The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JAN. 14.
Lunatic petitions and causes of no public interest ecau-
pied the Lord Chancellor all day.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 14.
ROE V. DUNKERTON AND OTHERS-THE GREAT CHEESE CAUSE.
In this case a motion was this morning made on behalf
of the defendants (23 in number) for the dissolution of
an injuncticn granted by his Honour on the 7th instant, re-
straining them from advertising or exhibiting to the pub•
lic a large Somersetshire cheese, the joint property of the
parties to the suit, which was made and intended for her
Majesty.
From the press of other matter we can only give a short
statement of the facts of the case, which are these :—lt
appears that one of the defendants, Mr. Norris, being ac-
tuated by feelings of loyalty towards her Majesty, in May,
1830, suggested to several of his neighbours residing at
West Pennard, in Somersetshire, a very noted dairy dis-
trict, and near the celebrated Cheddar, that a Cheese
should be presented to her Majesty, as a mark
of the loyalty and attachment on the part of the in-
habitants of that parish towards their youthful and beloved
Sovereign, and that it should be formed by a contribution
of one or more meals of the milk of all the cows kept in
the pariah of West Penn;,rd. In the June following the
defendants Drinkerton and Norris called upon the other
farmers keeping cows in the parish, who cordially acqui-
esced in the suggestion. The two plaintiffs, Roo and
Page, were among that number. The cheese was formed,
and is considered by those who hare obtained a sight
of it, to be a beautiful specimen of agricultural pro-
duce, and we believe has been acknowledged by those who
are experienced in such matters, to be the finest that ever
came out of Somersetshire. Its shape is octagonal, and
measures 9 feet 4 inches in circumference, 3 feet in dia-
meter, and 20 inches in depth, and weighs about 11 cwt.
It is ornamented by the Royal arms, and is beautifully
stamped with various appropriate devices. We should
state that this enormous cheese was prepared front the
meals nii!lt of 737 cows—a meal being the quantity of milk
obtained from a cow at one [sinking. The curiosity of
every person in that part of the country being excited, and
many persons wishing to see the " Royal cheese," it was
agreed by the Committee that it should be exhibited, and
that a box should be placed in the room, for the collection
of subscriptions ; the balance of which, after defraying the
expenses of making the cheese, was to he dictritiuted
among the poor of the parish. Wearing apparel, bed
linen, and clothing, to the amount of 271., was accerdingly
bestowed upon the poor ; but the sum collected (although
many farmers and gentlemen in the neighbourhood made
contributions):leA having been adequate to the sum expend
ed in the manufacture of this cheese and the purchasing of
utensils, and so en; and as the cheese would not he ripe
and in a fit state to present to her Majesty until June,
1841, it was agreed at a public- meeting of the parties
interested, that it should be brought to London, arid ex-
hibited in the Egyptian Hell, Piccadilly, provided the
consent of her Majesty for that purpose could he obtained ;
but nothing was to be done to endanger the acceptance
of it by her Majesty, which was always the main and
paramount object in view. On the 29th December a
procession was formed, and the cheese conveyed in a
waggon from the village, the dairy women who had been
employed in its creation joining in the procession.
Beer and cider was distributed among the vil-
lagers, and the healths of her Majesty, Prince Albert,
and the little Princess, were toasted amidst the acelatna-
tions of those assembled. The cheese arrived in London
by the Great Western Railway on the 31st of December,
and on the Ist of January was placed in the Egyptian
Ile&L. The two plaintiffs, who may be considered as par-
ties in the concern, not ceinciding in the view that had
been taken by the other parties, applied to the
Vice-Chancellor for an injunction to restrain a public ex-
hibition, which his Honour then granted.
Mr. G. RICHARDS (with whom was Mr. Andcrdon) this
morning moved to dissolve the injunction.
Mr. Knight Bruce and Mr. Wright opposed the motion.
The VICE-CoaNeetieoe, without hearing the reply of
Mr. Richards, dissolved the injunction, with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JAN. 14.
( Sittings in Banco).
WATERS, EXECUTOR, V. TIIF. EARL. OF TIIANET.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved in this csse for a rule
to show cause why the verdict for the plaintiff should not
be set aside, and a nonsuit entered. It was an action
upon two bills of exchange, brought by the endorsee
against the drawer and endorser. The bills were for
the sums of 465/ 13s and 658/, and were dated so far back
as the 9th of August, 1802. The hills were drawn by the
defendant, upon the lion. Henry Tufton, in favour of R.
Nilson, and were made payable six months after date. The
first and second counts were in the usual form, and the
third was upon en agreement, signed by the defendant, to
the effect that in consideration of Mr. R. Wilson having
agreed not to sue him upon the two bills of exchange, then
overdue, the defendant debarred himself from pleading the
Statute of Limitations, in the event of his being sued for
the same ; and he also agreed to pay the amount with le-
gal interest, whenever his circumstances admitted, and he
was called upon. At the time the bills were drawn the de-
fendant had two elder brothers, Sackville, then Earl of
Thanet, and Charles, and the defendant had only an al-
lowanee of 5001 per annum. When Sackville died, in
February, 1825, some estates came into the dsfendant's j
possession, which he sold to Charles for 11,000/., and
1,600/. per annum. tie might then have been considered
