The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 23, 1858.

LAW IN.

MR. LABOUCIIERE,
BEFO.RM M.BILP.,
L. ON THE NEW

The annual civic feast was held at Taunton on
Friday, presided over by Messrs. Easton and Bar-
nicott, bailiffs of the borough. The right hon. H.
Labouchere, ex-Colonial Secretary, and Mr. Arthur
Mills, members for Taunton, were present.
In reply to the toast, " The Borough Members,"
Mr. LABOUCHERE said—The worthy bailiff who had
proposed his health had made him out to be 'a very
venerable personage. (Laughter.) He had given
him a sort of paternal character in which he (Mr.
Labouchere) could hardly hope to aspire. He was
not a young man, but he hoped he had a little
work left in him still, and therefore he did not ex-
actly like to be spoken of- as a veteran. (More
laughter.) The worthy bailiff said as he (Mr.
Labouchere) had represented Taunton so many
years he must be the father of the House of Com-
mons. There were a good many gentlemen in that
house who were born long before him, and also
some who were elected representatives before him;
and although he was, perhaps, one of the elder
members of the House of Commons, be could
through their kindness boast of that which very
few could boast—that he had represented the same
constituency which he had represented before the
passing of the Reform Bill, and by whom he had
been sent to Parliament ever since that Reform
Bill was passed. (Cheers.) And that reminded
him of a topic on which he was anxious to say one
or two words. He was well aware those were not
occasions on which party differences ought to be
introduced, but there was one subject which largely
interested all of them as electors of Taunton, and
as that was, perhaps, the only opportunity he
should hive before Parliament met, he was anxious
to say a few words upon it. (Cheers.) It had
been announced by her Majesty's Government that
a new Reform Bill would be introduced in the
next session of Parliament. For his own part, he
had no doubt such would be the case, and it was
hardly possible but that this bill would materially
affect their position and interests as a constituted
body. (Hear, hear.) Now, he thought it right
to say to them that he considered iu would
be his duty—and he knew but little of their
feeling if he supposed they did not wish him to
perform that duty—to consider that mea-
sures not solely or even principally as regards
the constituency he had the honour to re-
present, and which he ought to be attached
to, if ever member was attached to a constituency,
but he should consider it in reference to its bearing
upon the great interests ofthe community. (Cheers.)
He would also say that of the nature and details of
that bill he was profoundly ignorant, he had no
connection with the Government which would
bring it forward, and could only form the vaguest
conjecture of the form and colour it would be. But
he conceived that a measure which would affect the
future generations of England should be regarded
not as to whether this or that set of men shall oc-
-cupy the bench of office, and he should look upon it
with every feeling of deference to the wellbeing of
the country, and not as a question which pertains
to a mere political partisan. (Cheers.) 'lle had no
wish -whatever to see the constituencie3 of England
put up asr.it were to auction, to be obtained by the
most unscrupulous bidder. (Loud cheers.) But if
that measure should appear to him calculated to
improve, purify, strengthen, and to enlarge our. re-
presentative system, that bill should have his sup-.
port. (Hear, 'bear.) If on the other hand it be
merely a specious pretence—if it should appear to
him not to be calculated to produce that cud for
which alone the representative systeni was of any
value, namely, the good order and good government
of the country, he should fearlessly oppose it, and
he would trust to the good sense and public spirit
of the men of Tauntonto support him in that course.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. MILLS also acknowledged the toast. He said
his right hon. colleague had referred to the coming
Reform Bill. He (Mr. Mills) was hot in the confi-
dence of her Majesty's Government, and knew no
more of the provisions of the bill they intended to
bring forward than he did of another bill—that of
friend John Bright. (A laugh.) They had come
to such a pass in legislation that they could not
have one bill announced but they had another for
the same object. Last . session they had two India
bills—he was not sure they hadn't three ; next
session they were promised two Reform Bills,
and they might have three ; but whatever might
be the fate of them, he trusted, notwithstand-
ing any change in the representative system
his relations with the constituency would be in no
way interrupted. The hon. member then referred
some length to local and personal topics, and con-
cluded by saying that in any new Reform Bill he
should be glad tosee a clause introduced for the
entire abolition of " Parliamentary Christmas-
boxes,"
a practice which he understood had long
been regarded as one of the time-honoured institu-
tions' of that ancient borough. (Laughter.)

