The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-27 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 27, 1861

which such specimens as he had mentioned came,
rude and savage ; and yet how much of ingenuity,
induction, and practical knowledge of the properties
of vegetable textures, did they not exhibit, how much
manual dexterity, and that, too, of a very high order,
and how much neatness, prettiness, and even beauty,
although the work of savage hands ! Even we,
while looking down from our lofty summit of
civilized skill upon the infancy of art, might learn
from it lessons of taste. When they came to the
higher specimens of art, the work of nations which
had long been in a state of civilization, though in-
ferior to ourselves in mechanical power, how much
was there to admire, and even envy, in the
beauty and taste they displayed ! The tissues
and ornamental works of Persia and India had
beauties which Europe could not surpass. Our
superiority over them rested on a very different basis.
In those countries art was employed to gratify the
wants of a few, while with us it is used to supply the
wants of the many. There was another view of the
hearing of the Exhibition on art and science less ob-
vious than those to which he had already referred,
but not less important, he meant the results obtained
by the classification of the articles exhibited. To
those who had not made the attempt, nothing might
appear more easy than to classify any collection of
different objects, but in truth it was a task surrounded
with almost insuperable difficulties. In the various
French expositions of art and industry since 1823,
every species of classification had successively been
employed, and all had been found unsatisfactory, which
showed the difficult nature of the task. He thought
the plan adopted at the Great Exhibition of this year,
though far from being perfect, was yet the best that
could, under the circumstances, have been adopted. Dr.
Whewell then described, at great length, the system
adopted in classifying the object exhibited. Now, the
advantage of obtaining a permanent classification of
all the objects of men's skill and industry were very
great, as it gave the manufacturer, the man of science,
the producer, and the artisan, a settled common lan-
guage in which they might speak of the objects with
which they were connected. But it was not only ne-
cessary that things should have one name, but that
they should have a settled form and application. Thus
it had been suggested that in wheel work it would be
very convenient that all wheels of a certain nature
should be toothed exactly in the same way, and, to a
great extent, the Exhibition would lead to that result.
After some further remarks on the advantage which
could not fail to flow from the greatly increased in-
tercourse between men of skill and knowledge which
had been caused by the great gathering of the Ex-
hibition, the lecturer concluded amid general applause.
Mr. DILKE then moved, and Professor FLA:TEAM
seconded the thanks of the society to Dr. Whewell
for the lecture he had delivered, and the proceedings
terminated.

AN AMERICAN LAWYER'S FEE.--Daniel Webster
is said to have receive five thousand dollars for his argu-
ment of the great Indian-rubber case, at Iloston.—New
York Tribune.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 26.
(Sittings in Bunco.)
Tile Judges of this Court held a sitting in Bunco
under the County Courts Act, in order to hear ap-
peals against decisions pronounced in the county
courts.

BRIDGES V. HAWKESWORTII.

