The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING APRIL 26, 1860,

TILE GREAT BANK FRAUD.

A writer in a contemporary says :—I have seen
it stated that the fraud practised by Pullinger on
his employers, the Union Bank, is the greatest of
which a bank has ever been the victim. This, how-
ever, is not correct. More money than Mr. Pullinger
embezzled has been embezzled by the cashier of a ban k,
and that bank the Bank of England. Om the Bth of
July, 1803, Mr. Robt. Astlett, cashier of the Bank of
England, was put on his trial at the Old Bailey, for
defrauding the institution of £320,000. The facts
I take from a little book, " The Life of Abraham
Newland, Esq. Printed for B. Crosby and Co.,
1808."

Astlett attracted the notice of Mr. Newland,
when a young clerk, by the punctuality and ability
with which he fulfilled his duties at the Bank, and
acquired his confidence and affection in so high a
degree that, had he not forfeited both by the
grossest misconduct, it is probable he would have
inherited the bulk of that gentleman's property at
his decease. The following extract from the volume
I have named will show how Astlett effected his

purpose :
"On the Bth of July, at the Old Bailey, Mr
Astlett, being put to the bar, was indicted for that
he, being a servant of and employed by the Governor
and Company of the Bank of England, was en-
trusted with a certain paper writing called an Lx-
chequer Bill, of the value of £l,OOO, and another of
the same value, and a third of the same value, of
the 26th of February last, and being such servant,
&c., did feloniously secrete and embezzle the said
Exchequer Bills, and did run away with them, so
belonging to the said governor and company.
There were no less than ten different counts to the
same effect. Mr. Garrow was counsel for the pro-
secution, and Mr. Erskine for the prisoner. The
former stated that the Bank of England, being in
the customary habit of purchasing Exchequer
Bills, on account of Government, such bills are
either brought to the Bank by one particular
house (Goldsmid and Co.), or by the Bank
broker, who purchases the bills in the market.
On the delivery of these to the cashier, Mr. Astlett,
he gives an order for payment, and the Exche-
quer Bills remain with him till a sufficient quan-
tity are selected together, and made up in
bundles to deliver into the custody of the directors
in the parlour. These bundles are then counted,
and a voucher given to the cashier on their delivery.
They are placed in a strong closet shut under three
keys, and two of the keys are kept by the directors.
Conformably to this practice, on the 26th February,
1803, these were transferred from the custody of
Mr. Astlett, the cashier, to the parlour. One bundle
of Exchequer bills to the value of £lOO,OOO ; an-
other, £200,000; a third, £400,000; total, £700,000.
An entry was made in the parlour-book, and its cor-
rectness was vouched by tke signatures of two di-
rectors, Messrs. Smith and Puget. The entry thus
vouched was nevertheless afterwards found to be for
bills to the amount of £200,000 more than the actual
value of the bundles. On this discovery it came out
that Mr. Astlett had been re-issuing some of those
bills to raise money ; and Mr. Bish, the stockbroker,
who had been applied to with some of them by
Astlett, suspecting that all was not right, gave in-
timation of his suspicions to the Bank, when Mr.
Astlett's criminality became evident. After Mr.
Garrow had gone through his case, Mr. Erskine, on
behalf of the prisoner, showed that Mr. Jennings,
who had signed those purloined Exchequer bills in
the first instance, had not the proper authority re-
newed to him for so doing, as required by act of
Parliament ; and further stated that Government
had, since the commitment of Mr. Astlett, passed
an act to remedy the omission. The Chief Baron
Macdonald observed that the charge was for em-
bezzling a valid bill of exchange. However great
the crime, and the magnitude of the sum embezzled,
—though every one must regret the cause of it, and
the effect upon security—yet it was the bounden
duty of the court to determine according to the
regular, ordinary, and constant course of the admi-
nistration of justice. It was entirely clear that the
present indictment was not to be maintained, as the
charge therein alleged could not be proved. The
late act of Parliament had recognised the invalidity
of the bills which the prisoner embezzled. The
other judges concurred in opinion, and the Lord
Chief Baron directed the jury to acquit the prisoner.
He was accordingly found not guilty. Mr. Garrow
applied to the Court to detain him in custody, it
being the intention of the Bank directors to issue a
civil process against him for £lOO,OOO and upwards,
money paid for the bills, which he had converted
to his own use.
" On Thursday, July 14, following, a half-yearly
general court of proprietors of bank stock was held
at the bank, for the purpose of declaring a divid-
end. In the course of doing this it became necessary
for the chairman of the Court of Directors to state
the loss which the company had sustained by Mr.
Astlett. The actual loss he said was about £320,000.
About £78,000, he added, had been employed in
sources from which the directors think they shall be
able te recover, and they were determined to prose-
cute for that purpose. It was also mentioned that the
loss by Mr. Astlett would make no alteration in the
dividend. That loss amounted to nearly the entire
dividends of the half-year ; but the affairs of the
company were in so prosperous a state that they
should be able to divide asusual. The chairman then
proceeded to explain that the Court of Directors
wero not to blame for the malpractices of Mr.
Astlett, who had succeeded in 'making away with
the effects of the bank by interlining sums, and by
ether contrivances. On this subject a very detailed
and satisfactory explanation was given, in which
the mode of executing the fraud was described.
" At the Old Bailey Sessions, in September suc-
ceeding, Mr. It. Astlett was again put upon his
trial by a new indictment, charging him with the
embezzlement of the property and effects of the
Bank of England. The evidence was nearly the
same as on the former trial. Mr. Erskine, on be-
half of Mr. Astlett, took his preceding ground of
objection, viz., that the Exchequer bills embezzled
had been informally issued, and were no more than
waste paper. Mr. Justice Ll 3 Blanc said he would
leave that point to be determined by the judges.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of the facts, and
the point of law was to be decided by the judges."
On the 16th of February following Mr. Astlett
was brought to the bar, when Baron Hotham said

