The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-31 00:00:00

ziormoro FIURSDAY, EVENING,

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, July 30.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and Special Juries.)

CATOR V. TEE LEWISHAM BOARD OF WORKS.
This was an action of trespass against the de-
fendants for having polluted a stream by causing
sewage matter to flow into it. The
defendants
pleaded several pleas, and among them one that
what they had done was done in accordance with
the powers granted them by an act of Parliament.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Murphy
were for the plaintiff; Mr. 'Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. J.
Browne, and Mr. Raymond were for defendants.
, The plaintiff in this action is the owner of a good
nail of property at Penge, and it was alleged that
the defendants in the operations they had carried
out under the Metropolitan Local Management Act
had drained the Lewisham district, and caused a
large quantity of offensive matter to be carried to
the vicinity of plaintiff's property, thereby doing
considerable injury by polluting the water of a
stream that was used by histenants, and in other

ways.
Mr. Hawkins, on the part of the defendants, said
he did not dispute the facts, and the only question
was what should be done.

It was ultimately arranged that the matter should
be made a special case for the opinion of the Court.
"%VALLEE (ADMINISTRATRIX) V. THE SOUTH-EASTERN

RA
This was an actioninivb AroYu"ANY.
gh"t by a widow, as admi-
nistratrix of her deceased husband, to recover com-
pensation from the defendants, who were alleged to
have occasioned his death by their negligence.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Denman, Q.C., were
counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Shee and
Mr. J.ll3rowne appeared for the company.
This action arose out of an accident that occurred
in March last upon the North Kent Railway,
between Higham and Gravesend, when, it will be
remembered, the train ran off the line and several
passengers were seriously injured, and the deceased,
who was head guard, was killed.
It was arranged, without any of the facts being
gone into, that the defendants should agree to a
verdict for £5OO, to be apportioned in the following
manner—£2so to the widow and £5O to each of five
children, subject to the opinion of the Court above
as to the point whether the defendants were liable,
having regard to the position of the deceased.
LORD NORBITRY V. RITCHIN.
This was an action for trespass, it being alleged
on the part of the plaintiff that the defendant had
improperly taken away a quantity of water from a
water •course passing through his property.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr.
Honeyman were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Ser-
geant Shee, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Murphy were
for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action occupies an estate at
Westerham, called the Park-hill Estate, and the de-
fendant is the owner of property adjoining, called
the Dunsdale Estate, a water-course or small stream
passing through both properties. The defendant,
it appeared, had caused certain machinery to be
erected for the purpose of conveying the water from
this stream into his own property ; and it was con-
tended on the part of the plaintiff that he was not
justified in so doing, and hence the present action,
Several witnesses were examined on the part of the
plaintiff with a view to show that he had taken a
larger quantity of water than he was entitled to
form the stream in question, and that he had not
only used this water for domestic and other pur-
poses, which he was justified in doing, but that he
had also made use of the water to supply an orna-
mental pond, which it was contended, on behalf of
the plaintiff, according to the legal decisions that
had taken place upon the point, he had no right
to do.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, in his address to the jury for
the defendant, said that the whole proceeding had
arisen in consequence of the plaintiff; probably from
some misrepresentation that had been made to him,
not being on friendly terms with his neighbour,
Mr. Kitchin ; but he said he should be able to
show that the latter had used no more of the water
from the stream than he had a legal right to, and
that the quantity so taken was, in point of fact,
almost inappreciable, and not more than one-fiftieth
part of the supply. He called a number of wit-
nesses with a view to make out this case.
Mr. Baron Martin summed up very briefly, and
said that the only question the jury had to decide
was whether the defendant had used an unreason-
able quantity of the water or not.
The Jury retired to consider their verdict, and
in about half an hour they returned into court, and
found for the defendant.
CROWN COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
James Weekes, 38, and Martha Mattie, 26, were
charged with stealing a sheet, a counterpane, and
ether articles, the property of William Weekes.
Mr. Addison prosecuted.
The prosecutor in this case, it appeared was a
labouring man, residing at Tonbridge, and he and
the female prisoner had cohabited together for se-
veral years, and passed as man and wife ; and the
other prisoner lodged in the same house with them.
On the 17th of July the prosecutor went to his
work, and on his coming home rather unexpectedly,
shortly afterwards, he found the prisoners in bed
together. A quarrel took place on this discovery,
and on the same day both prisoners decamped,
taking with them various articles that were alleged
to be the property of the prosecutor, and which
were found in their possession when they were
taken into custody.
The prisoner in his defence said he knew nothing
of any robbery ; and the woman declared that all
the things were her property, and she had bought
them with her own money.
The jury acquitted both the prisoners.
Joseph Bedford, 24, a determined-looking fellow,
was charged with feloniously setting fire to a build-
ing belonging to Thomas Izzard.
Mr. Lumley Smith prosecuted.
The fire in question took place on July 16, and
it appeared that the prisoner was met coming away
from the spot in a suspicious manner, and was
stopped by one of the Kent constabulary, who
searched him and found upon him a number of luci-
fer matches. As they were going to the police-
station the prisoner said that he had had a good
character for four years, and if he was punished this
time, when he came out he would set all Kent on
fire. There were other circumstances which left no
doubt that be was the person who had caused the
fire, and while Mr. Colman the superintendent was
conveying him to Sevenoaks for examination, he
said "I don't mind my life more than I do that
horse's tail; I wish the cart would upset and break
all our necks." He afterwards said that he would
destroy himself before night, and when the officer
told him he would have no opportunity to do that,
he replied " Oh I can do it easily enough ; I can do
it with my thumb nail.
When the learned Judge inquired of the pri-
soner whether he wished to say anything to the
Pt-`r7 in answer to the charge, he merely replied in
A r:ough surly tone, " No."
Tho jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The Superintendent of Police, in answer to a
question put by Mr. Baron Bramwell, said he knew
nothing of the prisoner, and he was a stranger in
the neighbourhood.
Sentence was Postponed.
Albert Vass, 22, described as a groom, was
charged with a r.obb
fery wit.h violence upon James
and, stew
Baines, an
and
his person six sovereigns
and £9 in silver,an a tialulk,erchief, his property.
Francis_
_proseciited.
Mr. G.prisoner was
Hassey DawsolT.he
defended by
appearedgr-
that the prosecutor .
It
lived in Maidstone, . present carries the
business inLondon,es on
of a shoe
to Maidstone, On the Bth
of July he came down . 'old he
enjoyed himself pretty f, ap-
posed to hove enjoy
public-honses, and , "ly and
was drinking in several pu _ . Iteatine.
t there, and exhibiting his
the persons whom he met there'
deal the worse it is
money, lie became a good for
of the night he met the
liquor, and at a late hour
him to some
prisoner, who undertook to introducehe night, but in-
place where he would be safe for t
hat he took the
stead of doing this, it was alleged t
knocked him
prosecutor into a bye alley, where he
him of a
down, and used other violence, and robbed
him,.
handkerchief and all the money he had about.
oner
amounting
.to a considerable sum. The p.ris . e
was taken into custody on the same morning ten
robbery was committed, and alter he had he n
secured he was seen to drop a handkerchief, which
was identified by the prosecutor as his property.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty.
Certificates were then put in, from which it ap-
peared that in 1850 the prisoner bad been convicted
of felony, and sentenced to imprisonment, that he
wt,v; also convicted in 1851, and sentenced to ten
years penal servitude, and having regained his
liberty long before the expiration of his sentence,
he was in 1856 sentenced to five years' penal servi-
tude.
Mr. Blundell, the superintendent of the NI aid-
-Bt(me police, a very active officer, who was formerly
attached to the City of London police, stated, in
answer to a question put by the learned judge, that
since the .-- large he had never
. sprioner had been at •
known'aull in any honest employment, and he was
constantly in the
company ~ .
es
ompany otprostitu .
t and thieves.
The prisoner.
addressed his lordship
D in very good
terms, and asserted th innocent, at
he was and begged
him to be lenient to him,
dy been sentenced He admitted that he had
uvres he. Was to ten years' penal servi-
tugl° ; but the affair
very o
,T Ant at the time, and be
$ led into -3' another waand althonghhew person, who was
mu cii older,
he only seat ordered to undergo
servitude, ii
was sieut to.
penal time e had suffered .
a reformatory
school. Since that severely from

