The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-15 00:00:00

LAW IN7ELLIGENCE, Dec. 13.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)

he remembered attending Mrs. Witt while she was
living at Mrs. Cox's. That was in February, 1861 ;
it was the first time he had ever seen her. He
attended her six times. She was suffering from
great debility. She said she had had a miscar-
riage. She was in great nervous excitement. Her
general health was very weak. The urgent symp-
toms were relieved in the first two or three days of
his attendance. _

Mr. Clover, a surgeon in London, said he did not
know Mr. or Mrs. Witt before their marriage. On
the 11th of January, 1859, he was first called in.
That was four days after her confinement. She was
naturally delicate, and she continued weak, and
had been so ever since. He was in attendance upon
her every month in 1859, except in July and Octo-
ber. She was very seldom able to leave her sofa.
In August and September she was delicate, and in
the last month she had a miscarriage. She was
then further debilitated, but she subsequently got
better for a short time. He attended her again in
December. In tke early part of 1860 she was still
very delicate, and on the 25th of June she again mis-
carried. The child was ill in October, and a nurse was
engaged. That was the first week in December. He
again attended her in Jan., 1861. She was then
pale, with a very weak pulse. He had given his
advice that Mrs. Witt should not sleep with her
husband, and he spoke to her husband about it. He
afterwards gave him to understand that his advice
would be acted upon. Mrs. Witt went to Tou-
bridge Wells at his advice. She was then very weak
and could hardly walk without assistance. When
she returned from Tonbridge Wells she was better
than when she left, but was still delicate. _ _

WITT V. WITT AND KLINDWORTH.
The hearing of this cause, which commenced on
Friday, was resumed, and additional evidence on
behalf of the petitioner was adduced.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Keane appeared for
the petitioner ; Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram
for the respondent ; and the Queen's Advocate and
Mr. Holl for the co•respondent.
Mary Hazel, a nursemaid to Mr. and Mrs. Witt,
said that when she was first in their service Mr.
Klindworth used to call three or four times a week
while Mrs. Witt was ill. This was after her husband
had left for business in the morning. He used to go
up into the bedroom, and she was desired to leave.
When she got well aud came down stairs, which was
at Christmas time, she used to go out with Mr.
Klindworth in a cab, and they were out about an
hour or two. She had received letters to post from
Mrs. Witt to Mr. Klindworth, and she told her to
put them in her pocket and not let Mr. Witt or any
one see them. She went with the family to Ton-
bridge Wells in February. They went to Stetting-
burgh House, kept by Mrs. Cox. They remained six
weeks. Mr. Witt used to come on Saturday night
and stay till Monday. Mr. Klindworth came down
two or three times a week, but never while Mi. Witt
woo there. lle generally came by the last train at
night and stayed till next morning. He used to
sleep in the bed-room upstairs, and Mrs. Witt's
bed-room was adjoining to the parlour, with fold-
ing-doors. On one occasion Mrs. Witt told her to
go and sleep in Mr. Klindworth's room, for he was
going to sit up with her as she was not very well.
Her mistress and Mr. Klind worth were in the din-
ing-room when she went to bed. When she came
down next morning Mr. Kliddworth was in Mrs.
Witt's bed-room. He unlocked the door and let
her into the bed-room. The following week Mr.
Klindworth was again at Tonbridge-wells, and her
mistress then told her to sleep in Mr. Klindworth's
room, as he was reading some pretty books to her,
and he would like to sit up and finish them, and the
next morning Mr. Klindworth was in her mistress's
bed-room. The following week Mr. Klindworth
came again, and she was again sent to Mr, Klind-
worth's room. She was told not to go up till Mrs.
Cox, the landlady, was in bed, and all the lights
were out. She said Mr. Klindworth would lie on
the sofa, because he was afraid of oversleeping him-
self, and being too late for the eight o'clock train.
The next morning Mr. Klindworth was washing his
_hands when she first saw him in her mistress's bed-
room. He went off by the train, and gave her half-
a-sovereign before he left. She had seen them kiss
each other twice. She heard her mistress say before
they went to Tonbridge that if it had not been for
the persuasion of her friends she should have married
Mr. Klindworth, for she liked him better than Mr.
Witt

