The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-18 00:00:00

THE PERTH AND DRUMMOND PEERAGE.

Their Lordships then proceeded to hear the further
arguments in this case, on which
Mr. FLEMING, en behalf of the claimants, summed up
the case on Thursday last. We have already given
the facts of the case in detail, and we now only
present our readers with a summary of these facts.
In the year 1605, James, the fourth Lord Drummond,
was created Earl of Perth, with limitation to his heirs
male. He died in 1611, without male issue. His brother
John then became second Earl of Perth, and was suc-
ceeded by his eldest son James, who became third earl,
and died in 1675. The son of this last named person
then succeeded to the title as fourth Earl of Perth. He
attached himself to the fortunes of the Stuarts, and left
Scotland in 1693, and went to reside at Saint Germains,
where he was created by James 11. Duke of Perth. His
son and grandson succeeded to this dignity, and were
styled at the French Court Dukes of Perth. They
joined in the schemes of the Pretender, and were suc-
cessively attainted in 1715 and 1745. The last of these
persons dying without issue male, the dignity of Earl
of Perth passed over to the male descendants of John
Drummond, the brother of the fourth earl. The second
son of this John had bee?' created by the French King
a peer of France by the title of the Duke de Melfort.
The pre sent claimant of the English earldom of Perth is
the great grandson of the John Drummond who thus re-
ceived the grant of a French title.
The LORD ADVOCATE addressed their Lordships to-
day against the claim, and occupied the Committee the
whole morning.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 17.
(Before Lord DENMAN.)
COUNSEL AND CLIENTS.

The Court during the morning was occupied with
cases of interest only to the parties immediately con-
cerned. On the second case being called on,
Mr. Sergeant SHEE, who appeared for the plaintiff,
intimated that his Learned Friend, Mr. Parry, who ap-
peared for the defendant, was absent at the Central
Criminal Court, and that it would bo well to postpone
the case until his arrival.
Lord DENMAN--What has that to do with the case ?
Mr. Sergeant SHEE—I thought it right to mention
his absence to your Lord,hip.
Lord DENatax—lhe plaintiff must have a verdict if
he is entitled to it, notwithstanding the absence of his
counsel.

The solicitor for the defendant intimated his readiness
to conduct his client's case if his Lordship considered it
right to proceed.
Lord DENMAN considered that it should proceed, and
it proceeded accordingly. Mr. Parry, however, made his
appearance at the termination of the case of the plaintiff,
whose witnesses the solicitor had cross examined. lle,
however, arrived in time to address the jury on behalf
of the defendant; he apologised to the Court and the
jury for his absente, which he said had been caused by
actual business.

Shortly after Mr. Sergeant SHEE had made the above
intimation he rose again, and applied to his Lordship to
postpone the next case, in which both himself and Mr.
Knowles were engaged, until to-morrow.
Lord DENMAN—I am very unwilling to let it stand
over until to-morrow, because it will interfere with
other cases in the list. The parties ought to be ready.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE said Mr. Knowles (who appea-red
in the Queen's Counsel-room without his wig and gown),
joined him in his application.
Lard DENMAN (with much emphasis)—Have you the
consent of the other parties who have cases on the list,
who, if the case is postponed until to-morrow, may be
displaced, and have no opportunity of having their cases
tried for six months perhaps.
Mr. Sergeant Shee resumed his seat disappointed at
his application having proved abortive, and Mr. Knowles
withdrew, and appeared some time after in the court,
wearing his wig and gown.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 16.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice WIII.IAMS

RICHARDSON V. STEELE.

This was an action for damages for a breach of pro-
mise of marriage.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Ryland appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Spinks for
the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES, in opening the case, said, the
plaintiff complained against the defendant, who was a
chemist and druggist at Brighton, for having inflicted
upon her a most serious injury. The plaintiff was the
daughter of a tradesman at Messing, near lielvedon, in
Essex. In the years 1842 and 1843 the plaintiff and the
defendant lived together at the house of a Mr. Waugh, a
chemist in Regent-street, the ene as an assistant, the
other as a lady'smaid. An attachment had sprung up
between them, and without any reason whatever the de.
fendant had returned the letters of the plaintiff, and haul
repudiated the contract he had entered into. The
plaintiff became ardently attached to the defendant
whilst at Mr. Waugh's house. Fortunately, although
the defendant had destroyed the letters the plaintiff had
written to him, she had preserved those she had received
from him, and they should be laid before the jury in
order that they might see whether justice could be ad-
ministered to the plaintiff in a court of law. The plain-
tiff's brother had thought it necessary to see the de-
fendant with respect to his intentions, and the defendant
then expressed his love for the plaintiff and his intention
to marry her. He would call the brother before the
jury, and would prove a voluminous correspondence to
have taken place, from 1843 to 1846, between the plain-
tiff and defendant; and although he would not read all
the letters, he would refer to two or three, to show the
terms on which the parties were contracted to each
other. The first letter was as follows:

" Friday, June 2, 1843.
" My heart is fixed,
I cannot range ;
I love my choice
Too well to change.
_ _

" First impressions (carefully made) of those we find some-
thing in to admire, esteem, and love, are seldom, if ever,
effaced from our memory, and stand proof against the slander
of our most secret enemy.
" Love has many doubts, but without proofs should cherish
none."

