The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-21 00:00:00

-'

the Queen according to the law and custom of the
realm :
Be it enacted and declared, by the Qaeeh's Most
Excellent Majesty, by and wits' the advice and consent
of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in
this present Parliainc nt assembled, that, notwi.hstand-
ing anything which appears to the contrary in a certain
local Act entitled the Dublin Cemeteries Act,' or in a
Certain other Act, entitled The Act for Charitable
Donations and Bequests in Ireland,' it i 3 not and shall
not be deemed lawful for any minister or servant of the
Crown in the United Kingdom, or for any governor or
subordinate officer in any of the dominions thereunto
belonging, on occasion of any public state or ceremonial
or otherwise, to give ar allow any rank or precedence,
or to use in any public, legal, or official document any
prefix of title or appellation of honour in respect o' any
ecclesiastical order or dignity in the Cnurch of Rome,
to any person not having her Majesty's licence for such
title or appellation of honour under her Royal sign
manual, duly notified in the official gazette of the place;
provided that nothicg herein contained shall affect any
usage of rank or titles in respect of any Roman Catholic
person or see in any dependency ceded by treaty to the
Crown, in which treaty there shall have been special
provision for the maintenance of the Church of Rome
therein."
The question was as to the creation of temporal titles by
a foreign Prince in our land, and the recognition of those
titles by her Majesty's Government. The principle of
his proposition was that her Majesty was the fountain
of honour from whom all titles were derived. He denied
the power of the Lord• Lieutenant of Ireland to give
title or precedence in this mattsr, and he did not be-
lieve that the celebrated dispatch to the Colonial S,cr, -
tary existed. In any case the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire-
land in making such a communication exceeded his duty,
and the Colonial Secretary did the same in acting on the
communication. If the Queen's prerogative was to be
protected in England, it was also to be protected in
Ireland; and if it was good in England and Ireland, it
was equally good wherever the Queen's flag was raised.
Whatever may be the exception in Malta, in the Mauri-
tius, and in Canada, the great mass of the British colo-
nies was the same as these islands, and no colony should
be established without the affirmation of this principle.
The same protection, therefore, which the Crown gave
to the Church of England in this country, it was bound
to extend to the Church of England in all their colo-
nies where the contrary was not established by special
treaty. Tho nominee of a foreign Prince had been
placed in Ireland above the Peers crested by her Ma-
jesty, which he held to be a base abandonment of the
principle that the Queen was the fountain of all honour
in her own diminions. Her Majesty's Government,
therefore, had failed in their duty to the Crown and the
country in this respect, while they had gained nothing
whatever by the concessions that had been made on these
occasions. On the contrary, not the slightest sense of
gratitude had been expressed, and the word toleration
was termed by Roman Catholics one of the most offen-
sive words which could be applied by one gentleman to
another. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) had heard from many
Hon. Gentlemen that Ireland was a Catholic country,
and should have a Catholic church, but with all their
loyalty they forgot that the Queen was a Protestant
sovereign, bound by her coronation oath to maintain the
Church as by law established in the three kingdoms.
He (Sir R. Inglis), therefore, called upon the Committee
to sanction the principle contained in his proposition.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the clause of the Honourable
Baronet was not only very long, but formed a Bill in
itself. The clause brought some very grave accusations
against the Government, and, indeed, against every Go-
vernment since 1829; and he certainly, as far as his own
Government were concerned, could not consent to a
clause which contained such a vote of censure on them.
If the clause passed only very few persons could take
office under the Bill. Indeed, it appeared to him the
only persons who could take office were the Honourable
Baronet himself (Sir R. Inglis) and the Honourable
Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner). The clause
stated that ‘. whereas such assumptions had no founda-
tion in law or in the customs of this realm, but rather
are manifestly against all law, yet by negligence and
sufferance of late years have gained allowance and coun-
tenance, to the great disparagement of her Majesty's
Imperial Crown and dignity, and to the weakening and
disheartening of the Protestant Reformed Chinch of this
realm." Now these were as grave and solemn charges
as could be brought against any Administration, and it
supposes a censure on Administrations which had sanc-
tioned them. The clause went on to the enactive part,
and said that, notwiths!anding certain Acts of Par-
lament, " it shall not be lawful for any Minister or ser-
vant of the Crown; or for any governor or subordinate
officer in the United Kingdom or dominions thereto be- '
longing, on occasion of any public state or ceremonial,
to give or allow any rank or precedence or to use in any
public or legal document any prefix of title or appella-
tion of honour in respect to any ecclesiastical order or
dignity in the Church of Rome." Now what these oc-
casions of state or ceremonial, and what the titles of rank
and honour were, it was difficult to say. Suppose
there was an order in Council, in which a Roman Catholic
bishop was termed a Right Roc. Prelate, was it con-
tended that this prefix ought not to be given? The clause
went on to say with regard to the colonies, that no such
titles shall be given to Roman Catholic prelates in them,
unless the colony became ours by capitulation, and a
special provision on that head had been made. Now it
must be recollected that in many of our colonies it was
the colonial legislature that decided questions with re-
gard to their own affairs, and therefore if this clause
passed, the question would be raised whether the Impe-
rial Legislature was to overrule the acts of the colonial
legislature. It was certain that acts of the colonial legis-
lature would be at variance with this Act of Parliament,
and this would create an amount of confusion in the
colony which could hardly be thought desirable. Be-
sides, there was hardly any Minister but who might be
tried some day or other for a misdemeanour, he having
offended against the provisions of this Act. Now, he
had met Archbishop Murray at a public dinner, and had
asked him, as a fitting mark of respect, to go out before
him. That, he thought, was a proper ceremony; but
would not that be actionable under this clause? These
were acts that were done by all former Governments;
and if an alteration was made it would produce so much
confusion, that he certainly should not consent to the
clause being brought up.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause ... ..• 121
Against it ... ..• ••'_.166
Majority against the clause ...-45
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and asked
leave to sit again.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would take the Committee
of Supply on Thursday, but he thought the House would
not be able to go into Committee then.
On the Woods and Forests Bill being committed pro
forma,
Mr. HENLEY objected to the morning sittings, as in-
terfering with the regular business of the House.
LoreJ. RUSSELL fixed the Customs Duties and
Window Tax Bills for the 7th of July.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.

