The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-19 00:00:00

prisonment, the learned Judge lamenting that he
could not add hard labour.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—IronK, March 15.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
Joseph Jubb, Benjamin Chappel, James Spence,
George Stephenson, and Joseph Foster were in dicted
for night poaching, being armed on lands in the
occupation of Mr. Whittaker, at Batley, on the Bth
October last, and also with maliciously wounding
George Woollin, the gamekeeper of Mr. George
Ellis, of West Ardsley.
Mr. Shaw and Mr. Campbell Foster prosecuted;
Mr. Price defended the prisoners Jubb, Foster, and
Spence ; and Mr. Maule the prisoners Chappel and
Stephenson.
It appeared from the statement of George Woollin,
the gamekeeper of Mr. Ellis, of Wrest Ardsley, near
Batley, that he, along with four watchers, went to
watch the game in a field near a plantation called
Lady Ann Planting, in the parish of Batley, about 9
o'clock on the night of the 7th October last. They
sat watching under a hedge until a little after 12
o'clock, when George Woollin crept to the side of the
plantation and there saw two men, Stephenson and
Foster, whom he had known many years, setting a
*net at some railings next the plantation, and be-
hind them, beating for game, were several men.
Stephenson was armed with a long bludgeon and
Foster had a gun. The night was moonlight, but
misty. lie crept back on his hands and feet to the
watchers, and having joined them they all crossei
the field through a gate into a lone, and got to the
far corner of the plantation. On arriving there
they saw the poachers, to the number of ten or a
dozen, crossing the field, and making to the same
gate they had just come through; they also saw
two dogs ranging the field, one of which was a
black one with a white spot on its breast. Wool-
lin and the watchers returned down the lane, and
crept under the fence till they got close to the
gate again, where they saw two men setting a net.
Woollin, after giving them a little time, put up his
head, when one of the poachers cried out, " Hey,
up lads, they're here." Woollin immediately cried
opuota,chrs
"
poachers up lads, we are here." One of the
immediately aimed a blow with some
weapon at George Woollin. He, how-
ever, drew back and avoided the blow, and
knocked the man down. The second poacher than
struck at him, and he stopped the blow, and, as he
described it, " felled him." This man immediately
jumped up again, and Woollin " felled him again."
A third man then came to their assistance, and
Woollin knocked him down. Four or five men
then came over the fence at once towards Woollin.
One of these he knocked down also, and was strik-
ing at another of them, when he saw Foster with
his gun up in the air aiming a blow at him with
the butt end. He put up his hand to ward off the
blow, but the gun beat down his guard and the lock
cut his hand, and he received a violent blow which
cut open his head and knocked him down. He got
up again, and Foster knocked him down again, and
he then saw Foster laying about him with his gun,
and by mistake knocking down one of his own
party with it. The watchers then had a fight with
others of the poachers, and after a desperate strug-
gle same one cried out " Fire ! let go ! Shoot,
shoot !" and Foster was seen by Woollin and others
to present his gun at them. Woollin jumped on
one side, and immediately a gun was discharged, and
a charge of shot whistled past him. Woollin said then
to the watchers they had better retire, the poachers
were too many for them, and they left the field.
One of the men ran off for the police, and in about
an hour the houses of all the prisoners were visited
in Batley. All the prisoners were sworn to by two
or three of the watchers. Chappel was seen going
into his house, which is a beershop, at 3 o'clock in
the morning. He was sweating, and had a fresh
cut, which was bleeding, on the nose. The other
prisoners were found in bed. Foster had a gun in
his house, and a black dog with a white spot on its
breast, but the dog's feet were dry. This dog was
sworn to as one of the dogs seen. All the men were
shown to have been together at Chappel's house at
11 that night.
For the defence all the prisoners proved distinct
alibis, calling two or three witnesses each, and
proving that they were in bed at the time, and had
not been out that night at all. Chappel proved
that he was out drinking with two men till near 3
o'clock at the house of one of them, and then put
down 6d. for some more beer, The other men did
not want any more, and in frolic tried to get the
61, in doing which they all fell on the floor, and
Chappel hurt his nose, which bled.
His Lordship summed up the whole of the evi-
dence with great care, and left the jury to say
which witnesses as to each man they believed, ob-
serving that if they were satisfied that there was a
mistake as to any of the men, although that mis-
take would not affect the evidence as to the others,
it would yet throw considerable doubt on the accu-
racy of the evidence of the watchers who had sworn
to that man, if they were proved to be mistaken.
The jury roti.rod, aut: at an stbii.cueo of twenty
minutes acquitted all the prisoners.
The case occupied all day, and was not concluded
till 7 o'clock.