(ADTERTISEMENT.)—Itheurat'sem and its Cure.—Hol-
lcoinweasyar'soOdinatinilyerentveaarns.Pitlhlserr
wonderfulsextraordinary medi-
cines properties. Mr.
Taylor, druggist, of Rothesay, writing 1858, says :
—' I hear of numerous cures being lectaedr by:use of
your medicines, one of which I will mention. the
'
labouring man, who was so ill with rheumatism :1: ofa
could not move either his arms or his legs without th e that
he
excruciating pain, and who was completely cured by the
use of your pills and ointment." These medicines also will
curelumbago, wens, tumours, stiff joints, contractions, en-
largements, and glandular swellings. In gout, rheumatic
gout, and neuralgia, the pain is assuaged by the ointment
and cured by the pills.

%—.Yor. 22.

COURT OF
foPROa CBATE AND DIAORCE.
(Bere or.)
3IARCHMONT V. MARCHMONT.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott, Dr. Deane, Q.C., Dr.
Spinks, Mr. Tindal Atkinson, and Mr. F. J. Smith
wexe counsel for the petitioner ; Mr. K. Macaulay,
Q.C., Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for the
respondent,
The petitioner, Caroline Maria Marchmont, prayed
for a judicial separation from her husband, Henry
Marchmont, on the ground of cruelty. She alleged
that he had treated her with great unkindness and
cruelty, and had extorted large sums of money from
her by threats and violence. Various acts of cruelty
were specified in the petition. The respondent de-
nied all the allegations of cruelty, and also pleaded
condonation.
Mrs. Marchmont this morning added to her pre-
vious evidence that including the money she had
lent to Mr. Marchmont's father, Mr. Marchmont
had received from her from first to last upwards of
£2,000. She was then cross-examined by Mr.
Macaulay, and said that her annual income at the
time of her marriage with Mr. Marchmont was
more than £2,000 &year, and she believed Mr.
Marchmont had told her that he had £2OO a-year.
She did not know that Mr. Marchmont had £4OO
a-year, from private property, £3OO a-year from
the chapel he gave up, and that he made about
£2OO a-year by writing. It was arranged that the
carriage and horses were to be kept at his expense.
His three children were sent to school. Mrs.
Walmsley, she continued, is a daughter of my
sister, Mrs. Davies. My sister lived with me for
some time at the tavern kept by my first husband
in Threadneedle-street. She is a widow with a
fortune. Before our marriage Mr. Marchmont
lived with his wife and children at Stoke Newing-
ton. His furniture, books, and wine were re-
moved to my house at 10, Percy-place, but I lent
him £350 to pay for the wine. At Tunbridge-
wells we lodged at Mrs. Bennet's, Jordan-house.
There was a servant in the house. I did not refuse
to have anyone as nurse when I was unwell, or to
take care of the children. Mr. Marchmont did very
little for me. He was writing all daylong in my room.
When he went " scratch, scratch," it annoyed
me very much, but when he stopped writing
I did not say he was lazy. I was pleased at his
staying with me. I never insisted upon his doing
for me what ought to have been done by a nurse. I
never said that I hated marriage, and would not
live with my husband. Mr. Marchmont may have
sometimes washed and dressed ~he children, but not
often. I had a fire in my bedroom, but I did not
object to a fire being lighted in the drawing-room
on account of the expense. I never said that my
husband was trying to cheat or rob me when small
change was given me. We were married from my
sister's house. By his desire no friend of his and no
member of his family, were at the wedding. My
husband deceived me in his age. He gave me rea-
son to believe that he, was 10 years older than he
really. was. When I asked him his age after our
marriage he said he was 35, and added that he had
never deceived me but in that one thing. My sister
came to see me when I wrs ill at Tonbridge-wells.
I told Mr. Marchmont that she had told me that he
had been heard to say, " A pretty honeymoon I
have had, shut up in my wife's stinking sicic room."
When I heard that expression I wrote to my attor-
ney to alter my will, having previously left Mr.
Marchmont half my property. He had good wine,
but he gave me bad wine, and I complained of it.
I told him he thought anything good enough for
me. I did not call him a fool in the presence of
the children, or at any time. The £220 at my banker's
was not included in my settlement. At my reque t
he wrote to the banker to honour my checks. At
Dover we lodged with a Mrs. Ryder. There were
two servants in the house. I never replied to his re-
quest for a few pence to post a letter that the letter
might lie and rot. When he proposed a separation
the reason he did not have the £lO,OOO was because
be could not get it. The offer of a separation and
the payment of £lO,OOO to him came from him, not
from me. I very seldom called him a liar. If, any
one was coming towards us at the moment it is
very probable he might have used such expressions
as, "Don't make such a noise; behave like a lady."
" Remember we are strangers here ; what will peo-
ple think of us ?" He would say things of that
kind without any provocation. I certainly did not
lay hold of him by the hair of his head as he was
stooping down to unlock my trunk. When we went
out for a walk on the 25th Nov. at Dover, and there
was a piece of work about the children, I let go his
arm because he became violent. I did not say,
