The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING}, NIA.ROH 21, 1862.

portions of the letter to my wife, and the whole of
it afterwards to the Tonkses My wife left the
house about an hour and a half afterwards, and re-
turned the next morning about 2 o'clock, and she
told me she had slept under a hedge all night. From
November, 1860, to December last I have paid £275
for wearing apparel and other things for my wife.
Cross-examined—My wife did miscarry in May in
1855, but I swear I did not expect that event to
take place, and I was not aware she had taken any
medicine. I first became acquainted with my wife
about a year before I married her. I met her at an
evening party, and I became her suitor a very few
days afterwards. She visited frequently at my
mother's house, and an improper intimacy took
place between us before the marriage, but I swear
she was not pregnant by me. The intercourse took
place first at an hotel in the neighbourhood of the
Strand. I took her there. I swear I did not know
that she was pregnant at the time I married her,
and when I discovered it I told her I loved her, that
we were married, and if anything happend it would
only
affection.bea nin nine dal
first chargeds'wonde her with le
wonder. Imarried her from
pure of
conduct in 1857, when I discovered that she was
carrying on a clandestine correspondence with a
gentleman. I introduced this gentleman to my wife.
I thought he was a friend, and he turned out such
a friend as Major Ross did, I only charged her
with levity of conduct with one gentleman, and I
cautioned her against walking with another gentle-
man whose reputation with regard to married women
was not what it ought to be. I did once give my
wife a box on the ear when she had irritated me
very much. She has repeatedly struck me, and hurt
me very much. Beyond what I have stated I uni-
formly treated my wife with kindness and affection.
The reason my wife left my house on the 17th April
was that she had appointed to meet me at 5 o'clock in
the evening, and she did not come home till nearly
twelve, and she told me she had been to the Bota-
nical Gardens with her brother, and afterwards
went to the Kensington Museum with him. I did
not like the story, and made inquiries, and found
that her brother had not been with her on the pre-
vious day, and he knew nothing about it. I after-
wards ascertained that my wife was not alone, and
I taxed my wife with acting improperly, and high
words passed between us, and she left the house.
In the beginning of April I had received a warning
from a friend to beware of Ross. T taxed him with
it, and he denied it, and I still continued to visit
him, and supped with him and his wife on several
occasions. My wife said once to me that she thought
her case was equal to the Yelverton case, that I was
an ugly little devil, and I ought to be proud at
having such a handsome woman for a wife. (A
laugh.) She also said that such a handsome woman
as she was could do anything, and she had been
studying for five months to go upon the stage. I
tried to prevent her from leaving the house, but she
succeeded in obtaining her jewellery and got away.
When I discovered her at the Princess's theatre, I
took her to my house in Park Village, Regent's
Park, but she insisted upon leaving on the follow-
ing morning, and said that she was going to Mrs.
Clifton's. I wished after this to take her to a new
house, as I had given up the house in the Regent's
Park. I saw Major Ross almost every day between
July and August, up to the discovery of the letter.
My wife has filed a petition against me in the Di-
vorce Court, not for the purpose of obtaining a
divorce, but to get money from me.
Lord Chief Justice Erie said he hoped they were
not going to rehearse the grand drama that would
eventually be performed in the Divorce Court.
Mr. Hawkins said his only object was to show
that in these prociledings the witness had not charged
his wife with adultery.
Serjeant Ballantine said that this was not the
fact, and the witness was not examined any further
upon the point.
Mary Tonks said—ln the year 1861 a lady, whom
T have since ascertained is Mrs. Porter, taok lodg-
ings at my mother's house at Kensington, and
shortly afterwards a gentleman came to visit her.
I believe that gentleman to be Mr. Ross. Mrs.
Porter said his name was Jordan, and that he was
her solicitor. Sometimes he came twice a week,
and generally about 2 o'clock in the day, and some-
times he stayed two hours, and sometimes longer,
but I do not recollect that he ever stayed after 8
o'clock in the evening. I do not remember that
they ever went out together. Mrs. Porter went
out sometimes in the afternoon, and she did not
return two or three times until 11 o'clock at night.
Mr. Ross was always alone with her, and I have
gone into the room where they were, but I never
saw anything improper between them. I remem-
ber Mrs. Porter requesting me to receive letters for
her. This was after her husband had come to live
with her. I agreed to do so, and I remember the
letter coming that Mr. Potter has alluded to.
Sometimes letters used to come every other day,
and some of the letters were in a lady's handwriting.
The others were in the same handwriting as the
one that has been produced.
Cross-examined—l frequently saw papers on the
table when Mr. Ross and Mrs. Porter were to-