FRIDAY, MARCH 16.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
Wm. Gill was charged with having committed
wilful and corrupt perjury at Otley, on the 23d of
Sept. last.
Mr. Price and the Hon. A. Liddell prosecuted ;
Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Manic defended the
prisoner.
It appeared that between 12 and 1 o'clock on the
morning of the 3d of September last two rtiem,
named Long and Patrick, were unlawfully taking
fish in the river Washburn, near to Leathley. They
were seen committing tho act by a man named
Thomas Yates' fisherman to Mr. F. H. Fawkes, of
Fernley, who has the sole right of fishing in this
river. Yates at once went and told Mr. Stanton,
agent to Mr. Fawkes, who, with Yates' called upon
the gamekeeper, John Vase, and all three went to
I to Leathley Mill, where the two men had been
seen. Yates went up the Fernley side of the river,
and soon caught sight of Long and Patrick, who
were still fishing with nets, and they had with
them a bag containing about 281 b. weight of trout,
which they had caught. They were also distinctly
seen and recognised by Vase and Stanton. Yates
called out, " Here they are," upon which the two
men ran away. They were followed, and Patrick
was taken. Long took the direction for Hamps-
thwaite, which was nine miles distant. Yates
pursued, and when he got to a place called Pot-
bridge, he overtook Long. Calling him by a cog-
nomen by which he was well known, Yates said,
" Well, Bridget, we have spoiled your sport this
morning. We have got Patrick ; you had better
come back with me, and be tried at the same time."
Long's trousers were wet, and he continued his
way towards Hampsthwaites Hollings, where he
resides. Long was afterwards apprehended and
brought before the petty sessional bench at Otley,
and charged with the above offence. In defence, it
was endeavoured to set up an alibi, in which the
prisoner Gill was called as a witness. The evidence
to which Gill took oath, and which constituted
the perjury alleged against him, was to the
effect that he was a farmer at Hampstliwaitc,
and that on the night of the 2d of September
he was at a public-house kept by a Mrs. Long
until 12 o'clock at night. Thomas Long and a
man named William Eddy were also alleged to
have been there, and that when Mrs. Long de-
clined filling more liquor they left together. Gill
alleged that at this time Long was in such a state
of " beer" that he and Eddy had to "hug" him
home, where they left him after one o'clock in the
morning. This was at the very time when Yates
alleged he was pursuing him after he had been
caught fishing at Leathley-bridge. To prove that
the statement of Gill was a wilful act of perjury,
Mrs. Long, the landlady of the publichouse in ques-
tion at Hampsthwaite, was called, and she swore
that neither Gill, Long, nor Eddy were in her
house at any period on the 2d of September, and
in this she was supported by a number of her cus-
tomers who were in her house at the time when
Gill alleged that he and Long were there. A
number of witnesses also proved seeing him on the
2d of September going in the direction from
Hampethwaite towards Leathley-bridge.
His Lordship having summed up the evidence,
the jury found the prisoner guilty.
Sentence was deferred.

There was a similar indictment against George
Patrick, the man caught fishing, who was called as
a witness by Long, and swore that he was not the
man who wag with him on the night in question.
The jury also found him guilty.
entence was deferred.