that the judges had agreed that the Exchequer
Bills were effects within the meaning of the 15th
of George 11., and the prisoner was therefore sub-
ject to the pain of death. Whether he suffered the
extreme penalty of the law I do not know, but my
authority states that " the blow Mr. Newland re•
ceived from these transactions he felt to the last
hour, and it contributed to accelerate his end."

Another writer in a contemporary says :—The
directors of the Union Bank have given an expla-
nation of the fraud lately discovered which eannot,
as I think, be entirely satisfactory to the body of
shareholders in that concern.

First, the delinquent, W. G. Pullinger, must
have made up the fictitious pass-book with his own
hand. It seems wonderful that the ledger keeper
was not struck with the uniform identity of that
handwriting, and also that it was the writing of
the culprit.
But, secondly, the system of keeping the bank
books must be egregiously defective.
There ought to have been an account in their own
ledger of the sums paid daily to the Bank of Eng-
land, and of the sums drawn out from the Bank of
England for the Union Company, just correspond-
ing to the account kept in the ledger of the Bank
of England, only reversing the debtor and creditor
side.

The ledger being called over nightly, of course
it must have been immediately detected f the debit
in that did not agree with the charge against the
Bank of England in the day-book.
Then, for the other side of the account, the
checks drawn by the Union Bank, which are few
and large, ought to appear in the Union Bank
ledger, and the manager or one of the directors might
have examined those and put his initials in the
column of the ledger to certify the correctness of
the two accounts. The Union Bank ledger itself
would then have been as good an authority for the
state of the account as that of the Bank of England;
in fact, a duplicate.
This method would also give the advantage of
prompt examination of the Union Bank cheeks, and
become a safeguard against forgery.

(From the Times' City A )
opened
The shares of the Union Bank Londonofrtic2l.-
yesterday morning at about 26 to but some
sellers immediately. appeared and a decline took
place, until transactions were recorded at 24There
was then a recovery to 241 to 251, and no 'further
rileaceatalteration occurred before the close. Another
exa-
mination of Pullinger is expected to t). ake
the Mansion-house to-day (Thursday pro.tt t 0
fesses to have answered frankly all inquiries p
him, but it is believed that an accomplice remains to
be discovered, while there is also entire mystery
as to the manner in which the greater part of the
money has been made away with. The Committee
of the Stock Exchange met yesterday to commence
their inquiry as to the nature of the transactions
alleged to have been carried on for Pullinger by
certain members of that establishment, and the
following letter has been addressed to the directors
of the Union Bank :
" Committee-room, Stock Exchange, London,
April 25.
“Gentlonien,—A report of the directors of the Union

Basleof London relative to the frauds of their chief cashier,
William George Pullinger, having appeared in the morning
papers of this day, wherein it is stated 'that fora long time

he had been engked in an extensive system of time bargains
on the Stock Exchange,' the Committee for General Purposes
request to be furnished with particulars on which the state-
ment is founded, in order that an immediate inquiry may be
instituted. " I remain, Gentlemen,
Your most obedient humble servant,
" GEORGE LOVELESS, Secretary."
" To the Directors of the Union Bank of London."

