The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 16 18112_

with thorn as sbaieholders, and parties otherwise with facilities
and on the alert for information, aware of the fact, and as-:
sured that shares in the usual course must improve ia
price as the railways neared the time for being finally
opened for traffic and a chance of profitable returns, began
to purchase largely at the high rates of discount to which
they had fallen, or the low- premiums at which they stood.
Thus it was seen that for some time previous to the complete
or partial opening of the two railways the, shares continued to
advance arid speculators to push their operations. Great Wes-
terns reached 25 premium, Brightens from 8 or 9 rote to
about 3 discount. The whole effect contemplated for the open-
ing was therefore anticipated when the day arrived, coupled
with which it may be noted that the public evinced little of the
disposition calculated upon to rush into the market with divi-
dends just received from the Bank in hand, and relieve the
overloaded jobbers from their shares at any higher quotations
that might be asked, or even at the rates then ruling. This
being the case, as pay, that is settling, day was approaching,
and could not be staved off, such of the speculators as found
themselves with more shares, or liable to take more shares on
that day, than cash to pay with, found themselves under the
necessity of bringing a portion to, or even of throwing the
whole upon an inaction. Prices of course began to decline
more rapidly than they had before risen, and so have continued
to this the reckoning day, when the black board " has come
into requisitisn as before obset vcd.
On the Ist of this month a wholesome law, passed during
the late Session of the Pennsylvania Legislature, comes into
operation. " ancially it may not be of much promise, but
morally it will operate as a salutary check upon that illegiti-
mate species of speculation known as " time bargains," which
here have gained to an extent so rrejudieial. By this law
every person or co-partnership desirous of exercising the
business of a broker, is subjected to the payment of an annul
tax of 100 dollars, for which a commission or certificate is
issued yearly. Brokerage business is classified under three
heads, namely, stock brokers, exchange brokers, and bill
brokers, for each of which a separate certificate is necessary,
with a payment on each of 100 dollars, and any person or firm
desirous of engaging in all the three must pay the same tax of
100 dollars on each. The penalty for doing business without a
certificate is to be 500 dollars. And time sales of any securi-
ties for a larger term than five days are prohibited under a
penalty of not less than l')0, or more than 1,000 dollars.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 14.
(Before ➢lr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
MESSRS. WHITMORE, WELLS, AND WHITMORE'S (BANKERS)

BANRUPTCY.
This was the day named to take the choice of Assignees
against the estate of these bankrupts, who carried on business
as bankers in Lombard-street, and who,e stopp:ge was made
public some few days since.
The number of creditors in attendance was very numerous,
but notwithstanding the extreme pressure, ample accommoda-
tion was afforded for the press.
A great number of proofs were admitted to-day without pre-
judice and without reference to questions that may arise re-
specting overdue checks.
The debts and liabilities of the bankrupts were estimated at
420,0001., but no idea of the assets can yet be given.
There was no opposition to the choice of assignees, which
was made as follows: —Henry Lee, of No. 32, Finsbury-squire,
in the county of 111iddksex, builder; William Dimsdale Child,
of No. 8, Finsbury-place, South, in the same county, mer-
chant; and James Alexander Simpson, of No. 11, Austin-
fri Irs, in the city of London, solicitor to the estate and effects
of Edward Whitmore, John Wells, John Wells the younger,
and Frederick Whitmore.

