The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MOSIDAY EVE.*UNG, MARCH 31, 1862.

plates ; he had used them in his own ships; he had
believed in them; and he had practically seen great
advantages arise from them with regard to spherical
shot. But the Armstrong gun had taught him to
change his opinion, and to prefer the 41 inch plate
upright to an equivalent plate on the slope.
Capt. HALSTED—What is an equivalent plate ?

Mr. SCOTT RUSSELL—At an angle of 45 aeg. the
thickness is reduced in the ratio of from 10 to 7, as
in the experiments which I witnessed.

Capt. HALSTED—There have been no such expe-
riment:3.

Mr. SCOTT RUSSELL--." Then I have not seen
what I have seen." He (Mr. Russell) would only
add that we may use inclined plates, if we please,
where we want them ; but if we do we must have
them as thick as if they were upright, because, as
Mr. Reed had just said, they could otherwise be
penetrated by depressed fire. We ought at present,
he believed, to use nothing less than 43in. iron,
whether it be upright or inclined. As to the use of
partial protection there was no difference of opinion
among practical men. Complete protection was cer-
tainly desirable ; but if the Warrior had been plated
from end to end she would have rolled fearfully,
and would have pitched many of her bow ports
under the water. Again, if complete protection had
been given to her, as to La Gioire, her ports would
have gone down to within six feet instead of nine
feet of the water. You could of course get additional
armour by such a change as that; and nobody
knew that fact better than the designer of the
Warrior ; but they had to make a choice of disad-
vantages, and prepared a fast, seaworthy ship,
with lofty ports, to a low, and slower, and un-
seaworthy ship. If wholly protected ships must
be had, there was no difficulty in building
them, but they must take certain bad qualities
with them, and must be prepared to pay the cost.
At the same time it should be remembered that in
the case of the Warrior the fighting quarters were
within the armour, and naval men informed him
that when the ship was to be fought at close quar-
ters the men would he within the shelter of the
armour, The constructors of the Warrior, whether
or no, had no choice, nor had they any now, when
a fleet of small protected vessels must be built, and
to which complete protection could not be given.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said the question which
has been raised is one of extreme interest, for it
touches alike our feelings and our pockets, and,
after what has fallen from Captain Halsted, I will
venture to offer a few remarks upon the subject. It
may be presumptuous, perhaps, in me to do so, be-
cause I am conscious that I am speaking in the
presence of a large assembly, composed principally
of professional men, who are either naval architects
or sailors. But there may be present some persons
who are neither the one nor the other, and I, for
one, as an English gentleman, must say that unless
Capt. Halsted is prepared to completely bear out
all he has said I should be extremely sorrow for his
statements to go forth to the public as true. On the
other hand, I feel that, on this subject as on others,
we must not shrink from the truth, and if mistakes
have been made the wisest policy will be to admit
them, and endeavour hereafter to correct them. The
importance of the subject cannot be over-estimated.
I have heard the remarks of Capt. Halsted with
pleasure, and think he was right to avail himself of
such an opportunity as this to state the views
which he entertains ; and we must all admit the
value of any opinion formed by an officer of such
experience. I confess I was particularly desirous
of hearing his views, because, although this is the
first occasion on which I have had the pleasure
of listening to them, I have heard a good deal of
them in various quarters. In fact, if I may imitate
the plainness of speech of which Captain Halsted
has himself set us the example, I may say that I
have been told that it is a favourite amusement of
my hon. and gallant friend to go about the'eountry
and make out, as regards the Warrior and other
ships of her class, that not only have great mistakes
been made, but that those ships are absolutely
good for nothing. We have, indeed, heard Captain
Halsted to-day assert that the Warrior, although
a large and carefully-designed ships of 6,000 tons,
is no man-of--war; that she cannot be regarded as a
fighting ship. Now, there is a tendency in human
nature, from which even British naval officers are
not necessarily exempt, and in consequence of which
a man who has mounted his hobby is apt to ride it
a little too hard; and I confess that I feel great
sympathy for Captain Halsted, for if ever a hobby
was ridden to death, that of my hon. and gallant
friend on my left certainly has been. Upon one
question there can be no doubt whatever. If we
were to meet a man of ordinary understanding and
say to him, " Give me your opinion ; we are going
to build some large ships and cover them more or
less ;with iron armour ; do you think they would be
better protected altogether or only in part ?" He
would unquestionably reply, " Of course, protect
them altogether." No doubt of it. But we must
recollect that even now we are only in the infancy
of this great change in marine architecture, and
three or four years ago were much more so, and
there are, therefore, a great many questions to be
well considered; and, above all, there are two
things to be especially attended to. Shall I not be
corect if I say that in constructing a man-of-
war it is most important to combine in these
days great speed with good sea-going qualities?
I speak under correction of those ait ho may be
more entitled than I to pronounce an opinion upon
this subject, bat I am persuaded that you will all
agree with me in believing that speed and sailing
qualities are in these days primarily essential. Now,
the Warrior and other vessels of that class were
designed with the express intention of securing
these two great qualities, oven at the expense of
total protection. It was the desire of the Admi-
ralty in trying that experiment that these ships
should not be mere floating batteries, but fit to en-
counter the worst seas, and to go to India, America,
or wherever the exigencies of the country might
render their presence desirable, and I firmly believe
I am justified in saying that the Warrior class has
attained this great end. lam also justified, I be-
lieve, in asserting that the Warrior is the very
fastest man-of-war in the world. May not this be
regarded as a great fact accomplished ?
Captain HALSTED—I never disputed the speed of
the -Warrior, and no one admires her form more
than I have done.

