further press it.
_ _

Mr. Norton observed, that the examination lit td
already exceeded the usual hours of business, d
again remanded the prisoner, who appeared to lis ten
to the evidence against .her with apparent indiflier-
once, to a future day.

SPORTING I.NTELLIGENCE.

CARLISLE R.ACES.-FRIDAY.

The Corby Castle Stakes o f 5 sovs each, with 40 added ;
weight for age ; winners extra ; the second to save his

stake. T.Y.C. 8 subs.
Mr. Redhead's My Mary, 3 yrs, 7st 41b (Noble) 1
Mr. J. Osborne's North Pole, 3 yrs, 7st 121 b (Whiteley) 2
Mr. C. Rodger's Queen of Trumps, 3 yrs, 7st 41b
(Harrison) 3
Mr. Temperley'e Alice, 2 yrs, sst 71b (Carrol) 4
Betting-11 to 8 on My Mary, 5 to 2 agst North Pole,
and sto 1 agst any other. Won by a head. Half a length
between second and third.

The Grand Stand Plate (Handicap) of 50 sous; winners of
any race after June 20, 51b; of two or more races, 101 b
extra. Once round.

Mr. J. Osborne's King of Kars, 3 yrs, 7st .. (Whiteley) 1
Mr. G. Ruddock's Rose of Raby, 3 yrs, sst 121 b
(Charlton) 2
Betting-5 to lon King of 1-. Cars, who won by a length.
The Cumberland Plato of 100 so vs, added to a handicap of
10 sovs each, h ft, and 3 only if declared ; winners extra.
Twice round and a ,distance. 42 subs, 28 of whom de-
clared.

Lieut. Key ns Captain Crow, 3 yrs, Est 12Ib (in. 61b ex.)
(Whiteley) 1
Mr. E. Mill's Knutsford, 4 yrs, Bst (H. Taylor) 2
Mr. J. Scott's Bushman, 4 yrs, 7st 31b (Doyle) 3
Betting-5 to 4on Captain Crow, 2to 1 agst Bushman,
and 20 to 1 agst Knutsford, who cut out the work at a
strong pace, with Captain Crow lying second, for about
two miles. The Captain then went to the front, was never
headed, and won in a canter by a length; four lengths be-
tween the second and third.

The Royal Hotel Stakes (new race) of 3 sov,s each, with 30

added. Once round.

Tithonius, Bst 71b (J. Osborne) t w.o.
Interest, 5 yrs, Bst 7st (Noble) t
_

Chastisement, '7st
No betting. A dead heat; bad third. Tithonius after-
wards walked over, and divided the stakes.

Her Majestv's Plate of 100 guineas, for horses ort xtll owe.,
3.yr-olds, Bst ; four, est 71b ftve, wit zoib, .as snd aged,
lOst. Two miles.

Mr. 3. Osborne's Rapparee, 4 yrs, 9st 71b (J. Osborne)w.o.
The Consolation Scramble Handicap of 3 sovs each, with
20 added, for beaten horses. Half a mile.
Rose of Raby, 7st 71b (Sinclair' 1
Chastisement, Est 71b
Wee Pet, 6st 121 b
Bettingi-5 to 4 on Rose of Raby. Won by three lengths,
the same between second and third. The Holm Hill Stakes
and the Maiden Plate did not fill.