The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-12 00:00:00

TlikE SUN, LONDON, TIITTRSDAY M-ORNING, MARCH 12, 1

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, March 10.
The House of Lords ,sat to hear writs of error. The
peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brough3m,
and Lord Campbell.

BRANDAO V. BARNETT.

The arguments in this part-heard writ of error, were
resumed and concluded to-day. The cue has already
occupied five or six days, and we have refrained enter-
ing into the facts, until the arguments were concluded.
The case came before their Lordships upon an appeal
in the nature of a writ of error, against a decision of the
Exchequer Chamber, (sitting in error), whereby a
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, givenin
favour of the appellant, was reversed.
The facts of the case appear to be be these :—The
appellant is a Portuguese merchant, residing abroad,
and the respondents are bankers in London. For some
time previous to Jan. 1837, the appellant employed a
person named Byrne as his London agent, and he in-
structed him (Byrne) to buy for him, supplying him
with money for that purpose,. from time to time, cer-
tain amounts of Exchequer-bills. Byrne accordingly
purchased for the appellant such Exchequer-bills as he
required. Byrne kept at this period an account at the
respondents' (Messrs. Barnetts') bank ; and be alio, for
the safe custody of all such securities as he might become
possessed of, kept certain tin boxes at the banking house
of Messrs. Barnett (as is customary with bankers to allow
their customers to do) in which he, from time to time,
deposited his securities, locked up, he keeping the keys
himself. As Byrne purchased Exchequer-bills for th
plaintiff he deposited them in one of these boxes, locked
up, keeping the key himself ; and when it became neces-
sary that t'e interest on them should be received, and
that they should be exchanged for new Exchequer-
bills, Byrne requested his bankers to do him the favour
to receive the interest and obtain in exchange new
bills. On those occasions Byrne took the Exchequer-
bills from the tin box, and handed them over to the
bankers for the purpose aforementioned, and as soon
as the bankers had received the interest thereon, and
exchanged the bills for new ones, these latter were,
it was alleged, handed back to Byrne by the
bankers, and they were again deposited by him and
locked up in the tin box. Byrne had from one period to
another purchased for the plaintiff Exchequer-b'lls to the
amount of 30,0001., which were deposited in the box,
and taken out occasionally by Byrne, and placed in
Messrs. Barnett's hands for the purpose already stated,
and they were always returned again by them to Byrne,'
who re-deposited them in their former custody. In
.January, 1837, it appears that there remained in the tin
box 10,000/. of Exchequer-bills belonging to the plain-
tiff. These Byrne delivered to the respondents to
receive, as they had done before, the interest
thereon, and exchange them for new bills, which
was accordingly done. At this period Byrne had a ba-
lance of something more than 1,5001. standing to his credit
at his bankers, and certain bills of exchange of Byrne's
became due at this time, and beingepresented for pay
meat at the banking house, Messers. Barnett advanced
Byrne a sum of 3,2001, which, with the balance of
1,300/. belonging to Byrne, was required to pay these
bills. This transaction made a balance of 3,2001., in
their books due to them from Byrne. The Exchequer-
bills belonging to plaintiff, amounting to 10,1001, which
Byrne had last given to Messrs. Barnett, to receive the
interest thereon, and exchange them for new ones, not
having been returned to Byrne as usual in due time, he
applied to Messrs. Barnett to return them to him, to be
deposited in the tin box, as he had been theretofore in
the habit of doing. Byrne, at this time, it appears, be-
came embarrassed in his pecuniary affairs, and owing
Messrs. Barnett a balance of 3,200/., they refused to
return him the Exchequer-bills in question, claiming a
lien upon them, according to the general custom of
bankers in such cases, in order to secure the payment
of the balance due to them from Byrne.
The appellant, under these circumstances, bronchi an
action in the Court of Common Pleas against Messrs.
Harnett, to recover his Exchequer-bills, or the amount
thereof. Messrs. Barnett, in defence to that action,
claimed as bankers the right to a lien (according to the
general custom of bankers in their behalf) of the Ex-
chequer. bills in question, which Byrne had handed over
to them, in order to secure the repayment of the ad-
vance they had made him. They had never been in-
formed by Byrne, or had any notice, or the slightest
notion, 'hat any or all of the Exchequer-bills «hich
Byrne kept deposited in the tin box, and which
from time to time he delivered to them
(Messrs. Barnett) to receive the interest thereon
and exchange for new Exchequer-bills, were
the property of the appellant; but they had con-
sidered and treated them as the property of Byrne, and
therefore as such were liable to be retained as a security
by them. The appellant's cave before tbe Court below
was, that the Exchequer bills were never deposited with
Messrs. Barnett, by Byrne, in the course of their busi-
ness as bankers ; they were never entered in their books
to the account of Byrne, and the fact of their b. ing
always deposited in the tin box by Byrne, who kept the
key, and being delivered by him only for a special pur-
pose, from time to time, to Messrs. Barnett, and then
returned again to him by them when that parti-
cular object was attained, showed clearly that Byrne
was not dealing with them as his own property,
and that, even if they had been, the bankers never
became possessed of them in such a way as c ould
entitle them to have a general lien on them for advances
they might make to Byrne. Upon the trial of the action
a special verdict was given for the appellant, c hich was
afterwards turned into a special case for the opinion of
the Court of Common Pleas sitting in banco. Upon
argument the Court gave judgment in favour of the
a ipellant, holding that under the particular circum-
stances of this case Messrs. Barnett had not, through
Byrne, obtained or were entitled to a lien of these Ex-
chequer-bills, the property of the appellant. The case
was then carried to the Exchequer Chamber, upon a writ
of error, by Messrs. Barnett, and the judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas was reversed, the Judges being
of opinion that Messrs. Barnett were entitled to a lieu
on the property. From the decision of the Exchequer
Chamber this appeal was brought.
Their Lordships, at the conclusion of the arguments,
postponed giving judgment.

