The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-04 00:00:00

TENNIS PLAYING.

Some most interesting matches were played in the
Tennis Court, at Goodwood, on Friday last, between
Barre, the well-known French player, and Tom-
kins, of Brighton celebrity, the result of which was
as follows :
FIRST MaTch.—Tomkins receiving half thirty, the
best of five sets, won the match.
SECOND MATCH.—Barre gave half thirty for a
bisque, the best of three sets, which match was also
won by our Shalisperian friend Peter.
THIRD MaTcx.—Barre gave fifteen and a bisque,
which match he won. Any odds on Barre at those
terms.
The play was most excellent throughout, and
elicited repeated expressions of applause from the
assembled spectators, among whom were the Duke
and Duchess of Richmond, Ladies Caroline Augusta
and Cecilia Gordon Lennox, the Earl and Countess
of March, Honourable Mrs. Berkeley, Lord Rokeby,
Lord Henry and Alexander Gordon Lennox, Lord
Arthur Lennox, Sir Archibald Macdonald, Captain
Stevenson, the Hoe. W. Scarlett, and several other
officers of the Scots Fusilier Guards, General Bon-
ehier, Mr. W. Richardo, Mr. Cole, Mr. Hooper,
W
Colonel Knox, Mr. Morier, Mr. C. Craven, Mr. W.
Ford, Mr. Manning.
M. Barre, Mr. Tompkins, and C. G. Taylor, Esq.,
have engaged in several more contests at Brighton,
and the play has been most interesting. We un-
derstand that M. Barre will remain a few days longer
in Brighton, for the purpose of giving the lovers of
the game another opportunity of witnessing his skill.
Among the spectators of the recent contests, have
been Lord Alexander Lennox, Sir A. Macdonald,
General Upton, Mr. Mayne, Baron Rothschild, Mr.
Ilildyard, Mr. Bosanquet, Mr. Le Bas, Mr. Ander-
son, Lieutenant Colonel Pringle, Mr. Cole, Captain
Bastard, Mr. Hubbard, &c.
Prince Richard Metternich visited Mr. Tomkins's
Tennis Court on Saturday last, to witness a match
between M. Barre and Mr. Tomkins.—Brighten
Paper.

A WomAN KILLED BY HER ITUSEAND.--011
Tuesday morning a man, named David Wiseman, went
to the police station at the Town-hall, and in
quired for Mr. Sawley, to -whom ho said 1,6
and heta„_ea. hwear,sa.nindtotxbiee.
had an important matter to communicate. Tabao.en_gu_i:
then stated that he was coachman to Dr. Ben, aws
in and
at present (with his wife and children)
inilrdwick-
taking care of his master's late residecnbce
nkde,
ixteso;ctiohcakt hb a
children went to
green ; that on Monday
Dr. Bell's house in Mosley-street to
found that his wife was tipsy,
eeing she
o'clock, ho found
achlsioldrweennhtormernaegahinim. his wife
rano da
and he struck her once or twice
cated, they quarrelled,
2,1 sle ,-:3 Erect, but, '
Ile then returned to 0, , , on going
• bout hall-past seven o 1 is
tbien clre'll u, and
home again, a for ,:
liquor ; the
her still worsey had some more
ho too c
i his boot off
himself; and
sfi
words, and hid , and struck her with
o awoke about
stairs, and went to
le,‘„ing his rife the kitchen. li
bed,
fivein the morning (Tuesday), and
finding that his
witi, vv,„ not in bed, he got up to see ifshe -
was in the
children's bed; not seeing her there, he went down into
the kitchen, and afterwards •
into an out-house, in the
Yard, where he found her, bleeding it H© th©n took
very much about the
head. He took her up
fetched Dr. Bell, but she stairs, and put her to bed; then
(Wiseman) was al so ''died soon after his arrival. He
intoxicated. The man, after mak-
ing this statement
he would b e found was about to go away, saying that
at Dr. Bell's, if wanted. Ile was, of
course,
detained in custody; and on searching the house
his shirt was found, the sleeves of which were saturated
with blood; the deceased's bonnet was broken to pieces,
and her gown stained; and also various articles of linen,
which had been hanging to dry, had spirts of blood upon
them. It was also found that his boot was not the only
weapon which appeared to have been employed, as a
rite() of flat wood was found, which was smeared all
over with blood, except the part where it had been held
by the hand; to the edge of it there was also some hair
adherieg. The deceased Catherine Wiseman was only
thirty-six years of age.—Manchester Cop ier .
MELANCHOLY OCCUIIRENCE AT ASHTON-UNDER'
LYNE.—Mr. George Welker, a localepreacher in the
Methodist connexion, and employed els a book-keeper
by Messrs. Redfern, cotton manufacturers, was engaged
on Saturday at his desk in the warehouse of the mill,
taking stock, when a fellow-servant roamed James Tool,
went into the room, and taking up a loaded gun which
had been left reared up against the window, began to ex..
amine it, not knowing it was loaded, pulled back the
trigger, when it accidentally went off, killing Walker on
the spot.—Manchester Courier.
ROYAL ENGINEERS.—Afsjor Robinson and Lieut..
Colonel Sine are appointed to the garrison of Ports-
mouth. Lieut. Portlock, the second commandant of the
Portsmouth corps, is removed to Cork, and Lieutenens
';diddle to New Zuhlath