THE ACOID ENT ON THE GREAT
NORTBERN RAILWAY.

HATFIELD, WEDNESDAY.

An inquiry was opened this morning, at the Red
Lion Hotel, in this town, before Mr. Sworder, the
county coroner, touching the deaths of Mr. Francis
Leslie Pym and George Venables, a platelayer, who
were killed in the accident which happened to the
train on the Great Northern Railway, on Monday
morning, as already:stated in this journal. The pro-
ceedings appeared to create much interest. Col.
Yollond, R. E., the government inspector of railways,
attended to watch the evidence on behalf of the
Board of Trade. The company were represented by
Mr. Hall, barrister, Mr. Seymour Clark, Air. Oakley,
secretary, and Mr. Brydon, engineer ; and Mr. Bar-
tholomew, with Mr. Powers, tppeared for the re-
latives of Mr. Pym. The Hon. and Rev. J. W. Tal-
bot, rector of Hatfield, was present.
The jury having viewed the bodies and the scene
of the accident, the following evidence was gone
into : _ _

James Barwood said—l was the driver of the en-
gine of the Manchester express train which met
with the accident on Monday. We left King's-cross
at one minute past ten—one minute late. The
train consisted of eight carriages and two breaks.
All appeared safe when we left London, and
our greatest speed was from forty to fifty miles
an hour. The train went on all right until we
reached Hatfield, and on passing over the crossing
by the foot-bridge at the station the engine began
to oscillate.
Coroner—What then happened ?
_ _

Witness—The bell•rope broke and the bell rang
—the euinumukation between the guard and the
driver. I immediately shut,off steam and reversed
nay engine. We were then going at the rate of
about 50 miles an hour. After passing the crossing
the engine oscillated from one side to the other. I
turned round after the bell-rope broke and saw the
carriages jumping up. I was then pulling up as
fast as I could. I could see that some of the coaches

in the train were off the line. Before I stopped,
the coupling of the guard's break broke away from
the tender, and I put on steam a little in order that
the break should not run into the engine. The en-
gine kept on the line, and when we stopped I ran
back and saw a carriage lying on its side in the
four-footway. Did not notice that the wheels were
off. I saw a gentleman lying on the road between
the up and down line about fifteen yards from the
carriage. Ido not think he was dead. I went on
to Welwyn junction to stop all incoming trains,
and returned to Hatfield in ten minutes. At the
crossing I found a rail broke on the left or west
side of the down line.
Coroner—How was it broken ?
Witness—Right through from the top to the
bottom. It had separated about two inches.
Coroner—Did you observe anything else broken?
Witness—Nothing else except what the train
had torn up. Nothing on the other side of the line.
I did not observe that any of the chairs were broken,
or that there was anything the matter with the
sleepers.

