The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-06 00:00:00

HARRIERS.

Breconshire Tuesday, the Bulwark, Brecon—Friday,
Battle-common.
Brighton—Monday, Patcham—Wednesday, Thunder's
Barrow—Saturday, I)37k2—quarter to eleven.
Brooksend (Thanet)—Monday, Gore End—Wednesday,.
Edington Malt House—Friday, Minster Mills—half-
past ten.
B rownl ow' s, E arl—Wednesday, Broadway- farm—Satur-
day, Irvinghoe—eleven.
Clayton—Monday, Ambler Thorn—Wednesday, Tingley-
Moor—Saturday, Apperley-station—ten.
Cornwall, East—Tuesday, Bosent-cross—ten
Craven— Monday, Newfield-bridge—Wednesday, Halton-
place—Friday, Gargrave-green—eleven.
Eatnont—Monday, Packhorse, Plumpton—Thursday,
Temple Sowerby—Saturday, Skirwith—half-past ten.
Elstow—Monday, Ridgmount- station—half-past eleven—
Friday, the kennels—half-past ten
Flower's, Mr. Walter—Monday, Porton-firs—Friday, Rail.
way-arch, Upper Winterbourne—eleven.
Fowey—Monday, Golant —Thursday, Tredinnick-downs

—ten.
H. H.—Monday, Marsh-gate—Thursday, Stoke Court-

lodge—eleven.
Haldon—Wednesday, the Hariere Inn—Bridford—Satur-
day, Ide—eleven.
Hampton-Lewis's, Captain—Tuesday, Gwenfro-kiln—Fri-
day, Braint—eleven.
High Peak—Tuesday, Newhaven—Saturday, Hunter's
Meer—twelve.
Hudson's, Mr. E. H. S.—Thursday, Brioklehampton-hall

—eleven.
Langport—Monday, Drayton—Saturday, Martock-station
—half-past ten.
Lonsdale's, Earl of—Friday, Tring-wharf—twelvo
Norfolk, East—Monday, Hautbois-common—Friday,
Hempnell Inn—eleven.
North Walsham—Tuesday, Guningham-windmill—eleven.
Price's, Mr. Lloyd—Monday, hydygie—Thursday,
Whitemill—half-past ten.
Pryse's, Mr.—Monday, Llwyn-37-groeK—Thursday—Ty-
Shon-Gwillt--Saturday, Court Newydd—haff-past ten.
Boborough—Monday, The Lodge, Ringmore-do:wn•
Romney Marsh—Monday, Brenzett—Thursday, Sandy
Land—Saturday, the kennel—half-past ten.
West-street—Tueeday,:Reach-court—ThursdayArintjlam

_
—half-past ten.
Woodland Monday, Debonham-bridge WedneKlaY7
Xtatusholt—eleven.

TrrE LATE PRIZE FIG lIT.—A friend has commu-
nicated to us (Record) a letter which he has received from
Sir Morton Peto, which shows that although the hon. Bart.
does not usually interfere with the traffic on the Tilbury
Railway, yet he deemed it necessary to call
for an expla-
nation of the circumstances under which the qecial train
was granted to the prize-fighters. Sir Morton
also en-
closes the reply as follows :—" London, Tilbury;' and
Southend Railway, Fenchurch-street, Dec. 1, 1862.-- My
dear Sir Morton,—ln reply to your inquiry respecting th.?
train for the prize-fight on Wednesday last, I beg to inform
you that it was granted under the followingcircumstances.
Finding by their application that they had fixed the en-
counter to come off at some spot down the line, and that the
first train at 7.50 would be quite inadequate to take them,
to say nothing of the great inconvenience they would be
to the ordinary passengers, it was thought better to let
them have a train to themselves at an early hour, when no
ono would be annoyed by them. They agreed to go at
4.30 a.m., issued their own tickets, and made their own
charge. We charged a certain sum for the train, whici2 if
figured out would have come to the usual return ticket faro
to the district they intended going to. I assure you it is far
from our wish to have these people, but we cannot prevent
their going by the regular trains, and have had so much
trouble given by their doing so, that we thought it better
to let them go by themselves, than that they should annoy
the public.—Believe me &c.—(Signed) A. WIGIITMAJNo^
Sir M. Peto, Bart., M.P., kc.

ELOPEMENT OT A WILTSHIRE CLERGYMAN.--
Much excitement has been caused throughout the county
of Wilts during the last few days, in consequence of the
sudden disappearance of a rev. gentleman well known:
throughout the district in which he resides, and also by the•
flight with him of a person living in the same neighbour-
hood. A village in the immediate vicinity of Swindon is
the scene of the elopement. What renders the circumstance
more painful than it otherwise would have been is the fact
that the person whom the rev. gentleman has taken with hinx
is a married woman, and prior to entering into the matrimo-
nial state she lived in the house of her rev. admires as
lady's maid. We are not certain whether the rev. gentle-
man himself is married; but rumour states that he is. 11;4
said that before the elopement the rev. gentleman, whose
friends move in high circles in Worcestershire, sold out at
the Stock-Exchange, and that the proceeds realised seine
WHlSKY.—Yesterday
thousands of pounds, which the fugitives took with them.
Wo believe the woman has several children.— Western
Daily Press.
Gwhisky above proof. The
DEATH FROM
aDualtnltiNtyia:
morning a man named Thomas Burke, aged
employed in the London Docks, and by
vu years, a
labourer, expired in the London Hospital from the effects
d:ii:lrgreeded in sucking with a small tube a quan-
effreolml doawenasL( uansotabateervoedf inasnednswiblyintyb. e lie
was was picked up and the stomach pump applied, and antidotes
aduairstered, but without effect.

was*
ALLEGED LUNACY AND FALSE
IMPRISONMENT.