Cross-examined—Witness went away from Ton-
bridge, and did not return to London. Her mis-
tress discharged her because she had been talking to
Mrs. Cox about Mr. Klindworth. She told her also
that Mrs. Cox said she had beaten the child, and for
that reason she discharged witness. Witness was
now living at home with her mother at Sudbury,
Suffolk. She had been in Sudbury workhouse
confined with an illegitimate child. That was last
November. She had also been in Westminster
workhouse, from whence she was passed down to
Sudbury. While she was living at Mrs. Frost's,
Mr. Witt came to her. That was in November,
1861. She went ont with Mr. Witt in a cab to his
attorney's and came back at twelve o'clock at night.
At Tonbridge witness used to sleep with Mrs. Witt,
except when Mr. Klindworth came. Mr. Witt
slept upstairs when he came down. Mrs. Witt's
little child used to sleep in her mother's room in a
bed by her side.
Mrs. Cox, the landlady of the house at Ton-
bridge Wells, recollected Mr. Witt taking lodg-
ings at her house. It was about February, 1861.
He afterwards came with Mrs. Witt and the nurse
and child. Mr. Witt always came down on Sa-
turday, and remained till Monday. He slept in

Mrs. Elizabeth Green, a nurse, who attended
upon Mrs. Witt in 1859, said she attended her for
a month and two days. Mr. Witt kept very bad

hours.

The further hearing of the ease was adjourned to
Wednesday next.

the bedroom on the second floor, net with his wife.
Mr. Klindworth came altogether six or eight
times to sleep, and once he came when he did
not sleep there. He used to sleep on the second
floor. One morning she placed herself opposite
Mrs. Witt's door about half-past seven. She heard
Mr. Klindworth unlock Mrs. Witt's bedroom door
and go upstairs. He was dressed, and had his slip-
pers on. He saw witness in the hall. The nurse
was in the bedroom which was taken for Mr. Klind-
worth. She spoke to Mrs. Witt about the matter,
and said it was very unpleasant to have such a thing
going on in the house. She said Mr. Klindworth
had only been sitting up to have some music. Wit-
ness told her on one occasion that she thought she
had heard the servant slap the child. She was very
angry, and said that in consequence of what the
servant had said about Mr. Klindworth she should
go out of the house directly. Mrs. Witt said Mr.
Klindworth had given her half a sovereign to say
nothing about his being there. Mrs. Witt told her
afterwards that she had telegraphed for Mr. Klind-
worth to come down, and he did so.
Cross-examined—Witness allowed ber daughter
to go to town with Mrs. Witt, and she went and
stayed six weeks with ber. She used occasionally
to sit with Mrs. Witt. Mrs. Witt used to complain
and appeared unwell whenever Mr. Witt was there;
but sbe was well enough when Mr. Klindworth was
there.

George Lee, the servant boy in Mr. Witt's ser-
vice, said he went there about two years ago and
remained a year. He had seen Mr. Ktindworth a
dozen times and more at his master's house. He had
been sent by Mrs. Witt to Mr. Klind worth's house

with letters several times. Mrs. Witt had told him
not to say he had been there with letters. He was

sent once to the Hare and Hounds at Hampstead
for a comb which had been left there by Mrs.
Witt. He was told to remind the people that
it belonged to the two persons who had dined
in the private room upon steaks. When Mrs.
Witt used to go out with Mr. Klindworth, wit-
ness was told to say she was gone to Mrs.
Church's. Witness had received money once or
twice from Mr.K lindwoeth. The afternoon when Mr.

Klindworth came there, after the trip to Tonbridge
Wells, Mr. Witt came home, and he had to let Mr.

•
Klindworth out by a side door. Another time, Mr.
Witt was in, and Mrs. Witt expected a visit from
Mr. Klindworth, so she told witness to go and
watch for Mr. Klindworth. He got over the wall,
and saw Mr. Klindworth and told him; where-
upon he went to the York and Albany to wait, and
when his master was gone he went and told Mr.
Klindworth, who then came in, and he gave wit-
ness a shilling.
Miss Cox, daughter of the landlady, said she re-
collected Mr. Klindworth coming to the house, but
not when Mr. Witt was there. She confirmed her
mother's account. She afterwards went to stay in
London with Mrs. Witt ; Mr. Klindworth used
then to come three or four times a week, but not
when Mr. Witt was at home. They used to go
out together sometimes. She said that she had
once been to an hotel at Hampstead to lunch with
Mr. Klindworth.