BY Mr. Bartholomew—The oscillation was of a
very violent kind. The thought struck me that a
chair or rail might have sunk a little to cause the
oscillation. It continued until we got about half
way past the platform. The oscillation was most
violent at the moment it commenced, and left off
as the engine recovered itself. The engine did
not leave the line. The shock of the rolling was
the first sensation I felt. Could not tell which car-
riage was first affected by the shock. I felt it as the
engine went off the crossing.
Coroner—As you went along did you feel any
other shocks ?
-Witness—Yes, I felt a strain upon the coupling.
Joseph Moorhouse was next called. He said—l
was the chief guard to the Manchester express
train on Monday morning, and saw that the coup-
lings, doors, bell, &c., were all right. The train
consisted of the York van, a Newcastle composite,
Leeds composite, Bradford composite, Halifax com-
posite, Huddersfield composite, Liverpool composite,
Manchester second class, first class, and break van.
I was in the van next to the tender. Mr. Pym was
in the centre compartment of the Bradford car-
riage, the fifth from the tender. Just before the
train passed under the foot-bridge I felt a jerk,
and the van rocked from one side to the other. We
' were then going about 50 miles an hour. The
next thing I observed was the train oscillating as
it passed over the spot. The next I saw was a pair
of wheels running by the side of the line, and at
the same time I felt the'shock of the Bradford going
over. It kept coupled to the next carriage. The
engine took the draw-bar out of the van and went
ahead, and we stopped very quickly. There was
no carriage between me and the Bradford carriage
upset. The Bradford carriage was turned over on
its side in the six-footway, and Mr. Pym was lying
on the ground some 30 feet from the carriage. He
was living, and having been placed on cushions was
removed to the Red Lion. The Liverpool and
Huddersfield carriages rested towards the woter
column. The Manchester second class was lying on
its side in the six-foot way, and the Manchester
first class was off the line, out on its wheels.
By Colonel Yolland--Mr. Pym was found in the
track the Bradford carriage had been dragged
along.
Thomas Williams, the guard who was with the
former witness, spoke of Mr. Pym being in the
middle part of the Bradford carriage. There
was a passenger in the second-class compartment
of the same carriage who went on to Leeds.
Mr. Colshore, a contractor, said he was a passen-
ger with a pass in the train, and rode in the first
van. Just beyond the foot bridge at the station
there was a slight oscillation, and the witness con-
firmed what had been previously,stated. He found
Mr. Pym lying on the left side, and having looked
at him for a few moments he said " Mr. Pym,"
who replied, " Yes." There was a wound in his
leg, which was bleeding, and he asked him if he
had any limbs broke, and deceased remarked, " Oh
my back." He was conveyed to this hotel.
Mr. Thomas Williams, inspector of the line, said
—I was a passenger in the third (Halifax) carriage
from the engine. I felt some tugs as if there was
a carriage off behind me, and the ballast began to
fly up. I felt the train slackening speed, and the
moment the train stopped I saw the Bradford car-
riage on its broadside in the six-footway, and 35
yards behind I saw the deceased in the six-foot-
way, and had him removed to the house. I after-
wards went to the crossing at the foot bridge.
Coroner—What did you see ?
Witness—l saw a rail on the left or west side
broken, and some of the rails were displaced. Di-
rected it not to be touched until Mr. Brydon, the
engineer, came from London. At the crossing the
ballast had been taken away from the top of the
sleepers, but not below it. Did not see that any
of the sleepers had been removed. The tender
break was lying on its side in the six-foot, and 10
yards from the crossing. Immediately ahead was
the Manchester first-class, on its wheels, on the up
line. The Manchester second-class was on its right
side in the six-foot, and the Liverpool and Hudders-
field carriages were resting againstthe water column.
I went further down the line, 128 yards, where the
wheels of the Bradford carriage had separated, and
the body turned over on the six-footway, and had
been dragged along about 145 yards. I don't think
Mr. Pym was killed in the carriage.
John Ward, foreman of the platelayers, raid—
I was at work at the Hatfield station on Monday
morning. I had nine men under me, and we were
at work up to when we heard the whistle of the
Manchester express, and we stepped aside. We
had been removing the ballast round about the
crossing.
Coroner—ln what state was the crossing just
before the train came up ?
Witness—ln exactly the same state as when the
nine o'clock express and Midland express passed.
We had not touched the rail nor the sleeper, only
the ballast. We were picking out the ballast be-
tween the sleepers when the whistle sounded.
Coroner—Would that not have the effect of
loosening the rail ?
Witness—lt never moved. It was as safe to go
over it as before the ballast was moved. We had
picked out about 15 yards of ballast in length.
Coroner—But would that not have the effect of
loosening the sleeper!
Witness—Not if we don't go below it. We had
not removed a rail out of the main line, nor had
touched them, but I had displaced a rail on the
through line, on the west side, which joined the
rail which broke, and had not been replaced. There
was nothing wrong in the check rail when the
express went past. We bad taken up the rail be
cause the point of the crossing had become worn.
No keys had been removed, and the chairs had
not been touched. If we had been doing any-
thing to the main line we should have had a man
out with a green flag to give warning to the
express train. I was standing about a yard and
a half from where the rail broke. I saw the rail
break, and it was caused by the leading or driving-
wheel of the engine. I saw the ends of the rail
work about. The deceased George Venables was ,
one of my men.' He was thrown into a ditch. I

saw a piece of rail four feet long lying just about
where-I- saw him last standing.
Coroner—Did you examine the spot where the
rail broke P