The House having gone into Committee on this Bill,
the clauses were agreed to.
Mr. HOLLAND moved that Hastings be included in
the schedule.
Lord SEYMOUR opposed the motion.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Ayes ... ... 43
Noes ... ..• ... 82
Majority against including Hastings —39
The preamble was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to
be reported.
The P revention of Offences Bill was considered with
amendments, which were agreed to, and ordered to be
printed.
HOME-MADE SPIRITS IN BOND.
On the order for the bringing up the report on this
measure being read,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would not oppose the reception of the report at that
hour (near one o'clock), but he hoped the Noble Lord
would fix a day upon which a discussion might be taken
upon the question at an early hour.
Lord NAAS expressed his obligation to the Right
Hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken, and said,
all those who were supporters of the measure were as
anxious as he was for a discussion upon it.—(Hear.)
The report was then received.
The Civil Bills (Ireland) Bill passed through Commit-
tee, and the report was ordered to be received on Mon-
day next.
THE STATE PRISONERS IN VAN DIEMEN'S
LAND.
Mr. ANSTEY said he had recently declined pressing
a motion which he had introduced in reference to those
parties who had received tickets of leave in Van Diemen's
Land. Since then he had heard from the colony, and
all he had stated had been confirmed. He would, there-
fore, then move, pursuant to notice, an address for copies
of all correspondence between his Excellency Sir Wil-
liam Denison, Lieutenant-Governor of Van Diemen's
Land, and the police magistrates of New Norfolk and
Launceston, on the subjects noticed in his Excellency's
dispatch of the 14th day of January, 1851 (in conti-
nuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 316, of session
1851); and of the proceedings taken before the said
police magistrates on the matters in question.
Mr. HAWES said the documents referred to had not
been received, and therefore could not be produced.
There was another objection to the motion, and that was
that further legal proceedings had been commenced
against the parties, and until such had terminated they
could not hear from the colony on the subject.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL wished to know at what
time these papers might be expected? It would be very
easy for a Governor who did not fancy entering into
explanations to keep a matter hanging over until the
interest in it should have died away.
Mr. HAWES said there was no wish on the part of
any one to prolong these proceedings, or delay any ex-
planations that might be required.
After a few words from Mr. GRATTAN,
Mr. ANSTEY consented to withdraw his motion, Mr.
HAWES having uudertakenito communicate to the Go-
vernor that such papers had been moved for.
ANNUITY TAX, EDINBURGH.
Colonel THOMPSON, on behalf of Mr. John Ben-
jamin Smith, moved " That the petition of the Provost
and Magistrates of the Royal Burgh of Queensferry,
praying that Queensferry ba included in any Bill for
abolishing the Annuity-tax, be referred to the Select
Committee on the Annuity-tax (Edinburgh), and that
the Committee bo instructed to inquire into and report
upon the allegations contained in the said petition?'
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Mr. LAI3OUCIIERE moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Merchant Seamen's
Fund. At that iate hour he would not trespass upon the
attention of the House by going at any length into the
question, as he might have done bad he been able to
bring on the subject sooner. Every one acquainted with
the matter knew what a grave cause of complaint that
fund furnished, which was then in a most miserable con-
dition and a state of hopeless insolvency. The fund was
raised by a sort of compulsory tax of sixpence a month

