The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-22 00:00:00

THE SUN,
_LONDON, MONDAY
_,EVENING-, JUNE 22, 1846

excellent health, refused point blank. This step, on
the part of the government, was made in order
to provide for Mr. Greene, the present Attorney-
General, lest the Whigs might come in, and the right
hon. gentleman be thereby shelved. After old Burton's
refusal, an application was made to Judge Torrens, who
agreed to retire, if his son was provided for • but no
office being at present vacant, the Castle people were
again foiled."
FREE TRADE.—The Mayo Constitution, in placing
before its readers an account of some recent cattle fairs,
says •.—" Whatever may be the future effect of Sir R.
Peel's free-trade measures, we candidly confess that the
cattle-feeders of Ireland have as yet no cause to com-
plain. There were lately held two fairs in our neigh-
bourhood, at which the prices of all kinds of stock were
highly remunerating. We allude to the fairs of Balla
and Turlogb. At the former the demand for milkers
was unprecedented. They rated at from 81. to 111, and
in some few instances went as high as 13/. 10s. A gen-
tleman with whom we conversed, on his return from the
fair, told us that he obtained at Balla 30s. per head more
for a lot of heifers than he would have got a month pre-
vious for the same lot in the same state. At both these
fairs sheep were advanced in price, but pigs a shade
lower."

On the 11th instant, says the Nenagh Guardian, eight
men, all armed, went to the house of Wm. Egan, Esq.,
Ballinderry, broke open the parlour door and the doer
of a room inside, when they found three guns, which
they carried off. Although there were two men in Mr.
Egan's house, and several men in the yard and about
the place, still the party never met with the slightest
opposition.

