The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-24 00:00:00

THE PRINCE CONSORT MEMORIAL.

Yesterday a meeting of the committee in the city
of London engaged in raising a fund for a national
memorial of the Prince Consort was held at the
Mansion-house. There were present the Lord
Mayor, Mr. Alderman Wilson, Mr. Alderman Salo-
mons, Mr. Charles Hill, Mr. James Spicer, Mr.
William Humphery, Mr. George Godwin, the Rev.
Michael Gibbs, Mr. Goodman, Mr. S. Brown. It
was reported that the fund up to Tuesday evening
amounted to nearly £47,000, of which more than
£1,300 had been received within the last few days.
ictLw. waa Luitsl rrom Lora Lansdowne stating his
readiness to serve on the general committee. His
name was accordingly added to the committee, as
was also that of Mr. Thackeray: A communica-
tion from Mr. Candlish, the Mayor of Sunderland,
was read, to the effect that a'public subscription was
about to be set on foot in that town in aid of the
fund. Other letters were read, showing that col-
lections were being made, or about to be made in
various parts of the country. One of these was
rather remarkable in its way, as affording an ex-
ample of what may be done by the subject of the
memorial being mooted among the humbler classes
in a judicious manner and by persons of known
respectability. It was from Mr. Batson,
churchwarden of Monkton Combe, Devon, ad-
dressed to the Lord Mayor, and enclosing
£l7 Bs. 4d., the subscription of 275 of
the inhabitants of that parish. He stated
that Monkton Combe is essentially a poor parish,
the great majority of the people being quarrymen,
earning a somewhat precarious livelihood; that the
chapelwarden and he called at every house in
the parish, explaining the object of their visit,
and that they were prepared to take subscrip-
tions of one penny and upwards. Ho believed that,
never was any appeal made there with so favour-
able a result. A nesiro to show their gratitude to
the Queen, a profound respect for the memory of
the Prince Consort, and a feeling of regret that they
could not give more, seemed, he said, to pervade all
classes, He added that his colleague and he never
had a more grateful duty to perform, or one im-
pressing them more thoroughly with the real worth
of their poorer neighbours.

ROYAL BOTANIC SOCIETY, REGENT'S

PARK

The fifth spring meeting of this society was held
yesterday, in their garden in the Regent's-park.
The fineness of the day attracted a very large at-
tendance, who appeared highly delighted, not only
with the plants sent by the various nurserymen for
exhibition, but with the dazzling appearance of
the many large beds of early tulips, seen to perfec-
tion under the clear sky and bright sun. The Indian
rhododendrons and Chinese azaleas in the conserva
tory also received their share of admiration. The
best idea of the exhibition itself may be formed
from the following list of principal prizes awarded :
—Six Pelargoniums,—Silver medal to Mr. J. Cross,
gardener to Sr F. Goldsmid, St. John's-lodge, Re-
gent's-park; ditto, Mr. Turner, Slough, Bucks;
small silver medal to Messrs. J. and J. Fraser, nur-
serymen, Leyton, Essex. Six British Ferns.—
Bronze medal to Miss Clarkson, 40, Avenue-road,
St. John's-wood ; small bronze medal to Mr. B. S.
Williams, nurseryman, Holloway. 24 Pansies (cut
blooms).—Bronze medal to Mr. J. James, gardener
to gr. W. F. Watson, Isleworth ; small bronze
medal to Mr. W. Bragg, nurseryman, Slough,
Bucks. New and Rare Plants.—First class certifi-
cate of merit to Mr. Everest, Reading, for Genista
Everestiana ; ditto to Mr. J. Standish, Bagshot, for
Polygonatum sps., Japan ; ditto to Mr. W. Bull,
nurseryman, Chelsea, for Woodwardia Orientalis.
Second class certificate to Mr. J. Standish, nursery-
man, I3agshot, for Cyrtomium spa. ; ditto, for Den-
drobium spa. ; ditto to Mr. W. Bull, for Araucaria
sps. ; ditto, for Agave Filifera ; ditto, for Lomatia
Plegantissima ; ditto, to Mr. J. Walker, Hunsdon,
Herts, for Pomaderis _Discolor ; ditto to Messrs.
Carter and Co., for luchsia Meteor. Miscellaneous
--:Silver medal to Mr. B. S. Williams, for collection
q_l_ni_scellaneous plants ; bronze to Messrs. E. G.
Zrlon, for collection of ditto; bronze to Messrs
to meautaFraser, for six miscellaneous plants ; ditto
; ait:y aul and Son, Herts, for three boxes of
fwilor roses in pots; ditto to Mr. C.
plants
ei .ht azalea zi.triculas ; ditto to Mr. J. Cross, for
Mr. J. Dobson and Son, for
Tr ouszelr,
12 einorari tto o
la. Messrs. W. Cutbush,
.for mis-
cellaneous
hyacinths; ditto,
bsrynze medal to ditto, for
James for 12 tturicuau.. " tulips ; ditto to Mr. 3,