BALL V, sEmiILE.
This case, part heard on Thursday in the Bail
Court, was resumed yesterday in the larger Court
of the Queen's Bench._ _

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Hoddleston, Q.C.,
and Mr. Prentice appeared for the plaintiff; Mr.
Sergeant Pigot and Mr, Gordon Allen conducted

the case for the defendant.
On Thursday,
Mr. M. Chambers opened the case for the plain-
tiff, stating that he should show from various cir-
cumstances that Dr. Semple, the defendant, had
not acted bona fide under the statute, and had taken

no fair or proper means to discover whether the
. . _

plaintiff was really insane, and that , neither he nor
Guy had made a due or proper examination of them
or made any proper inquiries from friends or neigh-

bourn. The learned counsel said he should give

abundant evidence from the testimony of the plain-

tiff's near neighbours that he was well known to

be perfectly sane and sensible, and that the least
inquiry would have satisfied the defendant that he

was so.

On Friday,
Mr. Huddleston called and examined the plaintiff,
who appeared a very respectable and remarkably
sensible looking man, with a very shrewd and in-
telligent cast of countenance. He gave his evi-
dence very clearly and sensibly. He said he was
56 years of age, and had been brought up as an en-
graver for over 20 years. Afterwards he became a
dealer in china. In 1834 he was married to his
present wife, and placed her in business as a grocer,
/19 himself working meanwhile as a journeyman.
He and his wife did not live happily together.
" It commenced," said the witness, "three weeks
after we were married." They separated three
several times. He had established a shop for china
and glass in Tottenham-court-road, and still carried
on his work as an engraver. He had then for
two years been separated from his wife, and
allowed her a maintenance. These separations
were caused by her conduct, not his. He employed
men and had apprentices in his business, and, said
he, "1 never was behindhand with an order." He
had had six children by his wife, and on one occa-

sion he was induced to take her again: She came

to the shop one evening and said, "NVhat a pity it

was that they should be separated ; that she had

seen her folly, and they had children."
Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected that this could not
affect Dr. Semple.
The learned Judge said a question was raised as
to a delusion about the wife, and that made this
evidence material.

The plaintiff went on—He received her into his
house again at her entreaty. At first her conduct

was better ; but in three weeks she commenced

again—reckless extravagance—taking things away

and pawning them, and getting money and keep-
ing it. She also often made a noise; sometimes
behaving violently; would take the clothes off his
hack, &c. Her conduct compelled him to give up
his engraving, and go to the business at the shop to
look after it. That was about six years ago ; she
used to make disturbances frequently, come into the
shop:and act so as to bring crowds round and force
him to shut up his shop. _ _ _ _ .

Mr. Sergeant Pigott again objected that this
could not affect Dr. Semple, who had only known
these persons two years. How could he be affected
by these dissensions six years before ?
The learned Judge repeated that there was a
question raised as to whether these were not all
delusions on the part of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff went on with his evidence, and stated
that his wife pawned his goods, and on one occasion
he found forty duplicates under his bed.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott asked the date of this fact,
but it was not then stated.
Examination continued—He had had his wife
bound over to keep the peace more than once. He
went on to state that in 1856, when the freehold of
the house he held in Tottenham-court-road hap-
pened to be in the market, and Guy came for the
purpose, as he said, of looking at the house, he
showed him over it, and while he was doing so his
wife joined them. He perceived or suspected from
their demeanour that they knew each other.
He observed upon it to his wife, and left them, and
went downstairs to his dinner. While he was at
it Guy came in.
The learned Judge observed he hardly saw how
what Guy said or did could be material.
1

