The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-16 00:00:00

EVEN ING, JANUARY l6, 1851.

prcceeded to number the flowers that should spring
from his cousin's grave, and to promise that—
from year to year,
Rosni shall fllurish, rnoisti-ricd by a tear.
—Dickens's " Household Words."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 15.
SHORT V. MERCIER.

The farther hearing of the argument in this part-
heard appeal from the judgment of Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce was resumed and concluded to-day.
The plaintiff filed his bill for the purpose of ob-
taining certain information from the defendant as to
transactions and sales in railway shares. The de-
fendant answered some of the interrogatories, but re-
fused to answer others, on the ground that his doing
so would subject him to prosecution and penalties un-
der the provisions of the statute called the Stock-
jobbing Act. To those answers the plaintiff took
exceptions, and the Master to whom the matter was
referred allowed some of the exceptions, but disal-
lowed others. Exceptions were then taken to the
Master's report before Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce,
and his Honour, upon hearing the argument, disal-
lowed the exceptions to the defendant's answer taken
by the plaintiff, and the latter in consequence brought
the present appeal.
Mr. J. Russell, Mr. Roupell, and Mr. Gray (of the
common law bar) appeared in support of the appeal,
and Mr. Swanston and Mr. Prendergast in support of
the order of the Vice •Chancellor.

Mr. J. RUSSELL havi❑g concluded his reply,
The LORD CHANCELLOR proceeded to give judg-
ment, and observed that questions of the kind now be-
fore the Court were always of considerable impor-
tance, though not always of great difficulty. The law
of England very clearly established that no man was
obliged to disclose matters which tended to criminate
himself. The question was, whether the defendant
had shown sufficient circumstances to the Court to
entitle him to credit on the oaths he had made, that
answering the interrogatories put to him by the plain-
tiff would subject him to the penalties under the
Stock-jobbing Act. His Lordship having referred to
the facts of the case proceeded to say that the plaintiff
did not allege in his bill that he had applied
to the defendant for an account, but only that
he had applied for his shares ; and after making
certain allegations, the bill went to ask questions
which, if answered, would have the effect of fixing the
defendant with the penalties. It, therefore, seemed
to him that the object of the bill was to enable the
plaintiff to take advantage of the penalties for the
dealings which bad occurred between the parties. It
further appeared that before filing the bill, the plain-
tiff had told the defendant that the transactions be-
tween them were illegal. The defendant, therefore,
refused to answer a word relating to the shares, the
transactions with these shares being so entirely con-
nected with the stock-dealings they had had, that he
could not disclose one matter without of necessity dis-
closing the other. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not
consider that, in order to avail himself of the rule
whieh protected him from disclosure, the defendant
was bound to prove precisely how such disclosures
would affect him, but if he statcd circumstances which
made it extremely probable that such disclosures
would affect him, it was sufficient to entitle the de
fondant to such proteotion. In this case his Lordship
thought that sufficient had been shown to entitle the
defendant to protection from making such disclosures
as were asked for in the plaintiff's bill, and that, there-
fore, the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor was a cor-
rect one. The appeal was then ordered to be dis-
missed, and with costs.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 15.
LOGAN V. THE EARL OF COURTOWN.

Lord LANGDALE gave judgment this morning in
this cause. It was an application for an injunction
to restrain the directors of the Dublin, Wicklow,
Wexford, and Waterford Railway Company from
enforcing, by actions at law, calls made upon certain
subscribers to the undertaking, who were dissen-
tients to their proceedings, on the ground of alleged
fraud, mismanagement, and a waste of the funds of
the company.
The hearing of the cause occupied the Court se-
veral days, and the particulars fully reported in this
paper as they were evolved in the course of the
hearing.

,
His Lordship having reviewed the proceedings,
decided to refuse the injunction.

KYNASTON V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.

Mr. R. PALMEII applied for an extension of time to
put in the answer in this cause, in which the de-
murrer was overruled, which was granted.

BROWN V. THE MONMOUTHSHIRE RAILWAY AND CANAL

COMPANY.

The further hearing of this cause was resumed and
concluded. It came on upon demurrer to the plain-
tiff's bill, which was filed for the purpose of obtain-
ing an injunction to restrain the directors of the
Monmouthshire Railway and C.inal Company from
paying dividends out of the income of the company,
until certain works authorised by a supplementary
Act of Parliament were completed.

Lord LANGDALE slid it was a matter of importance
to decide the considt,ration which wig involved in this
case, where a company was bound to complete certain
works within a sprcitied time, whethT they were not
bound with any limits at all, after the time for comple-
tion had expired ; and, on tha other band, whether
the payment of the dividends should be suspended
from the shareholders, in consequence of such delay
in the construction of the works. He should give it,
his best attention.—Judment deferred.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Jan. 15.
(Before Sir J. KNIGHT Baum)
HABERSHAW V. VARDEN.
Nadir Baxter, the testator, by his will, dated in
1842, t.mong other bequests, made the following :
" Further upon trust other (1,0001.) one thousand
pounds out of such part of my personal estate us muy
by law be devoted to charitable purposes, be paid to-
wards the contributories that I do conscientiously
believe and earnestly pray will steadily be began,
under the sanction of our hitherto highly favoured
Church and nation, in evidiince of Christian faith to-
wards the political restoration of the Jews to Jeru-
salem and to their own land." It was con:ended that
the bequest was void for uncertainty.
Mr. ROGERS said that those who acted for the
Crown held that the gift was void, and that the
widow, who was residuary legatee, was entitled to
the fund.