COURT OF CHANCERY, March 11.
NICKELS V. TURTON.

Mr. BETHELL, with whom was Mr. Campbell, moved for a special
Injunction to restrain the above-named defendant, who rest les at
Nottingham, from making, selling, or using the braid, or otherwise
infringing a patent granted to the plaintiff, Mr. Christopher Nickels,
for " improvements in machinery for covering fibres, applicable in
the manufacture of braid and other fabrics."

Mr. ItErnELL, after describing the nature of the invention, which
he said was at once very ingenious and simple, and the product
exceedingly valuable, and which had been of vital service to the glove
and hosiery trade of the midland counties, proceeded to state that the
defendant and others had for some time infringed his patent, and that
from the manner in which they carried on their business, and the
clandestine purchases which had been made from them by certain
manufacturers, some delay had taken place before the evidence could
be perfected. It had, however, now been made complete and the
patentee had taken and would take every means to protect his rights
and suppress the piracies.
After further briefly alluding to the nature of the invention and
reading the affidavits, his Hosoux, the Vice-Chancellor, directed the
injunction to be granted.
Solicitor for the patentee, Mr. W. H. Ashurst.

spoke highly of the conduct of the reverend defendant dur-
ing the whole period he had been chaplain. The evidence
of Spackman, on the 1 Rh article (this witness, too, being a
convict, and not a compete t witness, except under the last
Act of Parliament), the Court was bound to receive, but
with great caution. The Court was of opinion that, from
the Acts stated, there was nothing wrong to be imputed of
the character charged. There might have been a weakness
or indiscretion, but that there were any such guilty motives
oF the character named had not been proved. The other
witnesses examined to support the charge were also con-
victs under sentence of transportation. It was clear that
the reverend gentleman did shake hands with the boy, and
affectionately talk and laugh with him, but that was done iu
the presence of the turnkeys and others of the prisoners in
the gaol. The principal foundation of the charge was that
the Rev. Mr. Hodgson was shut up upon several occasions
with the boy for half or three-quarters of an hour at a time
in the day-zoom; but from this the Court could not infer any
such immoral conduct as that imputed. The Rev. Mr.
Hodgson told the gaoler that he took a warm interest in the
fate of the boy, and the Court could not infer that there
were improper motives in the conduct of the rev. gentleman
towards the party. The Rev. Mr. Hodgson might have
acted with weakness, but the Court could not hokl that there
was any criminality. The Learned Judge, upon the whole
case, held that the articles exhibited against the Rev. Dlr.
Hodgson bled not been proved, and dismissed him from the
suit, but the Court would not say anything as to costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, March 11.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLLNQUE.)
IN RE LOUIS.
This insolvent, who was a foreigner, came np for his final order,
which had been adjourned.
The insolvent had carried on business as a shoemaker, :at the west
end of the town, and was opposed on the ground that he had con-
tracted debts without reasonable prospects of being able to pay. It
appeared by the evidence that in June last, the insolvent obtained
furniture, from the opposing creditor of the value cf 1001., and filed
his schedule in the following August.
Ihe insolvent was examined through an interpreter, and said that
he had not taken away the property, and still carried on business at
the same place as heretofore.
The Learned Commission= said, he should adjourn the case,
to admit of the insolvent paying 201. every half year till the whole
of his debts were paid.
The insolvent asked what he should do if he could not pay.
The COMMISSIONER—TeII hiru I shall withdraw all protection, and
he must do the best lie can.
IN RE SIMPSON.
Mr. STURGEON opposed in this case, on the ground that the in-
solvent had not inserted the amount he had reserved, beyond the
amounts mentioned in the schedule. Yet the insolvent had paid
money to his attorney, and had also given security to pay any fur-
ther costs.
The Learned Commission= said that he should have been sorry
to have agreed with the objection, on the simple want of form, but
where it was shown money had been reserved, and security given,
to an =ascertained amount, he should dismiss the petition.

SECONDARIES COURT, March 11.
(Before Mr. Secondary PorrEa.)
JAHROLD AND OTHERS V. ANDREWS ♦ND OTHERS.

This was an action to recover the amount of a joint and several
promissory notes. Two of the defendants had suffered judgment to
go by default, but the other, Henry Andrews, jun., pleaded his
minority.
Mr. WinnE, who appeared as counsel for the plaintiffs, said the
plaintiffs were members of a society at Manchester, called the Man.
chester 501. Loan Society. The defendant, Henry Adams, was an
iron. merchant. The Society had been formed for the assistance of
persons in trade in time of need, each shareholder being entitled
to receive on each share 501., as funds were in hand, giving a bonus.
The defendant had received the money, but now pleaded his minority.
He (Mr. Wilde) however, hoped to establish the fact that the de-
fendant had done an act which bound him in law, notwithstanding
his minority, for he had at the time of making the engagement
asserted that he was of age.
Mr. H. Elliott said he was an auctioneer at Manchester, and se•
cretary of the society. Defendant became a member by signing the
deed, and he would Hot have been admitted had he not said that he
was of age. He paid up several instalments, but there was Si. 6s. 10d.
still due. Defendant distinctly said he was of age. He is an iron
merchant. The deed had not been enrolled, for when :the Company
was established, the Act requiring it had not passed.
Mr. JOYCE, for the defendant, submitted, in the first place, that
the defendant was a partner in the society, and consequently could
not be sued for debt. •

Mr. WILDE urged that there was a covenant authorising the
trustees to sue and be sued, and that by the same deed the defendant,
as borrowed, had admitted his liability to be sued as for liquidated
damages.

The SECONDARY said that as it was a case which must go before
the Court above, he should not give an opinion on the point. The
objection however only went to the " account stated," it was still
necessary for the defendant to make out his pea of minority. ,
Evidence was adduced, clearly proving that the defendant was
under age.

The SECONDARY left it to the jury, who found a verdict for the
defendant, on the plea of minority. The Learned Judge said the
other question could besaised in the Court above. Ills own opinion
was that the action could be maintained.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIR .7UlT—i'Vlaidvtone, Tuesday.