The Learned Sergeant then read several long and rather
tedious letters, in which, mixed up with allusions to
business and other matters, were occasional expressions
of attachment. One letter mentioned "sending a news-
paper" to the plaintiff, which " contained three cases of
murder;" another mentioned sending her " Humphrey's
Clock;" and most of these letters concluded, " Yours
truly and affectionately, Stephen;" " Your affectionate
Stephen, with love ;" " Your absent lover," and so on.
During the whole of this long courtship the defendant
had been looking out for a settlement in life. The op-
portunity at length presented itself, and he was set up
by his father iu a very flourishing business at Brighton.
The jury should now hear what the effect of that pros-
perity was upon the defendant, in his conduct to this in-
nocent and confiding young woman. His neglect and
long silence induced her to write to him, and, broken.
hearted, to go ciown:to Brighton to see him; after which
she received from him a letter, which he would read to
the jury:—

" Nov. 29, 1845.

"Elizabeth,—l received yours of the 25th, and feel sorry
you should have troubled yourself with any such apology, as
I had not the least desire to receive any such thing. You
appear to quite misconstrue the meaning, that the future
may, perhaps, make amends for the past; but understand it
this way for your own good—if you wish to gain respect in
future, reflect before you act, your actions will be less likely
to give offence. You must be well aware that two possessing 1
opposite feelings and opinions never can be happy together; '
such undoubtedly is the case; therefore it is my wish, which
I trust will meet yours, that no further correspondence will
be carried on between us upon the terms unfortunately that
have been ; but I shall always feel that interest by which 1
hope to hear of your success and happiness. I hope, by re-
fi,ction, you will be of the same opinion, and put the best
construction upon this letter, which I feel will be decidedly
to the advantage of both.—l remain, still your well-wisher,

" Miss Richardson, 17, 'ere-street,
Oxford-street, London."
Probably it would have been better that she should hare
sent her father or her mother down to Brighton than
have gone down there herself. The young woman most
earnestly solicited one more interview with the defendant.
He could not lay the plaintiff's letters before them, as the
defendant had burnt them, and she kept no copies of
them. She wished to know, if there had been anything
in her conduct to give reasonable offence, and the fol-
lowing was the answer she received (Post-mark,
Brighton, Jan. 8, 1846) :
"Elizabeth,—l received yours on the 6th instant, and am
at a loss to know why ,rou wish an interview, as I thought
suffi
ciently explicit; but if there be any
matter you wish explained, if you write and name it, I shall
be happy to satisfy you •, otherwise, for the benfit of both par-
ties, let there be no further communication."
No signature or date was appended to the letter, and it
was addressed the same as the last. In the course of

the courtship many little pledges of affection had been
interchanged; and in May, 1846, the plaintiff received
an envelope containing everything the defendant had
ever received from her, with this letter:—
"I forward to you everything I possessed that once belonged
to you, as I wish that every circumstance connected with the
past may be forgotten. The letters I had have been long
since destroyed, so that now I have not a single thing.
Trusting they will arrive safe, I wish you health, happiness,
and prosperity."
There was no address at either the beginning or end of
the letter, and so terminated the correspondence. He
need not inform the jury of the irreparable injury
which had been inflicted on this young woman. The
bloom of her youth had been sacrificed, her feelings
had been wounded, her chances of a comfortable set-
tlement in the world had been wasted by this in-
sincere and heartless man. The evils of our dense
population tell most heavily upon young women;
many of them, in every way capable of making
good wives, were, from the circumstances of the
other sex, compelled to waste their existence;
and the man who took the bloom of a young woman's
life and deluded her out of a chance of future settlement,