- .....
Among the proofs tiled during the sitting were the follow-
ing:-Mr. Dodgin, 871. 12s. 10d. ; Mr. Du Bouisson, 563/155.;
Mrs, Eleanor Simpson, 5001.; 731 r. R. Bousfield,9lB/. 16s. 11d.;
31r. N. Allin, 2,508/. 6s. 10d.; Mr. T.Bulkeley, 605/. 16s ;
Mr. C. D. Kerr, 459/. 15s. ; Mr. J. Hopkins, 1,838/. 15s. 3d. ;
Mr. J. J. Bulkeley, 1,110/. ss. 2d. ; Mr. G. B. Hart,
1,8171. 11s. 2d. ; Mr. J. Bishop, 1,4821. 10s. 6d. ; Mr. George
Whitmore, 540/ 2s. Id. ; Mr. Edward Divest, AI. P., 894/. ;
Mr. G. Rands, 4021. 13s. sd. ; Mr. J. Turner, 601/. 3s. 9d. ;
Sir John W. Lubbock, 5091. 10s. 6d.; Mr. T. Key, 847/. 2s. 6d ;
Rev. John Noble Colman, 541. 6s. 7d. ; Mr Charles Pulling,
194/. 9s. 9d. ; Captain Francis Briggs, 1731.75. 2d. Mr. W.
Dimsdale, 806/. Os. 9d. ; Mr. John Barnard, 4,421!. 13s. ld, ;
Mr. George Goodwin; 1,122/. 9s. 4d. ; Mr-7. G. Garland,
213/. 4s. 7d. ; Mr. Edward A. Horilham, 6001. ; Mr. J. B. Gar-
land, 674/. 3s. 2d.; Al r. J. Smart, 413/. 4s. sd. ; Messrs. Kendle
and Elliott, 3,572/. 16s. 6d ; Mr. R. Whitmore and Sir An-
drew Barnard as executors of the late Lady Williams,
1,386/. 4s. 93. ; Miss Elizabeth Hunt, 444/. 3s. 3d. ; Mr. W.
Folgate, 6011. 16s. 6d. ; Mr. G. Davidge, 332/. 14s. 3d. ;
Mr. S. Purkiss, 524/. 12s. ; Mr. J. Forrest, 3011. 17s. Bd. ;
Mr. R. Whitmore, the Rev. John William Machie, as trustees
of Thomas Williams, 1,795/. 12s. Bd. ; Mr. R. Shuter,
593/. 17s. 3d. ; Mr. J. H. Davidge, 235/. 13s. Id. ; Mr. T.
Edwards, 1,246/. 14s. 7d. ; Mr. J. E. Fillon, 264/. 12s. ; Mr.
R. Whitmore, as executor of Francis Oliveira, 54/. 19s. ; Mr.
R. Harris, 3351. ss. 103. ; Mr. E. Howard, 536/. 14s. 4d. ;
3lr. J. Wilson, 1,207/. 12s. 9d. ; Dlr. R. Carpenter, 342/.
11 s. 6d. ; Mr. W. Muslin, 987/. 4s. 11 d. ; Mr. J. A. Simpson,
1,1941. 12s. 2d. ; Mr. G. D. Naylor, 1,112/. 19s. ld. ; Mr. A.
Nesbitt. 1,944/. 17s. 4d.; Mr. Allilvitso Doxat, 8,997/. 4s. ld.;
Mr. J. W. Child, 4,529/. ; Mr J. Boyd, 4,4541. 16s. 3d. ; Mr.
Francis Chambers, 828/. 6s. ; Mr. J. Felton, 290/. 17s. Bd. ;
Mr. J. Furze, 976/. 4s. 6d. ; Mr. F. J. Vanzeller, 25/. Is. 4d.;
Mr. J. Walker, 2,285/. 16s. 73. ; Mr. O. Nutter, 218/. 4s. sd. ;
Mr. J. Parry, 8691. 13s. ; Mr. H. Lee, 2,570/. 19s. Id. ; Mr.
F. Friend, 955/. ss. sd. ; Mr. G. Burnand, 1,768/. Is. 7d. ;
Mr. S. Pegg, 631/. Its. sd. ; Mr. E. Junes, 2231. 12s. 6d. ;
Mr. H. G.• Franklyn, 274/. 5s sd. ; Mr. Francis Hobler,
7971. 14s. 2d. ; Captain Henry Connop, 683/. 17s. 9d. ; Sir.
J. Casley, 1,3411. 19s. 10d. ; Mr. C. 'Milligan, 796/. 3s. 63., &c.
The total amount of the prods admitted could not be ascer-
tained at the rising of the Court.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 15.
ZACHELOR V. GREY.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of 41. 13s. for
medicines supplied to the defendant. The plaintiff was Mrs.
Catherine Bachelor, who carried on business as a chemist and
druggist, in the Broadway, Hammersmith. and defendant an
upper servant to a lady named Page, residing in Brook-green,
in the same neighbourhood. It appeared in the evidence that
the plaintiff's brother was a medical -student, and used to pre-
scribe for the defendant, but received no fee. The prescrip-
tions were compounded by an assistant in the plaintiff's shop,
and amounted to the sum now clamed. For the defence it
was contended that the defendant employed Mrs. Bachelor as a
surgeon and apothecary, and that it was on his account alone
the medicines were supplied, and under a certain section of the
Apothecaries' Act, any person who was not in practice before
the year 1315, or who did not possess a certificate from the
Apothecaries' Hall, was debarred from the recovery of medi-
cines supplied, and that the action was brought in the name of
Catherine Bachelor to evade this section of the Act.

Mr. HORN, for the plaintiff, said that if she acted as an
apothecary the defence set up might be good, but Mr. Batche-
lor, although so nearly related to her, had no interest or con-
nection v,hatever with the business, and his prescriptions for
the, defendant were compounded in the plantiff's shop in the
same manner as might be done in the shop of any other
druggist ; and, therefore, there could be no fraud or collusion
in terms under which the present action was brought.
Verdict fOr the plaintiff, 41. 135., costs, 40s.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTERN CIRCUIT.---Winchester, July 14.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE. )
Thomas Tarlett, aged 28, was convicted of having felo•
niously cut and wounded. Jesse Goedyer, with intent to do him
some grievous bodily harm. The case, as it appeared upon the
evidence, exhibited a sample of great brutality. The prisoner
and the prosecutor, who were not acquainted with each other,
being both in the tap-room of a public-house, the prisoner,
without any previous provocation, threw his hat into the
prosecutor'‘ face, and thereby knocked him off the chair upon
which he was sitting. The consequence of this and of some
additional provocation was, that the parties had some three or
four rounds at boxing in the room. Upon their quitting the
house afterwards, the prosecutor said to the glisoner, " Good
night, my friend, I hope there's no malice, and that all's
right." To which the prisoner answered, " No, it's not all
right, and I'll soon show you it's not ;" upon which he rushed
upon the prosecutor and knocked him down, after which he
stabbed him five times with a knife.