The Commission for the county of Kent was opened on
Monday. There was nearly a hundred prisoners for
trial, and on the civil side 29 cases are entered, three of
which are special jury cases.
The Lord Chief Juttice sat at Nisi Prins, and Mr.
Baron Aldason presided at the Crown Court.

and there was an error of fifty feet in the levels. which
if they hail gone to Parliament, would have had the
certain effect of throwing out their Bill.

In cross-examination the witness ailmitt d that, the
defendant was frequently consulted in the course of the
Proceedings, and that he was considered a respont-ible
pa •ty.
Sergeant SIIEE was about to reply upon this eviderce.
when the Lord Chief Justice intimated that nothing bad
been proved to effect the plaintiffs claim.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff for the full amount claimed, 1171., over the sum he
had received on behalf of the company, from Mr.
Beaumont.

IVORFOLK ClRCUlZ—Bedford, March 9.
The commission for this county was opened on Saturday
afternoon amid great numbers of people, attracted, not only
by the tineneas of the weather, but also by the gaiety of the
sheriff's equipage, which far outshone thoSe heretofore
'sported" in this county by his predecessors in that ancient
and honoured office.

The nisi prius business is not beyond its usual length, if
the causes are numbered, there being only three on the list ;
but there is one case among them which is to be tried by a
special jury, in which the parties are master and servant,
and the cause of action the alleged invasion of the latter's
marriage bed by the former. The Attorney-General is spe-
cially retained for the defendant, who is a justice of the peace
and a recur of this counts', and, moreover, a man of near
" three rcdre years and ten ;" so that, as may be expected, the
case is in everybody's mouth in the town.

The calendar is heavy, containing the names of 37 pri-
soners, and embracing 25 cases, including arson, horse steal-
ing, poaching. and a variety of minor offences.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice MAums.)
Charles ffurner and William Farr were indicted fur steal-
ing 19 fowls, the property or Mr. Hunt, at Luton, on the
23d December last.

Mr. GUNNING conducted the case•for the prosecution, and
from the testimony of the witnesses calied by the Learned
Gentleman it was elicited that the prisoner Warner was on
the premises of the prosecutor, who is a respectable solicitor,
on the Bth of December, working in his farm-yard, and that
he had made very particular inquiries both as to the num-
ber of the fowls on the farm, and also as to their nocturnal
resting-place, which turned out to be an open shed, the door
of which was only secured by a button. On the 2•? d of
December the fowls were counted and found to be correct,
their number being 31, but on the 28th only 12 were to be
found. Ftr some time no trace whatever could be discovered
either of the fowls or the fowler who carried them off,
though the fowl• boy saw Warner, 'and said he wished some
body would find his fowls for him ;. adding, that he knew the
two cocks very well, for they had been fighing the day be-
fore the robbery, and their comba were very much pecked.
Not long after this a clue was found to the thieves
in the testimony of one Dilley and his son, from which
it appeared that on the 22d Warner, who lodged at
Dilley's, said to Farr that " he knowed of a place where he
could get a precious good haul of fowls for their Christ-
mas dinner, and that it was at old Hunt's." These worthies
now appeared in the box against their friends, and more-
over swore that on the night of the 23d the two prisoners
came home with a lot of fowls in Warner's pockets,
which were plucked and made into a Christmas pudding, of
which the whole party partook. This done, " Old Dilley"
became compunctious, and ordered his lodger to take away
the rest of the. fowls out of his house, and accordingly 'War-
ner and young Dilley having cut off their heads and feet re-
moved the carcases to a place of security, while they threw
the heads, feathers, feet, and offal into a hedge close to the
Rabbit public-house, where they were accordingly found by
Dilley and the policemen, on the 10th of January following
When these relics of the departed fowls were produced to the
fowl-boy, he bad no hesitation whatever in swearing to the
heads of the two pugnacious cocks. So that the case being
c'early made out, both the prisoners were found Guilty.
Mr. Justice MAULE then proceeded to pass sentence upon
the prisoners (who were but 19 years old), and in so doing
pointed out to them the folly of their way.:, as exemplified
in their conviction to-day, on the evicience of their friend
" Old Dilley," who, like all old thieves, had the wit to
keep out of harm's way, while he contrived to profit by the
crime of others, whom he afterwards assisted to bring to
punishment. This, he hoped, would be a warning to them
when they should have accomplished the sentence of the law,
which was that they should each be imprisoned for the
space of 12 months.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—Lincoln, March 9,

