The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THUKSDAY EV.ENING, APRIL 9, 1846.

of the property. The Right Honourable Baronet the Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department had the other
night stated that the sanguinary doings which took
place in the southern parts of Ireland did not take
place in the northern, although the law with regard
to landlord and tenant was the same over the whole of Ire-
land, Now he (Mr. Scrope) believed that although the
strict letter of the law was the same, there was still a custom
or usage in the northern parts which did not thus sanction
summary eviction of tenantry which occurred in those parts
of that country, of the sanguinary doings of which the House
had heard so much ; and he was of opinion that it was in
consequence of that custom, or usage, that so much peace
prevailed in Ulster.—(Hear, hear.) He would, after the re-
cess, ask the Government whether the law sanctioned such a
custom, er whether it would enforce the arbitrary rights of
the landlord in Ulster in the same manner as it did in the
other more unfortuate parts of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
LEGAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
Mr. WYSE moved for a Select Committee to inquire
into the state of legal education in Ireland.
The motion was agreed to.
COMMONS INCLOSURE.
Sir J. GRAHAM obtained leave and brought in a Bill,
which was read a first time, for the inclosure of commons.
MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND).
Mr. WYSE gave notice that he should, after Easter,
bring in a Bill to abolish ministers' money in Ireland.
The House then adjourned until after Easter.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(YESTERDAY.)

tirely to the engineering difficulties to be anticipated in the
construction of the proposed railway and tier, and to the in-
comprehensiveness of the estimate, considered that a more
advantageous line might have been selected betweengiridge-
water and Minehead, which would not require such an out-
lay of capital, affording equal accommodation to the public,
and not depreciating to such an extent the value of property.
Mr. M‘Neal, an assistant to the last witness, spoke to the
gradients, &c., he took on this line, disagreeing in many of
those taken by the engineers promoting this scheme. In his
cross-examination by Mr. Cockburn his testimony was some-
what shaken.
The Committee on its rising adjourned until Tuesday, the
27th inst., when the consideration of this case will be resumed.

Sub-Committee No. 6.

IVARWICKBEINE AND LONDON (ZADEP..

TON AND ZANNITRY LINE).

(Continued from cur Afternoon Eatitioa ef yesterday.)

An allegation of omission with reference to property in
the parish of Banbury, marked 38 and 34, was not sustained.
It was next alleged that five houses situated in the parish
of St. Nicholas, Warwick, were not numbered on the plans
deposited with the clerk of the peace for Warwick and those
in the Private-bill Office.

