The Sun.
London, England, 1825-08-09 00:00:00

FOR THE SUN.

MII. EDITOR—ObSPrIiing, in your Paper of the
4th -i‘stant, a statement of the Trial of Stephen
Church, for Arson, I beg leave to obServe, that
your statement of facts in that case are very in-
accurately set forth, though they were quite as
strong as you have stated them to be. As the
prisoner was acquitted I will not take upon my-
self to describe the facts, but in justice to the
Learned Judge who presided, I feel it right to
inform you that his Lordship, addressing himself
to the prisouer, said, 44 you have had a very
" Tit-row escape, you are indebted to a merciful
Tury for your acquittal, and the sooner you
" take yoqrself off out of the county y the better."

I was concerned for the prosecution, and will
pledge myself for the accuracy of my statement.
I have no desire to appear_ in print, or to make
myself officious, I must therefore leave it to you
to take such notice of this letter as you may
think proper.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
RD. WA RDROPEZ.

MiAurst, 6th August, 1625..
** We are obliged to the writer of the above
letter for correcting any errors that may have
appeared in the report alluded to, but it is pro-
per to add, that we copied that report from .one
of Ole Morning Papers.

It is with feelings of concern that we allude to
a report .which has reached us of the serious ill,
zieo of a young.lady, whose abilities as a' vocal
performer. and an actress, in conjunction with' he
amiability of her private character, have long
and most deservedly ranked her a first.rate fa-
vourite with the public. The abrupt termina-
tion of a treaty of marriage, in contemplation of
which she had lately resigned her theatrical en-
gagements, is supposed to have been the primary
Qccasion.of her malady,—(,Evening Paper.)

COMMISSION OF LUNACY.

IN THE MATTER OF THE REV. EDWARD FRANK -(A

SUPPOSED LUNATIC.)
SEVENTH DAY.—MONDAY, AUG. 8.
The Inquisition in this case was resumed this morning at
eleven o'clock. As soon as the names of the Jurors were called
Over,
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER asked whether the dispensa-
tion from residing on his living, which Mr. Frank obtained in
1816 for two years, had been renewed ?
Mr. SPENCE said he understood it had, on account of the
state of Mr. Frank's sight.
• The CHIEF COMMISSIONER asked when had Mr. and
Mrs. Frank gone to live together again ? To which it was
answered in November, 1821.
Mr. PEPYS said a misconception had gone abroad with re-
spect to his client (the heir-at-law of Mr. Frank), which he
wished to correct. In the speech of his Learned Friend (Mr.
Brougham) a case was supposed of a young man sitting corn.
posedly and listening to a statement in which the misfortunes
and vices of his parents were held up to public view. This it
was understood out of doors was meant no apply to his client,
the heir-at-law. Now lie could state, that so far from that gen-
tleman being present at the trial, he was not in London, and
had not been since the commencement of this inquiry ; and no
man could conduct himself with better feelings- toward,: his pa-
rents, and every individual member of his family, than he had
done.
This explanation gave evident satisfaction to the Jury.
Mr. WAKEFIELD stated to the Court, that there was a
young woman (the chambermaid at the Adelphi Hotel, it was
understood) who had omitted sonic-thing very particular in her
evidence, which she since recollected. He did not make any
application to !layettes recalled, knowing it was irregular; but
he thought proper to mention the tact tur the consideration of
the Court.
21r. SPENCE, on the part of • Mr. Frank; objected to this
course, as it might lead to calling an evidence on his side to
rebut it, and that might be inconvenient, as his witnesses were
gone. Besides, it might raise a precedent, on which he would
also have to apply, as some of his witnesses were exactly in the
same situation. •
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER said, that tlfe case being
closed in support of the inquisition, it was irregular ; but it
might, in such a case, be the wish of the jury to hear any fact
of importance, if it were so.
Mr. WAKEFIELD said, lie did not make the application on
the part of the witness, but merely wished to apprize the Court
of the fact.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER.—CaII you state that this:wit-
ness will give important evidence ?
Mr. WaxEriELD.—She says she has omitted something
important.
Mr. SPENCE.—This will lead to a bad precedent : besides,
if this witness be recalled, I may have to recall others.
Several of the jury here intimated that they saw the force of
Mr. Spence's objection, and that there was no necessity. for
calling the witness back.