gether.
Mr. Robert W. Jones, the adjutant of the regi-
ment to which the defendant and Major Ross be-
longed, proved that the letter which had been pro-
duced was in the handwriting of the latter.
Mr. Blake, a chemist, residing in Bedford-place,
Kensington, proved that he had upon several occa-
sions seen Major Ross go to the house where Mrs.
Porter resided, and go out together in a cab.
Mr. Hawkins then adduced the following addi-
tional evidence for the plaintiff :
Mr. Ross said—l am the person whose name has
been mentioned, and I am a married man, and live
in the Hampstead-road. I was acquainted with the
defendant, and visited him occasionally. I used to
visit Mrs. Porter when she lived at Bedford-place,
Kensington, and I have written to her and she has
written to me. I suppose I wrote the letter that
has been produced, but I should like to look at it.
(The letter was handed to the witness.) It is my
handwriting. I swear that I never had any crimi-
nal intercourse with Mrs. Porter.
Cross-examined—l was friendly with Mr. Porter,
and I obtained his commission for him. We were
upon terms of friendship. I was not attempting to
debauch his wife at the commencement of our inti-
macy, but afterwards I did attempt to debauch her.
I regret to say I took all the means in my power
to obtain possession of her person. lam a married
man, and have one child. I set to deliberately to
debauch my friend's wife. It always takes some
time to accomplished a thing of that sort.
Sergeant Ballantine—You seem to know all about
it. Did the lady give you any encouragement ?
Major Ross—l swear that she did not.
Sergeant Ballantine—And never allowed you to
take any liberties with her ?

Major Ross—Upon one ,occasion she was angry
about her children, and I put my arm round her
waist and kissed her. I did the same thing to her
on several occasions afterwards. That was the
nearest approach to criminal conversation that ever
took place between us. Letters have passed be-
tween us, and she has written several letters to me.
Sergeant Ballantine—What has become of those
letters ?

Major Ross—They are all destroyed ; but I have
had notice to produce them.
Sergeant Ballantine—Then we are to understand
that you deliberately attempted to debauch the wife
of your friend ?
Major Ross—l did not consider he was my friend
at this time. Before the discovery took place, Mr.
Porter frequently spoke to me about his wife, and
was very anxious to know where she was, and I
said nothing to satisfy him until she had come away
from Kensington, and then I told him that I knew
where she had been.
Cross-examination continued—l should not have
been here to give evidence if I had not been sub-
poenaed by the defendant, and I did not know until
yesterday that I was to be called as a witness for
the plaintiff. I have not had any communication
with Mrs. Porter since I have been at Maidstone.
Sergeant Ballantine (holding up the letter that
had been produced)—l suppose it is true that you
accompanied Mr. Porter and his wife to Willesden ?
Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—And that you found it diffi-
cult to" look into her beautiful eyes." (A laugh.)
Major Ross—Yes; her husband was there.
Sergeant Bailantine—But notwithstanding the
difficulty that existed, you still continued your
efforts to debauch her ?

Major Ross—l did.
Sergeant Ballantine—The husband kept too close,

then ?'

Major Ross—He was away from the tent for a
short time, but I cannot say how long. I did not
" time" him.

Sergeant Ballantine—l suppose you exchanged
glances while the husband was away ?
Major Ross—We did.
Sergeant Ballantine—Pray what are you, Mr.
Ross, besides being a major ?
Major Ross—A printer and publisher.
Sergeant Ballantine—Did you always call Mrs.
Porter "your own beautiful angel ?" (Laughter.)
Major Ross—l had called her so before, but it
was not my habit to do so.
Sergeant Ballantine—Do you think she believed
Majorß oss—l did.
what you said ?
Major Ross—Well, I think she rather doubted it.
Sergeant Ballantine—You mean that .she doubted
her being an angel. (Laughter.)
Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—l see that you say in this
Sergeant
letter, " I anticipate the pleasure of seeing you
alone, and holding you in my arms in a loving
embrace."
Did You do so ?
Ballantine—l see that you also say
that you could not exchange a look with the lady

because the beast of a husban.4 pievented h. Was
that so ?

Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—And you also say that you
could not sleep all night for thinking of her. Was
that the case ?

Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—So that while lying by the
side of your own wife, you could not sleep for
thinking of the wife of another man.
Major Ross—Yes.
Sergeant Ballantine—ls it true that you took off
her bonnet while you were in the tent at Wil-
lesden ?

Major Ross—Mrs. Porter said that she felt faint,
and I advised her to take off her bonnet, and
assisted her to do so.

Sergeant Ballantine—You did not kiss her at
;he same time, did you ?

Major Ross—l had no opportunity to do so, be-
cause her husband was'present.
Sergeant Ballantine—l suppose you have no
doubt now that you did write this leiter to Mrs.
Porter ?

Major Ross—No ; and I am only astonished that
I ever could have written such a foolish letter.
(Laughter.)
Sergeant Ballantine—When was it you first
heard that the husband had discovered this letter ?
Major Ross—On the same night.
Sergeant Ballantine—From what source did you
discover the fact ?

Major Ross—Well, it:is of no use denying the
fact that I learnt it from Mrs. Porter. She sent
some one to my place of business to tell me that she
wanted to speak to me. I was at my place of busi-
ness at the time.

Sergeant Ballantine—Was your wife there ?
Major Ross—She was not. She never came there.
Sergeant Ballantine—Did Mrs. Porter know that?
Major Ross—She did.
Sergeant Ballantine—Had Mrs. Porter been to
your place of business before ?
Major Ross—Yes, her husband brought her to my
place of business once, and said he thought she
would like to see the operations that were going on
there. (A laugh.)
Sergeant Ballantine—What took place between
you and Mrs. Porter after you went out to her ?
Major Ross—We walked about for some time, and
I adviapa her to return to Bcdfurd-plaCe.
Sergeant Ballantine then proceeded to sum up the
defendant's case in a most eloquent speech, and he
urged that upon the facts before the jury it was im-
possible they could entertain any reasonable doubt
that Mrs. Porter had been guilty of adultery with
Major Ross, and he commented in most severe terms
upon the conduct of that gentleman, and the man-
ner in which he said he had unblushingly admitted
his villanous conduct towards the defendant, and he
added that he had no hesitation in designating him
as an unmitigated scoundrel.
Mr. Hawkins, in the course of a very able reply
upon the whole case, reminded the jury that what-
ever opinion they might entertain of Major Ross or
of his conduct in the transaction, the only question
they had to decide was, whether it was made out by
satisfactory evidence, that Mrs. Porter had been
guilty of adultery with him, and he submitted that
there was no such evidence in the case, and that
they would not be justified in casting Mrs. Porter
forth upon the world and destroying her for
ever upon the evidence that had been laid before
them on behalf `of the defendant. He then com-
mented upon the conduct of Mr. Porter, and said
that if his wife had acted with levity, and in a
manner inconsistent with her position, which was
all that he at first appeared to have alleged against
her, in all probability this had been brought about
by his own conduct towards her before their mar-
riage, and that if he had treated her as every
honourable and right-minded man would treat a
young and virtuous girl to whom he was a suitor,
and whom he intended;to make his wife, instead of
corrupting her mind, and seducing her under the
disgusting circumstances that had been deposed to,
her conduct would no doubt have been very different,
and the present painful and disgusting inquiry
might have been spared.
Chief Justice Erle, in summing up, said that the
real question the jury had to decide was, whether
it had been reasonably made out to their satisfaction
that Major Rossihad been guilty of adultery with
the defendant's wife, and if they were satisfied of
this fact, the defendant would not be liable by the
law of England, to pay for necessaries supplied to
her, to recover which was the object of the present
action. He then said that in cases of this kind the
result of experience led him to make that observa-
tion that very little reliance could be placed upon
the oaths of the parties inculpated, because they had
so fearful a stake at issue, that he was afraid they
did not scruple to swear to that which was false in
order that they might escape from the conse-
quences of their own guilt. In the present case,
so far as Major Ross was concerned, he certainly
thought that the jury would not be inclined
to place much reliance upon the evidence of a
witness, himself a married man with:a family, who
admitted that he deliberately devoted:himself to de-
bauch the wife of a man with whom he was on
friendly terms, and while received by him upon
these terms sought with steady and deliberate pur-
pose to destroy his happiness for ever. The learned
judge then called the attention of the jury to all the
material points in the case, and particularly to the
letter that had been written by Major Ross to the
wife of the defendant, and he asked them whether,

as reasonable men, and persons acquainted with the
ways of the world, and with human motives and
actions, they could come to any other conclusion
than that the man who wrote such a letter must
have been on terms of guilty intimacy with the per-
son to whom it was addressed.