Mr. Chambers said he proposed to show a con-
spiracy or combination among all the parties.
The learned Judge said that was scarcely shown
yet sufficiently to make Guy's acts evidence
against the defendant.
The plaintiff was then asked as to an old sword,
which ha said was an old dress or theatrical sword,
which had belonged to his brother (who was dead),
and hung up by his bed. It was quite blunt. He
went on to state that on one occasion at Golden-
square, two or three years ago, his wife took some
money from his till. He followed her to see where
she went, and he saw she went to Gay's house.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to this evidence as
irrelevant.
The learned Judge said the case was peculiar, and
the charge was not only that the certificate of in•
sanity, was false, but that the defendant knew it.
The plaintiff went on to say that this Guy had
on the termer occasion made an observation about
the sword: His wife had frequently been guilty of
disturbances. She wonld come down in the morn-
ing4tnd say, " I am prepared for you, and shall
stop you from taking any money this morning."
She would go outside the door, and collect a:crowd,
and say to them, " You see that man there ; me and
my children have been up all night, he walking
about with a drawn sword, threatening to murder
me and my children." Every word of this was
false, and he had never been guilty of an act of
unkindness to her. Scarcely a week passed with-
out:something of this sort on her part. She often
borrowed money from the neighbours in his name.
?eople came to the shop continually inquiring
for her, s; taflymen" from whom she got goods,
and shopkeepers who let her have goods at so
much a week. On the 13th of June last, or
thereabouts, he saw Dr. Guy looking in at the win-
dow,—" flattening his nose against his (plaintiff's)
windows, poking his nose in, peeping in at the
shop." Ile told him to go away. With that ex-
ception Guy had never examined him, nor did he
ezamine him then. Between that day and the 28th
July, when Dr. Semple (the defendant) came, per-
sona had come to his (plaintiff's) shop, whom he did
not know, and had spoken to him. But doctors he
knew had called on him, persons whom ho had
afterwards found to be doctors, and whom he had
not Bent for. After this, on the 28th of July last,
the defendant, Dr. Semple, came, a few days before
be (the plaintiff) was taken away. That was on
the 30th of j
walkeild_is. When he zalled, said the plain-
tiff, he into my shop and said, " Is Mrs.
Hall at home
her ?” He
re;lieal said, What do you want with
wish to see her." I said,
t, I don't call her to: h I
everybody unless I know their
business. She is
b habit of running me up
bills with tallymen, andel do
not call her to any one
unless I know first What your business is." He
said, " She has a bad breast
and come to see
about She had no bad breast, I am a
faise "
:nd I said, If
she has told you so, Sir, it is
has attended
e
that " Dr. Griffiths, the medical man,
WI added
her 20 years, and she sends for
him ever she
i 4 ill, and I am sure if you are agentlern:l
you will
not lend yourself to anything of the kind:,
Mr.
Haddleston—Anything of what kind p
;inning me up a bill. I said ao.
Plain titi—B
expression, " Her intention is only
/ailed the °IP - -0 run
bill." I mentioned where Dr. Griffiths
me up a
which is close to my house,
lived, in Gower-street,
and close to that of Dr. Semple, who lives in Tor-
ass have to pass the door in
rington-square, find would
going back. After what I have stated my wife,
h o appeared to have been watching, showed her-
Then Pr. Semple
self at the bottom of the shop.
walked towards her, and I walked towards them at
the bottom of the shop. I said to him, " Perhaps,
Sir, you are not aware of the unhappf state in
which I and my wife live; how she is in the
habit of running me in debt." He said, " Then
it appears you are the injured party ? 1 have
heard something of this. My name is Dr. Semple.

" Oh," I said, "if you know all about it, I need say
nothing more ;" and I walked back to tha front of
the shop, and I said no more. That was the whole
of the conversation which took place between us.
It did not last ten minutes, and he left almost
directly. I was not at all excited, n d expressed
myself as Ido now. I never said to him that she
was improperly associating with other men; nothing
of the kind.

The learned Judge—Do you mean that you never
said that to anybody at any time ?
Plaintiff—No, my lord.
Mr. Huddleston—Were you " guilty of repeated
acts of violence ?" (reading from the certificate
stated in the plea of justification) ; did you threaten
her life or often assault her ?
Plaintiff—No.
Mr. Huddleston (still reading from the plea)—
Did you sleep with a drawn sword, &c.?
Plaintiff—No ; the only sword is the one I have
mentioned, and an old sword-stick with the handle

on.
Mr. Huddleston—Did you ever threaten to mur-
der any ono who approached you ?
Plaintiff—No.
Mr. Huddleston—Did you ever threaten to stab
her?

Plaintiff—No.
Mr.Huddleston—Was your appearance then as it
is now, for I see he says you had a wild and staring
look ?