Mr. Baron ROLFE sentenced the prisoner to 18 months' im-
prisonment and hard labour, desiring it to be publicly com-
municated, that wherever a knife should be wed in a quarrel,
the punishment inflicted by the Court would always be more
severe upon that account.
NISI PAIL'S COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice MAut.E.)

was alto seinWemiolio:aiivc, eri,l,.‘tre rains.t hi • hay-
ing heeii seen near the spot, as well as identitica:ion by the
prosecutor.
Mr. isievacn addressed the Jury for the Lnycoelts, and
The Jury tiound Pilling Guilty, but acquitted the et her two.
Sentence deferred.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Northampton, July 13.
The Lenened Judges, the Right lion. Baron Parke, and Mr.
Baron Gurßey,L arrived here last evening, and opened the
.commission. Having attended divine service at ten this morn-
ing, they took their seats in the County Hall at twelve o'clock,
Mr. Baron Parke presiding in the Crown Court, and . Mr.
Baron Gurney on the Civil Siee.
. .

There were but seven causes entered for trial, two being for
seduction, one cf which is a special jury case.
In the county calendar, with the exception of 24 persons
committed to take their trial for a riot at a place called Stoke
Plain. in this county, an 1 which is stated to have arisen out of
opposition to the erecting of some fences under an enclosure
act, there appear the names of ten persons only.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY. )
WILLIAM RODDIS V. JOHN FAIILCLOTH.

This was an action on the case for the seduction by the de-
fendant of' the plaintiff's daughter.
Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Waddington, and Mr. Miller, conducted
the plaintiff's case. Mr. Hill, Queen's Counsel, and Mr.
White appeared for the defendant.
Mr. HUMFREY opened the case to the Jury in an eloquent
and very impassioned address, commenting with stern severity
upon what he termed the horrid, atrocious, and disgusting cim-
duct of the defendant towards the unfortunate subject of this
inquiry. The plaintiff is a butcher in a respectable and exten-
sive business in this town, having a family of eight sons and
three daughters, of whom the eldest had been the sufferer in
this ca'e from the wicked conduct of the defendant. Mr. Fair
cloth is a surgeon in this town, moving in good society, and
enjoying a lucrative practice. 'The defendant had not only in-
jured the plaintiff by robbing his daughter of that virtue and
innocence which was pure, spotless, and unimpugned until the
time of the injury complained of, but had circulated amongst
his relatives, friends, and neighbours, anonymous libels of a
most odious and filthy nature, reflecting upon the character and
conduct of that daughter. The Learned Counsel then pro-
ceeded to detail to the Jury the leading features in the case,
which he was instructed that in his duty he should have to lay
before them, and concluded by observing, that the ill•earned
gains of the defendant enabled him to pay to the plaintiff such
amount of damages as they should award by way of compensa-
tion for this atrocious injury, and calling upon the Jury, in
estimating them, to keepin view the anonymous letters circu-
lated by the defendant, imputing incontinence to the young
woman in language so horrible and revolting that women would
shudder, and men turn away with disgust at the recital, and
which letters could not be read aloud, but must be handed up
to the Court and Jury for perusal. He then called
Charlotte Roddis, who deposed,—l am the eldest daughter
of Mr. William Roddis, a butcher in this town. He has ten
other children—two daughters and eight sons. I have lived
in nay father's house up to the present time, and been employed
in managing the household and family affairs. I am twenty-
seven years old ; have known Mr. Faircloth ten or eleven years.
He is a surgeon in this town. When I first knew him he was
attending the infirmary as a medical student ; that was in the
year 1829. I then used occasionally to walk with him in com-
pany with others. He left Northampton in September, 1834.
He then said he was going to Guy's to walk the hospital. He
was away about two years. When lie came back I renewed
my acquaintance with him, and used to walk with him. In
February, 1837, had some difference with Mr. Faircloth ; we
had words. I told him I must drop the acquaintance, but did
not give him any reason. I did then break it off. In Novem-
ber, 1838, I received a letter from him, inviting me to see him
alone, and say that he would wait at a place mentioned therein
until half-past seven. [The letter was put in. j I did meet
him. I had some conversation with him as to why I brdke off
the acquaintance. I told him not to refer to that, as I did not
desire to renew the acquaintance ; that things were much bet-
ter as they were, as my mother had said I must leave the
house or drop the acquaintance. He said my mother need not
know about it. I could see him once a fortnight, and in two years
he didn't care who knew it. We then used to meet. He used to
knock against the shutter, and then wait in the neighbourhood of
my father's house till came out. This went on till November,
1839, when he came up and spoke to me in the presence of a
Miss Holmes. She went with us, and was pi esent at the
meeting. Defendant had, before this, many times asked me
to go to his house, but I had not been. On the 12th of
December I met him at a place called Waterloo, and on that
occasion he induced me to go into the house with him. He
let us in with a latch-key. We went into the parlour, and he
then prevailed upon me to accede to his wishes. That was the
first time. I did not see him after that for a month, when he
again knocked at the shutter of my father's house. On the
sth of July, 1840, he remarked to me that I did not look well.
This was when we were walking. I went to his house .that
day, on the subject of my illness. When he told me I looked
ill, I said I felt ;11 and described the sensation. He gave me
a box of pills and a bottle of drops, and this paper
marked "10 d., 2 p." (10 drops, 2 pills.) He said, I was
to take two of the pills and ten of the drops at bed-
time. I objected to take it. and said I thought it would not
be right. He said it would be quite right, as I had only
taken a cold. I saw him again on the 19th. He asked me if
I had taken the medicine, and I told him "No." He said, it
I would not take it, he'd stand no chance with me. If 1 wouldn't
take it. I could't expect to get well. He was very angry, and
so I said I would take it. He made an appointment to meet
me three days after. He then asked me again if I had taken
it, and I told him I could not, the smell of the pills made me
sick. I told him I had made up my mind not to take it, and I
wouldn't take it. He then said I must give it him back. I
met him again three days after, on the 25th, at his house. He
asked me if anybody had seen the medicine. I told him " No;"
and he made me promise never to mention it, and to give it
back the next. day, when he appointed to meet me. He did
not keep his appointment. I never met him by appointment
after this. On the 361 of August I sent a letter by my father's
servant, to which I had no answer. About a week after I sent
another by post, and the servant subsequently took another, to
neither of which did I receive an answer. I went to his house
shortly after, I think on the 17th of August, and saw him,
when I told him I had brought the medicine, and gave it
back to him. I then asked him if he had heard of
some anonymous letters which had been sent to my
friends, and he said, "To be sure I have." I said, " Well,