The jury retired at 2 o'clock to deliberate upon
their verdict. After being in their room until 6
o'clock, they came into court and said that 11 of
them were agreed upon a verdict, but the 12th juror
was a dissentient, and they wished to know whether
the verdict of the 11 could be taken.
The learned judge consulted the counsel on both
sides, and Mr. Hawkins, on the part of the plaintiff,
consented to take this verdict of the 11 jurors. The
other side, however, would not agree, and the jury,
consequently, again retired, refreshments having
been supplied to them. .
The jury returned into court at 9 o'clock, and
gave a verdict for the plaintiff.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT—BURY ST. EDMUNDS
March 19.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
HARLOCK V. OTTAWAY.

Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Keane were for the
plaintiff; Mr. Mills, Q.C., for the defendant.

This was an action to recover £259 2s. 4d., the
expenses of training a racehorse called Gibraltar,
and for payments to jockeys and tradesmen in re-
spect, of the horse.

The plaintiff received the horse when it was two
years old, and the defendant was to pay L 2 2s. per
week. The accounts between the parties are some-
what complicated, for during the racing season some
partnership arrangement was entered into between
the plaintiff, the defendant, and a Mr. Pybus ; and
the accounts involve training, running expenses,
entries, forfeits, &c. The agreement was not pro-
duced by the plaintiff, and the evidence was con-
tradictory as to the time over which it extended.
Attempts have frequently been made to settle this
action by arbitration, and during the trial this
morning these attempts were repeated; but as the
plaintiff has possession of the horse, and the defen-
dant has commenced an action of trover to recover
the horse, the plaintiff refused to allow this action
to be referred, unless the action of troller is referred
also. The plaintiff Harlock is a well-known trainer,
and Ottaway is a person who was formerly an inn-
keeper at Maidstone.
The defence to this action was that the plaintiff
was a partner from 1860, therefore any claim for
money due after that period was not to be allowed.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YORK, March 15.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
TRADE OUTRAGE AT THORPE HESLEY.

Joseph Tomlinson, 32, James Watson,2B, and
Emanuel Isaac Watson, 30, were charged with
feloniously throwing gunpowder into a building
occupied by John Hattersley, with intent to destroy
the same, at Rotherham, on the 21st Dec., 1861.
Mr. Maule and Mr. V. Blackburn prosecuted ;
Mr. Price, Q.C., and Mr. C. Foster defended the
prisoners.
It appeared that Mr. Hattersley was the foreman
of the nail makers in the employ of Mr. Favell, of
Thorpe Hesley. The nail makers at that place,
amongst whom were the three prisoners, were in
October last on strike. In the third week of Oc-
tober there was a meeting at Thorp Hesley of
union men. Favell's men were then working.
Tomlinson and one of the Watsons were present at
the meeting referred to, and the former made use
of a threat that he would blow Favell's men up.
Su the prisoners went to work at Ches-
terfielden
acritly
nd Bel
per. On Saturday, the 21st Dec.,
a policeman in the evening met the two Watsons
about three-quarters of a mile from Thorpe Hesley,
and spoke to them for five minutes. That same
night an explosion took place in a shop belonging
to Charles Butcher, just before which the three
prisoners were seen to pass at about 40 yards fr.om
the men were again met running away from that
direction, and almost simultaneously an explosion
shop. Directly after the first explosion
recognised;
was heard Hattersley's shop. On each of these
occasions the prisoners were distinctly
and were subsequently apprehended at Chesterfield

and Belper. It was then found that the prisoners
were all away from their homes at the time of the
explosion, and there were also found pieces of tin
and explosive instruments which exactly corres-
ponded with tins and similar instruments found in
the shops at Thorpe Hesley, and which were those
by which the blowing up had been effected.
The defence was an overwhelming alibi, no less
than 17 witnesses being called, and three of these
policemen, to swear that the prisoners were two at
Chesterfield and one at Belper at the very time the
offence was said to have been committed. In surn-
ming up his lordship said it was one of the most
extraordinary alibis which had ever come under
his observation. The jury, however, brought in a
verdict of guilty.
Fourteen years' penal servitude each.
This was the last case in the calendar of pri-
soners, and the court, therefore, proceeded with the
trial of causes.