His HONOUR said it was his opinion that he could
not decide that the sum in question could not go to
any charity to be, named under the royal sign manual,
or in some other mode, although the testator had
failed to specify the particular charity which was the
object of his bounty.
It was then agreed that the question should be post-
poned, and put in the general paper of causes.
(Before Lord CRANWORTH.)
IN RE BIRMINGLIA NI, OXFORD, AND READING It AIL-
WAY.—EX PARTE SICHEI. AND BEST. —SICK EL'S
CASE.
Lord CRANWORTH, in giving, judgment in this case,
said he had taken home the papers, in order that he
might compare them with the letters and documents
in I ipfil's case, which had been decided in the House
of Lords, and although he confessed he did not un-
derstand the judgment in that case, yet he felt he was
bound by it. Lord Brougham, who had paid great
attention to it, had decided that if a man was a share-
holder only, he was not liable to contribute, nor was
he liable to contribute if he was only a provisional
committeeman, but that to fix his liability the two
qualities must co-exist. Ia the present case Mr.
Sickel, it appeared, had declined to accept of the
shares unless satisfied that the plans would be ready
in time, and the question was whether he was so
satisfied. His Lordship said it appeared to him that
he was satisfied on that point, and that he agreed to
accept of fifty shares. He therefore thought that Mr.
Sickel's name had been properly put on the list of
"contributories," and that the motion must be re•
fused, with costs.

BEST'S CASE.

His LORDSHIP, in giving judgment in this case,
said he thought the motion for removing Mr. Best's
name from the list of contributories must be granted,
on the ground that the Master had no jurisdiction to
put the name on the list.

An application was then made by counsel for a re-
hearing of the case, in consequence of a recent decision
of the Lord Chancellor.

Lord CRANWORTH said he thought the other side
should have notice of the application.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, Jan. 15.
(Sittings in Banco, at Westminster, before Lord Chief
Justice CAMPBELL, Mr. Justice PATTESON, Mr.
Justice COLERIDGE, and Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
ELAM V. THE NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover the value of several
packages of goods, temporarily consigned to the
North- Western Railway Company's goods station at
Camden-town, on their alrival from America, and
obtained therefrom by means of a representation and
demand, supposed to have been made by the plaintiff.
The action was tried at Guildhall, before Lord Camp-
bell, at thc sittings after last Michaelmas term, and
rt su;tud in a verdict for the plaintiff; the mount to
be paid to him to be the subject of arbitration. Too de-
claration set forth that the plaintiff delivered certain
goods to the dei'endant, to be conveyed by them,
carriers, and that they so m ligently discharge.d that
duty that the property Was loft. Tne defendants
thhaedn
sbee:tua
wd tya iftrioetml until tli
pc
al erar,ila,e led twit .at ts thepai
oraondds
cus-
tody. To this plea the plaintiff replied that the goody
had been stolen by some person in the employ of the
company.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now applied for a rule
calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside, on the ground that it was
against evidence, and offresh circumstances having
come to the knowledge of the defendants since the