LAW IN TE LLIGEN CE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 20.
CLARKE V. DITRNSFORD-CRIM. CON. AND DIVORCE.
This was a petition to the House, by the plaintiff, for a
divorce, on the ground of adultery.
An action was tried for criminal conversation in February
last, in which our readers will remember that the plaintiff
was an attorney at Bristol, and the defendant a surgeon, then
in partnership with the plaintiff's mother. It appeared, upon
the trial, that the defendant had hired a house at Bath, la
February, 1845, and he and the wife of the plaintiff were in
the habit of meeting there under the assumed names of Mr.
and Mrs. Nyne ; and from this and other circumstances, as
well as from evidence of the confession of the parties, the
criminal intercourse was proved, and the jury returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, damages 5,000/. The defendant is in
prison upon proceedings for the recovery of this sum.
Mr. Austin and Mr. Butt now appeared in support of the
petition for a divorce. No counsel appeared for the defendant.
The evidence produced at the trial was gone into, and the
facts of the case were fully corroborated, after which,
Lord BROUGHAM, who presided, said the case was one of
the clearest he had ever heard, and in his opinion it was
satisfactorily proved; he should, therefore, advise their Lord-
ships so to report to the house, which was agreed to, and
their Lordships adjourned.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH; June 20.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BARROTT V. OLIVER.
This is a seduction case, which came before the Court in the
shape-of an application for a new trial on the ground of mis-
direction, and that there was not sufficient evidence adduced
on trial to show that the plaintiff had lost the services of her
daughter.
The plaintiff is the mother of Elizabeth Barrott, aged
thirty-three, who resided with her, and kept a school at
Saltash, in the county of Devon, and the action was brought
against the defendant, a Mr. Oliver, who also resided in
Saltash, for the seduction of the daughter, thereby
depriving plaintiff of the benefit of her services.
The case was tried at the Devonshire assizes
before Mr. Justice Coleridge, and a verdict was returned for
the defendant. According to the evidence adduced on the
trial, Elizabeth Barrett was residing with her mother in
Saltash, and opened a school in order to assist her mother in
maintaining the family. At this time the defendant was in
the habit of visiting them three or four times a week. This
ended in the pregnancy of plaintiff's daughter; and
when she informed the defendant of her condition
he gave her money to purchase drugs to procure
abortion, and on several occasions she took turpentine,
muriate of iron (tincture of steel), and savin, but they all
failed. She received 308. in all before the birth of the child,
and 4s. afterwards. When it was publicly known she was
with child, the defendant gave up his visits, and refused,
when applied to, to do her pecuniary justice for the injury
done. Her pupils also left her; hence the action was insti-
tuted by the mother to obtain compensation.
It was endeavoured by cross-examination to show that
the daughter of plaintiff had had connexion with another
person of the name of Lander, and that she was not at the
time in the service of the mother, but that the latter was
only residing with the daughter for a short time, and that
the latter was perfectly independent of the former, having
entire control over her own earnings.
Mr. CROWDER applied for the rule on a former day, on the
ground of misdirection and that the evidence addued on the
trial did not warrant the conclusion that the daughter was
the servant of the mother at the time.
Mr. MOTAGUE SMITH was heard this morning against the
rule, showing that the mother was residing with the daugh-
ter before the seduction up to within a month of the
confinement of her daughter, and then only going for a
short time to Plymouth, leaving her daughter in charge of
her brother. The Learned Gentleman cited several parallel
cases, in which it was ruled that there was proof of service.
In the present case the daughter was in service when the
mother sent for her home ; that when there she opened a
school, being then under te jurisdiction and control of the
mother, and that therefore the latter was fairly entitled to
compensation for the injury done by the loss of service.
Mr. CRONVDER replied at length, contending that there
was no satisfactory proof of service—that the daughter, with
her brother, who kept a boys' school, kept a house jointly,
and paid rent, with which the mother had nothing to do—
that the daughter had entire control over her own earn-
ings, the mother being more in the character of servant than
otherwise—that she had sufficieutly ari ived at the period of
discretion, at least if years were any test of that—and that
any incontinence on her part with the old gentleman in
question, though its effects might become fit subject of pro-
ceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, did not warrant the
mother to compensation at common law. With regard to de-
bauching the plaintiff's daughter, there could not have been
many seductive wiles employed, as it appeared from her evi
dence she consented to connexion when asked to do so, and that
the defendant was in the habit of entering her bed-room by
a ladder at night, and that she was in the habit of returning
the compliment by the aid of a ladder. Whether she
fixed the ladder or not did not appear. He concluded by
asking the Court to make the rule absolute.
The COURT said that the practice of the law had always
been to admit proof of service in actions for seduction, even
when the evidence was not of the most conclusive character.
In the present case their Lordships were of opinion, looking
to precedents, that service had been made out, and by in-
ference they must also conclude, there being no evidence,
that there was loss of service. They, therefore, considered
the jury were justified in coming to the verdict they did on
the evidence adduced on the trial.
The rule was accordingly discharged.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westminster, before Mr. Justice
WILLIAMS and a Special Jury.)
DONALDSON AND OTHERS V. BIRD.
The Attorney-General, Mr. Butt, and Mr. Peacock, were
Counsel for the plaintiffs, and the Solicitor-General and Mr.
Bovil for the defendant.
The plaintiffs were the Commissioners of Sewers for West-
minster and Middlesex, and the defendant was a party who
had entered into a bond for the performance of certain works,
under a contract made by George Bird, to make a sewer in
Gloucester-road, Paddington. Mr. George Bird performed
this work, but the plaintiffs alleged that it was done in every
incomplete manner, so much so as to make it dangerous to the
public, and useless for the purposes intended. Two gentle-
men of eminence, Mr. Tite and Mr. Rennie, were called in to
inspect the works, and to make a report of their union, and in
that report those gentlemen stated that the works were de-
fective. Mr. George Bird was then called upon at his own
cost to re-construct the works; he offered to do so at the cost
price, provided the question as to his liability was reserved.
This, however, the plaintiffs would not accede to, and hence
the present action.
Very many witnesses, and among them Mr. Tite and Mr.
Rennie, were called to show that the work was defective.
They had examined the sewer after it had been finished.
Upon cross-examination, they admitted that these defects
(night to have been seen from time to time as the worked pro-
ceeded. The examination also contained a scientific view*
of the nature of the arches used.
Mr. John*Jay was employed by the Commissioners to put
the sewer in a proper state, for which he had charged 232/.
For the defendant it was urged that the plaintiffs were
highly blameable in the course they had pursued, and that,
if any mischief had arisen it was in consequence of the neg-
ligence of their own officers, and it was also contended that
the plaintiffs' plans as to the arches were improper, and had
led to the defect. The plaintiffs' officer had certified the work
as perfect in 1841, and George Bird was then paid for it.
The interest of the case was entirely confined to the Com-
missioners of Sewers, to the defendant, and to George Bird,
for whom the defendant was surety.
The Learned JUDGE having summed up, the jury retired,
and having been absent about an hour and a half; they came
into Court, and wished to know if they could say that the
work was done to the satisfaction of the Commissioners then
acting?
The officer of the Court informed them that the Learned
Judge had left the Court, and that their verdict must be for
the plaintiffs or defendant.
The jury then again retired.
At length the jury came in and said they found a verdict
for the plaintiffs; but they were of opinion that the work was
done to the satisfaction of the Commissioners then acting.—
Damages, 2311. 10s. 4d.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 20.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins before the Loan Curia' BARON and
Special Juries.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. SCHULTZ.
This was an information filed by the Attorney-General to
recover penalties for a breach of the Customs-laws. It ap-
peared that certain parties had purchased twelve hogsheads
of brandy in bond for the ostensible purpose of exporting
them to 'Valparaiso, by the Rosalind, but, instead of having
them conveyed on board that vessel, empty hogsheads were
sent on board, and the twelve bonded hogsheads were con-
veyed to Hungerford market, and from thence to Mark-lane
to a wine-cooper's, where they were tasted and bottled off,
and disposed of according to the orders of one of the principal
parties concerned. It was now alleged against the present
defendant that in his capacity as an officer in the Customs
he had facilitated and connived at the completion of the
fraud, and that he was to have received a sum of money out
of the profits proportioned to the share lee had taken in the
transaction. _ _

Mr. Chambers, with whom was Mr. Pigott, was about to
address the jury for the defendant, when he was stopped by
The LORD CHIEF BARON, who said that there was not
sufficient evidence to go before the jury to connect the de-
fendant with the alleged fraud.
Mr. Jervis then withdrew the record.