of ability to pay, but all doubts were removed in April,
1832, when Charles died, and the defendant came into
rossession of the large estates as Earl of Thanet. The
action was not commenced for more than six years after
that date—namely, Nov. 1838, and the question for the i
Court was, whether the cause of action did accrue within
six years of the defendant being of ability to pay—who-
tiler a demand on the part of the plaintiff was necessary
within the six years, and before the statute began to run.
After citing some authorities on the subject,
The COURT took time to consider its decision.
HOLLAND V. CURZON.
Mr. ERLE moved in this case for a rule to show cause
why the verdict for the plaintiff should not he set aside, i
and a new trial had. It was an action upon a promissory
note for 1,000/. made to Reynolds, who had endorsed It
to Muller, by whom it had beer, indorsed to the plaintiff.
The defendant pleaded that the note had been given for
money lost in a gambling transaction with Reynolds,
who had endorsed the note to Mullar, by whom it had
been passed to the plaintiff without consideration, and
after notice. Ile held in his hands affidavits, which dis-
closed a collusion on the part of the witnesses and the
plaintiff—the former had been subpoenaed, but had not ap-
peared, and it turned out that Reynolds was the step-son
of Mullar—that Birkenshaw, another witness, was the
nephew of Nlullar—that Holland :had lately taken the be-
nefit of the Act, when Mullar acted as assignee, and that
they were colluding together to keep out of the way.
Under these circumstances, he trusted that the Court
would give the defendant an opportunity of bringing the
ease again.
s
Lord DENMAN said the statement made at the trial was
certainly very suspicious, but he could not have put it off
without convicting the parties of a gross misdemeanour,
but the defendant was entitled to the rule.—Rule granted.
MOFFET T V. SYDEN LIAM.
Mr. KELLY moved in this case, which had been before
Lord Denman at the last Guildhall sittings, and a verdict
had for the plaintiff, for a rule to set aside the verdict and
enter a nonsuit. The action was brought to recover da.
mages against the defendant for not accepting a very large
In February,
of
betwelB4o, the defendant
tradedcon-
tot 700 and 800 chests of
tea from the plaintiff, and the sale had been made through
the medium of a broker. The question which the Court
quantity
fo ofr tc tea.
purchase
had to decide was, whether parole evidence could be re-
ceiaed, not to explain.a variance which existed between
bought and sold notes, but whether evidence of that na-
ture could be received to superadd what he considered an
entirely new term to the contract. After entering at some
length into the point of difference between the notes,
which consisted in not specifying the number of the break,
and the time of payment for one portion of the teas sold.
The COURT granted the rule.
BROOKES V. INRITTY.
Sir F. POLLOCK moved, in this case, for a rule to
show cause why the verdict of 2001. and odd, for the
plaintiff should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered.
It was an action brought by Brookes and Co, linen-
drapers, in the Borough, to recover the value of a quan-
tity of long cloths and calico sold to the defendant who
had sent them to a packer's, by whom they were rejected
on the ground that they were not equal to the sample
pieces. The question for the Court was, whether upon
the evidence given at the trial there hail been such a bar-
gain and sale, and such an acceptance by the defendant, as
precluded him afterwards from repudiating the goods.
After hearing the arguments of Counsel which were of
great length, the Court was of opinion that the Jury had
properly found that an absolute bargain and sale had taken
place. s With respect to the evidence given by the packer,
as to the discrepancy between the goods and the sample,
the Court would look further into the evidence before pro-
nouncing its opinion.
KING P. CITAPMA N.
This was an action for assault and false imprisonment
brought by the plaintiff, a seaman on board the ship
Mermaid, against the Captain, for having flogged him,
on the voyage from London to Bombay. Tho plea was
that the plaintiff had conducted himself in a mutinous
and disorderly manner, which justified the defendant.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. THESIG ER now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, on the ground
that it was against evidence. lie contended that the
evidence completely negatived any charge of mutinous
conduct, neglect of duty, or inciting the crew to
mutiny. Mere disorderly conduct would not justify the
infliction of so severe a punishment as flogging, because
any trifling breach of discipline might he
justify the de-
fendant in having recourse to flogging'
The COURT thought there was no ground for dis-
turbing the verdict.—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JA.v. 14.
(Sittings in Banco.)
ALEXANDER V. BIRCHEIELD.
The plaintiff in this case is an auctioneer, and
brought this action to recover the sum of 47/., the
amount of a check given to him by the defendant, in
payment for two horses bought at an auction in the
Horse Repository, Barbican. The check was drawn
upon the bank of Young and Co., Smithfield, on the
10th of March last. The plaintiff at the time made
some objection to receive it, on account of the lateness
of the hour, it being
then nearly five o'clock ; upon
which the defendant said, according to the statement of
two witnesses, that he would take care it should be all
right. The plaintiff the next day (the 11th of March)
paid the check over to his own bankers, by whom it
was on the next day, the 1i1;11, presented to Young
and Co. at half-past nine o'clock, when these bankers
had stopped payment. The defence was that the plain-
tiff had suffered by his own lathes in not having pre-