LAW INTELLIGENCE,ApriI 23.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
KENNEDY V. BROUN.-TUE SWINFEN CASE.

This was a case which has already created a good
deal of attention, the action being by a barrister
against his client, to recover £20,000 upon an ac-
count stated between them in reference to services
rendered in conducting proceedings at law and in
equity with the view of establishing a title to the '
Swinfen estates; and as soon as it was known that
the matter was about being brought before their
lordships the court became crowded, principally
counsel anxious to hear what would take place.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C. (with him Mr. Field), said
that the case was tried at the last Warwick Assizes
before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, when the ver-
dict was for the plaintiff for £20,000, but his pre-
sent motion was for a rule calling upon the plaintiff
to show cause why this verdict should not be set
aside, and a nonsuit entered, and also why in the
alternative there should not be a new trial
upon the ground of misdirection, and that the
verdict was against the weight of evidence.
The plaintiff was a barrister of many years
standing, and he brought this action against
Mrs. Braun, who was formerly Mrs. Swinfen,
claiming £20,000, and the only contract alleged
was one upon an account stated. Mrs. Broun had
been in a case of great celebrity—that
ofs a partywinteri V.
Swinfen-which
came into this court
upon an application for an attachment to enforce
an agreement of compromise made by her counsel
for her. Mr. Kennedy's ease was this—that he,
being a barrister living at Birmingham, and having
friends and relations in tho county to which Mrs.
Swinfen belonged, he, after the trial at Stafford, in
March, 1856, became acquainted with her, that he
met and conversed with her at a friend's house, and
afterwards had a good deal of conversation with her
at her own house upon the question whether the
agreement entered into by her counsel was binding
upon her or not • that a few months after she wrote
to him, stating that she had made up her mind to
abide by the agreement and take the £l,OOO a year
which was offered; and she invited Mr. Kennedy
and his daughter to visit her at her house. This
was in June or July, 1856. He said that he did not
go himself, but he sent his daughter, and gave her
an envelope addressed to Mrs. Swinfen, which con-
tained no letter, but had written in it the word
" Pause." Upon that they came in correspondence
again, and he diverted her from the compromise,
and under his counsel she took steps to dispute the
hinding Charaotar of that ogrooaroat. Mr_ "Carmody
stated that he stipulated that if he came into the
matter as her counsel he should have the entire car-
riage, conduct, and control of the whole of the pro-
ceedings, that he should have the appointment and
displacement of attorneys, and the nomination of
counsel, and that he should lead on all occasions
where any other counsel was required in court
besides himself. There was no document contain-
ing these terms, and the only document that threw
any light upon the matter was a letter written a
year afterwards by Mr. Kennedy to Mr. Simpson,
Mrs. Swinfen's solicitor, at Lichfield. The state
of things at that time was that the rule for an
attachment had been argued and disposed of in
November, 1856 ; in 1857 a bill was filed in
equity toenforce the agreement, which cause was de-
cided by the end of 1857, and there was the trial at
Stafford in May, 1858. The letter was written on
the 15th Feb., 1858, and in it Mr. Kennedy, in allu-
sion to a statement, said that he did not know
what it meant, as he had never asked for or
mentioned anything about fees, except that he be-
lieved he told him at the outset that he undertook
the case out of friendship for Mrs. Swinfen. It
had, however, occurred to him, that if he did not
receive fees in the ordinary manner, there might be
a difficulty in getting them from the adversary if
costs should be allowed. He concluded by saying
that he certainly should return any fees to Mrs.l
Swinfen which were not allowed, but he did not
desire to spare their opponent. Mrs. Swinfen's
case was, that Mr. Kennedy entered into the mat-
ter without any terms as to money, and to gratify
his own ambition. Mr. Kennedy, in his evidence,
went on to say that, having undertaken the conduct
of Mrs. Swinfen's litigation, she said to him, " You
are going to do great things for me, and I am not
able to remunerate you now, but I will do so here-
after." Upon which Mr. Kennedy said, "I am per-
fectly aware that I must wait." He went on to say
that he conducted and managed the matter in its
various stages, and that as it progressed the lady
restated her intention of remunerating him largely
whenever she should be in a situation to do so.
Further, that when the second trial at Stafford ap-
proached,
Mrs. Swinfen said that if he succeeded, ,
it should be as good as £20,000 to him, and that