Mary Slade—Was formerly a servant with Mr.
and Mrs. Witt. She remembers their going to Ger-
many. The day before they went Mrs Witt sent
her with some of the plate to the pawnbrokers. Mr.
Witt did not know of it. A ring was afterwards
pawned, and witness was sent to take it out of

pawn. Mr. and Mrs. Witt used to live very happy
and comfortably together.
Several letters were then put in and read. They
were written by Mrs. Witt to her husband while
she was residing at Brighton and Tonbridge Wells.
The language was of the most affectionate descrip-
tion, and the terms most endearing.
Mr. Karslake then addressed the Court on behalf
of Mrs. Witt, and said he should be able to prove
that at the time of the alleged adulterous intercourse

Mrs. Witt was in such a state of health as to render
such an occurrence most improbable, if not impos-
sible. He should also show that Mr. Witt's conduct

.. .
had been unjustifiable towards his wife ; that he had
been in the habit of associating with bad women, and

ASSIZE IN7ELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LIVERPOOL, Dec. 13.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gereayl
'LAE CHARGE OF WILFUL DESTRUCTION OF SHIPS.
The trial was resumed to-day before Mr. Com-
missioner Gurney, by Mr. Overend, Q.C., address-
ing the jury for the defence, The learned gentle-
man said that he felt keenly the great responsi-
bility which he incurred in defending a case of so
much magnitude, and of such importance to the
commercial interests of the country. But important
as it was in this view, it was also of the greatest
possible importance to the administration of justice
that persons should not be found guilty of enormous
crimes unless upon the safest and most conclusive
evidence, Mr. Overend then complained of the
disadvantage at which counsel for the defence had
been placed by the production yesterday of an over-
whelming mass of evidence as to insurances and
other matters of which they had not received the
slightest notice, and which they had not the means
of refuting from the books and papers of Buxton,
which had been swept away by the police when
the prisoner was apprehended, and since retained
in the possession of the police. Thus everything
that could explain the transactions as to insurances
had been taken out of the hands of the defence,
while Buxton's mouth was closed from explanations
from the fact of his being a prisoner. Was there
ever a grosser case of injustice and tyranny ? Not-
withstanding these difficulties, however, Mr. Over-
end hoped to be able to show that all the imputa-
tions of fraud which had been cast upon the prisoner
were delusive. With regard to the question of insur-
ance, Mr. Overend did not dispute the amounts for
which the Roscoe had been insured, but he denied the
correctness of Mr. Ellis's calculations, and said that
the calls, commissions, and other allowances, would
reduce the actual amount which would be received
by Buxton to much less than £4,000, and,in fact,not
much more than the actual value of the ship. He (Mr.
Overend) took the amount of insurance at £3,000.
The value of the ship was stated at £l,BOO ;
but by what evidence ? It might be worth much
more ; in reality was worth more, for only nine
months previously Buxton had himself paid £2,100
for the ship, which had since been repaired at very
considerable cost, and was almost converted into a
new ship. Of course Ruston looked at what the
vessel had cost in his books, took her at that value,
and insured her accordingly; so that if she was
worth £2,100, and the subsequent repairs had
greatly increased her value, the insurance could not
be excessive. Nor (the learned counsel contended)
was the freight over insured. Buxton's freight was
£l,OOO, and he had a perfect right to insure for the
whole amount of freight which the vessel would
earn for the whole round, including the voyage to
and from Quebec. With regard to effects not actu-
ally on board having been insured, Mr. Overend
urged that the testimony adduced upon this point
was most loose and unreliable, and totally unworthy
of being acted upon by the jury. Next was the
accusation that the vessel was insufficiently found
for a voyage which included Quebec in its round ;
but it was admitted by James, the mate, that the
vessel was well found for a voyage to Smyrna, both
in provisions and spars. The prosecution assumed
that this evidently showed an intention not to pro-
ceed to Quebec at all, else the vessel would have
been provisioned at Liverpool for the round ; but in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, Mr. Over-
end asked the jury to believe that provisions of all
kinds could be obtained more cheaply at Smyrna