NORFOZK CIRCUIT, M —ARCH 16.
CRS 7:( COURT.
(Before Mr. i3.?ron Martin.)
Joseph Williams, aged 63, )CQ'S ,placed at the bar
and charged with the wilful mui.!A9r of his wife.
It was evident the poor man was li:t in his right
znses, therefore, without any facts being
t;one itp,to. ,
the jury 1.,-f!re sworn to decide as to the state t:_ "is
mind.
Mr, Couch, the tai'geor2 of the gaol, was called, 6
and he stated that the prisOer was completely out
of his mind, and in his opinjoi: he was not at all
conscious of having committed the offence with
, which he stood charged.
Under the direction of the learned judge the
jury found that the priwner was insane, and he
was ordered to be detained during her Majesty's
pleasure,
RiPnard Joseph Carkertt Coulson, a middle-aged
m 87,1, understood to have practised at Penzance for
F,Onle years as a quack d,pctor, was found guilty of

.9, 1860.

cutting and wounding Richard Truan, of Bodmin,
fruit dealer, with intent to do him grievous bodily
harm. Coulson and Truan accidentally met on the
evening of the 9th of November at the King's Head,
at Truro, when Coulson drank Truan's brandy, and
was about to leave without payment, when Truan
collared him. He drew a lancet from his waistcoat-
pocket, cut prosecutor three times across his left
hand, so as to lay bare the tendons, and when they
rolled together on the ground further stabbed him
in the head. He was sentenced to five years' penal
servitude.

OXFORD CIRCUIT, STAFFORD, March 17.
CRIMINAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
At the sitting of the court this day Mr. Justice
Keating was occupied in the trial of two cases of
manslaughter, arising out of alleged negligence un
the part of men who had had charge of machinery
used in mines, :in each case causing the death of
several persons.
James Henry Gellard, engine-man, was charged
with manslaughter, on the sth of November, 1859,
at Stoke-upon-Trent.
Mr. Boughey appeared for the prosecution ; Mr.
Kenealy defended the prisoner.
In this case it appeared the prisoner had charge
of an engine employed in bringing coals, &c., up
from one of Earl Granville's collieries at Stoke.
At about seven o'clock on the sth of November
last the signal was given to bring up a skiff
containing several men. The prisoner was in the
engine-house, and set the engine in motion, but
just before the signal to stop the engine was
given, two men, contrary to rule, Came into the en-
gine-house, and occupied the prisoner's attention
for a few moments. This occurred just before it
became the prisoner's duty to stop the engine, and
he did not stop it in time. The consequence was
that instead of stopping at the pit mouth, the skiff
was sent up a height of 39 feet to the pulley, and the
whole of the men being thrown out were precipi-
tated down the shaft of the mine, a distance of 610
feet. Several men were killed.
Mr. Wynne, the Government Inspector of Mines,
deposed that there was no defect in the machinery,
which was of the most approved construction.
Mr. Kenealy having addressed the jury for the
prisoner, they found him guilty, and
Mr. Justice Keating, in consideration of the cir-
cumstances of the extenuation arising from the in-
terruption, sentenced the prisoner to only six weeks'
imprisonment, with hard labour.
William Johnson, engine-man, was charged with
manslaughter, at Wednesfield-heath, on the 21st of
January, 1860.
Mr. Motterman and Mr. Young appeared for the
prosecution ; Mr. Scotland defended the prisoner.
It appeared in this case that the prisoner had
charge of the engine employed at Messrs. White-
house's colliery, at Wednesfield-heath. The en-
gine was used for the double purpose of pumping
off surface water and of bringing up stone, &c.,
from a pit. During the night of the 20th of Jan.
last it had been used for pumping off water, and
when the prisoner went on duty on the morning of
the 21st it was set to draw up stone, &c., from the
pit. In order to adapt the machinery to this pur-
pose it was necessary to move a carriage along a
wooden sill, to which the carriage was screwed by
two iron screws, which were removable at pleasure.
When the carriage was properly and securely
screwed down to the sill the cogs of a connect-
ing wheel fitted into the cogs of another wheel
connected with the drum, and so commu-
nicated the motive power. On the present oc-
casion the accident was attributed to the negli-
gence of the prisoner in not sufficiently screwing
down the screws. When the order was given the
machine was put in motion to bring up a number of
men in a skiff; but when the skiff had got some dis-
tance up the shaft it suddenly ran back at a rapid
rate, and four men and three boys were dashed to
the bottom of the pit, which was 70 yards deep,
and all of them were killed, with the exception of
one boy. On examining the carriage it was found
that the two screws which attached it to the wooden
sill were not sufficiently screwed, so that the car-
riage had some play. The result was that it did
not bring the cogs of the two wheels sufficiently
near each other, so that, instead of the cogs biting
one another firmly and securely, they bit only for
about half an inch. Two of the cogs were found
broken, and the accident was attributed to the pri-
soner's not securely screwing in the two screws, so
as to bring the cogs of the two wheels in close and
firm union. An attempt was made by the prisoner's
counsel to show that the machinery was defective,
inasmuch as there was a block and wedge also used
to keep the carriage in its place ; but this was an-
swered by a statement that the .block and wedge
were additional securities, and it was the duty of
the prisoner to see that they were both in their
proper places, whereas the wedge was out.
Mr. Scotland, for the prisoner, contended that
the accident was caused by the negligence of the
man whom the prisoner had followed on duty, but
who was not called as a witness.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
It was stated during the trial that, even after the
accident, the men on the works had petitioned that
the prisoner might be continued in his place.
Mr. Justice Keating, after some remarks on the
circumstances of the case, sentenced the prisoner to
four months' imprisonment with hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—March 17,