illness; and he hoped that, under all the circum-
stances, his lordship would deal leniently with him. 1
islr. Baron Bramwell, in passing sentence, ob-
served that he did not see how it was possible to
deal leniently with a man who had once before
been sentenced to ten years' penal servitude, and
he should have felt himselt compei.ed to pass a
much more severe sentence than tla! one he was
about to pronounce if the prosecutor had not to a
certain extent, by his own conduct, invited some
one to rob him. He had, however, been guilty of
a very serious offence in the eye of the law, and he
felt bound to sentence him to ten years' penal ser-
vitude,

The following prisoners who had been convicted,
or who had pleaded guilty to the offence of arson,
were then placed at the bar to receive judgment.
They were Henry Williams, 22, Henry Taylor, 18,
labourers; William James, 18, soldier;
Joseph Bed-
ford, 24, labourer ; John Horsley, 18, shoemaker ;
Henry Horan, 18, and Edward Saunders, 18,
labourers. The whole of them appeared to be quite
unconcerned, and several of the prisoners laughed
in the face of the learned judge and exhibited the
greatest levity.
Mr. Baron Bramwell, addressing them, said that
although they laughed at the present time, he was
quite certain they would not do so when they were
undergoing the sentence he should pronounce
upon them. He then said that Williams and
Taylor had pleaded guilty to a charge of setting fire
to a stack of straw, and there was this circumstance
in their favour, that it appeared that if they had
been so minded they might have destroyed other
much more valuable property, and the sentence
upon them would, therefore, be one year's imprison-
ment with hard labour. As to the prisoner James,
it appeared that he had stated that his reason for
committing the crime was that he was tired of sol-
diering, and wished to get away from it; and it
was very probable that he would have been soon
tired of any honest and respectable mode of get-
ting a-living. He was, however, only 18 years
old, and taking that fact into consideration, the,
sentence upon him would be one of three year;
penal servitude, and he said he could assure him
that he would find penal servitude very much
worse than soldiering. As to the prisoner Bed-
He had
ford, his case was a much worse one.
made use of diabolical threats, and the sentence
upon him would be that of five years penal ser-
vitude. (This prisoner, when
the sentence had
been pronounced, exclaimed, in an impudent tone,
"Thank you.") His lordship said he
.would not
thank him before his sentence was expired. He
then proceeded to say that the prisoner Horsley had
been convicted of setting fire to a stack, and the
consequence of his act was that one of his fellow-
creatures had lost his life. He did not believe, how-
ever, that he entertained the least intention of caus-
ing such a fatal result, and he was very young; and
he should therefore only sentence him to five years'
penal servitude. With regard to the remaining
prisoners, Horan and Saunders, they had destroyed
stacks of wheat, of the value of £250, by their
wicked act ; and he could not refrain from saying
that if they were to work as slaves for the whole of
the remainder of their lives they would not do good
to the amount of the mischief they occasioned when
they set those stacks on fire. They were, however,
only 18 years' old, and on this account the sentence
would be seven years' penal servitude.
The whole of the prisoners left the dock laughing,
and apparently treating the proceedings more in
the light of a joke than a serious matter, and it was
evident that the sentences that had been pronounced
did not impress them with the slightest terror.
A very laughable occurrence took place in the town
on Tuesday evening. The carriage of the high sheriff
in which that official and the learned judges are
conveyed to and from the courts to their lodgings,
usually stands in the yard of the Mitre Hotel ; and
it appears that in the evening, shortly before the
courts were expected to adjourn, some mischievous
person caught up a goose that was straying about
and placed it inside the carriage, at the same time
placing some peas in the carriage that it might eat,
and be thus kept quiet. When the usual period ar-
rived the carriage proceeded with the accustomed
procession and ceremony to the Court-house, the
goose being, no doubt, very proud at the position of
dignity in which it was so unexpectedly placed, and
the vehicle was drawn up in front of the steps of
the building. The moment Mr. Bannerman, the
high sheriff, made his appearance, the door of
the carriage was thrown open and the steps were
let down with the usual bang, and this alarmed
the poor goose, which sprang out much to the dis-
comfiture and alarm of one of the javelinmen who
was standing close by the door, who, however, con-
trived to seize the intruder, and the high sheriff
then entered the carriage and was driven off. The
goose has since been returned to its owner.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.-NORWICH, July 29.
CIVIL SIDE.

MASON V. WISE..--THE GREAT FLOOD IN THE MIDDLE

LEVEL OF TILE FENS.