Sir JOHN PAKINGTON—Then that portion of my
hon. and gallant friend's hobby is out away. He
admits her unrivalled speed ; and, after what hap-
pened in the Bay of Biscay the other day, I believe
if there ever was a great fact placed beyond con-
tradiction it is this, that under an unusually severe
trial—so severe a trial that Captain Cochrane con-
sidered himself peculiarly fortunate in having en-
countered weather so bad—the excellent properties
of the Warrior in a sea-way have been fully estab-
lished. Thus is another portion of Captain Hal-
sted's hobby gone. We now come to, perhaps, the
most important point of all. The speed and seas
worthy qualities of the ship having been esta-
blished, Captain Halsted asserts. that the Warrior
is not fit to go into action, because • she is only
partially protected ; that, having at her extre-
mities only, a thin iron skin, unprotected by ar-
mour plates, she might be readily shot through
and the water might rush • in. But I wish to ask
this question—if she be shot through at her extre-
mities, what will happen P I presume with regard
to the portion of her armament which is in her un-
protected part, that these guns will, or will not, be
used in action according to circumstances, and I
presume this, not as a matter of naval tactics, but as
a matter of common sense. So far, then, the system
does not necessarily expose the guumera to that. de-
struction which has been spoken of. Further, if
the ship should, nevertheless, be penetrated at the
water-line, as she might be, and *as the Defence
was at Spithead, she will sustain, I believe, no great
harm. I here again speak under correction, but I
believe I am right in saying that below the water-
line she has a water-tight deck, to prevent the
water from rushing below, and she has also water-
tight bulkheads, to prevent it from flowing to the
centre of the ship. The yvorst thing that could
happen therefore, would be that the ship would be
brought down a few inches in the water—at most,
perhaP, about 18 inches or 2 feet; and this would
be afar less evil than would hap Pen to any ordinary
man-of-war wounded in the same way. Captain
Halsted has further stated that the steering gear of

