The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-11 00:00:00

T SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JUNE 11, 1860,

than half sr,-
- red till all had got into regular working
order- . Then the paddles started, when clear of the
land, at about seven revolutions and the screw at 24
—a rate of speed which was only gradually increased
during the night, when the former engines rose to
a little over eight and the 'screw to 27. At this
rate all went very easily and well, the vessel going
at 9or 9) knots. The injector pipes for feeding
the boilers, however, were soon found to be scarcely
large enough for the duty, and the paddle boilers
accordingly had to be fed from the donkey engines.
It was also quickly ascertained that the new
wooden casings for the forward funnels, and which
were intended to assist in getting rid of the hot

air, did not work at all, for all hint air was most
effectually kept inside the casing itself, which
heated to such a degree as to require constant
watching in case of accidents. The forward
pair of boilers also of the paddles were more or
less troublesome throughout the night, and, in-

deed, during the whole trip. They were con-
stantly " priming," as it is termed, which means
boiling so fiercely as occasionally to send the water
as well as steam along the steam-pipe into the
cylinders, —an intrusion which, though not
dangerous, is very annoying to engineers, and
one which the piston itself resents by thump-
ing on the bottom of the cylinder with astounding
bangs. This priming, as the pressure of steam was
not over 171 b., and the firing was moderate, was
at first difficult to account :for, till it was ascer-
tained that the water in this pair of boilers had been
in them for the last two or three months, and the
boilers themselves were very dirty from disuse—
two causes quite sufficient to account for priming to
any extent. Beyond such slight incidents as these,
nothing of any note occurred. The night fell as
the Bill of Portland was passed, and the lights of
the Magdalena could be seen glimmering occa-
sionally over the waves as she steamed down Chan-
nel for the West Indies. Soon after 11 o'clock the
heat of the woodwork round the forward funnels
seemed to increase greatly, till the smell of its
scorching became quite apparent. The upper part
of the casing which impeded the ventilation was
therefore at once broken away, and, free egress
being thus given to the hot air round the funnel,
no further uneasiness was felt. At the suggestion
of Capt. Robertson, of the Board of Trade, this
woodwork will be entirely removed, and replaced
' by an iron lattice work, which will, of course, give
free egress to the hot air, and run no danger of
ignition, no matter what the heat. At one o'clock
a.m. on Sunday the Great Eastern was abreast of
the Start Light, when the helm was put hard over,
and the bilge vessel, even at slow speed, turned com-
pletely round in a small circle in little over seven
minutes. During this turn, as throughout the trial,
there was a total absence of the uneasy wagging
motion of the stem and stern which was so often felt
last year. Its disappearance now was attributed
entirely to the additional girders and diagonal
bracings which have been latterly put in, and which
with the screw tunnel render the whole ship as rigid
as a bolt. On Sunday, at six a.m., Mr. M'Lennan,
the chief engineer, who had never for an instant
quitted the engine-room from the time she started,
gave orders to get up steam for full speed. No one
anticipated any very great results from this, as
even by looking over the side the effect of the foul
bottom in dragging the water could be distinctly
seen extending as far as a foot from the vessel's
side. By steady firing the amount of steam was
gradually increased, and the revolution of the
paddles rose from 8 to 101, and the rscrew from
27 to 39, but beyond this rate it seemed im-
possible to get them. On the last run
round from Holyhead to Southampton the
screw worked easily at 43 revolutions and the
paddles at 12, and for a short time at 121, at which
time the vessel ran a clear 16 knots an hour. Yes-
terday, however, partly owing, we suppose, to the
increased depth of the ship—two feet—and partly
to the weedy condition of the bottom, nothing ap-
proaching this result could be obtained. Neither
screw or paddle ever went at a greater rate than
the revolutions we have mentioned, and the greatest
speed never exceeded 124 knots an hour. An ave-
rage of 121 knots, however, was maintained with
great ease and steadiness, the only annoyance aris-
ing from the priming of the forward pair of boilers.
There seemed, also, some difficulty in getting a full
amount of steam, of which it was said the engines
required at least two pounds more pressure than
could be given to them, even with quick firing.
The patent log and the ship's log, and the run ac-
cording to the chart, all gave the same result—
namely, a distance of 50 miles from 6 a.m. till 10
in the forenoon, or an average of exactly 121 knots
an hour, the last two hours being made against a
two-knot tide. Soon after 10 o'clock the ship was
again abreast of Ventnor, and under the charge of
the same pilot, Mr. Bowyer, who has always taken
her up the Southampton ;Water. She was as easily
steered through Spithead and round Calshott Castle
back to her moorings as if she had been a yacht.
After passing Cowes the weather same on thick,
with squalls and heavy rain, yet it made no diffe-
rence in her management in such a narrow chan•
nel, and before one o'clock she was again securely
fastened to those moorings which have held her so
securely through all the terrific gales of the past.
winter. The result of the trial trip showed the
vessel was with trifling alterations really in good
sea-going trim, and the directors at once met and
determined that the ship should start for New
York on Saturday morning next. This decision
was come to on the understanding that Mr. Lung-
ley, the contractor, could complete whatever details
of work remain to do by Wednesday, as Captain
Hall, we believe, most wisely asks three clear days
before starting to look after his crew and get them
all accustomed to their proper stations in the huge
ship. No over-anxiety to save a day should be
allowed to weigh in the balance against any re•
quest, not only so prudent, but so necessary as this,
and no delay would be better borne both on this
and the other side of the Atlantic than one required
to organize and accustom the crew to their places.
The crew, however, it must in justice be mentioned,
is said to be an unusually fine one. It is confidently
anticipated the voyage to New York will be made
less than 10 days, which, from Southampton, would
be a very good run. It is intended to take the
Great Eastern over the bar, and moor her in the
1 river in the very middle of New York.