!cause was tried, and why there should not be a new
trial. The facts of the case, the Learned Gentleman
sail, were these :—The plaintiff had fur noma time
1):!en in business in London, as a truss-maker, and
manufacturer of other appliances for the relief of ie..
valids, and in May, 1849, being in a state of
great pecuniary embarratsrnent, left this country and
proceeded to America. He took with him seven or
eight packages, containing, as his witnesses deposed
at the trial, some valuable property, consisting of plate
and a quantity of clothes. On his passage out to
America he formed an acquaintance with a man of
the name of Snowden, with whom he went to New
York, and thence to Philadelphia, whence, on account
of the prevalence of the cholera there on their
arrival, they returned to England, arriving at
the port of Liverpool in July, 1849, after en ab-
sence of two months. They came up to London
by the North-Western Railway. The plaintiff, on
arrival at Liverpool, deposited the packages of goods
he bad brought with him from America, at the goods
station of the company, to he forwarded to their goods
station at Camden-town, per railway, and there to
remain until called for. They remained there for
about three weeks at this last station, and on the 19th
of August, 1849, a person called there and inquired
about them. He was laurelled they were (lake safe,
and that if he forwarded his address to Messrs. Chap-
lin and Marne, they world be sent accordingly. On
the following day a letter was received by Messrs.
Chaplin and Horne, desiring them to forward the
goods to 75, Castle-street East, Oxford-street. That
letter was signed "Alfred Elarn." At that time
the plaintiff had been arrested by one of his
creditors for some arrears of rent, and was put
into the Queen's prison, where he actually was
i• at the time the goods were applied for, and
delivered at 75, Castle-street E4st. The day
before the letter dated the 20th of August was
written, an elderly gentleman called at the house of
Mrs. Seares, 75, Castle-street East, and informed that
lady that he wished to take lodgings for a young man
who was a nephew of his, and who he expected to ar-
rive from Liverpool. He stated that his nephew had
a quantiy of luggage which he wished to keep in his
apartments. Mrs. Stares requested a reference, upon
which the elderly gentleman named a Mr. 'leather as
his reference, who W4S the proprietor of a shop in the
neighbourhood, and Nth°, on being referred to, stated
that the elderly gentleman was a most respectable
man. The lodgings were consequently let to him for
his nephew, whose name, he said, was " Alfred
Elam." The goods, which had been left at the Cam-
den-town goods station, were forwarded by Messrs.
Chaplin and Horne to 75, Castle-street East, where
they were received by a young man who represented
himself as " Alfred Elam," and who signed the de-
livery book in a handwriting extremely like that per-
son's genuine signature. Alter the goods had been de-
livered, a cart was brought to Mrs. Seares's house,
and the goods were placed therein, and conveyed
away ; and the young man, calling himself " Alfred
Elam," then left the house, and never afterwards re-
, turned to it. During this time the plaintiff, the real
" Alfred Elam," was a prisoner in the Queen's prison,
living on the charity of his friends, who lent him such
small sums as half-a-crown at a time. He also re-
ceived the prison allowance, which was granted the
prisoners who were not worth 101. in the world.
Whilst in prison he had never made any application
for:his packages, although, by the evidence which he
offered at the trial, he had from 401. to 601. in notes
alone in his chest. In November, 1849, he agreed to
pay the sum of 301. to his landlord, and to give a war-
rant of attorney to that person for the remainder of
the debt which he owed him, and he was then released
from prison. He (the Solicitor-General) would ask
where did the plaintiff get the 301. from ? Here was
the case of a man without the means of existence,
and whose father and family were in the most
indigent circumstances, suddenly finding himself io
a position to pay 301., and thus getting out of prison,
and returning to his shop, where he again set himself
up in business. He did not, 'when he was released
from prison, apply for his goods, but waited until the
16th of December, when he went to the goods station
• of the defendants, and requested to have his goods
forwarded to him. The clerk to whom he made his
application, not knowing that the goods had been al-
ready sent away, stated that they should be delivered
upon a written application being made for them. The
plaintitf directly wrote a letter demanding the goods ;
but, on investigation, it appeared that they had already
been delivered to a person calling himself " Alfred
Elam." A second demand was made for the goods,
and the action was then brought against the defen-
dants.. There was this important fact in the case,
that Snowden, who went with the plaintiff to America
and came hack with him thence to England, stated
at the trial title, no one except himself and plaintiff
was aware of the quantity of property that had
been brought from America, or even where the
goods had been deposited. Snowden also swore
that he knew nothing of the goods being taken to
Castle-street East. Whoever had obtained the goods
must have been aware of their haying been brought
from Liverpool, and of the number of packages. He
must also have been so well acquainted ts itla the
handwriting of the plaintiff that he could imitate it,
and a number of witnesses who had been examined at
tie trial, had stated that they believed the handwriting
to be that of Alfred Elam, the plaintiff in this cause.
There were also the peculiar circumstances in this
cese, that the plaintiff had left England in a state of
poverty, had returned, and been thrown into prison,
had remained there for some time, and had not got
out except by settling with his detaining creditor ;
and further, that when he was released, he dill not
apply fir his goods until six weeks after that event.
He the (Solicitor-General) suggested that supposing
there were any property in the packages, the plaintiff
had himself assisted in getting possession of them. The
defendarite, since the trial, had received some fresh
information, which he (the Solicitor-General) was of
opinion was of great importance. At the trial the
sister of the plaintiff had deposed to the contents of
the packages, which she had helped to pack when her
brother was preparing to leave England for America.
Since the trial a person named Wilkins had been
discovered, who had been foreman to the plaintiff, and
he states that the plaintiff never, at any time, had
any property on his premises of the value of 801., and
that he left England in so much fear of arrest that
the property which he took with him was put into
potuto-sacks, and deposited in a place of safety. The
Custom-house officers at Liverpool had made affida-
vits contradicting the evidence of Snowden. The
entry made in the Custom-house at Liverpool, op-
posite the names of the plaintiff and Snowden, was
merely one of " wearing apparel." There were, too,
letters written by the plaintiff to Wilkins, since the
former left England, and these letters showed that
at that time the plaintiff was in a state of poverty.
There was also another fact to which he (the Soli-
citor- General) would direct the attention of the Court.
A person named Day, a commission agent for some coal
merchants in London, happened, on the 21st of August,
1849, the day upon which the goods were sent to
Castle-street East, to be at the corner of that street,
on'his road to a house therein, and he there met three
persons, one of whom he identified to be Alfred Elam's
tither, and the other, a person named Stewart. Old
Mr. Elam asked Mr. Day which was the way to
Castle-street, and was shown it by him. Mr. Day
then went to a public-house, where he had business,
and which was next door to Mrs. Seares's house, and
while drinking a glass of ale Mr. Elam, Stewart, and
auother person came into the house, and sent a letter
to Wilkins. Mr. Day was a friend of Mr. Wilkins's,
and he stayed in the public-house until the messenger
returned with some papers. Stewart then said " This
will not do; we must go to Wilkins's ourselves." Mr.
flay afterwards went to Wilkins's, where he saw the
father of the plaintiff. Mr. Day called afterwards on
Stewart on business, and then recognized him as hav-
ing been the person lie had seen before. The plaintiff
had two brothers, whose addresses were not known
to the defendants. The Learned Gentleman then
proceeded to advert to other circumstances, and con-
cluded by hoping that the Court would grant a rule.
. Lord Caawneea--Take a rule.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then desired to know
whether the arbitration respecting the items contained
in the packages should be proceeded with ?
ticrt.e dl‘,lOnCtithaempnaertas,ofthe plaintiff, to ask that it
Q.C., said that he was in-
s trLord CAMPBELL was of opinion that the arbitration
ought to go on until the rule was determined.
might be permitted to go on.
Rule nisi granted accordingly.
DANIEL V. CHALLIS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action against Alderman Challis, as
Sheriff of London, and another, for an illegal distress.
It was triad before Lord Campbell, at Guildhall, at
the sittings after last Michaelmas term, and resulted
in a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 5,000/. The
property seized had formerly belonged to Mr. Jaynes
B don, a bookseller and publisher, and the complaint
of the plaintiff was, that it had been sold for a sum
much less than its value.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE now moved, on the part of the
defendants, fur a rule calling on the plaintiff to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a
new trial had, on the ground that the damages were
excessive, aid ought not to have been more than 8001.
or 900/ In support of this opinion the Learned Set--
t fer
in rerl tcootnhteratdeisctitlitru to that n yofs e
of the
p ifi,s
several sl witnessestat
trial.the as
witnesses, as to the high value of the hooks seized and
sold. lle therefore hoped the Court would grant a
rule.

