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

Committee fully bore that out. It was held to be an eccle-
siastical matter, because an oath was taken at an election.
Mr. O'CONNELL—The Church of Rome does not say so.
Mr. COLQUHOUN said the best course was to look to
the practical proceedings of the Church, and not the mere
words. It was their ditty not to ask what the Church
taught, but what she practised. He (Mr. Colquhoun) did
not seek the mere words on the authority of books, but
what was practised and continually acted on, and that it
was as he had represented it to be could not be denied.
As long as he had a seat in that House he would oppose
every attempt at ecclesiastical domination, he would always
be the advocate of the right of free judgment and the right
of conscience. The Jesuits had ever aimed at this domina-
tion, and he called upon them to take all legal steps with
a view to undermine their power. He did not wish to re-
move them from the soil in fact. That was not a policy
which he would recommend, but he thought that every
means should be taken to prevent ecclesiastical power from
superseding the civil. Now, as the Act of Supre-
macy, the Ist of Elizabeth, went to put an end
to that power, he considered that it should not
be repealed. lie must, therefore, offer his decided objection
to repeal these laws, though he did not wish at the same
to be considered one who would support his religious prin-
ciples by penal enactments. lie objected to any intolerance,
as it WAS subversive of all religious principles, of all Pro-
testant feeling. Intolerance was not the doctrine of the
Church of England. The Church of England recognised
the right of the exercise of private conscience and judgment.
—(llear, hear.) But he found that it was admitted
on all side, by every body in point of fact
who looked at the present aspects of the day, that we
were advancing to a very important period is the
history of Europe—(Hear, hear)—a period in which we were
engaged in a great struggle between the ecclesiastical autho-
rities and the civil power.—(Hear, hear.) His Honourable
and Learned Friend the Member for Rutlandshire had alluded
to the movement within the Church of England. Well, he
(Mr. Colquhoun) did not mean to say it was not one which
foreboded great and serious danger to the Church ; and he
did not mean to say that if it increased he should not shrink
from asking the Legislature to interpose for the purpose of
arresting the progress of that dangerous movement. He,
for one, would not shrink when the proper time arrived
from grappling with the difficulty. The Honourable and
Learned Member had said; that. there was a Mr. Wharton,
and au Archbishop of Rhodes, and another gentleman, Mr.
Green, who had ajected to take the oath required by the
Act, and had consequently suffered great annoyance, but the
Hon. and Learned Member had said that it was not the oath
of 1826 that they objected to, and he had also refused to read
the oath. But what did the oath require ? Merely
that Roman Catholics should deny the civil authority
of the Church of Rome, and yet the Honourable
and Learned Member had called upon the House
to approve of his Bill because a certain layman and an Arch-
bishop had experienced some inconvenience because they
did not choose to take the oath in question. He (Mr. Cof-
quhoun) contended that if this Bill were passed it would en-
gender most urgent and serious dangers which, in his opi-
nion, it was not wise to increase in tunes like the present.
If the Legislature passed this Bill without any modification,
and just as it was proposed by his lion. and Learned Friend,
they would give the strongest support to those men
whose conduct would be calculated to injw e in the most
fatal manner the liberties and constitution of this country.
Come front his Hon. and Learned Friend, or front the Lord
Chancellor—come, in fact, from what quarter it might—he
should give his most decided opposition to a Bill like
the present, whether it was supported or opposed by
the Government, or whether it was backed or con-
demned by the highest authority in either House of
Parliament. He should, in fact, oppose to the
utmost every attempt to break down the constitution of