WANDSWORTH.—CURIOUS CASE OF FRAUD
AND FORGERY—A FAST BOY OF 1860.—A stylishly-
dressed youth, who gave the name of Henry Coley,
ana described himself as a clerk, aged 17, was
placed ;;_u the dock before Mr. Dayman, charged
with obtainng £2 from a lady named Knight, re-
siding at Sengoirst-cottage, Wandsworth-road, by
fraudulent means,
flduced it appeared that Mrs.
From the evidence a:.
Knight, who was quite a;_ri had a sister,
named Maria Goodwin, resin; ng in the neighbour-
hood of Clapham. During the 2ast few days she
had been very much annoyed by the: epeated visits
-.ith letters
of the prisoner and another young man No
purporting to have been written by her sister". and
imploring her to lend her money. The prism:"
brought no fewer than five notes, all signed M. G.,
and containing such words as these—" My dear
sister, do, pray, lend me the money. I have bills
to meet. You little knew the difficulty people in
business have to contend against." Mrs. Knight
had an attendant named Mrs. Turner, and although
the letters were addressed to the prosecutrix, they
implored Mrs. Turner to get the money, as there
was no doubt the writer knew perfectly well that
' the letters would be read by the attendant. One
of the letters asked for £5, and on that occasion the
prosecutrix directed Mrs. Turner to give her £2, as
she was short of money and could not spare any more.
The prisoner came several times afterwards, and at
last Mrs. Goodwin happened to hear that some per-
sons were getting money in her name, and she went
to her sister's and waited till he came. The letters
were all forgeries, and the prisoner then stated
that he was sent by a stranger whom he met in
the street, and gave him sixpence for his trouble.
Tile prisoner was given into custody, and he gave
an address which turned out to be an improper
house. It also appeared that his friends were
highly respectable, but he had ran away from them,
and was living with a number of young girls at the
house in question. _

Mrs. Turner produced two other letters which
were brought by the other young man, and she
proved having given him £2.
Mr. Taylor, the chief clerk, said the letters were
written after the same style as the others, but they
were upon a different kind of paper.
The prisoner now stated that the letters were
given to him by a nephew of the family.
Mrs. Goodwin said she had a nephew, but she
scarcely knew him, and did not know where he
lived. She believed his conduct had caused his
mother considerable pain. The prisoner was an
entire stranger to her.
The constable said he had no doubt he should be
able to apprehend the other young man.
Mr. Dayman remanded the prisoner for a week.
There were a number of young girls outside ap-
parently waiting to know the result of the charge.