ARCHES' COURT, June 20.
(Before Sir H. J. FusT.)

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY BARNES O. SHORE.
This is a cause of office, promoted by Mr. Barnes, the
registrar of the diocese of Exeter, against the Rev. James
Shore, of Bridgetown, in the parish of Berry Pomeroy, in
the county of Devon, citing him to answer to certain articles
exhibited against him touching his soul's health, and the
reformation of his manners ; but, more especially, for having
publicly read prayers, preached, and administered the holy
sacrament of the Lord's Supper in an unconsecrated building,
without any license or authority fur so doing, and contrary to
and in spite of the injunction or monition of the Lord Bishop
of Exeter. Letters of request were presented in the usual
way, a decree issued, and
,Mr. Shore in the first instance
appeared under protest, but which was overruled, and the
Court directed him to appear absolutely. Articles were then
brought in and admitted without opposition. Witnesses
having been examined upon them, an allegation was asserted
on behalf of Mr. Shore, and a debate on its admissibility
having taken place the Court rejected it. When the cause
was about to be heard, the proceedings of this Court were tied
up by a rule for a prohibition, but that rule was afterwards
discharged, and the cause now came on for hearing.
Dr. ADDAMS (with whom was Dr. Robinson) appeared on
behalf of the promoter of the suit. All the articles, he said,
except the seventh, were of a technical and formal nature,
and their truth was admitted by Mr. Shore. That article
was to the following effect :—" That, on Sunday, the 14th
of April, 1844, and on Sunday, the 28th of July, 1844, Mr.
Shore took upon himself publicly to read prayers, preach,
and, on the last-mentioned day, to administer the holy
sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and perform ecclesiastical
duties and divine offices according to the rites and ceremo-
nies of the United Church of England and Ireland, in the
unconsecrated chapel at Berry Pomeroy, without any
!wense or authority for so doing, and contrary to and
in spite of the injunction or monition of the Bishop of
Exeter." Three witnesses had been examined on that
article, two of whom were clerks to Mr. Barnes, and he sub-
mitted that their testimony clearly proved that Mr. Shore
ministered in the chapel on the days alleged. The third
witness examined was the pew-opener, who declared his in-
ability to state who preached on those occasions. He (Dr.
Addams) admitted that there was no proof that Mr. Shore
had administered the sacrament on the day charged, but one
of the witnesses deposed to the table being spread, which
was a near approach to it. The only real question in the
case was, as to the penalty to be inflicted on Mr. Shore. The
article concluded with a prayer, that the Rev. Gentleman
might be admonished not to be guilty of such offences in the
future, and that he be condemned in the costs of the proceed-
ings. The Court, however, would remember that in the
course of the proceedings Mr. Shore had made an affidavit,
in which he swore that he had on conscientious grounds se-
ceded from the Church of England, and that he was a Pro-
testant Dissenter in holy orders. lie (Dr. Addams) contended
that Mr. Shore was willing to remain aminister of the Church
of England as long as he could set his bishop at defiance ;
but within a short time after being served with the citation,

Mr. Shore seceded from the Church. That heinc• so, be
prayed the Court not to admonish the. rev, gentleman, but to
pronounce a sentence of deposition. He apprehended that his
Learned Friends who were opposed to him would raise no ob-
jection to that prayer. It would be the most convenient mode
of disposing of the entire question.
Dr. ROBINSON submitted, that, unless the rev. gentleman
were deposed, there would be nothing to prevent him taking
a donative.

The -QuEEx's ADVOCATE (with whom was Dr. Twigs)
appeared on behalf of Mr. Shore. He submitted that the
evidence was insufficient to convict Mr. Shore of the charges
brought against him. It was stated that he had offended
against the laws ecclesiastical, but it was not stated what
particular law or canon he had violated. Two witnesses
had been examined to prove that he had publicly read
prayers on the days referred to, and that on the first oc-
casion, though not on the last, he had preached a sermon.
Neither of those parties, however, were members of the
rev. gentleman's congregation, who alone were the proper
persons to be called to prove the truth of the allegation. It
seemed that in these days, when a charge was brought
against a clergyman, the whole presumption of law was to be
reversed. Every other man was to be presumed innocent
until he were found guilty, but the moment a clergyman
was charged with any delinquency, it was said that he must
be punished severely by his bishop. He was sure, however,
that in that Court justice would be done. He contended
that reading the prayers was not au offence in a minister of
the Church of England ; on the contrary, he was bound by
a rubric to read them daily, either privately or openly.
The charges against Mr. Shore were all put conjunctively;
it was admitted that a part was not proved, the whole
therefore must fall to the ground. He rested that statement
upon the common and ordinary proceedings with reference
to indictments. His Learned Friend had suggested that the
punishment should be increased, in consequence of the course
which Mr. Share had pursued. The prayer for a monition,
however, had been made after the rev. gentleman had
avowed himself a seceder from the Established Church. He
was quite sure that the meek and mild Prelate, in whose
diocese Mr. Shore had been ministering, would be surprised
at the sentence which had now been prayed. On the whole,
he submitted that Mr. Shore ought to be dismissed from
the suit.