out of the wages of meanie°. It was maraud under the
direction of various Acts of Ittnliaalent, and the result
had been that it wae ;Eht to he condition in which it
110 N V. as, hOll it WI,. ..,11(nliatPa a deficiency to the ex•
tent of no 1,..5s theu aeout Stee,ooo/. would be found upon
the winding up of the affairs of the fund, whico was in-
tended as a sort of benevolent institution originally.
Last year ho had hoped to bring the fund into some
order, proposing an additional tax or &ixpeece a
month on seamen, adding about 30,0001 from the Ex-
chequer. But his experience had led him to conclude
that seamen would not be easily induced to
consent to contribute more from their wages for
any prospective benefit. He, therefore, abandoned the
scheme he had then conceived, and now proposed to in-
troduce one on a different principle, Ho proposed to
wind up the affairs of the old fund altogether, and thus
put an end at once to whet had been a fruitful source of
disc intent amongst merchant seamen. That, however,
could not be done without the State bearing a heavy
burden in the work, to an extent of no less than COO 0001.
or 700 0001.; but that was to be spread over it period of
thirty years, and by 1880 he hoped it would all be p..id.
The provisions of tee Bill were as follow:—First, he pro-
posed to wind up the old fund, to stop all compulsory
payments, and to guarantee the pay meet of all pensions.
Any persons omitting payments for two years to forfeit
their pension; but those who wished to coutinuo still
their payments to be entitled to the benefit. He pro-
posed that all the assets of the fund sheuid be collected
and applied to carry out the objects of the new fund, and
all to be placed under the stringent management of the
Board of Trade. The Right Hon. Gentlemati concluded
by moving for leave to bring in a Bill with the fore-
going provisions, which he trusted would tend really
and materially to benefit the condition of the merchant
seaman.
Leave having been given, the Bill was brought in, read
a first lime, and ordered to be read a second time on that
day week.
The House then adjourned at a Quarter-past Ore
o'clock.