Great Britain.—(Clear, hear.) He would not give his sup-
port to measures like the present, which he believed to be
fatal to the constitution and liberties of Englishmen—liberties
obtained at a period which his Hon. and Learned Friend
looked back to with contempt, but which he (Mr. Coign-
houn ) regarded with the greatest of veneration and respect.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Free Church of Scotland had repu-
diated the principle of ecclesiastical supremacy in temporal
matters. His opinion was that in ecclesiastical matters ecclesias-
tical government should be supreme, and in civil and temporal
matters the civil power should be supreme. With reference,
to the speech' of the Right lion. Member for the
University of Oxford, he had stated many things which
would have been better if considered in Committee. He
could assure the House, that as regarded any processions of
the kind being exhibited in the streets of London or other
large towns, he had too much veneration for that solemnity
to expose it to the ribaldry, and perhaps to the insult of thess
who differed from him in their opinions upon that subject.
lle would, however, state to the House, that at Malta an
officer of the British army conscientiously refused to fire the
accustomed salute at the time the procession of the Host was
passing by. Ile was punished by the Government of this coun-
try for not doing so, by being deprived of his commision. He
(Mr. O'Connell) however brought the circumstances under the
consideration of the House, and undertook his defence on
the ground of his conscientious scruples. He did not think
he could allow himself to be silent upon the monastic order.
There was no law to prevent those institutions. There was
no law to prevent the superiors of convents keeping nuns
in 'their house. The doors of the convents are al-
ways open, so that the nuns might leave at any time
they thought proper,—(Hear, hear.) They had not
however done so. The Right Hon. Baronet seems to be
impressed with unfavourable notions regarding the Jesuits.
lie had had opportunities of looking over the history of that
illustrious order. He was convinced there never were greater
friends to the advancement of literature than they had been.
He believed that their virtues were their crime. He defied any
man to state, with name and fact, anything derogatory
to that illustrious order which he was not able to refute.
Their lives were spent in the performance of the most acetic
virtues. They are compelled to spend a number of years in
a course of training at their colleges, to enable them
to teach others, and at the expiration of that period they
may or may notbe admitted into the - order. They have
produced many great men in all branches of literature and
science, which no person can but admit. The authority of
Pascal, although a great and fascinating writer, yet he dces
not attempt to look into the facts of the case ; and he (Mr.
O'Connell) believed that there was not a statement put
forward in that book that he was not able to refute.
Michela- was not either any authority to be quoted
upon the subject of the Jesuits, nothing could be more atro-
cious than his book. As to Eugene Sue, the writer of
romances of the most atrocious nature, be states no fact
whatever of the Jesuits. He succeeded by drawing largely
upon his imagination to turn his work into a most gross and
unatural romance. There is not a single fact recorded in it.
They had been persecuted by many countries by reason
of their superior moral lives. Spain and Portugal had ba-
nished them from their countries, and no person could say
that those countries were at all in an enlightened state. lie
thanked God that the order was now reviving again, that in
the la,t. year 40 missionaries had been sent to a great portion
of the most uncivilised parts of the globe. They would
probably double their number in the next year. He begged
pardon of the House for introducing to their notice the sub-
ject of the Jesuists ; it was the first time he had troubled
the House with such a subject; and concluded by stating, as
his firm and settled conviction, that they were the greatest
benefactors to the literature and science of this country.