Witnus—l did. I found the check rail clean
gone, and ',the wing rail torn out. The sleepers
were firm, No chairs were broken on the west side,
but four out of five were on the east side. The
tenails were sound. There had been no subsidence
in the soil. I did not see the sleepers stir.
Mr. Burke and Mr. Osbaldiston, surgeons, gave
evidence of the injuries which the deceased had sus-
tained. In the case of Mr. Pym, his back was most
shockingly cut, and he died about an hour after the
accident. The right wrist of Venables was frac-
tured, and he received a severe blow on the hip, but,
his death arose from the shock to the nervous sys-
tem.

As there were other important witnesses to be
examined, the coroner suggested an adjournment
in order that the friends of the deceased and their
representatives might have an opportunity c,f con-
sidering the case and calling in other testimony.
The jury acquiesced, and the inquiry at six o'clock
was adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE-April 25.

BOW-STREET.—James Holland, a cabman,
living in King-street, Drury-lane, was charged be-
fore Mr. Henry with brutally assaulting his wife,
Jessie Holland, on the second night after her con-
finement.

It was proved in evidence that the prisoner's wife
was confined on Sunday evening, and being left
without money by the prisoner, who was of drunken
habits, she was obliged to sit up in bed on Monday
night to do some needlework that she might be
enabled to buy food for herself and children. On
Tuesday night the prisoner came home furiously
drunk, made an attack upon his wife, seized her
by the hair, dragged her out of bed, and beat her
savagely as she lay on the floor. The noise of her
fall, and her piteous cries for help, were overheard
by a friend, a Mrs. Healy, who had come to render
some assistance in her trouble, but who was out of
the room at the time. Mrs. Healey interposed, and
so drew upon herself the fury of the prisoner, who
threw her upon the bed, punched her in the face
and sides, and, laying hold of her throat, attempted
to strangle her. She contrived to release herself
from his grasp, ran out to the street, and called in
a constable, Mowley, 79 F, who took the prisoner
into custody.
The constable said the prisoner, who was very
drunk, was sitting sullenly by the fire when he
entered. His wife charged him, and she was much
hurt by his blows.
Mr. Henry expressed much sympathy for the
poor woman, and ordered a sum of ss. to be given
her out of the poor-box. He remanded the prisoner
in order the she might appear against him at a
future day, but particularly desired that she should
not be removed until she was sufficiently recovered.

WESTMINSTER.--THE EARL OF KINGSTON
AGAIN.—The Earl of Kingston was summoned for
a cab fare ofl Os. 6d., but did not appear.
His lordship was summoned last week for £l,
when an order was made for that amount and costs
in his absence.

Skarle, one of the warrant officers of the court,
proved that he served the present summons at his
lordship's address, 26, Duke-street, Manchester-
square, on Saturday.
Joseph Frederick Hall, the complainant, said
that on Tuesday, the 17th, he was hired by his
lordship at Duncannon-street, Strand, at five mi-
nutes past 11 in the forenoon, and drove him about
the City all day, finally setting him down at the
House of Lords at half-past four, when he was de-
sired to wait till six o'clock. He remained till
eight, when hearing that his lordship had just
crossed Parliament-street, he drove to the Reform
Club, where he knew his lordship sometimes went,
and then to his lodgings in Duke-street, Manches-
ter-square, but did not find him.
In reply to the magistrate, complainant said that
his charge was for ten hours' time, and one extra
person, there being three in the cab, which in-
cluded the time occupied in going from the House
of Lords to the club and to Duke-street.

Mr. Painter said he could not allow the latter,
and must reduce the time to nine hours.