.PARLI4IIIENTARY COMIIII7TEES.

EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.

The select committee appointed to inquire into
the best means of providing for the increased traffic
of the metropolis by the embankment of the Thames,
re-assembled on Friday—Sir J. Paxton in the chair.
Mr. Jonathan Thorpe, common councilman and
chairman of the Thames Conservancy Board, on be-
half of the conservators, explained the jurisdiction
of the conservators and the various improvements
which they are now carrying out. The conserva-
tors were strongly favourable to the embankment
of the Thames, provided it were not carried so far
into the river as to interfere with the tidal water.

Mr. Roupell—What is the nature of the river
improvement you are carrying out ?
Mr. Thorpe—We are dredging the entrance to
some new docks, and have the dredger employed
opposite Lambeth Palace, and at Staines Lock and
Twickenham. We have recently placed a portion
of the shore opposite Lambeth Palace upon an in-
cline. The work was simply done as an experi-
ment to fill up some mud holes, and try whether it
would have the effect of preventing the accumula-
tion of mud on the foreshore. The result has been
perfectly satisfactory.
By Lord J. Manners—The river between Vaux-
hall and Chelsea-bridgg has been embanked on the
Middlesex side but not on the other side. By nar-
rowing the bed of the river a greater scour would
be given. The conservators would not object to
an embankment sufficiently wide to carry a road
100 feet in width.
By Mr. Walter—Such a line would leave a por-
tion of the bed of the river uncovered at low water.
He would not state at present what line the con-
servators would prefer.
Captain Burstal, R.N., was the next witness.
He said he was secretary to the Thames Conser-
vancy Board, and had been intimately acquainted
with the river since 1832. He had been employed
upon many of the Admiralty surveys, and had been
engaged in ascertaining what change had taken
place with reference to the foundations of West-
minster-bridge. There had been a general deepen-
ing of the river above London-bridge, and a lower-
ing of the water surface of the river. He had
established a series of observations for the purpose
whether
athea
rhighious
pwaterlaecs levelv
eaetu-
ot
af i ascertainingnecl he s ame
London-bridge and Woolwich, and the result was
that the tideway reached the same height at all
places. All the observations he had made went to
show that the velocity of the stream varied with
the sectional area.
The Chairman—Have you ever directed your
attention to the propriety of embanking the
Thames?
Capt. Burstal replied that he had, and that he
did not think it would affect the rise of the tide.
Whether it would be for the advantage of the river
must depend upon the description of embankment,
and how far it pnjected into the river. If suffi-
cient room were allowed for the ordinary waterside
traffic, he did not think it would be objectionable,
but should not like to give any opinion in the ab•
since of plans. In any scheme as much tidal water
as possible should be reserved. He did not think
any harm would be done to the wharfingers if
sufficient space were allotted to them outside the
embankment. If sufficient space were provided for
them within the embankment they would be more
safe than they were at present. He had no doubt

that if the embankment were made sufficiently
wide the traffic of the Strand and Fleet-street would
be greatly relieved. If the river were contracted
by an embankment, the tide would run at the rate
of about three miles an hour. There would be no
occasion for a solid embankment ; but if the mud
were allowed to accumulate in an open embank-
ment, it might become very offensive. A solid em-
bankment, with sufficient accommodation for the
waterside traffic, would be the best.

