The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 30, 1860.

falling off. The bloom of the plum and pear trees
has become invisible, but that of the apple is, if
possible, rendered softer and more beautiful. The
snow will rapidly disappear, but it is a strange
visitor on the 28th of May, and it affords some fun
with the youngsters in the village, who, recollect-
ing that they last went to bed in the flowery spring,
will scarcely believe us when, pointing to the storm,
we assure them they must have slept to Christmas!
The oldest inhabitant, 89 years old, recollects that
snow fell here as late as the 13th of May on one
occasion in the early part of the century."

The effects of the storm of Monday are not con-
fined to the damage done to the shipping, &c., at
Liverpool, an account of which we published yes-
terday. We learn that throughout Sunday night
and Monday a tremendous gale blew along the
north-east coast and committed terrible ravages.
An account from Scarborough says that one of
the most violent storms of wind, accompanied with
rain, with which the neighbourhood was ever vi-
sited prevailed on Monday. The suddenness with
which it rose was remarkable. The weather up to
Sunday night had been charming for some time,
and it was thought that the fine fertilising showers
that had fallen at intervals during the week were
about to give place to a season of sunshine, as the
thermometer went up towards evening. On Sunday
a fresh breeze blew from the north, but the weather
remained fine. During the night a considerable
quantity of rain fell but towards Monday morning
it abated, and from five to seven o'clock a lovely
day appeared to be breaking forth. The sky sud-
denly became overcast, and the wind, from a smart
breeze, wrought itself into a violent gale in a very
short time. So heavily did the hurricane rage that
by nine o'clock nearly every street in the town was
strewed with fragments of chimney pots, brick-
bats, and debris from the houses. A fatal occur-
rence took place in Globe-street, in which Mr.
David Parkinson, hair-dresser, resided. A short
time ago, some houses were erected immediately
adjoining his, and since their erection the chimneys
have been heightened, and the masonry most pro-
bably would not be so firmly fixed as it would have
become in course of time. While seated in a room