1-.')rd CAMPBELL—TiIere £l7, no doubt that the
books were valtv,d in a most disgraceful manner. The
(Ines" ion of amount was, however, alZogether One for
the jury, and he (Lord Canipb?ll) was not dissatisfi4d
with the verdict.—Rule refused.

BAIL COURT, Jun. 15,
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice Enr.E.)
Appl►cations were made against two attorneys for
rules calling upon them to show cause why they
should not refund certain sums of money which they

hid received on account of their clients. The names
cn the parties did not transpire; the applications, how-
ever, were granted.
THE QUEEN V. TIIE CORPORATION OP BRADFORD.
In this case a trindainu4 bad been obtained by Mr.
Crompton, ordering :the Mayor and Corporation of
Bradford to proceed to the election of certain aldermen.
Mr. IlAt.r. was heard to-day on behalf of certain
burgesses, end Mr. CROMPTON on the part of some of
thy: Corporation. The arguments in the case pre-
sented no features of general interest.
His LORDSHIP said he should take time to consider
his j wigmen t.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jun. 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
GR
onAPES V. BUNNEY.
This will an a cti of libel, against the registered
proprietor of the John Bull newsoaper, for the publi-
cation of a libel reflecting on the character of the
plaintiff, formerly a Post-office letter-carrier. At the
second trial, before the Lord Chief Baron, during the
sittings in London after last term, there was a verdict
for the defendant on the plea of justification.
Mr. '(EATING to-day moved tbr a rule to set aside
the verdict and have a new trial, on the ground of
misdirection. The libel charged the plaintiff with
having tampered with cettain witnesses, by whose
evidence. the guilt of Thacker, another Post-office
letter-carrier, was proved; and the Lord Chief
Rsron directed the jury to consider whether the alle-
gation in the libel was made by way merely of stating
whet hid come out in the inquiry at the Post-office,
or whether it stated it with an implied conviction of
its being established by the evidence. Considering
the nature of the charge made in the libel, the
Learned Counsel contended that the defendant Ahould
have called the witnesses with whom the plaintiff was
alleged to have tampered, in order to show that they
were.witnesses by whose evidence Thacker's guilt
was proved.

The COURT thought that there should be a rule, but
recommended the defendant to consent to a stet pro-
cessus rather than go to a new trial, which suggestion
the counsel on both sides agreed to consider.

NEWINGTON PETTY SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. JOHNSTON, Chairman, and a Bench of
Magistrates.)
Yesterday, Mr. G. S. Butt, assistant surveyor of
the parish of St. Mary, Newington, was summoned
by Mr. T. Walker, No. 47, Bridgehouse-place, in the
parish of St. George, Southwark, "for having unlaw-
fully neglected to repair a certain highway, known as
Newington-causeway, in the county of Surrey, con-
trary to the statute, to which he was liable to a pe-
nalty of 51."