Mr. Scott, chamberlain to the City, was then.
examined. He stated that the produce of the coal
duty in 1857, after allowing the drawback, was
£128,886 ; in 1838 it was £131,650 ; in 1859 it was
£135,368. There had been a steady increase since
the duty was first levied. The charges upon the
duty were £30,186 for improvements at the West-
end ; £BB,OOO for improvements in Clerkenwell ;
and £35,000 for the Metropolitan Board of Works
in relation to improvements in Covent-garden. In
May, 1861, the Bd. duty would be free from charge,
and the duty would cease unless Parliament placed
some fresh charges upon it. There was some
doubt whether 4d. out of the Bd. would not be
continued, inasmuch as it was imposed by the act
of William and Mary for ever. Since the duty
had been levied very large sums had been ex-
pended on metropolitan improvements. There was a
prescriptive duty of 4d. on coals mentioned in a
charter of James 1., and confirmed by several acts
of parliament. For the three years ending 1859
the produce of that duty was £66,056 per year.
The charge upon that duty was £890,000 for
various purposes, and would absorb the duty for
the next 20 years. The corporation considered
this duty their own property, and dealt with it as
they thought proper. There was a third duty of
ld., which had been relinquished by the corpora-
tion and made over to the Woods and Forests for
metropolitan improvements. The produce of that
duty in 1859 was £17,076. He thought a portion
of the expenses of the embankment ought to fall
upon the imperial exchequer. The corporation had
proposed to embank the river at their own expense
'rom Battersea-bridge to Blackwall.
The committee then adjourned..

LAWINTELLIGENCE—June 9.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

BARNES T. BROWN.-EXTRAORDINARY CASE OF

LIBEL.
This was an action for libel in charging the
plaintiff, a young widow, with having committed
adultery with a married surgeon.
The defendant first pleaded Not Guilty, and, se-
condly, a justification.
. .

Mr-. Edwin James, in stating the case to jury.
said the plaintiff was a widow, residing at Hor-
sham, and complained of a libel written and pub-
lished by the defendant, with whom she had lived
as nursemaid at the same place. The libel com-
plained of was contained in a letter written by the
defendant to Mr. Britton, a practitioner at
Brighton, and a friend of Mr. Burroughs, and was
as follows :