the Warrior might be destroyed by a shot. That
may happen, but I apprehend the steering gear of
a wooden man-of-war is likewise liable to such a
casualty, and I should hope that the circumstances
would be such that when the action was over it might
be put right again. If I have stated my views in
accordance with facts, then I think I have a right
to say that it is desirable that an officer of Captain
Halsted's reputation in naval affairs should not
adopt a false judgment upon this question, and pro-
mulgate exaggerated statements with regard to such
a ship as the Warrior. If lam justified in the remarks
I have made, you will not allow yourselves to share
an opinion which, with the greatest respect for Capt.
Halsted, I believe to be a most exaggerated one—
viz., that ships built like the Warrior are not fit to
be classed as men-of-war. For my part, I believe
her to be a most efficient and valuable war
ship. It has been said by a gentleman present
that the French iron-coated ships are coated with
armour all round, and that they are a great suc-
cess. (4 Voice—" A comparative success; they
would not be fit to encounter the gale which the
Warrior weathered, and were not built for the pur-
pose.") I should like to know, then, for what pur-
pose they were built. Is it right to say in one
breauh that these ships are a success, and then that
they are unfit to encounter the sea ? With all due
submission, I doubt whether their success has been
established. I speak under correction, but, as far
as I am aware, none of the French ships has been
tried except La Gloire. L'lnviucible has been
launched, but I have never heard of her having
been tried, (A Voice—" She is now
making her
first trials.") Very good. lam right in saying, i
therefore, that La Gloire only has yet been tried,
Now, it is quite certain that La Gloire and her
sister ships are inferior to the Warrior in speed, and
my belief is—and in this Captain Halsted will go
with me—that had La Gloire encountered the gale
which the Warrior went through in the Bay of
Biscay, she would not have weathered it. I very
much doubt whether any ship of the Gloire type,
cased with heavy armoar throughout upon a com-
paratively weakly hull, would have such a gale as
that. We must bear in mind this very important
fact in connection with the French iron-plated
ships—viz., that out of the 16 which they have
built, or are building,. only two are iron ships; all
Gloire being a valuable sea-
ftohremreedst,
ianrseteoafd wobio
La
a; and, if I am corre3tly in-
going ship like the Warrior, she was so much
strained by the weight of her armour in the little
weather met with in the Mediterranean, it is impos-
sible to pronounce her a nautical success.
After resuming his seat, Sir JOHN PAKINOTON
rose again, and stated that the Secretary had that
moment placed in his hand a statement written by
one of the gentlemen who assisted in designing the
Warrior, and who is a member of the institution,
to which statement be was sure they would all
gladly listen. It was as follows :—" In the un-
protected portions of the Warrior there is a water
tight deck Bft. below the load water-line. Between
the stem and the foremost armour bulkhead there
are four transverse bulkheads subdividing the spaces
above and below the watertight deck. There is
also a fore-and-aft water-tight bulkhead running
through the foremost two of these divisions. So
that between the stem and the foremost armour
bulkhead the space below the water -line and above
the watertight deck is divided into seven compart-
ments, the largest of which will not hold more than
138 tons of water, and the whole of them together,
supposing them all bilged,
400 tons. The corres-
ponding space aft is divide into four compartments,
the largest of which will hold 278 tons, and the
whole of them together 670 tons. If, therefore, the
unprotected parts of the ship were riddled at both
ends, by shot striking in the neighbourhood of the
water-line, or for Bft. below it, only 1,070 tons
would be lost from the buoyancy of the ship, end
she would sink only 26 in. below her present load
water-line."

an offer of marriage, You wrote to me one of the
most awful of letters, threatening to destroy me.
Then you changed your tone, and went down on
your knees to ask forgiveness. You yourself pre
pared a deed of gift for yourself and children on my
property. Can you accuse me of ingratitude after
that ? Does this act prove you disinterested, or
does it not prove that you were acting for your
own benefit, not mine, because that deed was only
a life interest. I know Collis was very uncomfort-
able, and did not like that black transaction."
_ _

The marriage took place on Sept. 12. I saw Mr.
Kennedy after the marriage, in Mr. Collis's office.
He was exceedingly violent. He said, " I will give
you back the deed of course," but he did not do so.
I don't want to go more into this than necessary,
for the sake of Mr. Kennedy.
Plaintiff here asked her if she had his affidavit.
She said she had. He then handed to the usher of
the court the rings which had been presented to
him by plaintiff, asking him to hand them over to
Mrs. Brown.
Mr. 111acanlay interposed, and the rings were
not passed.
Mr. Kennedy—Do you still adhere to the 12th
paragraph in the affidavit filed in this court, that I
asked you to give me a deed of conveyance of re-
version to enable me to use such a deed as a tempo-
rary pledge to borrow the sum of £2,000 ?
Mrs. Brown—l meant with reference to the
£2,000 that there was a liability to repay the £2,000.
Mr. Kennedy—Did you say you would repay the
i 2,000?