over his shop, between eight and nine o'clock, tak-
ing breakfast with his wife, a sudden and tremen-
dous gust of wind smote the chimneys of the
adjoining houses, causing them to fall upon
Mr. Parkinson's roof. The floor of the room
above that in which he was sitting yielded to
the accumulated weight of the chimney and
roof, and Mr. Parkinson was in an instant
buried in the ruins. His wife escaped com-
paratively unhurt ; and the children, who were
yet in bed, also miraculously escaped. Assistance
was very promptly on the spot, and after a few
minutes' search, the unfortunate man was found
amongst the debris, quite dead. His face was fright-
fully cut, and the scalp from the eyebrows upwards
was torn and laid back. The floor of the room in
which he sat partially gave way at the time, and
soon afterwards fell through. The house is now a
complete wreck. The fineness of the early morning
may be judged of from the fact that a party of young
men went out to sea in a small boat, for an hour's
pleasure, previous to business. The storm overtook
them, and though not far from the harbour they
were unable to gain it, and were drifted on the rocks
a mile or two to the south. Here, the water being
high, was rapidly becoming a heavy surf, and had
not one of the young gentlemen been able to swim,
it is doubtful if the whole party would not have
been lost. Casting himself from the boat, he battled
with the wind and water, taking with him the rope
of the boat, and providentially landed, though with
much difficulty. He hauled the boat on shore, and
thus saved his companions. His name is Frankish ;
he is a medical pupil with Dr. Robertson, of Scar-
borough. The remainder of the party were two
sons of Mr. Porritt, druggist, and Dr. Robertson's
errand-boy. A man of the name of Crake had also
a narrow escape. He went to examine his lobster-
fishing apparatus, fixed at some distance from the
harbour, and not being able to return in consequence
of the suddenness of the gale, his boat drifted to the
rocks, and he with difficulty saved himself. Mr.
Hudson's steamvessel Fame dragged her moorings,
and was obliged to stand out to sea, the direction of
the wind, N.W., preventing her taking the harbour.
The windows, roofs, and chimneys of many houses
in the more exposed parts of the town have been
blown down. The raew houses on the South Cliff
are completely dismantled, and many buildings
in the old town are much injured. Gardens are
wasted, and it is probable they will not again
recover the beauty which they possessed only an
hour or two previous. Several excursion trains
arrived during the morning from Leeds,
York, Hull, ,and other places. The excursionists
wili have a gloomy remembrance of Scarborough.
They presented a miserable picture as they passed
through the streets in their holiday attire, drenched
and dripping with the soaking rain.
At York also the storm raged with considerable
violence on Monday. The New Walk, on the banks
of the river Ouse, which is composed of two rows
of fine elm trees, was to a certain extent demolished,
14 of the magnificent elms, which helped to form
one of the finest avenues of any river in the king-
dom, having been destroyed. Some of these, though
five feet in diameter, were torn up by the roots.
Referring to other parts in the city and neighbour-
hood, the Yorkshire Museum gardens have been
dreadfully demolished, and all the gardens in the
city, whether ornamental or useful, have been totally
destroyed. The leaves of the trees have been blown
about as though the season were autumn instead of
spring, and in the midst of the city the windows
are spotted with patches of leaves. In fact, from
the time when the hurricane commenced it was of
so severe a character that hail and snow fell as
thickly as though the season were winter, and in
such immense flakes as have not been noticed in
this city for a number of years past. The road from
the city to Malton was stopped up from the num-
ber of trees having been blown on to the road.
However, the most serious part of the damage is
in the orchards, which we are informed is almost
incredible. Trees which have given the greatest
promise are now stripped of their blossom, and pre-
sent a most desolate appearance. Trees which were
of the greatest promise a few days since are now
not only stripped of their bloom,, but of their
strongest limbs ; and certain vegetables are com-
pletely torn from the surface of the ground. Within
the recollection of the oldest inhabitant of the
neighbourhood never has such a circumstance taken
place before.
A very violent gale of wind, with a heavy fall of
sleet and snow, broke ever the Northumberland
coast on Monday morning about daybreak, and the
wind continued to blow in strong gusts until about
nine yesterday morning, when it moderated. The
weather was extremely cold and wintry, and to a
large extent the open-air Whitsuntide festivities
were suspended. The sea was breaking rough and
turbulent on the bar of the Tyne. Two vessels, the
Fleur de Marie and the Dublin Lass, drove ashore
in the gale upon the Herd Sand. The Dublin Lass
has since got off with the assistance of powerful
steamers.
Manchester and its neighbourhood did not escape.
Throughout Sunday the weather was tolerably fine,
with rather a stiff breeze ; but about half-past six
o'clock in the evening the rain began to fall pretty
heavily, and the wind gradually increased in vio-
lence until it blew almost a hurricane. In the out-
skirts the trees were shaken to and fro with great
♦iolence, the footpaths being partially covered with
leaves : lead was ripped from the roofs of houses,
walls stripped of placards, and one gentleman in
Higher Broughton had his bedroom window blown
in at 3 o'clock on Monday morning. The most
serious damage arising from the storm took place
at the racecourse, Lower Broughton. Up to Satur-
day night about 20 booths or tents belonging to
publicans had been erected on the race ground,
which was visited by large numbers of persons
throughout Sunday. In many of these booths large
stocks of ale, porter, &c., had been laid in, in pre-
paration for the race days. The wind, however,
made short work of these booths, for on Monday
morning it was discovered that the canvas had been
completely stripped off each of them, the wooden
frame-work, smashed to pieces, and in fact the whole
became a total wreck. Beyond this, we have not
heard of any serious damage arising from the storm
in Manchester or Salford.

At Mossley, about—aq- uarter to six o'clock on
Monday morning, great damage was inflicted. Con-
siderable damage was done by the wind at the new
fire-proof mill at Bottom's, Mossley Brow, now in
course of erection by Mr. John Mayall, cotton
manufacturer. The mill is a very large one, of
which three stories are completed, the walls being
of stone, and about a yard thick, while large iron
beams cross from side to side, upheld by iron pil-
lars. The storm caught one side of the mill nearest
to Stalybridge, and the breaking of the iron beams
and pillars dragged the other side down. The new
building has thus been damaged, and the walls
hurled down to the extent of seven or eight bays
on each side, and for two stories high, while nearly
the whole of the iron beams and pillars are smashed
in pieces. The damage is estimated at not less
than £l,OOO.
At Plymouth very stormy weather had been ex-
perienced for the last two or three days. On Sun-
day afternoon there was quite a gale from W.S.W.,
and about half-past eight the schooner Cimbria,.at
anchor in the Sound with 50 fathoms of chain
down, drove, and was obliged to let go the second
anchor. At three o'clock on Monday morning the
wind veered to N:W., but continued, to blow very
hard. On Sunday evening, at half-past eight
o'clock, the Netherlands screw steam frigate Zee-
land, Captain H. Wipff, parted her chain in the
Sound, when a second anchor was let go, by which
she held on. On Monday morning a Government