The cabman said he went to his lordship on the
following morning, when he sent him down half-a-
crown ; and upon his stating that he should be
under the disagreeable necessity of summoning
him, his lordship put his head out of the window,
as he (complainant) was going away, and told him
that if he would take him to Beak-street, whence
he wished to take two ladies to the House of Lords,
he would pay him his fare. Complainant thought
he might as well chance another hour's work, with
the prospect of getting what was owing him, but,
found himself disappointecip for he drove to Beak-
street, and there remained two hours, but saw no
more of his fare.

Mr. Paynter supposed complainant had go
another summons for that claim elsewhere.

The cabman replied he had not, for he had not
the means of taking out another summons. He had
lost his place through not being able to take the
money he earned by his cab home to his master, and
had not the amount necessary left to pay for a sum-
mon s.

Mr. Paynter said he should have one gratuitously.
The cabman said he was much obliged to his
worship.

An Order was then made upon the Earl of King-
ston for 18s. and ss. costs, and another summons
issued against him as above stated.
ANOTHER CAB CASE.—Mr. D. Jones, M.P. for
Carmarthenshire, appeared with his lady, who had
been summoned for a cab fare of 2s. 6d.
This was the third summons which bad been ob-
tained by the cabman in the same case. In com-
plainant's early account of the transaction he said he
had taken up two ladies at 82, Eaton-square, and
having told them he could not drive to the Great
Northern Railway in 20 minutes, had been told to
hasten in that direction until he met a Hansom cab.
He drove to Great Marylebone-street before he
found one, when the ladies got into it and told him
to return to 82, Eaton-square for his fare. He did
so, ana there saw a gentleman, who did not pay
him, but gave him, as the name and address of the
lady against whom he had his claim, " The Hon.
Mrs. White, Rectory, Lincoln." He accordingly
summoned Mrs. White, directing the summons to
82, Eaton-square, but there was no appearance, as
Mrs. White did not live there, and on the cabman
declaring that, whatever the name of the lady, one
whom he had carried did reside at that address, the
~ Court Guide" was consulted, and Mrs. Vivian was
next summoned ; then, it having transpired that
she had left the house long ago, Mrs. Jones was
summoned, and now appeared.
The cabman, John Hutchinson, having repeated
his statement, with the addition that he had called
to know whether the lady would settle the fare,
when she offered him a shilling,
Mrs. Jones was sworn, and stated that instead
of pursuing the route directed the cabman went
considerably out of the way, up sequestered streets,
carefully avoiding cab ranks, and again and again
refused to stop when cabs were seen and pointed
out to him. Added to which, his horse was dead
lame, and his behaviour was very unbecoming and
impertinent. When told that he would have double
fare if he made haste, but only single if he delayed,
he absolutely walked his horse. A shilling was
offered him by Mrs. White when she left the cab,
and she (Mrs. Jones) absolutely put it into his hand,
but he was very impertinent and refused to keep it.
The cabman most positively denied the whole of
this statement. He widely differed in his account
of the route taken, which he declared to be the
nearest, and said the cabman who took the ladies
from him would be an important witness on his
behalf.

Mr. Jones said the cabman came to him in Eaton.
square and demanded 2s. 6d. He told him that if
he would leave his address, and it turned out that
he was entitled to the money, he should have it.
The cabman said that would not do for him, and
he must have the lady's address, when he gave him
Mrs. White's, as the cab had been called for her,
Nlrs. Jones merely accompanying her to the railway.
The cabman's conduct was very impertinent in the
presence of the footman, and he did not give his
ticket till he was asked for it.
Mr. Paynter said he could not determine this
matter to his own satisfaction as it at present stood.
There was a conflict of testimony, and he could not
make any distinction in, nor judge of, people by
their rank. If complainant had gone the shoi test
way, as he described, he would be entitled to ls. Gd.
—so that the tender of ls. (denied by tho cabman)
would not have been the fare; and the return to
Eaton-square, which it seemed had been suggested
by the ladies, made it half-a-crown. He inquired
of complainant whether he was content to take
half-a-crown and the cost of the summons, as while
the charge of impertinent and unbecoming conduct
hung over his head lie should not think of giving,
him any further costs ; or would he have an ad-
journment for the production of the footman and
other cabman, if he could be found ?
Complainant preferred the latter, and the case
was accordingly adjourned.