you don't believe anythin.." He said, " I don't know ; lam
not always with you." I called upon him again on the 11th
of October. Ile asked MC what brought me out so early, and
led me to the sofa. I spoke to him about the situation 1 was in,
and he said that he had made up his mind to swear that he knew
nothing about it. 1 said, " You can't say so, for you know I
have known nobody else ; " and he said he should not have
said so had it not been for the anonymous letters. (The ano-
nymous letters were here handed up to the witness, who stated
that she believed them to be in the handwriting of the defen-
dant, though disguised.) He afterwards called at my fatl.er's
and produtad a bill of 10s. 6d. for attendance upon me, aed
said, " I want you to give this to your father." I said, " I
wouldn't do it for the.world." He told me twice he did not
wish it-paid ;it was marked " settled," and he only wished me
to present it to my father. I said, "As there is no other way
settling it, I will pay it myself," and I took out my purse
and paid it, and he took it. I was brought to bed on the 13th
of March last. and have never seen the defendant since. Ipaid
him the 10s. 6d. He is the father of the child.
Examined by Mr. HILL—My first meeting with the
fendant after his return in October was between six and seven
in the evening. Miss Penn has walked with me a great many,
times—can't say how many ; it Rat not always at night ; she
has been with me when it was summer by daylight. The
second acquaintance began in 1836 ; I saw nobody besides the
defendant at his house until 1 called in September, 1840, to ask
to see him.. I did not feel certain.of the situation I was in
until that September.
Mary Holmes—Was acquainted with Miss Roddis. In the
year 1839 was at her house. Heard the noise at the shutter
Shortly after the noise she went out, and I with her, at her
request. She then met the defendant. They shook hands.
They then left one. Miss Rodtlis joined me half an hour after-
wards. It was between five and six in tie evening.
Mr. Faircloth—Saw them in the early part of 1841) walking
together in the Houghton-road, a village just out of Northamp-
ton, between four and five o'clock. I only saw them once.
Elizabeth Lake, widow, received an anonymous letter with
postmark of July 30th, and gave it to Miss Roddis's brother.
About a week since defendant called upon me. He asked me if
I had had a letter. I said, " Yes; I haven't got it ; I gave it to
the Roddises."