steam-tug went out from Devonport with the in-
tention of removing the Zeeland further to the
westward, but she had scarcely sufficient power for
the purpose. The frigate drifted to leeward, and
coming in contact with Messrs. Wigram's passen-
ger ship Suffolk, the jib-booms of both were carried
away.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE—May 29.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Cock-
burn, an& Justices Wightman, Crompton, and
Blackburn.)
HARRISON V. THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH

COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was a special case for the opinion of this
Court, and the question raised was, whether the
plaintiff was entitled to recover in the action which
he had brought against the London, Brighton, and
South Coast Railway Company, under these cir-
cumstances :—The plaintiff was a passenger by the
defendant's line to Worthing, and took with him
his carriage and horses and a retriever dog. The
horses were put into a horse-box, and the company's
servant proposed that the dog also should go in a
horse-box, to which the plaintiff assented. The dog
had a collar on its neck, and was fastened by a
strap to a hook in the horse-box. At the end of
the journey, the dog collar could not be found, but
the strap remained where it had been fastened. A
window in the horse-box, which was closed when
the train started, was also found to be open, and it
was conjectured that, as soon as the window got
open, on the journey, the dog became excited by a
desire to make its exit, and finally succeeded in
breaking away, and got out. As the dog could
not be found, the plaintiff called upon the
company to pay the value of the animal—viz., £2l,
but as the company disputed their liability, the
present action was brought to recover damages for
the loss occasioned by the negligence of defendants'
servants. The defendants denied their liability, and
relied upon a special contract into which they al-
leged they had entered with the plaintiff, restrict-
ing their common law liability.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said he was of
opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment
upon the ground that the notice by which the com-
pany sought to make a special contract was void
and they were liable as common carriers. The ob
ject of the 17th and 18th of Victoria, cap. 31, was
to prevent railway companies from limiting their
liability in respect of injury or damage arising from
their own negligence. unless the conditions which
they imposed should be adjudged by the court or
judge to be just and reasonable. The first question
was, whether a dog* was one of the animals referred
to in the 7th section, and his lordship thought it
was. Next, was it the intention of the company to
protect themselves from the consequences of their
own negligence, if any damage should arise ? His
lordship thought it was, and that the words were
wide enough to admit of that construction. The
case, then, came within the 7th section, and the
question arose, whether the condition was a just and
reasonable one. His lordship thought that it was
incumbent on the company to make out the affirma-
tive. The company charged 3s. for the carriage of
a dog, if its value did not exceed £5, but the mo•
went it exceeded that value, they put on 24 per
cent. on the excess. At first sight that seemed
to be an exorbitant charge. It was quite
clear they did not make the extra charge as
carriers, but as insurers. It might be, that under
special circumstances, the Court might adjudge it
to be reasonable, but, in the absence of proof, it
could not do so. The company, therefore, having
sought to put a restriction on their liability, asd
failed, they were liable, to the plaintiff, who was
entitled to recover the value of his dog.
Mr. Justice Wightman thought that the liability
of the defendants as common carriers was restricted
by the special contract. His Lordship understood
the company to say not that they would not carry
any horse or dog above the value specified, unless
the value should be declared, and extra charge paid,
but that the company said they would not be liable
beyond those amounts, unless the value should be
declared and the extra charge paid. Whether that
extra charge was reasonable or not the Court had
no means of saying.
Mr. Justice Blackburn agreed in general with
the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr. Justice Crompton had left the Court.
Judgment for the plaintiff.

COURT OF DIVORCE.