LAW IN I'ELLIGENCE.
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, June 20.
(Sittings upon Crown Cases Reserved. Present—The
LORD CHIEF BARON, and Barons PARKE and MAR-
TIN, and Justices PATTESON and WIGHTMAN.)
THE QUEEN V. MARY HOGAN.
The defendant was indicted for abandoning her child
with intent to defraud a parish, and another count
charged the intent to be to defraud the overseers of a
parish. She was found guilty, but discharged on her
own recognizance, in order that the matter might come
before this Court.
Mr. Partin said the object of the indictment was not
to punish the party, but to bring the state of the law
before the judges, that public attention might be called
to it, so that the Legislature might alter the law. The
whole had arisen in consequence of the decision of Mr.
Justice Wightman. The Act of the sth George IV.,
cap. 83, sect. 4, enacted that any person running away
and leaving his or her family chargeable to a parish
should be guilty of an indictable offence. Ur. Justice
Wightman had held that that had reference only to
legitimate children, and not to illegitimate children.
The question, therefore, was whether when a mother
abandot.ed her illegitimate child with intent to cause
other persons to maintain the child, it was an indictable
offence at common law. After hearing a short argument.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said they were all of opinion
that the indictment could not be sustained. It was no
d,itibt an offence to neglt ct a child where there was a
duty to take care of it, so as thereby to neglect the
health of the child, but in this case it was not alleged
that any injury occurred to the child in consequence of
the act of the mother, nor did it appear that the mother
had any means of providing for it. With respect to
the supposed injury to the parish, it appeared to him
they ought not to go beyond the authorities, and he
did not find any authority for stating that any person
who occasioned a possible loss to the parish by leaving
it to maintain the casual poor was indictable. Is was
quite consistent with every allegation in this indictment,
that this woman, being utterly unable to maiivain the
child, lett it for a moment for the purpose of taking care
of herself', that she might not starve, leaving the child
to be taken care of as casual poor. He might say for
himself, that summoning the judges to hear an argu-
ment of this sort was not the way to induce the Legisla-
ture to alter the law, and perhaps it might not be a very
successful one.
Mr. Baron PARKE fully agreed with the Lord Chief
Baron, and he would add that the indictment was defee•
live, because there was no averment that the mother
had the means of maintaining the child. The indictment
was bad. _ .

Mr. Jnstice PATTESON agreed with the other judges.
What did it signify to the pariah, if the mother had not
the means of maintaining the child, whether she aban..
doned it or not, because they must have maintained it?
The other judges concurred. The recognisanc€ sto be
discharged.
(Sittings in Error on Cases from the Queen's Bench.
Present—Barons PARKE, ALDERSON, and MARTIN)

LAVEY V. THE QUEEN.

Mr. Baron PARKE said this was an indictment for
perjury committed in the County Court of Whitechapel.
Two objections had been made—first, that the court in
which the proceeding had taken place was not properly
designated. The Court did not think this objection ought
to prevail. It was a court constituted pursuant to the
statute of 9th and 10th V,ctoria. The second objection
was that there was no averment that the action was one
over which the County Court had jurisdiction, It was
said that it must be shown that the oath was adminis-

tered in a judicial proceeding of which the Court had
cognizance. It was averred that an action was pending
in that court presided over by a judge having authority
to adminster an oath. The oath was administered in the
course of a judicial proceeding. Unless the jud,:e had
cognizance la:, could not have administered the oath, and
the Court must infer that the judge had jurisdiction.
The plaintiff in error had been convicted and sentenced
by , Lord Campbell to 12 months' imprisonment, and
that sentence must be affirmed.
The Court then sat in error upon cases from the Com-
mon Pleas, before Barons Parke, Alderson, and Martin,
and Justices Matteson, Wightruan, and Erle.
There was but one case, and that was of so purely
technical a nature that it is not necessary to give a re-
port of it.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and Mr. Baron PLATT.
MURDER OF A POLICE MAN.
The trial of Patrick Cane, John Hickey, and James
M'EllicJit.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The Learned Counsel for the prisoners then severally
addressed the jury on behalf of their respective clients;
and, with regard to Hickey and Cane, it was stated that
evidence would be adduced to show that the police were
mistaken in speaking to the identity of Hickey, and
that Cane was at his own house at the time the offence
was alit-ged to have been committed. On the part of
M'Ellicott it was contended by Mr. Woollett that the
evidence was totally insufficient to convict him, inasmuch
as it was distinctly proved that he had not struck a blow,
and that at most he could only be held constructively
guilty of the offence of murder. by being present at the
time the fatal injury was inflicted by one of his com-
panions.
A great number of witnesses, all Irish people, were
called on behalf of Hickey and Cane; and on the part of
the latter it was sought to be shown that as he was going
quietly home on the night in question a policeman in-
terfered with him and struck him on the head with his
truncheon, and it was represented that he went home and
was engaged in washing the wound at the time of the
affray, and the blood upon his person was accounted
for by this circumstance. On the part of Hickey an
attempt was made to show that he accompanied a
man named Harrington, and another named Shea, to
the house of the latter, on the night in question, at five
minutes to one o'clock, and that he remained with them
until half-past one, when llarrington accompanied him
home. Both these witnesses swore positively to this
fact, and they also attempted to prove that the prisoner
Hickey had been mistaken for Clarey, who was repre-
sented to have absconded; and they represented that as
they were walking towards the lodging of the prisoner
they met Clarey, and that he changed his eoat for a
jacket that was worn by Hickey, and it was stated that
this was done in the open street. In addition to the
improbability of the story told by these witnesses, it was
made clear that a portion of their statement was mani-
festly false, for, although they swore positively that they
were able to speak to the time by looking at the clock
that was in Shea's house, upon being asked by the
counsel for the prosecution to tell the time by the clock
in the court, they both, after some hesitation, admitted
that they were unable to do so.
Mr. RYLAND, in his reply upon the whole case, called
upon the jury to dismiss the . evidence that had been ad-
duced on behalf of the prisoners entirely from their
consideration, as he said he could. not help coming to
any other conclusion than that it had boen built up upon
foul and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE having summed up the case
with great care and minuteness,
The jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict of
Guilty of manslaughter against Cane and Hickey, and
Acquitted M'Ellicott.
Cane and Hickey were sentenced to be transported for
- 5 years.