Dr. Twiss argued that there was no proof that there was
a congregation present at the time the rev. gentleman read
the prayers in the chapel. As the chapel was not conse-
crated, it was, according to the 71st canon, equivalent to a
private house, and consequently Mr. Shore had committed
no ecclesiastical offence.

Dr. ADDAMS and Dr. Roinssox having been heard in
reply, _ _ _

The
Learned JUDGE said that it would be a waste of time
to attempt to show that Mr. Shore was the gentleman who
officiated on the days stated in the libel. The two witnesses
examined had had ample opportunities of knowing Mr.
Shore. He trusted that he should be the last person in the
world to debar an accused party a fair opportunity of making
his defence, but he was surprised to hear the Queen's Ad-
vocate argue that the reading of the prayers on the occasions
charged was a compliance with the rubric, There was no
occasion to specify any particular law which Mr. Shore had
violated, it was sufficient that the common law of the church
had been transgressed. It was abundantly clear that Mr.
Shore, as a minister in holy orders, did, after the revocation
of his license, perform divine offices in the chapel of Berry
Pomeroy; and the question was, whether it was an ecclsias-
tical offence or not. It could not be contended that reading
the prayers under the circumstances stated was not contrary
to the ecclesiastical law of the land, and the offence here
was increased by the fact of the building having been taken
away from the Established Church of England. What was
necessary to constitute a congregation had not been speci-
fically defined ; but it was usually considered, according to
language used in the prayers, that when two or three were
assembled together it was sufficient to form a congregation.
The pew-opener, who had been examined, proved that he
had put the other witnesses in a seat; it was, therefore, evi-
dent there was a congregation on those occasions. It never
was the intention of the 71st canon to regard unconsecrated
chapels as private houses; the term, as employed in that canon,
meant a dwelling-house. It had been said that the charges in
this case having been lumped together, if any one of them
failed the whole fell to the ground. He was of opinion that there
was no authority on which such a position could be main-
tained; on the contrary, cases had occurred over and over
again in which parties had been convicted of part of the
charges brought against them. He was satisfied that there
was a sufficiency proved against Mr. Shore to render him
liable to ecclesiastical punishment; the only question was its
degree. He was not prepared to go beyond the sentence
first prayed, and to admonish him to refrain from publicly
reading prayers or preaching in an unconsecrated chapel
again. If Mr. Shore were guilty of a repetition of his former
conduct, he would not only be amenable to the bishop, but
he would be liable to be punished for contempt of court.
He being a minister of the Church of England, he could not
of his own authority secede from it. He was not a Dissent-
ing minister, but a minister in holy orders, and from that he
could not release himself. He (the Learned Judge) pronounced
that the articles were fully proved; he admonished Mr.
Shore from offending in like manner in future, and con-
demned him in the costs of these proceedings. The admo•
nition was to extend to every parish in the diocese of Exeter
or.province of Canterbury.
At a subsequent part of the day the proctor for Mr. Shore
prayed that the admonition might not go out for 15 days.
The Court granted the prayer.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Chief Justice TtNDAL, Baron Rome, and
Alderman TuomrsoN.)
Dr. James Ellis surrendered this morning to take his trial,
and was placed at the bar, indicted on the coroner's inquisi-
tion for manslaughter, in the case of Richard Dresser, who
died while being subjected to hydropathic treatment under
the care of Dr. Ellis, to which charge he pleaded Not
Guilty.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of Saturday.)
John Maynard, an attendant in Dr. Ellis's establishment,
at Sudbrook Park, near Petersham, stated that he was a
bathing man, having certain rooms allotted to his section,
and he attended all persons in these rooms. He had been
there about six months. He saw Mr. Dresser on the Friday
in No. 2, in the cottage, a part of the establishment, a bed
room; Dr. Ellis was with him at the time, which was be-
tween seven and eight o'clock. Dr. Ellis said something to
witness, but he did not recollect what it was. Dresser had
a bath on Saturday morning betweenseven and eight o'clock,
the bath being carried into the room and Dr. Ellis being pre-
sent. The temperature of the bath was 85 degrees. The
patient after remaining in it 90 seconds was taken out and
well dried and put to bed. Witness took up water three or
four times during the Saturday, about two quarts cold arid
two quarts hot ; each time at intervals of three or four hours.
Dr. Ellis was there at these times; there was no bath in the
room. A cloth about two feet long was taken up with
every quantity of water. On Sunday he had a bath at the
same time of the morning as before. Dr. Ellis ordered that
it should be at a temperature of 85 degrees, and that the
patient should remain in it 90 seconds. Towels and water
were taken up as on the day previous. In the bed-room his
covering was two or three blankets. He had a bath on the
Monday, but not quite so early, and no water or towels were
sent up that day.
Cross-examined—The rubbing down on Saturday morn-
ing, after the bath, did not cause so much redness as witness
had seen in other cases. After the bath on Sunday he walked
out, and felt very much better from Dr. Ellis's treatment,
and said so frequently. He expressed himself to the same
effect after the bath on Monday, and wished to have baths
during the day, he felt so much relieved. He had no bath
on Monday night. His food was tapioca, milk, bread, and
bntter. His bowels were confined from the time he came
on Friday till Monday morning; on Sunday some castor oil
was taken into Dresser's room. Dr. Ellis sat up with his
patient on Sunday and Monday nights, the whole night
through, and appeared very anxious about him. On Mon-
day, at half-past six o'clock in the evening, witness saw no
change in the patient. There were four or five gentlemen in
the establishment at the time.