This was an appeal against a decision of the Judge
of the County Court of Westminster, upon a case
which had been tried before him, and in which he had
given judgment for the defendant. The appeal was
heard at the sittings after last Trinity Term, when it
was argued by Mr. Gray (with whom was Mr. Heath)
for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Hake for the defendant.
The Court had taken time to consider the judgment,
which was now delivered by
Mr. Justice PATTESON, who said—This was an ap-
peal against the decision of the Judge of the West-
minster County Court, in a case which was brought
before him under the following circumstances :—The
defendant was a stationer, carrying on business as 21,
Charing-cross, and the plaintiff entered his shop upon
business, and seeing a parcel lying upon the floor,
he stooped and picked it up, and observing it to con •
twin noes, gave it to defendant's apprentice, who
called the defendant, and the plaintiff then told.him
what had happened. The defendant said he would
take the notes and keep them for the true owner.
Thu plaintiff assented. On the following morning
the plaintiff called, and, finding that the notes had nor
been claimed, a conversation ensued about advertising
them. The defendant did advertise them, but no one
appeared to claim them. The defendant paid the
expenses of the advertisements. The plaintiff after-
wards called upon the defendant to restore them, and
offered to repay the money expended for the adver-
tisements. The defendant refused to accept this
money, and offered plaintiff 21 104. " for his honesty,"
which was refused. The defendant subsequently
offered the plaintiff Si, but refused to give up the
notes, saying that he had made himself liable to the
true owner, whenever that true owner should appear.
The defendant declared that he should send the notes
to his banker, and altogether refused to deliver them
to the plaintiff, though the plaintiff offered him a
satisfactory indemnity against the claims of any per-
son who demanded them as owner. On these facts
the Learned Judge of the County Court held that,
neither of the parties having any title as against the
true owner, the shopkeeper in whose shop the notes
were found had, for the purpose of protection to the
true owner, the preferable title as to possession against
the actual finder who found it there, and therefore
gave judgment for the defendant. We have consi-
dered this case very attentively, and we think the
judgment erroneous. The notes which are the sub-
ject of this action were evidently dropped by
mere accident in the shop of the defendant
by the owner of them. The facts do not
warrant the supposition that they had been de-
posited there intentionally, nor has the case been at all
put upon that ground. The plaintiff found them on
the floor, they being manifestly lost by some one.
The general right of the finder to any article which
has been lost, as against all the world except the true
owners, was established in the case of " Amory v.
Delamairie," 1 Str., 505, which has never been dis-
puted. This right would clearly have accrued to the
plaintiff had the notes been picked up by him outside
the shop of the defendant ; and if he once had the
right, the case finds that he did not intend by deliver-
ing the notes to the defendant to waive the title, if
any, which he had to them, but they were handed to
the defendant merely for the purpose of delivering
them to the owner should he appear. Nothing that
was done afterwards has altered this state of things ;
the advertisements inserted in the newspapers, refer-
ing to the defendant, had the same object. The
plaintiff has tendered the Expense of these advertise-
ments to the defendant, and offered him an indem-
nity against any claim to be made by the real
owner, and has demanded the notes. The case,
therefore, resolves itself into the single point on
which it appears that the Learned Judge de-
cided it, namely, whether the circumstance of the
notes being found inside the defendant's shop gives
him (the defendant) the right to have them as against
the plaintiff who found them. There is no authority
to be found in our law directly in point. Perhaps
the nearest case is that of " Merry v. Green, 7th M.
and W., 623," but it differs in many respects from
the present. We were referred in the course of the
argument to the learned work of Von Savigny, edited
by Chief Justice Perry, but even this work, full as it
is of subtle distinctions and nice reasonings, does not
afford a solution of the present question. It was well
asked en the argument, if the defendant has the right,
when did it accrue to him ? If at all, it must have
been antecedent to the finding by the plaintiff, for
that finding could not give the defendant any right.
If the notes had been accidentally kicked into the
street, and there found by some one passing by, could
it be contended that the defendant was entitled to
them from the mere fact of their having been origi-
nally dropped in his shop ? If the discovery had
never been communicated to the defendant, could
the real owner have had any cause of action
against him because they were found in his house ?
Certainly not. The notes never were in the custody
of the defendant, nor within the protection of his
house, before they were found, as they would have
been had they been intentionally deposited there, and
the defendant has come under no responsibility,
except from the communication made to him by the
plaintiff, the finder, and the steps taken by way of
advertisement. These steps were really taken by the
defendant as the agent of the plaintiff, and he has
been offered an indemnity, the sufficiency of which
is not disputed. We find, therefore, no circumstances
in this case to take it out of the general rule of law,
that the finder of a lost article is entitled to it as
against all persons except the real owner, and we think
that that rule must prevail, and that the Learned
Judge was mistaken in holding that the place in
which they were found makes any legal difference.
Our judgment, therefore, is, that the plaintiff is en-
titled to those notes as against the defendant, that the
judgment of the Court below must be reversed, and
judgment given for the plaintiff for 551. The plain-
tiff, of course, will have the costs of appeal.
The judgment was at first entered for 551., the
amount of the notes actually found, but as the sum
to be recovered in the county court could not ex-
ceed 50/., the judgment was entered for that sum.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice Wightman
and a Common Jury.)
rilitainztTiffv:
Mr.LanisairotEt.
Mr. Bramwell andP appearel as
counsel for thneB
This was an action of trespass, occasioned I. Chambers con-
ducted the defence.
occasioned by the
defendant having caused the plaintiff to be arrested
upon a charge of felony. •
The plaintiff Wes a tailor, who had carried on bu-
siness in Sackville-street, and had resided in St.
John's Wood. In May last, beQoming embarrassed