after the verdict she said, " You have won your
£20,000." Upon which he said, " There is a great
deal more to be done; we have to opposed the ap-
plication for a new trial, and so on. Mr. Ken-
nedy also said that before the second trial at
Stafford, a great deal took place as to compro-
mising the suit with the heir-at-law, and that
he advised Mrs. Swinfen to accept the
estate for life, if she could get ; but that
she set her face against such an arrange-
ment, because she said that if she got it for life
some member of the family would poison her. Ho
...frtro.toa that if alit got tlle estate for life she
should remove to London, and should settle upon
him an annuity, but nothing came of it. An unsuc-
cessful motion for a new trial was made in Chan-
cery, and the suit came to an end in March, 1859,
and Mrs. Swinfen was placed in firm possession of
the estate. Mr. Kennedy produced a vast number
of letters written to him by Mrs. Swinfen, down to
the latter end of March, 1859, at which point he
said there was a gap in the correspondence; and un-
fortunately
the gap occurred at the time that she
was coming up to London in reference to the al-
leged
statement of the account which was the sub-
ject of the action. Mr. Kennedy stated that he
had destroyed these letters in a momentary fit of
anger. There was one letter, or fragment of a letter, ,
in reference to her intended arrival in London on
the 24th April, in which there was this expression,
"And I now only wait to know what it is for which
you want me," he having, in his evidence, stated
that he asked her to execute some security, in re-
spect of what he had done for her. He called upon
her when she arrived in London, and then took
place the conversation relied upon as constituting
the account stated, and it . was the most singular
statement of account that was ever presented to a
jury. It consisted of one leading question put by
the plaintiff to his own client, "Do you consider
you owe me £20,000 ?" and the client saying,
" Certainly, but you know I can't pay you. To
make the narrative perfect he must say that Mr.
Kennedy's statement was, that having solicited her
to come to London to execute the security he met
her, and said, "Patience, you know what I have
already told you by letter ; my position is a perilous
one ; I shall soon have expended my capital, and I
think that you should give me security for what you
promised me. You know I never asked you for a
writing to confirm your promise, but for the sake'
of my family let me understand you. What dO
you mean to give me ? You n: en tioned several times
£20,000. Do you consider you owe me that sum ?"
She said, " Oh, yes, but you know I cannot pay at
present." A mortgage was talked of, which she
objected to ; and she said, " I have left you the bulk
of my estate." He said, " You know as well as I
do that a will is no security ;" and she said, "Be-
tween us it is," and she took his hand and asked
why he looked so gloomy. And then she got up,
and said, " If we are going to the Zoological-gar-
dens there is no time to wait." In the gardens they
sat down, and he said, " Now, Patience, would you
mind give me by deed what you said you had given
me by will ?" and she said, " I always meant it for
you and your family. I offered it to Capt. Swin-
fen, and he refused it ; and now I give it to you."
The learned counsel continued by saying that the
statement which he had made was taken from the
Chief Justice's summing up, and the learned judge
went on to say that Mrs. Broun contradicted it in
very positive terms. The only question which the
judge left to the jury was, which of the two wit-
nesses they believed, the plaintiff or the defendant,
as to the version given of that conversation ; and he
said that, supposing that the conversation which the
plaintiff deposed to had taken place, whether that
would give him a right to retain theverdict he would
obtain was a question which need not be then dis-
cussed. Mr. Kennedy went on to say that she wil-
lingly assented to give him a deed of gift of the rever-
sion of the estate, and that he drew up such a deed,
which she requested should be executed privately;
and further, that Mr. Collies, a solicitor, a friend of
Mr. Kennedy, whom he had introduced into the case
as attorney for Mrs. Swinfen, should witness it. Mr.
Kennedy went down the evening before, and on the
morning of the 10th of May, 1859, the lady called at
Mr. Colliss's office, found the deed already engrossed,
and executed it. From that time Mrs. Swinfen and
Mr. Kennedy continued upon the most intimate terms
of friendship until September or October in last
year, when a breach took place under circumstances
which were peculiarly painful, and which attached
to Mr. Kennedy an amount of opprobrium which
it was distressing to think of as attaching to any
human being. He had been in the habit of visiting
at Mrs. Swinfen's constantly, and a good deal was
said about the terms which really subsisted between
them.

