The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-21 00:00:00

this matter attribute this not to any remissness on
the part of the police, but to the disinclination felt
by private individuals to incur the expenses they
entail upon themselves in prosecuting the offenders.]
William Mitchell was indicted for forging and
uttering a certain certificate with intent to defraud.
Mr. Abdy prosecuted ; the prisoner was not de-
fended by counsel.
The prisoner, on his liberation from Lewes Con-
vict Prison, received a paper form in blank, re-
quiring the signature of a clergyman or magistrate
of the district where he might be residing, certify-
ing that for two months after the time he had been
set at liberty he had been gaining his livelihood by
honest means. This document, signed by a clergy-
man or magistrate and forwarded to the Convict
Prison, would have entitled the prisoner to £2 17s.
3d. The prisoner, at the time of committing the
offence, the subject of this indictment, was an in-
mate of the Union Workhouse, and signed the
name of the chaplain, the Rev. William Bonner
Hopkins, to the certificate. At the close of the
evidence for the prosecution,
The learned Judge doubted whether the offence
of forgery as charged in the indictment was made
out by the evidence, and directed that a bill charg-
ing the prisoner with fraud at common law should
be preferred.
The prisoner was subsequently found guilty on
this charge, and sentenced to six months' hard
labour.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Common Jury

KITTERIDGE V. CROW.
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C. and Mr. Naylor were coun
sel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Keane, for the defendant
This was an action for breach of promise of mar
riage ; the defendant pleaded that he did not