WESTMINSTER. THE CHARGES AGAINST
MISS RICHARDS.—About a fortnight ago, Miss
Martha Augusta Arthur Richards, who had been
living in great style at 13, Chester-street, Gros-
venor-place, and who was stated by her solicitor to
be a lady of good family, was charged with fraudu-
lently obtaining £ll upon a banker's cheque. The
case was then only slightly gone into, owing to the
accused's illness and the want of evidence, and was
adjourned from time to time until the lady was well
enough to appear to the recognisaaces she had
entered into. The accusation against her was
briefly this :—That she had sent her servant with a
cheque for £ll to Mr. Phipps, butcher, 36, Bel-
grave-street, and obtained cash for it ; that when
the cheque was presented at the banker's there
were no effects to meet it ; and that, subsequently,
when Mr. Phipps sent the cheque to her house with a
:test that she would take it up, she destroyed it ;
but cyoss-examination it was shown that the ac-
cut in
had sent her servant to Mr. Phipps with an
offer to pay the money, but he refused to take it, as
he had just sent the cheque to his bankers.
On Miss
.C. Richards appearing for further exa-
mination,
Mr. C. Humphreys prosecuted for Mr. Phipps,
and expressed a desire to shape the charge against
her fpr stealing the cheque, admitting that there
Ihad been sufficient to meet the cheque at the ac-
cused's bankers for some days after it was drawn ;

it had, however, not been Pent to the bankers sooner
in consequence of the servant requesting delay.
Mr. Arnold complained that Mr. Phipps had acted
most disingenuously when he induced him to grant
a warrant for the accused's apprehension. He had
not only withheld the fact that an offer had been
made to pay the money, but had stated that her ac-
count had been closed at her banker's. There was
no false pretence, and he should discharge the pri-
soner for the alleged fraud, leaving it to Mr. Phipps
to give her into custody again, if he thought fit, on
any other charge.
Mr. Humphreys now stated a second charge for
which a summons had been issued against the pri-
soner, for obtaining a silk dress, value £lO ss. 2d.,
under false pretences. She had represented herself
to be a lady, when she was neither more nor less
than a servant. She had stated herself to be the
cousin of Lady Forbes and niece of Lord Tredegar,
both of which were untrue, and upon faith of these
representations she had obtained the dress from Mr.
Parton, linendraper and silk' mercer, 3 and 4,
Queen's-road, Pimlico. _ _

Mr. Lewis, jun , urged that Miss Richards's ac-
count had been mixed up with a lady's with whom
she resided, and asked Mr. Parton whether £2O had
not been offered him for his claim on the previous
day. Mr. Parton said that was so. Mr. Teed,
Q.C., had been to him upon the subject.
After some conversation Mr. Parton agreed to
take the £2O, and the charge having been with-
drawn, the accused left the court with her friends.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET. —AN ALLEGED
FINDER'S APPROPRIATION OF A STOLEN NOTE.—
Mr. Henry's Simpson, tailor, of 8, Richmond-street,
Leicester-square, was summoned before Mr. Bing.
ham for feloniously appropriating to his own use a
lost £lO Bank of England note, which it was
alleged he had found himself, or in company with
another. _ _