The Lord Chief Justice—The cardinal question
was whether there was an account stated upon
which an action could be maintained, and these
details
not cogently bear upon that point.
Ar . did a
lay—But the question was raised who
was
thet to
Mu
bt
largess ea ee s
believed, from whose credit there was to
deduction upon account of supposed
misconduct.
The Lord Chief Justice admitted that this was so.

lEEE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 24, 1862.

It was impossible to predicate what was relative
and what was not when there was a conflict of
credit between two persons.
Mr. Yamulay—lt was important also in this
way, that if the relation which Mr. Kennedy re-
presentel existed, it was highly improbable that in
the very heyday of immoral intercourse between
them they should sit down upon a bench in the
Zoological Gardens, and that he should say,
" Patience do you owe me £20,000 ?" and she
should say " Yes ; I do." He said that they were
closely associated in the early part of the business,
and that ale used to sit at a table writing for him as
amanuensis, and that on one occasion she said play-
fully, " Hall other things.. fail, I can get my living
as your clerk ;" and he said, "No; you shall be my
sister." A,out six months after the date of this
incident, a letter from Mrs. Swinfen began, "My
dear Charles,—l think that this is an improper
way, but as you insist upon it, as between brother
and sister, I assent to it." Mr. Kennedy asserted
in his libels that for two years they were living in
an immoral manner ; and after this she wrote to
him to say that she had contracted an engagement
of marriage, and continued, " For all this, I still
wish to remsin your affectionate friend," and added,
" Now don't throw yourself into a violent passion."
It was impossible to convey to, their lordships fully
the sort of ?fission which Mr. Kennedy could fall
into, but in one of his letters in reference to the
compromise he said that it had become necessary to
contend the: the agreement was void for illegality,
that it must be shown that there was a conspiracy
between the judge and the counsel, and that wit-
nesses shoull be got to swear to the unfairness of
the judge; that his mind was wound up to the most
savage ferocity against the delinquents, whom he
could utterly exterminate. There was another
letter, in which he said that she was perfidious in
contracting a marriage which would render his
deed void, but saying nothing about the promise of
£20,000. A gentleman went to him from Mrs.
Swinfen with a sort of general authority, and said,
" Would £lO,OOO tempt you to part with the deed ?"
but Mr. Kennedy would not be tempted, and the
affair fell through. Soon after Mr. Kennedy pub-
lished handbills containing an advertisement of his
intended pamphlet making imputations upon Mrs.
Swinfen. The defendant swore most distinctly that
at no time was there any mention made by M. t.
Kennedy of any remuneration to be paid to him,,
but that he acted with a view to forward himself
in his profession, and from dislike to the persons
concerned on the other side, and that down to the
eflea this action was brought there was not a
syllable said about £20,000 or any specific
sum, but that the only time money was
mentioned was when he complained of the ruined
condition of a printing establishment with which
he was connected, and she asked him to accept
£2OO. With regard to the transaction of April,
1859, her version was that Mr. Kennedy spoke to
her about his being in some difficulty or distress,
and said that it would be a great thing for him if
she would execute a deed to enable him to raise
money, and that she might confide in him and de-
pend upon the deed being forthcoming. She said
that she had perfect confidence in him, and she con-
sented to execute the deed, and there was this allu-
sion to the circumstance in a letter of hers two or
three weeks afterwards, where she said, "I have
proved that I have faith in you. I told you that in
order to save you I would die for you if necessary ;
that was not required, but what was required I
hate done." She swore that this referred to her
confiding in his honour as to the deed to enable him
to raise money, and she was not cross-examined
upon that. Mr. Kennedy's version was that it had
reference to the £20,000. The learned counsel sub-
mitted that even if the evidence of the plaintiff
stood by itself, it did not lay the substratum for an
"account stated," which meant a statement of ac-
count in reference to some antecedent legal liabi-
lity. There were a number of cases which showed
that if the matter upon which an account stated
rested was one in reference to which an action would
not lie, then no action could be maintained upon
the account. The exception to this rule was stated
in the strongest way in "Cooking v.Ward"—" that
an account may be stated concerning a matter
where the plaintiff is without legal evidence in sup-
port of his case," and not where the debt was not a
legal debt. There were the cases of " Porter v.
Cooper," 1 Cr. M. and R., 387, and "Le Mere v.
Elliott," C. H. and N., 656.
The Lord Chief Justice said it was not necessary
to state those cases, for the rule of law was suffi-
ciently clear for the purposes of the day.
Mr. Macaulay also referred to " Vetch v. Russell,"
3 Q. 8., which was an action by a physician for fees.
Mr Justice Willes thought that this had no ana-
logy to the present case. A counsel had exclusive
i
privilege of appearance n certain courts, and as
such a certain law was applicable to him.
Mr. Macaulay—And every act of his would be
illegal if not expressly legalised, for he was a main-
tainer of the suits he was engaged in. In the 2 In-
• stitute, 563, it was stated that the statute against
" maintenance " provided that no officer or other
person should take upon himself the business of
any suit ; but, added tue author, may not be
understood hereby that any person is forbid to have
of pleaders or learned men in the law for their fee,"
He submitted fnrthpr that Chore was LK, cylacuccLFJ
go to the jury of legal liability, and that there was
misdirection in this, that his lordship simply asked
the jury whether they believed the account given,
whereas he should have asked them whether they
were of opinion that the language used amounted to
an actual contract for payment, or was it simply the
language of a client promising a gift to counsel.
He, in addition, submitted that the verdict was
against the weight of evidence, for how could it be
supposed that the defendant intended to make her-
self liable for £20,000 upon an account stated, as
well as for £20,000 upon the deed ?
Rule granted upon all the points.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-April 23.