in his circumstances, he made an assignment of his
proparty to his creditors. Being obliged to give up
possession of his house in St. John's Wood, in which
a Frenchman, of the name of Noissons, had apart-
ments, he took unfurnished lodgings in the house of
the defendant, who was a dairyman in Albany-street.
An agreement was thereupon drawn up between the
plaintiff and defendant, the former signing it in the
name of Noissons, for the purpose, as he alleged in
his evidence, of avoiding the danger of having the
furniture iu that house seized upon by his creditors.
It appeared that an unfriendly feeling was soon after-
wards created between the parties in consequence of
the plaintiff feeding his dogs in the kitchen, and of
alleged irregularity in his hours for returning home
at night. The result was, the plaintiff having been
locked out on one night at half-past ten o'clock, and
having been afterwards given into custody by the de-
fendant on the charge of obtaining possession of the
apartments under:a false or forged name.
The plaintiff, who was examined, stated that he had
received authority from the Frenchman, through his
(the plaintiff's) wife, to use his name, and that he
had informed the defendant subsequently to his taking
possession of the apartments that he had done so, but
that his real name was Samuel Charles Bennett, and
that while he occupied the apartments the defendant
had always addressed him by his proper name. The
plaintiff was taken upon this charge to the station-
house, and from thence to the police office, where,
upon the case being entered into, he was discharged
by order of Mr. Broughton, the magistrate.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS, who addressed the jury in an
able speech for the defendant, denounced the conduct
of the plaintiff in assuming another name, and stated
that defendant—having made inquiries of Mr. Nois-
sons, who at that time had bee❑ carrying on business
as the patentee of stoves in Regent-street, and having
been informed by that gentleman that he gave the
plaintiff no authority to assume his name—thought
he was warranted in giving him into custody. The
Frenchman having since left the country, there was
no means of ascertaining the truth upon this point.
There were no witnesses called for the defence,
And the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages 101.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 26.
(Sittings before Sir F. POLLOCK, Chief Baron, and
Common Juries.)
BARBA? V. ALLEN.
Mr. Hirelet appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Gifford for the defendant.
Mr:lh was an action by the plaintiff,who is a French-
man, for 28/., the expenses of a journey to Paris in the
course of last summer, for the purpose of getting up
parties of excursions to visit London and stay at
defendant's hotel. The plaintiff not being able to
speak English, the negotiations between plaintiff and
defendant were carried on by a Colonel Parent, who
was now called on the part of the plaintiff, and proved
the engagement entered into by the defendant.
In cross•examination he described himself as in-
tendent of an hotel. He had been charged at the Old
Bailey with stealing some property ; it was said he
had run away with another man's wife, and that he
had stolen the things she took with her, but he was
immediately acquitted. He was not charged with
stealing a pair of breeches. He was never charged
with stealing an umbrella. A friend of his took one
by mistake, and left an old one in its place. The one
taken was afterwards restored to its owner.
The broken English and manner of the witness ex-
cited great merriment throughout the court.
The plaintiff having been examined through an in-
terpreter, and having proved the expenses incurred by
him on defendant's business, the counsel for the de-
fendant addressei the jury, and was about to set up a
defence to be substantiated by the evidence of the de-
fendant's wife, when his Lordship said he should not
receive her evidence. The Learned Counsel upon
this said it would be useless for him to contend against
the plain►tiff's case.
The wife having been tendered as a witness, pro
forte ,and rejected by his Lordship, the jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for 271., one pound being
deducted by arrangement.