inflicted upon her an injury which no damages of a jury
could compensate. From the age of 19 to 24 this young
woman's life had been thus wasted. If left to herself she
would never have brought this action ; but her family
and friends insisted upon it, and determined to obtain
for her justice in a court of law. It was the duty of the
jury to mark their sense of this conduct. He should
show that the defendant was in a flourishing business at
Brighton, and able to pay damages. The damages were
laid at 5001., every shilling of which he thought would
not be too much to give. It was the duty of the jury to
mark their sense of the injury which the plaintiff had
received. He called
Wm. Henry Richardson (who was examined by Mr.
RYLAND), brother of the plaintiff, Was a shoemaker
in London. His parents lived in Messing, in Essex.
His sister was about 28 years of age. The defendant
was formerly an assistant to a chemist named Waugh,
in Regent-street,:and his sister was living as lady's-maid
to Mrs. Waugh. In May, 1843, the defendant sent for
him, and told him he had formed an attachment to his
sister, and wished to make her family acquainted with
it; that he was satisfied of her suitability for his wife,
and wished to marry her. Witness wished him to un-
derstand that his sister had no property, and wished him
to consider th ,t. He replied that he had property of his
own to set him up in a first-rate way of business. It was
not he said money that he looked for in the choice of a
wife, but manners and disposition. lie was admitted
to the family on the terms of a suitor till June,
1845. During that time he said he was looking nut
for a business, that he had property to take a first-rate
business, but could not find one, He had repeatedly
been out with the defendant and his sister together. On
one occasion he was looking at a newspaper, and there
was a very long name in it, and that L d to conversation
Elizabeth, but I will soon it
about names, and defendant said to his sister, "Yours is
He also said he did not wish his
faorvearyshloonrtg changeonnaem.,,
sister to take another situation on her leaving Mrs.
Waugh's, as he did not wish it to be afterwards said
that his wife had been a lady's-maid. There was no
change in his manner until March, 1846, when he had
another conversation with defendant about his sister. De
fendant had then taken a business at Brighton, and wit-
ness went to see him. He was carrying on a very large
business as a chemist and druggist, in St. James's-street,
in Brighton. It was on Sunday. Witness told him he
had come to see him, as he was informed by his sister
that he (the defendant) had altered his mind in regard
to her, and he (witness) wished to know if anything had
occurred on her part to effect this change. He told wit-
nets, there had not; on which witness expressed his
surprise at such conduct, and told him that his sister
had kept herself respectable and disengaged, relying on
his former promises, and was willing and ready to marry
him, and asked his reasons for now refusing to fulfil
his promises. He said, there were some little matters
about which they disagreed, and he had fully made up
his mind not to marry her. He knew the defendant's
handwriting perfectly well. The letters put in were in
defendant's handwriting.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILT INS—He car-
ried on business at 2, Mulberry-court, Vincent street,
Finsbury. His: sister was in court, in the gallery, in a
blue shawl. He had made boots for the defendant.
There was no one with him but his sister when the con-
versation about the name of his sister took place. They
were on board a steamer going to Greenwich. He knew
nothing about the art of distilling, and never proposed
to supply defendant's employers with spirits of lake.
His sister, after leaving Mrs. Waugh, went to live as it h a
friend of his at Islington, then to Kilburn, then to Kensal-
green, to his aunt's, and resided amongst different friends
until she took a situation, in which she stayed a few
months. Then she went to her father's unwell with a
bad leg, and then went to live with a lady named Ali.rsh,
in Wales, and went with her to Paris, and then came to
London. She then went to live with Mr. Birch, in Vere-
street, Oxford-street, an Irish linen repository, as shop-
woman, where she now was. Did not tell defendant that
he would publish his conduct throughout Brighton when
he saw him. Never told defendant "he had better pay
him 100/." he denied that altogether. His sister had
been " two years, come July," in Vere-street. First
heard defendant refused to marry his sister in Novem-
ber, 1845. He had other sisters, some of whom were in
service, and others, young ones, living at home with his
father. His sister was educated at Messing. His sister,
the plaintiff, was about 17 years of age when she went
to service.

Re-examined by Mr. Sergeant BYLES —llls father had
nine children, and did not send them all to boarding-
schools; but his sister was competently educated. Wit-
ness had been ten years in business as a bootmaker in
London. His sisters went out to service when they were
competent for it.
Mrs. Bars, aunt to the plaintiff, examined by Mr.
Sergeant BYLES —ln 1843 the plaintiff was visiting
witness, and subsequently; and on those occasions the
defendant, Mr. Steele, had visited the plaintiff at wit-
ness's house. She objected to his attentions, thinking
they might not be honourably meant, but the defendant
said his intentions were honourable, and he meant to
marry her.
The correspondence opened by Mr. Sergeant Byles
was then put in and read, together with the following let-
ters, after the conclu-ion of the defendant's correspond.
ence, demanding the fulfilment of his promise,
" 26, Carey-street, London.
" Sir,—Miss Richardson has consulted me relative to your
conduct towards her, in desiring that on further correspond-
ence be had between her and yourself. She is totally at a loss
to account for so sudden a determination on your part, after
so long an intimacy and your promises made to marry her,
and am to request the favour of your informing me if it be
your determination not to marry her, and if so on what
grounds you refuse to do so.
" I am, Sir, yours very obedieutly,
" THOS. BISGOOD.
" Mr. Stephen Steele, chemist and druggist,
" St. James's-street, Brighton."
There was no reply to this letter, and ultimately, to a
subsequent letter, demanding a reply, a reference was
given by the defendant to his solicitor.
Mr. John Cook (called and examined by Mr. Ser-
geant BYLES) lives in Crawley-street, Oakley-square.
Knows St. James's•street, Brighton, and had seen the de-
fendant's shop there. It is one of the principal thormigh-
fares in Brighton. Had been at defendant's shop two or
three times. It was a good-sized and a very respectable
shop. The defendant was in a very excellent way of
business, from what he had seen. He had hoard de-
fendant's father had retired from business. Did not
know it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wilancs—What '
are you ?—A gentleman.
Were you ever in business ?—Yes.
What business ?—No answer.