The letter from the defendant to the plaintiff's daughter in
November, 1838, in which a renewal of the acquaintance
was solicited, was undisputed and read accordingly ; also, a let-
ter from the plaintiff to the defendant in October, 1840, re-
quiring something to be done by way of atonement; and the
defendant's reply, in which he stated that he had not seen the
yourg woman for two year', except professionally, de-
nied the whOl.e charge, and referred the plaintiff to his solicitor,
if he should desire any further communication.
Miss Penn—Was well acquainted with Miss Roddis, about
five years smce ; frequently saw Miss Roddis and the defen-
dant walking together,' about five years ago.
Martha Baker—Was servant to Mr. Roddis in August last.
Took a letter in August from Miss Roddis to the defendant at
_ .

his house, and gave it to the servant. Shortly afterwards put
another into the post, and left a third at the house some time
af:erwsrds.—(These letters were called fur upon notice, and
not produced.)
James Whitney—l know the defendant, Mr. Faircloth ;he
rents a house of mine; the rent is filty guineas. It is very
well furnished.

This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. HILL addressed the Jury for the defendant, when

Mr. Baron GUILNEIi summed up the evidence, observing
that there was no proof of the authorship of the anonymous
letters beyond the belief of the young lady herself, who stated
the handwriting to be disguised, and
The Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a ver-
dict for the Vaintiff.—Damages, 801.

OXFORD ClRCUl7'.—Oxford, July 13.
CROWN COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
William Eden, aged 19, was indicted for maliciously shoot.
ing at Hannah Rachel Reeves, alias Emma Bennett, with ir.
tent to murder her.

The prisoner was a printer's apprentice residing with his
parents in the city of Oxford, and the prosecutrix, who at the
time of the transaction passed by the name of Emma Bennett,
who was of almost the same age as the prisoner, and was one
of that unfortunate class of frmales who infest the suburbs
of all large towns. It appeared that on the 20th of April last
the prisoner, accompanied by another young man, called, be-
tween 4 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon, at the residence of the
prosecutrix in. Jericho, a disreputable locality, in the parish of
St. Thomas, in this city. He was at that time a good deal
intoxicated, and after some romping between them, a very
trifling pi ovoeation on the part of the girl induced the prisoner
to give here,a blow on the eye, whioh knocked her down. A
girl named I%Li y Ann Bryant, who lived in the house, and
passed for the sister of the prosecntrix, hearing the altercation,
came into the room where the prosecutrix and the prisoner
were, and a scuffle ensued between Bryant and the prisoner,
which terminated in his gettirg a broken head. The pri-
soner then left the house, and sent the hostler at the Prince.
Albert public-house to buy him some powder and flints, and
he was seen about half-past six by two persons in the taproom
of the Prince Albert, ramming some paper into a pistol, but
no witness was called who could speak to his having charged
the pistpl either with powder or ball. While, however, he
was ramming the paper into the pistol, he was heard by one
of the persons in the tap-room to say, " I am d—d if I do not
go and shoot that woman." From the Prince Albert the pri-
soner went. to Jericho, where he again called at the house of
the prosecutrix at eight o'clock, and where he was so far from
carrying the intention which he had expressed into immediate
effect,: that he sat down, sent for some beer, had his wound
,washed, antl.,was apparently on very friendly terms with his
late,,a,ritagonists. At ten o'clock he went away with Bryant
toward this home, but shortly afterwards Bryant returned,
and theoprosecutrix by her desire denied her to him when
the prisoner 'knocked at the door. The prosecutrix was at
this tithe at the first floor, window with a candle in her
liarid; arid 'on his demanding that she should open the door,
and her refusal, he said, " If you do not open the door I
will shoot you, and immediately presented a pistol arid
fired. The next day a hole, which appeared freshly made,
was found at the top of the window-shutter of the parlour,
just below the place where the prosecutrix stood, and a
bullet was discovered, together with some splinters, on the
Aviaow-sill, between the window-frame and the window-
affiffer: 'The bullet, however, was nearly as new as when
it cams from the mould, and the evidence which bore on
that part of the caw left it very doubtful whether it was pos-

Bible fei: a ballet tO pass between the window-frathe
the slAuter. Time - pistol was not produced, as the iNZ!rsou
who tool; it from the prisoner on the night of the trans'
lion was foolish enough to return it to him ; and the Dogbet.ty,
who searched the prisoner's pockets and found seven or 'tijgbt
bullet's there, did not recollect that it m'ght be essential to the
ends of justice that they should be kept in safe custody until the
prisoner took his trial, and therefore let them remain where
he found them. There were, therefore, no mans of ascertain-
ing W Lether the bullet produced fitted the barrel of the pistol
disebarged by the prisoner, or whether it corresponded in size
with ththe found in his pockets. It should be added that al!
the parties were more or less intoxicated at the time, and the
prisoner so much so that he was hardly able to walk properly.
Mr. F. V. LEE, for the defence, suggssted that there was no
evidence at all that the pistol was loaded; and, assuming that
it was, still there was nothing to show any malice on the part
of the prisoner, who merely intended to frighten the girl.
Witnesses were then called, who gave the prisoner a good
character for humanity.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE summed up, and the Jury acquitted
the prisoner. The business of the Assizes terminated at three
o'clock. .