and Pargeter. When he got to the house he saw the
defendant, and informed him who be was and tha ob-
ject of his visit. Witness asked him to accompany
him to the cellar, and he did so, and they first
entered the beer cellar. In the course of his exami-
nation he found a large quantity of bottles, and
amongst them one large bottle containing about a
gallon and a quarter of liquid, which he had since
ascertained to be a compound of gentian and treacle.
Upon being questioned about it the defendant
said it contained cherry brandy, and on
witness's request be tasted it, and after having done
so he said that he could not tell what :it was, but it
must have been in the cellar at the time he took the
house. He said that he had been in the house for
about three years. It did not appear that the bottle
had been recently used. Witness then asked defen-
dant if he had used any of the liquid by mixing it
with his beer, and he said that he had not, as he
always used foots sugar. In the bar upstairs he also
found a bottle of the tincture of capsicum, but the
possession of this article was not included in the pre-
sent charge.
The defendant denied having stated in the cellar
that he used foots sugar, but afterwards admitted that
he used it in consequence of the officer telling him
that if he had put anything into the beer he had bet-
ter acknowledge it, and it would be better for him, as
they should be sure to find it out.
Mr. Scott said the defendant distinctly told him
in the cellar that he put foots sugar into his beer,
which he wrote down in the place at the time, and,
moreover, he showed him the cask into which he had
put it.
Mr. Benjamin Elmy said he was in the cellar at the
time of the occurrence, and the account given by
Mr. Scott was true.

•
Mr. Commiss:oner STEPHENSON—Whatappear-
ance had the bottle at the time it was found ? Mr.
Elroy said it had the ordinary appearance of the other
bottles. The cork was not encrusted and was easily
removed. _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. C. B. Forsy, assistant chemist to the Board of
Inland Revenue, said he had received two samples of
the mixtures which had been seized on the defendant's
premises. One sample consisted of saccharine matter
and a bitter substance which he believed to be gen-
tian. This mixture was commonly used for adul-
terating beer. The second sample was tincture of
capsicum.
Mr. Commissioner STEPHENSON (to the defendant)
—ls it possible to believe that so bulky a bottle as
that (pointing to it) could have been in your cellar
for three years without your knowledge ? The de-
fendant said such was the fact.

Mr. Commissioner STEPHENSON—DO you mean to
tell the Court that you could have so large a bottle,
containing, as you say, cherry brandy, for three
years and know nothing about it? The Court gives
judgment against you in the penalty of 2il.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
THIIW COURT,
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)

Angelina Adams, alias Mary Ann Burke, aged Is,
was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

The defendant, a strange, sickly -looking girl, Bp.
parently younger than stated, pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Ballantine appeared for the
prosecution, which was instigated by the authorities
of Hammersmith parish.
The CommoN SERGEANT asked if she was defended,
and, learning that she was not, directed that she should
be, and the Under-Sheriffs requested Mr. Huddle-
stone to watch the proceedings on her behalf.
Mr. BODKIN having stated the case to the jury,
called _ _ . .

Mr. John William Nicholls, clerk to the magis-
trates of the Hammersmith Policy-court, who stated
that on the 17th of October the prisoner brought to
their court by the authorities of the parish, and after
Mr. Paynter, the magistrate, had given a private.
hearing to the parties, he granted, at the instance of
the prisoner, a summons against Mary Joseph, one
of the sisters of the Good Shepherd Convent at
Hammersmith, for en assault. When the summons
came on for hearing, the prisoner having been duly
sworn, made a statement in evidence to the
following effect :—That she was of the Pro-
testant faith and had been in service in Liverpool,
where some months before she had met a man, a Ca-
tholic priest ; that he brought her up to London and
took her to the convent at Hammersmith, where she
had been confined ; that they had tried to make a
Catholic of her, and that in consequence of her re-
fusing, the superiors had cut her hair off as a pu-
nishment. She most minutely described how it was
effected, stating that it was in the month of July ;
that two women held her down (there being tour
present), whilst sister Joseph cut it off. She had
several times requested to be let out, but was kept a
close prisoner, and hard escaped on the morning of the
16th by getting through a wall in the garden, where
some repairs were going on. Mr. Paynter having
heard the case dismissed the complaint against Mary
Joseph, and directed the guardians to institute these
proceedings.
Mary Joseph was next examined, and her ap-
pearance excited much curiosity in court. She was
attired in a black cloak and bonnet, covered with a
thick black crape veil, and a close white cap setting
closely to the face. She stated herself to be
portress to the Good Shepherd Convent, Hammer-
smith, which is an institution for the reception
of penitent women who have led a loose life. On
the 15th of October the prisoner came there with
a letter from the Rev. Dr. Connelly, of Moorfields.
She gave the name of Angelina Adams. She stayed
there that night, but was sent away the next day for
deceit, having denied that she had been there before,
though recognised by one of the penitents as having
been there for some months during the year 1848.
Prisoner is a Catholic. Protestants are admitted.
Her hair had not been cut off there ; I have nothing
to do with that part.
Cross-examined—We have no other than Catholic
worship within the convent, ,and all who are in there
have to attend.