(Before the Judge-Ordinary, Mr. Baron Martin, and

Mr. Justice Willes.)
WITHERS V. WITHERS AND JENKINS.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Karslake, appeared for
the petitioner.
Dr. Deane stated that Henry Withers and Jane
Mary Cramp were married on the 16th of Au.
gust, 1810, and cohabited in Princes-street,
Kennington, in the same house with Mr. and
Mrs. Albert Jenkins, the brother-in-law and the
sister of Mrs. Withers. In March, 1841, Mrs.
Withers quitted the house, leaving a letter for
Mr. Albert Jenkins, in which she said she had been
miserable ever since her marriage, and she had,
therefore, made up her mind to go away from Eng-
land and from her husband, and she hoped the
separation would be mutually beneficial. The co-
respondent, Michael Robert Jenkins, with whom
she eloped, was not related to Mr. Albert Jenkins.
He was a foreign traveller for a house of business,
and after the elopement he and Mrs. Withers visited
different parts of the continent. In 1857 and 1858
they were living together as man and wife at Box
Cottage, Tottenham. She had had no children by
her husband, but she had children by Jenkins.
Mrs. Susannah Williams said that her first hus-
band was Mr. Albert Jenkins, to whom she was
married at the same time and place that her sister
the respondent was married to the petitioner. She
proved the cohabitation of Mr. and Mrs. Withers,
and her elopement and the receipt of the letter
announcing it, as stated by the learned counsel.
She afterwards saw her sister in 1855, in 1857, and
1859.

In answer to questions put by their lordships,
the witness stated that Withers did not live con-
stantly with his wife after the marriage, but came
to see her on a Saturday, and went away on the
Monday morning. He was in some business that
took him away, but she could not tell what it was.
They lived happily together, and she did not com-
plain of being left alone during the week.
Mrs. Withers became acquainted with the co-re-
spondent about a month after the marriage. She
and Mrs Withers were walking in the street when
they met him, and he called at the house about
a fortnight afterwards. He appeared to be an ac-
quaintance of Mrs. Withers. Mr. and Mrs. Withers
had no quarrel before her elopement.
Evidence was then given of the cohabitation of
Mrs. Withers and the co-respondent at Box-cot-
tage, Tottenham, from September, 1857, to Sep-
tember, 1858, as Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins.

Mrs. Williams was then recalled by their Lord-
ships, and, in answer to further questions, said that
she knew nothing about Withers's family. His
mother was a woman of independent fortune, but
she did not know whore she lived. She and Mrs.
Withers first met Albert Jenkins and Withers at
the house of a married sister of theirs in London.
She believed that Withers was a draper's assistant.
Mrs. Withers had been on intimate terms with
Michael Jenkins before her marriage. Mrs.
Withers then lived in London.

The Judge-Ordinary said it was quite palpable
that the Court had not got to the bottom of the
case, Mrs. Williams at first told the Court that
the respondent was not acquainted with Michael
Jenkins until after the marriage, but she now said
that they were intimate before the marriage. He
should like to see Mr. Henry Withers.
The petitioner was accordingly examined by,
the Court.--He said that he made the acquaint-
ance of the respondent in 1840, when she and
her sister were in the same house of business, a
draper's, at Southampton, in which he was em-
ployed. They all came to London, and the 're-
spondent took a milliner's situation in Baker-street,
her sister took a dressmaker's situation in Bond-
street, and he was employed in Russell street, Covent-
garden. Albert Jenkins was a clerk in the City.
They met on Sundays, sometimes at the house of
a married sister of the respondent, and they were
all four married'on the same' day. She then left
her situation and lived with the Jenkinses. He
remained in his situation and was unable to go to
her except on Sundays. He knew nothing of
Michael Jenkins and never heard of him until his
wife's elopement. He did not know what had be-
come of her until 1846, and then he met one of her
sisters, who told him that she had had a child by
Jenkins.

The Judge-Ordinary said that the petitioner's
case as at first presented to the Court was by no
means satisfactory. From the evidence of Mrs.
:Williams the Court was naturally led to suspect
that there might be something in the case which
would affect the petitioner's claim to the relief he
prayed. He had, therefore, been examined with
the view of eliciting from him something which
might confirm that suspicion, but the story, he told
was perfectly natural and satisfactory. The re-
spondent knew what his situation was at the time
of the marriage, and she could not, therefore, com-
plain of his leaving her alone on week days while
he was engaged in business.
The marriage was dissolved, and the co respon-
dent was condemned in costs.