Mrs. Brown—lf you did not succeed, and you
wanted it, I was willing to give you the deed as
security for £2,000. As far as I remember there
was no actual engagement as to who should pay the
£2,000. I understood, however that you were to
pay it, and I was at liberty to get back the deed at
any time. If you had demanded the deed and you
had paid the £2,000, I should have been a debtor
for that amount. I had confidence in your honour
at that tune. I did not think it was a black tran-
saction until you refused to give up the deed.
Mr. Kennedy—Do you mean to say Mr. Collis
thought it a black transaction?
Mrs. Brown—When I gave you the deed it was
for a temporary nurpose, and when you refused to
give it up, I thiAtght it a black transaction. I did
not think so at tae time. You did not refuse to re-
turn the deed without my asking you ; but you re-
fused to give it 4 in one of the threatening letters.
You said you weald keep the deed. I don't remem-
ber one quarter, of what else you said. I have only
once asked you to return the deed. You assigned
no reason for keeping it. I first told Mr. Brown of
the existence of the deed the day before I married
him. I wished Mr. Collis to see you about the deed,
and I said I should be very happy to remunerate you
for any professional services for which I was in-
debted to you. I did not tell him any more.
The Judge—Mr. Collis stated in his evidence
that Mrs. Brown said, " I want you to act as a
mutual friend; try to settle this cause ;" and she
gave me authority to pay the claim. I said to Mr.
Kennedy, "I propose to give you £10,000."
Mr. Kennedy—When did you tell Mr. Brown
about the offer of £lO,OOO ?

Mrs. Brown—l can't remember.
Mr. Kennedy—Did you think when I tendered
the draft of the will to you I acted improperly ?
Mrs. Brown—l thought it was indelicate. I
thought it an improper attempt on your part to get
possession of the estate. I passed a fortnight with
you about that time. We were alone together. Let-
ters were read from my mother in Wales—not from
any other relations; but I had mentioned the
address of other relations in conversations I had
with you. I mean to say you put the will into my
hands without any words of preparation. I did
not ask you to draw the will, and I did not say
you were to follow me to the grave. On the Bth
of June you say, " Mr. Collis will meet us at the
station. A dear friend met us there last time."
That friend was you. I think that was before the
execution of the deed. _ _ _

Mr. Kennedy—You were asked by Mr. Field
about an expression you used to the effect that you
would reimburse me for all the outlays. What
outlays did you mean ?
Mrs. Brown—Outlays for :the reports. I wished
to reimburse you for those reports, but was not
bound to do so.

Mrs. Kennedy—You say, " The fear of not being
able to do this mars my present enjoyment." You
say also, " And the risk you run makes me feel the
more." Does not that risk apply .to the general
issue of the cause, and all the rest of it ?
Mrs. Brown—Yes. I also used the expression,
" We will stand or fall together." I meant by that
that you were risking your profession. " Stand or
together"fall did not refer to money matters. You
were always asking for assistance. I did not give
you general promises to support me in my struggles?
Mr. Kennedy—Do you remember me writing
some verses in your album ?
Mrs. Brown—l remember your writing some
verses in my album,
[Some letters were here handed to witness. She
said she recollected writing them to plaintiff, and
had no objection to their being read in court.]
Letter read :

" Dec. 21, 1859.

" Shall I excite your jealousy very much when I
say H. said I was a very ladylike person ? Look
at the enclosed coronet. It might lie at this moment
at my feet if I wished it. You are at liberty to
choose. I suppose you will choose some Lady Eliza-
beth or Lady Mary. You will forget the humble
client, but I shall not forget him who preserved his
client from wrong and oppression."
Mr. Kennedy—Did you send the coronet ?
Mrs. Brown—l believe I enclosed it in the letter.
Mr. Kennedy—Then you say, " I have no heart
to give," in one of your letters. Who had that
heart ?