they were either obsolete or penal, and in either case
they should be repealed.—(Hear, hear.) If they were obso-
lete, then they were no use, and ought to be abolished ; and
if they were penal, then that was a still stronger reason for
their repeal.—(Loud cries of "Divide, divide.")
Strangers were then 'ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it ... 23
• - - ---Ma)ority for the second reading —43
MANCHESIER, HUDDERSFIELD, AND GREAT
GRIMSBY DIRECT RAILWAY.
This Bill was read a second time.
OUT-PENSIONERS' PAYMENT (GREENWICH AND
CHELSEA) BILL.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT moved the second reading of
this Bill.
Captain PECHELL briefly expresses his dissent from
the principles of this Bill, as its operation was by no
means calculated to benefit the interests of, or
to give satisfaction to, these veterans.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT defended the Bill as a measure
that would inflict no hardship on the pensioners, but rather
,be a means of protecting them. The Secretary-at-War had
no power to withhold or grant pensions, but it was provided
that the payments should be made through him. Instead of
pensions being paid; as hitherto, by a clumsy and cumberons
processi, they would be_paid directly_by a staff officer, under
the general superintendence of the Secretary-at-War
• After a few remarks from Captain PECIIELL, the Bill was
read a second time and ordered to be committed on Friday
next.

PAKINGT6N, though' a member of the Prolestant
Church, would gladly support the principle of the Bill, which
he believed was to remove those enactments against Roman
Catholics which had now become obsolete. But, at
the same time, , though perfectly willing to make
any concession to his Catholic brethren, be could not
go so far as the principle contemplated in the Bill.
He could not support a measure calculated to remove
these safeguards of the British constitution' which were
framed at the time of the 'easing of the Catholic Emanci-
pation Act in 1829.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL. could say that he had been
educated at a Jesuit college, and from what he had seen there,
he believed that they were good Christians, enlightened
gentlemen, and loyal subjects.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that it would be found that
the order of the Jesuits wou!d be difficult to be traced; he
would:not deny,that there might be among them, some cha-
racters remarkable for their attainments; Several countries,
hrnvever, which. the Hon. Member for Cork must be aware
of, had found it necessary for the preservation of internal
peace to banish them.
Mr. O'CONNELL stated, in reply to the Hon. Member,
that the ;fatty Missionaries he had alluded to had not been
labouring.in England or France, but their labours had com-
menced at the Mores, and ended at Cochin China.
Lord JOHN MANNERS could not see what possible good,
it could do to the Honourable Member for Oxford, or
any other. Protestant, to witness the continuance of these
laws upon the statute-book. The Honourable Ba-
ronet . said he would remove them .when some prac-
tical grievance resulted from their enforcement, -but
what was that but carrying out the old adage of not
shutting the stable till the steed was stolen? He could not
agree with the fears expressed by Hen. Members in refer-
ence to the Jesuits.. About 100 years ago a similar feeling
prevailed in this country against. the Templar,. There
was no: atrocity of which they were considered capable.
The Spectator, a few years ago, stated that the feelings pre-
valent about Jesuits were " more suited to circulating
libraries and romances than grave political discussions."
These opinions were absolutely ridiculous. The Jesuits
were a body of learned and intelligent men, and had
of late earned the Gospel to China,, and. conferred a
great amount of good on benighted lauds. Ile' thought
they should rather imitate their example, as well as
thaVof the Christian Brothers and the Cistercians of Mount
Melleray, than sully the dignity of the British House of
Commons by heaping aspersions upon them Which were
utterly devoid of truth and unworthy of their character.
Mr. ESTCOURT apprehended that the enactments of
1829 were not inoperative and useless, for the speech of the
Noble Lord proved distinctly the reverse. The Noble Lord
dwelt at some length on them, and considered them of little
consequence; but he was old enough to remember that con-
siderable importance was attached to them when they were
under discussion. lie should most willingly support the
amendment of. the Hon. Baronet.
Mr, P. BORTWICK supported the second reading of the
Bill, because it was founded upon the broad principle of "cha-
rity—the child of Christianity and the mother of the Church
of England. He considered the' works of Eggene Sue ex-
ercised a more Pernicious*inthience*On sociefy than any act
the Jesuits had ever committed.
-Mr. M. MILNES would have preferred that this discussion
had taken place upon the Government Bill. ' He passed a
great portion of his time in Catholic countries, and had
even heard the service of the Church 'of England
under the walls of the Vatican. He considered that the re-
moval• of these disabilities would have a good effect on the
Itotnau Catholic religion abroad. He hoped that they would
eschew these absurd delusions about Jesuits; and remove for
ever from the statute-book- these odions penalties and dis-
abilities.
Colonel SIBTRIAP said he would adopt in reference to
this measure but one course, and that' was the consistent
course, and the same that he had pursued in reference to the
grant to the College of Maynooth. He did hope that the
Hon. Member for Oxford would take a division on his
amendment; and here, let him say, that he did think
that the Protestant religion was much indebted
to that Honourable Member fur the manner in
which he
sit
down by
hdefended it. With regard to this measure he
saying, that he would support the sug-
gestion of the Hon. Member for Oxford, becauss he feared
that to leave the measure of the Right Honourable Baronet
unsupported: would have the effect of undermining the Pro-
testant religion in this country.
Captain HARRIS said he quite agreed with many Hon.
Members that many of these penal Acts should be repealed ;
but at the same time he should oppose the present measure,
because he conceived it to be too general a measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he wished to put a question to the
mover of the Bill. He would wish to know whether certain
penalties which had been alluded to would be repealed?
Mr. ESCOTT said he would be very glad to introduce a
clause to the effect of abolishing those penalties, though he
believed that in the existing state of the law these penalties
cOttld not be enforced.—(Cues of "Divide, divide.")
Mr. P. HOWARD said the Hon. Member opposite was
mistaken as to the existing law in reference to Jesuits.
Mr. B. ESCOTT replied. He said the Bill would contain
a clause to prevent procestions of Roman Catholics in this
country' which should have a malicious or offensive tendency.
He had heard Hon. Members contend that other Acts affect-
ing other persuasions injuriously ought I.o.l4,iepesled, He
fully agreed with them ; but then he wojald say, in liference
to the Acts which this Dill prcpoted to repeal, that