Were you a draper's assistant ?—No answer.
Were you one of those gentlemen who stand behind a
counter in a draper's shop, rub their hands, and ask " If
they can show the ladies and gentlemen anything else ?"
—(Laughter).—Was in the employment of his brother,
who was a draper. lied been in business since on his
own account, but it did not answer.
What took you to Brighton ?—Went there when he
was married.

Oh, married ! What ! had you to go to the drug-
gist's shop after you were married ?—(Laughter). What
did you want ?—A few little things. He huew nothing
else about the defendant or his shop.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS then addressed the jury for
the defendant. He said, his Learned Brother had stated

that the plaintiff's friends were determined to bring her
case before a jury, to see if they could obtain justice in
a court of law. Had he been sincere in that desire he
would have refrained from many topics he had intro-
duced, and from many manoeuvrings he had resorted to.
An inquiry of this kind was calculated to set the feelings
of the jury at war with their judgments. It was one of
those cases which engaged the best feelings of our hu-
manity, and which required the strongest exercise of
the mind and judgment to keep those feelings in control.
They had
cadlhocaokl,,, a strange mélange read, to them for the
last half hour, composed of love, murder, physic, " Hum-
and last not least, about " the man with
the white hat of asinine qualities." Never before that
day, though having
, some experience in love corre-
spondence, had he neard read such a correspondence as
this. His Learned Brother had talked of the plaintiff
being broken-hearted—it was a phrase which often
meant nothing—and when he heard it said of the buxom
young woman in the gallery, he could not help thinking
of the Irishman who went blubbering out of court after
hearing his counsel's statement of the injuries done him,
ee rd oafs
lMuses,am I didi
adyni
nogt think
laside
his was
cryingLehaaorlunf out,
Bi3b rayod ttl hyh eert'hsmroeptaohte tie effusions, let them turn
their attention to the plaintiff and the defendant in 1843,
when the attachment spoken of began. His Learned
Friend had spoken of the plaintiff's humble circum-
stances. The plaintiff and the defendant were living in
the same house, and the defendant then wrote to her a
kind of Valentine:—
" If you loves I
As I loves you,
No knife shall cut
Our loves in two."—(Laughter.)
What sort of love that was every boy knew. The plain-
tiff and defendant were in the same house together.
The defendant sees Betsey in the same house together.
The defendant sees Betsey iu the morning sweeping the
stairs; he sees her in the daytime waiting at table, and
he sees her at night carrying a light to the bedrooms,
and has a sly whisper to her. But time had begun to
have upon him its proper effect. Some of the jury
might have sons. What would they think of an at-
tachment between one of their sons and the housemaid
of the people with whom he was placed? No doubt
when the defendant was a boy he had written those
passionate epistles, but the later letters were very dif-
ferent. When the plaintiff returned from France, the
defendant discovered that his boyish impressions were
very different from what a great many silly people mis-
took for affection and:love, though widely different things
The defendant had attempted no disparagement of the
plaintiff's character. His affections were not under his
control, and intercourse with life had so changed his
views that the daydream of his youth had vanished
before a sounder discretion. His Learned Brother had
spoken of the defendant's " wasting the bloom of the
plaintiff's life." He might, indeed, have wasted the
bloom of her life, for it appeared that she had been
completely under his control; but he had never in the
slightest degree transgressed the rules of propriety.
The defendant at length discovered, what he did not
choose to explain to the brother, that there were many
little points in which they differed ; but it was those
little points, however impalpable, which constituted the
happiness of human life ; and under those circum-
stances, was it not more just, nay, more religious (if he
might use the phrase), to break off' rather than complete
such a contract, which would not only take away the
bloom, but the fruition of life itself ? They had heard a
great deal about the defendant's property, but they had
not proved that he was worth ls. It was quite compa-
tible, and in accordance with the statements made, that
his friends had set him up in business ; and as to his
fine shop, there were a great many shopkeepers in
Regent-street who would be but too glad to get out of
them, as well off as when they got into them, and they

all knew that a few gilded bottles and mahogany
drawers made a great display at little cost in druggists'
shops. As to the young woman being broken-hearted,
true sorrow never paraded itself, and never called to its
assistance the meretricious aids of rhetoric. The beggar
in the s'rects who stood shivering in our view was not
the man that demanded pity, but the quiet man who
sought to bide his misery in retirement. True grief
never paraded itself ; and the very circumstance of any
woman parading a transaction of this kind before a jury
was always a very strong proof to his mind that there
was a far greater desire to get money than to get public
sympathy.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, said, it was not diF-
puted that the plaintiff had successfully proved the de-
fendant's promise to marry her. The defendant had most
deliberately formed the engagement, and the plaintiff was
entitled to a fair compensation. Their disparity in life
was no answer, as the defendant was aware of it at the
time.

The: jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 250/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 17.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins before the LORD CHIEF BARON
and a Common Jury.)
CROWN CASES —ATTJRNEY GENERAL V. POWELL.