Plaintiff—lt was as quiet as it is now.
Mr. Huddleston then elicited further from the
plaintiff that he had on several occasions consulted
solicitors about his wife, and that solicitors had
attended police courts for him. There was no in-
terview between him and Dr. Semple besides what
he had stated, before he was taken. He had never
had three days' illness, except from a cold. He
was not at all given to drinking. The plaintiff
went on to state that two ao.j. a£to,r ti-aa Interview
with the defendant—that is, on the 30th of July—
he was coming home at 11 at night from some
neighbours, with whom he had been gossiping.
He was going into his house with a latch-key.
A man was lounging against the door, and said,
"Is your name Hall ?" I said (continued the plain-
tiff), " Yes; what do you want with me ?" He said,
" Some of your friends have got a supper, and are
very jolly, and want you to come and join them."
(Laughter.) I said, " You must make a mistake ;
you cannot mean me." I put the key in the door,
and found it was fastened. One of the men placed
himself before me, and said, "You must go with
us ;" and he threw his arm round my neck, and
another round my waist, and they tried to force me
into a cab which instantly drew up. I struggled
desperately, but they carried me off the ground to
the cab door. I resisted violently, and put one
arm through the coach door and one through the
spokes of the wheel. Then my neighbours and
friends came out and got round me. The men said
to the police they had a right to take me, and
showed a paper which the policeman said he could
not read by that light. I insisted on my being
taken to the station, or their being taken. When
we went to the station—with a crowd of 50 people
—I said to the inspector, " These men say they
have authority to take me, be kind enough to look
at it." He did so, and said," Yes, Mr. Hall, it is a
legal document, and I would advise you to go
quietly with them." Upon that advice I acted and
got into the cab. The men then got into it with
me and drove towards Fulham. On the road they
stopped at a public-house, and said, " You gave us
a pretty good busting and we are getting thirsty,"
and they would like something to drink. They
had some brandy and water and I some beer, and I
paid for it all, but I thought they might have put
something in the porter and I threw it out of the
window. (Laughter.) We went to Munster-house
Asylum, Fulham. We got there between 12 and
lin the morning. I was placed in a ward among
a lot of other madmen.
This unconscious slip caused some merriment.
The plaintiff went on to say he was put in a
ward with a lot of madmen, the keeper being with
them ; and he wished particularly to state, as
showing what the keeper must have thought of
the state of his mind, that he lent him (the plain-
tiff) a razor the next' morning to shave himself.
In the evening of that day he saw Dr. Stone. That
was on the Thursday. Re had no communication
, with friends or relatives till Saturday. They had
called, he believed, but had been forbidden to see
him. On the Saturday his daughter called, and was
kindly allowed to see him, and bring him a clean
shirt. On the Saturday he was taken before the
Commissioners and examined for more than an hour,
and after that Mr. Elliotson, the master of the
asylum (who behaved very kindly to him), told
him he was discharged, and invited him, as he had
been so worried, to go down with him to Worthing
and stay a few days with him, which he did, and
stayed four days, taking his meals with the family
and spending his evenings with them. Then he
went home and was again subject to annoyance by
his wife. He remembered Dr. Webb and Dr.
Semple coming. That was on the 27th of Septem-
ber. Dr. Webb came first and examined him. After
that, Dr. Semple came. At that time the plaintiff
said he had instructed his attorney to commence an
action (which had been in fact begun in August)
and, in consequence of his attorney's advice to have
no conversation with him he walked upstairs. The
plaintiff continued:—When I got upstairs I found
him behind me. He said, " Now don't run away,
poor fellow. (.Laughter.) lam not going to hurt
you"—(laughter)—patting me on the back. (Great
laughter.) I pushed by him, got downstairs into
the shop, and sent for two of my neighbours and said
when they came, "Now, Dr Semple, anything you
have to say you can say it in the presence of these
gentlemen." He commenced speaking, and my
friends pushed me away and said, " You had better
say nothing." I went on one side, but heard my
wife running on, and saying, "Dr. Semple, can't I
take goods out of the shop and pawn them ? "Yes,
Mrs. Hall, certainly," he said, " you can do what
you like." Then I got further away, for I felt in-
clined to make a reply, and I got near to the door.
I don't recollect his saying anything as to my charg-
ing my wife with anything.. I went out and walked
across the road. My wife had had a summons
against me at Marlborough- street the same day
before Dr. Semple came, in which she charged me
with having kicked her. That was false. Dr.
Semple and three other medical men appeared,
and my wife appeared with attorney and counsel,
and I was attended by my solicitor, Mr. Lewis.
I heard questions put to my wife by Dr. Semple in
my presence. I heard him ask her, " Now who
found the money for this P" She only smiled. The
plaintiff went on to state that he had found con-
cealed among his wife's papers the certificate he
now produced. It was beneath the pillow of his
wife's bed ; she had absented herself from his for
six years.
This certificate was then put in and read. It
ran thus :
" I hereby certify that Mrs. Hall is an illused
woman, and that there is no truth in the infamous
charges brought against her, but that she deserves
the sympathy of her friends and of the public."
This was signed by the defendant, Dr. Semple.
This concluded the examination in chief of the
plaintiff, which had lasted about an hour and a
half, and throughout the whole of which he cer-
tainly had shown the most perfect sense and self-
collectedness.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott then cross-
Unhappy differences, he said, had existed
his wife and him for six years, and she had refused
to share his bed. ex'aininbedetwheimen.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Are you subject to violent
passion
Plaintiff—No ; but when excited on some few
occasions I may have expressed myself with warmth,
as most men have.
Have Yon not been in the habit of ill-treating
your wife ?
No, not ill-treating her—not to use that word.
Have you never struck her ?—No.
Kicked her ?--No. iwas accused of it at Marl-
borough-street.
Have you not struck her ou the breast ?—No.
Were you intimate with one Harriet Sarson ?
Yes.
Was she godmother to two of your children ?
Yes. He wen.
t on to state that he had allowed his

wife when separate from her 10s. a week with four
children. That was 12 years ago. He went and
took lodgings. He then carried on business as
an engraver. He was separated then from her two
years. It was after that she asked him to come
back and live with her. Harriet Sarson visited
him at Tottenbam-court-road. She was there
once.

nave you thrown a carving knife at your wife
while she was sitting at table with a child ?
Never.

Have you thrown slops over your wife P—Never.
Have you torn the curtains down in a violent
state?--No,never.

Nothing of the kind ?—No.
Called her names ?—I have used some harsh ex-
pressions sometimes. I may have d—d her when
she has been kicking up her disturbances.
Was d—d b—h one of the harsh expressions ?
I dare say it may have been when she has been
going on so.

Did you ever charge her with adultery ?—Never.

The plaintiff was asked whether, when he saw
Guy in 1856, he had not said to his wife that she
seemed to take an interest in him. He stated that
what he had said was, that, as she seemed to know
the matter better than he did, she had better answer
him.

Were you jealous of your wife at that time P—No.
You left them, and went away to your dinner,
although you never saw him before P—Yes. She
answered his questions.
Were you not in the habit of charging her with
having fellows after her P—No, but with having
people after her for debts.
Did you not charge Guy with coming after hery—
No, but with coming improperly to the house.
Had not your wife a bad breast P—No.
Had you not struck her?—N3.

Was not her breast discoloured? I never saw
her breasL ruK yearn. ethe luta rcrubea iu uanfoit
with me for years.

You mean to swear you bad never struck or
kicked ha P—No, never.

She used, you say, to run out to the neighbours ?
—Yes.

Do you say she is mad ?—I never charged her
with it.