-
Evidence having been heard, the Committee found that
the allegation was sustained.
The next allegation was to the same effect, with reference
to the property marked 8, in Leamington Priors, which
consisted of a house, outbuildings, and a yard.
It was stated on behalf of the promoters that it was im-
possible to mark every point accurately, and that the mark
28 on the plan was sufficiently descriptive of the property
in question.
The CHAIRMAY said that the Committee must report that
the standing orders in this case had not been complied with,
but would accompany the same with the explanation given
on behalf of the promoters, which the Committee considered
quite satisfactory.
Several other allegations to the same effect, and under
similar circumstances, were admitted.
It was next alleged that there were discrepancies between
the respective plans, which allegation was abandoned, and
several others of a similar character were entered into, but
not sustained.
The case for the petition having closed, the Committee
found that the standing orders had not been complied with.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
PRIVY COUNCIL, April 8.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council mot yesterday
in the Council Chamber, Whitehall. The Lords present
were, the Lord-President (the Duke of Buccleuch), the
Vice-Chancellor Wigram, the Judge of the Admiralty Court,
the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall, Sir Alexander
Johnstone, Sir H. East, and Sir Edward Ryan.
IN THE NATTER OF TIIE PETITION OF IDCLJEE HYRAIVIGEE,
OF BOMBAY, AND OTHILES.—THE PARSEE MURDER CASE
The arguments in this case, which were commenced
on Saturday, were resumed and concluded to-day. The case
came before their Lordships upon the petition of Eduljee
Byramgee, of Bombay, now a prisoner at Singapore, on
behalf of himself and eight other Parsee natives of Bombay,
for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Supreme
Court of Judicature at Bombay, sentencing them to trans-
portation to Singapore, for the wilful murder of a Parsee
named Muncherjee Hormusjee.
The facts of the case may be thus stated. In the town of
Bombay the population was divided into political parties,
and a person of the name of Muncherjee was a workman in
the office of a newspaper, published in the Parsee language,
called the Chabook. It appeared he was a person of great
bodily strength and violent habits, having been several times
imprisoned on charges for assault. On the 21st of April,
1844, a person named Burjorjee, with whom Muncherjee had
frequently fought, accompanied by a body of his friends,
came into the street in which the newspaper-office was .
Muncherjee, who anticipated the visit, was also provided
with a body of his friends; a violent tumult arose, and the
witnesses examined on the trial stated that Muncherjee
was dragged through the street by his opponent,
until he met his death from wounds inflicted by a
knife or knives (that being one of the questions).
It was remarkable, that although the number of persons on
each side was very considerable, and although the trial
lasted ten days, only two witnesses were called on the part
of the prosecution, and they were accidentally present, and
persons of indifferent character. One had been born a priest,
and was then acting as a menial servant. The other was
the keeper of a liquor shop, who had recently been dis-
charged from prison for an aggravated assault ; and the Chief
Justice (Sir H. Roper) described them "as per-
-8018 upon whose testimony, when their passions or in-
terests were involved, he could not place any great re-
liance." The account they gave was, that four of the
eighteen ?arsees who were tried for the murder had knives,
and they struck the deceased and wounded him with them.
The Chief Justice expressed great doubts of the truth of that
statement, as the surgeon's evidence was that all the wounds
were inflicted with one . knife, the knife held by Burjorjee,
who, upon his conviction, was executed, having confessed
that he was the only person who stabbed the deceased.
The jury found the eighteen persons guilty. There
was one most important objection to the verdict arising
from misdirection. The jury, after being in consulta-
tion five hours, returned into Court and asked the
Chief Justice, would they be justified in returning a verdict
of manslaughter? The Judge answered, "Gentlemen, it is
either murder or it is nothing." There was also another most
important miscarriage upon the trial. Their Lordships would
be surprised to hear that during the ten days the trial lasted
the jury were allowed to separate, and were not under the
least control. The consequence was a miscarriage on their part,
which in one sense was honourable to them, as it arose from their
anxiety to ascertain the truth, but they misled themselves
by their own inquiries, and the result was that they found
two persons guilty of wilful murder whom they now believe
to be innocent. The petitioner and one of the other parties
produced witnesses who stated that they were members of
a club which met every Sunday, at a bungalow about a
quarter of an hour's drive outside the town, and that at the
time the murder was committed they dined there in company
with the petitioner, and that he remained in the bungalow
until eight o'clock that night. The witnesses were severely
cross-examined, but without eliciting any inconsistencies.
It appeared that during the progress of the trial a doubt arose
whether it was practicable for a buggy to be driven
up to the gate of the place where the club met,
as had been deposed to by the witnesses for the alibi.
Accordingly, two of the jurors were deputed by the body to
settle the matter by personal examination. These parties
proceeded in their buggy during the morning drive allowed
them for relaxation, pending the trial, to the cemetery in
question, until they arrived at a point where the read
deviates into two, one leading to the right, the other to the
left, they took the right hand road, and found they could
not reach the gate of the cemetery without alighting
and walking some 150 or 200 yards. Having thus, as
they supposed, established that the read leading to the
cemetry was impassible for vehicles, they returned
and reported to the other jurors that in this respect they had
disproved the evidence for the defence. This circumstance
weighed very much with the jury, and induced them to dis-
believe or doubt the whole of the evidence in 'support of the
alibi. After the trial, the two jurors entertaining some doubt
whether they had net acted on a misconception of the road
in question, again drove to the cemetery, taking the road
to the left, and found no difficulty whatever in reaching
the gate. This discovery was immediately communicated to
Mr. Crawford, who defended the petitioner, with a view, as
they stated, of giving the prisoners the benefit of the dis-
covery. This was clearly
a miscarriage in fact, as the ether
was a miscarriage in law, and no stronger case could be
imagined to show the wisdom of the English law in never
suffering the fury to separate during a trial. There was ano-
ther thing, the Chief Justice said, " The impression made on
my mind by the evidence and deportment of the first witness
was highly unfavourable to the alibi, but that impression was
weakened as each succeeding witness gave his testimony,
until at last, though still doubting whether the case for the
prosecution against the petitioner and Eduljee might
not be true, I also greatly doubted whether the al-
leg
ed alibi could be false. It was, however, a
question to be determined by the jury." The Chief
Justice states that before he summed up he retired for re-
freshment with his brother judge (Sir E. Perry) who had
taken a different view, and that he impressed him (the
Chief Justice) with that view, and that he summed up in a
way which does not accord with his present impression,
and did not accord with his impression at the time he heard
the evidence. The result was that the jury found the
petitioner and five others guilty, and recommended them to
mercy. Sentence of death having been recorded against them,
they were transported for life to Singapore. And under these
circumstances the petition was presented for leave to appeal
against the judgment of the Court below.
Mr. M. D. Hill was heard on Saturday last on behalf of
the appeal.
Sir J. BAYLEY shortly addressed their Lordships to-day on
the same side.
The Attorney-General and Mr. L. Wigram were heard
against the petition, and
Mr. M. D. HILL having replied at great length,
Their Loapswars stated that they should take time to
consider their judgment.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, April 8.
The business commenced this morning at eight o'clock
in both Courts—Mr. Baron Platt, on the Crown side of
the hall, being engaged in the disposal of a number of
cases of the most disgusting character, the particulars of
which it is impossible further to allude to.
(Before the CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
LEWIS v. MEADOWS.