This was an information filed by the Attorney-General
end the Board of Customs, charging the defendant with
having fraudulently concealed and brought into con-
sumption tw.•nty-your chests of tea without the payment
of duty. The manner in which the fraud was committed
was as follow,:—A sailor of the name of Partridge,
formerly resident in Jersy in 1845, became acquainted
with the defendant Powell in the mmth of November.
Powell was at that time in charge of the steam• boat called
Lord Collingwood. At Christmas in the above year
they left Jersey and came to London. In the mean-
time Powell told Partridge that he could put
him in the way of making his fortune, by run-
ning tea through the Custom-house, coastwise.
Partridge immediately concocted the plan, and
they arranged it that a bond should be given to the
Custom house, and purloined, and that the profits arising
from it were to be distributed between Powell, Walsh
and Partridge. This having been settled, Partridge
obtained drafts upon the London and Westminster
Bank, to purchase tea in bond, and he carried this busi-
ness on for twelve months, under the name of Clark.
He obtained a parcel of tea from the Custom-house, the
destination of which purported to be Liverpool, but the
goods were removed to a warehouse, and never for-
warded to their destination, but were brought into con-
sumption. Ultimately Partridge was taken into cus-
tody, and put into Whitecross-street Prison, and
information that he gave led to prosecutions
against his confederates, Powell and Walsh.
It was proved by the Comptroller of Customs at
Liverpool that he only received a packet in respect
of the bonds, and he searched in vain for the con-
signees. For the defence it was agreed at length that
the known character of Partridge rendered him un-
worthy of credence, and that the jury could not give a
verdict against Powell on his evidence.
The jury returned a verdict against the defendant in
the single value of 3201.
The Attorney-General appeared for the Crown, and
Mr M. Chambers, Q.C., for the defendant.

SHERIFFS' COURT, June 17.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
IRWIN AND ANOTHER V. ROGERS.

The plaintiffs in this action are attorneys, and the
action was brought to recover the sum of 94 Is. 6d. fur a
bill of costs.

The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. Inall, clerk to the plaintiffs, was called, and
proved that an appearance was entered for the defendant
in an action brought against him, and special pleas were
put on the record that the defendant had been absolved
from liability by having taken the benefit of the Insol-
vent Act. and in consequence the proceedings were
stopped. The defendant had admitted to him that he had
retained the plaintiff, but only to enter an appearance
for him.

Mr. Newington, an attorney, was called, and said that
the charges were reasonable and the proceedings neces-
sary under the circumstances of the case. The first
item was for making a demand of the attorney whether
the writ was issued by his authority, and searching
whether he had taken out his certificate; there was also
another item for attending for answer to demand. These
were ordinary charges where any doubt existed. There
were ten charges previous to the entering the appear-
ance.

Mr. THOMAS, for the defendant, argued that there
.was not sufficient proof of the retainer, but if the ad-
mission of the defendant was to be taken at all, it could
be only as to entering an appearance, which would only
cost about 65., although in this bill preliminary charges
were made amounting to 335. It was the first time in
his experience that he ever knew of such inquiries being
charged for; it was " making" business. _ _

The Learned UNDER SHERIFF said that he could
readily conceive that such inquiries were very prudent,
for no doubt that a great many writs were issued by
persons not attorneys, or in the names of attorneys who
knew nothing of the proceedings, which in that event
would be set aside. It had been urged for the defendant
that the plaintiffs ought at once to have• entered the
appearance without going to the preliminary expenses.
That question might have been more satisfactorily deter-
mined if the defendant had had the bill taxed by the
proper officer. As it now stood the jury were the judges
of all the facts, and could also tax the bill. If they found
that there had been a retainer, they would say what
amount the plaintiffs were entitled to; but it was hardly
credible any attorney would take a retainer merely to
enter an appearance, which would involve him in serious
responsibilities before the Court, if, having done so, he
did not proceed with the action, and a defendant could
enter an appearance himself if that were all required.
The jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict
for 5Z

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.

(Before Lord Chief Justice WILDE and Mr. Justice
PATTESON.)

MURDER.— Gilbert M•Donald, -aged 46, described as a
carpenter, was charged with the wilful murder of Agnes
M'Donald, his wife.

It appeared from the evidence that the deceased was
in the habit of constantly getting intoxicated, and on
the night of her death had been indulging her unfortu-
nate propensity. Some words arose between her and
the prisoner, and a quarrel ensued which led to the event
with which the prisoner was charged.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of manslaughter,
and he was sentenced to be transported for lite.
(Before Mr. BULLOCK.)
John Haywood, waiter, 23, pleaded " Guilty" to a
charge of stealing a watch and chain, and money and
valuable securities to a very large amount, the property of
General Sir Alexander Mackenzie.

Sir Alexander recommended the prisoner to the mer-
ciful consideration of the Court, on the grounds that he
as a young man and had previously borne a very good
character.