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 3.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
CRIX. CON.-110GFITON V. WIGNEY.
This was an action to recover compensation for
criminal conversation. Judgment was allowed to go
by default, and a writ of inquiry was executed to
assess the damages.
Mr. H. F. HODGSON opened the pleadings. The
plaintiff was Henry Hoghton, who complained that
the defendant, Clarence Wisen.!y, had seduced his
wife, Louisa Josephine Hoghtor... The damages were
laid at 10,0001.
Sir F. THSSIGEN stated the case. He never rose
to perform his duty in a case like the present without
feeling oppressed at the degradation of the injured
party, who was compelled to expose the cruel wrongs
be had suffered. Every one could perceive that it
was by the act of the adulterer that the happiness of
the husband was destroyed, and yet it was the
husband who had to detail his wrongs, knowing at
the same time, as they:all did, how utterly weak, how
entirely powerless the law was to afford an adequate
redress. By taking adultery out of the list of penal
offences, and making it a matter on which an action
WAS to be brought to recover compensation, they
were apt to lose sight of the enormity of
the offence. The miserably imperfect remedy
afforded by the law was to give pecuniary satisfaction
to the husband, who had to endure the degradation of
coming before a jury and submitting to what was
galling to every honourable mind—exposing the
wrongs he had suffered. It was impossible not to
know that there were feelings and affections deeply
seated in the heart, and only more deep and lasting
because they were kept secret. Before the law
would permit the marriage contract to be dissolved
-the injured one was required to lay bare the wounds
of his heart, :not to the soothing hand of friendship,
but to the vulgar gaze—wounds which it would have
been his desire to conceal. Among the multiplied
miseries produced by the act of the adulterer, it
struck him as not the least painful that the husband
should he obliged to come into court or to allow the
deliquent to escape. With the feelings he had ex-
pressed, he would bring the facts of a very painful
case before the jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Hoghton,
now only twenty-eight years of age, was the eldest
son of Sir Henry Hoghton, Bart. In 1842, on the
plaintiff coming of age, he became entitled to con-
siderable estates in the county of Lancaster. He be-
came acquainted with the subject of the present
action, Miss Louisa Josephine Saunders, who was
only seventeen and possessed of great personal attrac-
tions, under the care of her mother. Mr. Hoghton
followed her to Boulogne in June of the same year,
proposed and was accepted. It was due to Mrs.
Saunders to say that on account of the youth of her
daughter she objected to the union until two or three
years had expired ; her scruples were, however, over-
come, and in August of the same year Mr. Hoghton
returned to make arrangements for the marriage.
Mr. Hoghton had made a liberal settlement on his
wife, as " pin money" 2001. a year, and if she survived
him a jointure of 1,5001. a year; for the children,
other than the eldest son, who would be entitled to the
family estates in Lancaster, 10,000/. in case of
one child, 20,0001. in the event of two, and 30,0001.
in case of a third child. The marriage took place
on the 14th of August, 1845, with the consent and
approbation of all parties. The young couple pro-
ceeded to the continent, where they remained some
time, and in June, 1846, Mr. Hoghton purchased
an estate at Hafod,-, in South Wales, of the Duke of
Newcastle, whither they went to reside. They were
visited by families in the neighbourhood, and lived
in great affection. Mr. Hoghton was a kind and in-
dulgent,husband ; his wife had his entire confidence ;
and when he was ill and visited another place she
tended him with the most affectionate solicitude. In
the spring of 1847 they returned to their seat, and,
whilst alterations were made, came to London. They
resided at the Brunswick Hotel, Hanover-square,
and afterwards at Mivart's, until the fatal acquain-
tance with the defendant, and which led to the pre-.
sent action. The defendant was the son of a gentle-
man who was formerly a banker at Brighton, and he
was an officer in the service of the East
India Company. It seemed that on April
the 9th, a day which would always be re-
membered as the one before the Chartist demonstra-
tion occurred, an arrangement had been made
between Mrs. Hoghton and Mrs. Pugh, the lady of
the Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire, to
go to Greenwich. On arriving at Hungerford-stairs,
the defendant, who was unknown to Mr. Hoghton,
presented himself. He was introduced by Mrs. Pugh,
and having, as was understood, missed his party, he
was invited to join their party. On the next day he
called on Mr. Hoghton, and they drove about to
notice the Chartist demonstration. On the 17th of
the same month Mr. Hoghton was called into Lan-
caster, and his wife was lett, visited by her mother
and sufficiently protected. It would be impossible
for him to trace the parties throughout their course
until the fatal consummation. It would appear that