The board of highways of the parish of Newington
were present, and Mr. G. Hayes the barrister, at-
tended on the part of the south district board of St.
George's, who, according to the inquest held on Mon-
day last before Mr. Payne, the City Coroner, were
liable for the repair, as appears from the report in The
Sun of Tuesday.
Mr. Halms observed that before the summons was
gone into, he would wish to say a few words. He
was instructed to state, on the part of the gentlemen
he represented, that they were willing to enter into
an arrangement for the repair of the road, pending
the dispute as to the boundary of the parishes, which
he trusted would ha for the benefit of the public and
the interest of all parties. The Bench had no juris-
diction while the liability was disputed. It was only
when there was an admitted liability that the Bench
possessed power to interfere, when they could issue
an indictment against the surveyor of the parish, who
would be the responsible party. There was, how-
ever, not only a dispute between Newington and the
south district board, as to the boundary line, but the
south district board and the board of highways of St.
George's, differed in opinion with each other as to
their respective liability to repair the road. He should
propose that the three boards agree to repair the road,
which was admitted to be in a most dangerous con-
dition, and that when the question of liability was de-
cided, the cost of the repairs he paid by the party de-
cided to be liable. If his proposition were not ac-
ceded to, a period of nine months might elapse before
a decision, as the question might have finally to be
taken into the Court of Queen's Bench.
Mr. Chester, clerk to the board of highways of
Newington, said he thought that the board he repre-
sented would agree to the proposition. In August
last he suggested to the two boards of St. George's
that some arrangement should be entered into, and it
was only now a plan was put forward.
The summons was then heard, but it failed on the
ground that the assistant surveyor, not being elected
by the parish, was not the responsible party.
Mr. Day, clerk to the highways board, and vestry
clerk to St. George's parish, who was a witness for
the complainant, stated that there was a hole in the
road in front of his house, in Bridge-house-place, a
yard end a half wide and ten inches deep. Every •
morning he expected to hear of an accident. He be-
lieved the division of the parishes was a sewer under ,
the pavement on the west side, which went nearly
round the parish. Forty years ego he recollected
hedges growing there.
The summons was then dismissed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
It may be in the recollection of our readers that
some few days ago a summons was issued from this
court against Captain Ray, an advertising coal mer-
chant, requiring him to attend and explain why, in
delivering four tons of coals, at 18s. per ton, to Mr.
Cuthbert, of Paternoster-row, towards the latter end of
I)c.einber last, out of 40 sacks 26 were deficient in
weight. It was then stated that 2241 b. was the ordi-
nary weight of a sack of coals, arid in this instance
some of the sacks were as much as 721 b. deficient in
weight, and the majority of the 26 sacks were over
401 b. deficient. It appeared Mr. Cuthbert had not
paid for the coals, and therefore was not a loser, but
he came forward to perform a public duty in pro
tecting others from the fraudulent intentions of this
coal advertiser.
Captain Ray did not appear, although Alderman
Lawrence expressed a hope to that effect.
Yesterday information was received at this court
that one of the parties who delivered the coals was to
be found in the neighbourhood of Scotland-yard, and
accordingly, as it was anticipated that be would not
come willingly forward, Mr. Roe, the summoning
officer of this court, went down to Scotland-yard to
bring him before the magistrate. At first the boy
refused to give his name or address, and Mr. Roe, in
accordance with hip instructions, desired him to ac-
company him to the justice-room. The boy was
placed in front of the table. He appeared about
seventeen years of age, and was dressed in coarse cor-
duroy clothes. Ile assumed a very blank expression
of countenance, and throughout the whole of his evi-
dence (for he was put under a very rigid examination
by Mr. Wood, the chief clerk) maintained a kind of
half indifferent, and half hesitating demeanour.
Alderman FABEBROT HE& (to the officer).—Swear
this boy.
The boy having been sworn,
Alderman FAREBEOTUER continued—Now, remem-
ber, if you don't tell the truth we have a way of deal-
ing with you that you little anticipate. What is
your name ? Witness said his name was John
Willis. I live at No. 3, Denmark-street, Crown-
street, Soho. This is my card, Sir. I am a naturalist.
Alderman FAREBROTHEZZ —Did you not give an
address some time previous of Tottenham-street, Tot-
tenham-court-road, and your name as James Jones ?
Witness—l believe I did. I can't recollect the
name. I went with the four tons of coals to Mr.
Cuthbert's in December last. Ido not know where
they came from. I was met by a man in the street
who engaged me. I think his name was Smith.
There were three men, but I don't know where any
of them live. One was called "Jim," another " John,"
and I don't know what they called the other one. I
did not hear their surnames. I have seen them all
before on the wharf at Scotland-yard. I am em-
ployed there by a gentleman of the name of Coombes.
The coals that were delivered to Mr. Cuthbert were
taken from that wharf. I believe the waggon and
horses did not belong to Mr. Coombes. I have only
been with him a short time. About six months, I
should think. The wharf goes by the name of
" Douglas and Taylor's Wharf." Mr. Coombes carts
coals from there. lam not employed in the counting-
house. I am general superintendent of the wharf
for Mr. Coombes. I opened the letter containing
Mr. Cuthbert's order fur the four tons of coals. I
believe it was directed to Captain Ray. Ido not
know any one of the name of Captain Ray. I have
not had many orders since in his name, nor do I want
any more. (Addressing the alderman.) I think I
have said enough now, and I am getting thirsty.
Alderman FAREBROTIIES—If you do not attend to
the questions that are put to you I shall send you to
prison, and you will there get enough water to quench
your thirst.
At this moment a son of Mr. Lewis, the solicitor,
who it appeared was engaged to defend the case, ap-
plied to the alderman to have the case adjourned.
Alderman FAR EII ROTH En —I shall not comply
with such a request. We have been at some trouble
to get this witness' before us, and we will not lose
sight of him until we have obtained all the informa-
tion he can wive us respecting this Captain Ray or
his represer,ta'ive.
Mr. .14q was, jun., then went out of court.
Witness continued—l did not apply to Mr. Cuth-
bert for the money for ties coals. The carman asked
for the money, and 11.- refused to pay for thew. I
turn asked him if he would pay me. The address on
the waggo❑ was " Grosvenor Basin." I have a very
bad memory. I can recollect no more just now.
Alderman FAREBROT 11 ER—Very well; then I
shall keep you in prison till we want you again, or
until your memory improves.
Witness—The name on the waggon is that of the
man who applied to Mr. Cuthbert for the money. I
don't see the gentleman in court.—(Laughter,) He
aint a respectable gentleman.—(Laughter.) I am a