them in a form of severity. They took their risk.
The sentence upon Thompson was four years' penal
servitude, and upon Dawson, of whom so much was
not known, two years' hard labour. The Court
would order a reward of £2 to the witness Wilson,
which they thought as he had recovered the pro-
perty, the prosecutors ought to increase.

was that he thought some thieves were about the
premises. I went back afterwards to the house,
and found six panes of glass broken in one of the
windows, and in the room belonging to that win-
dow I found the shot I now produce. (The witness
here exhibited some small shot, wrapped up in
peper.)
Gray, 253 N—l heard the report of firearms and
cries for the police, and on getting up to the house
saw the prisoner coming out from between some
trees. I heard him swear at the last witness, and
saw the struggle between them on his refusal to give
up the piece.
Mr. Heritage, for the defence, said that, as he vims
instructed, the prosecutrix was a lady of the most
aggravating temper. She was constantly reproach-
ing and exciting her husband for no cause at all,
and to such a length had she carried this system of
provocation that she had either two or threo times
lodged complaints against him at the station fnr as-
saults he had not committed, and but for the prudeneo
of the inspector on duty there, who declined to ac-
cept her charges, his client would certainly have been
in custody before. He was assured that there were no
grounds whatever for this charge, as the whole was
the result of the merest accident. His client was in
the habit of discharging his fowling-piece in the
grounds, to warn thieves and frighten cats, and while
going round the garden, which was 160 ft. in length,
to see that all was secure, ho fancied he distinctly
heard a strange noise, which induced him to go into
the house for the gun. He then discharged it, but
he did not level it at the window; he fired it so
that the shot should go over the house top. Instead
of that, however, it seemed to have recoiled and
gone through the window, and the lady had at once
attributed to him the wholly unfounded motive of
a wish to fire at her. He trusted, under these' cir-
cumstances, that if the magistrate felt the Wee
should go any further, he would consent to accept
bail for his client, which could be found for almost
any amount.
Mr. Leigh could not ignore the fact of the threat
the prisoner had made towards his wife, 'followed
by the discharge of the piece, the breaking the
panes of glass, and the entrance of the shot into
the room, and he shoald therefore send the prisoner
for trial at the next sessions of the Central Criminal
Court, and should decline to accept bail.