(Before Chief Justice Cockburn.)
This action, which was brought to recover £5OO
damages from the Middle Level Drainage Commis-
sioners for injuries sustained by the plaintiff
through the flood in the level of the fens under
their juris fiction, was expected to come on to-day,
but shortly before the despatch of our parcel,
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Met-
calfe), read an affidavit from Mr. Wise, the defend-
ant, who is sued in his capacity as clerk to the com-
missioners, to the effect that the action had only
been commenced on the 10th of May, and that
issue had been joined till the 4th inst.; that notice
of trial had not been given till the 14th inst., and
that consequently he had not had sufficient time to
propare a defence to the action on its merits. The
affidavit further stated that Mr. James Walker, the
engineer employed by the commissioners in the
construction of the sluice and cut, was pronounced
by his medical attendant, Dr. Burrows, to be in
such a state of health that he could not attend in a
court of justice without danger, and that there had
not been sufficient time to obtain his evidence upon
interrogatories ; that information had been obtained
which could lead to the production at some future
time of persons employed as inspectors upon the
works—that Mr. Fowler, C.E., whose evidence was
of great importance, could not possibly attend, in
consequence of pressing Parliamentary engage-
ments; and that Mr. Hawkshaw, C.E., who had
been concerned in the works for remedyingSthe
evils with which the level had been afflicted, and
whose testimony was of the last importance, had
imperative engagements in the House of Lords, as
1 the session was drawing to a close. The learned
counsel, on these grounds, consequently applied
that the trial might be postponed on the defendant
paying the costs of the day.
Mr. Keane (with whom was Mr. D. Browne)
said, a similar application had already been made to
Mr. Justice Willes, and had met with a refusal. A
counter-affidavit had been prepared by Mr. Wilkin,
the solicitor to the plaintiff, to the effect that he was
informed, and believed, that Mr. Walker was en-
tirely imbecile and not likely to attend again to
matters of business, and that the defendant was per-
fectly aware of the fact; that he had given the de-
fendant notice to produce the plans, &c., by which
the sluice was constructed ; that he had also sub-
poenaed the contractor and resident engineer, and
many other persons who were employed in con-
structing the banks ; that if the trial was post-
poned the plaintiff would not be able to prepare his
lands at Michaelmas next for cropping, and would
be under the necessity of giving up his occupation ;
that he (Mr. Wilkin) had publicly announced in the
newspapers in a letter, published in the course of
May, that he intended to bring an action, &c.
Mr. O'Malley remarked that the action was the
result of a subscription 'commenced in the neigh-
bourhood. _ _ _

Mr. Keane replied that the subscription would
soon be exhausted, and it must be remembered that
his client was opposed by a powerful body.
Mr. O'Malley proceeded to reply upon the part
of the defendant, and repeated that the evidence
proposed to be adduced by the defendant was of the
last importance ; that the plaintiff was the occupier
if a farm under Mr. Wilkin, who was already
working upon a collection of ls. per acre upon the
"unlered land ; and that the question of damages
e°llld not be '
afforded f decided until a better opportunity was
c) ascertaining the damage.
Tht,
of the trial, ant°
was Chiefp,ettvlustice, after some discussion, said he
make an order for the postponement
a_equested, upon the understanding
that the defen
activon atettorney and client, within a
the day as betZet_telhould pay the plaintiff's costs of
postponed till the next
8U °f with liberty to
assizesm o nth.
for Thteh e
count,
i)
clu,,ture substantive appli-
singed.
tchaetiop:rttoiehsatvoemthakeecvitenouvreN
(Before Mr. Justiet,/, -
wound'
UNLAWFULLY -wot„ghtnlan.)
I.Bv,
owusas ehaigea veith
-urn°
John
knife, at Asliwelthem"
.bodily harm
up D ing
avid
Saunders with a
'-e, on the
and inflicting grie
29th June.
Pitchers,
about 17 years of age,
Saunders is
,a lad
tulle and a half f living at
Wreningharn, about a
h29th June, her"l 48.11-
t ewas With
welthorpe. On Sunday, - at the •
r persona King's
the prisoner and some other
Head Inn, Ashwelthorpe. They
had four bottles Of
utsiclee doo
cider between them, and drank it o
f r some of the
of the house. The prisoner asked g
0 ive .
him any.
cider, but the presecutor refused to g
10
and 11
The party left the public-nouse between
reached
at night for Wreningham, and when they
that place the prisoner stripped and offered to fight
he
the whole lot. Shortly afterwards he struck at t
Prosecutor with a knife and cut his elbow, so seri-
ous a wound being inflicted that a surgeon had to
be called in.
The prisoner, in defence, stated that be Was at-

STING!

tacked by the prosecutor, and his companions, and'
that they had held his liands while they banged
his head. He was eating a piece of meat at the
time, and used his knife to cut it at the time that
he was attacked.
The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to
seven months hard labour.
EXTRORDINARY CRARtIE Or HORSE STEALING.
A very little boy, named John Alborough, only
nine years old, who was scarcely visible in the
dock, was charged with stealing a gelding, the pro.
perty of Thomas Betts, farmer, at Fritton, on the
Bth July.
The prisoner's father works for the prosecutor,
and on the Bth of July the prisoner took the horse '
from Mr. Betts's stable, and rode it to a farmer
named Moore, in a neighbouring parish, to whom
he offered it for £l5, Mr. Moore, considering that
there was something very suspicious in the act, de-
tained the horse, and inquiries having been made,
the prisoner was taken into custody.
Mr. Justice Wightman left it to the jury to say
whether the child was old enough to understand
what he was about, and whether he intended to
appropriate the money to his own use.
The jury thought not, and acquitted the prisoner,
who was handed over to the care of his father.
JULY 30.

CLARK V. RACE--SLANDER.
This recoverave been spoken damag
by thees for elan-
derou w
s wordsas an ac
a alleged t
d ton have
defendant.
i and Mr. Bulwer appeared
Mr. Keane and Mr. Metcalfe
ffoorriVitthrbeeOdp'erafeiannitdlieffayn:t dC
The plaintiff s a notary public and magistrate,
at Great Yarmouth,
the
appearedlt defen da
from the evi-
dence, t masteris
e of
Trinity
tyt steamboat.
one day in March last the plaintiff's son
dtahneenac3 herk, together with the defendant and a per-
son named Stagg, were in the Duke's Head Inn at
Yarmouth. The
conversation turned upon a case
recently decided in the Admiralty Court," Barnby
v. Yaxley." Stagg asked Steel how Mr. Clarke
came to lose the case, and Steel replied that when
the Trinity Masters had any thing to do with a
case they were "dead nuts" on the salvors. Mr.
Clarke, jun., and Mr. Steel then left, and the de-
fendant asked who they were. Stagg said that
they were Mr. Clarke's son and Mr. Steel, Mr.
Clarke's clerk, The defendant rejoined, " D--
him, he is mere like iron than steel, and
if he had stopped I would have given him such
a rap on the knuckles as he never had
before. His master had a case in hand for
me some short time since in which he did me
out of £200." The plaintiff explained, with refer-
ence to the case of the Hopewell, to which the de-
fendant's words were understood to relate, that the
result of the case had been that the salvors were
awarded £534, after having been offered only about
half that sum. The £534 was, however, awarded
without costs. The plaintiff gave the defendant a
cheque for £165 as his share of the salvage, and he
professed himself perfectly satisfied. Costs were
not awarded to the crew of the Hopewell in con-
sequence of the delay of the salvors themselves. The
plaintiff's portion of the costs was only £26 lls.
for the whole twelvemonths, over which the case
extended.
It was further shown that the defendant had re-
commended a friend not to have any business trans-
actions with Mr. Clarke.
Mr. Keane, for the defendant, contended that the
words used by the defendant simply meant that
he thought that if he had not followed Mr. Clarke's
advice in the case to which allusion had been made,
it would have been all the better for him. The de-
fendant's expressions were never intended to imply
that Mr. Clarke had been guilty of fraudulent,
improper, or unprofessional conduct, as had been
sought to be shown.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, one farthing.
The remaining business disposed of was of little
or no public interest.
In reference to the action brought to establish a
claim for compensation against the commissioners
of the Middle Level, by reason of the flood near
Lynn, it should be stated that the land flooded is
not under the jurisdiction of the commissioners,
although the drain the banks of which gave way
run through it. This, of course, is an important
element in the question.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, July 30.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)