Mrs. Maria Gibson, of Upper Seymour-street, a
widow, said that she met prisoner at the Catholic Cha-
pel in Upper Rosoman-street, Clerkenwell. That
was in February last. She was wretchedly destitute,
and witness took her home to live with her, and kept
her for some time. She was suffering from a scrofu-
lous disease and weakness. After keeping her some
time, witness not liking her ways, prisoner left her,
and she next saw her in July: she was at her door
step in a dreadful state of illness and want ; all her
hair had been cut off, which she said had been done
at the workhouse when she had the fever. Witness
took her to the Free Hospital, Gray's Inn-lane, and
then she went to the Charing-cross Hospital, from
whence she discharged herself, and witness saw
nothing more of her until she was in custody on this
charge.
By Mr. HUDDLESTONE—I do not think her mind was
affected, but she seemed dreadfully depressed at her
poverty when I first saw her, and I thought she
would commit suicide. She is very much to be
pitied. She has not a friend, and her sufferings are
very greet.
Sister Ellen, another nun, habited the same as
sister Joseph, deposed to letting the prisoner out of
the convent on the morning of the 16th of October.
Mr. Charles Hibberd, overseer of St. Pancras,
proved the prisoner to have been admitted to the
house on the 27th of March last. She left on the
11th of July.
Mr. Waldegrave, the parish surgeon, said her hair
was cut off by his direction. Being suffering from
fever, she was quite unconscious at the time. She
suffered from scrofulous swellings in the abdomen,
and was in a very bad state.
Julia Smith, nurse at the workhouse, said that she
supported her in bed whilst her hair was cut off,
which was done by the barber.
It further appeared that on the 11th of August she
went to the Free Hospital, Gray's Inn-lane, where
she left of her own accord on the 29th of August, and
on the next day went to Charing-cross Hospital,
where she was at once taken in, her case being
deemed so urgent. She left there on the 30th of
September, against the wishes of the medical autho-
rities.
The Rev. Mr. Conelly, of the Catholic Church,
Moorfields, said that on the afternoon of the sth of
October his attention was called to the prisoner, who
was in the body of the church. She seemed very ill
and distressed, and in answer to his questions said she
had never been in any place of worship; that she had
been an orphan from two years of age ; that she was
a prostitute, and had been from thirteen years of age,
a life she wished to leave and added, that she was
then residing at a brothel in Half Moon-street. She
seeming sincerely penitent, he gave her some money
to get a lodging. Not knowing that she bad been at
Long, another
the Hammersmith Convent he communicated with the
superior, and gave her the letter that procured her the
admission.
Theilch.
known her from her childhood, and had got her into
twSh-th;ci R
she
Patrick's
Uepve School.Mr. Lg
She was
broughtpriest, said
up
sai
asd h
ae
Caha
had
leaving there she went to a situation,
ft. He ultimately got her into the Good
Shepherd Convent. That was in 1848.
After some further evidence,
Mr. HUD
DLESTONE addressed the jury for the de-
fence, and in a very eloquent speech dwelt at great
length upon the wretched condition of the prisoner,
whose statement, he contended, had not been made
with any wilfully corrupt intent, but under the in-
fluence of great mental as well as bodily suffering,
and concluded by saying that he felt sure that after
what had transpired, not the slightest stain would be
attached to the ladies of this most humane and bene-
volent institution.

The jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, Aco
quitted her.
Burni,' Scigc.aLt. LO
ask on what ground.
The COMMON SERGEANT said he could not do that.

Mr. BODKIN wished to know' 'if they thought her
nsane.
Several of the jury said no.
The case seemed to excite greet interest.