Mr. SPENCE then proceeded 'to address the Jury on the
evidence, on the part of Mr. Frank. He began by observing
that he would occupy their attention but for a short time, as
he would confine himself to the leading points of the evi-
dence. As to Mrs. Frank, he would not say a word, and
he hoped the Jury would consider, that in every thing that
was said against her here, she had not the advantage of
being represented by Counsel. He would therefore not touch
upon Mrs. Frank's conduct in the course of his address.—
He would now state the course he intended to pursue. First,
he would state the facts, as they were admitted on both sides,
and contrast them where they differed. Ile would next call
their attention to the opinions of the medical men on the facts
on both sides. In the outset, he must admit that Mr. Frank's
conduct was marked with great depravity ; but he. should be
prepared to contend that no part of his profligate conduct pro-
ceeded from an unsound mind. The evidence of his conduct
at Cambridge did not speak of any incoherency in his manner.
He seemed to have been fully sensible of the impropriety of
his conduct ; but most certainly that conduct, improper as it'
might have been, was very grossly exaggerated, as was clearly
proved by the evidence of Mr. Badliam. Ile had dined with
Mr. Frank at Cambridge, and he said he saw nothing very in-
detent in his manner, but that he had heard hint speak fre-
quently on matters of gallantry. Newby, it would be remem-
bered, swore that Mr. Frank's conduct was most profligate
dtiring the whole time; but Mr. Batlham, a most respectable
gentleman, stated that his conduct was not of that profligate
character which Newby had described. There was no doubt
that, had they opportunities of giving evidence as to other parts
of his conduct, they would find it had been equally exaggerated.
As to his conduct in Mr. Clinton's presence, what did it prove ?
Why, he asked him the residence or some partkulzu-
but not knowing how Mr. Clinton might take such a request,
he did not ask hies to accompany bins, but rather hinted at
it. Did not this show that lie was conscious of the conduct he
ought to pursue towards a gentleman, and was not that con-
trasted with the conduct lie had adopted towards the clerk ofthe
college, before whom he knew he could take greater liberties—
a proof that he knew well what he did. His conduct towards
Mr. Badham also proved that he had a perfect sense of right
and wrong; for when he found that he (Mr. Badharn) was to
become a teacher of youth, and that he was looking for pupils,
he refrained from the expression of any indecency in his pre-
sence. It was true he was a man of dissolute habits, but all
that they had heard proved that he was conscious of the man-
, ner in which he should conduct himself, according to the per-
sons in whose company he was placed. With this observation
he would dismiss the subject of his profligacy, again repeating,
that if they had had means of bringing evidence as to several
alleged acts of improper conduct, they would have found them
to be greatly exaggerated. The next point to which he would
advert, was what seemed much relied on on the other side—
that was the repugnance Mr. Frank had to settling accounts.
It should be recollected that this gentleman was born to a
considerable furtune, and that lie could not be expected to
look with the same -minute attention to pecuniary matters
as persona with more humble means. It was true, that during
his father's lifetime, Mr. Frank was in rather straitened cir.
cumstances, and they had no evidence that lie was inattentive
to his pecuniary affairs at that period. It was proved on one
side, that he had a great indisposition to looking over accounts,
but there was evidence on the other side to show, that lie was
not indifferent to his own interests on that subject. He had
looked over accounts, had attended to his interests, and was so
minute; as to dispute with a hackney-coachman for the trifling
sum of a sixpence or a shilling. In the evidence respecting the
letting of the farm at Carnpsall, it was. proved that he acted
with as much prudence and propriety as any other man of pro-
perty would have done. He would admit that in many things
he showed a great weakness, a great unwillingness in many
points to examine matters connected with his interests; but be
contended, from all they beard, it proceeded from disinclination,
and not disability. He would now conic to that part which
was most relied upon in support of the inquisition—namely, the
dining with his wife after all he had heard respecting her infi-
delity to him, and the taking into Isis particular confidence and
friendship the man who was represented as her paramour. Let
the jury look at the circumstances under which he became ac-
quainted with Mrs. Frank's alleged impropriety. They were
communicated to hiin by Captain Mainwaring and Mr. Bel-
lamy, who had them on hearsay; and in no case was there
iny -direct communication from a person who said lie saw
what passed, except in that of Roebuck, who swore he saw
Mrs. Frank undressed in Dr. Dickenson's bed-room, and also
who told what passed in Bridge-street. It was proved by all
the witnesses that Dr. Dickenson's conduct to Mrs. Frank in
Mr. Frank's presence was most decorous and respectful ; and
that his conduct to Mr. Frank was always mild and gentle.