CONVICTION OF THE ELDEST SON OF THE REV. H. S.
FLETCHER FOR FORGERY.

Horatio Lester Fletcher, 26, was indicted for
forging a certain acceptance to a bill of exchange
for £7B lls., on the 27th of September, 1861, at
Bilston, with intent to defraud.

Mr. A. S. Rill was for the prosecution, and Mr.
Powell and Mr. Matthews for the defence.

The case for the prosecution was that the pri-
soner, up to the middle of last year, carried on busi-
ness at Willenhall, near Wolverhampton, as an iron
merchant, in partnership with Isaac Pitt, the firm
being known as "Pitt and Fletcher." At the date
mentioned Pitt received acceptances to the amount
of between £7OO and 1800, the acceptor being the
prisoner's father, the late incumbent of St.
Leonard's, Bilston, to leave the business, which
then passed into the prisoner's hands exclusively ;
but Pitt continued to act as cashier. During this
period the bill in question was drawn professedly
by Pitt and Fletcher upon one of their customers,
a locksmith, named Jacob Groves, of WilTenhall,
whose acceptance the prisoner was alleged to have
forged. The bill was presented by the . pri-
soner to a bill discounter, of Bilston, named
Marsh (since deceased), by whom it was
cashed. It was a three months' bill, and as soon
as it became due it was disowned by Groves. It
was then presented by Marsh to Pitt, who pro-
nounced it to be a forgery, but on Fletcher's account,
whose handwriting he thought he recognised in the
signature " Jacob Groves," he paid the amount.
Upon the discovery of the frauds by the prisoner's
father, the prisoner became bankrupt, and, because
the dissolution between the prisoner and Pitt had
not been gazetted, Pitt also. The bankruptcy was
forced on by the bank authorities, who had ad-
vanced money to the prisoner and to Pitt on the
security of the prisoner's father. The £7OO or £BOO
were never obtained by Pitt, inasmuch as Fletcher
the elder had " blown up" before they were due.
Between the time of that exposure and that of thp
bankruptcy of Pitt and Fletcher, the prisoner, it
was urged by Pitt, went out collecting accounts due
to the firm and applying the money to his own pur-
poses. In consequence Pitt threatened to expose
this bill transaction. He, however, communicated
any information respecting it only to his own attor-
ney and to Fletcher's family, until he was required
to give it up by the assignees of the bankruptcy,
by whose instructions the prisoner was arrested.
Upon receiving the bill from Marsh, Pitt showed it
to the prisoner, who said, " I have used Groves's
name, but it is not a forgery." This, however, was
not the defence. The defence was that Groves
signed the bill-at Fletcher's private house, near Bir-
mingham, at 9 o'clock in the morning, some time in
September. This Groves positively denied. Pitt
deposed that it was not Groves's signature ; and the
bill was certainly not entered on the list of bills
received in the ordinary course of business. The
allegation that Groves signed the bill was supported
only by the statement of Miss Norton, sister to
Captain Norton, of the Warwickshire militia, and
sister-in-law to the prisoner, who also deposed that
the servant girl was not in the house at the time.
Mr. Hill commented upon the improbability of a
bill the body of which, it was agreed on both sides,
was written by Fletcher, should have been brought
to the prisoner by Groves, as Miss Norton had
alleged.
His lordship summed up at great length, and
The jury, after having retired to consider their
verdict, found the prisoner Guilty.
The judge said he concurred in the verdict, and
although he (the judge) believed that when heforged
the acceptance he meant to meet the bill when it
came to maturity, yet such was the serious nature
of the offence that the Court could not but award
him the sentence of three years' penal servitude.

The trial of the Italian journals seized for pub-
lishing Garibaldi's speech at Palermo will commence on
the 16th of August. It is stated the defendants have re-
solved to cite Garibaldi as one of the witnesses.

ETON COLLEGE ELECTION, 1862.—The following
is a list of candidates elected for the foundation as given
out by the Examiners on Monday evening :—Chute, Raw-
lins, Winsloe, Macaule3, Samer Smith, Prothero, R. C.
Radliffe, Mitchell, Macnauten, Hailstone, Pollock, Freeth,
Lock, Smith, Carter, Coombe, F. R. Radcliffe, Armitstead,
Cather, Yarborough, and A. G. Edward. Examiners, Mr.
Earl, Mr. Whitting. There were 83 candidates.
The Xeres Golden Sherry is worthy of commendation, pos-
sessing flavour and the characteristics of a pure and true
Spanish Wine, and at a price which will create a new class
of sherry drinkers.—Morning Advertiser. [This wine can be
had only from the importers, the Vintage Wine Company, 14,
Bloomsbury-street, near New Oxford-street, Hs. and 20s. per
doyen. Samples Is, od.]

Arsvdditional - -
, LA-Holloway's-eirusEmENT.l-11olloway's Ointment and Pills.—
mitB4 and incipient consumption, this excellent ointment
Testimony.—For the cure of coughs, colds,
of 11011,1Pon the back and chest, aided by the internal use
suffer:rare purifying pills, rarely fails to rescue the
Ben.bnibZlA most imminent perils. Mr. J. Leonard, of
I did not 11,:11"631ge, Sligo, writes :—" Sorry, sorry, I am
wondrous cdnr ointment and pills in January last. The
e
trial astonialZ76eth2y erected on and after me week's
,11'ed my
till they hate euccei one, and encourages me to proceed
expresses the power 3'
disease." This plainly
checkinE the course of the by Holloway's remedies in
alighted or improperly tr'''''' ealest disorders, which, when
gild unftwourably. , entail much suffering and

THE HORRIBLE MURDER,OF A BOY AT
CHATHAM LINES.