the defendant met Mrs. Hoghton in the Park and
Kensington-gardens, and the man servant observed
assignations made to meet at the Zoological-gardens
and other places; and here he (Sir F. Thesiger) ought
to pause. It was not in the power of the defendant
to say that he had committed his crime by any
sudden temptation, but it was an act deliberately
settled to effect the seduction of the plaintiff's
wife. After Mr. Hoghton's return to town nothing
occurred to awaken his suspicion. It would appear,
however, that the defendant, by his arts, so prepared
and so perseveringly applied, had so woven his chain
round the unhappy woman, that he was soon after-
wards enabled to carry her off, never to return to
that home and happiness she had once enjoyed. It
was on Wednesday, the 21st of June last, this fatal
step was taken. The family was to leave town on
the 21st of June. Preparations were made, and on
the morning of the day before Mrs. Hoghton's maid
was allowed to go to Bristol. Mrs.:Hoghton had in-
formed her husband that he had an invitation to dine
that evening with Sir Archibald M`Clav, and that
she would go to a friend at Langham-place to
tea. The invitation to dinner was for the 21st of
June, and whether it was designedly represented
by Mrs. Hoghton to be on the day before he would
not stop to inquire. After Mrs. Hoghton was set
down at Langham-place the carriage returned to
take Mr. Hoghton to dinner, when the mistake
was discovered that the invitation was for the day
following. Mr. Hoghton desired his servant to drive
him to the University Hotel, Suffolk-street, where
he would dine. The servant had his suspicions ex-
cited, and he hurried back to Mivart's, and his sus-
picions were confirmed. He hastened to his master,
and on their return it was toe clear to be doubted
that Mrs. Hoghton had eloped with the defendant.
Mr. Hoghton was deeply affected; he could not re-
main another night at Mivart's, and removed to an-
other hotel. He consulted his solicitor, and it was
ascertained that the parties had left by train for Dover
and had gone to Ostend, afterwards to Brussels and to
Wiesbaden on the Rhine, whither Hirst, the servant,
and LMadbetter, the police-officer, found them passing
as Mr. and Mrs. Wilmot. They remained some time
on the continent, and afterwards returned to Lon-
don ; and on the 20th of October last the guilty pair ,
embarked for India, where they had now probably
arrived. He (Sir F. Thesiger) had not yet dune
with the painful details. Mrs. Hoghton was in
the family-way by her husband, and in a few short
months the union would have been strengthened by
the birth of a child. What were now the prospects
of the child ? Hearts warmed with love would have
received it, but now the hands of a guilty mother
would be the first to hold it, and its first home would
be amidst guilt and shame—the tenderest offices
stifled, and the first smile of innocence bring to the
remembrance of the mother the misery she had
brought on herself and her helpless child. Could
anything compensate the plaintiff for the loss he had
sustained ? Twice the amount limited by the decla-
ration would be no compensation. He (Sir Frede-
rick Thesiger) asked himself what will be the pallia-
tion offered for such atrocious conduct? Would it be
attributed to excess of " love ?" If that sacred name
r_a Prostituted to cover a guilty passion, then might
common robber justify his conduct by his desire to
gratify the indulgence of his passion for plunder.
Again, he asked himself what excuse could be offered,
and he remembered the ample settlement made by
the plaintiff on his wife; she having no fortune of her
own, 'and it bad suggested itself to him that it was
the desire to possess the fortune of the woman that
the defendant had seduced the wife. The jury could
only afford pecuniary satisfaction for the irreparable
injury, and it would be urged that he was unable to
pay. But was that any excuse for his conduct ?
The action was for the great injury inflicted. Al-
though the duty of the jury was to compensate, and
not to punish, if their verdict should seriously affect
the defendant, it would perhaps make him, as 'well as
the partner of his guilt, feel, though he could not
sufficiently atone, for the atrocious injury he had
inflicted.
Mr. John Wilson Patten, M.P.,. the Rev. Arthur
Truman ; Mr. Flowerden, steward to the plaintiff;
Mrs. Pugh, the lady of Mr. Pugh, M.P.; George
Hirst, the servant; and a Mrs. Newman, were called
on the part of the plaintiff, and established the prin-
cipal facts detailed by Mr. Thesiger. The marriage
settlement was put in, after an objection to its ad-
missibility on the part of the defendant. The witnesses
described the affectionate terms on which the plaintiff
and his wife lived. The servant said he did not
mention his suspicions because he thought it would
make his master and mistress unhappy for life. It
appeared that a Mr. Thompson had uttered some
slander against Mrs. Hoghton, and a criminal infor-
mation was filed, and he was abroad. The circum-
stancei made no alteration in the affections of the
Mrs. Newman, who resided in Welbcck-
rreet, p
hroved that Mrs. Hoghton and the defendant
resided s her house under the name of Wilmot. Je
her judgme Airs. Hoghton months advanced
in pregnancy,