How do you account for her running out to the
neighbours about you ?—I can't account for it, ex-
cept her disposition to persecute me.
He was then pressed as to the sword and sword-
stick, but he denied ever taking them up to his
wife. He said she rarely was in his bedroom, and
he never quarrelled with her there. He knew a
person named Cash, a milliner, but did not com-
mit adultery with her. "No," said he, "I have
found one woman enough for me. (Laughter.) She
weighs 16 stone." (Laughter) He was asked fur-
ther as to imputations about the woman mentioned,
and explained his visits to the house by an acquaint-
ance with some one else there. His wife had often
charged him with improper intimacy with this and
other women. He repeated that he had never
charged his wife with adultery or drunkenness.
He repeated again that he had never told Dr.
Semple so. On the 27th of September he had been
bound over to keep the peace in his own recognis-
ance for £lO.

This closed the cross-examination, which lasted
only half an hour, and which certainly had not
shaken his evidence nor disturbed his demeanour.

Re- examined by Mr. Huddleston, he explained
the occasion on which he had done what caused the
magistrate to bind him over. He stated that his
wife had been guilty of some neglect of his children,
and he had said to her, "This is like your d—d
impudence," and he had removed her dinner on to
the dresser (as she was eating it before giving the
children theirs) ; she said, " I'll give you a turn for
this," and ran downstairs to the shop to go out at
the door and raise a disturbance. He ran after her,
and she cried out, "He has kicked me," That was
not true. She said to the servant girl, "You saw
it, didn't you ?" The girl could not have seen them,
as she was in the kitchen, but called out, " Yes,
ma'am"—(a laugh)--although she could not have
seen it, if it had been so. This was what his wife
had complained of, and the magistrate had bound
him over, but had said—
Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to that, and it was
not pursued.
Mr. Huddleston then re-examined as to the
woman Sarson, but

f Mr. Sergeant Pigott said he had not imputed
improper intimacy in respect to her.
The plaintiff went on to say that he had left his
wife 12 years ago because he had found the pawn-
tickets under her bed. He had allowed her 102.,
and at another time 16s. a week, when his own
wages were 355. a week or thereabout. When Guy
came, in 1856, he said, looking at the sword,
" You seem to be well prepared," and the plaintiff
said he told him to leave the house. That was all
the interview which had taken place between him
and Guy before the latter signed the certificate, ex-
cept when he saw him peeping in at the house, and
also on another occasion, when he had followed his
wife to Guy's house. He went on to say that his
wife would of a morning or an evening " tuck up
her sleeves" and say she would give him a turn,
and then go to the door and kick up a disturbance.
His wife had often threatened him.

This closed the examination of the plaintiff, who
preserved throughout most entire self-collectedness.
Mr. Wren, one of plaintiff's neighbours, was called
to confirm his evidence. He said he had known him
for years, and had dealings with him in business.
He was present on the occasion of the arrest. He
had seen him on that day, and conversed with him,
so as to know the state of his mind, and there was
nothing the matter with him. Since he came home
the witness said he had seen him constantly, and
observed no symptom of unsoundness of mind. The
witness was one of those who were sent for by
the plaintiff on the 27th of September, when Dr,
Semple and Dr. Webb were there, and he described
what took place on that occasion. He heard Dr.
Semple say to the plaintiff " You have charged your
wife with committing adultery," and the plaintiff
denied that he had done so. Then Dr. Semple said
" Yes, you have, and I've got proof of it, and there-
fore turn her out into the street," The wife said to
the witness " Did you ever know me to do anything
wrong ? " Witness said " Not of my own personal
knowledge." She then applied to the other neigh-
bour, a Mr. Davy, and asked a similar question.
The plaintiff's daughter, Mrs. Harding, was present,
and said thereupon " Yes, I have known you do
several things; I have known you put jalap into my
father's coffee." (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Pigott objected to this, as not affect-
lnghis client, defendant. It was what took place
after that which was the subject matter of the action.

Mr. Chambers insisted that it was evidence of
malice, or want of bona fides, coupled with what he
should prove Dr. Semple said, after hearing all this
--that the daughter accused the wife of pledging
her husband's goods.
The witness went on to say that Mrs. Hall
spoke to Dr. Semple, and said, "Am I not justi"
fled in doing so ?" (i.e., pledging goods), and he
said she was, and began to ask the daughter ques-
tions,which the witness told her not to answer. Dr.

Semple was then about to approach the interior
the house, when the plaintiff said he objected, and
that if he persisted he should call a policeman. Dr.
Semple said, "Do so, by all means; that is what
I want." The witness went on to say that, be-
fore July 28, Dr. Semple had never called on him
to make inquiries as to the plaintiff's state of
mind. The witness had seen the disturbances
spoken to by the plaintiff, and known occasions
when the shop had to be closed on account of them.
Ho had not noticed the conduct of Mrs. Hall in
particular.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott—These
disturbances had taken place repeatedly within

~.
the_ last few years. Crowds were often about the
house.

____
Davy, the other neighbour who was present on
the occasion above alluded to, said he told Dr.
Semple "If either of those two are mad [mean-
ing the plaintiff or his wife], this is the one,"
pointing to the wife. (A laugh.) "If it was me,"
continued the witness, " I should leave this night."
The 'witness confirmed the evidence of the preceding
witness as to what occurred on the occasion.
Mpr.Elitxiot,
had
ae proprietor of
noefd,thewwlyclallumedwasherae
uun
the ' •

witness. He Was not, himself a medical man, but
he had upwards of 20 years' experience of in-
sanity. He had examined the plaintiff again and
again, and discovered no indications of insanity.
He had repeated conversations with him, and tested
him closely respecting the statements in the certifi-
cate. The plaintiff spoke of his wife's conduct,
especially iu having him up before the magistrates,
and her extraordinary character and behaviour.
and he spoke to statements of his contained in the
certificates themselves, and asserted their truth. In
particular, he stated that his wife was ruining him
by continually annoying him in his business, &e.
He did not remember anything being said as to his
alleged statement that his wife had gone with other
men.