Mr. BULLOCK sentenced him to twelve months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
Edward Thomas, 26, was indicted for the manslaughter
of Joseph Dawson.
Mr. Clarkson defended the prisoner.
It appeared that Thomas was the captain of a canal
boat, which was upon the Grand Junction Canal at
Brentford at the time the occurrence happened. The de-
c,ased was also a boatman, and it appeared that on the
2d of May he had some quarrel with the prisoner at a
beer-shop, and wanted to fight with him, but the prisoner
refused and left the house. At a later period in the day,
the deceased was found lying upon the bank of the canal
suffering under mortal injury upou his stomach, but the
circumstances under which he met his death were alto-
gether involved in mystery, except that the deceased
stated that he had been kicked by the prisoner. It ap-
peared, however, from the evidence that the deceased,
who was stated to be a much more powerful man than
the prisoner, and who was also described to be a " des-
perate" fighter, had waylaid the prisoner on his return
to his boat, and there was very good ground for believing
that if he had really inflicted the fatal injury upon the
deceased, it was only done in self-defence from the attack
of a man who was very much his superior in physical
power, and who had waylaid him, and forced the
struggle upon him.

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Sarah Cooper, thirty-one, spinster, was indicted for
thu wilful murder of her male illegitimate child, by neg.
letting the usual necessary precautions after she had
been delivered, and by casting the child into a privy,
where it was discovered.

No counsel appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner
was defended by Mr. Parnell, through the humane in-
strumentality of the Sheriffs.
The evidence given in support of this charge was of a
nature to render it quite unfit for publication.
The jury acquitted the prisoner of the murder, but
found her guilty of concealing the birth of her child,
and she was sentenced to be kept to hard labour for
one year.
Thomas Martin, forty-two, "carrier, was indicted for
the manslaughter of Mary Anne Martin, his wife, by
casting her down a staircase, and thereby causing mortal
injuries, of which she died.
Mr. Clarkson defended the prisoner.
In this case a mass of depositions had been returned
by the coroner, and, as no counsel was employed to
conduct the prosecution, it was necessary for his Lord-
ship to read through the whole of them, in order to
ascertain which were the material witnesses; and while
doing so,

The Learned JUDGE remarked, that nearly the whole
of the statements taken down were inadmissible as evi-
dence, and several of the witnesses appeared to have
been called merely to state what they had heard other
people say, which, of course, could not be evidence
against an accused party.
Mr. CLARKSON said the examinations were certainly
more of a medical than a legal character.
The description given of the case by the witnesses was
of rather a confused character, but so well as it could be
gathered from their testimony, it appeared that the
prisoner was a carrier, and lived with the deceased and
his family in some apartments over his stable in a mews
near Dorset•square. Oa the 7th of May the prisoner
and the deceased were together in one of the rooms, and
a son and daughter, who were in an adjoining room,
heard an altercation between them, and the deceased
suddenly rushed along the landing, followed by the pri-
soner, and immediately afterwards a shriek was heard,
and the deceased was seen to fall down a steep ladder
into the stable, whereby she received such serious injury
as caused her death a few days afterwards. The only
question in the case was whether this fall was accidental,
or whether it was occasioned by any act of violence on
the part of the prisoner by striking or pushing the
deceased down the ladder. The evidence in support
of the latter alternative tvtis certainly of the moot
meagre description, and mainly consisted of state-
ments alleged to hare been made by the prisoner

immediately after the transaetion, to the effect
that ho had knocked her down the ladder. These
statements were alleged to have been uttered in the pre-
sence of Mr. Guy, the surgeon, who was called in to
the deceased, but that gentleman in his evidence de-
clared that no such statements were made to his recol-
lection, and he also said that after the unfortunate oc-
currence the prisoner expressed deep regret at what had
happened, and did all he could to render assistance to
the deceased. It also appeared that the staircase ladder
in question was very steep and in a most dangerous posi-
tion, and it seemed exceedimgly probable that the de-
ceased, in endeavouring to get away from the prisoner,
had fallen down it accidentally.
Mr. CLARKSON having addressed the jury, the Learned
Judge summed up, and they then returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
THE MARTLEBONE MURDER.-Upon :he application
of Mr. Clarkson, the trial or Mary Anne Hunt, for the
murder at Marylebone, wai postponed until next session.
The ground upon which the trial was postponed was an
affidavit made by Mr. Humphreys, the prisoner's attor•
ney, to the effect that he had reason to believe that ho
should be able to establish the fact of the prisoner's
insanity, and that time was required to procure the ne-
cessary witnesses.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
LAMBE7'H.

Mr. Alfred Marshall, the young man charged with
firing a pistol at Miss Louisa Rote, with intent to do
her some grievous bodily harm, was again placed at
the bar.