For the plaintiff were Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr.
Skinner; for the defendant, Mr. Godson, Q.C., and Mr.
James.
Both parties in this case, which was an action of libel,
are ministers of a religious sect entitled "Independ-
ents;" Mr. Lewis having for upwards of twenty-five
years presided over a chapel at Glastonbury, and Mr.
Meadows having also for a considerable period had the
care of another chapel in the same town. Some months
since Mr. Lewis received an invitation to go to a new
scene, and to take charge of another congregation at
Westbourne. After some negotiation, however, the
proposition which had been made to Mr. Lewis fell
to the ground from some cause which he was
unable precisely to ascertain, until he found that
a number of the most infamous and calumnious
reports were afloat respecting him, to which he was in-
duced to attribute the circumstance above adverted to.
Being naturally anxious to clear his character from the
aspersions which it had received, and being, moreover,
desirous to assertain the source whence the fabrications
emanated, he at length discovered that some anonymous
letters reflecting upon him in the vilest terms had been
circulated through the neighbourhood in which he lived.
Having reason to suspect the defendant Meadows was
the author of two of these, the present proceedings
were instituted, the two letters being selected as con-
taining the libellous matter contained in the declaration.
The defendant, by his plea, altogether denied the au-
thorship of the first letter, and as regarded the second, he
suffered judgment to go by default. The only question,
therefore, wnich remained, was the amount of damages
to be assessed. By an arrangement between the parties
before the trial, it was agreed that the defendant should
pay 2001. to the plaintiff in full satisfaction for the in-
jury which he had occasioned him, and that each party
should defray his own costs, provided that a sufficient
and ample apology were offered on the defendant's behalf.
Mr. GODSON, on the part of his client, having fully
complied with the latter stipulation, the above terms were
acceded to, and the jury were discharged.

LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN.-DENNETT

AND OTHERS V. NASH AND FICKERSGILL.
(Special Jury.)
For the plaintiff were Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr.
Valentine Lee ; for the defendants, Mr. Whately, Q.C.,
and Mr. Phipson.
The Learned SERGEANT, in opening the case, stated
tlhsas.t
6thdi.s,
awlleagsedantoabcetiodnuettoo rtebcoopylearinthtieffssu(wbm oof
a2r,9e44/.
at-
torneys and solicitors), for work and labour, and for
money expended to the use of the defendants, and was
one of that class of cases which is daily getting more
numerous, arising from the late general frequency of
railway speculation. The company with which the
plaintiffs became connected as attorneys, and from which
originated their present demand, was projected in May,
1845, the intention of the original schemers being to
connect Worcester, Wolverhampton, Oxford, and
London by a shorter line than any at present existing.
iieito rs i t ,
It was first known as the Oxford and London Direct
Railway, and afterwards as the Worcester, Wolver-
hampton, and Oxford Extension, under which it was
_
registered. This change in the name was made on the
7th of October, 1845 • and a numerous meeting of those
favourable to the undertaking was held on the 9th of the
same month at the George and Vulture Tavern.
Amongst others, Nash, one of the defendants, attended ;
otherma many resolutions were passed and adopted, and, amongst
wasand a
semttlre.dDthinakts bolnestsbres.
euryyDennetteor.should
b e i
ntkhe matters,s solicitors
Mr.
P er gill was introduced on the 26th of September,
shortly after which time Messrs. Dennett entered
into
for very active operations for the purpose of
warding all the preliminaries needful to comply
with the standing orders of the House of Com-
mons. The meeting convened for the 9th of Oc-
tober was
afterwards adjouined till the 10th. 60 or
70 letters were sent out to announce the meetings,
both of which Dickson attended, and informed those
present that it would be requisite for him to hire a con-
siderable " staff " of surveyors, Sze., because he had only
then six weeks before the " fated " 30th of November to
complete all the surveys, and, from the great demand for
labour at that time, it was necessary to pay in propor-
tion. On the 14th of October another meeting was held,
which the defendants both attended—Nash presiding in
the chair, and a smaller committee of six was appointed
to superintend the affairs of the company, both the de-
fendants being appointed to serve upon that committee ;
meetings were afterwards held from time to time,which
they were represented as having attended. Prospectuses
and advertisements were issued ; .the proposed capital
was stated at 600,0001., in 30,000 shares, and soon. after
the announcement was made public 60,000 shares were

actually paid for. Not very long after a change seemed
to have occurred, difference of opinion arose between the
committee and the plaintiffs ; but still Dickson, the sur-
veyor, went on actively with his operations, and the
plaintiffs also worked day and night. On the 30th of
Novenaber.all was announced to be in readiness for Par-
liament. No less than 911 notices had been given along
the projected line, which were charged for by the plain-
tiffs at an average of 15s. each. Messrs. Dennett, how-
ever, found that nothing further could be done, although
they called upon the committee either to allot the shares
at once or to dissolve the company. The committee,
however, refused to do either, and the plaintiffs in due
course presented their bill, which not being liquidated,
they deemed it advisable to proceed against some of the
committeemen, and finally determined upon selecting
the defendants for that purpose, although Nash had pre-
viously withdrawn from the committee, an act which
might possibly in some measure affect his liability ; for,
though he seceded from the eommittee, yet he remained
a member of the company. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd con-
cluded by observing that the plaintiffs had paid Dickson
alone 700/. in cash, and had made other disbursements
amounting to 2,1001. out of pocket, besides having devoted
a considerable amount of their attention and skill to the
subject.
At the conclusion of the Learned Sergeant's speech,
and before any witnesses were examined, a protracted
discussion ensued between the counsel engaged in the
case and their clients, which terminated in an arrange-
ment that a ♦erdict should be entered for the sum of
2,400/.