POLICE INTELLIOENC E.—March 20.

BOW-STREET. A Post-office letter carrier,
named William Nichols, was charged with stealing
a letter containing a sixpence and eight postage'
stamps, and another letter containing eighteen
postage stamps, which had come into his hands in
the ordinary course of his duties.
The prisoner was employed in the W.C. (west
central) office, Holborn, and it was his duty to
deliver letters in the neighbourhood of Gray's-inn-
road and Brunswick-square. Suspicion having
fallen on him, the two letters were made up as
tests, and directed to addresses in Speedy-place,
Brunswick-square, and Harrison-street, Gray's-inn-
road. They did not reach their destinations, and
the prisoner on being questioned denied all know-
ledge of them, but when he was searched the
stamps were found in his possession. They were
identified by marks in an invisible ink, which
became apparent on the application of a certain
fluid.
He was committed for trial.

CLERKENWELL.—EIIen Clifford, an unfortu-
nate woman, about thirty years of age, residing at
8, Fitzroy-market, was charged before Mr. D'Eyn-
court with being drunk and disorderly, and mak-
ing use of obscene language in Great Coram-street,
St. Pancras, and, further, with attempting to com-
mit suicide in the cell, at the Hunter-street police-
station.

The prisoner was locked up for making a distur-
bance, and had not been long in the cell before the
constable on duty heard ',a peculiar sound, and
found that the prisoner had endeavoured to
strangle herself by tying the strings of her bonnet
tightly round her throat. The strings were cut,
but she had not been left long before she again
attempted to destroy herself. The consequence
was that a man had been left in the cell the
whole of the night with her.
In answer to Mr. D'Eyncourt,
The prisoner said that she was very sorry for
what she had done. She had endeavoured to de-
stroy her:life because she thought that her infant,
which was only seven months old, would be taken
from her for ever. Sooner than she would lose her
child she would lose her life.

Mr. D'Eyncourt said he had a great mind to send
her to the House of Correction, but taking into con-
sideration the fact that she had an infant he would
now discharge her, but hoped that she would be
more careful for the future.

LAMBETH,—Frederick Chester, alias Phillips,
a returned transport, but late the manager of The
Trades Protection Society, 3, Great St. Helen's,
Bishopsgate-street, and who has been in custody
for a week, on a charge of obtaining various sums
of money by fraud and false pretences, was again
placed at the bar before Mr. Elliott for final ex-
amination,

Mr. Henry Barton, a grocer, No. 8, Mary's-road,
Kennington, said that on the 7th January last the
prisoner called upon him, and representing himself
as agent to the Tradesman's Protection Society,
in Great St. Helen's, gave him a prospectus of the
society, and solicited him to become a member.
He said if he did so the society would collect his
debts at 5 per cent. Witness gave him half a
guinea, for which he filled up and gave him the
annual! subscribers' ticket produced, and he also
gave him the particulars of two debts due to him
by a Mrs. Bellamy and a person named Taberner.
Some time afterwards the prisoner again called
on him and said he could not get any money
from Mrs. Bellamp, and consequently took out a
writ for her, which cost him 7s. 3d., and this sum
witness paid him. The prisoner also said he took
out a summons against Taberner, but had not re-
ceived any money, so that he had not paid him
(witness) a shilling on account of either debt.
The name given and signed by the prisoner was
Robert Thomas Simpson.
In reply to the question of the magistrate, the,
witness said that he should not have paid the pri-
soner the half guinea, nor given him the debts to
collect, if he had not believed him to be the agent
of a respectable society, and a respectable person,
and should certainly not have had anything to do
with him if he had had the slightest idea that he
was a returned transport. _ _