Mr. Binns attended for the prosecution, and Mr.
Games for the defence.
Mr. William Smith, the first witness called, deposed
that he lodged in Swan-street, Kent-road, at the home
of Mr. Bailey, who was stepfather to Miss Rofe, and
knew the prisoner Marshall very well. Had heard
Marshall abuse Mr. Bailey and his wife, and say, he
should wait for the former some time or other. He had
also heard him say, he had advised Miss Rofe to leave
her home, and told her that her stepfather was no father
to her; and at that time he indulged in strong terms of
abuse of Mr. Bailey.
Mrs. Mary Ann Buller, who resides in Swan-street,
opposite to the house of Mr. Bailey, said, that about
three weeks ago she heard the prisoner say, he should
not mind being hung for shooting Mr. Bailey. On the
night of Sunday week witness was in her sitting room,
and heard a stone thrown at the door of Mr. Bailey.
This was about nine o'clock, and she went out, and saw
the prisoner a short distance from Mr. Bailey's house.
In her cross-examination by Mr. Games, the witness
said, she had not seen either a pistol or a gun in the pos-
session of the prisoner at the time she spoke of.
A lady named Hobbs was called, but her evidence was
not of the slightest importance as affecting the prisoner.
The next witness called was Miss Rofe, and, after her
former evidence had been read over to her, she swore to
its perfect truth, and to having seen the prisoner with a
pistol in his hand, and hearing the report of a pistol on
his discharging it at the house. She was no party to
the publication of the banns for marriage with the pri-
soner; but understood that the prisoner bad got them
put up and published.
Mr. Binns said that this was his cose ; and after call-
ing his Worship's attention to the facts of the threats
made use of by the prisoner, about shooting Mr. Bailey,
and his not caring being hung for shooting him; and
further, the fact of both Mr. Bailey and Miss Rofe see-
ing the prisoner not only with a pistol in his hands, but
also their hearing the report of a pistol shot, he should
leave the case in his Worship's hands to deal with as he
might think prop( r.
Mr. Games replied that he should not trouble the
Court with any remarks, but would proceed to call
witnesses, whose testimony he had no doubt would
negative the more serious part of the charge against his
client, ant induce his Worship, after hearing it, at once
to discharge him out of custody.
Richard Davis, 55 P, was then sworn, and stated
that on the night of Sunday week Mr. Bailey came to
the station-house in Lock's-fields, and complained of a
shot being fired at his house by Alfred Marshall,
which broke his window. Witness in consequence ac-
companied him back to his house, and, on examining
the window that he represented to have been broken by
the discharge from the pistol, he found that a small
piece of one of the squares was broken ; but upon ex-
amining it more clearly he felt quite convinced that it
had been broken from the inside, and in this belief he
was confirmed by the fact that the glass was found on
the outside. He did not perceive the slightest appear-
ance of shot or a ball, though Mr. Bailey had declared
he heard the shot, after the pistol had been fired, rattle
against the window.
Two constables were next called, who deposed that
the marks in the brickwork in front of Mr. Bailey's
house, and which were alleged to have been occasioned
by the shot discharged from the pistol, had iu reality
been caused by knocking at an early hour in the morn-
ing with their truncheons to awake a young man who
lodged there.
Inspector Valentine produced three grains of shot,
which he said he had found close to the wall of Mr.
Bailey's house on the morning of Monday week, but
could not say whether they had been discharged from a
gun or pistol.
Mr. ELLIOTT remarked, that had the evidence gone
far enough to show that the prisoner had, as charged
against him, discharged a pistol at the young woman
with the intention of doing her some serious bodily
harm, he should have felt it to be his duty to commit
him for trial. The evidence, however, fell short in esta-
blishing the charge of shooting with intent, but at the
same time there was sufficient shown to justify him (Mr.
Elliott) in calling on the prisoner to find sufficient bail
to keep the peace, and be of good behaviour towards
Mr. Bailey, his family, and all others of her Majesty's
subjects, for six months.
The required bail was put in and accepted, and the
prisoner discharged.
WORSHIP-STREET.