Henry Rogers, boots in the establishment, said he saw
Dresser about three o'clock in the afternoon, when Dr. Ellis
ordered him to rub Dresser's feet, which were rather cold.
Witness sat up with him that night until half-past three
o'clock next morning, and during that time the patient fre-
quently complained of pain in the side.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. COCKBURN took three technical objections, two on the
wording of the indictment, and one on the subject of the ju-
risdiction of the Court.

Chief Justice TINDAL reserved the points.
Mr. COCKBURN then addressed the jury, and delivered a
long and elaborate defence of the prisoner, and finally put it
to the jury whether they could say there was congestion of the
lungs, that that congestion was caused by the water treat-
ment, and that, even if that were so, Dr. Ellis's ignorance of
a latent disease of which his patient never spoke a syllable,
was of that gross and culpable description which would jus-
tify them in finding him guilty of manslaughter.
Several witnesses patients of Dr. Ellis, were called, who
spoke to his care, skill, and humanity.
Chief Justice TINDAL summed up the evidence, and sent it
to the jury, who, in a few seconds, returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.
The verdict was received with great appainse by several in
the Court.

NEW COURT.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Henry Sharp, a young man of very respectable appear-
ance, who was described as a warehouseman, was indicted
for stealing a quantity of French cambric and cambric hand-
kerchiefs, of the value of 491. odd, the property of his em-
ployers, Messrs. Lewis and James, warehousemen, Gutter-
lane, Cheapside.
r. Benj. Lewis said he suspected the prisoner a few days
after he had left his employ. In consequence of such suspi-
cion he had his stock taken, and found the property now
produced missing. The cambric and the handkerchiefs
exactly corresponded with those in their (the prosecutors)
possession, the threads where they had been torn off exactly
fitting.
In his cross, examination by Mr. BALLANTINE, the prose-
cutor admitted that he had formerly entertained a very high
opinion of the prisoner, and that there were other persons in
his employ who also had access to the cambric. The account
the prisoner gave of the transaction was that he had pur-
chased the articles from a Mr. St. Croix, who had been intro-
duced to him by a Mr. Bisson, a merchant, living at Jersey.
Mr. Bisson had been, and prosecutor believed was still, on
intimate terms with the prisoner. That gentleman, however,
denied ever introducing such a person as Mr. St. Croix to
him. About the 26th February, prosecutor, who required
the services of Mr. Bisson, as a witness against the prisoner,
cautioned him, on being informed that he was going to dine
with the prisoner, te) be careful that he was not " drugged."
George Hayter was next examined. He was directed by
the prosecutors to go to the prisoner's warehouse and endea-
vour to purchase the cambric, they having been told that
the prisoner had some for sale. He accordingly went to
prisoner's shop, and there saw the articles producti and pur-
chased them.
Cross-examined—The articles were lying exposed to view.
Mr. BALLANTINE made a powerful address on behalf of
the prisoner, contending that it would have been absurd for
a man in the prisoner's position, who was rapidly improving
his condition, and had become the partner of a highly re-
spectable man, to run the risk of sacrificing his future
prospects by committing a paltry theft.—Mr. Bisson, one of
the prosecutor's witnesses, had placed between 6001. and 7001.
worth of goods in the prisoner's possession since the charge
had been brought, and such was the high opinion he enter:.
tained of him that he would not have this property remnt
There had been abundant opportunities of disposinga o
articles said to have been stolen, if the prisonercall h
disposed, and he (Mr. Ballantine) wouldwitnessadbeen so
to
the
prove that the purchase was made by
St.
answering the description of Mr.
Croixy.
and place stated. prieras
to nthe of,
ear
yp etrismo ne
appeal to the jury, Ulla wit.
After a lengthened and feelin
made by the
ness was called, and corroborate
Learned Counsel, after which
app
the statement
Mr. CLARKSON said he was instructed to withdraw the
prosecution; which announcement was received with accla-
mations, and the prisoner left the dock in company of his
friends.

MACRAREL FISHERY.—Large quantities of Mackarel
have been caught during the week on both coasts ofour
county, and in some. instances they have been sold at three
a penny.— West Anton.