than at Liverpool, and that had the ship survived
to reach Smyrna she would have been reprovisioned
accordingly. Thus, then, the premises upon which
the prosecution built their case, viz., that the pri-
soner in the large amount of over-insurance had an
inducement to the alleged crime, fell to the ground.
Coming next to the charge of setting fire to the
ship, the learned counsel asked if it was possible to
suppose that a greater scoundrel could exist than
Jamieson, the chief witness for the prosecution—the
man who
andn hadb
who urndbk
in the
order and imperilled the lives
of those
to deceive the under-
writers, admittedp that in the statement
a oosa
ads hi
made at Smyrna, as to the loss of the vessel, he hae
perjured himself. Jamieson, in fact, had covered
himself with eternal infamy, and his evidence was
not worthy of the slightest credit. If Buxton had
ordered him to commit such a deed, and he had ac-
tually perpetrated it, was it likely he would do so for
nothing ? But did he Claim any reward from Bux-
ton on nis return from Smyrna ? Did he come back
and claim, and receive £2OOO, half the profits of the
villany ? No ; he came back, made no claim, actu-
ally entered again into Buxton's service as captain,
had even disputes and a lawsuit with him about
wages, but never mentioned the destruction of the
ship, and the charge against Buxton, until five
years afterwards, and when the reward and free
pardon were offered by the Home-office. But was it
to be supposed that if the story now told by Jamie-
son were true, and Buxton had thus become Jamie-
son's slave for life, he would not have been bled
both by Jamieson and by James to the uttermost;
whereas, on the contrary, neither of the men had
asked him for a farthing of " hush money" during
the several years which had elapsed P They had, in
fact, gained nothing by their knowledge of the pri-
soner's guilt, though they had everything to gain
by coming forward before and impeaching him.
The fact that they did not do so was, Mr. Overend
urged, the strongest possible proof that the story
told by Jamieson and his confederates was a con-
cocted one, and that the protest which they made at
Smyrna shortly after the destruction of the ship was
the true version of that destruction. With regard to
James, if he did hear the conversations which he had
described, was it not his bounden duty to have re-
monstrated, and made some inquiry into the matter?
He might certainly have told the crew, and it was
unreasonable to suppose that out of regard for his
own safety alone he would not h Ave done so, and ac-
cused Buxton before the world, instead of allowing
five years to elapse. Besides, the story of the de-
struction of the ship was improbable on other
grounds. Was it likely that if fire was to be the
mode adopted the prisoner would have spent £ll7
upon brandy and other spirits, whereas ss. worth of
turpentine would have done the work better? The
whole of the circumstances of the case were consis-
tent with the view of the fire having arisen from
accidental or spontaneous combustion of the coals.
If water got amongst coal, stored as that was on
board the Roscoe, the coal would become ignited,
and it was most natural that with a head wind, and
straining as she was, water would find its way into
the hold, while the opening of the hatch which com-
municated with the sail room would tend to aggra-
vate the fire. It was proved that the hatch had
been opened for the men to get at the sails to mend
them, and by the air thus introduced, Mr. Overend
contended, the smouldering fire had been awakened.
In conclusion, the learned counsel commented upon
the evidence of Bickley, which he said deserved no
more credit than that of Jamieson and James. They
were all in the same boat, and Bickley had confessed
himself to be a scoundrel and a villain by the ad-
mission that ho bad listened to the contemplated
fraud upon the underwriters and had shared in the
plunder.
No witnesses being called for the defence,
The learne,i Judge summed up, analysing the
evidence with great care, and pointing out the por-
tions which were of the most importance for the
jury to consider. With regard to the value of the
ship, it would have been more satisfactory to have
had evidence from persons who had surveyed the
ship at the time she set out on her voyage. The
jury, therefore, must form the best judgment they
could of that value. Almost the only direct evi-
dence against the prisoner was that of Jamieson, an
accomplice (supposing the prisoner to be guilty),
and whose evidence was tainted in every possible
way. Having commented upon Jamieson's and
James's evidence, and shown some contradictions,
his lordship did not attach so much importance to