respectable-looking chap, flint I, your worship ?
(Great laughter.) I saw Smith the last time yes-
terday. I have seen him within the last three months
almost every day. The last time we dined together
at an eating house in Iliingeriord-market. Some-
times I dine at the same house as Mr. Coombes. Mr.
Coombes lives at 20, Craven•street, Strand, and I
sometimes dine:with the servants. He has a bit of an
office there. I don't know his Christian name. I
always call him " sir."
AldermanFaaen ROTHER —You may now stand aside
while a summons is made out to ensure your future
attendance at this court when called on. A warrant
will be issued against you, and you will be liable
to be apprehended at any time wherever you may be
found.
Witness—And shall I have to come up from the
country ?
Alderman FAReneonsee—Certainly. Where are
you going to ? Witness—l don't exactly know yet.
Alderman FAREDROTII ER—Why are you going
into the country, then ? Witness—l have had an
invitation from a friend.
Alderman FAREBROT lIER—And don't you know
where your friend lives ? Witness—l believe—l am
going for an excursion.
Alderman FAR EnROTHEE--It seems highly pro.
bable to me that the whole o►f your gang will go for
an excursion.—(Great laughter.) :I would advise you
to give your right name and address, as it will prove
the worse for you in the end. Witness—l have
already given my right name and address. You have
got my card—(Laughter)—before you.
Alderman PAR EBROTLIER--.Tilia is your father's
card. Witness—lt is all the same; my name is the
same as his, and he is a naturalist the same as myself,
and which you will see upon my card.
Alderman PAREBROTHER—Now mind what I say,
if you do not attend to this summons a warrant will
be issued, and we will soon have you again.
Witness then withdrew, apparently smiling with
inward satisfaction at the impudent attempt he had
made to mislead the magistrate as to his connexion
with such a swindling transaction.
A summons was then issued against Mr. Coombes
to attend and answer the charge at'first laid against
Captain Ray, in order to find out whether they are
both one and the same person.
CL ERKEN WELL.
An elderly woman, of lady-like appearance, who
was described in the police-sheet as Miss Gresley In-
man, who refused to give her address, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Tyrwhitt, charged by Mr. Hugh
Litton Chilcott, of No. 4, Mti'?garet-street, Clerken-
well, with stealing 10Ibs. of feathers, and other articles,
from her ready-furnished lodgings.
It appeared, from the evidence of the prosecutor
and his wife, that some time ago the prisoner called
at their house to inquire after some ready-furnished
lodgings. They agreed as to terms, and she men-
tioned the names of numerous highly respectable
persons; and, judging from her appearance and man-
ners, they did not think it necessary to make any
inquiry, but admitted her at once into the apartments.
See remained in the house without paying any rent.
She left in debt, and ou searching the place they
missed the feathers from the bed, and other
property. The prosecutor gave information to
the police, with a description of the prisoner's
person, but nothing was heard of her until
the previous evening, when witness entered a
public-house in the neighbourhood, and saw the
prisoner sleeping on a form before the bar, when
he recognised her as his lodg►er. lie awoke her,
challenged her with the robbery, and threatened to
give her into the custody of a policeman. She turned
upon him with affected scorn, and asked him how he
dared insult her by charged her with robbery; she
said she had never seen him in all her life before;
she knew nothing of him, and if he repeated the
insult she would give him into custody. Witness
told hsr that he would have the first turn, and he
called in Dearwent, 417 G, and gave her into
custody.
Dearwent said that, on searching the prisoner at
the station-house, he found in her possession several
duplicates, and a large bustle full of feathers.—(le
here produced the bustle.)
Mr. Mould (the clerk)—Pray keep it away.
Dearwent said he also found upon her several bills
for lodging and board, and it would appear that she
had been living in a most expensive style.
The prosecutor said he had ascertained that the
prisoner had been in the habit of taking expensive
apartments with board at hotels and private lodging-
houses, running up bills and leaving in debt.
Mr. TYRWHITT asked the prisoner if she wished to
ask the witnesses any questions ? She replied that
she knew nothing of the robbery. The constable cer-
tainly fhund a " bustle" on her person containing
101bs. of feathers. She was in the habit of wearing
feathers in her bustle, and not less than 10ibs. weight,
as she wore very large bustles—(A laugh)—but she
never took the feathers from the prosecutor's bed nor
anything from his house. liar brother was chief
clerk to a railway company. I-Icr property was in
the hands of trustees, and her solicitors were Messrs.
Simpson, Bassets, and Co. She mentioned other
manes of equal respectability with whom she was ac•
quainted, and denied the allegation of swindling
hotel-keepers, &c., saying she boasted of being a
" lady."
Mr. Mould examined some papers found upon her,
and said, here are two bills, one for 101. and the other
fur .5/, for board and lodging, neither of them are
receipted.
Prisoner—They are all right; they have been paid
by stamp receipts, which can be proved by my
solicitors. •
The prosecutor and his wife swore positively to the
prisoner's person.
Mr. Teawnerr said he should remand the prisoner,
in order that proper inquiries should be made about
her.—She was accordingly remanded.
LAMBETH.
Charles Wood, one of the two men who made a
most inurderotes attack with " life-preservers" on
Mr. Thomas Carter Wigg, tea-dealer, of No. 2,
Lorimer-terrace, Walworth, on Sunday morning
last, was placed before Mr. Elliott for final exami-