when he threatened to go back, that he might go
to the devil if he liked. When he took my hand
I struggled to get it away. It was this quarrel
that cau ,ed me to go to Deal. When he compared
himself to Mount Vesuvius, it was not in answer to
a complaint of mine that he had received me coldly.
He did not say the coldness was like the snow on
Vesuvius. I found the money for the expenses of
thetrip. I very likely gave 'him small sums, even
to 2d. to the showman of a cathedral, as they were
wanted. He ousht to have carried money himself.
If I had given him a large sum of money be might
have left me. I did not forbid more than two meals
a-day abroad ;he and the children might have had
tea if they had pleased. He went out of the Hotel
St. Antoine at Antwerp to buy a little brandy to
save the expense of having it at the hotel, but not
more by my desire than by his own. I left my
boa at Ostend and bought a new one at Dover, but
I did not tell my husband in the hearing of the
shopman when it was being bought that he knew
nothing about it, or order him to walk out of the
shop. If I d;dit was done kindly. He did walk
out of the shop and wait for me. The quarrel on
Sunday, the 10th Jan., did not originate in my say-
ing that I would leave him. When he was in his
humours I never said anything to him ' • it would
have been as much as my life waswortli. The house
at Percy-place is not a large one. I kept two maid-
servants there—Tobin and Lewis. It had been
understood before the marriage that a larger house
should be taken. When he complained that his
(roods were spoiling by being kept in the back
kitchenri I did not say I would not be bothered with
his things. One of the children slept on the floor in
our bedroom. I wanted to have one of them with me
to protect my life. He often spoke about having a
third servant. When the Newfoundland dog was
brought home I did not say " There are dogs enough
already—l have four to maintain." But I did object
to his cutting a piece off the roast beef for the dog.
When we spoke about the education of the children
I did not say I would not have a governess in the
house for him i o fli=t with. He saidhe wouldrather
be broiiing in hell than feel aa he then did. The
money I advanced to his father was for the purpose
of enahling him to take a lease of a farm. On the
morning of the 21st January Mr. Marchmont came
into my room, but I did not tell Infa to leave the
room in the presence of the servant. I did not speak
to him in an imperious manner before the servants.
As he was sitting in his study on that day he told
me to go and fetch him a wax candle off the chim-
ney-piece. I said; " If you were to turn round to
the window you would not want a candle just yet."
I did not say it was his extravagant ways that
made him want candle. He rushed past me in a
passion, went upstairs, and called me a drunken
faggot. He did not say it was foolish to dispute
about such a trifia, and he would fetch one of the
wax candles we had brought from Brussels. He
brought clown the candle and the key basket, and
said he had turned all the things out my drawers,
and I then went upstairs and locked the door. He
then went up and broke open the door. He did not
say I must be &tiler drunk or rand to refuse him a
halfpenny candle, and to lock him out of his own
room. I was writing in the account-book the
names he had called me, when he took it out of my
hand and threw it on the fire. I had made memo-
randa of my
.disputes with my niece Mrs. Uzzielli,
then Miss Cumming. I took the book out of the
fire and he snatched it away again, and in the
struggle he blacked his face. The servants came
up. I never lost my temper or spoke violently—l
was too Lightened.
Mr. Macaulay--Did you ever swear at him ?
Witness—l may have said you once or twice
when he' was telling dreadful stories. Mr. March-
mont and the two servants tried to prevent my
going out of doors. The serxants did not hold me.
Ho did not come to me in the dining-room and say
he hoped the storms were over, and pour out some
wine and water for me, nor did .I throw the wine
and water over him. He did not say " Here is a
pretty example for the children," nor did I answer
that I wished he and his children were in eternal
perdition. On another occasion when he called me
a dreadful name I did throw a little wine over him.
Mr. Marchmont knew Mrs. Uzzielli before he knew
me. I had lived with Mrs. Uzzielli. He has com-
plained of my temper as intolerable, and I have re-
plied that whatever it was he knew it before he
married me, and I could not change • it. I did not
tell him that his congregation at Stoke Newington
was a blackguard gang of hypocrites, but he told me
that a letter had been written and I should be
"bonneted" if I went to his chapel. That was also
on Jan. 21. He did not puck me away by placing
his open hand upon ray forehead, saying,
"Get away, you insolent little creature." On the
25th of January he proposed that we should take
opera tickets, and I bought 12 guineas' worth ;
then he would not go, and I had to give away the
tickets. I went from home on the Ist Feb., and on
the 25th Feb. he fetched me from Mr. Walmsley's.
He said on the Ist Feb. it would serVe me right if
he did something to get a divorce. When I left the
house I said I would see him at my feet before
I would go home again. I did not say to Tobin
that I would not go home unless I was fetched. I