seated the check, at some time in the banking hours
of the next day, as the Lord Chief Justice at the trial
decided that he was bound to do, unless specially in-
demnified by the alleged undertaking of the defendant
to make it all right. His Lordship said, moreover,
that if the Jury believed the evidence of the plaintiff's
son, that, after the failure of Young and Co., the
bankers, the defendant said " It is fortunate I had not
much money there, but tell your father, I will make it
all right," they must find for the plaintiff. They did,
however, find for the defendant, and the Solicitor-Ge-
neral now obtained a rule to show cause why a verdict
should not be entered for the plaintiff.

BAIL COUR7, JAN. 14.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)

THE QUEEN AT THE PROSECUTION OF THE SKINNERS' COM-

FANY V. THF. PARISH OF ST. PANCRAS.

Mr. HENDERSON applied, on behalf of the Skinners'
Company of the City of London, for a rule calling on the
Churchwardens, Overseers, and Vestry of the parish of
St. Pancras, to show cause why a mandamus should not
issue, ordering them to pay 171. 55., arrears of rent due
for a portion of the New-road. It appeared that when the
New-road was first made, under the provisions of Act29th
George 11., it was agreed that a rent of 515 s should be 29th
raid to the Skinners' Company, by the trustees of the road
for that portion of the road n hick ran through their estates.
By the Act 10th George IV., the roads north of the me-
tropolis, including the New-road, were declared to be
public highways, t@ be kept in repair by the respective
parishes through which they passed; and it was enacted
that the rent and charges payable on such roads, should
also be defrayed by the respective parishes. The parish
of St. Pancras had continued to pay this rent up to 1838,
when they refuted, on the ground that there was no written
agreement for the payme-lt of it. He contended that there
was no necess;ty for any such agreement, and therefore
hoped the Cout t would grant the application.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS-Take your rule.

PROFITS ON THE SALE OF SOUP,

WINE &c. &c.

LC CKETT V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND.

On Tuesday this case came before the Recorder and a
special Jury in the Lord Mayor's Court. The plaintiff
claimed compensation for good-will and interest in the
well-known Cock Tavern, facing the late north gate of the
Royal Exchange, required for improvement about to be
e6ectcd by the Bank of England.
The claim was 18,0941; the Baak, it was understood,
had made no offer.