" Dear Sir,—l was sorry I was not at home when
you visited this place in your rounds. I have much
pleasure in enclosing you a cheque for £l, the
amount of the accompanying bill. You have been
made acquainted with the disgraceful conduct of
Mr. Burroughs in his turning his wife out of his
house, I suppose; and, to cover his shameful
cruelty and brutality, he turns round on her and
attempts to make her, with myself, the scapegoat
of his intrigues with my nurse. Only think of a
man vindicating the character of my nurse by
aspersing the character of his own wife's. I trust
you are doing tolerable in business and to your
satisfaction, and believe me, yours truly,
" J. CaLLis BROWN."
The learned counsel then called the following
witness in support of the plaintiff's case :
Mrs. Rebecca Barnes deposed—l am the plaintiff.
lam a widow. My husband died about three years
and a half ago. Dr. Burroughs was called in to
attend my baby after my husband's death. I was
obliged to obtain a situation for a livelihood, and
Dr. Burroughs introduced me to the defendant, who
was residing with him and had two children. I
was engaged by the wife of Dr. Burroughs and the
defendant, and understood that I was to take the
entire charge of the children. I entered their estab-
lishment in January, 18.59. Dr. Burroughs had one
child, and Dr. Brown, the defendant, had two chil-
dren. I occupied two rooms in the house, which
formed the nursery and bedroom in Dr. Burroughs'
house. The defendant occupied one large bedroom
near the top of the house. The little girl always
slept with me. At first I had nothing to do with
Dr. Burroughs's. child, The defendant and his
family lived in the house. Whilst there I had fre-
quent conversations with the defendant ; his re-
marks on several occasions attracted my attention.
He said Dr. Burroughs was very jealous of him
because: he sat by the side of Miss Moon in the
dining-room. He said Mrs. Burroughs was a very
superior woman to Dr. Burroughs, and would have
been a different person if she had married a person
more proper for her. In September, 1859, I had
occasion to go into Dr. Brown's bedroom, as was
usual. I always attended to his room. I did not
expect to find him there ; it was about three o'clock
in the afternoon. On going in I saw Mrs. Burroughs
and the defendant standing there. Dr. Brown had
his arm on Mrs. Burroughs's shoulder. I hurried
away directly. Mrs. Burroughs came down after-
wards and said Dr. Brown had been taking the
model of her mouth. (Laughter.) Mrs. Burroughs
is about 30 years of age, and of attractive appear-
' ance. When I went into the room Dr. Brown saw
me; Mrs. Burroughs's back was towards me. A
fire occurred in the cook's and housemaid's room
afterwards ; it took place at night, and some
articles were destroyed; it happened through the
carelessness of the servants in not putting out
the candle. No familiarity of any kind or sort
ever occurred between me and Dr. Burroughs ; he
never made any improper addresses to me. I after
this observed a difference in Mrs. Burroughs's con-
duct towards her husband. She would not go out
for a ride with him, but wanted the carriage for
herself, and that the defendant might drite her
out. Her conduct attracted the attention of the
servants. On the 13th of December, 1859, the
defendant left the house. He came to me about
an hour before he left the house, He said he should
go, and I told him I should leave also. He begged
of me to stay till the morning with the children.
He asked me to go and see Mrs. Burroughs, but I
declined, as she would not see me in the morning.
She was ill, or pretended to be ill. She left her
husband's house the next day. Mrs. Burroughs
told me she had telegraphed to Dr. Brown to come
back and put I)r, Burroughs to rights. (Laughter.)
I left the house before Mrs. Burroughs. He sent
for the children the next morning, and they. left,
Mrs. Burroughs leaving iu the afternoon of the
14th. Mr. Burroughs's brother took the little boy,
her son Elton, with him, and Miss Smith left with
Mrs. Burroughs. I was asked to remain, but I
declined, unless I could have a friend to stay with
me, and my mother came. I first heard of the
letter containing the libel about a week after Mr.
Burroughs received it. Before the defendant left
the house he did not make any charge against my
character. He paid me my wages, and told me to
send to him if I wanted anything. He said he
must put the children to school. He said I must
go as well, as affairs were. I have since resided
with my mother and family at Horsham.
Cross-examined.—My brother spoke to me about
the letter. I believe this is my action. My brother
has managed the matter for me. Mr. Burroughs
has not spoken to me about it. I have heard his
wife is suing him in the Divorce Court for his
adultery with me, and I am very sorry to hear it.
I do not know that it was brought a month or six
weeks before this action was brought in my
name. Mr. Frank Burroughs came to Horsham
the night Dr. Brown left. The latter went to
an hotel. Dr. Burroughs wanted putting to
rights as he refused to let her have a large
party at Christmas. I believe the quarrel
took place about Miss Smith, and not about me.
Miss Smith is an elderly lady. She said Mrs. Bur-
roughs had shook her hand in her face. He was
not at that time about turning her out of the house.
I)r. Burroughs said he could not afford another
party ; that she wanted it for Dr. Brown, and he
must pay for it. The cook and housemaid left the
same day I did. My clothes were packed up, and I
thought I was going to leave for good. I returned,
however, the same evening with my master. Dr.
Burroughs and Prior, the groom, were all that were
present. I did not promise Mrs. Burroughs that I
would not return. I slept in the servant's room on
the second floor with my mother. I was one floor
lower than usual. I remained in the house the next
day. Dr. Brown came to remove some of his goods.
lie did not knock at the kitchen door, nor find it
was locked. I was in the kitchen when he came.
My mother, Dr. Burroughs, and Dr. Thomas were
there. They were not smoking and drinking. They
were having tea. I did not kno ,v that Mrs. Bur-
roughs had,six months before complained of Dr.
Burroughs's familiarity with me. She complained
on one occasion that she had seen him leave my
room, but 00 speaking to her about it she said, " I
exonerate you in every way ; I saw him come from
Prior's room." Ido not know if he was in his shirt
at the time. The following morning he said loudly
to me, " Mrs. Barnes, did I come to your room last
night? Mrs. Burroughs accuses me of it." Dr.
Brown said lie did not believe it, and on my pro-
posing to leave he asked me to stay, saying that it
was only Mrs. Burroughs's jealous disposition.
Dr. Burroughs deposed—l went in partnership
with Dr. Thomas about three years ago. I have
known the defendant for 19 years. Having lost his
wife in 1858 he came on a visit to me, and he pro-
posed to give £5 a week for himself, two children)