had kept very late hours. V He could not deny
that the conduct of Mrs. Witt and Mr..K.lindworth
had been of a mere familiar character than was ju-
dicious. but there was nothing to prove that any
criminal act had taken place between them. It
would be shown that during Mrs. Witt's illness her
husband wog in the habit of taking his male friends,
including Mr. Klindworth, into her bedroom while
she was in bed, and there they used to smoke and
play cards. Such conduct was not at all what you
would expect amongst English people. These were
all Germans, and very possible it might be no more
than was customary among them. At any rate, it
showed a laxity of manners that would in a great
measure account for the familiarity that had existed
between Mrs. Witt and Mr. Klindworth. He then
Iproceeded to call evidence.
Mr. Sopwith, a surgeon at Tonbridge Wells, said

the words &telt noon," which Ruxton was seeing Mr. Elliott on the subject, but I have read
heard to say to Jamieson on parting in the Channel, `over the depositions in the case, and I am bound
nor to the fact that James did not expose the con- to say that it wa& not one in which I should have
versetion immediately after he hid heard it in the accepted bail, and that a week was as little time as
cabin. There was, his lordship thought, more ire- could be given to trace out the property alleged to
portance attaching to the declaration which James have been stolen. The magistrates are always as
had made at Smyrna, that the vessel was acci- accessible as the judges. I myself have frequently
dentally destroyed ; and to the strangeness of the attended at this court to receive bail in doubtful
circumstance that James, when he had known caseal and should not at any time have the slightest
the Roscoe to have been purposely destroyed, objection to receive at my residence an application
should have entered on board another ship, of for bail for persons under remand, or committed,
which the prisoner was the owner and Jamieson where anything favourable to them could be shown,
the captain. It was only fair to suppose that unless and I feel satisfied Mr. Elliott would do the same.
James was utterly unable to obtain employment in Mr. Beard—l should not feel justified in troubling
another way he would have preferred sailing in a a magistrate at his private residence.
ship owned and commanded by other persons. The Mr. Norton—l cannot see why you should not,
evidence of Bickley, his lordship thought, was fairly where the liberty of the subject is concerned. I re-
open to most of the objections made to it by the peat, that I feel my name has been most unfairly
learned counsel. He (the learned judge) could have called in question in a matter in which I only acted
no opinion of the honesty of a man who, having in strict accordance with the law, and I cannot sub-
heard the statements which Bickley had described, mit to rest under an unjust imputation while I feel
could not only remain silent and not inform the lam right.
underwriters, but who, according to his own
account, was to receive a portion of the proceeds of
the fraud in the payment of his own debt.
The jury then retired to consider their verdict.
After several hours' absence they returned with a
verdict of not guilty.
The prisoner, however, en leaving the court, was
arrested on another charge, which will be preferred
hereafter. The arrest was made by detective officer
Carlisle under a warrant from the Lord Mayor of
London. The warrant charged Ruxton with con-
spiring with others to defraud an insurance company
of the sum of £BOO.

7HE SISTERS 010 JESSIE, 31,LACI1LAN.

The following has been transmitted to the Glas-
gow Herald by a lady in Edinburgh, distinguished
for her benevolent spirit and literary abilities :

" Sir,—l had a most affecting interview yesterday with
the unfortunate sister of the notorious Mrs. M'Lachlan,
who is utterly ruined by the bad fame of that wretched cul-
prit, and is now emigrating to Australia, having been dis-
missed from the family in which she had been hitherto a
respectable servant. The case seemed 4o hard, of visiting
the sins of one sister on another, that I subscribed 30s. to
assist in the poor girl's outfit, but lamented not being able
to do more. I never saw any one suffering under such in-
tense despair—not load but deep. She is to be accompanied
by a sister equally destitute. They have got a passage from
the Emigration Society ; but it occurs to me that among the
numerous admirers of Mrs. M'Lachlan in Glasgow there
may be some who would humanely extend their sympathy
to the innocent as well as to the guilty, and bestow some
pecuniary assistance on those poor outcasts, who are driven
from their roaroctablo homoa as em. vantm into a baniehmont
as distressing as if they had been themselves culprits. I had
their papers carefully examined and their story tested by a
clergyman, who is convinced of the truthfulness of their
calamity. Therefore, I now appeal to the enthusiasm of
tilasgow for generous help to those whom no judge or jury
ever condemned, and who would desire to share in some of
the interest felt in Mrs. M'Lachlan, as they are ruined by
her disgrace. I enclose my card, and shall convey to the
sufferers any donations. They sail in a few days, banished
for life from friends and country, to struggle in a distant
land.—Yours, " C. S."
The editor of the Herald will take charge of and
remit any sums which may be committed to his
charge in behalf of those innocent and unfortunate