A well-dressed man, named Allred Evans, was charged
with having feloniously obtained and disposed of several
chests of tea and other groeery goods, of the value
of 751.
Mr. Taylor, the prosecutor, stated the prisoner was in
his service as shopman, and left in August last. In the
following March he was in expectation of an execution,
and went to consult the prisoner as to what course he
should pursue. He told him to come to a composition
with his creditors, but to remove a considerable portion
of his stock, and he would bring a cart and carry it
away himself to the house of his mother, and that he
could dispose of it at an advantageous price to a near
relative of his; assent was given to this proposition, and
a few mornings after he came to Mr. Taylor's premises
with a horse and cart, accompanied by his brother- in-
law, a man named Price, and removed a large quantity of
goods. The conditions upon which he entrusted him
with the goods were expressly that he was to turn them
into a fair money value if he could do so, and if not to
return them. A rough agreement was drawn up, and
signed by Mr. Taylor's creditors, by which they con-
sented to receive ss. in the pound, and as the payment
of the first instalment of 2s. 6d. entirely depended upon re-
ceiving the goods, or the produce of the goods in the pri-
soner's possession, he applied to him repeatedly for the
restoration of them or their value, but could never suc-
ceed in obtaining them, or the slightest information,
further than that they were in the possession of a per-
son named Ratcliffe, in Granby-street, Bethnal-green.
In consequence of this conduct he (Mr. Taylor) was un-
able to meet the approaching dividend, and, therefore,
he called his creditors together, and made them ac-
quainted with the way in which the prisoner had served
him, and having by their kindness and liberality re-
trieved his embarrassment, and finding it useless to
treat any further with the prisoner, he gave him into
custody.
John Purday, the alleged purchaser of the prosecu-
tor's goods, said, about five weeks ago, the prisoner,who
was an entire stranger to him, and his brother-in. law,
Price, with whom he was slightly acquainted, called
upon him. Price said he would put a sovereign in his
pocket. He said a tradesman he knew was going bank-
rupt, that he and the prisoner had got some goods off
his premises away from the creditors, and that as they
could not find the person to whom they were taken,
they wanted him to say that he was the party who had
had them and sold them. They said there was no
danger at all. He agreed to meet them at ten next
morning at the Grapes, in Old. street-road, where he ac-
cordingly went with a man named Duke, and met the
prisoner and Price, the prosecutor (Taylor) being seated
in the parlour. When he (Purday) went in the pri-
soner addressed him as " Mr. Ratcliffe." Ho had not
told him he was to go by that name, and said they had
come about " those goods." Purday said, " Well they
brought them to his place, and told him to get them off
as fast as he could." Taylor instantly started up and
exclaimed, " Why, he must have goods of mine to the
value of 751.; surely he don't mean to say that be has
made away with all those?" Taylor further said he was
a great rascal for selling his goods in that manner, and
turned away in a rage. On Taylor, in four or five days
afterwards, calling upon him and asking where the pro-
perty was, he told him that, he did not know anything
about it. The prisoner shortly afterwards called upon
him, and asked, if he knew any empty house, to which
he could bring Mr. Taylor and say that ho had lived
ag
beeni st rat
collisione , a n d
there and run away. When he Lund that it amounted
to 751., he got frightened.
contended Air.smseidghtthheavMe
Pelham
that althoughshshortly
atdhderree
between the prosecutor and prisoner for a not very cre-
ditable purpose, nothing more than that had been proved
against his client, and it was really scandalous that a
man should be placed at the bar on so serious a charge as
that of felony, under such extraordinary circumstances
as had been disclosed.
Mr. BROUGHTON said, the only answer to tho case
would be that the prisoner was a partner, or authorised
to dispose of the goods in this manner, and that was not
established. It was a monstrous fraud, which might
have been the ruin of Taylor. He should order the
depositions of the witnesses to be taken for trial, but in
the mean time would accept the same bail as before
offered—the prisoner in 501., and two sureties in 40/.
each, and the officer must inquire into their solvency.
The bail was immediately found, and the prisoner
thereupon liberated.
THAMES.

11'illiamsShear
chargeds, etlabdy
his
thirteen
father,y Johnears old, e andrs,
d nmaelrl
of histhe age, was
following
distressing circumstances:--
The father, who is a labouring man, and of very re-
spectable appearance, stated that the boy was his
and he had. done everything in his power
foaN'r°euclaitil'lllna' from his
.evil courses. had fallen
intot bad company, and since that period had been a
continued source of trouble and anxiety to his parents,
whom he had taken every opportunity of plundering.
The poor man added that his son had been frequently
taken before several police-courts, charged with theft ;
and once it cost him (witness) 1/. 14s. to pay a solicitor
on his account, and this he could ill afford. About a
nth since he got hold of a sum of money belong-
ing to his mother, and ran away with it. Yestercitly
hip
mother gave him some silver to buy some grocery Gra-

des with, but he again ran away with the money, and
finding him to be perfectly incorrigible, be was compelled
to bring him before the magistrate to see if anythin%
coul be done with him.
The lad, during this statement, appeared quite tirt•
moved at his poor father's distress, and perfectly careless
as to the results.
Mr. BALLANTINE observed - that this was a most
affecting case. He was loth to send so juvenile an
offender to prison, where the chances were that he would
only become a confirmed thief. He should order him
ice t
be remanded for a week, and directed that a ice
should be placed on the commitment stating that he was
to be kept in solitary confinement, and in the interim be
would consider what could be done with him.
The father thanked the magistrate, and retired.
CLEI?KENWELL
Mary Ill'Carthy was charged with stealing a Oil
watch and guard-cain, the property of John Langton.
It appeared frohm the statelnent of police-constable
101 G, that as he was passing up Field-lane that mornsing,
ing, about two o'clock, he over heard the prisoner say tO
another woman, " Well, I have eased that chap of big
watch down at Eliza's." The policeman, knowing the
place meant by the prisoner, went there, and found the
prosecutor vehemently declaring that he had been robbedof his watch, and would give the owner of the house 01
charge. The constable then took him back to Field:
lane, where the prisoner was found near the same aPb
where she was first seen by the constable, and upon
close examination of her lodgings the watch was 101111
concealed.—The prisoner was committed for trial.