So, therefore, he, Mr. Frank had no reason to induce him to
believe any infidelity on her part from any thing which fell
under his own observation. Now. as to Roebuck's statement,
he said he saw all this impropriety at Campsall and at Shelton
between Dr. Dickenson and Mrs. Frank; but what was his
conduct in Bridge-street, at the York Hotel ? The servant
girl there told him, that his mistress had been sleeping with
the gentleman above stairs (meaning Dr. Dickenson), and his
immediate answer was " Don't say such a thing, or you will
be made an example of." Now, if he had seen all the previous
improper conduct to which lie swore on the part of his mis-
tress, would lie have expressed himself in such a manner?—
would it Rot_ be natural for him to say—" It is no more than
I expected ?" • Instead of this, he at once cautions the girl how
she makes such an assertion, which he seemed at the time to
consider wholly untrue. Was not his conduct on that occa-
sion completely inconsistent with the truth of his former
statements ? But looking on the means of information which
Mr. Frank had from his own observation, lie had no ground
whatever for believing his wife's infidelity. Let it also be re-
cellected that he had been very much attached to Mrs. Frank
—that she was the mother of his children. Would it, under
those circumstances, be inconsistent with perfect sanity of mind
that he should disbelieve the evidence of her guilt, coining from
the quarters it did, or that even believing it, he should again
take her to his society ? The Learned Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to the evidence of insanity, as far as the opinions of the
-medical men. He would admit, that in 1817 Mr. Frank was
of unsound mind, and labouring under some delusions. Now
the question was, did that unsoundness and those delusions
continue to the present time ? How was the evidence on that
point ? Dr. Wright said that Mr. Frank was of unsound mind
in 1816 and 1817, and that he was always unsound ; and yet he
advised Mr. Hales to prepare a deed, to have it ready to be ex-
ecuted by Mr. Frank when he got better, which lie expected.—
Had he got better since, or was he competent to the manage-;
ment of his affairs ? -It was clear lie was so considered by Mrs f
Bellamy and Captain Nainwaring, and several others who be.

came parties to a solemn deed in 1817 respecting the disposal of
a great portion of his property. Could they have done so if they
believed him unsound ? The Learned Gentleman here read a
letter from Mr. Frank to his sister at Doncaster, dated Nov. 5,
1817, which, he contended, could not be taken as the produc-
tion of an insane person. On the contrary, it was the produc-
tion of a sound mind :
My dear Sister,—l am sorry to hear from Mr. Bellamy that
you are unwell, but I trust this will find you better in health.
Understanding my mother and yourself are anxious to have my
second little girl (Rosalie) at Doncaster this winter, I can have
no objection to the request. While I live I shall he truly grati-
fied in endeavouring to promote the comfort and enjoyment of
my only remaining parent, and as far as in my power study to
cheer and enliven the enhei and cheerful close of her well spent
life. I think my Rosalie a most bewitching child, and though 1
must feel dull and low-spirited at the loss of her lively endear-
ing society, yet, under your benignant care and protection I am
satisfied she will be truly happy, and stimulated to learn as far
as her age and capacity will permit. Should I fortunately live
till she is eight years old, it will be my most earnest desire, and
I resolve to place her at Miss Powis's school, with her charm-
ing and amiable sister. Ere this epistle reaches thee, you may
have heard I am going , to let C. (meaning Campsall) as
soon as possible. The magnitude of the mansion, and the
serious expence of supporting the same co-operating with the
badness of the times, and my most lamentable domestic mis-
fortune, all tend to render my firm resolution most advisable.
I had once flattered myself that I might perhaps pass many
joyful and many happy years at our much-attached native place;
hut that dream of fancy, like many more, has vanished for ever.