NE W COURT.
Tinton Bateman, 19, law stationer, was convicted of
stealing from the dwelling-house of Edward Clark, and
sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
The case was one of the ordinary character, and would
not be worthy
dent : of mention but for the following inci-

The prisoner called his brother, a dissipated-looking
man, to give him a character.
The RECORDER asked him what he was?-1-10 said in
the police, the A division, attached to the G division.
Superintendent Brennan said that the prisoner had by
means la false character got into the police, but it being
discovered that he was a convicted thief he was at once
turned out.

The RECORDER said the attempt to deceive the Court
was an act of contempt, and oraered him into custody.
Jantes Corbyn, 29, traveller, and Henry Hammond, 43,
labourer, were convicted of a street robbers', with vio-
lence, on George Sheppard, and stealing a Watch valued
at 121.
The prosecutor. a sturdy-built man, stated that he was
accosted in Half-moon-street by a woman, and had not
been sueukin, to her lone whin Hammond came up be-
hind and seized him, and said, " What do you do with
my wife." The woman then snatched his watch and made
off. Prosecutor instantly tarned round on his assailant,
and at a blow tolled him to the ground, fearfully damag-
ing his face. Corbyn then came up and tried to take
prosecutor off from Hammond, when he found himself
also in the iron grip of prosecutor, who held them both
till the police came up.
They were ordered to be transported for ten years,

tte RECORDEIt stating that he wished it to he known
that any min of the prisoners' class of o&nders, if
convicti beibre him, would ljtt: transported for tun years

at
They were both ,vc.ll known thieveF, and ilimmond
r..cs one of the gang but cornmittul the burglary at Mr.
Holford's, in Regent's-park.