screamed as loud as I could all the time I was in
the cab, and he tr:ed to stop my mouth. I begged
the cabman to stay, for God's sake, or I should be
murdered. I did not call him a liar and a cut
throat. When we arrived at the police station he
begged me not to make a charge. The police begged
me to be reconciled. We went home in another cab.
We occupied the same room. I was obliged to do
as he liked. The letter written by him at Mr.
Prescott's, the banker's, was not written as a con-
dition for the payment of the money. He wrote
voluntarily, and we were then friendly. I never
said to him that I supposed while I had been away
he must have had a nice time of it with his nasty
women. On the 19th March there was an unplea-
sant discussion about the house. He said if he re-
mained the trustees must make him tenant of the
house, in order that he might not be subject to be
turned out by them. He also said I must give a
check for the rent. When I had a dispute with
him it was my habit to ring for the servants. On
the 19th March I rang for them, and went to the
window and screamed. He thrust me on the sofa.
I trembled before him, and he knows it. I did
not leave the horse because when he went away
he had kissed the children and had not given me a
kind look. I left on account of the piece of work
we had had in the morning. I wrote to him from
Mrs. Mackenzie's. Several letters passed, and on
the 27th of March he came to fetch me. The soli-
citor who. prepared my settlement was Mr. God-
win. I first consulted him, but after I had been
to Mrs. Mackenzie's I consulted Mr. Barnard, be-
cause Mr. Marchmont had used expressions with
regard to Mr. Godwin and myself which caused me
to determine not to resort to that gentleman. Mr.
Marchmont never apologised for those expressions.
'On the 6th of April there was a quarrel about my
will. The effect of what he said was not an inquiry
whether I was aware that I had left a large sum
to my residuary legatees. He complained of my
having only left him £lO,OOO, and said he ought to
have half. I said if he behaved well for six months
I would alter the will. At the end he said some-
thing about destroying my will, and not making
another for six months, and if I died in the mean-
time he would not come in for anything. I offered
to send him up his breakfast in bed, and he de-
clined, but he did not say. I had taken away his
appetite. I went away the same day, and was ab-
sent for a week. I took lodgings with Mrs. Mac-
kenzie. After my return he insisted on my going
with him to his father's farm, at Shandley. We
were there for two days. After a sale at Shandley
he asked me for £lOO, and I gave him par it
t of
then and made up the rest the following week. I
did not charge him with having., had improper in-
tercourse with other women during
but my abse
link he
thnce. I
had a different opinion of him then,
is that now. After a certain letter had fallen into
my hands I told the servants to give me all the
letters before they were delivered to him. He
showed me one letter, which purported to be from a
young lady asked him to recommend her as a gover-
ness. He at first offered to let me answer it my-
self, but he would not allow me to answer it after-
wards when I wished. If he had, it would have
relieved my mind. I remember his asking
dme to
lend him 14s. to pay the coachman, and I remined
him that he had promised not to ask for more
money until November. I went to the window and
told the servant not to pull down the blind. He
snatched my purse out of my hand and put it into
his pocket. There were either sovereigns or checks
in it. We then drove to a shop in Newgate-street,
where he accused me of having left him seven
times in six months, and of having lived with
another man. On our way to New„
ate-street he
had called at a money-order office, and I slipped
out of the carriage and ran away. He saw me
again in the shop in Neu-gate-street. He told me
to go to the Mansion-house if I had any charge to
make ; but I did not know how to act. I went away
from him that day. On the 24th May I returned
home in consequence of what I had heard about the
child. (The witness repeated her denial of having
charged her husband with having had improper in-
tercourse with other women, and continued :—) I
perhaps rode out with him afterwards.and made it
up, because I am of too forgiving a, temper, and he
knew very well that one kind word would bring
me round. He would not let me see my friends and
relations. I wanted to have a party after my wed-
ding, but he said that if my relations came he
would go 'out. On the 4th of June he was angry
at my having been to my lawyer. He did not az- •
cuse me of carrying on a course of deception, nor
did I call him a liar. I did not insist upon
his giving up the chapel before I married him, but
I wished him to do so, and offered to build him
another. He told mel should be " bonneted" if I
went to the chapel, I suppose because I was a
Roman Catholic.
Sir C. Cresswell—Very likely.
Cross-examinaton continued--When he caught
me in the garden, after I had escaped from the
house, he flew upon me like a tiger. When we
were in the house I did not swear at him and say,
" You murdered your mother, and now you want
to murder me.' I was locked in all day
and became ill. He did not attend upon me. He
slept in the same bed with me that night, but re-
mained at as great a distance as he could from me.
He did not sleep with me on the Sunday night. I
lived at Mr. Mitchell's for nearly three months—
that is within a few doors of my own house, where
my husband is living. I did not go to my stster's,
because Mr. Marchmont protested against it before
the magistrate. He wished me to go to Mr. Mit-
chell's. A friend of mine called on me after visiting
my husband, but I would not hear about a recon-