RICHMOND PETTY SESSIONS.
CAUTION TO STEAMBOAT CAPTAINS.-Ori Saturday,
Thomas Green, the captain of the Echo, Richmond
steamboat, appeared before the bench, of which R. Gar-
rick, Esq„ was chairman, to answer a summons laid un-
der the 67th section of the Waterman's Act, charging
him with the avoidance of a fare.

The complaint was made by Mr. W. Blake, a gentle-
man, residing at No. 3, Ailsa-park villas, Twickenham.
He stated that on Monday last, a few minutes before
twelve o'clock at noon, he saw the Echo steam-boat
alongside the pier. When complainant got there, he
found there was no possibility of going on board from
the pier, in consequence of the place for going on board
not being on a level with the boat, which had not ar-
rived a minute. Some man afterwards placed a board
in a nearly perpendicular position, so that they could
not step on board. He asked them to move the plank ;
they did so, but did not alter the position of the vessel,
and the result was that he could not step on board, and
the captain (the defendant), wade a signal, and the
boat went off without him.
The complainant had no witness to support his state-
ment, and the defendant called as his witness,
Timothy Rigby, a waterman, who stated that on Mon-
day last the complainant and a lady came to the pier
and attempted to go on board the Echo steam-boat.
There was a plank from the pier to the boat, and the
lady had got half was,- with a person on each side to as-
sist her, and the money-taker holding out his hand
from the boat to receive her, when by the desire of the
complainant she turned back. The boat which was be-
hind its time of starting, was already out in the stream.
and could not have moved nearer shore without injuring
other boats. A lady had previously gone over the same
plank, which rested one end on the pier, and the other
on the rail of the steam. boat.

Richard Hancock, the money-taker on the Echo, cor-
roborated the major part of the preceding evidence, and
proved in addition, that three ladies came on board
without any inconvenience, but the complainant refused
and said, " That way may do for you, but it won't for
e."

Mr. Hancock, the part owner of the Echo, said the
inclination of the plank was but the quarter of a foot in
ten. He was about to explain how difficult it would
have been for the boat to have come alongside, when
The CHAIRMAN stopped him, and said they could per-
mit none other than a professional gentleman to offer
any remarks. The bench were of opinion that the case
of avoidance was made out, and they should fine the
defendant 205., including costs.
The fine was paid.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.
CASE OF MRS. BLEWITT.—Mrs. Blewitt, for the man-
slaughter of whose husband a youth named Graham
was acquitted on Thursday last at the Central Criminal
Court, waited upon Mr. Henry to explain that she was
directed by the coroner to be present at the trial, in
case her evidence should be required, and she could not
attend during the week at this Court to hear the result
of the inquiries his Worship ordered the usher to make
respecting her character and habits before and since the
death of her husband.
Mr. HENRY regretted that the result had proved any-
thing but satisfactory ; and in addition to other matters,
11.- was given to understand that she had not only not
lived on happy terms with her husband, but when on
his dying bed at the hospital, he refused to allow her
near him.
Mrs. Blewitt replied that when first he was removed
to tho hospital, he asked for her, as the constable could
inform the Court.
Mr. HENRY—There are other matters, to which I
would feel reluctant to refer, but the inquiry is of your
own seeking, and therefore I am bound to ask you
if you are acquainted with a man of the name of Dunn,
who was cook on board the Tory, in which vessel you
came horse from China? Mrs. Blewitt—Yes, I did know
him, and all the ship's crew.
Mr. HENRY—I understand )ou were in the habit of
visiting him in Tothill-fields prison? Mrs. Blewitt—l
had to be grateful, as he and the crew were the means
of saving my life from the violence of Captain Johnstone,
but I don't think that I have been well treated by the
public, from whom I consider myself entitled to relief.
Mr. HENRY—No doubt you would have obtained re-
lief had you been a well-conducted person; but it is my
duty to prevent the public from being imposed upon,and
as you persist in pressing me for an explanation, I am
obliged to tell you that I have received information from
several quarters that you have lived in adultery with the
man l)unn, and also that you have appeared in a cha-
racter not very creditable to you at this and other
police-courts. Mrs. Blewitt—llad I known that such a
scrutiny would be made into my private affairs, I would
not have come forward to seek relief. What's to be-
come of my little daughter, who is only eight years of
age ?

-Mr. HENRY—I do not think you ought to have the
management of a child so very young. I have no objec-
tion that the 51. which has been received from some hu-
mane person shall be applied to the benefit of your child.
Mrs. Blewitt expressed a wish that the child might be
,placed at the charity school in Somers-town, in prefe-
rence to any other.
Mr. HENRY replied, that inquiries should be made
respecting that establishment, and, should any further
subscriptions be sent to the magistrates of this court,
they should be applied to the benefit of the child.
Mrs. .Blewitt, finding that the magistrate was deter-
mined not to hand her over any portion of the Si., be-
came very much excited, and said that any person who
had been instrumental in preventing the public from
assisting her by contributions would have a widow's
curse, and before they died would be served out by the
Lord for such a proceeding. If she had addicted herself
to drinking, or had conducted herself in a worse manner,
it was entirely owing to the harsh treatment she had ex-
perienced from her husband.
Mr. HENRY repeated that he was sorry the inquiry had
been forced upon him.