nation.
Mr. Games attended as the pri,oner's solicitor.
The prosecutor, who seemed to be still suffering
from the effects of serious injuries inflicted upon him
by the prisoner and his companion, said—On Sunday
morning last, between the hours of one and two
o'clock, I was going borne down \Vest-street, and
heard the footsteps of two men walking fast behind
me. I crossed the road at Canterbury-place, and
then I found the two men close behind me. I turned
round, and heard them whisper to each other, and im-
mediately I received a blow at the back part of my
head with a bludgeon or " life-preserver." 1 turned
upon them, and instantly received another blow on
the bead, and that I believe was given by the other
man, not the one who struck me first, because it fol-
lowed so rapidly. I defended myself as well es I
could
with my umbrella, and the men seemed
anxious to close upon me. I backed from them into
the middle of the road, where they followed me,
and I received a third blow on the head from 1
think a life-preserver. I have very little doubt that
the prisoner is the person who gave me that, as well
as the first blow. I called out " murder," and may
little boy, who was with me, also called out, and ran
away, and one of the men left me. I think the pri-
soner is the one who remained behind with me, and
I had a senate with him, during which I received
several severe blows on the shoulder from him. I
tried to get the men under the light that I might see
their faces, but they kept in the shade as much as
they could. When they left rne, they ran towards
the Beehive public-house, but the prisoner returned
and ran past me towards Canterbury-place. lie
passed a lamp-post, and the light falling on his face,
1 saw him by that means, and I am sure he is the
man.
I swear to it. lam not sure of it, but I be-
lieve the other one ran down Cottage-grove, which
is opposite to Canterbury-place. I was smothered
with blood from the wounds in my head where I had
been struck by these men. A constable came up,
and led me home, and a surgeon came and dressed
my wounds. The prisoner was soon after brought to
my house by the police, and I knew him immediately,
to be one of the men. I was very much stunned
with the first blow, but recovered a little after the
second. They tried to close upon me, but I managed
to keep them off. IJe positively identified the pri-
soner.