LAMBETH.—SERVANTGIRLISM.--EliZa Good-
win, a pert-looking young woman, was placed at
the bar before the lion. G. C. Norton, on a charge
of plundering her mistress.
Mrs. Elizabeth Garrett, a lady, residing at No.
7, Eli:,,abeth-place, Brixton-road, said that a
month ago the prisoner entered her service on a
month's trial, and in doing so made great pro-
fession of her honesty, said the relation between

honest servants and respectable employers ought
to be such that nothing should be concealed by
the latter from the former, and that she should
therefore have access to all parts of the house,
as well as the free use of all the keys, and parti-
cularly that of the beer barrel. " Believing her to
be what she represented herself," said the witness,
I gave her the beer key, but finding that when I
wanted it myself it was not forthcoming, I insisted
upon its being placed upon the bunch. This deter-
mination appeared to give her great offence. She
said it was not respectful to her as an honest ser-
vant, that in fact it was an imputation on her cha-
racter, and she therefore could not think of stopping
if my order was carried out. I found, however,
that it was absolutely necessary to restrain her from
a free use of the key, as she was not only fond of
beer but that she became talkative after 11 o'clock,
and therefore told her she must go, and she was to
have gone away this morning. On Friday evening
she asked my permission to go out for a short time,
but instead of a short time, she was absent from 6
to 10 o'clock. Last evening she wanted to go out
again, and my niece objected to her going, and she
then said she must go. Finding her so determined,
I sent for a policeman to examine her, and he found
a variety of things—tea, sugar, butter, and soap in
her pockets, which she acknowledged to be mine.
He also found upon her 34 sovereigns in gold, though
she had previously acknowledged to me that all she
possessed was 30s.

Mr. Norton—What account did she give of this
money ?
Witness—She said part of it was hers and part
her mother's, her mother being a poor charwoman.
Mr. Norton—Can you say that any part of this
money is yours ?
Witness—l should not wish to say it is, though
the prisoner has had access to the room where my
money is kept, and a key which opens the drawer
had been found.

The constable in charge of the case produced the
various articles found on the prisoner, and a quan-
tity of soap and candles found at the prisoner's
mother's lodgings. The witness also said that the
statements of the prisoner and her mother respect-
ing the 34 sovereigns differed very much.
The prisoner's mother was called, and said she was
a widow, and obtained a living by washing and.
charing. The sovereigns she said were her daugh-
ter's, and the result of many years' saving. The
candles and soap found in her place were her own
property, as she had purchased them from time to
time,

Mrs. Garrett again reminded his worship that the
prisoner told her that 20 sovereigns of the money be-
longed to her mother, and the remainder to herself,
though she had previously said that all the money
she possessed was thirty shillings. She (witness)
further wished to say that she found a bottle in her
house in which the prisoner used to get her gin, so
that she was not a lover of beer only.
The prisoner and her mother still persisted in
saying the money was theirs, though the fact
seemed to be doubted by many in the court.
There being no proof that the prisoner had been
in custody before, Mr. Norton dealt with the case
as illegally possessing, and convicted the prisoner
in a penalty of 40s.
The money was at once paid, and the prisoner
discharged.

HAMMERSMITH.—EXTRAORDINARY APPLI-
CATION FOR A PROTECTION ORDER UNDER THE
DIVORCE ACT.—As soon as Mr. Ingham, the pre-
siding magistrate, took his seat upon the bench an
elegantly-attired and handsome -looking young
woman stepped into the witness-box and applied
for his worship's order under the Matrimonial
Causes Act to protect her property, in the shape of
a house full of furniture, from the hands of k_tr hus
band.

Mr. Andrew (the clerk) What is your name ?
Applicant—Anne Carrow. I am the wife of
William Julius Carrow, and I reside at No. 24,
South-street, Thurloe-square.
Mr. Andrew—How long have you been married?
Applicant (considering)—l think about two
years.

_
Mr. Ingham—Can you give the date ?
Applicant—l cannot remember exactly. It was
early in March, 1858.
Mr. Andrew—When did your husband desert
you ?
Applicant—About twenty months ago he first
left me.

Mr. Ingham—l wish to know when it was he
went away and abandoned you.
Applicant—He left me unprovided altogether at
Hull. We had a house of furniture, and it was
sold by the brokers. He went away to avoid being
taken for debt. I afterwards went on the Con-
tinent, and he followed me to Denmark. He came
to me where I was staying.
Mr. Ingham—What did he come for ? Did he
want to live with you again ?
Applicant—Yes, sir. He came in a state of desti-
tution, with no means, He asked me for money
and wanted me to live with him. I refused, as he
was in that state, and had no home.