and an attendant. I acceded to the proposal, and
he came with me in October, 1858. I have been
_ _

married to my wife 14 years. She is 32 years of
age. I have one child. I did not know the plain-
tiff before the defendant eame with me. I became
acquainted with her from attending the family.
My practice took me away from home in the day.
After the defendant came to reside with me my
wife's conduct changed, and I remonstrated with

her. Dr. Brown left my house suddenly, because
he came into the room where I was sitting with my
brother, shook his fist in my face, said I was a
villain, and was killing my wife. I said I would

kick him out of the house. My brother took him
by the arm and led him out. My wife left the next
day. I went in search of her, and found her in
lodgings in Guildford-street, Russell-square. She
returned with me. She said she had made a quarrel
between us, and should not be satisfied until she
had brought him back. I said I would not allow
him to enter the house again. She frequently spoke
to me of his coming back, and about three weeks
after she came home she sent to me by Miss Smith
a slip of paper, on which I was to give my answer,
permitting her to visit her cousin staying at some
hotel in the Strand. I said she might, provided
Miss Smith went with her. They started towards
evening of that day, and I have not seen her since.
She never wrote to me to tell me where she was.

They took my little boy with them. I received a
letter from my little boy, who is nine years of age.
It came in an envelope addressed, in my belief, in
Dr. Brown's disguised hand. The letter is dated
9th, and the post mark January 10th. I went to
Southend to search for my wife, and from informa-
tion I received I have reason to believe she had been
there with the defendant. I took their photographs
with me, and showed them to the lodginghouse-
keeper. I traced them next to Downshire-hill,
Hampstead, where I lost sight of them from that
time to this. I have not heard from my wife, nor
do I know where she is. My wife filed a petition
against me in the Divorce Court, on the 28th
Fbruary, 1860, after I had made inquiries, and
traced them. I have received letters from my
little boy, but they were without addresses. I
have never in my life committed any fami-
liarity with the plaintiff. There is no foundation
whatever for saying that I have committed adul-
tery with Mrs. Barnes. I first heard of it after
my wife first left my house. The day the de-
fendant came back for his things he put his head
into the surgery and said, " You are living with
Mrs. Barnes as your concubine." I made no reply.
I attended with my wife the child's funeral. The
plaintiff is very respectably connected. On the
night that Jane slept with the plaintiff, I went up
to her room to see her, to give her a draught. I
opened the door and found she was asleep. Until
this arose nothing had occurred to disturb the
mutual happiness of myself and wife. I don't
know where the defendant now resides. The de-
fendant is now a vendor of quack medicine. He
was an army surgeon.
Cross-examined--I am respondent in a petition
in the Divorce Court, on the grounds of adultery
and cruelty. I have not pleaded adultery against
her. I have come here to raise it because my sus-
picions have been since aroused. I had no suspicion
of her adultery when Dr. Brown left my house.
Since then I have ascertained that he has taken his
meals with her, and has driven her about in his
carriage. She was at Southend with her aunt,
child, and one of the servants, and they resided with
her on Downshire-hill. I don't mean that they
dine apart from Miss Smith. This action is not
brought at my request, neither am I liable for the
expenses. The action is brought by my attorney
in the divorce petition, and who is my attorney in
an action for the libel. I don't knew that the writs
in the two actions were issued the same day. My
brother is my attorney. I don't know why he has
selected to try this first. It is 11 or 12 years since
I was charged with familiarity with a female ser-
vant in my own house. I did not beg to ask my
wife, nor did she intercede to prevent exposure. At
a party a message was sent to my wife that my
groom wanted to see her. I went out and returned.
I did not ask her to intercede. She went out and
interceded, and it was hushed up and my wife con-
doned it. We had only then been married two or
three years. I did not persuade my wife to marry
me against the will of her friends on account of
an act of gross immorality on my part. I kept a
young woman before I was married. I did not
leave the young woman at the lodgings and
absent myself. She passed as my wife. I paid
the rent. After I left the landlord brought an
action against me for the amount. I have never an-
nounced that my wife committed adulterywith Dr.
Brown. I never accused her of it. I did not give
my counsel authority to say that the defendent had
seduced my wife. My wife was violent at the time
of the quarrel because I said that the defendant's
conduct was too familiar towards her. The first
intimation she gave me of her suspicions of the
plaintiff was when she saw me coming down the
stairs in my night shirt and trowsers the night I
had been to Prior's room to see that the candle was
put out. I called out the following morning, and
asked the plaintiff if it was true, to let her know
what my wife had said in order to clear up the ac-
icusation. My wife, when she asked leave to visit
her cousin, complained of illness. Dr. Winkworth
was called in, but he did not think there was any-
thing the matter with her, I did not refuse to pay
the expenses of her change of air and scene. When
I refused I might have said I could not afford it.
I did not provide her with anything when she left.
I had not threatened to turn her out of doors before
Dr. Brown received the telegraphic message to
come down. I had not threatened to separate her
from her child. I had a letter from her when she
was in Guildford•street. Before I called on her in
Guildford-street she said she would not go back un-
less I stook hands with Dr. Brown, and had his
children back. I did not promise it should be done.
I went on my knees and asked her to return. I
have neYer made any criminal charge against her
with Dr. Brown. I can't say when the people of
Horsham first commenced cutting" me. Some
have. I have not been turned out of the billiard
room at the King's Head, but I was told not to
come to the whist club. I was not a member of the
club. It was after my wife left.
A number of letters were put in and read that had
passed between Dr. Burroughs and his wife, relative
to their conduct towards each other. The last from
the wife contained an intimation that with it he
would probably receive a copy of her petition that
had been presented to the Divorce Court.
The further hearing was then adjourned till
Monday.