Mrs. Ann Bellamy said she owed the last witness
£2 4s. 32c1., and this the prisoner said he should
receive from her at the rate of 10s. a week. She
paid him three instalments of os., 10s., and 155.,
and he gave her a receipt for the balance on her
paying ss. more, saying at the time he should pay
the balance himself to Mr. Barton. The prisoner
gave the name of Simpson.
Mr. Thomas Dixon said—l live at No. 26, Wil-
liams-terrace, Walworth, and am manager to the
Metropolitan and Provincial Trades Protection
Association, the offices of which are at 3, Great St.
Helens, Bishopsgate. I know the prisoner. I
established the society in September last, and ap-
pointed him manager. I was to act as secretary,
and after paying expenses we were to divide profits.
Mr. Elliott—Was there any agreement in writ-
ing, if so, produce it P
Dixon—There was no agreement. In November
last I was dissatisfied with and discharged him,
and from that time he had no authority to collect
subscriptions in the name of the society, which was
then called the " Trades Protection Society," nor
had he any to collect any debts in the name of the
society subsequently to November. The card pro-
duced is not one of the society's cards of member-
ship. It is headed " The Tradesman's Protection
Offices." The prisoner brought some of these cards
to my office, and said he had them left from other
offices, and that we might as well use them, and a
few were used without alteration of the name for
our subscribers up to the time of the prisoner leav-
ing me. Since then I have had new cards printed.
The prisoner has never brought to me the name
of Mr. Barton as a subscriber, nor paid any money
on his account. The card produced is signed
pro Thomas Dixon, secretary, in the prisoner's
handwriting. He had no authority from me to put
my name to that card. He has not accounted to
me for any money received from Mrs. Bellamy.
Mr. Elliott—The society, I think you have stated,
consisted of the prisoner and yourself : the pri-
soner as manager and yourself as secretary ?
Dixon—Yes, sir; but since I have discharged
him I have become the manager myself.
Mr. Elliott—Then in point of fact since Novem-
ber you in your own person constituted the whole
society ?
Dixon—Yes, but I have a secretary.
Sergeant Bell, 39 P, produced a quantity of
documents, prospectuses, and cards found on the
prisoner when he apprehended him, and said that
he could establish at least 50 cases of having re-
ceived subscriptions for the alleged society against
him. He also said he had ascertained that in
1849 the prisoner had been tried, convicted, and
sentenced to 10 years' transportation on a charge
of forgery, and Webb, the City officer, who had
him in custody, was present, and could prove
the fact. He (Bell) had further ascertained that
he had served out the whole of his time at the
convict prison, Bermuda, so that he could not
have been home more than 18 months.

Mr. Elliott—Have you made any inquiries about
Dixon ?

Bell--I have, yoar worship, and have heard that
he is a respectable man.
Mr. Elliott—lt is most extraordinary that the
public should be deluded by these societies—pro-
tection societies as they are calld. In this case
what do I find ? Why two sets of flaming prospec-
tuses and two sets of cards of the same society, the
one describing itself as " The Metropolitan and Pro-
vincial Trades Protection Association ; " the other,
" The Trades Protection Offices," and both in the
same offices. This society purports to have been
established in 1851, though Mr. Dixon on, his oath
sdmits that he himself established it in September
last, and in 1851 it could not have been established
by the prisoner, for at that time h. e was expiating
his offences in Bermuda. The society, according to
the prospectus, purports to be established for the
"protection of trades," to give "information as to
swindlers." and " tracing absconded debtors ;" yet
what do we find ? Why the whole society to con-
sist of two persons, each claiming the merit of
being its promoter, the one the manager and the
other the secretary, and one of them a returned
transport. From what I can see, I must say that
it appears to me to be merely a swindling society.
The prisoner, in reply to the charge, said he took
Mr. Barton's subscription because he considered he
was still connected with the office, as the joint ex-
penses were borne alike between him and Dixon,
and as for the account of Mrs. :3ellamy, it had Bever

. ~ , ~,

been finally settled, else he should have settled with
Mr. Barton.
He was fully committed to take his trial on this
charge.
Another charge of nearly a similar description
was established, and the prisoner was committed
upon that also.
, Before leaving the court, Mr. Dixon requested
permission to address his worship, and said that the
inquiries he had made about the prisoners charac-
ter were perfectly satisfactory, and declared he had.
not the slightest idea he was a returned transpo.
RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.