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—WORCESTER, DEC. 13.
(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
31111111,t It.
Ochold, an old man, whose age was
stated at 69, was indicted for the wilful murder of
li;s wife, Sophia Ochold, at Oldbury, in this county,
on the Bth November last.
Mr. Richards and Mr. Griffiths conducted the
prosecution, and Mr. Benson, at the request of the
learned judge, defended the prisoner.
The prisoner and the deceased had been married
just half a century, and the old man carried on the
business or a tailor, in which his wife assisted him.
They did not live very happily together; the pri-
soner accusing his wife of intemperance, and fre-
quently beating her. The deceased had for some
time past suffered from disease of the kidneys, and
on Friday, the 7th November, was ill from that
cause. On that evening a young woman named
Maria Grazebrook, a servant at a public-house near,
who was very intimate with the Ocholds, called in
to see the old people (whom she called her grand-
father and grandmother, although not related to
them), and found the prisoner seated on a table at
work at his trade, and the deceased lying on the
ground apparently in great pain. The young wo-
man offered to get the deceased some tea, but she
declined, and the prisoner also said" No; she wants
to go to bed and groan, and keep me awake all night
as she did last night, but she shall not keep me
awake .again to-night." Soon after the son and
daughter of the deceased came in, and after giving
her some tea, put her to bed. She was unable to
walk, and her son carried her upstairs. About 3
o'clock on the following morning, as policeman
Hutchins was passing the house, he heard a noise
which he thus described in his evidence :
Police-constable Daniel Hutchins deposed—l was
on duty between 3 and 4 o'clock on the morning of
Nov. 8, and passed the prisoner's house. Heard the
prisoner down stairs cursing and swearing and
making a great noise. He seemed to be cursing at
some one up stairs. Herd groans up stairs. 1 went
away and in about 10 minutes returned, when I
heard some one whom I believed to be the prisoner
go to the foot of the stairs. I listened and heard the
prisoner mock at the groans. He said " You
old cat, you're very bad, I dare say, but I never
knew you when you were good." He also said
" -- your old eyes, if you don't come down stairs
I'll --" Did not hear the rest of the sentence.
Remained in the street till 4 o'clock, and heard the
prisoner repeat his mocking and swearing. Had
often heard it before.
Jeremiah Bradley was in the stables, about 10
yards from the prisoner's house, about .4 o'clock on
the same morning, and heard the prisoner use very
bad language to his wife. Heard the deceased say
" Oh, Bill, don't kill me ; my head is ready to split."
It did not strike him that he ought to interfere.
Maria Grazebrook deposed that on going again
to the prisoner's house on the morning of the Bth,
and asking after his wife, the prisoner said she had
been drinking with one Jack Hadley on the previous
night. (This statement was afterwards disproved.;
He objected to her going upstairs to see her, but she
persisted in going, and then found her lying dead
on the floor with her face covered with blood. There
was a broken mopstiok in the prisoner's room down
stairs. There was also blood upon the stairs, and
witness picked up a quantity of the deceased's hair.
Mr. Cooper, surgeon, of Oldbury, made a post-
mortem examination, and found several bruises on
the body, but the chief injuries were in the head.
There was an extravasation of blood on the brain.
The right temporal muscle was reduced to the con-
sistency of a piece of liver by recent violence ; and
on dissecting it down to the cheek bone he found the
arch of the cheek bone broken. The other cheek
bone was healthy. This injury could not have been
caused by a fall, but might have been produced by
blows from some hard substance, not the fist.
Mr. Benson, for the prisoner, made a powerful
defence, and urged that the crime was one of man-
slaughter, not murder.
His lordship carefully summed up, and rather
favoured the same view.
The jury, however, after being locked up for an
hour, found the prisoner Guilty.
His lordship then proceeded to pass sentence of
death upon the prisoner in the usual form, and in
reference to a recommendation of mercy made by
the jury on account of his advanced age, said that
recommendation should be forwarded to the proper
AI quarter.