GUILDHALL.---EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF
RAPE.—Jeremiah Whaley, a tailor, aged 23, was
charged before Alderman. Gabriel with feloniously
assaulting the promentrin, with intent.
Ann Elizabeth Richardsonj a very interesting
and pretty young girl, who gave her evidence Most
ingeniously, said—l am eighteen years of age, and
live now with my mother. I was brought up by
my grandmother in the country. I have no father.
The prisoner was formerly a lodger of my mother's,
and he has lately been in the habit of coming to the
house to see us. I have only known him about
six weeks. On the night before last I went
to bed about half-past eight o'clock, but my mother
was not at home. My room door was not
locked, because my mother had to come in
after I had gone to bed, as she slept with me. I
had been asleep some time when I was awoke by
the prisoner, whom I found undressed and in bed
with me.. I had not been disturbed by his com-
ing into the room. I screamed, and resisted him
as much as I could, but he completed his object,
and immediately afterwards got out of bed, put on
his trousers, and carried the rest of his clothes out
with him. I called to a young married woman who
lives in the next room, and she came to my assist-
ance, and the prisoner swore at her and said he
would serve her the same. She heard me scream
from first to last, but she was afraid to come to my
assistance at first. After the prisoner went away
I went with Mrs. Wall into the next room, and
afterwards we called out of the window to the night
policeman. I did not go to bed again until my
mother came home at seven o'clock in the morning.
Mary Wall said—My husband is a fireman. I
occupy the front room on the second floor, adjoin-
ing the room in which the last witness slept. I
came home about 11 o'clock, and the prisoner
opened the door for me and then went down stairs.
A few minutes after I got into my room I heard
some one come up stairs very quietly, and I im-
mediately locked my door. 1 thought T heard the
handle of Mrs. Richardson's room door turned, but
munh Pip.hardson, often
comes up after I have gone to bed. About 20 minutes
afterwards I was disturbed by hearing an exclama-
tion from the next room, followed by screaming and
a kind of groaning noise. I then heard the last
witness call out my name, as though she was
alarmed. I got up and struck a light but did not go
until I heard the prisoner come out of her room and
go out of the street door. Before leaving he called
out to me that if I interfered he would come into
me. He said that because I was making a noise to
alarm the people on the first floor. When I went
into the room prosecutrix was standing on the bed,
and she told me the prisoner had seduced her. I
then opened the window, and told the policeman
what had occurred.
Samuel Owen, a professor of music, said—l
occupy two rooms on the first floor in the house in
question. On Monday night I heard a knocking at
the street door which lasted about half an honr.
That was about 11 o'clock, and when I opened the
door a man came in, but I did not see who it was.
I am satisfied that it was the prisoner, for 1 heard
the last witness afterwards speaking to him. I
ultimately heard screaming, and a voice say, "You
have no right here. Yon are not my mother's hus-
band. I had late that evening seen the prisoner in
conversation with Mrs. Richardson, whom, I believe
he was desirous of marrying.
Keziah Richardson said—l live at No. 12, Shaftes-
bury-ylace, Aldersgate-street. lam a widow. I
have two younger children, both of whom slept in
the same room with me and my daughter Ann.
The children slept in one bed and we in the other.
The prisoner lodged with me about eight months
when I lived at No. 24 in the same place, and he

occasionally calls to see me. On Monday night I
saw him about seven o'clock at my house, and we
left to spend the evening together with a friend in
Fell-street, Cripplegate. About half-past ten
o'clock he left, and I asked him to call, and tell my
daughter not to sit up for me; as I was not coming
home, my friend having asked me to stay the night
with her. I returned home about seven o'clock,
when I found my daughter in Mrs. Wall's room,
and was informed of what had taken place.
Cross-examined—My daughter has never been
absent from home at night.
Prosecutrix re-called—The children were in bed
asleep, and that was why I called out, and they
woke up.
Cross-examined—l slept at home on Sunday week
fortnight. I have slept from home since I came
from the country. I was away at Christmas, but
not since lam certain. I was then with my aunt
at the West-end. I did not leave home a fortnight
ago, stop out all night, and return the next even-
ing.