Mr. Humphreys conducted the case ; and Mr.
Edward Lewis, of Marlborough-street, the defence.
After an outline of the case had been given, Mr.
Humphreys called
Mrs. Sarah Dewing, the wife of Mr. Ed ward
Dewing, a City merchant, residing at No. 2, Grove,
Hackney, who deposed that she received, on the
27th of February, a £lO Bank of England note from
her husband to pay a bill, and after lunching with
her daughter, a young married lady, at her hona le
6, Great Coram-street, Russell-square, proceedo d
with her to Woburn-place, where they got into A
cab. Directly after entering she perceived that her
purse in her hand was open, and the note in ques-
tion and its contents gone. Losing no time they
both alighted and retraced their steps, the one on
one side of the way and the other on the other, to
where they called the cab, hoping to find the note,
but were doomed to disappointment.
Mrs. Fanny Cavell, the daughter of the last wit-
ness, confirmed the previous statement as to the loss,
and the proceeding consequent on the same, and
added, that as she looked for the note two men, one
with very dark whiskers, and the other, to the best
of her belief, the defendant, accosting her, .asked her
if she was looking for anything. She replied,
"Yes—a note." The man she believed to be the
defendant asked if it was a£sor a £lO not and
she answered a £lO, and they, with the re.mark
that it was a great loss, left, in the directic,‘ll of
Russell-square, shuffling about on the pavement` as
they started. On a subsequent day, from inform a-
tion she received, she accompanied her father to th e
defendant's shop. He did not at first appear to re-
cognise her, but afterwards turned very pale.
Cross-examined—lt was nearer three than four
o'clock in the afternoon when the note was dis-
covered to be lost. Had never, to her knowledge,
seen either of the men before. It was about four
or five minutes after leaving defendant's shop she
told her father he was the man.
Mr. William Edward Dewing, merchant and
lard oil manufacturer at the East-end of the town,
the husband of the first witness, said he gave his
wife a £lO note, as stated, on the 27th ult., the
number of which he found, as quickly after the
loss as possible, to be 9,048, and that it bore date
23d January, 1860. It is the note now produced
by the Bank authorities; On hearing of the less he
advertised the same, and offered £1 reward, both in
the papers and by handbills ; and, besides, gave the
usual notice at the Bank of England. Acting upon
information received, he afterwards went to Mr.
Buckley, 61, Basinghall-street, and thence to the
defendant's, in Richmond-street, where he saw the
defendant. In reply to his questions, he said he
had paid a £lO note to Mr. Buckley, which he had
received from a man, who gave his name Smith,
who looked like a sailor, and gave it in payment of
a second-hand coat, and this person indorsed it, or
pretended to do so. Defendant's wife coming into
the shop at that moment, said, " No, ho did not put
his name to it." He asked him, after telling him
it was his note, which had been lost, if he would
come to some arrangement about the same, and the
defendant replied, No, he would not; and on the
question of the change he gave, that that was his
business, requiring to know, at the same time, if he
took him for a-- fool. Again he proceeded to
the defendant's with his daughter, and asked if be
had traced out the Mr. Smith he spoke of, and he
replied in the negative.
Mr. John Blizard Buckley, woollen draper, 61,
Basinghall-street, said that the defendant had done
business with him about one year and a half, and
that he paid him the note in question to take £5
off an account of £l7 between them, on the 28th of
February, which he had ipplied for two or three
times. He required his indorsement, and he placed
his name on a corner of the note. He subsequently
paid the note to his bankers, the London Joint-
Stock Bank.