ciliation.
The cross-examination of Mrs. Marchmont occur
pied the entire day, until the rising of the Court a'
five o'clock•

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron Martin
and Common Juries.)
TRUSS AND ANOTHER T. SMITH.—FALSE
IMPRISONMENT.
This was an action for an assault and false im-
pzisonment, to which the defendant pleaded not

guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff and Mr. Taylor were
counsel for the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Sergeant Banat).-
tine represented the defendant.
It appeared from the case of the plaintiff (Mr.
Truss), fad he is a warehouseman, and an agent for
Scotch and Irish goods, residing at Hatcham-ter:
race, Old Kent-road, and the defendant carries on
business as a market gardener and fruiterer in
High-street, Deptford. The circumstances which
gave rise to the case are disclosed in the evidence of
Mrs. Truss, who deposed as follows :—I am one of
the plaintiffs. On the 15th of June last I had to
walk to Deptford, and as I was within six weeks of
my confinement, and the day was very hot, I felt
very much fatigued. I went into the defendant's
sbop, and saw the defendant's daughter there. She
handed me a chair, and I called for a bottle of
ginger beer, which she opened. I gave her a half-
sovereign—all the money I had with me. She vied
it with a coin tester, and broke it. She said, " This
is a bad half-sovereign," and handed it to me. I
said I'was much surprised, because I had received
it from my brother-in-law a respectable architect
in Birmingham. She asked me for the half-sove-
reign back again. I said, "It is of no use to you,
and if it is a bad one I will get it exchanged." She
replied, " If you don't return it to me you will get
into trouble." I said, "If you doubt my respecta-
bility, I will give you my name and address."
She called her mother, and ,said, " Mother, this
woman has been trying, to pass a bad half-sove-
reign." Tile mother wished me to give it to her,
. but I refused. I gave her my name and
address, and offered to take them to my house to
show them my brother-in-law's letter enclosing the
half-sovereign. Mrs. Smith then called her hus-
- band, and said, " This woman has been trying to
pass a bad half-sovereign and refuses to give it
back to me." The defendant replied, "Won't she ?
Then I will make her." I then gave him the half-
sovereign, and Mrs. Smith said I might go. The
defendant said, " No, I don't know about that. I
will have no more of this. If it costs me 120 I
will make an example of her." I then give him my
name and address. He told his daughter to fetch
a policeman. I said that if she would go to r.
Dovenor, a grocer, a few doors off, who knew my
husband, well, he would speak to my respectability.
I also referred to my condition. He refused to send
to Mr. Dovenor, and two policemen passing at the
time, he called them in, and gave me into custody
for passing bad money. The policemen told him
to come with us. I then entreated him to go to Mr.
Dovenor's, or to my home, to spare my reputation.
The defendant handed the half-sovereign to the
policeman. I was then taken to the police-station.
There was a c:owd round the shop. On the way
to the police-station we passed Mr. Dovenor's shop.
I asked the defendant andthe policemen to take me
in, and make inquiries about me. The defendant
refused. On my arrival at the police-station I was
taken before the inspector, and the half-sovereign
was banded to him. The defendant repeated the
charge. I was then taken into the searching room
and searched, the whole of my clothes having, been
taken off. Whilst I was dressing there was a7knock
at the door, and some person said the half-sovereign
was found to be good, and that I was at liberty.
He offered me the half-sovereign back, and a sove-
reign as compensation. I refused to take it, saying
I would leave it to my husband to settle. I was in
custody an hour. My cloak was torn and mir
bonnet strings were pulled off. I was seriously ill
for a week afterwards. It was, the occasion. of my
being very ill after my confinement.
Cross-examined—l was going to Deptford to
transact business. I objected to go to the station.
,clO- not know that defendant had offered to pay