Mr. PETERSDORFF (with whom was Mr. Prentice)
addressed the Court on the part of the defendant.
His Learned Friend had with his usual force intro•
duced topics to call; sympathy and commiseration not
only in favour of the plaintiff, but to show the in-
adequacy of the law to afford redress for the wrong
committed—observations which he was sure the jury
would dismiss from their minds, and proceed to a
calm consideration of the case. He appeared on the
part of Lieutenant Wigney, not to justify his con-
duct, but to confess his transgression, and to urge
circumstances in mitigation of the large amount of
damages sought to be recovered. The action was not
to obtain large damages, but with a view to ulterior
proceedings, to enable the plaintiff to obtain a divorce.
The defendant was a young man, only 23 years of
age, and without abusing the claims of friendship,
had yielded to a sudden temptation.
Sir F. THESIGER—Not a sudden temptation.
Mr. PETERSDORFF ventured to say a sudden
temptation, and the evidence proved it. Only a
few weeks hid elapsed before the elopement. What
object could the plaintiff gain by large damages, sur-
rounded as he was by wealth ? Money he did not
want, and could it be imagined for a moment that if
they could be paid he would touch one penny of the
sum awarded by the dishonour of his wife ? What
effect would large damages have on the defendant ?
\Vas he not already ruined—barred from future ad
vancement ? Accompanied by this woman, how
could he rise in his profession ? As to the motive
imputed to the defendant, that he had looked to the
settlement, he would ask what evidence was there on
the subject; and could it be supposed for a moment
that Mrs. Hoghton had been so lost to shame as to
inform the defendant of such a circumstance ? The
Learned Counsel asked the jury not to award such
an amount of damages as would render the defendant
an exile for life, or, if he returned, consign him to
perpetual imprisonment.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF, in leaving the case
to the jury, told them, in apportioning the amount of
damages, to be guided by the evidence given. A re-
mark had been made on the absence of members of
the family to prove the terms on which the parties
lived ; but the jury would remember that several per-
sons had been called who had opportunities of observ-
ing them, and there was no necessity further to harass
the feelings of the family. As to the motive sug-
gested, about the settlement inducing the defendant
to seduce Mrs. Hoghton, there was no evidence on
the subject; and with respect to the amount of da-
mages, and the plea urged on the part of the defen-
dant, that the plaintiff was a wealthy man, the jury
would consider whether it was not a reason for in-
creased damages, because what was a large amount
to a person in other circumstances was not so to a
man possessing ample stores. He had often felt,
with Sir F. Thesiger, the state of the law on the
subject of adultery, but as it now stood the jury
could only award a pecuniary satisfaction. With
regard to ulterior proceedings to obtain a divorce,
the jury had nothing to do. All they were required
to do was to assess the damages, and he was sure they
would do so in a manner to satisfy the justice of the