THIRD COURT.
(Bef )re the COMMON SERGEANT.)
11-illiant Geneva. Barber, 30, shoemaker, was indicted
f r obtaing money by false pretences.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
Mr. Robinson appeared for the prosecution.
The features ot this case were somewhat singular,
and showed a great deal of ingenuity. The system of
fraud had been carried on for some years, the prisoner
having obtained from various persons sums amounting
in the whole to nearly 1,6001. The prosecutors in the
cases brought before this court were James Robertson,
George Evans, end John Regan, from whom he had ob-
teined,32/., two of them being persons employed at the
Queen's printing-office; and the prisoner having obtained
an introduction to th,m, said he was entitled to a lerge
estate—Stowe-park, Lincolnshire, and upon some papers.,
trich he said were the deeds entitling him to the pro-
perty, be borrowed the money, and deposited them as
security. From one of the parties (Evans), a beershop•
keeper, he obtained 31., but Evans subsequently having
some suspicions made application to the Court
of Chancery, and found out the fraud that had been
practised. . The case was put jute the hands or Webb.
the City officer, who traced out the other prosecutors,
and had received letters from many persons in the
country, from whom prisoner bad obtained, in several
instances, 501. and even much larger sums, by depositing
copies of the same deeds as those produced in court this
day.
The COURT sentenced him to twelve months' im-
prisonment.
William Carver Crole, 58, traveller, an elderly and
very gentlemanly-attired man, pleaded guilty to em-
bezzling 471. 125., tLe moneys of William Northen, and
also to stealing, in notes and gold, the sum of 451., the
property of the same person, his master.
Mr. Robinson prosecuted, and Mr. Harling Gifford de-
fended.
In answer to the inquiries of the Court, it was stated
that the prosecutor, who is the proprietor of a pottery
at Vauxhall, had the prisoner in his service as town
traveller at a salary of 31. a week and horse and gig, boy
to attend him being allowed and also all extra expenses.
He had been three years in his service, and had been
otherwise treated with the greatest kindness. On the
25th of April he absconded, having broken open prose-
cutor's desk and stolen in money and notes 451. and a
number of acceptances. It was then found that since
last July he had been embezzling sums of money, and his
defalcations were about 2701.
The COMMON-SERGEANT said it was sad to see a man
of the prisoner's age and apparent respectability in his
situation, and who had previously enjoyed so good a
character, but that character only made his case worse,
it being themeans of enabling him to commit the offence.
He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
Leonora Weymouth, alias Valladier, alias De Sauverell,
29, married, was indicted for feloniously marrying
Francois Cesar Valladier, her husband being then and
now alive.
Mr. Robinson prosecuted, and Mr. Horry defended.
The prisoner, who appears much older than stated in
the calendar, bore the traces of having been once a pretty
and animated-looking dark woman, but her features
were very careworn; she was neatly but poorly attired,
and went several times while the case was being pro-
ceeded with. She pleaded not guilty.
Mr. ROBINSON, having stated the case, called
Charlotte Billington, who stated that she lived at 2,
Fair-street, Horselydown, and was present at the mare
riage of Mr. Frederick Weymouth with the prisoner in
March, 1845. Saw Mr. Weymouth alive on the 6th ot
this month.
Cross examined—l went to the marriage, at the re-
quest of Mr. Weymouth, to be a witness. I have heard
he was a teacher. I did not know either of them; but
being the sexton's wile was asked to be present. Wit-
ness did not state at what place the marriage took place.
Mrs. Mary Frances Bobbett—l am the wife of James
Bobbet, and live in Bryan-street, Caledonian-road. I
got the certificate of the second marriage from the
Mi-
nori> s. I have known M. de Valladier since 1849. He
came to lodge at my house in that year. The prisoner
lived with him as his wife. I knew that she had been
married to Mr. Weymouth. He dined there once. Old
Mr. Weymouth, the father of the husband, lived part of
the time at the house with her. I don't know that
Valladier and the prisoner's husband were friends. I;
was Mr. Lewis and Mr. Valladier that came to me to be
a witness.

Franc ,is Cesar Valladier, the second husband, a gen-
tlemanly looking foreigner, who spoke English somewhat
imperfectly, said,—l am living at 12, Northumberland-
street, Strand. I know the prisoner. I was married to
her in November, 1848, at the church of the Holy Tri-
nity, Minories. I lived with her before we were mar-
ried. She said she had never been married, and that
she was the Countess de Sauverell, and that Viscount
Bercaford was her guardian. I have left her 18 or 20
months. I had that lettetlrom her.
The letter, which was read by the Learned Counsel in
his opening address, ran as follows:
"August 25, 1847.
_ _ _

"Dear Mr. Valladier,—l have told Frederick to ask
you to come to my lodgings to supper to-night. Pray
come has I always feel happier when you aro with me.
Why have you remained away lately so long? You
appear to avoid me; if you avoid me through thinking
me Frederick's wife, I can assure you that I am not.
Frederick says I am not to tell you. I know well why he
does not wish you to know it—he believes you rich, and
he thinks if he could get you to intrigue with mo he
should get money from you. Pray be on your guard
against these Wey mouths, they are a bad family all of
them—their frierdship is to get as much money from
you as they possibly can; but I will yet foil them—l
will watch over you with the greatest care. Yes, Mr.
Valladier, I love you; your quiet and gentle-
manly manners have made that impression upon
me never to be erased. It is so long since I have seen
anything approaching to kindness until I knew you. I
hope you will not be offended at my telling you I love
you. I am soon going into the country; will you ac-
company me? If you will, meet me at eight o'clock,
Sunday evening next, at the end of Camberwell New-
road, by the Green. I will explain all to you, but rest
assured lam not Mr. Frederick Weymouth's wife. I
will prove it to you by taking you to a friend of mine,
who will tell you the same. I hope you will not despise
me for not being his wife. Uncle will leave this at your
lodgings. Do not let Sam or Boy see it. I hope to see
you at supper to-night. Farewell for the present.
"Ever yours faithfully,
VIOLA DE SAUvERELL,"