The Right Hon. Sir N. C. Tindal and the Hon. Mr. Justice
Coltman arrived in this city shortly before 4 o'clock on Satur-
day, and immediately opened the commission, and charged
the grand jury for the city at the City-hall ; aftei which
their Lordships proceeded to open the commission for the
county at the Countv-hall, in the Castle-yard.
Their Lordships attended Divine serv,ice at the Cathedral
yesterday morning, and took their respective seats in the
County-ball at 9 o'clock this morning ; Mr Justice Coltman
presiding in the Crown Court, and the Lord Chief Justice on
the Civil side.

Both the Learned Judges commenced with the trial of the
city prisoners—the former until the time arrived for, and
again after, charging the county grand jury, and the latter
until the nisi prtus jury were ready.
There appeared 8 causes for trial for the county, and 1 for
the city, which latter, and 4 of the others, have been dis-
posed of to-day. besides one withdrawn ; so that 3 only re-
main fur to-morrow.

The calendar, as will be seen, is numerically, as well as in
point of the heinous character of the offences; more than
ordinarily heavy for this county. It presented the names of
39 prisoners, and 27 cases for tile], of which latter 4 were of
burglary, involving 9 prisoners; 1 of sheep stealing, involv-
ing 4; 3 of robbery with violence, involving 6; 2 of un-
natural offence ; 4 of arson ' • 2of horse stealing ; 1 of forgery
(a Post-office order for 310 ; 1 of sending a threatening
letter; 3 of being armed at night for the purpose of taking
and killing game; 2 of uttering and having is posse:siou base
money ; and 1 of concealment of birth.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)

THOMAS BROMIIEAD V. THOMAS STARLING.