£5 as compensation. The defendant expressed his
sorrow for what had. occurred. He took me home
andipaid my fare. He waited some time to see my
husband. The same evening my husband consulted
an attorney.
The plaintiff's husband was then examined, and
he stated that when he called on the defendant
about the matter, Mrs. Smith said he was as bad
as his wife, and ought to be placed in the same
situation. Idconsequence of that he had threatened
to kick the defendant out of his house when he
called upon him.
Other witnesses having been called in support of
the plaintiff's case,
The learned. Counsel summed up the evidence.
The defence was that the defendant had lost
large sums by taking bad money, and thinking
that the plaintiff was endeavouring to pass a bad
half-sovereign under the suspicious circumstance of
getting it changed to pay for a penny bottle of
ginger beer, he had considered it his duty to give
' her into custody, but when he diEcoveled he had
made a mistake he had. done all in his power to
make amends for it. It was contended that this
was an attorney's action, and that very small
damages would compensate theplaintife.
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, commented
on the fact that the defendant's wife and daughter
had not been called to deny the truth of the'Plaiu-
tiff's account of the transaction. It must, there-
fore, be taken to be true, and the only questien for
the jury was what amount of damages., sll;e. was
fairly entitled to. She had been taken into cut*,
through the streets, she had been stripped naked
and searched, and had been exposed to almost
every indignity that could be inflicted. upon a
woman. It was the duty of a policeman; when a
person was charged. under such circumstances," rind
gave a name and address, to make inquiries as to
respectability, for any person might innocently
pass bad money. It was clear that the defendant
had acted bona fide, but he was not justified in
giving the plaintiff into custody.
The Jury returned. a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages £2O.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL—MONDAY.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and Justices Wight-
man, Williams, Hill, and Baron Channel].)
THE QUEEN V. HILTON AND ANOTHER.-STEALING

AND RECEIVING. '
The prisoner, Elizabeth Hilton, was charged
with having, after a previous conviction for felony,
stolen a watch, and the other prisoner, NPNewall,
with stealing and receiving. Hilton was found
guilty of stealing, and M'Newall of receiving.
Counsel for the p:isoners had objected E.t the trial
that Hilton should not have been at first arraigned
on the previous conviction, as it would prejudice
the minds of the jury, and the recorder of Hastings,
before whom the case was tried, assented to this
proposition. After the conviction for the felony of
the watch, it was proposed to arraign her on the
charge of the previous felony, when the learned
counsel objected, on the ground that the count had
been exhausted. He also contended that the facts
warranted the conviction of M'Newall for stealing,
but not for receiving, and both these points were

reserved.
Mr. Ribton, who had been counsel for the pri-
soners in the court below, now appeared for them.
The Lord Chief Baron said it was discreditable
to any gentleman acquainted with the law suffi-
ciently to exercise the office of recorder to have
reserved the first point, and he did not believe he
had intended to do so
Mr. Justice Wightman said the learned counsel
had requested the recorder, as a favour, that the
previous conviction should be excluded from the
arraignment, and the recorder having acceded, the
learned counsel had then urged that it was too late
to do so after the conviction of the substantive
felony.
Mr. Justice Williams said the Court could not
hear an argument on such a point.
Mr. Ribton having been heard on the second