Yesterday morning Robert Alex. Burton, 18, was
brought up before a full bench of county magis.
trates, at Rochester, by Mr. Superintendent Eve-
rest, of the Kent police, and was placed in the dock
to answer a charge of having wilfully murdered
Frederick Thomas Houghton, a little boy about
nine years of age, by cutting his throat, on Cha-
tham Lines, on Wednesday last.
Albert Tree, a little boy 13 years of age, said that
last Wednesday, about five o'clock, he was at play
with some other boys at Chatham Lines. Witness
ian round a heap of chalk to hide in a game they
were playing. He suddenly came upon the body
of a boy. He was very' bloody about the face, and
his eyes seemed to be coming out of his head. Wit-
ness ran to two gentlemen and told them what he
had seen, and then went into Chatham for the police.
The Clerk—Prisoner, do you wish to ask this
witness any questions?
Prisoner—No, sir.
Mr. Thomas Everest said that he was going to-
wards the Lines on Wednesday afternoon last, when
the last witness ran up to him and told him what
he had seen. Witness went to the heap of chalk in
Mr. Gilbert's field, and saw the body. He felt it,
and found it quite cold. He recognised the body
as that of Frederick Houghton. He saw no one
about the place until Albert Tree came up to him.
Prisoner declined to put any question to the wit-
ness. _ _

G. J. Henry Houghton, brother of the murdered
boy, identified the deceased as F. T. Houghton, and
said that he was nearly ten years of age. He knew
the prisoner for three or four years, and he lived
only 300 yards from their residence.
Sergeant Fisher, of the Kent police, said that he
was informed of the occurrence at six o'clock on
Wednesday evening last, and went directly to Gil-
bert's-field, and behind the chalk that surrounds the
air shaft he found the deceased lying between two
projections of chalk. There were several persons
about, but the body had not been disturbed. It was
lying on the back, with the elbows bent and the
hands raised. There was a cut on the right side of
the throat. There was a quantity of blood on the
face, neck, and shirt. The deceased's trousers were
unfastened and open, but one button of the waist-
coat being fastened. There was blood on the ground
where his head lay, in another place below his feet,
about seven feet from that spot of blood, there
was another about the size of the crown of a
hat. The grass was stained with blood also be-
tween the two tips or horns of the gully in which
the body was placed. The crop close to the spot was
mangold-wurtzel, and witness did not observe that
it was trodden or injured. Upon examining the
body he found that the jacket and waistcoat were
unbuttoned and the braces were unfastened. After
the body was taken to the Napier Arms witness took
possession of the clothes produced.
Mr. G. W. Locke, M.R.C. S., NeW Brampton, said
that the boy Tree called him at half-past 4 o'clock
on Wednesday, to see deceased at the chalk heap.
He examined the body, and found that death had
taken place about four hours previously. The collar
of the shirt, vest, and jacket were covered with
blood, and much tumbled. The trousers were open
and the shirt pulled up. The front of the shirt was
bloody, as if something had been wiped on it. The
face was injured by a violent blow on the right side.
On the same side of the throat there was an incision
about two inches in length. It appeared to have been
made by a sort of stab with a somewhat blunt in-
strument. The knife produced (a shortened dinner
knife, with a white handle) would have caused such
a wound. Witness made a postmortem examina-
tion the next day, and discovered a second wound in
the neck below the other. The second wound was
only superficial. The principal wound divided the
thyroid artery and penetrated the lungs: It was
quite sufficient to cause death. All the organs were
perfectly healthy. There was a mark below the wound
as if the neck-tie had been violently compressed.
The lips were apart, and blood was oozing from the
mouth and nostrils. The immediate cause of death
was asphyxia from the flow of blood into the lungs
from the wound. Deceased was a fine healthy boy.
Prisoner, in answer to the usual question, said
with the greatest coolness, " I have no question to
ask the doctor, only he is wrong in one thing, I
did not touch the neck-tie ;it was my hands did
that."

Stephen Hibbard, police constable 167, said that
on Thursday night last he was in Superintendent
Everest's stable in High-street, Chatham, when
the prisoner at the bar came down the yard, and
when asked if he wanted anything said, " I have
murdered that boy on the Lines."
Prisoner—You are wrong there. I asked you if
you wanted a job to take me to the station.
Witness—He might have said something of the
kind ; and he was taken to the superintendent.
On the way prisoner said, " You are not going to
take me to the boy's mother, are you ?" He said
that he had struck the boy in the neck with the
knife, and that when he was down he trod on his
face and neck, and then knelt down on his stomach,
when he put his hands under deceased's neck, and
the blood gushed from hilt nose and mouth.
the prisoner here laughed, as at some very good
joke. He declined to question witness.
Superintendent Everest said that when he heard
of the murder he ordered inquiries to be made in
every direction, and one lad was taken to the chalk
heap, but was not eventually detained. On the
Thursday night Constable Hibbard brought Burton
to witness's parlour, and said that he had confessed
the murder to him in the stable, and gave the
details of the whole affair. Witness cautioned the
prisoner that whatever he said would be used
against him. Burton said that he bad made up
his mind to tell the truth about the whole business.
He said he went around the field with Houghton,
and that when they came to the chalk heap he killed
him. Hibbard asked on which side of the neck the
wound was inflicted, and witness answered, "The
left." Prisoner said, "No it is not indeed, it is the
right. If you look you will find that it is just under
here" (pointing to the right side of his throat).
He said that he only stabbed him once, and that
the deceased made a desperate resistance, and
caught hold of his arms. He also said, " I will
turn down my sleeves, and you will see blood upon
them." He did so, and there were stains of blood
up nearly to the elbows. The sleeves were damp,
however, from having been recently washed. He
added, " He caught hold of my scarf once, but I
don't know whether there is blood on that too. He
tried to hollow, but I very soon stopped him. If
you take me to the place I will show you where the
knife is. You know I had no particular ill-feeling
against the boy, but I made up my mind to kill
somebody." When witness was taking prisoner to
get the knife he said, " I knew the boy, for I often
saw his mother. They lived not far from my place."
He said that the knife was in a water-closet at the
Dark Sun public-house. A light was brought, but
it was blown out by the wind, when prisoner said,
" You don't want a light. Put your hand up under
the eaves and ycu will get it." Witness did so and
got it, when Burton remarked that there would be
no blood or anything else on it, as he had washed
it. He also stated at while he was kneeling on
the boy he saw a man pass by, but he was not seen
himself, as the heap of chalk concealed him. The
prisoner's trousers were marked at the knees and
legs with blood and chalk. He said that a second
man was at work hoeing in a field a great distance
from them. He repeated several times that he had no
ill-will to the boy, but that he did the deed because he
was tired of his life. He said that he did not want to
see the boy's mother, as that was the only thing
he cared sbont. " Go," said he, " to his mother
and ask her if she remembers walking with her
son, that I killed, alongside the baker's barrow
in the morning. That was the first time I
saw her son that day. Ask her, did she
not say to the baker's boy, whose nose was bleed-
ing, that her cl?ild's nose sometimes bled too. That
nd
will bring it to her mina in a moment that I was
standing alongside them at the time. Between one
and two o'clock the boy went up to the Lines, and
I saw him there, and I asked him to go round to-
wards Gilbert's Fields. After I killed him I got
on the top of the chalk
I saw no one coming. Before I came away I took
out the boy's shirt and wiped my hands in the front
of it. I put
my
yiinds hineatop and look around,
my trouser pockets,, but
with the knife in my hand, and the blade worked
through, and you can find the bole. I then made
up my mind to wash my hands and arms, for there
was very much dry blood about them. I went down
to the trough where the soldiers' horses drink at
the Lines. When I got there I saw a number of
people walking about, and I was afraid they would
,see the blood, so I went down the road to the bath-
ing pond, and had a thorough wash. I came through
the sallyport and went to Mr. Lipscomb's, who em-
ployed me take a stove out directly, and I did so.
It was then about 3 o'clock." He said that in the
evening he heard the people narrating how the boy
was found, and saw a good many going to the Lines.
He saw some one that he thought was the boy's
brother, going home in the evening from the docks.
Mr. Clarke, he said, might thank his stars that he
had left Chatham, for he was the first person
he had made up his mind to kill, for be was
his greatest enemy. He volunteered to show wit-
ness the place where he killed the boy, and he
was taken there in a cart. There were
several persons standing there at the time. ,
pointed out the spot, behind the chalk, and said,
e That's where I did it. Now look at the top of that
other heap, and you will find that a man came
up there twice while I was doing it. Ask him, and
he will tell you he was there at 2 o'clock, as near
as I can guess," He then showed witness, where
whi
he washed his hands, near the bathing pow,
was about a mile from the chalk heap. The chalkch