LAMBETH.
THE LATE EXTRAORDINARY AND SUSPICIOUS DEATH
or A BOY AT DULWlCH.—lnspector Campbell, of the P
division, attended before the Hon. G. C. Norton, in com-
pliance with a message sent to him to give an explana-
tion to some disclosures made to the Hon. Magistrate
late on Friday evening relative to the extraordinary and
suspicions death of George James Benwell, a lad, aged
fifteen, who had been found dead in a muddy pond at
the back of his master's house,on the evening of Tues-
day week last, with a 281 b. metal weight tied round his
neck, and both his hands tied together. The short facts
of the case appeared to be these:—
The deceased had been in the employment of a person
named Evans, a manufacturer of piqua," or British
tea, as errand boy, since last April twelvemonths, and
on the evening of Tuesday week his master and his
master's son proceeded to Sydenham in a pony-chaise for
the purpose of purchasing some greens, and on their re-
turn they found written on the foot-board of the deceased's
bed in chalk an intimation that his body was in the
pond at the back of the house. A board was also found
floating on the pond, on which was written with chalk,
" The body of George Benwell is in this pond." The
body was found there, and upon being taken out a 281 b.
weight was round his neck, and both his hands were found
tied together. An inquest has since been held on the
body, and, after a lengthened inquiry, the jury returned
a verdict to the effect that the deceased had been the
author of his own death, and had committed suicide,
Subsequent to the inquiry, Mr. Bishop, the half-brother
of the deceased, had received several communications
imputing the death of the deceased to very different
causes ; and one, in particular, from a female, named
Theobald, who had lived as servant with Evans, who
states that there was an exceedingly bad feeling between
the deceased and his master, and that this had recently
become considerably increased on the part of the latter
on account of her (Theobald) communicating to the boy
the secret of the manufacturing in which he (Evans) had
been engaged, and it was on the application of Mr.
Bishop that Mr. Norton required the attendance of Mr.
Campbell to give some explanation of the case.
Mr. Campbell said that he had taken much trouble in
and was still pursuing the inquiry into the case, which
was one of the most suspicious and extraordinary that
he recollected during his lengthened experience as an
officer. When before the coroner and jury, Evans, the
master of the deceased, who is a most eccentric character
and a Socialist, said that he did not observe anything
more than ordinary in the deceased's manner, when him-
self and his son left home for Sydenham, on the evening
of Tuesday week, yet when he had proceeded half his
journey, he said that something struck him that all was
not right at home with George. Upon this he was asked
by a juror why be did not return, if such was his feel-
ing; and his reply was, that he should have done so, but
that he thought that if anything happened, he should be
then too late to prevent it, but the answer to this and
other questions from the coroner and jury was con-
sidered anything but satisfactory to them. There were
several points in the case which he (Mr. Campbell)
could not reconcile to his belief that the de-
ceased had committed suicide, and even to say the
least of them were of a highly suspicious cha-
racter. In the first place, the cord by which
the metal weight was suspended on the neck of the youth
was so short, as to be barely sufficient to tie behind, and
it was exceedingly doubtful to him whether the lad him-
self would have been enabled to tie it in the manner in
which it had been found. In the next, if even he had so
tied it and his hands, he had then to get over a wooden
paling four feet six inches in height, and such wouldi
be
the difficulty of getting over such an impediment with a
quarter of a hundred tied to his neck, that he
Campbell) should not be able toaccomplish it much
a boy of 15 years of age. In the he (Mr.o more
third place,
Campbell) found in the boxes of the lad a copybook and
other papers, which bore the hand-writing of the de-
ceased, and upon comparing, them with the chalk writing
on the foot of the deceased's bed, and also the piece of wood
found floating on the pond, they bore no comparison what.
ever, and in his opinion had never been written by the same
hand. The jury were of a similar opinion previous to the
stepmother of the deceased being called,buts
ohestrtohree
point blank that both were in the handwriting
deceased, and this it was that principally induced the
jury to come to the decision they had. Since then the
step-mother had been most anxious to get possession of
g
both the writing and the board bearing the chalk marks;
but he (Mr. Campbell) refused to let her have them, par-
ticularly as he had found that Evans had been stopping
at her house ever since the death of the boy, and some
of her neighbours did not hesitate to impute a more than
ordinary intimacy between the two parties. There was
another circumstance which he (Mr. Campbell) felt it
necessary to mention, and that was, that on a medical
inspection of the body, appearances of an extraordinary
description, arid which he could not particularly allude
to, were found, and Evans had acknowledged to him (Mr.
Campbell) and others, that he had been accused of an
atrocious offence.