This was an action on the case to .recover damages for an
injury sustained by the plaintiff by being bitten, and having
his clothes rent by a ferocious dog, kept by the defendant.
The declaration charged that the dog was used and accus-
tomed to attack and bite mankind, and did bite the plain-
tiff. .First plea, not guilty; second plea, that the defendant
did not keep the dog.
Mr. Whitehursi, Q.C., and Mr. Wildman conducted the
plaintiff's case Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., and Mr. Willmore ap-
peared as coursel for the defendant.
The plaintiff is a journeyman blacksmith, and the de-
fendant the keeper of a beer shop in Far. street, Horncastle.
As tac plaintiff, shortly after ten o'clock at night, on the
27th of May last, was passing the defendant's house, in his
way along Par-s'reet, two dogs of the bull-terrier breed, one
being of a red and white, and the other of a black and
white colour, rushed upon and attacked him, and the
latter, Lavirk bitten and rent his clothes near the shoulder,
very severely bit his right hand. A neighbour of the de-
fendant,seeing what was occurring, came out from his shop
on the opposite side of the way and helloed to the dogs,
upon which they ran away up the defendant's yard. The
plaintiff' then pursued his way until he met a policeman, to
whom he made complaint of what had happened to him.
and showed him his terribly lacerated hand, and who ac-
companied him back to Sperling s, and went up the back-
yard, where he saw the red arid white dog, but not the
other. He then went, to the defendant and asked him where
his dogs were, and he answered that they were both locked
up. The policeman then said that he had just seen the red
and white one up his back yard, upon which he demanded
to know what business he had upon his Premises, and stated
that the other was locked up. The constable said, " Yes,
but it was not locked up a few minutes ago," and the de-
fendant replied that it had been locked up all the evening.
and a man named Attercliffe could prove it. The policeman
to this answered that the man Attercliffe would swear to
anything for a pint of bear, and he would not believe him
upon his oath.
Thomas Wilkinsm, a lad in the service of Mr. Cooke, a
veterinary surgeon, living next door to the defendant, de-
posed. that lie kept a Tom and Jerry shop (beer-shop), and
two dogs, one of which was red and white and the other
black and white. The latter was of the bull-terrier breed,
and very savage, and bit him (the witness) 'when he was
going to Mr. Day's bakehouse, carrying the bread. He was
on one side,of the road, and the dog on the other, and crossed
over to him, and he did not see him until lie got held of him.
Both the dogs were at the plaintiff, and the black and white
one bit his hand. Mr. Hewett, a potter, called our, and then
both the dogs ran up the defendant's yard. He had fre-
quently seen them there, and knew them both very well.:
Other witnesses proved the ferocious character of the dog,
and that it was used to attack people, and left no reasonable
doubt that it was kept by the defendant.
The plaintiff had suffered great pain, and been ill for se-
veral weeks ; he had also incurred some small expense in ef-
fecting a cure.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
25/.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)
Two Irish labourers, of the names of Welch anti Glynn,
Were indicted for a rape, within the precincts of the city, on
the 22'l of August last, upon the person of one Mary, the
wife of George Lee, a monstrously dirty member of the