POLICE INTELL I GENCE.
MANSION-HOr7S.E.
Albert Kionsburg, who was E ome days ago ex-
amined upon the charge of ha ving obtained under
fraudulent pretences a diamond 1 )racelet from Messrs.
Lachmann, of William-street, Dublin, jewellers, was
brought up for final examination, upon the applica-
tion of one of the firm to send him to that city, by
virtue of a warrant issued by a magistrate there.
Mr. Yates appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Lewis
for the defence, which was "mistaken identity."
Robert Navin, an officer of the Dublin metropolitan
police, said—l produce a warrant, signed "W. Tin-
dell," a magistrate of Dublin, for the apprehension of
Adolph Kielman for obtaining a diamond bracelet
under false pretences. I have no knowledge of him,
but I believe there are witnesses as to his identity,
and that the prisoner is the person.
Here Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk, read over the
evidence of Mr. J. E. Lachmann, one of the partners
in the Dublin firm. It stated that the witness had
seen the prisoner at the house in William-street as
Dr. Kielman, from which circumstance, connected
with the fact that the witness had received a letter
from his brother upon the subject of the fraud, it was
presumed that Albert Kionsburg was Dr. Adolph
Kielman.
A gentleman of commercial respectability had, it
appeared, called at the Mansion-house after the pri-
soner had been remanded on the former day, and
offered bail to any amount for his appearance, from
the firm conviction of the innocence of the accused,
who had positively denied that he knew anything at
all about the matter.
Mr. Lachmann, cross-examined by Mr. Lewis,
said—l was present when the primer called upon
my brother as Doctor Kielman, and my brother sub-
sequently acquainted me with the fact, that Doctor
Kielman had defrauded him of the article.
Mr. Yates said he could carry the case further by
further examination of the prosecutor.
Mr. Lachmann—l saw the prisoner in London on
Thursday evening, and asked him if he knew me.
He stuttered for an instant, and gave no answer. I
then said, " You do know me ; you have robbed my
brother ; you stole a diamond bracelet from him, and
committed forgery upon a friend of mine of the name
of Harris." He then said, in German, to me, " For
God's sake do not bring me into many trouble." I
said, " I have no alternative ; I must give you in
charge." He said then that he was in the greatest
distress, that he had no money or property of any
kind except the gold chain round his neck, which
was belonging to Mr. Harris. I told the waiter to
fetch a policeman.
Mr. Yates—ln what language did he make these
observations to you ? Witness—ln German. I told
him to speak in English, which he understands per-
fectly, in order that those present might understand
him, but he did not. This took place at a house at
the corner of the Royal Exchange.
Mr. Lewis—Why did you not make use of this
statement before ? Witness—Because I thought that
what I had stated before was quite sufficient.
Mr. Yates submitted that enough had been shown
to justify the magistrate in giving up the prisoner to
the officer.
Mr. Lewis called the attention of the alderman to
the stringent nature of the A ct, to support a charge
under which it was but reasonable that the testimony
should be therefore very clear and distinct. He con-
tended that the identity of the prisoner with the Doc-
tor Kielman accused of the fraud was by no means
satisfactory, and he supposed the case of a person
personating Doctor Kielman in Dublin, and obtaining
the bracelet upon that misrepresentation. He asked,
too, what sort of satisfaction the prisoner was to ex-
pect if, upon being taken to Dublin, it was admitted
that he was not Doctor Kielman ?
Alderman Wxaa said that all he had to do in the
case was to see that the warrant was a genuine
document, and that the prisoner was the person who
was believed to be meant in it as chargeable with
an indictable offence. As for the doubt which Mr.
Lewis seemed to entertain on the subject of retri-
bution, should the identity happen to be defective, a
court of law in either country would soon settle that
business.
The prisoner then, against the advice of his solici-
tor, began to remark, and in very good English, upon
what he considered to be the inconsistency of the
statements of the principal witness, but his appeal to
the alderman strengthened the case against him, and
he was handed over to the Dublin officer.
A young Irish labourer, named John Barry, was
charged before the Lord Mayor with having robbed
and assaulted Johanna Healey, a countrywoman of
his, in Sevenstep-alley, Houndaditch.
The statement of the prosecutrix was interrupted
by bursts of laughter from a crowd of her dissolute
neighbours, who appeared in the justice-room.
The LORD MAYOR—Complainant, are you a married
woman ? Complainant (after a little hesitation)—
Well, I am, I believe. lt's two years ago since I saw
my first husband.
The LORD MAYOR—Is he dead ? Complainant—
No, your Lordship, not that I know.
The LORD MAYOR—Have you got any family by
him ? Complainant—Every one of nine children.
The LORD MAYOR—And what do you know of the
prisoner at the bar. Is he your second husband?
Complainant—No, your Lordship; but he has
been making a fool of me. She then detailed the
following facts :—The prisoner had been courting
her about three weeks, and as her husband had
gone away without giving her notice, she thought
she might as well have his place supplied, so she
listened to the man who proposed to be his successor,
and they went together off to a priest's house,
over the water, to get the business done. When they
knocked at the door the priest wasn't at home, and
they both returned to her house in Sevenstep-alley,
' after getting leave from the priest's servant, and slept
together that night. Next morning, after breakfast,
she began to reckon the money she had in her purse,
amounting to half a sovereign and some silver, with
which she intended to purchase a basket of fruit, but
the moment she laid it upon the table up the prisoner
whipped the gold, said he was entitled as her husband
to all her property, and away he went to buy a new
pair of breeches, leaving her with the miserable re-
mains of her last month's earnings for the support of
' her family. Finding that he was a common deceiver
she determined to quit his acquaintance altogether;
but on Tuesday night he walked into her bedroom in
his new breeches, and wanted to take up his quarters
in the place, to which his reverence's servant told him
he had a claim as her intended husband. She virtu-
ously refused to acknowledge him any more, and in-
sisted upon his speedy departure from her chamber,
whereupon he beat her violently about the head, and
was apprehended by the police.
The LORD MAYOR (to the complainant)—Have
you any witnesses. Complainant—yes, your wor-
ship ; my daughter was witness to everything that
happened between us,
Margaret Healey, who appeared to be about 18
years old, said, I am her daughter, and saw th pri-
soner come in and give my mother ever so much im-
pudence ; my mother got up, and said she would have
• no more of it, and then he gave her three whacks
across the mouth, and set her in a pool of blood ; and
he told her he'd have her life.
The prisoner—Your Lordship, she followed me
everywhere, and bothered me so, that I was obliged
to become her husband for a time ; and then she
' wanted to have it all her own way, and she hit me
with her brogue ; so I thought it best to give her a
clout or two.
The prisoner was fined 20s. for the assault, and not
being able to pay the fine was sent to prison for 21
days.