I never can look back on the many delightful and pleasing days
I have spent with her who was the object of my tenderest affec-
tion, at a period when we were contending with the direful
hardships of adversity without the most poignant regret ; and
although our final separation for ever was unavoidable, I
must consider that measure a serious misfortune to myself and
family—more especially, as I fear, under existing circumstances,
no divorce can take place, neither now or hereafter. When you
are ready to receive my little girl, you will perhaps let me know
that I may make some arrangement for the journey, before the
winter is more advanced—perhaps you could procure a good
tenant for my house, as I fear I shall meet with some difficulty
in letting,it. I should wish it to be inserted in the Doncaster
and York papers, and also in the Morning Post. With very
best love to my mother and to yourself,
I remain your affectionate brother,
EDWARD FRANK.
From the date of this letter, the Learned Gentleman traced Sir.
Frank down to 1824, during which time no proof of any act of 1
insanity could be given. It was unfortunately too true that
there was great evidence of depravity of conduct, but there was
not of any one act inconsistent with perfect sanity of mind. This
brought him to the evidence of Drs. Munroe, Mr. Warburton,
Sir George Tuthill, and the other medical gentlemen who were
examined in support of the inquisition. They gave Their opi-
nions of his insanity on the ground of the delusions under which
it appeared to them Mr. Frank waslabouring. The first was
that respecting his wife's fidelity ; the next, that of believing
Bellamy his enemy, anti also that he intercepted his letters, by
bribing the postmaster. He would first come to the alleged
delusion about his wife. Now if the evidence on which the
infidelity of Mrs. Frank rested was such as might be disbe-
lieved by a sane person, there was an end of delusion in that
respect. He had before spoken of the little credit which
was due to Roebuck's account on his own showing, but
Mr. Frank's knowledge of his wife's conduct came from no
other source that he could at that time rely on. He had
been induced to believe that Bellamy and Captain Main-
waring were not his friends, and it was not at all unnatural
that he should be disposed to discredit circumstances resting
on their assertion. lie would come next to the alleged delu-
sion as to Bellamy being his enemy. Let the Jury look at the
part which Bellamy had taken in those proceedings, and at the
manner in which he conducted himself when he heard of Mr.
and Mrs. Frank having come together again in November,
1821. The evidence of Mr. Norton on this point was im-
portant. Mr. Bellamy was' at Mr. Norton's house on business.
Here Mr. Spence read an extract of Mr. Norton's evidence
from The Times of Saturday last.l—" My servant came in at
ten o'clock, and brought letters, two for me, and one for Bel-
lamy. Ile opened his letter, read a portion of it; and then
condacted himself in what I call a frantic manner." (One
would think, the Learned Gentleman observed, that they were
then sitting to try the question, whether or not Bellamy was a
lunatic; at all events, it was curious that in such a case as
this the only evidence of a frantic manner should be, not of
the alleged lunatic, but of one of the petitioners to the Com-
mission.) The evidence of Mr. Norton went on to say—
" Seeing Mr. Bellamy agitated, I said, for God's sake, Sir,
what's the matter? Before answering time question he ran
about the room, knocked my chair about, tore his hair,
knocked his head on the tithe papers."—(Had such conduct
been evinced by his client, Mr. Frank, how it would have been
commented and enlarged upon, and yet nobody said that Mr.
Bellamy was insane)--" and theit'said, 4 Here am I with these
d—d papers, a mere humbugging 500/. at stake, whereas I am
losing thousands per annum in Yorkshire.' I asked how ?.
His answer was,--I believe 1 am bound to give the exact
words-4 That d—d idiot, Frank, has got his bitch of a wife
back again •' I think he said 3,000/. a year. I am not quite
positive. lean% tell you the very day. It was about the end
of November, 1821." Could any one who heard this (Mr.
Spence continued) have any doubt of the kind of interest which
111 r. Bellamy had in keeping Sir. and Mrs. Frank separate ;
and if Mr. Frank came to know that such was the feeling of
that gentleman, was it at all unnatural that a man, not endow-
ed, as undoubtedly he was not, with a strong mind, should have
carriecl his recollection back to the charges urged against Mrs.
Frank when Bellamy told him, and attributed them to a wish
to produce that separation by which he was likely to profit so
much ? Was it unnatural that, taking these circumstances into
consideration, he should believe Bellamy his greatest enemy ?
Vas there any thing so unnatural in that belkf as that to hold
it must be considered a proof of insanity? His steward is alarm-
ed at the reconciliation of his wife, after administering to his
base leasures for years. Was it delusion to suspect such a
man for his enemy ? After endeavouring to get a commission of
lunacy issued against him, for which they had the authority
of the Lord Chancellor that there was not the slightest ground
for the application, was it very irrational to conclude that Mr.