JULY no

18621,

heap covered about two acres of ground, and was
from 15 to 20 feet in height. Witness had known
prisoner for some three or four years. He was
formerly apprenticed to Mr. Andrews, the builder,
but he got his living as a sort of waiter at public-
houses in Chatham, He was prosecuted in January
last by Mr. Clarke, about whom he spoke as before
mentioned.

Mrs. Lucy Houghton, the mother of the murdered
boy, was then produced, and seemed overwhelmed
with grief and sobbed audibly. The prisoner
merely smiled. Haying been accommodated with
a seat, she said that on Wednesday last she saw the
baker with the barrow. Her son was then with
her. Some person was standing alongside the bar-
row, and she did not know that she had seen him
since. All three—baker's boy, deceased, and the
stranger—went away together towards the Lines.
The prisoner declined to put any questions to the
witness, who did not look towards him, but kept
her head averted.

.av
William Oiff, the baker's boy alluded to, said that
about 1 o'clock on the day in question his nose be-
gan to bleed. Last witness and her little boy were
standing together, and the little boy came over and
asked him what was the matter. Just then the pri-
soner came up and stood close by on the pavement.
He asked for a penny loaf, which he said he paid
for at the shop. He wheeled the barrow up towards
Nicholson's shop. Little Houghton accompanied
them, but afterwards turned back. Burton went
as far as Nicholson's, when he got a penny loaf and
went back down the street, ix the direction that
little Houghton had.gone.
William Freeman said that he had gone up to the
top of the second heap of chalk about 2 o'clock on
the day of the murder, as described by the prisoner
to Superintendent Everest. He did not see the
prisoner.

Matthew Diblen said that he was at work about
500 yards away from the chalk heap on the day in
question as the prisoner described.
G. W.Deacon said that he saw the prisoner be-
tween 4 and 5 o'clock on the Wednesday, and he
was then just washed. He said that he had washed
up street, and with mud, and not with soap. He
said that he had been at the Chatham station, and
upon witness saying that his master's son had seen
him on the Lines, he said that he had been there
also. Witness identified the knife produced as the
one which used to lay on his grandfather's wash-
house shelf. It had not then the sharp point now
ground on it. It was a thin knife, used for paring
potatoes. Witness saw the knife with.the prisoner
about three weeks ago in his grandfather's yard,
and told him that he might have it.
The prisoner, having been formally cautioned,
was asked in the usual form whether he had any-
thing to say in answer to the charge.
Prisoner—l have nothing to say.
He was then fully committed to take his trial for
wilful murder at next Maidstone assizes.
A dense crowd congregated outside the court to
hoot and groan the prisoner as he was being con-
veyed to prison.

CIIA.RGE OF FORGERY AGAINST A

STOCKBROKER.