Mr, Bishop, the step-brother of the deceased, here
begged to mention another circumstance, which appeared
to add to the many other suspicious incidents in the
ease. The chalk writing on the footboard of the bed,
and whiob be did not belieye to have been written by

the deceased, were in these Words: --
have the kindness to remember me to my friends.
George B' nwell is in the yard at the back of the house.'
And after the words " Please, Sir," and "my friends,"
there were commas placed. This circumstance satisfied
him that the writing was not by the deceased, as he was
palpably ignorant of grammar; and, even if he had not
been, lie doubted at such a moment, when on the point
of self-destruction, he would have taken the trouble to
write so methodically; and altogether he was very dis-
sati,fif,d with the inquiry, and huped his Worship would
not allow it to rest where it stood.
Mr. NORTON admitted that the circumstances of the
case were exceedingly suspicious, and directed Mr.
Campbell to bring all the parties who could throw any
light on the inquily before him on a future day, when he
should enter on a full investigation of the case.

THAMES.
Dennis Sullivan, an Irish coal-whipper, of 1, Chuttle
worth place, St. George's-in the-East, was cha, ged
before Mr. Broughton with having assaulted the person
of Mrs. Alderton under the following brutal and aggro xated
circumstances, and it is hoped that the particulars may act
as a caution to females generally who enter the houses
of the poor in the vilest neighbourhoods in the cause of
religion or charity :—lt appeared from Mrs. Alderton's
statement, who is the wife of a respectable shoemaker,
that as she belonged to a society established for the pur-
pose of relieving the sick poor, and distributing tracts in
and about the neighbour hood, she went out in company
with another matron to perform what they considered to
be their duty. After oing to other parts they stopped
at the place where Sullivan resided and commenced
distributing tracts, when the prisoner came up and
requested her to visit his wife, who he said was then lying
on a sick bed, without the slightest hope of recovery. Mrs.
Alderton, believing what he stated to be true, immedi-
ately consented, and accompanied the prisoner to the
top room of one of the houses, where she discovered two
empty beds and no other person in the place except the
man and herself. On the instant she became alarmed,
and saw at a glance what was the intention of the pri-
soner, who immediately made proposals to her of an im-
proper character, and afterwards attempted to violate
her person. Fortunately, however, her cries brought
the other matron to her assistance, and eventually the
fellow was given into custody.
Sullivan (who is a Catholic) pleaded in excuse that
he only put his hand upon Mrs. Alderton's shoulder,
and that he did not want any of her heretical tracts de-
livered about his neighbourhood. .

The MAGISTRATE, after severely reprimanding the
fellow for his brutal, cruel, and dastardly conduct, fined
him 405,, or, in default, one month's imprisonment in the
House of Correction.

COMMISSION of LUNACY at BATH-
A Commission de lunutico inquirendo was recently
opened at the York House, before Francis Barlow, Esq.,
to inquire touching the state of mind of Dame Anne
Hussey Bickerton (commonly called Lady Bickerton),
of No. 15, in the Circus, Bath, widow of Sir Richard
Hussey Bickerton, Baronet, deceased. Mr. Phinn,
barrister, appeared as counsel in support of the com-
mission ; Lady Bickerton had no legal assistance. i
Mr. Phinn stated that Lady Bickerton had married, n
1780, Sir R. H. Bickerton, a baronet of an old family
possessing an estate in Huntingdonshire ; that she
was at present in the receipt of an income between
1,5001. and 2,0001. a year ; and the present inquiry was
reluctantly instituted at the instance of her two great
nephews, Mr. S. A. Turner and Mr. C. Turner, for the
safety and protection of herself and her property. The
Learned Counsel then alluded to the various delusions
to which the unfortunate lady was subject, one of
which was that her husband (who died in 1831) was
still alive, and she constantly had a cover laid at dinner
for him; another was that her late sister, Mrs. Munro
(who has been dead several years), was also still living,
end what was still more singular was, that Lady /3-
mistakes Mr,. Pairhurst, the wife of a tradesman in
Bath, for her sister, Mrs. Munro. Another singular
delusion under which she laboured was that her house
in the Circus was an iun, and she constantly treated
her servants as if they belonged to an inn. It was
also remarkable (and had been a source of some
inconvenience to a neighbour) that Lady B. imagined
that the next house to that in which she lived
was her own house, and she was continually: going to
the next door and demanding admission. Besides these
acts, which, perhaps, of themselves would scarcely have
been sufficient to justify such an inquiry, she had con-
tracted a habit of wandering about the town, and calling
on all sorts of people uninvited, and had proved beyond
a doubt she was deprived of her reason. Her Ladyship
was introduced into the room, and took a seat beside the
Commissioner, who put a variety of questions to her
Ladyship, touching her domestic arrangements, in regard
to which her impressions and answers seemed extremely
vague and indistinct ; and her replies were, for the most
part, ramoling and irrelevant. The evidence of Mr.
Wood, Dr. Spry, and Sarah Fountain, showed that tire
subject of inquiry did not possess the common reasoning
faculties. The jury returned a unanimous verdict,
" That Lady Bickerton was of unsound mind, and inca-
pable of managing her affairs, and that she had been so
since the Ist of March, 1845."—Somerset CountyGazetee.