Cross-examined—l do not know where I first met her.
I first went to a house of accommodation with her. She
drew me into that. That was in July, 1847, or the be-
ginning of August. After a fortnight I came to live
with her. I knew Weymouth in July, 1847; I met him
at his brother's house. At that time I could not speak
a word of English, or understand a word. I have been
to a theatre twice with Mrs. Frederick Weymouth. I
have been in France with her; that was in October,
1847. I lived with her at Mrs. Bobbet's in March, 1849.
Weymouth told me she was his wife a day or two after
I left her at Mrs. Bobbet's. I have left her two or
three times; but she has told me that she was not his
wife. I have come back again, but at last I told her that
she was his wife, and I should not live with her again.
If she had not followed me about and run bills in my
name I should not have prosecuted her. I had a letter
while I was in Paris, to say that she had gone into
mourning for mo and was going to marry again.—
(Laughter.) Sergeant Archer said, when he appre-
hended her, he asked her where Mr. Weymouth was.
She said she hoped in heaven.
The certificates were not put in. The first marriage
took place at St. James the Great, Bethaal•green, on the
12th of March, 1845, and the prisoner was described as
Leonora Alverazzi; the husband and his father were de-
scribed as gentlemen, and the father of the prisoner as
a Spanish grandee. On her second marriage she repre-
sented her father as a general in the Spanish army.
Mr. HORRY, for the defence, said the question was
whether she might not have thought her husband dead.
The COMMO\•SERGEANT said the affair was discredit-
able to all parties, but if guilt was attached to the second
husband that did not excuse the prisoner.
The jury found her Guilty.
The COMMON-SERGEANT sentenced her to six months'
imprisonment.
As the prisoner left the dock she made a graceful
curtsey to the bench.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Samuel Lewis, who was on Thursday charged with
having had in his possession a gold watch which had been
stolen from Mr. Vinden, at the races, at Epsom, on the
23d of May, was brought up in the custody of Finuis,
the officer, for final examination; Mr. Parry appeared
for the prisoner.
The additional evidence in this case, which excited
much interest, was as follows:-:
Mr. J. M. Badollet, of Greek-street, Soho, watch-
maker, said—l sold a gold watch to a Mr. Hughes on
the 4th of March, 1847, for 71., and have an entry of it,
which was made at the time of the sale. It was num-
bered 22,908. There is a slight description of it, stating
that it was engine-turned on the back with an enamelled
face. It was a horizontal movement, and a middle-sized
article, with gold case and seconds' hands, and foreign
(Geneve) made. lam an importer. I believe (looking
at the movement produced by the officer) this movement
to belong to that watch, and the number, which was
made abroad, corresponds with the number of the watch
I so sold, as also do the description and the name.
Cross-examined by Mr. Parry—Geneva articles are
made by different houses. There might bo many Ge-
neva watches of the same number. There are six or
seven manufacturers there as high as the manufacturer
of this. They, perhaps, follow up the numbers of the
watches manufactured from 1 to 100,000. The house by
which this article was manufactured has been menufic-
turing watches for two hundred years. Another watch
of the same number would not have the same name—
that of " Bsclollet"—upen it.
Who put that name upon the watch? Witness—lt
was put on there (at Geneva). We have a house there.
This is a rotation number.
Mr. of No. 17, High-street, South-
W irk
Mr.iy Vinden,positive
a watch from Air. 13adollet. I bought the watch num.
bared 22
it into
the numbertothestoelc From m
.
: silversmith.Wl
Hughes,
I I
sopoduce the invoice I received with
908 of him on the 4th of March. 1847. I put
iden-
tity of the watch is gene, inasmuch as the number I take
is from the outer case, which is not to be found. It is
usual to put the number on the movement as well is on
frltdhe a
outerwa watch
h case.to
the outer case. I have no watch in my stock of this kind
at the present time. From the entry I made I believe
the watch produced to be the same I sold to Mr. Vinden.