Mr. Jno. Bruce, a member of the Stock Exchange,
carrying on business as a stockbroker, at 4, Bank-
chambers, Lothbury, was yesterday charged with
forgery before Sir R. W. Carden, at Guildhall.
Mr. Mullens, solicitor to the Society for the Pro-
secution of Fraud and Forgery, conducted the pro-
secution, and Mr, Wontner the defence.
Capt. Grant, of the 11th Madras Regiment, said
—I became acquainted with Mr, Bruce about the
beginning of the present year, and at his solicita-
tion authorised him to do business for me at the
Stock Exchange. Between the beginning of Jan.
and the sth of March last I received from him
the accounts produced marked A, B, C, and D
respectively, and during that interval I paid
him various sums of money, amounting to £472.
On the 12th of March I was at his office in Loth-
bury, and saw there Mr. Antrobus, Mr. Schorn-
dorff, and Mr. Bruce. The object of that meeting
was to show me my account, which he said was
over due by about £l,OOO. I disputed several of
the items he produced against me referring to Can-
sols and Mexican stock, and we could not come to
any agreement as to the exact sum due. He repre-
sented to me that he had got into great difficulties
on the Stock Exchange, partly because my overdue
account was not paid, and partly on account of a
friend of his in the north, for whom he had been
buying and selling, not paying up. He said settling-
day was at hand, and that if he could not meet his
liabilities at the Stock Exchange he would be pro-
claimed, and become a ruined man, but that if I
would assist him to tide over that settling-day he
he would be able to transfer my account and go on
speculating the next month, and probably bring
me in a winner. He said if I would give him a
bill for £l,OOO he -would deposit it at his banker's,
the Bank of England, or Bank of London, and they
would advance him funds upon it. I objected to
give any bill with any date of payment to it, as I
never do give bills, and I had not the money to meet
it. I said 1 had some property at Rangoon, which I
would direct to be sold, and on receiving the proceeds
he should have the money for any amount that might
be due to him. He urged that such a bill without
a date of payment would be next to useless, and
Mr. Antrobus suggested I should give a bill, the
form of which he drew out, and I approved it, and
promised to sign such a bill when properly drawn.
He pledged his word of honour that no one should
have the bill but his bankers. I then wrote a letter
to my agents at Rangoon to sell my property, and 1
gave it to Mr. Bruce open. He read it, and said he
would post it, and I left. He came to me the same
'evening at the Junior United Service Club, and gave
me an account showing a balance due of £1,071 16s.
I objected to some of the items, and said I did not owe
him £l,OOO, nor anything like it. He said that
he should be a ruined man unless I gave him
the bill or note for £1,009, to help him over his
difficulties, and that if he succeeded in getting over
the next settling-day he would carry over my ac-
count without any further risk or liability to me,
and very probably bring me in a winner, instead of
a loser: He then placed beforeme the note suggested
by Mr. Antrobus, and after reading it 1 struck out
the words " for value received," as I had not re-
ceived value for it. He disputed the point with me,
and I then said I would not sign it at all. He how-
ever gave in, and said I might as well sign it, and
he would see if it was of any use. I signed the note
and he took it away, and asked me if I would sign
another note if he found that one of no use, and I
promised I would. On the following morning Mr.
Bruce's clerk came to me at the club with a letter
from Mr. Bruce, which stated that he had been un-
able to do anything with the bill and asked me to
sign a fresh one, worded as I wanted it, which he
forwarded; and in reference to the disputed account
he offered to submit the whole of our transactions to
some disinterested party, and abide by the decision
even to the refunding of money, should it be against
him. The clerk brought me this note to sign :
" London, March 12, 1862.
£l,ooo.—Four months after date I promise to
pay to Mr. John Bruce or his order the sum of one
thousand pounds sterling on receipt of a remittance
from India arising from the sale of two houses be-
longing to me at Rangoon, for which I have sent
out orders to my agent par heat mail to that effect,
provided my liabilities are not liquidated before
that time. (Signed) " C. W. GRANT.
" Captain Christian W. Grant, Junior United
Service Club, London."
At the time I signed that note the words "Four
months after date" were not on it. I gave the note
to the clerk, and on the following evening Mr Bruce
called en me at the club with a friend, whom he in-
troduced to me as Mr. Rougier, one of his creditors.
Mr. Bruce said they had come to bring me a more
satisfactory arrangement, either by putting a date
of payment to the note, granting another note, or
making some cash payment on the account rendered.
I declined to do anything of the kind. Mr. Rougier
said he knew that I had money, as they had been
to Mr, Stuart, my solicitor, and ascertained the fact.
I said I had stated that I had no money to make a
cash payment, and that Mr. Rougier's contradiction
was tantamount to calling me a liar, and that I
would not have anything further to say to him. I
left the room to tell one of the club servants to show
them the door. Mr. Bruce followed me out, said no
offence was intended, and that Mr. Rougier would
apologise for the words he had used. I returned to
the room, and Mr. Rougier apologised. They said
it would be very awkward for me if my account
could not be carried over the settling day, and I
replied that I did not care for the consequences, but
I would not put a date of.payment to the note. The
worst they could do Would be to put me into gaol,
and they were welcome to take me then and there.
The note was not produced at that interview. In
consequence of certain information I went to the
Stock Exchange, on the 9th of April, with Mr.
Ryley, a solicitor, and there saw this note in Mr-
IVlortimer's possession. It then contained the words
" Four months after date." I had not authorised
anyone to put those words in the note, and I was
not aware of their being there until I saw them on
that occasion. I was at Mr. Bruce's office on the 17th
of March, and he told me two of his creditors were
in an adjoining room, and that if I would tell them
I would pay the £l,OOO as promised in the note he
would be able to tide over the account. I agreed to
do so, and he then introduced me to Mr. Mortimer
and Mr. Rougier. We discussed the disputed items
of the account, and I expressed a wish to consult a
lawyer; but Mr. Mortimer said no lawyer could
help me, as Mr. Bruce's attorney already had my
name and address, and that if the settling day were
not tided over the creditors would commence pro-
ceedings against Inc i and one of those present said

that a further claim had occurred against Mb for
speculations since the closing of the former account,
and that they also were closed. I objected to
further liability, on the ground that the account
ha.d been closed without my orders. They then
agreed to receive the £l,OOO note as a full settle-
ment of all claims against me. Mr. Mortimer
calculated the time that the realisation of my
property at Rangoon would take, and asked me
if I could not name three or four months as the
time of payment. I said I could not; and he then
asked me to pledge my word of honour that I would
pay the 11,000 to him, and I did so, and he said
on that promise he would hold the note on behalf
of Mr. Bruce's creditors. Mr. Mortimer then gave
me the following letter :
" Dear Sir,—ln consequence of the conversation
just held with you, and the understanding come to
at our interview, I will at once order all proceed-
ings on my part to be stopped against you as the
principal of Mr. Bruce.—l am, dear sir, yours truly,
" March 17, 1862." " C. S. MOP.TIMER.
A letter to the same effect, signed by Mr. Bruce,
was given to me at that interview, and one part of
the arrangement was that he should give me his
acceptance for £l5O. I did not on that occasion see
the note for £l,OOO. The note was presented for
payment and noted on the 16th of July.
Cross examined—He has never rendered me an
account bringing me in a debtor to him for £1,500.
• I have seen such an account, but it was sent to m y
solicitor by Mr. Mortimer, and not to me. lin-
structed Mr. Bruce to close some accounts for me,
but I do not know if he did so beyond receiving the
contracts from him.
Sir R. W. Carden—The same kind of contracts
that you received in all your other transactions ?

Witness—Yes, sir. The date of the last contract
is the 12th of March; the last entry in the account
is the 14th of March. I was not in a position to
pay £l,OOO at that time. I had sufficient money to
enable me to stay in England until my leave of ab-
sence expired, and no more.

Mr. INontner—Very well. Now, having no
money to pay on 'your transactions, look at this
letter, dated the 14th of March, instructing Mr.
Bruce to purchase railway and other shares on your
account, and say if it is in your handwriting.
Witness—lt is, and the meaning of that letter
was that he was to buy and sell in the market for
the chance of a profit, according to the best of his
judgment.
Mr. Wontner—That is, to pledge his credit to the
jobbers on those transactions, for you had nothing
but bare subsistence money, you say.
Witness—He was to act upon his own responsi-
bility.
Sir R. W. Carden—Do you mean that Mr. Bruce
was to pay all the losses, and that you were to have
all the gains ?
Witness—Yes, sir, upon the condition of my giv-
ingmy note for £l,OOO.