landowners on the line, who complained of omissions is the '
plans and sections of property of which the petitioners themselves
were not the owners and occupiers„ while the property alleged to
be omitted was situated at a considerable distance from that part of
the country, while the petitioners' property was intersected by the
railway.
Mr. DEANS demanded that the consent of the occupiers or owners
of the property alleged to be omitted to the presentation of the peti-
tion in question should be proved by Mr. Venables before he was
heard upon it.
Mr. VENABLTS apprehended that as this was an objection open to
the general public, it was not necessary for him to prove such consent.
Mr. AGLIONBY said it was true that it had already beau decided
that mat allegations were open to the general public, but each cote
must be taken upon its particular merits and particular facts, and it'
the particular circumstances and particular facts of the case did sot
justify the hearing of a general petitioner, not immediately interested
in the property alleged to be omitted or incorrectly described, it was
competent for the Committee to refuse to hear evidence or arguments
upon such petition. That was the opinion of the Committee in the
present instance, and the petition therefore could not bs admitted.
Several allegations urged by other petitioners, of omissions and
defects in the plans, sections, and books of refeience, were substan-
tiated, and allowed by the Committee.
The Committee then adjourned.

THE SUN, LON DON, THURSDAY EVENING MARCH 121 1845.

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 1,500/. standing to his credit
at his bankers, and certain bills of exchange of Byrne's
became due at this time, and being presented for pay
rnent 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 I yrne 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, brought an
action in the Court of Common Pleas against Messrs.
Barnett, 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, that any or all of the Exchequer-bills which
Byrne kept deposited in the tin box, and which
from time to time he delivered to them
edes,rs. 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 case before the 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 being
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 would
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, which 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
appellant, 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.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIR :WlT—Maidstone, 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.
'rhe Lord Chief Justice sat at Nisi Prius, and Mr.
Baron Alderson presided at the Crown Court.
CROWN COURT. _

James Bowray,24- , wai indicted for a misdemeanour,
in having unlawfully thrown a stone upoa the Gravesend
and Rochester Railway, and thereby endangered the
safety of the passengers travelling upon the line.
Mr. Smith conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Russell
appeared for the defendant.
From the evidence it appeared that some time prior to
the 20th of January there had been repeated complaints
of persons throwing stonbs at the trains as they passed
upon the line ; and, on the day in question, as the five
p.m. train was passing under Higham•bridge, the de-
fendant was seen to throw or drop a stone, which fell
upon one of the carripges. He was taken into custody,
when he admitted that the stone fell from his hand, but
he said he had no intention or idea of doing any mischief.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON, in passing sentence, told the
defendant that he believed that it was very probable that
he did not intend to do any mischief, but still the effect
of his acting as he did might have been most serious,
and might have occasioned the loss of life. Under the se
circumstances, and with a view to deter other persons
from the commission of a like offence, he felt it to be
his duty to pass a sentence of some severity, which was,
that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six
months.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.)