Sir W. FOLLETT f•,r the claimant, stated that, under a
cane in the Act of Parliament which gave the Corpora-
tion of the City of London the means to effect the exten-
sive improvements which wire now taking place in the
City, the Bank was also empowered to require premises to
be given up for the same purpose. In this case the great
Corporation of the Bank of England desired the premises
of Mr. Lockett, which, as the Jury must know, had been
a tavern of the first resort in the City from time imme-
morial, and was frequented by its first merchants. Be-
tween the years 1827 and 1839 Mr. Lockett had expended
upon the premises no less a stun than 9,1351, and why
should he not be able to leave this to those who would
follow him, in the same manner that he could if he had the
money in his pocket ? lie did not want to part with a
house which he and his father had conducted with profit
for half a century; he desired to remain the possessor of
it. One of the most important items of the cl.im would
be the prat made by Mr. Lockett as a tavern•keeper, and
he should only be able to give general evidence of its
amount. There would be something ludicrous in showing
how beef and calves' heads would cut up into soup, but it
was the only means he had of proving it. For instance,
he should call witnesses to prove that to make ten gallons
of soup it required six calves' heads, 4lbs. of butter, and
6lbs of 11 ,ur.

RECOUEER-What name do you give it ?
Sir W. FoLLETi.--Mock turtle.—( A laugh.) Ile
should take three "years upon which to form an average—
the years of 1837, 1838, and 1839. In that period had
been bought 6,236 calves' heads—( Loud laughter)—that
would give 10 390 gallons; and there were 16 half-
pint basins to the gallon ; that would be 166,240 basins of
soup, at Ild a basin, which was 7,6191 6d.—( Roars of
blighter.) There was also another way of making mock
turtle, that was with scalps, and two scalps were equal to
a head. . . _