Sir R. W. Carden—lf those were the conditions
he made with many of his customers it is no wonder
he is in difficulties. (Laughter.)
Witness—He volunteered to pay my losses. He
was to carry on my speculations at his own risk on
my helping him with the note for £l,OOO.
Sir R. W. Carden•—You have referred to his dif-
ficulties several times. Did not those difficulties
arise from your not paying him ?
Witness—Only partly on that account. I knew
that Mr. Antrobus was cueing him for a large sum,
but I did not hear it was for £3,000. I saw
Mr. Antrobus on Monday last. I heard there was
an action pending against Mr. Bruce. I told him I
was going to give Mr. Bruce into custody. That
was after I heard of the action coming on for trial.
I will not swear I do not owe Mr. Bruce all the
account for £1,574 1 ls. ld., but I think I do not.
I did not see the promissory note at the meeting at
Mr. Bruce's office when Mr. Mortimer and Mr.
Rongier were present. If it were produced I must
have seen it, I will swear distinctly that Mr. Mor-
timer did not read the promissory not aloud. I will
swear that it was never said in my presence that
the bill was for four months. The acceptance for
£l5O was for the disputed items, and not for half
the commission on these transactions. I never heard
the word " commission" used at that interview. 1
claimed Mr. Bruce's note for £3OO on account, and
the disputed items, and Mr. Mortimer suggested
we should split the difference, and we agreed to do
so. I have delayed these proceedings since the 9th
of April, in order to see what course would be
adopted at the end of the four months. If the bill
had not been presented and I had been allowed to
pay it at my leisure, 1 should not have adopted
these proceedings. My leave of absence expired in
June last, but I got it extended for three months.
I had no knowledge of the anonymous letter found
on Mr. Bruce, urging him to leave his office or he
would be arrested, until it was shown me by the
detective, Sergeant Brett, who apprehended Mr.
Bruce.

Re.examined—l have had no communication
with Mr. Antrobus in reference to these proceed-
ings, and he has not had any influence in inducing
me to take this course. He has told me that if it
were his own case he would prosecute.

Sir R. W. Carden—Then it was at his sugges-
tion that you prosecute?
Witness—Not quite, sir. I would rather have
paid the £l,OOO at my leisure than prosecute. I
have been connected with the Indian police since
1852.

Mr. Wontner—And therefore know something o:
criminal law ?

Mr. Chas. Smith Mortimer said—l am a member
of the Stock Exchange. I produce the promissory note
in question for £l,OOO. I received it from Captain
Grant about the 13th of March. I had seen it pre-
viously. Mr. Bruce brought the note to me in the
first instance, and said he could not get his differ-
ences from Captain Grant, and asked me to discount
the bill. It was then in exactly the same state in
which it is now. I declined to do that without
knowing Captain Grant, or what his liabilities
were. I saw Captain Grant on the morning of the
settling day in company with Mr. Rougier, and
produced to him the accounts showing the balance
due from him to Mr. Bruce to the amount of £1,500.
I asked Captain Grant if he would, as an honour-
able man, undertake to pay £l,OOO if Mr. Bruce
relinquished the rest, and he said he would. A dis-
cussion then arose about the date of payment. Cap-
tain Grant said it would take three or four months
to get the money, and accepted the note produced
as payment on behalf of the creditors. Captain
Grant asked me if we should be harsh with him if
he exceeded that time, and I said certainly not if
the remittance did not come from Rangoon.
Mr. Mullens—This evidence has taken me quite
by surprise. When did you give the letter dated
the 17th of March, and when was the interview it
alludes to ?
Witness—The interview was about three days
before; for I got the Committee of the Stock Ex-
change to suspend the matter before them, to give
Captain Grant and Mr. Bruce three days to arrange
matters in. The bill was on the table at that inter-
view, and was the subject of conversation for two
hours, as to how it was to be met, and what the date
of payment should be, because we wanted to reduce
the time, as it would have been a great thing for
the creditors to have the bill fall due in June, before
Captain Grant's leave of absence expired, instead
of in July. Captain-Grant gave me the bill. I read
it aloud, so that all might hear it, for we were at a
very small table.
Cross-examined—When everything else was
settled the acceptance for £l5O was given. Captain
Grant claimed back from Mr. Bruce the half of his
commissions, and Mr. Bruce said he agreed to pay
that on the condition that the account for £1,500
was settled, but that Captain Grant had only paid
£l,OOO, and left him to pay the balance.
Mr. Mullens said—After this witness's evidence
I cannot proceed with the case. This is the first
time Mr. Mortimer has mentioned these facts, and
being my own witness I cannot cross-examine him.
Sir R. W. Carden—And if you could you would
get nothing but the truth from him. I have known
him for many years as one of the most respectable
gentlemen on the Stock Exchange. I think, in
justice to Mr. Bruce, that Mr. Rougier should be
called.

Mr. Hy. Rougier was then sworn and said—l
most emphatically confirm all that Mr. Mortimer
has stated. When I saw Captain Grant at the club
I told him Mr. Bruce's existence depended on him,
and asked him if he intended to sacrifice Mr. Bruce.
He got excited, and I told him he could raise money
on his property at Rangoon, and save Mr. Bruce,
but he said he would not do so. I then told him
that his answer amounted to his declining to pay
his debts, but I never made any apology to him.
Mr. Wontner—Now that this case is wholly
before you, sir, I must invite you to exprees your
opinion of it publicly.
Sir R. W. Carden—l shall do so without invita-
tion. This has been a most painful case throhusgshi
through-
out. The defendant, though a youngr man,
nothing has
believe,, held a respectable position, fo
transpired to the contrary, and, like other young
men, has, I suppose, been unfortunate in
'his specu-
lations. With regard to Captain s conduct,
discreditable to him,
I can only say it is extremelybutwithout the means of
meeting any differenoets a speculation, will-
ingfor any man who will enter
into Grant
to receive the profit;
that may aris.e against
him, that man I Bay _
is not an honourable man.
_1
There is no
proof before
me that when the bill.'
was in Captain
Grant's hands the words, " Four
were not on the face of it, but,
on the contrary,
months af.rr:ra yt,e"
the evidence of two respectable
t
witnesses established P
the fact that the bill was 1 •
u
on theg
and
table, was afterwards given by Captain
Grant to Mr. Mortimer, with the words in question
then
written on the bill. I am quite sure Mr. Mel-
lens would never have brought such a case into court
had he been aware of the few; as wont to, and,

as far ss I eau expkags illy opinion of the base;
do. I can assure you, Mi. Bruce, that you stand
perfectly acquitted of the charge ig,•ainst you.
This decision was rcceived with great applause
from a crowded auditory.
Mr. Mullen said Mr. Bruce had to thank Mr.
Mortimer for all the inconvenience he had suffered,
for if these facts had been communicated earlier Mr.
Bruce would never have been taken into custody.

MURDER OF A RUSSIAN SAILOR BY AN