Om, tribe, at the age of about 60.
Mr. D'Eyncourt conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Macaulay
defended the prisoners.
It appeared that there was an encampment of gipsies in
Greetwell-lane, in or near the city, on the night in question,
which, at the dead hour of the night, whilst the tribe slum-
bered in peace was outrageously stormed by a party of wanton
Irishmen, who remorselessly demolished their tents, and
sought to defile the female members of the tribe, succeeding
successively in their base assault upon the prosecutrix, whilst
her husband was engaged in running after his Ilse, which had
made off down a lane with a load of blankets at the out-
break of the engagement. She, with her husband, reposed
in one tent, her two daughters, of whom one was a widow,
in another, and a kinsman and his wife in another. She had
also a son, twenty-six years old, who seemed to have acted
as patrol. The assault opened with an attack upon the tent
of the daughters, which, after they had refusedto let the
Irishmen go to bed to them, was carried, and razed to the
ground ; but the Irishmen being, by recourse to throats
and nails, repulsed in their further attack upon the
daughters, turned off to the
old woman's tent. While
Glynn succeeded with the mother Welch held the widowed
daughter, after which the prisoners interchanged their posi-
tions. There was a party of nine or ten Irishmen behind
the hedge.
The unhappy aged victim of Irish concupiscence deposed
to the leading facts. The parties first began heaving stones.
The two prisoners did it. The other nine or ten did not in-
terfere or throw stones. They knew previously that the men
wanted- to go to bed with the young
women, who wouldn't
have it on no account. One of the men hugged and ravished
witness. Welch began. Welch then threw her down and
ravished her. She struggled as much as she could while she
had strength, but she was an old woman, and hadn't much
strength left. Welch, with the blunt edge of a hatchet, be-
longing to the camp, struck her under the right ear after
both had had connexion with her. They then dragged her
about the road with violence. Each held the daughter Susan
while the other proceeded with her.
Cross-examined—One of those she called her daughters
was a wife, and large in the family way, and. was glad to
run away in her chemise with her baby tucked under her
arm. Had no means of knowing where her husband was
while she was ravished. They stoned him away. (The ex-
amination of the husband before the magistrates was
here pat ie, w hich was upon several points very
materially at variance with her statement here to day.)
Welch used the hatchet. If she before stated it was Glennit was because she was so frightened. Could take oath that
both had connexion with her. They lost blankets and clothes,
her husband's hat,
and some strops. Her husband went
right off towards Lincoln. After the ravishing they struck
the daughter a blow, which made her reel across the road.
Susan Herring., the widowed daughter, deposed to the
same story that the old woman told to-day. The men came
to their camp, and wanted to go to bed with them. They
began to pull up their camps—her camp and another. AII
the rest but she and her mother went away. Glynn held
her so that she couldn't assist her mother. [She then de-
scribed what was done by Welch to her mother.] They
threatened to murder them if they gave any alarm. Welch
afterwards dragged her (witness) about the road by the
legs, and used her very bad indeed. She now said (having