Bellamy was Ida enemy ? Why that must be the first im-
pression, to say the least, of every man who heard the circum-
stances. The reasoning of Sir George Tuthill and Mr. War-
burton must fail. No other term than conspiracy could be
applied to the conduct of Mr. and Mrs. Bellamy. The Jury
were to recollect the picking of the locks and the seizure of the
letters from Mrs. Frank to the husband, by which stratagem
those letters had been ready for production in court, and then
they would not be very ready to go along with those learned
gentlemen in their conclusion that to suspect those persons of
a conspiracy against him was proof of insanity. He contrasted
the medical evidence of the other side with that of the gentlemen
who spoke against the lunacy, especially noticing that of Dr
Burrowes, which was remarkable for the judgment and caution
with which he probed his mind upon all sorts of topics indiffe-
rently, and which left a conviction on his mind that Mr. Frank
was perfectly sane. Finally, he left the case with the calm and
deliberate sense of the Jury, cot doubting that whichever way
their verdict fell, it would tend to the general purposes of jus-
tice and the security of 111 r. Frank.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, rose to reply. lie would have
spared the Jury his own personal observations on the case, feel-
ing that he could add little to their information : but he was
-called on to sift some of the adverse evidence, especially that
of medical professors, whose opinions upon the mere ques-
tion of insanity were opposed to the law of England, as it
had existed for four centuries past. Of the witnesses whom he
had called, 17 or 18, excluding the medical witnesses, had,
after stating all the circumstances from which they inferred it,
stated their opinion to be clearly and unequivocally that Mr.
Frank was of unsound mind. Thete persons were as com-
petent to form an opinion as ehe medical gentlemen ; other-
wise, if every one were not admitted capable in that degree
of forming an opinion, the Jury themselves ought not to be
sitting there; and the law ougla to have left the decision to
a jury of physicians. How did it stand on the other side ?
The Jury bad eight witnesses, who stated that they had seen
nothing which would authorize them in believing that Mr.
Frank was of unsound mind. This might all be true in every
particular advanced ; but four of them gave no opinion on the
sanity. Not only was there no balance of numbers—there were
no numbers at all—no conflict of facts—they had no facts to
state of a general knowledge of Mr. Frank's conduct, which
could fix an impression on their minds that it was even highly
improbable that he was unsound. Mr. Brougham, a witty do-
quota man, who possessed every quality which could make him
a formidable adversary, had talked of the negative cookery of
the case for the lunacy. His complaint was far more appli-
cable to the case against the lunacy. Malcolm, who was pro-
hibited from taking a blind gentleman to France to witness
the coronation in the cathedral of Rheims, should have been
called. Where was the attorney who prepared the bond to
Dr. Dickenson for 5001. ? Where was Mr. Fisher, who broke
the sealed door open ? It was very like the Scotch inn, of
which Dr. Johnson bad said, that the old dame's negative ca-
talogue of provisions was very considerable. Ile had never
seen a case so perfectly naked, so absolutely stripped of all
which was necessary to meet a case as firmly set up by facts,
and established by opinions and just conclusions as that which
proved the lunacy of Mr. Frank. Applying himself to the de-
finition of unsoundness given by Dr. Veitch—that of a mind
wherein the imagination overlays the judgment—he would
only state four topics, which, on that hypothesis, would be
conclusive : his opinion of his wife's innocence—his intention
of. being married to a lady of fortune in the neighbourhood—
his belief that the postmaster intercepted his lettere-aand lastly,
his fondness for Dr. Dickenson, the imputed adulterer with his

wife. The repeated acts of that adultery in different parts of
the country were not shaken by a tittle of evidence. His letters
proved that his delusion upon that subject was perfect. Why
was rot this part of the case met by direct evidence? Here
was negative cookery indeed ! Another topic was his utter
incompetency to manage or understand accounts. Upon this
there was an utter failure of evidence, not a single account pro-
duced for the whole space of 12 years : he had no account to
settle. His wife and children must hive paid all the bills.—
lie admitted to the Jury that he never. paid any hills. His
head was as much disordered upon the subject of accounts as
in believing his wife's innocence, or in restoring Mr. Dickenson •
as her paramour, and his own steward, or in believing that the
post-office intercepted his letters. Among his subsidiary acts
of lunacy were his irregular excursions over the country, with-
out object or direction; and his most dissolute manners and
amours. Dr, Ilaslam thought Shat he might account. for these
more easily by the hypotheSi-s-or profligacy and a love of
wickedness. The Learned Gentleman alluded to the case of
Sir C. Sedley, who, after a reign of religious moroseness,
which the Court thought to dissipate with an opposition fashion
of licentiousness, stood in puris naturaliblls, and exhibited
himself from the balcony of a tavern in Covent-garden. That
was profligacy, but not such profligacy as that of Mr. Frank,
which was incompatible with any other state of mind
than that of lunacy. He again pressed upon their considera-
tion the intention admitted in evidence before them, of con-
veying him to France, where, if he had reached, he and his
property must have been at the mercy of his wife and Dr.