FURNESS V. FURNESS.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. E. Ward were
counsel for the petitioner.
The marriage in this case took place in 1837, and
the parties lived together until 1846, and had two
children. Robert Furness, the respondent, was an

oil and colour man, and carried on business, first
at Kingsland, and afterwards in different parts
of the suburbs of London. In 1846 he left

his wife and went through the ceremony of mar-
riage with Fanny Hall. When Fanny Hall found
out he had a wife she gave him into custody, and
he was tried for bigamy, but acquitted ; Mrs. Fur-
ness refusing to appear against him. Upon his
promise of amendment, she returned to cohabitation
with him, and they lived together again until 1854.
He then formed a criminal connexion with a girl
named Charlotte Smith, told his wife that he wished

her to leave him, and on her refusal, he began a
course of ill-treatment, frequently struck her with
his fists, bruised her and blackened her eyes, and
threatened her with the poker. In September,
1857, he gave up living with her, but for some time
contributed to her support. He continued to carry
on his criminal intercourse with Smith.

The petitioner having given evidence of the
cruelty, and the adultery having been proved by
other witnesses,

The Court granied a decree on the ground of
adultery coupled with cruelty.

DAY V. DAY AND DONEY.

James Day prayed fora dissolution of his mar-
riage with Anne Day on the ground of her adultery
with William Doney. The respondent denied the
adultery, and also pleaded condonation. The co-
respondent denied the adultery.
Mr. Denman appeared for the petitioner, and
Mr. Metcalfe for the co-respondent. The respondent
was not represented by counsel.
The petitioner and the respondent were formerly
in service in a nobleman's family, and were married
in 1838. They had four children. For the last five
years he has had a situation in the General Post-
office as a letter-carrier. During that time he and
his wife have lived at Islington' and have let out
part of their house to lodgers. Among the lodgers
was Doney, another letter-Carrier, and his wife.
Mrs. Doney died early in 1858, and soon after her
death a criminal intimacy sprang up between Doney
and Mrs. Day. The other lodgers and the children
of the Days noticed several suspicions circumstances
in their conduct, and in December, 1858, their cri-
minality was brought to the knowledge of Day,
who immediately ceased to cohabit with his wife.
The case was clearly proved by two of the lod-
gers and by two of the children, Mary Ann and
Elizabeth, of the respective ages of 15 and 13.
Their Lordships dissolved the marriage, and con-
demned the co-respondents in costs.
IRVINE V. IRVINE AND GILL.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared for
the petitioner, and Mr. Pritchard for the respondent.
The petitioner, George Irvine, was the mate of a
vessel trading to Australia. He married the re-
spondent, then Emma Johnson, at Hartlepool, in
1845, and has had two children by her. The peti-
tioner alleged that in 1858, during his absence on
a voyage, she committed adultf "th a sea-faring

.oyage, —.waffled adultery wi -5
man named George Gill. The respondent pleaded
a denial of the adultery, condonation, and a counter
charge of adultery.
The hearing was adjourned, in order that the
petition might be amended by the addition of a
general allegation of adultery, and that further
evidence of adultery might be adduced.
BOND V. BOND.

Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Dr. Spinks conducted
the petitioner's case.
Mrs. Charlotte Bond prayed for a dissolution of
her marriage with Hancock Stanley Bond, on the
grounds of adultery, coupled with cruelty and de-
sertion.
Mrs. Bond stated that she was married at Bath-
wick, in Somerset, in July, 1840. Her maiden
name was Marchmont. The respondent was the
son of Mr. Bond, of Bondvill, in Ireland. They
lived in London, and travelled on the continent
after the marriage. In 1843 they were staying
with her sister, the wife of a clergyman in War-'
wickshire. They had some words about a maid-
servant, and he kicked her out of bed, Shortly
afterwards she had a miscarriage. Her income,
£l5O a-year, was settled upon her, and they had no
other means to live upon. Her husband had about
£6GO from her and about £l,OOO from her sister.
He was a man of very intemperate habits. He
sometimes left her for three or four months at a
time. She had a child in January, 1845, which was
now dead. They were then living in Ireland, at
Grange-park. She hired a girl, Mary Ann Hegan,
to attend to the child. When the fever broke out
her husband insisted upon her coming to England
She came to England with the child and Hegan ;
but Hegan soon afterwards returned to Ireland,
because, as she said, her motiqpr was dying. At
the end of 1845 she returned to Grange. Her hus-
band allowed her to travel by herself, and when she
arrived said nothing to her, but took away the
child to show Hegan, who was living with him.
She insisted upon his sending Hegan out of the
house, and he did so, but got very drunk and cried
very much because she had left. He never slept in
the house after that night. He came to the house,
in the day-time and abused and threatened her.
He held the tea-kettle over her, and threatened
to boil her brains out • he took up knives to her,
and on one occasion he struck her violently with
his fist upon the temple. He also said he would
serve her as the Due de Praslin had served his
wife, and for several weeks she lived upon milk
which was brought to her by her English nurse,
for fear of being poisoned. She sent for her hus-
band's brother, and he supplied her with money
with which she went to England about six weeks-
after she had been struck. She had never lived
with him since. Last March she received a letter
from him, dated from Mile-end, London, in which
he said that he was reformed, and entreated her
forgiveness.
The evidence was corroborated by her sister, Mrs.
Onslow.
Two Irish labourers proved that in 1845, after
Mary Ann Hegan was dithnissed from Grange-park,
she went to live at a house in the neighbourhood,
and that Mr. Bond slept with her there every
night.
The Judge Ordinary said the respondent's domi-
cile appeared to be in Ireland, and the same ques-
tion was therefore raised, as in a case before the
Court yesterday, with regard to the jurisdiction. It
was a question of great difficulty and importance,
and time must be taken for its consideration.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—May 29.