Witness refused at first to answer this question,
but in reply to the learned judge she said it did not
refer to Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy then asked Mrs. Brown if she was
desirous that the inquiry should proceed.
Mrs. Brown returned no answer, and Mr. Macaulay
said it must go on.
Mr. Kennedy then read several letters he had re-
ceived from defendant when Mrs. Swinfen. In one
of these she said the rings she had given to him had
no ordinary charm. In another she said, " What
was required I have done cheerfully, and I would
have done a thousand times more if I required. I
am not of that flimsy character you think 1 am. .
. There is one I value more than all the universe."
Mrs. Brown acknowledged this to refer to the
plaintiff. A third letter was subscribed, " Your
affectionate Patience Swinfen." In another, " You
know what I should be to you if circumstances per-
mitted it." In reference to this letter, Mr. Ken-
nedy asked if she did not mean she would have been
his wife if circumstances had been favourable.
The reply was " No, only friend." In. June, 1860,
after he had refused to give up the deed, she
called him " a dear friend," and concluded by in-
voking upon him the blessing of Almighty God.
She also, in other letters, called him her best friend.
Then she wrote about a house being taken for them,
mentioning the number of bedrooms that would be
required. Letters written subsequently spoke in
terms of great approval, and were interspersed with
poetical quotations.

- Mr. Kennedy—l ask you before God did you re-
fuse every offer to give up the deed ?
Mrs. Brown—Yes.
Mr. Kennedy—Do you still adhere to the para-
graph in the affidavit which says, " Mr. Kennedy
became my counsel. He obtained great influence
over me. I was induced at his suggestion to enter
an action against Lord Chelmsford, who had on my
behalf, without arthority,compromised the cause ?"
Witness—l do, You were the original adviser
of that action.

Mr. Kennedy—Did you not consult me at Lea-
mington about going abroad, avoiding service, &e.,
in the action ?

Mrs. Brown—Yes; and I did not consent lest Mr.
Simpson should not agree to it. I remember discus-
sing the value of the Swinfen estates with you. You
said if I got the estate my life would not be safe.
You said so repeatedly at Swinfen. I said my ene-
mies were so bitter .1 believed it. I did say if I got
the estate I might be poisoned.
Re-examined—Mr. Kennedy wrote to me for a
power of attorney to manage his property, and to
take care of his children. It was after the last trial
at Stafford when I had seen the reports in the papers
that I went up to Mr. Kennedy and embraced him.
He was in the habit of putting his hands in hers.
He said it warmed him.
Mr. Kennedy then addressed the jury in reply at
considerable length.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, remarked
that at first sight the case appeared to be very sim-
ple, being neither more nor less than a question as
to whether defendant, Mrs. Brown, had or had not
acknowledged an existing debt of a specific amount;
but this question, apparently so simple, had unfortu-
nately led them into one Of the most painful and dis-
tressing disclosures which had ever been heard in a
court of justice. The plaintiff said he undertook
the cause at the instanee of the defendant;; that from
the commencement they were both aware of the ex-
treme hazard of the die upon which their common
fortune was at stake ; that he knew she had not the
means of remuneration unless he succeeded in esta-
blishing her right; that she, however, was willing,.
if prosperous, to make him a liberal and handsome
remuneration when the victory was achieved; that
when victory was gained the amount at which she ,
thought his services would be properly remunerated
Caine to be discussed ; and that she then admitted
that the speci&d amount wai owing, voluntarily
embracing him,•and saying, gi You have won your
£20,000." Every part of his statement was denied
by Mrs. Brown, She represented that Mr. Kennedy