HOME ClRCl7l7:—Hertford, July 15.
CROWN COURT.

Mr. Sergeant TADDY, in consequence of the indisposition
of Mr. Justice BOSANQUET, took his neat on the bench in thi;
Court.

The Grand Jury having been sworn, and Lord Grimston
king appointed foreman, the Learned Sergt ant briefly ad-
dressed them, and said, that there was only one case on the
calendar that would require any observations from him. That
ease was a charge of rape, and in reference to that charge it
would be as well to state that during the last session of Parlia-
ment the punishment for that offence had been most materially
altered after very grave deliberation, and the capital punish-
ment would be abolished after next October. The Learned
Sergeant then proceeded to allude to the circumstances of the
alleged offence, and said that it was a charge which at all times
required the most grave and attentive consideration.
CIVIL SIDE.

The following was the only case of interest tried this day :
COURTNALL THE YOUNGER V. COVENEY.

SEDUCTION.—This was an action► to recover compensation
or damages for the loss of the services of the plaintiff's sister.
in consequence of her seduction by the defendant.
Mr. 'I hesiger and Mr. Ogle were for the plaintiff ; and Mr.
Platt and Mr. Peacock for the defendant.

Mr. THESIGER addressed the Jury, and said that the pre-
sent action was brought by the plaintiff, who was the brother
of the unfortunate subject of the inquiry, in the form of a
master claiming, compensation for the loss of the services of
his servant, his sister acting, at the time the transaction
took place, in that capacity, and being under his charge. That
was the only term in which the action could be brought before
the Jury. The Learned Counsel then went on to state that the
defendant was a young man, the son of a wealthy farmer,
residing near Sittingbourne, in Kent, and who, having been
apprenticed to the plaintiff, who carried on the business of a
linen-draper at Hadley, and who was assisted by his sister in
his business, took that opportunity of gaining her : ffections
and effecting her ruin. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to detail the circumstances, as they afterwards appeared in
evidence, and he concluded by calling upon the Jury to give
exemplary damags to mark their sense of the offence which
the defendant hatt committed, and as some recompense for the
outraged feelings of her friends.
The Learned Counsel called the following witnesses :
Hannah Courtnall deposed that she was twenty-one years
of age ; her father resided at Barnet. In the year 1836 she
went to assist her brother, who carried on the business of a
linendraper at Hadley, and she was engaged to serve in the
shop, and hoarded with the family of her brother. She re-
membered the defendant Daniel Coveney coming to her bro-
ther's, which was about a year and a half after she first went,
and he subsequently became her brother's apprentice. He paid her
attentions which witness returned, and she considered their
attachment mutual, anti after their intimacy had continued a
short time he made her an offer of marriage. In June, 1638.
witness went to see a relation in London, and she informed her
of the offer the defendant had made, and he was in conse-
quence invited there to dinner, and they walked out together
with the consent of her relation. While she was in London
she received letters from the defendant, but she had destroyed
the whole of them. During their intercourse she ascertained
that the defendant was holding some intercourse with a young
lady named Bird, and she spoke to him about it, and
he said he would break off that connexion an her account.
In 1839 their mutual attachment appeared still to continue,
and in the course of that year she yielded to his wishes. Their
intercourse continued after this until the month of June, when
she went to London to spend some time, and durine the whole
of the period she was there, although the defendant used to
write to her constantly before, she never received a single letter
from him. Soon after this time she was about to accompany
her father to Beccles, in Suffolk, and she asked the defendant
whether he intended to write to her, and he said if she did not
hear from him by the following Wednesday she might consider
the acquaintance broken off. He said, however, that he would
certainly write, but she did not receive any letter. \Bl.ile at
Beccles a tradesman named Boreham paid her attentions, and
offered her marriage, and her father consented that it should
take place. Soon. after her return from Beccles she saw
the defendant, anti he asked whether it was tree tha'
she was going to be married to Mr. Boreham, and
she said it was, and that it was on account of
his not writing to her. The next day she received a letter
from Mr. Boreham, and she showed it to the defendant, and he
did not appear very well pleased at it ; and the next day he
said, in the presence of a relative, that he was still the same,
and that no one else should marry her, and he wished her to
break off with Mr. Boreham, and he said if she did that he
would break off with Miss Bird. In the month of September
the defendant wrote to her a letter, in which he again requested
that she should break off with Mr. 13oreham,and declaring that
he, and no one else, should have her, and she, in consequence,
declined to have any further conversation with him,
1 Witness
3 was confined with a little girl, on the 4th of .March last.
When she first ascertained that she was in the family way she
informed the defendant of it, and he said he was glad of it, for
she must have him as that was the case,