The REcoaDEtt—Two scalps make a head. —( Laughter.)
Sir W. FOLLETT—It seems so, my Lord.--( A laugh.)
There were 296 supplied and that would produce 245 gal-
lons, or 3,920 basin:.—(A laugh.) This was really ex-
posing the secrets of the trade, but he could not help it._
( Laughter. ) Giblet soup would be the next head.—( A
laugh.) Thirty sets of giblets would make 10 gallons of
soup; 6,159 sets had been purchased; ;hat would give
2,050 gallons, 32,848 basins, at 1 ld, 1,505/ lOs Bd.
(A laugh.)
The RECORDER—Did you put nothing but giblets in
your soup, Sir William ?—( A laugh. )
Sir W. FoLLETr—Yes, my Lord, but that's another
head. He would now come to ox-tail.--( Roars of
laughter.) Thirty-six tails made ten gallons ; 13,359
tails had been consumed in the three years.—( A laugh.)
That would give 3,710 gallons, or 59,360 basins, at I Id,
2.7201 13s 41. Soup bouilli was next —( Renewed
laughter.) Fifty lbs of brisket of beef made ten gallons.
Mr. Lockett had had 9,714'b of brisket ; that would mate
194 gallons, or 11,107 basins, 1,424/ 2s 81. Gravy soup
followed.—( A laugh.) 84,128 basins had been sold.—
( Laughter.) That would produce at 8d each, 2,804/
5s 4d. The total for soup was 16,2521 lls 4d.—( Roars
of laughter.) He would now come to the dinr.ers. These
were charged Is 10,1 each, and the amount was 4.E66/ 94,
There were other dinners where poultry were supplied,
which were charged 2.3 10d ; a fowl, or such, was con-
sidered sufficient for two persons ; a goose for four.—
( A laugh.)
The RECORDER—It used to be said a goose was too
much for one, and not enough for two.—(A laugh.)
Sir W. FOLLETT—The supply of fowls:had been 1,753,
geese 188—( A laugh)—aad at 2s 10d a meal, would come
to 603145. Pigeon pies, a small item, 45/ sa.—(A laugh.)
For fiats, 325/ 13s 9d had been paid, and he was told 100
per cent. was the usual profit.
The RECORDER—One hundred per cent. !—( A laugh.)
Sir W. FOLLETT—HC had forgotten to mention the
wise for the muck turtle.—( A laugh.) Two bottles were
put in 10 gallons, and 177 &zeta had been thus consumed.
—( A laugh.) The Learned Counsel, having stated some
' other items, said, the gross profits would be found to
amount to 4,7051173 Ild.
Thompson, the cook, explained how soups were made,
and of what.
In answer to questions put by the Recorder, he said
that in busy times they sold 500 basins of soup a day—
upon others from 350 to 400. If he had a bit of ham to
spare he would throw it into the pea soup.—( Laughter. )
Benjamin Ming, one of the head waiters, stated that the
receipts up to six o'clock were '2Ol. to 251. a day; after
that the " supers" attended to the coffee-room.
The Court adjourned till the following day, when Mr.
Adams, a licensed victualler and guager, residing at Lam-
! heti], was called to prove the extent of the trade in wine
aad spirits, which he stated he had obtained from the Ex-
cise return.
Mr. A din's stated that the gross consumption for the five
and three-quarter years was—brandy, 2,928 bottles ; rum,
144 ; hollands, 162 ; French end German wines, 195 ;
port, 10,472 ; sherry, 14,659 ; but from this was to be de-
ducted the amount of stock on the 4th of December 1840,
and the average annual cost appeared to be 7201. The
porter and ale supplied to the house was 7s a day, or 109/
4s a year.
Sir W. FOLLETT—And what do you estimate the profit
on the wine?
avisness—On the 3,782/ 4s expended for wine, I esti-
mate the profit at 3,959/ 17s.
The RECORDER-3,9591. 17s. 1 That is a little more
than 100/. per cent. ( Loud laughter.)
Mr. Adams—lt is, my Lord. The profit on the por-
ter is 71 per cent.
Cro,s-examined—A pipe of wine would cost, with the
duty, 141. He supposed it to be kept in bottle three years.
The interest of the outlay, corks, &c. would make the
cost 108/. 7s.
Sir W. FOLLETT—HOW many glasses arc sold from a
bottle at the bar ?
Mr. Adams—Fourteen, at 6d a glass, producing 7s.
(A laugh.)
The RECORDER—The bottles must be very large, or
the glasses very small.—(Loud laughter.)
Mr. Adams continued—The profit on wine sold by the
glass was 121 per cent, by bottle 42 per cent.
Mr. KELLY—DO the proprietors of gin-palaces make so '
much profit ?
Mr. Adams—No; nor one half.
The RECORDER—Row do you came to that conclusion ?
Mr. Adams—l have kept one for eleven years.—( A
laugh.)
The RECORDER—They say that the profits of a gin-pa-
lace are immense.
Mr. Adams—lt is a mistake, my Lord.—( A laugh.)
Tho RECORDER—Why, I hare heard the profits arc so
nearly calculated that what a man may leave, after toss-
ing the glass off, is of some amount.
Mr. Furnell, an eminent accountant, was next exam.
fined, and said he had examined all the tradesmen's books.
He found in the three years, that 4,655/ 3s 4d was paid
to the butchers ; poultry, 781/ 2s 2d ; the fishmonger,
325/ 13s 9d ; bakers, 7271 7s 3d ; hams, 1161 15s ; sauces,
361 5s ; butter and cheese, 34715 s ; green-grocery, 5041;
soda-water, 301; stout, 591; and 172 dozen of wine for
the mock-turtle soup, 301/ 3s Bd, making a total of
7,871/. He found 4,419 calves' heads had been sup-
plied, which would make 166,240 basins of soup, and,
at lld each, would produce 7,619/; from scalps, 296,
1791 13s 4d. Of giblets, 6,159 pair had been supplied,
and would make 32,848 basins, 1,505/ 103 8d ; ox-tails,
13,359, 2 7201 13s 4d ; brisket, 9,714ib5, for soup bouilli,
1,02412 s 8d ; soup meat, 26,2961b5, 2,80415 s 4d ; and the
total amount for soup world be 14,221/ 17s sd; 48,3661b3
of meat had been supplied ; 2,127 hams ; 50,9(17 lbs
of other meat, tongues, and sausages ; and allowing one
pound for each person's dinner, at Is 101., would give
4,66619, Of poultry, a fowl or duck would dine two, a
goose four. There had been supplied in the three years
mentioned 1,753 fowls and ducks, 188'gcese, and 439
pigeons ; and a pigeon pie would dine four. The poultry
would thus produce 603145; but as steaks were put in the
pigeon pies, they were only calculated to serve three. The
profit on the fish, at 100 per cent,. would be 651 i 73 61.
The soda-water was charged 6d, but cost 21d. The profit
on quart bottles of stout was 100 per cent, and 71 on pints.
The whole money received was 20,5881 12s 8d ; and, after
deductions, would leave 11,622/ 11s 10d, the balance for the
three years. The net profit per annum would be
4,005/ 17s 11d.
Mr. Burr—How many basins of soup hare been made
in the three years ?
Witness-377,568, namely :—Mock-turtle, 166,240,
and from scalps, 3,920 ; giblet, 32,848; ox-tail, 59,360 ;
bouilli, 31,072 ; and gravy, 84,128 basins; and one-eighth
was allowed for waste, leaving net 330,372 basins.—
( A laugh.)
The RECORDER—That will make 110,000 a year, 350
a day.—( Laughter.)
After some other evidence, Mr. KELLY addressed the
jury in reduction of the damage'.