Mr. Chambers—Was it your opinion that he was
labouring under any delusion ?
Witness (with great gravity and deliberation).—
My opinion was that, if the facts he stated were
true, he was not under any delusion. (Laughter.)
The witness went on to state that on the Ist of
August the defendant wrote to him the following
letter :

" Sir,—l heard with surprise that it is in contemplation
to send opt of your asylum a man named Hall, who was
taken there the other day. As the man is, in my opinion, a
dangerous lunatic, and he is now confined under legal
authority—one of the certificates being signed by himself—
I beg that he may not be discharged until his wife, who is in
danger of her life, has an opportunity of laying her case
before the Commissioners in Lunacy, to whom she will ap-
peal immediately ; and I am willing to appear before the
Commissioners to justify my own conduct in the matter."

This letter was signed and sent by the defendant,
and caused some sensation.
The witness went on to state that the Commis-
sioners in Lunacy, Mr. Latwidge and Dr. Nairne,
had examined the plaintiff very carefully, and in
consequence of their report he discharged him.
Mr. Chambers—ln your judgment, was he sane
1a5a.•.16,
Witness—l should say he was sane.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott, in cross-examination, asked
whether delusions as to a wife's infidelity might
not be a sign of lunacy ?
Witness said they might be.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—May not jealousy bo a dan-
gerous delusion ?
Mr. Justice Crompton—lt may and does lead
often to bad consequences, as we know; but as to
insanity ?
The witness said if the jealousy were accompanied
with violence and were utterly groundless it might
be a dangerous delusion and a sign of insanity. He
was pressed as to whether the plaintiff had not been
discharged partly from an irregularity in Guy's
certificate, which was founded on an examination
not within the preceding week, as required by the
Act. He said that it was so, and he produced a
copy of these entries in the books of the asylum.
6' Visitors' book," August 2 :
" We had a long and special interview with the patient
last received (Hall), and which suggested the necessity of a
full inquiry into his case and history. In examining the
certificates under which he was admitted on the 31st ult.
it appeared that one of them, dated on the 29th of July, was
founded on a visit to the patient on the 13th of June, and is
consequently wholly invalid. It follows that the patient
can no longer be legally detained."

" Patients' Book," August 2 :
" The patient referred to was admitted on the 31st ult.
The second certificate is signed by Mr. Guy, and is invalid,
by reason of his stating that he examined the patient on the
15th of June."

Mr. M. Chambers, re-examining the witness, if
you had believed the plaintiff a dangerous lunatic
would you have discharged him ?
Witness—l did not consider him a lunatic at all.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that there was
no case on either of the counts or charges.

The learned Judge said it seemed to him at
present that it all turned upon whether the de-
fendant knew that the certificate was untrue; as-
suming it to be so, the absence of belief of truth
would be evidence of malice.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott submitted that there was
no evidence of want of reasonable and probable

cause.

The learned Judge said he was not quite sure
if that was necessary, as it was not like an action
for a malicious prosecution ; but probably it would
come to this, whether the plaintiff had acted bona
fide and with a real belief in the truth of his certi-
I ficate.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott said that was the view he
took of the case, and he should propose to address
the jury to morrow- (this morning). _

. .
And at five o'clock the case was accordingly ad.
journed.

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Dec. 5.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex.—(Beforo Mr.
Justice Wines and a Special Jury.)

ROBBINS V. JONES.-THE LATE ACCIDENT IN THE

WATERLOO-ROAD.

The plaintiff in this case was the widow and
Robins,ad-
who was killed by the
and flag stones in the
time W-
aterloo-road
tng
,and she claimed damages
ag o
for the loss which she had sustained by his death.
The declaration alleged that the defendant, Cap-
tain Jones, was possessed of houses adjoining a
public footway, that the property was in a dan-
gerous condition, and that he let it, and permitted
it to be continued in the same dangerous state, and
that by reason of this the deceased fell through and
was killed. The defendant pleaded various tra-
verses, and in addition that the place was no part
of a public footway, and that the deceased was,
with others, there unlawfully, and that this caused
the place to fall in.
Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Martin appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Lush and Mr. D. Keane for the
defendant.

The deceased was, at the time of his death, about
27 years of age, and he was earning two guineas
a week as foreman to his father, a carver, guilder,
and frame maker in the Waterloo-road. The defen-
dant, Captain Jones, lived at Croydon, and he held
upon lease from the Marquis of Salisbury several
houses in the Waterloo-road, and amongst others,
198 and 199. In August, 1860, he let 198 to
Messrs. Jeffs, who, how ever, shortly afterwards
became bankrupt, and Captain Jones, not being
paid his rent, put in a distress upon the per-
sons to whom Messrs. Jeffs had underlet. The
man in possession, however, having been got out,
the door was barred against him, and he thereupon
endeavoured to break in, the tenants in the mean-
time doing their best to remove their furniture.
This caused a crowd to assemble, and a number of
people having stood upon the grating and flagged
footway, it gave way with them, and they fell down
a great depth. The plaintiff's counsel contended
that any person owning property like this which
the public had acquired the right of passing over,
WAS bound to keep it in a safe state, and that
whether the spot formed part of the public way or
not was not material, for even if it adjoined the
public way, there was still the duty to keep it in a
safe state. It might be said that Messrs. Jeffs were
the persons who should be sued, but it was sub-
mitted if a person possessed property which was
in a dangerous state, and let it in that state, he was
liable for any injury sustained in consequence. It
would be proved by the witnesses that in April,
1859, notice was given by the parish authorities to
Capt. Jones that the place was dangerous, and al-
though it was denied that they had any authority
to interfere, still it showed that the captain had
notice of the facts. No steps however were taken
to carry out the suggestions of the surveyor until
after the accident had occurred. _ _