promise.
The plaintiff's father was a farmer, bricklayer
and publichouse keeper at Ashton, in Essex, the
latter business being carried on by his wife, with
whom their daughter Emily, the plaintiff, lived.
The defendant, a young man of 27 at the time
of action brought, was described as having good
prospects, though while paying his addresses to the
plaintiff he was foreman to his uncle, a master
builder. The plaintiff was 30 years of age, and in
November, 1858, had a child, of whom it was
alleged the defendant was the father. As soon as
the plaintiff's mother ascertained that her daughter
was in the familyway she called on the defendant,
and gave the following account of her interview
with him on that occasion :—" I told him that
Emily was in the familyway, and that I intended
to know what he meant to ao. He said, he could
not help it. She got into trouble, and she must
get out of it ; he was ill then and could do nothing."
I said, " You must do something, or I will give
you all the law will allow." • He was offended, and
did not visit again after that. My daughter has
not been to church since ; she used to go regularly
before.
On being cross-examined she denied that her
daughter kept company with ether young men, or
that she had ever had a child before. " She
couldn't think it, and she wouldn't think it. Ill-
will have a wide mouth."
The plaintiff's sister was also called, and swore
that the defendant had told her "he should stick
to his text, and that Emily should be his wife
before the sheep ate the turnips ' off his father's
land." This was said shortly after it was dis-
covered that the plaintiff was in the familyway.
Mr. Keane addressed the jury for the defendant,
and in the course of his speech read the following,
which he said was the only love letter which had
passed between the parties :
"To Mr. Thomas Crowe, builder, Ashdon, Essex.
" Take notice that I intend, under advice, not to prose-
cute the summons I have issued against you for the main-
tenance of your child, to be heard on Saturday next ; and
that I intend to commence an action against you for broach
of promise of marriage.
"EMILY KITTERIDGE."
He asked the jury, if they should think there had
been anything like a promise, to give "con-
temptuous" damages.
Mr. O'Malley replied.
The Lord Chief Baron, in summing up, observed
that he did not at all concur with the notion that
this description of action ought not to continue to
form part of the law of this country. Cases might
frequently occur where the prospects of a woman
being fatally blighted, her only compensation would
be the damages obtained in such an action. How-
ever, it was not for him or for the jury to approve
or disapprove the law. With regard to the absence
of letters, which had been relied upon on the part
of the defendant, the jury would consider the rank
of life of the parties in the present case, and the
opportunities they seemed to have had for personal
communication. A well-known French sentimen-
talist was said to have left his mistress in order
that he might have the pleasure of writing to her.
The parties here would probably be satisfied with
meeting each other. The question for the jury
was—Did the evidence show an understanding and
engagement between these people that they were
to marry ? If such engagement could be inferred
by them, then the question would be as to the
amount of damages. They would on this point
consider the conduct of the defendant, the heartless-
ness of his answer to the mother, and the line of
defence persisted in at the trial in imputing to the
plaintiff that she had been intimate with other men,
of the truth of which imputation there was not a
shadow of evidence, and whether these considera-
tions would not enhance the sum they might think
it right to award.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damagee £l6O.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YORK, March 19.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
The early part of the day was taken up with the
trial of a charge of rape, the particulars of which
are unfit for publication.
Joseph Holdsworth, Benjamin Holdsworth, David
Gill, and Josiah Hird were indicted for a robbery,
with violence, at Kildwick, en the 7th of August
last, and stealing from Joseph Smith L 2 16s.
Mr. Blanshard and Mr. Maule appeared for the
prosecution ; Mr. Campbell Foster defended the
two Holdsworths ; and Mr. Price the other two
prisoners.
It appeared that Sunday, the 7th of August last,
was a very wet Sunday, and that on that night the
prosecutor (according to his own statement) was
returning home about ten o'clock at night, and
when rear a ga4e called Stake-hill-gate he heard
Lome men say together, " Here he comes." On
getting to the gate he was suddenly attacked by
four men, thrown down, and his throat " nipped"
t'll he bled at the nose and ears, and from his
pockets were taken L 2 in gold, 16s. in silver, and
his tobacco-1 The men then left him, and on
going away threw him his tobacco-box, saying,
" Here, old devil, here's thy 'bacca-box." The pro-
secutor swore that the four prisoners were the men
who had attacked h;rn ; he had known all of them
before. It appeared on cross-examination that he
h.d not charged them with this felony till five
days afterwards, and that he did not call at his
uncle's house, which was not far from the place of
robbery, and [in his direct way home, and state
what had happened to him. He said he had saved
the money by 3s. at a time, and chanced to have
it all about him. He had before charged people
with robbing him.
For the defence it was shown that three out of
ethee r
s fourth
against
It was shown that the
the four prisoners were farmeers
gamel--eper, and that all b
or
which there was no stain. ,cahnarda
prosecutor bad said he did not know who the men
were who had robbed him, and that he had ac-
cused a brother of the prisoners Holdsworth,
Thomas Holdsworth, with being one of the men ;
and distinct alibis were proved regarding each of
the prisoners. Before the case for the prisoners
was concluded,
His LoAlship asked the counsel for the prosecu-
tion if they could hope for a conviction, after the
evidence given.
The jury said they had all unanimously made up
their minds.
The learned counsel for the prosecution said, in
that case, they need not go on.
A verdict of acquittal was accordingly taken re-
garding all the prisoners.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
lIAWKESLEY V. REYNOLDS.
This was an action for a malicious prosecution,
in giving the plaintiff into custody on a charge of
felony and subsequently prosecuting him at the
sessions at Hull.
The plaintiff, it appeared, is an auctioneer at
Hull, and the defendant a saddler. They had some
transactions together in the purchase of some sad-
dlery which had been Government stores, the de-
fendant advancing the money, and ultimately tak-
ing the property as security for the money advanced.
The saddles were taken to a room in the possession
of the defendant, and there locked up, and were
afterwards removed by the plaintiff, who had ob-
tained a key of this room; and thereupon the de-
fen(' -..nt charged 1-'m with felony, and he was pro-
secuted at the Hull sessions, and the case broil,
down. For this prosecution and imprisonment the
present action was brought.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
; Damages £7O.
Mr. Overend, in the afternoon, sat for the trial of
prisoners.

RAPACITY OF ARCTIC DOGS.—One dog is miss-
iig, the remaining 29 devoured their two days' allowanceof seals' flesh (60 or 651b5.) in 42 seconds. It contained no
bone, and had been cut up into small pieces, and spas('
out upon the snow, before they
.were permitted to rash to
dinner ; in this way the weak enjoy a fair chance, and there
is no time for flghtinLr. We do not allow them on board.
X`Gintock, iLL,D,