Mr. Richard Bailey, from the Bank of England,
produced the note in question paid in in a bulk of
£l,lOO from the Joint-Stock Bank.
This being the whole of the case,
Mr. Lewis addressed the court for his client, con-
tending that he was a respectable tradesman,
charged with feloniously stealing the note upon
the uncorroborated statement of a lady who had
herself very fairly stated that the could not speak
with certainty as to the defendant's identii T. She
had been taken by her father to the defendant's
house, and had admitted it was not until she had
left there some minutes that she fixed on him gs
one of the men who spoke to her in Woburn-place.
Mr. Bingham said as very loose and erroneous
opinions were afloat as to lost property found by
other than the owners, it would be well that he
should ei2 deavour to set this matter right, by giving
some general information on the subject, and he
would state the latest law respecting the same. If
a man find goods that have been actually lost, or
are reasonably supposed by him to have been lost,
and appropriates them, with intent to take the en-
tire dominion over them, really believing when he
takes them that the owner cannot be found, it is
not larceny ; but if he takes them with the like in-
tent, though lost, or supposed to be lost, but rea-
sonably believing that the owner can be found, it
is larcely. In the present case, had the lady, Mrs.
Cavell, been able to swear positively to the defen-
dant, I should undoubtedly have committed him,
under the circumstances detailed in evidence, to
take his trial. But she has stated very carefully
and fairly that she cannot say without a doubt that
he is the man, and therefore I shall not put the
county to unnecessary expea.se in his committal,
and do therefore discharge the summons.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ruySICIANS.-At the Comi-
tia Majora held on Saturday, March 17, the following
gentlemen, having been previously elected Marten admitted
members of the College :—George Anne i, M.D.,
Ventner, Isle of Wight; Samuel Parsons, 3, Clarges-street,
Daniel Hack Tuke, M.D., Falmouth; Thomas Hunter,
M.D., Edinburgh ; John Scott, M.D., Boulogne; Henry
Mills Cannon, M.B. Cheltenham ; Thomas Leckie, M.D.,
Torquay ; William 'St. George Davies, M.D., Brighton;
John Stirling, M.D., Royal Navy; William Mort, M.D.,
Southport ; William Lavin, M.D., Coventry ; Henry John
Lucas, M.D., Crickhowell, South Wales; Julius Althaus,
M.D., Manchester-street; John Davidson, M.D., Royal
Hospital, Hasler ; Richard Giles, M.D., Oxi:ord ; John
Dowson, M D., Whitby; Almeric Walter Seyrnex, M.D.,
Brighton; David Duncan Logan, M.D., Leinster-oquare;
Henry Harry Goodeve, M.D., Stoke Bishop, near Br,stol ;
Darwen Chawner, M.D., Lincoln ; Henry G.Wright, M. D.,
Somerset-street; Richard Leack, M.D., Blackburn; Joh.l
Frederick Stevenson, M.D., Birkenhead ,• Joseph Hutchin-
son Hammond, M.D., Preston • Ravenhill Pearce, M.D.,
Brighton ; Robert Crothers, M.D , ploy, county Tyrone ;
John Stewart Kilgour, M. , Isle of Man; Vans C. Clarke,
M.D., Royal Naval .
Rendezvous, Tower-hill; Joseph A.
Radcliffe Harvey, M.D., Southsea ; Edward Cator Seaton,
M.D., Sloane-street; Edward Shortland, Plymouth; John
'
M. C. Faircloth, M.D., Northampton • John Beddoe, M.D.,
Clifton; Robert Miller, M.D. Somer's-place, Hyde-lark;
Charles Sylvester, M.D., Bath; Alonzo Henry Stocker,
M.D., Bow.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.—The following
gentlemen, having undergone the necessary examinations
for the diploma, were admitted members of the College at a
meeting of the Court of Examiners on the 16th inst., viz.—
Messrs. John Edmunds, Toddington, near Dunstable,
L.S.A., May 2, 1816 ; Thomas Stiles, Pinchbeck, Spalding,
Lincolnshire, L.S.A., February 1, 1821; James Bryant,
Northampton-street, Clerkenwell, L.S.A., November 18,
1824; Robert Skegg, St. Martin's-place, Trafalgar-square,
L. S.A., December 22, 1825 ; Henry Knaggs, Kentish-town,
L.S.A., February 23, 1826; James Griffith, Biddenden,
Kent, L.S.A.' Dec. 21, 1826; James Lambden, Grimsby,
Lincolnshire' L.S.A., April 12, 1827 ; James Hurd, Frome,
Somerset, L.S A., June 3, 1830 ; Ralph Linton, Chester-
le-street, L.S.A, June 10, 1830; Francis Chas. Howard,
Linton, Cambridgeshire, L.S.A., June 7, 1832 ; George
Cochrane, Wickham-market, Suffolk, L.S.A., October 17,
1833; Edward Smith Walters, Leek, Staffordshire, L.S.A.,
Nov. 3, 1836 ; Jacob Ashley, Wick and Abson, near Bath,
L.S.A., July 5, 1838 ; Frederic Barham, Maidstone, L.S.A.,
April 25, 1859 ; John Hurd, Yatton, near Bristol, L.S.A.,
May 8, 1845; Wm. Paine Fisher, Dartford, L.S.A., March
5, 1846 ; Wm. Byron Hill, Carter-street, Walworth, L. S. A.,
July 5, 1849 ; Alfred Scotehburn, Driffield, Yorkshire,
L.S.A., Nov. 8, 1849; Christopher Kirby, Halifax, York-
shire, L.S.A., May 6, 1842 ' • John Ivy Mais, Thorner, near
Leeds, L.S.A., May 26, 1853 • Edward Swales, Hemsley,
Yorkshire, L.S.A., Apra 28, 1853 ; Chas. Stuart Watkins,
Chandos-street, Covent-garden, April 20, 1854 ; and
Frederik Slado