GARBETT V. ADAMS AND OTHERS.
(Special Jury.)
For the plaintiff were Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr.
Whately, Q.C., Mr. Alexander, Q.C., Mr. Greaves, and
Mr. Dowdeswell ; for the defendant, Mr. Keating and
Mr. Selfe.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOU RD, rising on behalf of the plain-
tiff, said that his client was a Mr. Edmund Garbett, an
attorney living at Wellington, Salop, and that the de-
fendants were gentlemen of the highest respectability,
namely, Mr. Sergeant Adams, Mr. Blandford, Mr.
Webster, and Mr. Holcombe, This case, like the pre-
ceding, arose out of railway transactions • the defendant,
Mr. Sergeant Adams, having been, in dctober last, the
chairman, and the other defendants committeemen of the
Shropshire Mine cal Railway Company. Mr. Adams,
the nephew of the Learned Sergeant, and a Mr. Yar-
borough, his partner, were the London solicitors,
and the plaintiff was appointed the country solicitor,
in which office he continued to act until about a week
ago. Some little time since the company had fallen
into disunion, and Garbett delivered in his hill amount-
ing to 1,8531. 7s. 10d., of which he had been paid 1,0101.,
leaving a balance claimed by him of 843/. 7s. 10d., be-
sides which he demanded 3041. commission on 4,000
shares disposed of by him for the company, independ-
ently of this other claim. Application was made to the
Master of the Rolls to tax the bill, and he made an
order to that effect, directing further proceedings in the
meantime to be stayed. In addition, however, to the
other debt, the plaintiff made a further demand for
11141., alleged to have been incurred for services per-
formed subsequently to those particularised in the pre-
vious bill, and also for advertisements and other ex-
penses, whereupon the order of the Master of the Rolls
was amended, to allow the action to proceed in respect
of these latter items. The present cause was confined
to the claim accruing since the 7th of January, and
3041. for commission on shares, which it.was maintained
the company had agreed to pay, independently of all
remuneration for professional services. The first plea
upon the record alleged that no signed bill had been de-
livered; in reply to which it was urged that, as regarded
the sum claimed for commission, no signed bill was re-
quired, as that constituted a debt due to the plaintiff,
irrespective of his character of attorney. The defend-
ants, however, denied the existence of any such agree-
ment as that to which the plaintiff referred.
The first witness, Henry Pooley, was then called and
examined by Mr. WHATELY—He stated : Last August
I became secretary to the Shropshire Mineral Railway,
and continued in that capacity till February last. I
attended the meetings of the committee during the in-
tervening period. Mr. Sergeant Adams, Mr. Blandford,
Mr. Webster, and Mr. Holcombe also attended those
meetings. All the resolutions of the committee were
reduced to writing. There were several discussions
about the commissions payable to the country agents. I
was at a meeting at Newport, at which Mr. Webster was
present, upon an occasion when Mr. Brown had claimed
commission for disposing of some shares. The members
present agreed that he should be paid, and he was paid.
At the next meeting, a week after, Sergeant Adams was
in the chair. Cheques, I believe, were signed at that
meeting in order to make the above payment. Direc-
tions were given to me to write to the local agents that
they should have commissions on the shares disposed of
by them. This was about two months before the meet-
ing at Newport. Mr. Garlsett was a local agent. All
the local agents were solicitors. 1,000 or 2,000 shares
were allotted on Garbett's recommendation.
Cross examined by Mr. KEATING—AII the time that
I was secretary Mr. Garbett was the country solicitor.
I do not know that the duties of the country solicitor
and local agent were dissimilar. He attended the
board meetings, they did not. The meeting at New-
port was about the sth of December. Mr. Webster
was present on that occasion. The resolutions re-
specting the local agents were then agreed upon. I
only attended one meeting at Newport. The claim by
Brown for commission was discussed. He sought about
3001. or over; he accepted 301. odd. That was not the
first meeting at which the claims of local agents had
been discussed. The country agents and solicitors ful-
filled the same kind of duties.
Re-examined by Mr. WHATELY—Yarborough and
Adams were the London solicitors to the Company.
Here a suggestion was offered by the Learned Chief
Baron, to the effect that, in his opinion, the point at issue
would be more fairly dealt with by submitting it to the
Master, as be (the Learned Judge) was of opinion that
the items particularised by the plaintiff were taxable by
that officer.
Mr. KEATING, on the part of his clients, observed that
this was exactly what they had desired all along. They
meant not to deny their liability, but they were solicitous
that the amount to be liquidated by them should be spe-
cified by a competent party.
After a lengthened deliberation it was finally agreed
that the plaintiff should be nonsuited, liberty being re-
served to him to enter a verdict for such sum (if any)
as the Master should find to be due to the plaintiff.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Taunton, April 7.
John Hill and Thomas Quick were indicted for as-
saulting Martin How, and robbing him of some silver.
Mr. Phinn and Mr. Thring were counsel for the pro-
secution, and Mr. Stone for the prisoner.
There was no doubt the prosecutor, who is a butcher,
had been knocked off his horse and robbed of 31. 10s.
The only question was one of identity. The prosecutor
stated that he knew Hill by his voice, having known
him for fifteen years.
Three witnesses said they had seen the prisoners to-
gether near the spot about six o'clock, which was the
time of the robbery.
For the prisoners a vast number of witnesses were
called, who most clearly proved an alibi ; and
Mr. Baron ROLFE stopped the case and directed an
acquittal, at the same time telling the prisoners that he
believed them to be perfectly innocent.
Henry Harris and Robert Tippaney were indicted for
assaulting and robbing James Charlton, at Keynsham.
Mr Phinn was counsel for the prosecution, and Mr.
Stone for the prisoners.
This was a case very, similar to the preceding. Three
persons swore to the identity of Harris, who, however,
called the person at whose house he lodged, and who was
the postmaster, and he clearly proved that Harris was in
bed at the time of the robbery. Verdict—Not Guilty.