THE BUILDERS' STRIKE-IMPORTANT

DECISION

COMMITTAL OF TWO DELEGATES WITH

HARD LABOUR.
William Walsby, John Griffin, and William
Trimlett, respectably attired men, described as car-
penters and joiners, appeared before Mr. Corrie, at
the Clerkenwell police-court, on Saturday, to
answer informations which had been taken out
against them by their former employer, Mr. Philip
Anley, builder, &c., of Whitecross-street, St. Luke's,
which charged them as follows :—" For that you;
on the 16th day of May, 1860, and within the space
of six calendar months now last past, in the parish
of St. Luke, did unlawfully, by threats and intimi-
dation, endeavour to force the said Philip Anley,
then and there carrying on the trade of a builder,
to limit the number and description of his work-
men, contrary to the statute," &c. The second
summons was, " that they did unlawfully, by
threats and intimidation, endeavour to force their
master to make an alteration in his mode of con-
ducting and carrying on his business," &c. There
was a summons against a George Mogg for similar
offences, but this Hughesman, 165 G, one of the
warrant officers of the court, had been unable to
serve, as the defendant had got out of the way and
gone into the country.
Mr. Gifford, barrister (instructed by Messrs.
Mullens), attended for the prosecution ; Mr. Sleigh,
barrister, defended Walsby ' • and Mr. Lewis, soli-
citor, attended for the other defendants.
Mr. Lewis said he had an objection to make to
the summons. The defendants were charged with
making use of " threats" and "intimidation," and
by the Act of Parliament they were separate
offences, and that being so the summons must be
bad in law.

Mr. Corrie said he could soon alter that by atria•
log out one of the terms.

Mr. Lewis said the conviction would not be good,
as there would be two offences: Under this penal
Act of Parliament the prosecutor ought to elect
which offence he would go upon.
Mr. M ullens remarked that Mr. Lewis was vio-
lating the act of Parliament by taking any ob-
jection, for section 1 of Jervis's Act provides that
no objection be taken to the summons either in sub-
stance or in form.

Mr. Lewis said, what he objected to was that
two charges had been put in ono summons.
Mr. Muliens having consented to strike out the
word " intimidation," a similar objection was made
to the words " number" and " deseription"in other
summons, but Mr. Giffard having stated that pro-
bably there would be some difficulty if that course
was adopted,

. -
Mr. Corrie said if there was a conviction it would
probably be for 'one offence ; and after the state-
ment of Mr. Giffard, he did not think he ought to
make them elect.
Mr. Weigh said he would take no objections, but
was prepared to meet the case upon its merits.
Mr. Giffard, in opening the case for the prosecu-
tion, said he was sorry to say that there was an ap-
parent revival of what he thought had been set-
tled, These strikes were nothing but a species o 1