case.
The jury retired for a quarter of an hour, and on
their return assessed the damages at 3,0001.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 3.
(Before the CHIEY COMMISSIONER.)
IN RE JOHN D'MONTE ARBUTHNOT.
This insolvent, who had been connected with the
" turf," again came before the Court. His case was
reported in our paper on the 16th ult.
Mr. Sturgeon again appeared for a Mr. Wood, and
Mr. Cooke supported.
It appeared that within the last few days the insol-
vent had been made a bankrupt, and the Court on that
account dispensed with the attendance of a Mr.
Green, who was required to appear.
It was elicited, in the course of the examination of
the insolvent on the present occasion, that he had lost
1,0001. at billiards-6001. on one occasion, and 4001.
on another.
His Homourt addressed the insolvent in a very im-
pressive manner. He had frankly answered the ques-
tions, but his frankness would not save him from
shame and degradation unless he eschewed his former ,
vices and applied his mind to some honest calling.
The insolvent was discharged.

IVESTMINS7 ER COUNTY COURT, Jan. 3.
(Before D. C. MoTLAN, Esq., Judge.)
SLY V. BRYANT.
This was an action to recover "advanced rent," as
it is called.
The defendant occupied a first floor and a work-
shop, belonging to the plaintiff; for the first he paid
ss. 6d. per week, and for the second B.s. per week.
For some cause, not explained, the plaintiff rose the
former to 7s. per week, and the latter to 12s. The
defendant refused to pay the increa'ed demand, but
regularly paid the old rent, and the plaintiff now
sought to recover the advance, as she termed it.
'The JUDGS said the' law was too clear upon the
subject for her to recover. By the 4th of George 11.
the right of a landlord to charge double rent, or an
advanced rent, was confined to cases where the tenant
in possession held for the term of his life, lives, or
years. The Act was not at all applicable to weekly
tenants ; and Lord Ellenborough had gone so far as
to doubt whether it could be applied to tenants hold-
ing for six months. He must direct a nonsuit.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Joseph Barley, 32, carman, was indicted for the
wilful murder of Lewis Canstett, otherwise known as
Lewis Lewis, by driving a loaded coal-waggon over
him. The prisoner was charged by the coroner's in-
quisition with the offence of manslaughter arising out
of the same transaction.