(Before Mr. Payne.)

,
Amelia Paddox, 24, servant, was indicted for
stealing a pair of coral earrings, and other articles
value £5, the property of William Latham.
Some time ago the prisoner was in the service of
the prosecutor, a lodginghouse-keeper, in Cold-sign-
street, Pimlico, and in February last she was stay-
ing at his house as a visitor until she could procure
a situation, which she did subsequently, Mrs.
Latham giving her a character for the period dur-
ing which she had been her servant. Mrs. Latham
had been confined to her bed for some weeks, and
on recovering and getting downstairs she missed
a great variety of articles, including table linen and
bed linen, and information was given to the police,
the prisoner being suspected. She was appre-
hended at her situation, and in her possession were
Found Mrs Latham's earrings and brooch, and
tickets relating to tablecloths and sheets which she
had pawned. A complete pile of things was pro-
duced which the prosecutor identified as his.
The prisoner was found guilty.
The police-constable in the case, Birch 286 A,
gave a very bad account of the prisoner. She had
been discharged from several situations for dis-
honesty and drunkenness. In one place she was
left in charge of the house, and when her mistress
same home she was found lying on a bed insensibly
drank, and she was turned out of the house. She
had been as under servant at Lord Lyndhurst's,
but was turned out in less than a month for
drunkenness.

The prisoner said that was false, she never was
in Lord Lyndhurst's service at all.
The policeman said she was an under servant in
the kitchen at Lord Lyndhurst's residence for about
a month.

The prosecutor said the reference they permitted
the prisoner to make to them applied only to the
time she was in their service ; neither he nor Mrs.
Latham knew anything of her conduct after she left
them.

Mr. Payne said it was a very bad case indeed,
and had there been a previous conviction against
her he should have sent the prisoner to penal servi•
tude. That, no doubt, would be her fate ulti-
mately if she did not mend her conduct. At present
the sentence upon her was two years' hard labour.
Robert Gardner, 22, was indicted for stealing the
sum of 16s, 6d., the moneys of James Barfield.
This case recalled to recollection an anecdote,
which the late Mr. Sergeant Adams used to tell, of
a man who, when serving on a jury, always dis-
sented from the 11 others, and the jury was inva-
riably locked up. Being once asked the reason he
said, " Why, the fact is that whenever I am on a
jury I get 11 such stupid thickheads with me that
J cannot beat any sense at all into them." The evi-
dence adduced in support of this charge seemed
clear beyond all doubt or question, and 11 jurors
agreed to a verdict of guilty. The twelfth declared
he would not agree to such a verdict, even were he
locked up for six months. He had made the same
declaration in another case, equally clear, on a pre-
vious day. The prosecutor was a labouring man,
and lodged at the White Lion at Acton, and on the
night of the 11th May the prisoner slept there, in
the same room with him. When Barfield went to
bed he had in his purse three half-crowns, three
florins, and 35., making 168. 6d. Next morning
purse and money were gone, and the prisoner too.,
The prisoner was found and accused of the theft;