1V ORTHERN CI RC Ul T.—Liverpool, April 7.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
OLDHAM V. PUGh.

This was an action of assault.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins ;ad Mr. Hoskins were for the
plaintiff, Mr. Atherton for the defence.
The defendant is an attendant at the Brunswick
Chapel in this town ; the plaintiff a member of a family
who for some time have had a pew there. On Sunday
evening, the 11th of January, the plaintiff, in company
with another person, went to the chapel. The service
had commenced some time before, and they had some
doubt whether they should go in. They were standing
in a lobby at the back entrance, leading to the passage
by which they would descend to the pew occupied by
the plaintiff's mother and family, the chapel being built
in the form of an amphitheatre. While they were there
the defendant came up the stairs, and collared the plain-
tiff, accusing him of having put some dirt in his hat at the
front entrance of the chapel about half an hour before.
The plaintiff and his companion assured him he was mis-
taken, but he persisted in the ch age, and dragged the
plaintiff down the stairs and out of the chapel. The
plaintiff subsequently applied to him for a retractation and
apology, which was refused. An action was threatened,
and the plaintiff again offered, if the defendant would
pay two guineas to a charitable institution and one
guinea for the attorney's costs, to allow the matter to
drop, but this proposal was also rejected.
It seemed now clearly established by the evidence of
persons who were in the company of the plaintiff pre-
vious to his attendance at the chaps], that the defendant
must have bee❑ mistaken in the party by whom the
affront had been offered him.

Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages lig.
(Before Mr. .Justice COLERIDGE.)
HINDSON V. WARD.
This was en action of trespass and false imprison-
ment.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. James appeared for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Martin and Mr. Crompton for the defence.
The defendant, in November, 1843, was in command
of a ship called the Bounty Hall, and the plaintiff was a
mariner on board that ship, then lying in the river
Bonny, on the coast of Africa. The trespass and false
imprisonment complained of consisted in
period uti ninety
days.
The statements of the witnesses were exceedingly con-
tradicory. According to the evidence of two of the crew,
the plaintiff had been engaged in coopering up some bar-
rels on deck, and had in his hands a hammer and driver,
with which he was employed in fastening the hoops. Some
angry words took place between him and some of the
other coopers, and the mate, a person named Whitting-
ton, came upon deck to settle the disturbance. The wit-
nesses stated that the mate coming up to Hindson, took
hold of the sleeve of his shirt, when the hammer with
which Hindson was working came into contact with the
mate's ear, and inflicted a slight wound. The mate sent
for the captain, who was then on shore, and on his corning
on deck he called Hindson aft. Hindson went towards
him with the hammer and driver in his hand. The de-
fendant asked him what he was doing with them, and he
said he was working. On this the captain struck him
over the eye with a gun-barrel plugged with wood, which
he used as a walking-stick, and directed him to ba imme-
diately tied up. The captain gave him eleven lashes, and
the second and third mates then took the cat, and gave

him very severe punishment. He was then chained
down to the tiller in such a position that he could
neither stand up nor lie down. He remained there all
night, and the following day a court-martial, as it was
earned, was called, consisting of all the captains then in
the river. The plaintiff was tied up, and while ho was
in that position, with his back to the parties, a discus-
sion took place as to his punishment, when they all, with
one exception, agreed he should be flogged again. The
captain called the crew aft, and told them it was at his
option to flog the plaintiff, that he would not do so, but
would put him in irons. He had accordingly the hand-
cuffs again put on him, and he was chained si ith the
bight of a topsail close to a small locker about seven feet
long and five feet high, which had been used for paints,
which were cleared out for the occasion. This was for
him to go into when it rained, but he could move back-
wards sad forwards about six yards on the deck. He
remained in this custody for ninety days, and was finally
sent home by another ship. It was stated that his back
was in a frightful state, and the smell was so offensive
that the man whose duty it was to wash him once a week
was scarcely able to endure it.
For the defence it was stated by the testimony of the
mate and some of the captains of the other vessels that
the plaintiff, on the mate coming on deck, felled him by
a blow of the hammer, which inflicted a severe wound on
his ear, and had produced symptoms of lockjaw. On the
captain coming on board with two other captains, and
calling the plaintiff aft, he refused to lay down the
hammer and driver, and on the captain attempting to
take them from him, he attempted to strike him. The
captain then struck him with his fist, and they struggled
together until the captains present took the hammer ow,
of his hands. It was for this be was flogged and put in
irons ; and it was alleged that his condition, as detailed
by the witnesses, was very much exaggerated.
The case occupied the Court the greater part of the
day, and the jury were still shut up in consultation whea
our report came away.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

SENTENCES AND SESSIONAL RESULTS.

Subjoined is a li3t of all the sentences passed on the
prisoners in the three Courts during the past session:—
Transportation for Fifteen Years —Wm. Kidd, T.
Smith, Ann Sykes, and Mary Turner.
For Ten Years —W. Chaffey, J. Lawlor, E. L. Dwyer,
J. Wilson, J. Maloney, J. Jones, J. Gwyett, Mary Ann
Smith, Elizabeth Nicholson, Eliza Russell, Margaret
Donnegan, Francis Leonard, Sarah Greenwood, Hen-
rietta White, T. Payne, J. Hollywood, T. Wallis, J.
Stone, W. Caffle.
For Seven Years—J. Lewis alias Druce, J. Richards,
J. Connolly, C. H. Cross, R. Moore, J. Freeman, 0.
Suffolk, H. Braby, R. Meatyard, Thomas Fidler, Ellen
Bird, J. Braham, J. Hobburn alias Currier, T. Davis.