Cross-examined—She went to her sister's in London in
June, and remained there about a month, and she was in the
habit of going out every day, and her sister was commonly her
companion; but she frequently went by herself. She did not
always walk the same way. She had crossed the different
bridges while she was in London for the purpose of visiting
some friends of her brother. She only meant to take a walk,
and occasionally she went out over one bridge and returned
by another. Mr. Boreham was not in town during any part of
this time. She was not invited to Beceles by Mr. Boreham.
but she accompanied her father there, and they lodged in that
place at the house of a person named Smith. Mr. Boreham
did not visit them much before he proposed marriage to her.
He might have seen her a dozen times. She went to visit
Mr. Boreham wi hout her father, but she did not do so many
times. While she was at her brother's she served in the shop,
and it was the custom after supper for the apprentices, witness,
and the maid, to go down in the kitchen, and her brother had
complained of their frolicking and making so much noise
together. Her brother had left her with the ap-
prentices, and they had walked to: ether at night
in the orcha-d. There was another apprentice named
Smith, and a maid-servant, and they were frequently together
in tke orchard at night. The defendant was seventeen years old
when he first came to her brother's, and the improper inter-
course did not take place between them for a year and a half
afterwards. She did riot recollect whether the first intercourse
took place in or out of doors. She now remembered it took
place in a house. ( The witness being pressed, at length said
it was in the shop that the intercourse took place.) Did not
know whether the fellow •apprentice was in the kitchen with
the maid at the time it took place. While this was going on
her brother was sitting up with his wife. She knew a gentle-
man named Wood, who was frequently at Barnet, but she did
not know where he resided. His father was a clergyman, and
he lived at Barnet. Young Mr. Wood was about one or
two and twenty years old, and on one occasion he overtook her
and another young lady in Hadley Wood, and he conversed
with them about ten minutes, and this was the only occasion he
spoke to her. Relieved Mr. Wood was called" Bright-eyes,"
but she never called him by that name. Remembered a po-
liceman being at Barnet. She never walked with him, or
called him the unboiled lobster. Her brother had, on some
occasions, complained of her inattention to business, but not of
her laughing and joking with the apprentices. She was not
discharged from her brother's service.
Re-examined—The gentleman who had been mentioned,
Mr. Wood, never took the least improper liberty with her,
neither did Mr. Boreham, and no person had done so but the
defendant.

Mr. James Courtnall, father of the last witness, proved the
fact of her having been placed in the service of her brother,
and he also corroborated her evidence in rererence to the other
eii cumstances of her journey to Beccles, Etc. He could not
tell the precise time when he was first informed of the misfor-
tune that had befallen his daughter; in consequence of what
was told him, he had an interview with the defendant, and told
him what he had heard, and he said it was no use to deny it,
and he attempted to cast some insinuations upon her character,
and witness told him he was making it worse. Witness asked
him what he proposed to do, and he said he should do nothing,
and witness then said he must adopt some other course.
Witness afterwards saw the defendant in the presence of
his mother, and he suggested to the latter that the young
people should be married ; but she would not consent to it, and
said she should not control her son's inclinations, and that he
was engaged to another young lady. Finding that they would
not consent to the marriage, he proposed that some mutual
friends should be called in to arrange the matter, but this pro•
position was also refused.
Cioss-examined—He had been put to an expense of 221.,
and there were various expenses to be paid. He certainly
expected some compensation fur the injury his daughter had
sustained.

Mr. PLATT then addressed the jury for the defendant, and
Chief Justice TINDAL having summed up, the jury delibe
rated for a few minutes, and then returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages 40/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION HOUSE.

Several men have' within the last week made complaint at
the Justice-room of breaeh of contract upon the part of Messrs.
Ackerman, Morgan, and Co., Bristol, engineers ; and Alder-
man Wilson, upon hearing the nature of the cause of dis-
agreement, directed that Mr. Arthur Bell, the agent to the
firm, which is one of the highest respectability, should attend
to give an explanation or defence of the conduct of the principals.
Arthur Greig stated that he was an engineer, and resided at
Deptford-green. That having seen an advertisement in the
newspapers for a number of engineers, and the reference to
Mr. Pall, the agent to the Bristol Company, he applied ac-
cordingly, and was informed by that gentleman that the wages
to be paid to the men was to be 325. and 345. ; that he said
he was satisfied to go if he was to receive 345. a. week ; and
that Mr. Ball consented, and wrote upon a card, " Pay An-
drew Greig 345. a-week ;" and mentioned that witness should,
after a little, have his expenses to Bristol defrayed. The
business for which witness, and five other men who
were present, were engaged, was to make new
engines for steam vessels. He wrought for three
weeks, and, in the middle of the last week, he was
at work. The foreman told him that his pay was to be
reduced to 265. a-week. Upon hearing which, he expos-
tulated with Mr. Morgan upon such an unreasonable change,
and was informed by that gentleman that there was a mistake
upon the part cif his communicant. Having, however, ascer-
tamed that the reduction was to take place, notwithstanding
the positive agreement with the Company's agent, he left the
concern, and he had not received the price of his journey up
and down, although it was perfectly well understood that the
expenses were to be defrayed. Under all the circumstances,
he and 'everal other men had found it necessaty, in conse-
quence of the reduction, to quit the work, to their serious in-
jury and inconvenience. _ He defied anv skilful person to find
fault with his work, and l►e considered that the conduct of the
Managers of the Company was reprehensible in the extreme.
Another engineer stated that upon hearing of the report
of the reduction of their wages he went to ask whether there
was any complaint of his work, and was told that there was
not. One of the, clerks, however, mentioned that he (wit-
ness) was picked out as not fit, although he had worked for
the same concern for a period of seven months, on a former
engagement, at the highest wages, which were then 365. per
week. Twenty-two hands left the Company in the first week.
He was to be reduced to 30s. a week, and he gave up the
work in consequence.
Alderman WILSON—Have any of the men remained? Wit-
ness—Yes. There are three now receiving 345. per week.
Mr. Ball said that he had received his instructions by letter
from the British Company, whose liberality was proverbial,
and the reason their wages were reduced was that the men