Witnesses were called to prove the facts above
stated.
Mr. Lush then submitted that the defendant was
not liable, inasmuch as at the time of the accident
neither the deceased nor the other persons were
using the spot for the ordinary purpose for which it
was intended. It was simply constructed for the
purpose of allowing persons to pass across to the
houses, and not for a crowd to assemble upon it.
Further, it was submitted that the deceased by his
own want of care contributed to the accident. An-
other point was, that Messrs. Jeffs were bound by
covenant to repair, and that therefore the defendant
was not responsible.
Hislordship thought that it would be the most
convenient course to leave the case to the jury, but he
would reserve to the defendant leave to move the
court, upon the questions of law.
The defendant's case was that he had a few years
ago come into possession of the property, and had
,
at that time no reason to believe that it was in a
dangerous state. In 1859 Mr. Legg, a retired
builder, examined the place, and thought it safe,and the same conclusion was arrived at by Messrs.
Jeffs, who were themselves builders, and by the
surveyor of the Marquis of Salisbury.
His lordship asked the jury
a great number of
Iquestions, which they having answered stated that
`they found for the plaintiff, and 4°4°4° the

damages at £2BO, being £2OO for the widow, and
£BO for the child of the deceased.
sF.AmAN V. LORD KEANE AND OTHERS.-THE
AFFAIR OF THE BANK OF DEPOSIT.

This was an action against Lord Keane. the Rev.
Wm.l3ean, ofßrixtou and Weerthing,and Dr. Henry
Clarke, of Southampton, who had been directors of
the Bank of Deposit, in order to recover damages
in consequence of the plaintiff having been induced
by false representations to become an agent of the
bank, and having suffered in consequence.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Collier, Mr. Ribton, and Mr. Daly appeared
for the plaintiff; Mr. Bovill, Mr. Welsby, and Mr.
Archbold for Lord Keane, and Mr. Digby Seymour
and Mr. Warton for the other defendants.