Mr. Clarkson prosecuted, and Mr. Ballantine de-
fended the prisoner.
From the statement of the Learned Counsel for the
prosecution, and the testimony of several witnesses, it
appeared that the occurrence which formed the sub-
ject of the inquiry, took place just before nine o'clock
in the morning of the 16th of December, in Night-
ingale-lane, near the St. Katherine's Docks. It ap-
pears to be the custom for a number of labourers
to assemble every morning, before nine o'clock, at
the different warehouses of the dock, to try
to obtain employment, and that they occupy nearly
the whole of the carriageway, their object being
to front the gate when it is opened, and
endeavour to catch the eye 'of the foreman who
has to engage them, and on the morning in question,
about a hundred and fifty men, among whom was the
deceased, had assembled in front of the F warehouse
gate, waiting to be engaged. The prisoner, who is
in the service of a coal-merchant named Green, was
coining up Nightingale-lane, towards East Smith-
field, driving a loaded waggon drawn by three horses,
and when he came up to the men standing at the F
gate, an altercation took place between them and the
prisoner, on account of his having driven, as they
said, too close to them. The consequence of this
was, that after the waggon had proceeded a short
distance, the prisoner stopped it, and returned to the
men, taking off his coat, and throwing down his whip,
to fight. Immediately upon the prisoner doing this,
he was attacked by several of the labourers, and was
knocked down three times with great violence. He
got up, said he would have no more fighting, put on
his coat, took his whip, and proceeded with his waggon.
At this moment, it seems, there was a call for la-
bourers at the next gate, lettered D, and the whole of
the men who had been waiting at the F gate imme-
diately rushed to answer the call, and before the
waggon had come up, they had again formed them-
selves across the road, as they had done in the first
instance. The prisoner proceeded on with his wag-
gon, and, according to the evidence of one of the
witnesses, he exclaimed that he would do for some of
the - at the next gate, if they did not get out of
the way. He then drove on, and when he came up
to the body of labourers the waggon went through
them, when deceased was knocked down, and the
near fore wheel passid over his head and the hind
wheel over his body, and the result was that he was
killed instantaneously. It was admitted the la-
bourers who were waiting to be employed were in the
constant habit of blocking up the road every morn-
ing, and that there were continual squabbles with the
carmen and others, who had occasion to pass the spot,
and also that the deceased and his companions could
have easily got out of the way of the waggon if they
had chosen to do so. It likewise appeared that the
prisoner was driving at a very slow pace, and that in
order to avoid the crowd of labourers, he must have
driven his waggon completely across to the other side
of the road.

Mr. BALLANTINB, in his address to the jury for the
prisoner, said that it WAS idle and absurd to charge
him with the offence of wilful murder under such
circumstances as had been laid before them, and said it
was perfectly clear that the only question was,
whether the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter in
having by culpable negligence caused the death of the
deceased, or whether the whole affair was not the
result of accident. According to his instructions the
prisoner had in the first instance been insulted most
grossly by these men, who had assembled and were
creating a great nuisance, and stopping completely
the traffic of the road, and when he resented the insult
that WfiS put upon him, he was most brutally ill-
treated. Finding that he was used in this way, he
endeavoured to proceed to his business, and he was
again interrupted; but he submitted that even accord-
ing to the showing of the witnesses for the prosecu-
tion, the unfortunate result that took place was solely
attributNl to accident, and that the prisoner ought to
leave the bar without any imputation upon his
character.
Evidence was then adduced, the effect of which
was clearly to establish the statement of the Learned
Counsel. It IV4 shown that the prisoner was driving
steadily, and that when he arrived at the D gate he
was coe,pelled to pass through the crowd, and at the
instant the waggon got opposite the door,,it was sud-
denly closed, the effect of which was to force the