had almost intruded himself into her confidence ?
that he had sought the position of advocate, not
with a view to remuneration, unless it should be
gained from the defeated foe, but for the sake of
professional honour and credit which such a victory
would bring. In her examination in chief last night,
and again on her cross-examination this day, she
said she never promised Mr. Kennedy remuneration,
except as a mere act of friendship on her part. Her
letters, however, did not always correspond with her
statements. As far back as Oct., 1856, she wrote
"Mr. Kennedy,—You are going to do a deal for me.
You know how lam situated. lam not able to
remunerate you now. I will amply remunerate you
hereafter." He subsequently took chambers in Lon-
don by her consent, and having taken lodgings for
r her, she went to live near him. Up to that time he
I had been making £9OO a year in the Insolvency
Court and magisterial law courts at Birmingham,
and he would, he believed, have made £9,000 in the
time he had been engaged upon defendant's suit.
On leaving the Birmingham practice, therefore, he
told her he should like to secure himself against any
risk and sacrifice, and she said she would make over
to him all she had. In Oct, 1857, he was on a visit
to her at Swinfen, when, according to him, she re-
peated her former statements as to future remunera-
tion. She gave him some rings which she said would
act as a charm, and named an island on the lake near
her house the Isle of Hope, saying, "Remember, I
will be hope for both of us." In 1858 they were
in London seeing each other every day, making ex-
cursions, going to theatres together, and he paying
for cabs, wine, &c. She then took his advice, and
went to London altogether until the trial came on.
Soon after the trial she said he had wan his money.
In December, 1859, when the estate had become the
absolute property of Mrs. Swinfen, he wrote to her
to do something for him in the way of security.
Then, shortly afterwards, he called upon her, and
arranged to go to the Zoological Gardens with her
the next day,
_to settle the matter. He called, and
they went. The learned judge proceeded to remark
that there could not be a more striking instance
than this case afforded of the justice of the law of
the land, as it applied to the recovery of fees by
counsel, for they could not fail to see, in the pain-
ful exhibition they had witnessed, that the law was
just. There was a gentleman of the highest attain-
ments, of transcendent ability—a scholar, a poet,
en orator, a man of genius—a man endowed with
every faculty in a forcible degree, and with every
attainment belonging to his sphere, humbling him-
self before a client for whom he succeeded, and
seeking—and seeking in vain—to obtain from her
sense of justice, her friendship, her compassion, and
almost her love, that remuneration which his pro-
fessional services ought to have secured to him
without any recurrence to means such as these to
obtain. His lordship then directed the attention of
the jury to the most important parts of the case
which had been presented to them. He went on to
remark upon Mr. Kennedy's violent letter, written
to Mrs. Brown when she cut off communication
with him, saying that it almost warranted Mr.
Macaulay's strictures upon it, strong as those stric-
tures were; and the letter to Mr. Chawner, in which
he referred to the adulterous intercourse of himself
and the lady who hal been his client, could not be
too much condemned; and base must be the nature
of such a man. On the other hand, the services Mr.
Kennedy had rendered Mrs, Swinfen were of a
most signal character. He had embarked upon a
course of litigation involving the most serious risk
and danger to himself. Those whoknow anything of
the case were aware that the compromise which that
distinguished and eminent counsel, Sir F. Thesiger,
offered was the very wisest course which could be
adopted at the time. If she had been defeated in
the second trial at Stafford, she would have lost
everything. Mr. Kennedy's perseverance, indomit-
able energy, unflinching credit, added to his great
ability and power, gained her the day. The pro-
duction of letters by Mr. Kennedy to show how his
services were appreciated was perfectly legitimate;
and here one of the many collateral issues of the
case—which unfortunately abounded in this case—
began ; for here and there in letters were passages
which implied the existence of something more
than the relation between counsel and client, and
perhaps of friend and friend. In conclusion, his
lordship said a question was involved not merely of
pecuniary liability, but a most important and pain-
ful one of personal character. It was impossible
that there could be no falsehoods either on one side
or the other in the statements made in that court.
He trusted they would be right in deciding on
which side lay the falsehood and which the truth.
After a short absence the jury returned with a
verdict for the plaintiff, a point of law being
reserved.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LIVERPOOL, March 29.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
THE ROCHDALE WIFE MURDER CASE.

Joseph Isot was indicted for the wilful murder of
his wife Alice Isott, at Spotland, on the Ist of Feb-
ruary last. He pleaded not guilty to the intent to
murder.