.before the magistrates, like her mother, said as to both mat-
ters quite the col trary), that it was Welch who struck her
mother with a hatchet before he ravished her. The men all
went away because they thought they would be murdered
amongst so many.
The mother and daughter both told their tale with an air
of noncharance, and quite con amore.
George Lee—Was the husband of the old woman. The
two prisorers came to the camp and began to stone them.
The two prisoners began to pull their tents down. He col-
lected their things and set them on his ass. They struck
him, and he thought they had broken his thigh. His ass,
when he had packed it, bolted and went up a lane. He
bolted after it, caught the excited animal, and placed it in
a close. He was so hurt' that he lay down in a ditch 100
yards from the encampment. Heard them two men with
his wife and daughter—a ravishing of his wife, but he kept
a close look out upon his ass. In answer to a question,
whether he assisted the women at all, he only said, "No, I
followed my a-s." Heard the cries of his wife and daughter
from the camp, but he was so frightened that he still ran
after his ass.

Thomas Ashton, police-constable, of Lincoln: deposed that,
shortly before three o'clock A.M. on the 22d of August last,
the son and kinsman came to him. Went with them to the
encampment; saw the tents all torn up in the most desolate
state. Saw Mr. Lee about 30 yards from the camp, towards
Lincoln. A quarter of a mile off found 50 or 60 Irishmen in
a barn. Ile first secreted himself, and saw the two prisoners
in the yard. Took them into custody. The remainder of
the 50 or CO Irishmen were all undressed, and in sacks
coming up to their throats, all lying in a row, bedded down.
This being the case for the prosecution, _ _

His LORI;SIIIP intimated to the Learned Counsel for the
prisoners, that in a case where there were such grave consi -
derations, he used not address the jury upon the charge of
felony. As to an assault having been committed, there was
evidence confirmatory of the story told by the women, and
he might, if he thought proper, address the jury upon that.
Mr. MACAULAY did so briefly.
Mr. D'EYNCOURT, the depositions having been put in on
behalf of the prisoners, replied, and
The Learned JUDGE briefly summed up as to the assault,
whereupon . _

The fury retired a verdict of Guilty of a common assault.
The Lamed JUDGE observed that it was clear that the
prisoners had been guilty of a very atrocious assault, and
sentenced them respectively to be imprisoned in the common
gaol of this county, and kept to hard labour, for • the space of
six calendar months.

POLICE INTELLIGEN CE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A young woman of very fashionable exterior, who
appeared before the Lord Mayor, under the name of
Maria Jarman, spinster, was charged under the following
ugly circumstances. Miss Frances Woolley, of Argyle-
street, stated that on Monday she got into an omnibus,
at King's-cross, for the purpose of coming towards the
City, and carried with her half-a-pound of tea, for
which she had paid 2s. 7id. She deposited the tea,
which was in a blue paper, on the seat, and when the
omnibus reached Old Street-road, she got out, and the
omnibus, of course, proceeded towards the City. She
had not walked far when she missed her parcel of tea,
and she immediately called a cab and desired the.driver
to go after the omnibus. At the Bask she overtook
the omnibus, which was then empty, and she told the
conductor of ber loss. The parcel produced was, she
believed, that which she had left behind her in the om-
nibus. She recollected that the defendant, before the
Lord Mayor, sut in the omnibus by her side.
Frederick Arsell, conductor of one of the Metropo-
litan omnibusei, stated that the complainant and the
defendant were passengers in his omnibus. The com-
plainant got ont at the corner of Old Street-road, but
came up to hiM at the corner of Bartholomew-lane, and
said she had forgotten a parcel in the omnibus; observing
that the defena ant who was the last person who got out
of the omnibhs, was walking towards the Royal Ex-
change, he followed and overtook her. He then a.ked
her to return with him, and in turning round Bartholo-
mew-lane, she said she had taken up a parcel in the om-
nibus, and wish ed to return it. The complainant then
came up, and the defendant immediately handed the
parcel to her, saying, My dear lady, I did not take it
with any bad intention, but I thought I should tee you
again.'
Mr. Bozor attended as solicitor for the defendant,
who was bound. over to appear at the Central Criminal
Court.