Re-examined—l came from Bridlington, in York-
shirn nn 41.. QO4l. o£ lwak Ovbvl✓a i.
Mrs. Richardson recalled—lt is about twelve
months since the prisoner ceased to be a lodger of
mine.

Dr. Childs said—The girl was brought to me last
night by the police, and I examined her, and found
unmistakable evidences of recent violation.

Cortnell, 109 C, said—l took the prisoner into
custody on this charge yesterday afternoon in Soho.
On hearing the charge the prisoner said he knew
nothing about it; it was only a drunken "spree."
At the station he said he and the mother of the pro-
secutrix had been drinking together, and that she
asked him to tell her daughter that she was not
coming home. That he did call and got into bed,
thinking it was the mother, and not the daughter
that was in bed.

Alderman Gabriel then cautioned the prisoner in
the usual form, and upon his reserving his defence,
committed him to Newgate for trial.

MARYLEBONE.—Constance Wilson was placed
at the bar for final examination on the charge of
administering oil of vitrol to Sarah Cornell, with
intent to murder.

The former evidence in this case has already been
given, from which, it may be recollected, the pri-
soner was charged with giving to the complainant
oil of vitrol in a black draught.
_ _ _

Mrs. Cornell was recalled—, and saidthat when the
prisoner called upon her on the 13th February she
(witness) was in possession of £lO, and the prisoner
was aware of it, as she had it ready for her rent,
She was not aware that the prisoner was keeping
company with her husband.
In reply to the magistrate, she said that when-
ever the prisoner visited her she was always taken
ill after partaking of what the prisoner produced.
Mr. Yardley committed her for trial.

WORSHIP-STREET.--Yesterday Mr. Natha-
niel Chantrey was charged with shooting at his
wife with intent to murder her.

Mrs. Maria Chantrey said—l am the wife of the
prisoner, who is a gentleman, and we reside on
'fyssen-terrace, Dalston-lane, Hackney. Last night
at a little before 10 o'clock he returned home very
Tipsy, and I reproached him for staying out, saying
"It is very strange where you go to." He struck
me upon the elbow, and exclaimed "I will shoot
you ; I'll see you dead before morning." I left the
room and went up to bed, and was standing for a
short time at the side of the bed, when I was startled
by the discharge of a gun, and some shots came
through the window, breaking six panes of glass.
They fell in the room. I opened the window and
called loudly for the police, and while so doing I
saw my husband in the garden with a gun in his
hand. From the outside of the house a person could
see me standing at the side of my bed, and the shot
fell only about three yards from me. It is a small
room, and at the time the gun was discharged I was
standing certainly more than one yard from the
window. My husband is in the habit of using
dreadful language to me, and behaves so badly that
I am weary of my life.
Cross•exammed—l am not in the habit of inces-
santly abusing him, nor did I taunt him by saying
that he had some one else to go to. He is not accus-
tomed to fire in the garden to alarm thieves or de-
stroy cats. He is so illiberal that he has only allowed
me 10s. a week since the 13th of March.
Eliza Utting—l am 14,and reside with my parents
in Frederick-place, Upper Clapton. lam distantly
related to Mrs. Chantrey, with whom I was staying
last night when the prisoner came home. His wife
and he had some conversation together, when she
and I wont upstairs. After I had got into bed, and
she was standing at the side of it, I heard the dis-
charge of a gun, and some shot came into the room
through the window panes. She was then standing,
I should think, about four yards from the window.
I had heard the prisoner say before we went up
that she should not be alive in the morning.
Foden, 177 N—About 10 last night I heard loud
screams in Dalston-lane, and, on hastening to the
prosecutrix's house, I saw her at the window. In
consequence of what she said to me I went into
the back garden, and there I heard a voice,
with an oath, threaten to blow my brains out. I
went to the place where the voice seemed to come
from, and there found the prisoner with the gun I
produce in his hand. I asked him for it, but he
refused to give it up. We had a sharp struggle for
the possession of it, and on my getting hold of it he
said, "I wish there was another charge in it, and
we'd Sec who'd have it, you or I." I got the gun
from him, and took him and the piece to the station.
There I told him the charge against him, and he I
said that the reason he had discharged the piece