Mr. Kaye prosecuted, and Mr. Higgin defended.
Mr. Kaye, in opening the case, said that the de-
ceased was 42 years of age, and the prisoner and she
had been married for 17 years. Latterly, however,
he had become jealous of her, on account of a young
man lodger, and after repeatedly having threatened
to take away her life, he at last shot her in the neck
with a pistol, the injuries received from which she
survived a fortnight only.
The jury found a verdict of mansiaughter,and the
prisoner was sentenced to penal servitude for life.
The prisoner received the sentence with great
composure.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—MARCH 29.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
THE EVERLEIGH MURDER.
John Stocker was placed at the bar charged with
the wilful murder of Ann Hills, at Everleigh, on
the 18th of August last.
Mr. Karslake, Q.C., and Mr. Swayne prosecuted ;
the prisoner was defended by Mr. Cook and Mr.
Bullen.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

SURREY SESSIONS.

A SCOUNDREL.

George Paffery, 29, was indicted for feloniously
assaulting Emily Maynard, and violently stealing
from her person, a shawl, her property.
Mr. Collier prosecuted, and Mr. Thomson defended
the prisoner.
The prosecutrix, a respectable-looking young
woman, slid she was a dressmaker, and resided in
the Cornwall-road, Lambeth. On the afternoon of
the 18th instant she went to the Soldiers' Daughters
Home at Hampstead, and returned home by omni-
bus as far as Hungerford-market. She crossed the
bridge, and was proceeding under the railway arches
towards home, when the prisoner came up to her
and rather rudely accosted her. She told him he
was mistaken in the party, and endeavoured to pass
him, when he touched her under the chi❑ and en-
deavoured to take liberties with her. She again
told him to go away and not molest her, when he
snatched the shawl from her shoulders, and ran off
with it. She pursued him, calling out " Stop thief,"
and a constable immediately came up and secured
him. Her shawl was torn in ribbons by the pri-
soner's violence.

In cross-examination by Mr. Thomson witness
said that as soon as the prisoner accosted her he
called her Emily. She certainly did say to him it
was singular he should call her by her right name,
but she told him she did not know him, and as soon
as he tried to be familiar with her she told him to
leave her. She was a respectable young woman,
and not a woman of the town (crying).

The Chairman here in tervened,amliold the coun-
sel that he did not think such questions should be
pressed, as the young woman appeared to be re-
spectable, and gave her evidence in a straightfor-
ward manner,

Mr. `Thomson said he only went by his instruc-
tions. He was informed the prosecutrix was a pros-
titute, and that the prisoner only pulled off her
shawl, so that she might go home with him. He
(the learned counsel) had no wish to annoy her.
The evidence of 51 L and another constable con-
tradicted the whole of the prisoner's defence, and
proved that the prosecutrix was a respectable young
woman.
The jury found him guilty, and the Court sen-
tenced him to four months hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—March 29.

GUILDHALL.—Mr. W., Peter Vesper Wallis, a
solicitor of Portsmouth, was summoned
. mmoned before Ald.
Rose to answer the charge of and corrupt
perjury, alleged to have been committed in an arbi-
tration case in February last. Mr. Sleigh attended
for the defence.

Mr. Ribton, for the pro. sc.eution, stated the cireum •
had. arisen. The
sisnioin;iolrtsbusinc
stanees out of which this mg inry
leading facts were
.these: in 1856-7 the defendant
eddrai ss for complainant,
twrhanosiascat professional
Portsmouth, and sued him for
1;40 in Sept, 1861. The complainant thereupon
commenced an action against defendant for £5B.
These cress actions having been referred to Master
Hodgson, complainant put in a bill of particulars,
setting forth that his claim was for the price and
keep of a horse won by him at a raffle, and sold by
him on the spot to defendant, who had taken shares
in the raffle and lost. Complainant entered into all
the details before the master, and he was taken al-
gether by surprise when he heard defendant empha-
ticaily deny that he was ever present at the raffle,
-or at any horse raffle in his life. The result of such a
denial was that the master gave his award against
complainant. It should, however, bo stated that the