when the Lord'Chief Justice intimated that nothing had
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.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Bedford, March 9.
The commission for this county was. opened on Saturday
afternoon amid great numbers of people, attracted, not only
by the fineness of the weather, but also by the gaiety of the
sheriff's equipage, which far outshone those heretofore
"spotted" in this county by his predecessors in that ancient
and honoured office.
The nisi Arius 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 rector of this county, and, moreover, a man of near
" three score years and ten ; 'so that, as may be expected, the
case is in everybody's mouth in the town.
The calender is heavy, containing the names of 37 pri-
soners, and embracing 25 cases, including arson, horse steal-
ing, poachiag, and a variety of minor (Mena&
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice na1.11.-
Charles learner and William Farr were indicted to; steal-
ing 19 fowls, the property of Mr. Hunt, at Luton, oh ae
23d December last.
Mr. GUNNING conducted the case for the prosecution, and
from the testimony of the witnesses called 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 22d 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. For 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 bad Been fighing the day be-
fore the robbery, and their combs wets very much pecked.
:Not long, after this a clue was found --ta 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 WarUer'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 cat off their beads 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 publk-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 had no hesitation whatever in swearing to the
heads of the two pugnacious cocks. So that the case being
clearly made out, both the prisoners were found Guilty.
Mr. Justice ILtuas then proceeded to pass sentence upon
the prisoners (who were but 19 years old), -and in co doing
pointed out to them the folly of their ways, as exemplified
in thejr conviction to-day, on the evidence 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-
iday, and immediately opened the commission, and charged
the grand jury for the city at the City-hall ; after which
their Lordships proceeded to open the commission for the
county at the County-hall, in the Castle-yard.
Their Lordships attended Divine service at the Cathedral
yesterday morning, and took their respective seats in the
County-hall at 9 o'clock this morning ; ➢ir 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 prius 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 for 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 trial, of which latter 4 were of
,burglary, involving 9 prisoners; 1 of sheep stealing, involv-
ing 4 ; 3of robbery with violence, involving 6 ; 2 of, un-
natural offence; 4 of arson ; 2 of horse stealing ; 1 of forgery
(a Post-office order for 31/.); I of sending a threatening
letter; 3 of being armed at night for the purpose of taking
and killing grime; 2 of uttering and having in possession base
money; and 1 of concealment of birth.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before the Lord Chief Justice TIIIDAL.)

THOMAS BROMHEAD TKOMAS SPARLING.
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. Whitehurst, Q.C., and Mr.. Wildman conducted the
plaintiff's case Mr. Humfrey, Q.C., and Mr. Willmore ap-
peared as counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff is a journeyman blacksmith, and the de.
fendant the keeper of a beer shop in Far. street, Horncastle.
As the plaintiff, shortly after ten o'clock at night, on the
27th of May last, was passing the defendant's house, in his
way along Far-street, 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, having bitten and rent his clothes near the shoulder,
very severely bit his right hart& A .neighbotir df the de-
fendant, seeing what was occurring, came out from his shop
on the opposite side of the way and. halloed to the dogs,
upon which they ran away up the defendant's yard. The
plaintiff then pursued his way until he met s 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 bad just seen the red
and white one up his back yard, upon which he demanded
to know what business he hid upon his premises, and stated
that the other was locked up. Tho constable said, " Yes,
but it was not locked up a few minute.' ago," and the de-
fendant replied that it had been locked tic all the evening.
and a man named Attercliffe could prove it. .Thepojiceman
to this answered that the man Attercliffe wouit, swear to
anything for a pint of beef, and he would not beliePs him
upon his oath.
Thomas Wilkins in, a lad in the service of Mr. Cooke, a
veterinary surgeon, living next door to the defendant, de-
posed that he 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 he got held of hint.
Both the dogs were at the plaintiff, and the black and white
one bit bra hand. Mr. Hewett, a potter, called out, 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 deg,
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 bad 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 TIDAL.)
Two Irish labourers, of the names of Welch and Glynn,
were indicted for a rape, within the precincts of the city, on
the 22d of August last, upon the person of one Mary, the
wife of George Lee, a monstrously dirty member of the
gipsy tribe, at the.age of about 80.
Mr. DEyncourt conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Macaulay
defended the prisoners.
It appeared that there was an encampment of gipsies in
Greetwell-lane, in or near the cit 7, 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 ass, 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 refused to 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
tnthe 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 put in, which was upon several points very
materially at variance with her statement here to day.)
Welch used the hatchet. If she beforesstated it was Glynn
it 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. All
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 (baying
before the magistrates, like her mother, said as to both mat-
ters quite the cortrary), 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 nonchu'ance, and quite con amore.
eorge Lee—Was the husband- of the old woman. The
two prisoners came to the-camp and began to stone them.