BOW-STREET.
Benjamin Davis, a well-dressed young man, who
has been repeatedly convicted of thieving, was charged
with stealing a brace of pistols from the chambers of
a gentleman in Duke-street, Adelphi.
The prisoner called at seven o'clock in the evening,
and seeing a little girl who had the care of the cham-
bers, represented himself to her as a friend of her
master's, with whom he had made an appointment at
the chambers. She said that her master was out,
upon which the prisoner entered the rooms, and told
her that he would wait for him. After remaining for
a few minutes he walked out again, in a suspicious
manner, and told her that be would call another
time ; and on the following morning it was discovered
that a case, containing a brace of pistols, had been
stolen.
Mr. Kinnaird, a civil engineer, who occupied the
chambers, deposed to having missed the pistols, which
were worth 10/. ; and
Sergeant West, of the F division, identified the
prisoner as a notorious thief, who had usually effected
his robberies by pretending to offer newspapers for
sale at gentlemen's chambers.
The prisoner, who offered no defence, was remanded.
William Poole, a lad of 13, who had been employed
at the Oriental Club-house as an errand- boy, was
charged on suspicion of stealing a letter containing
two bills of exchange for 6001., and his father was
charged with receiving the same.
The letter had been taken from a letter-box in
the hall of the club.

The case was remanded for further inquiry, the
elder prisoner being liberated on bail.

EXTRAORDINARY EWE SHEEP.—There is DOW
exhibiting in the shop of Mr. Ilaxeltine, butcher, of Dud-
ley, a most extraordinary fine sheep of the Cotswold or long-
wool breed. She was bred and fed by Mr. John Baxter, of
Tyefield, in the parish of Eastleach Martin, Gloucestershire,
and is considered by competent judges to be the finest speci.
men of a sheep in the kingdom. The following are the di-
mensions of this nstoundimx the
(uliv), :.ea; round the girth, aft. ley, in. ; weight,
(alive), 18 score 17 lbs. ; dead, 12 score 7 lbs., being 62 lbs.
per quarter, and with the loose fat 272 lbs., being 6t3 lb. per
quarter. Age, four yearn... Worcester Chronicle,