crowd back, and the deceased, who was the outside
man, was thrown under the waggon, the prisoner
being at the time near to the fore-horse, and with his
back to the waggon, and was not even aware that the
accident had happened. It was also shown that
while passing through the crowd the prisoner moved
his shaft horse by means of op whip, so as to keep his
vehicle away from the people as much as possible,
and prevent it from doing them, any injury. A police
constable was also called, who proved that one of the
witnesses who had deposed to the fact of the prisoner
having made use of the threat that he would do for
some of them if they did not get out of the way, was
not present, and that he admitted to him that he knew
nothing whatever of the transaction.
• The Jury stopped the Learned Counsel as he was
about to call witnesses to I speak to the character of
the prisoner, and intimated their opinion that the
charge was not made out.
Mr. Justice PATTESON remarked, that certainly,
according to the evidence of the witnesses for the
defence, the occurrence was purely accidental.
The jury said this was their opinion.
Mr. CLARKSON said that the prosecution was not
instituted from any vindictive feeling, and the only
object of the inquiry was to ascertain the truth.
, After, therefore, what had been stated by his Lord-
ship, and the intimation given by the jury, he felt
that he ought not to address the jury in reply.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. CLARKSON applied for the expenses of the pro-
secution.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said of course they would
be allowed—it was a very proper case for inquiry.
James William Ludlam was indicted for stealing
a quantity of bank notes and gold, amounting alto-
gether in value to 3450/., the property of Charles
Butler.
Mr. Parry prosecuted, and Mr. Ballantine defended
the prisoner.
The circumstances of this case have been reported
within the last few days in the police reports. The
prosecutor is a beer-shop keeper in Brandon-street,
Lock's-fields, and the robbery in question was com-
mitted on the night of the 16th December, about
seven o'clock, by some person getting into the bed-
room window, and breaking open a drawer which
contained the money. The chief evidence against
the prisoner was that of a female named White, who
swore that at the time the robbery must have been
committed she saw the prisoner jump from the win-
dow of the room. None of the money appeared to
have been traced ; but there were other circumstances
tending to confirm the evidence of this witness, who
spoke to the prisoner's identity, which left little doubt
of his guilt.
The jury, after a good deal of deliberation in the
box, retired for nearly half-an-hour to consider their
verdict, and at sevenpo clock they agreed to a verdict
of Guilty.
The prisoner loudly asserted his innocence, and
declared ithat the prosecutor knew he was not the
man who committed the robbery.
The prosecutor said he knew nothing of the sort ;
and he also denied most positively having sent three
men to the house of the prisoner to communicate
with him upon the subject of the robbery.
A police constable informed the Court that he had
taken the prisoner into custody in 1847, when he was
about to commit a robbery, and found fourteen skele-
ton keys and a crowbar in his possession.
Mr. Justice MauLE then sentenced the prisoner to
be transported for ten years.
The 'prisoner was identified by another licensed
victualler, named Wiggins, as the person who had
stolen between 601. and 701. from her house on the
evening previous to that on which the robbery at
Mr. Butler's was committed.

NEW COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)

Isabella Jennings, aged 26, married, was indicted
for stealing a quantity of plate and other articles,
Talued 2001., the property of Cranstoun George
Ridout.

Mr. Payne prosecuted, and the prisoner was un-
defended.

It appeared from the statement of the Learned
Counsel for the prosecution, that th• prosecutor is a
gentleman residing in Wimpole-street, and that the
prisoner at the bar was sister to a girl who lived in
his service at the time of the robbery, which was
effected under the following circumstances :