Mr. Fairbrother, a surgeon, said on Sunday morn-
ing I was sent for, and on going to the house of the
prosecutor I found him suffering from the effects of
the loss of blood from two severe wounds on the head,
one on the right temple, and one on the upper left
side of the head. There was also a severe contusion
on the back part of the head, and several' severe
bruises about the shoulders. The wound on the tem-
ple was a cut through the skin and part of the muscle,
and the other was a jagged wound, cut through to
the bone. These wounds had evidently been inflicted
by some blunt instrument, and I believe by a " life-
preserver," or a bludgeon." The wound on the left
side of the head had been inflicted by a blunt instru-
ment, which had a rough surface, a knobbed surface.
The wounds were of so dangerous a character, that
I had to remain with the prosecutor until six o'clock
in the morning. I had to wait until reaction touk
place, and had then to bleed him. It 13 my opinion
that the wounds might have been made by the lif6-
preserver produced. The contusion behind, and the
wound On the t..•>mple might certainly have been pro-
(lucid by it, and the tAound on the lefc side might
possibly have been also produc(Al by it.
Mr. i:Li.rorr—You considered the prosFeutor's life
Endangered by the injuries you have described ?
Witness—Most certainly ; seriously so.
The prisoner, who declined offering anything in his
defence, was fully committed for trial. When he
was about to be removed front the bar Mr. Games,
addressing the magistrate, said—l am requested by
the friends of the prisoner to apply to your Worship
to liberate him on bail, and they instruct me to say
that sureties to any amount can be given for him.

Mr. ELLIOTT (with evident surprise)—What. to
Five him an opportunity of waylaying and brutally.
some one else ? I shalt not accept any ball
for him.

THE COUNTRY MARKETS.
LIVERPOOL, Jar:. 14.—There was a limited attend:
ante at to-day's market, and the trade generally ruledflatter. Good qualities of wheat cannot be quoted
cheaper, but all infizier sorts went at from Id to 2d uu"
der rates of last Tuesday. Flour was blow of sale 6t
prices rather in favour of buyers. Outs :and oatmeal
each difficult to dispose of, except at a slight reduction!
Beans, peas, barley, and malt in limited demand, but
without change in value. Indian corn in slow request
at a reduction of 61 per qr.
NEWCASTLE CATTLE MARKET, JAN. 14.—The Su
ply of b,asts exceeded that of last week by eighty bead;
quality middling; trade very brick at late prices; and
ail sold. Mutton trade steady at former rates.
About
700 more sheep on show than last market day and a,
good clearance effected. Beasts 580; sheep 4,000. rite'
5s to 6q; mutton 5d to 6d.
NEWCASTLE, J AN. 14.—We hail a fair supply f"ril
the neighbourhood, though small arrivals coastwise:.
Prices ruled about the saute as on Saturday,
better dea,and. Barley, owing to immense supplies. way
dull of still we could quote no actual deelinr
Oats if anything the turn dearer; prices of flour,
tachanged. In other article; no change.
thin
ttrLEEDS, JAN, 14.--The arrivals (~f wheat were ..-
and a good sprinkling continued to be sent per relbs
which was not quoted. The sale was steady, theug
not active, and no alteration could be noted in Pric,.eg,
Extra fine arley, being scarce, rose in value; other
sorts as before. Oats, shellirsgs, and beans, sold slevoi,
but were not lower.
EDINBURGH MEAL MARKET, JAN. 14.—There were 3t
the meal market to-day 16 sacks oatmeal, each weighing 2801,,,m—
imperial, whereof 15 sold thus :-2 at I/ 8s Od, 10 at 1/ 15°1
with retie;
and 3 at 1/ 7s Od; average price of the whole 11 7/
7-12ths. 3 sacks flour, which sold at 28s 6d. 9
sacks Po
barley, whereof 4 sold thus: --9 at 2.55, 1 at 235, and 1 at 211.
EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW MARKET, JAN. 14.
Oat straw, from 7s Od to 8s Od per 'clippie of 16 stones trl;
wheat ditto, 6s Od to 7s 6cl; barley ditto, 5s Od to 60 Du'
Hay, from 10d to Is per stone.
DALKEITH MEAL MARKET, JAN. 13.2—There were j6l
bags oatmeal, 23 of barleymeal, and 4of pot-barley, it the
day's market; sales ready. Oatmeal the same on the tops
second quality 6d per bag down; barleymeal is per bag
down, and the second price is 3d lower.
Oatmeal, per sack, of 280 lbs. First Second, T,ltifi:dd
imperial .. 26s Od 25s 3d 1 243
Barleymeal, per ditto ... 17s 01 16s 61 —0 Od
od
Peasemeal
... —s Od Od Od
Flour ... —s Od —s Od
Pot barley •. • 21s 6cl t --s Od

COAL MARK ET. —YESTERDAY. /
0
Chester Main l3B 6d Lambton 15 A sd
Davison'sWestfiartley 14s Odltutssell's Hatton ...... I
51 'd 6d
1
East Adairs Main l2s Od Stewart's Felton Main l3s Od'Caradoc .....
......•••••6, sd
, 'A1 9J
South Eden
Ravensworth'sW.Hart 13s 6d'Kelloe
South Peareth
1142 :
00
d( I South
Whitworth Kell o e. ....................... 2
.
1 6
14:
6A
i
'Canfield Moor ....
Canfield Moor Butes l3s 3.1 Cleveland Tees ........ 133 69d
Wylam ......... l4s 3d Richardson's Tees ... 13s Oa
Wall's End, &c. Seymour Tees ........ 143 6d
Brown
4i °4/
Hedley
Lawson
Original Gibson
H etton
Haswell lss 9d Ships at market, 18''