Mr. Ingham—Then you deserted him, and not
he you. Going away from debt was not a desertion
of you.

Applicant—I had no place to go to but my friends.
Mr. Ingham—But keeping out of the way to
avoid a debt was not an abandonment of you.
Mr. Andrew—When did you last see him ?
Applicant—He came to me last week and wanted
money. He asked me for £lOO, and annoyed me
very much. I had not the power to give him the
money, and he threatened to take my things. I
have a house full of furniture.

Mr. Ingham—How did you become possessed of
the furniture ?

Applicant—My mother left it to me, and she has
now gone on the Continent.

Ingham—What is given to you is given to
your husband. I do not think your case comes
within the Act of Parliament. lam very sorry it
does not. To give me power you must be deserted
by your husband. Going away to avoid a sheriff's
officer is not an abandonment of his wife. It is net
a case for my interference. If you can make out a
case of cruelty you have a remedy in another court.
Applicant—He attempted to shoot me on one
occasion.

Mr. Ingham—Where was that ?
Applicant—ln Denmark, where he came to me,
Mr. Ingham—Did he fire the pistol at you ?
Applicant—Yes, sir; and I have witnesses to
prove it.

Mr. Ingham—That's quite sufficient for you to
go to Westminster Hall to the Court of Divorce on
the ground of cruelty. When did it occur ?
Applicant—About 16 months ago.
Mr. Ingham--Then take my advice, and have
nothing more to do with him, and apply imme-
diately for a divorce.
The applicant thanked his worship for his advice,
and then left the court.

REVISED ARMI' ESTIMATES FOR

1860-61.

The revised Army Estimates have just been
published, and are divided into six parts—viz.,
forces, civil establishments, supplies, works and
buildings, educational, and non-effective, for which
a total sum of £14,842,546 is asked, being an in-
crease of £1,983,249 on the estimates of 1859-60.
The number of men to be provided for is 145,269,
and the pay and allowances for this force amount to
£4,736,701, further augmented by miscellaneous
charges, put down at £620,285. The first of those
items is £1,012,227, and the second £57,916 beyond
those of last year. The embodied militia will cost
£320,000, a decrease of no less than £240,000 on
the previous year's estimate ; while the volunteer
corps ask £20,000 less than last year, and figure
for the comparatively modest sum of £68,000. The
next division is that of the civil establishments, in
which we find a large increase over 1859.60. The
departments of the Secretary for 'War and of the
General Commanding-in-Chief are put down for
£196,224, an increase of £10,630 upon the last esti-
mates ; the manufacturing establishments, military
storekeepers, barrackmasters, lodging money,
rents, &c., are estimated at £374,005, an
increase of £14,965 ; and the wages of artificers
and labourers at £865,234, showing an increase
of £115,706. The third division, includes cloth-
ing and necessaries, estimated at £324,000,
a decrease of £126,000 on the previous year; pro
♦isions, forage, fuel and light, barrack furniture
and bedding, &c., figure for £1,278,377, an increase
of £181,593 ; and warlike stores for land and sea
service will abso; b £2,088,088, an increase of
£940,463 upon the estimates of 1859-60. The fourth
vote comprises fortifications, civil buildings, and
barracks—the first item being down for £645,355,
an increase of £196,783 ; the second for £206,500 ;
and the third for £707,607, the two latter showing
a decrease of £29,457 and £125,885 respectively.
The fifth division—the educational—demands an
increase of £7,190 upon the last estimates, and is
down for £277,547. These five divisions compre-
hend the effective services, and comprise a total of
£12,707,923. The non-effective services, which in-
clude rewards for military services, pay of general
officers, pay of reduced and retired officers, widows'
pensions and compassionate allowances, pensions
and allowances to wounded officers, in-pensions,
out-pensions, and superannuation allowances, de-
mand £2,134,623. a decrease of £12,882 upon last
year; thus making up the total amount of
£14,842,546 required for the coming year, and
showing a net increase of £4,983,249 upon the
estimates of 1859 60.