iteto F or,h the rti.:pey th .y received. Ile bad cau-
tioned them nit not L., gl to Ifr;stoi it they were nt,t worth the
Nil wages, as they would, if they proved deficient, must Ls-
44t•edly be reduced. rpon hoing put to the test they were
fund to be wanting. and then the managers had to al'ernative
but to reduce or to dismiss.

Alderman WILSON sail that he could not render any as-
ist-luce to the complainants, as they had no written contract;
but he could not help saying that he considered them exceed.
ingly ill-treated, and he hoped that at least their expenses to
and from Bristol would be defrayed.
The complainants said ihat the CoMpany would find it rather
difficult to get men in London to throw up their work on a
future occasion and go down to Bristol.
Mr. flail declared that nothing could exceed the kindness
and liberality of Mr. Morgan to the men employed by the Com-
pany, and that there was a most intolerable spirit of combination
amongst those men.
Alderman WILsoN—I understand that some of the men who
attend here to complain followed my.advice, and summoned
the agent to the Court of Requests for the amount of their
pass ge to and from Bristol, and that they succeeded. Now I
advisod all the rest to do the like, and I have r.o doubt as to the
result.

A simple country girl, 'tamed Eliza Walker, was brought
be'we the Lord Mayor by a good natured City policeman,
named William Edmonds (No. 526), who sated her the night
before from destruction. •

The policem .n said that he observed the young woman,
who app'ared to be a stranger in London, in the neighbour-
hood of the Custom-house in conversation with a female whose
exterior was not very prepossessing. Suspecting that all was
not right ho went up to the girl, and the woman took the op-
portunity to decamp upon observing that he was making some
inquiry. The girl toll him that she had just arrived in town
from Lincolnshire, where her father was a farmer in a good
hoe of busines4, and that as she and her step-mo her could not
agree she left her home in the bustle of the election, deter-
mined to go and seek her fortune in Australia. Witness asked
her who the woman was to whom she had been speaking, and
from her answer concluded that the former was one of those
wretches who are ever on the look-out for inexperienced country
girls with whom to make an iniquitous market. The girl said
that the woman walked up to her and got into conversa-
tion with her, by advising her not to go too near the water,
and showing other anxiety about her welfare. These questions
were followed up by a request of the loan of five shillings,
which, although all the money the poor young creature had
was five and sixpence, she, without hesitation, parted with,
so that all that remained to her was the sixpence. The wo
man who had thus ingratiated herself in the good graces of the
poor girl, endeavoured to prevail upon her to drink, took her
in a boat over to one of the steam-vessels in the river, and in-
vited her into the cabin amongst the seamen, whom an instinc-
tive apprehension, however, induced her to avoid. The woman
subsequently proposed to take her to a house where there would
he a great deal of fiddling and dancing amongst sailors and
other jolly fellows, but to that place also she was afraid to go.
Elie Loan IIAv on. asked tho girl what she proposed to do?
—She replied that she had seen enough of London, and would
go blek to her father, if she had the means.

- The policeman stated that the girl, who appeared to be the
mere child of simplicity, had told him in confidence that she
hzd been born with something upon her flee, and that she sup-
posed that she would one day make away with herself. He
was alarmed at her defenceless condition, and resolved to take
her to the station-house; and she wept bitterly at her de-
plorable lot.
The LORD MAYOR said that the policeman had proved him-
self to be a young man of excellent feeling, and deserved the kind
notice of the Commissioner, for the genuine humanity which
he displayed. His Lordship then directed the policeman to pay
for the poor girl's passage to Hull, and to supply her with the
means of reaching her father's house.