111 E POWER OF A MAGISTR A7E 70
RECEIVE BAIL IN CASES OF FELONY.

Mr. Beard, the solicitor for the plaintiff in the
case "Ricketts v. Stone," which was an action for
false imprisonment tried on Wednesday last before
Lord Chief Baron Pollock, and who also gave evi-
dence in the case, happening to be present in the
Lambeth Police-court on Saturday, to defend an
omnibus summons, was addressed by
Mr. Norton, who remarkgd that from what he
read in the papers of the trial, there must be some
misconception in the minds of the Lord Chief Baron
and jury respecting his (Mr. Beard's) application
for bail, and what took place on that occasion.
In the first place, he (Mr. Beard) must have known
that he (Mr. Norton) had not the power to accept
bail at all—a fact which seemed to have been lost
sight of altogether—while in his (Mr. Beard's) evi-
dence, it appeared that he (Mr. N.) " declined to
entertain the application," without going into any
reasons for his refusal. He could not charge his
memory with recollecting what passed when the
application was made, but he could venture to assert
that he had given some reason for his refusal—
such as that he had not heard the case, or that he
had not the legal power to accept bail, and he
thought it was but /air that the reason given for
his refusal should have been stated to the Court.

girls.
The following pert epistle appears in Tuesday's
Glasgow Herald, frofn one of the sisters of the con-
vict 111‘Lacialan :

Mr. Beard was free to confess his igorance of the
fact that while prisoners were under examination
on the commitment of one magistrate they could
not be admitted to bail by another until he read
his worship's explanation in print, and he might
add that his opinion in this particular was not
singular, as it was the opinion of a popular metropo-
litan magistrate, who was set right also by his (Mr.
Norton's) statement. He (Mr. Beard) did not re-
collect what had taken place on the occasion of his
application to his worship, but he did recollect
that his reply was substantially a refusal to enter-
tain his application for bail. He begged further io
say that the question as to the refusal of bail did not
originate with the counsel engaged by the plaintiff
or himself, but in giving her evidence the plaintiff
herself said she had been in -prison fora week,
whereupon the judge made some remarks, and he
(Mr. Beard) was called into the witness-box to ex-
plain the matter.
Mr. Norton—On referring to the case, I find
that the examination of the parties took place on
Tuesday. Now, if they were so respectable as de-
scribed, why had you not made your application on
the Wednesday, when you would have found Mr.
Elliot sitting, and that magistrate would, I feel
satisfied, have been most happy to release your
clients, if you could have shown anything favour-
able to them.

Mr. Beard—The fact was that the parties had
been locked up at Norwood on the Monday night,
and had therefore no opportunity of communication
with their friends. On Tuesday they were re-
manded to Horsemonger-lane, and I received no in-
structions in the case until late on Wednesday, or
on the Thursday morning.
Mr. Norton—lt is really hard that my name
should have been called in question, and that I
should be held up to the public as one who acted
not only harshly, but illegally, in a case where the
liberty of the subject was concerned; that a whole
jury should step out of their province to denounce
the practice of this court, of which they can know
nothing. From a very lengthened experience lam
prepared to say that, as regards the liberty of the
subject and the formal business of the court, there
cannot be a better regulation than that of one magis-
trate sitting the first three dal's of the week, and
the other the last three days.
Mr. Beard—That, I em bound to say, is also the
opinion of Mr. Selfe and other magistrates.
Mr. Nolton--I have not had an opportunity of

" Edinburgh, 7th December, 1862.

" Sir,—l take the trouble of writing these few lines to
inform you that I want no subscriptions gathered for me,
and I advise you for your own sake not to publish my name
in your Herald again.—l remain, yours,
"ANN M‘ligrosn."