Mr. Collier, in his opening speech, said that the
plaintiff was a gentleman who resided at Plymouth,
and the defendants were the chairmen and two
directors of an association that had attained an un-
enviable notoriety—the Bank of Deposit. He be-
lieved that it would scarcely be contradicted that
this Bank of Deposit had been one of the most
gigantic swindles of the present ago, and although
they might be already aware of the circum-
stances to some extent, it would be his duty
to state a short outline of the case. Mr. Sea-
man was induced to accept the agency of this
society by false representations as to its solvency
and prosperity, when it had been for 10 years
and more in a hopeless state, and he was induced to
open a branch at Plymouth, and to obtain from a
vast number of persons their deposits from hard
earnings, which amounted in the whole to £5.000
odd, When the bank failed in Nov., 1861, a howl
of indignation was raised against him, he was called
upon to pay back the deposits, and he tried to re-
trieve himself by starting another society, but he
failed, because people refused to join him on account
of his having been associated with this bank. Un-
der these circumstances he was obliged to bring this
action to show that he was no party to these frauds,
and also to recover damages for the injury which he
had sustained. He (Mr. Collier) would give them
a history of this bank. It had its origin in the
National Investment and Assurance Association,
which was established in 1844 by deed poll, and
-,,k;nh had its office in Lancaster-plane, and carried
on a quiet unpretending business. t4ubsequently
fresh—but by no means a better—blood was infused
into this society, and Mr. Peter Morrison joined it
about this time, as, in fact, did also Lord Keane.
When the change took place a deed of settlement
was entered into, and every provision of that deed
had been systematically violated by the defendants.
The plan was that the funds of the Association
should be divided into three classes; the first was
the Mutual Investment Fund, and under this head
came all the deposits ; the second was the Mutual
Assurance Fund ; and, third, the General Fund.
The holders of mutual stock, it was said, " Are
to be entitled to interest on the amount of stock
held by them not exceeding 5 per cent. per
annum, as shall be from time to time determined
by the Board of Management, to be payable solely
out of the profits that shall have accrued from the
investment fund." From that time, however,
there never was one shilling of profit upon this
Mutual Investment Fund, and yet for ten years
they paid interest, and from what fund ? why, out of
the deposits. So that if a man deposited £5 or 55.,
for they were not above taking so small a sum, he
was paid interest—out of his own money. The re-
port of Messrs. Harding and Pulling, the account-
ants, stated—" We do not find that any profit has
at any time arisen from the business that has been
carried on. The following analysis of the entries
in the books shows the gradual progress, of insol-
vency from 1852." It went on—" The amounts
inserted in the first column does not include any
loss upon bad debts or insufficient investments, as
it does not appear that such items have been dealt
with," so that the accounts were most favouable for
the bank ; but still it appeared that the loss in 1852
was £4,900, and the amount due to depositors,
£4,300 ; in 1853, loss £12,259 ; due to depositors,
£30,543 ; in 1854, loss £18,105; due to deposi-
tors, £79,196 ; in 1855, loss £33,000 ; due
to depositors, £llB,OOO ; in 1856, loss
£48,000 ; due to depositors, £164,000 ; in
1857, loss £66,000 ; due to depositors, £179,000 ;
in 1858, loss, £92,000 ; due to depositors, £226,000 ;
in 1859, loss £112,000 ; due to depositors, £296,000 ;
and in 1860 the loss amounted to £147,000, and the
sum due to depositors to £348,000. Was not this
an astounding state of circumstances, that the loss
had increased to £147,000, and yet all this time they
were inducing unhappy depositors to deposit more
and more with them ? Now, a few words as to the
capital. In the prospectus it was stated that the
capital was £lOO,OOO ; but that was false, for the
whole amount that was nominally subscribed was
£20,000, and the real amount was not more than
£12,000. The accountant's report stated, "Many
of the printed documents contained the words and
figures, Capital stock £100,000,' but it does not
appear on investigating the capital stuck account
that the amount has at any time exceeded £20,000,
and of this amount only £8,593 appears to have
been paid for in cash ; £7,100 appears to have
been issued in satisfaction of a claim against the
association, and £4,357 arises from amounts
entered to the credit of parties as cash
payments by them for capital stock. Such amounts
however were not really paid, but were at the same
time charged to them in another account as loans,
and which loans still remain unpaid." Lord Keane
began, for instance, by, being put down as holding
capital stock to the amount of £soo—a part of this
£20,000 ; yet Lord Keane never paid a farthing,
for he was put down on one side of the account as
holding £5OO stock, upon which ',he received divi-
dends every year; and on the other side there was
lent to Lord Keane £5OO, upon which he was
charged interest, so that it was altogether a mere
juggle. In truth, their capital never exceeded
£lO,OOO, whilst their debts were hundreds of thou-
sands. Lord Keane became a director and a member
of the finance committee soon after he signed the
deed in 1851 ; and in 1857, upon Lord Geo. Paget,
the chairman, leaving the company, because he dis-
approved of a most improper gambling speculation
that they bad entered into with a certain Impe-
rial Company in Paris, Lord Keane became chair-
man, and remained so until the time of failure. The
members of the company formed only a private
partnership, they never having been incorporated;
but in 1851 they obtained an act which entitled them
to sue and be sued as a corporation. They then ex-
tended their business in all directions, and took an
office in Pall-mall East and established branches in
all parts of the country ; they advertised most ex-
tensively, and they did all that they could to obtain
deposits, both large and small. Their annual lia-
bility for advertising and for working expenses
amounted to no less than £82,000, and their receipts
never were one-half that, and they must have known
perfectly well the state of their affairs. His learned
friend would perhaps say it was all that Peter Mor-
rison ; but whilst Mr. Morrison remained in Eng-
land the directors supported him, though, when he
went abroad, they threw all the blame upon him,
and said that they knew nothing about it. The
£82,000 was the expenses in London only, that for
the whole country being £154,000 a year. The ad-
vertising in London was £25,000, salaries
£15,000, and the directors received £13,700. The
bank stopped in November, 1861; but in the last
year, when they were upon the brink of irrecover-
able ruin, they received over the counter £30,000,
none of which was entered in the books, and what
became of it nobody knew. At the time of the fail-
ure there appeared to the credit of sundry depositors
and holders of investment stock £362,000, and to
other creditors £2,000, whilst to the account of
assets there was, cash at bankers, £32 7s. 7d.--(a
laugh)—in hand £2610x. 4d, ; and then there were
various debts which were estimated to realise
£37,000, and other property £4,000, so that alto-
gether the estate was calculated to produce £55,000.
The jury might be inclined to ask how the bank
got rid of the money, and he could throw but
a feeble and imperfect light upon that matter, but
he could refer to how the prospectus said that
they were to deal with their funds. It said—
" This company is established to open to the public
an easy, and safe mode of investment. (Laugh-
ter.) The bank of Deposit differs from ordinary
banks in the mode of employing its capital.
(Loud laughter.) The Rev. Mr. Bean, speaking,
in the prospectus, said, "We are not as other
banks." (Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Bovill hoped that his learned friend would
confine himself to the cause of the action.
Mr. Justice Willis—The cause of the action being
getting the plaintiff to enter into the service of the
defendants by false representation.
Mr. Collier continued—The prespectus said, " The
money deposited with this company being princi-
pally lent upon well-secured life interests and re-
versions on Government funds and other property
of undoubted security. The interest, which has
never been less than 5 per cent. upon ordinary de-
posits, is payable half-yearly in January and July."
One of the complaints of the plaintiff was that he
was induced to join the company by
a statement
that it was solvent, and there was a statement that
they were so solvent that they were paying their
interest half-yearly. Now as to their investments.
They got up a bubble company in Paris, called the
Imperial, and they exchanged shares and had trans-
actions with that company, which resulted in
L 20,000 loss. They established the State Insurance
Company, which had the same direction as the
bank, and that company had been wound up, and
never paid a farthing. The directors of the bank
took 50,000 one-pound shares in the State Office,
and they paid upon them £35,000 out of the depo-
sitors' money, and they also made a loan of £9,000
which was likewise swallowed up. What they
did with respect to the State Fire Office they did
in the case of the Consols and also of the Agricul.