The Jury then retired for upwards of an hour, and at
half-past eight returned into Court, and assessed toe da
mage as follows :—Lease, 1,5001; fixtures, loss by remo-
val, good-will, and all other damage, s,oool—Total
6,5001, being 12,0001 less than the claim.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

A big, bard-drinking Scotchman, named James Miller,
was brought before Alderman WILSON, charged with
having turned his wife, not only out of her bed, but out
of her house, at three o'clock in the morning. The de-
fendant had been charged with brutal conduct to his
wife upon a former occasion, and obliged to find bail.
She had forgiven him for the twentieth time, but she
found that he was so completely given to strong drinks,
which provoked him to the use of his fists, as well as to
the use of the foulest tongue that ever demanded mouey
of a wife to lay out in gin, that she determined to leave
her unfortunate case in the hands of the Magistracy
henceforward.

It appeared that Mrs. Miller was a widow in respec-
able business and good circumstances, when about thir-
teen years ago she unhappily met the hulking fellow at
the bar, who just wanted the comfortable situation of
husband to an independent easy woman. Her choice
was objected to by her relatives and friends, and she
soon found that their judgment, not having any mixture
of the blind passion in it, was the more correct, for he
began to exercise the authority of a lord and master in
the most awful manner, soon after he did her the honour
to change her name.
Alderman WILSON—We have had this gentleman
more than once at that bar before.

Mr. Hobler said that Mr. Miller had been frequently
brought before the Lord Mayor for savage conduct to
his wife, who, notwithstanding his violent and drunken
habits, more than once interceded for him.

Alderman WILSON to Mrs. Miller—You say he
turned you out of your bed and your house in this
eather ? Mrs. Miller—At three o'clock in the morn-
ing he dragged me out of bed, and pushed me out at
the door ; I was obliged to call a policeman.
Alderman WILSON—What have you to say to this
charge, defendant? Defendant—Why, my Lord, my
good lady and I have been sleeping separate for the last
six months, and I thought that was too long, so I pro-
posed to come to my old quarters, and that was not
agreeable to her, so out she started, and 1 suppose kl.el
was afraid when she saw me, but she had no occas on,
far it was not her that I took hold of, but her pillow.
Alderman WILSON—You must find good bail to keep
tl.e peace towards her for twelve months.
Mrs. Miller said that it was only two or three days
ago the sureties which he had been obliged to find to
keep the peace towards her had been discharged.
Alderman WILSON—We shall protect you against
his brutality. Defendant—l beseech you not to be so
hard upon me. Her nieces arc the cause of the differ-
ence between us.

Alderman WILSON—They don't make you drunk,
and send you to turn her out of her bed and her house
at three o'clock of the morning, do they? Defendant—
I assure you, my Lord, I'd never do such a thing again.
I'll go away to Scotland at once, if you'll discharge me.
Mr?. Miller said that she was unwilling to do the
man injury. All she wanted was peace. God knew
she had suffered for her imprudence.
Alderman WILSON—You shall not be subject to such
dreadful annoyances. He must find unexceptionable bail.
Defendant—l can't find bail, my Lord, and I pray you
not to be so hard upon me. I'll tell you what I'll do :
I'll go off this moment to Scotland, and then there can
be no occasion for bail : I'll cut off at once by the
steamer.

Alderman WILSON—I must take care that you :lo
not murder your wife before you go.
Defendant—Send one of your officers with me to sec
me off. I assure your Lordship that nothing shall pre-
vent me.

Alderman WILSON-It shall entirely rest with your
wife, whom you have so grossly abused. I shall remand
you tiil Wednesday week. If Mrs. Miller intercede for
you in the mean time, and she states that she has
reasori to believe you will go to Scotland and not trou-
ble her again, I shall attend to any request she may
make to me ; but it all depends upon her.
The Defendant thanked the Alderman and looked
imploringly at his wife, who appeared to be extremely
grateful for the resolute tone in which protection the
most complete was offered to her.
Mr. Miller was then remanded.