In August last the prosecutor went out of town,
leaving Elizabeth Rogers (the girl alluded to) in care
of his kouse, which contained, amongst other pro-
perty, a large quantity of plate, which was carefully
packed away in a closet. Upon the prosecutor's re-
turn to town in the early part of October, he found
that the plate closet had been broken open, and its con-
tents abstracted ; and the account given of it by the
girl Rogers was, that some one bad effected an entrance,
and committed the robbery. This the police at
once found to be a falsehood, and the result was the
apprehension of Rogers a man named John Jennings,
and Elizabeth his wife, all three of whom were
tried and convicted at the November sessions of this
Court, but upon whom judgment had been respited.
Those prisoners were related to the present one, the
two females being her sisters, and the male her bro-
ther-in-law, and also brother to her husband. Since
the conviction of the three prisoners in November, the
female Elizabeth had made statements which led to
the apprehension of the prisoner at the bar, who was
aware that the plate bad been stolen, and had pawned
a part of it.
Isabella Jennings, who was brought up from the
interior gaol to give her evidence, deposed to the pri-
soner being her sister. Shortly after the prosecutor
left town, she (witness) went to live with her un-
married sister, at his residence in Wimpole-street,
where she was visited by the prisoner Isabella, who,
although not present when the plate closet was broken
open, was aware afterwards that the robbery had
been committed, and on the 22d of September accom-
panied herself, her husband, and Rogers, to the shop
of Mr. Gray, a pawnbroker, in Fleet-street, where
she pawned a portion of the stolen property.
James Avant, the manager of Mr. Grey's busi-
ness, proved the prisoner to have pawned the portion
of the property alluded to.
The prisoner did not offer anytl'iing in her defence,
and the jury found her Guilty on the second count
included is the indictment, namely, the receiving.
The other prisoners, Elizabeth Rogers, John Jen-
nings, and Elizabeth Jennings, were then brought
up to receive judgment.
The RECORDER, in passing sentence, said that the
Lord Chief Justice, before whom the first trial had
been gone through, had marked down the sentence
he wished to be passed upon the prisoners tried be-
fore him, which was, that John Jennings be trans-
ported for fourteen years ; Elizabeth Rogers to
twelve months'gimprisonment and hard labour; and
Elizabeth and Isabella Jennings to fire months' im-
prisonment..
James Wright, 13, Owen Tierney, 16, were in-
dicted fur stealing a handkerchief, the property of
James Joseph Morris, from his person.

A man named Webb, who stated himself to be a
bill- sticker, stated that,he had watched the two pri-
soners for some time, the elder one hiding the
younger from view whilst he tried several persons'
pockets, and when near the Surrey Theatre Wright
committed the robbery, and hid the handkerchief in
his bosom, where it was found by the police.
Other conclusive evidence having been given, the
jury found Tierney Guilty, Wright having pleaded
Guilty. _ .

As his Lordship was about passing sentence,
Mr. R. G. Ibbett, of Fleet-street, one of the jury
in waiting, begged to direct the attention of the Court
to the fact that he had heard the witness Webb ex-
amined in a civil case in the Exchequer Court, and
that in the course of cross-examination he (Webb)
had admitted that he acted as a sort of spy to the
police, and received a small stipend from them for his
services, and principally lived upon that and the ex-
penses he obtained for his attendance as a witness;
and that he had been instrumental in bringing a
great many offenders to justice. He also admitted
that he had been several times in trouble for felonies,
and had been convicted. _ _

Webb being re-called, denied that he was in the
pay of the police, or that he had ever been convicted.
Inspector Scott, of the II division, intimated to the
Court that the statement made relative to Webb
having: been convicted was true, but denied that
he was regularly in the pay of the police.
Jenkinson, a constable of the G division, said that
Webb had been pointed out to him as a convicted
felon.

Webb then admitted that he had been in trouble,
but that it was nine years ago, but again denied that
he was a spy for the police. It was, however, satis-
factorily shown to the Court that he had, when ex-
amined in a case tried at these sessions, admitted
having been employed by the police to assist in getting
up cases.
The RECORDER said it would have been more sa-
tisfactory had the jury known the character of the
witness before they had returned their verdict; but
there was abundant evidence without him ; if, how-
ever, the jury differed with him, he would re-open
the case.

The foreman of the jury said he would sooner be-
lieve the prisoner than the witness Webb.
Another juryman said the case was abundantly
clear without him.

Tierney having again denied being in company
with the other prisoner,
The RECORDER again examined the police, who
proved his guilt beyond a doubt.
Ar. Jonas, the clerk to the gaol, said both pri-
soners had been convicted at this court; Wright upon
more occasions than one.
The RECORDER then, sentenced Wright to twelve
months' imprisonment and hard labour, and Tierney
to three months.
Alexander Ford alias Powell, aged 27, a druggist,
was indicted fir forgery.
Mr. Bodkin protieented, and the prisoner, who