Dickenson. For though by stipulations of an existing treaty
criminals who were charged with capital offences were recipro-
cally to he given up for trial by their country, there could
be no application of that international provision to this case.—
He would have been represented as a man travelling for his
health, with his wife and a courier, who would have been his
keeper and his physician, Dr. Dickenson. To have interfered
with him would have been represented as one of the grossest
acts of continental despotism. He next applied himself to the
law of the case.. Upon the state of the Roman law he might,
if the mere love of antiquarian 'lore would justify such a waste
of their time, have undertaken to break a lance with his learned
and absent friend, Mr. Brougham. The Roman law did
not confine its definition of mental incapacity to fzsriosus and
latnu.r. There was the term dementat, and several others of
the same import. " Demented" was the phrase of the Scotch
law, which approached closely to the Roman in this deriva-
tion. How long lunacy had existed as a title or description in
the English books was not precisely ascertained. Littleton, of
the reign of Henry VI., used the phrase of Non cowpox nzentit,
which from among many other cases was preferred by Lord
Coke as the most accurate which the law could adopt. Ac-
cordingly, subsequent authorities, acceding to the difficulty of
determining the causes of mental disease, had all adopted the
condition of soundness or unsoundness of mind, according to
the weight of evidence produced in the case. He reprehended
the looseness and inapplicability of 1)r. Haslam's theory of
unsoundess, which required it to be manifested in the same
manner, and with the same degree of palpable evidence, as the
state of a carious tooth, or an ulcerated leg. This theory was
opposed to the declared sense of the greatest medical autho-
rities during the same period. He concluded his address at a -
quarter before four o'clock.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLTZIORE immediately proceeded to
sum up the case on either side. The verdict of the jury must
find, not only that the subject of inquiry was of unsound
mind, but that he was unable to manage his affairs, or the
commission could not go on. He proceeded to support that
proposition by the authority of the Court of Chancery, fre-
quently occurring in the books. In 1802 the doctrine had been
stated a little more largely. The Lord Chancellor gave it as
his opinion, that though there might be many cases of nicety
with respect to the general liberty of the person, yet that insa-
nity was not actually necessary to be proved to induce the
Court to interfere, provided that the conduct were of a charac-
ter utterly senseless, improvident, and destructive of the ins-
mediate property and enjoyments of the party. This divested
the jury of the necessity of distinguishing the difference be-
tween unsoundness, lunacy, idiocy, or any other degree of
mental imbecility. If the return, however, were lunacy, there
must be an addition to the general verdict, and they must say
if the patient has enjoyed lucid intervals, anti when. With
these directions, if they should find unsoundness, they must
also fix the period of its commencement, the object being, in
the words of the Lord Chancellor, to fix and define the period
of the competency and incompetency of the party with the
greatest precision. On one occasion, a jury had avowedly fix-
ed on a period later than the evidence would, support. The
Lord Chancellor held that they were bound to fix the period ac-
cording to the evidences without any regard to any other con-
sideration. The Commissioner went on to comment. upon 'the
facts of the evidence, commencing with 25th October, 1816, at
which time it was allowed on all hands that Mr. Frank's mind
was deranged. [We forbear to follow the learned Commis-
aioner through the remainder of his observations on the evi-
dence, because the facts have been so fully exposed to the pub.
li; attention.l
At five o'clock, in acquiescence with the request of the Jury,
the commissioner broke off, and adjourned the inquest until
',en o'clock to-morrow.