The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-06 00:00:00

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-CARLISLE, AUG. 4.

Mr. Baron Martin arrived at this town late last night, and
opened the commission. The Lord Cbief Baron did not arrive
until this morning. from Newcastle, the business having oc-
cupied him until rather late last night.
After attending Divine service at the Cathedral this morn-
ing, their lordships went into court at 11 o'clock, Mr. Baron
Martin sitting on the civil side, and the Lord Chief Baron
charging the grand jury.
The calendar contains the names of only seven prisoners,
three of them charged with ordinary larcenies, three with
uttering base coin, and one with forgery.
The cause list contains an entry of four causes.
In the Crown Court two Mint cases and a.couple of ordi-
nary sessions cases occupied the day. - In the course of the
day his lordship, learning that two indictments for perjury
-were to be preferred before the erand jury, millet. had not
been first brought before the consideration of the magis-
trates, bad the grand jury again before him, and in very
cogent terms advised them not to find the bills without the
I most cautious inquiry, as this mode of preferring bills was
sometimes abused.

The grand jury ignore) both the bills, and the while cri-
minal business wa&clneluded in the course of the day.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Munn Martio.)
HOPE 'T. BELL.

This was an action brou,llit by the faller of the plaintiff,
a little girl. of live or six years of age, as her next friend, to
recover damages for an injury done her by one of the de-
fendant's servants in so negligently driving his wageon as to
run over and en sh tier foot, whereby she was rendered, in
all probability, lame for lif .
Mr. Price appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Overend, Q.C.,
and Mr. Dawson for the defendant.

It apptsred that the plaintiff, the father of the child, is a
meson, and the defendant is a wbol merchant. In August,
18,54, when the plaintiff's child was only about 18 months
old, she was sitting in the middle of the road In front of
some cottages called Mzlburn-cottages, situated on the road
between Brampton and Carlisle, and near where her parents
resided.. The defendant's waggon, driven by one James
Telford, was conning from Brampton to Carlisle, loaded, and
drawn by three horses, one before the other. By some
means or other the first two horses passed over the child
without hurting her, but When the shaft horse carne to it he
shied, and Telford said he then first observed the plaintiff
still sitting in the road ; upon seeing her he snatched her
away and stopped the horses, but not before the wheel of
the waggon had cruehed one a the child's feet so severely
as, according to tie evidence of a surgeon, cvntild lame her
for life.

The chief controversy raised in the casp was, whether the
drivtr of the waggon was dttinr on the waggon or walkiog
by the side (This gorses, as 1:e hitnscif sworP. Several wit-
nesses were called on both sides, and, atnorig others, two
who swore that Telford had toll then after the accident that
he was riditia:. on his wagrzon.

The jar}' fTund a verdie,t for the plaint iff.—Daina;es L6O.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-Aug.

(Before Mr. Under—Sheriff Burehell.)
PROCLAMATP,NS OF OUTLAWRY.

This morning the names of several —well-known
b a
exieencies of the several
oresu'r‘rpenrodeeiraitmoettTe' and they were severally
processes, or they would be my lawed. • The following pro-
clamllfations were made by the officer of the court :
Ernest Vane Tempest. commonly called Lord Ernest Vane
Terrmest, at the suit of Ate Queen.
ward. Thomas Pelham Clinton, at the suit of Edward
Peckham.
Washington Fox, at the suit of Richard Brown.
'William 21'Oubrey and wife, at the suit of Thomas
Richards.
Joseph Sweenie Brockhurst, at the suit of Henry Gibbon.
Kerwen Joseph Fernie, at the suit of John Addison.
William -Gihis, at the suit of Charles Sevens.
John Carlin. Morris, at the suit of the Oriental Bank.
Ilerry Fendall, at the suit of the same.
William 13,:tne:sall, at the suit of George Lawrence.
Duncan Bea I, at the suit of Thomas Truefitt.
Gillam M. Ross, at the suit of Robert Duncan Gerard.
Henry Pulford Plenman and Henry Charles Macdonald,
at the suit of James Martin.
No answer was made by the 'parties, and the setne•cere-
mony will be repeated for four months before they can be
outlawed.
IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO SHERIFFS' FEES.
At the Sheriffs' Court on Wednesday the following im-
portant case was heard (Willis v. Jones), in which Mr.
Lewis appeared for the plaintiff, a sheriff's officer; and Mr.
Palmer for,defendant, a solicitor:—
From the statement of the learned solicitor it appnared
that at defendant's instance an execution was put into a
wr.,on's pretni,es; but, a second party having laid claim to
the debtor's goods, the defendant withdrew, and plaintiff
now seught to recover the sum of £1 ls. as levy fee, and
Li ha, fur luau's possessien 10 days at :3s. Gd. per day.
Mr. Lewis contended that as the attorney was legally and
personally liable there could be no defence.
Mr. Palmer contended, on the part of the defendagt, that
no levy having been made, that part of the case was at once
settled, as it was impos,,i the to recover fees for levy unless
it had actually been made, and the execution creditor had
got something. Now, in this ea cno levy had actually been
made. As regarded the bailiff's charge of 15s. before an
intcrp!eader order, the interpleader issue raised had not
been tried, the execution creditor's claim having been
barred by a judge's order, and therefore that part of the case
failed also. _ _ _

Mr. Lewis endeavoured to shos that it was to defendant
alone, and through him,
ptaiotiff should lo::1 fur his
money. that

Mr. Palmer contended that no case bad been or could be
cited to show that the bailiff' could !recover files. Under
these cilcutovtancev, to decide in plaintiff's favour wottitt
tend to fraud, and carele.'ssess On the patt of the skiff,
Tint, apart Loin the directly upon the point
'7*.`"l frq atudolzy, Alr. At:-•tilvdd (with Mr. Lu4l, Q.C.)
itt hid book t,,t practice clefoly =twirl the law to be that,
vvlicre the exacrititAt creditor dais not try the issue, and
g't4 holhing under the execution, the f,.:f:s cannot he re-
covered.

Ills llolottr livid that it was so. He considered it to
be very unju,t that an attorney should be personally
liable, as he was only an agent. An attorney was not
liable for a witness who attended at his personal solicits=
lion. As the case stood plaintiff would be nonsuited.

THE CHILD MURDER AT NULL.--Of this case we
had a short notice in Wednesday's Morning Post. It
appears, horn further particulars, that the ease is one of
those revolting itifan tickles which are unfit fur publication.
The prisoner, whose name is Sarah Kilvingten, is not, as
the report stated, the some Mrs. Killington, of respectable
connections, whose lmsband deserted her nine years 'ago;
BO it is e yen doubtful whether the prisoner is married.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—/lockley F. Wood, Folieitcr' and
Franc A tterlri, y, labourer, win: charged with unlaw-
fully assaulting W. Turner, police constable 64.

It appeared from the evidence that for some six months
past c.ouplainant had b?en residing its an empty house in
Church-row, Aldgate, and that Omit a fortnight ago a
woman name Price hired the house, paying £l3 for the
fixtures, upon which the agent told Turner to get out as
soon as he could-, but before this was done the agent dis-
covered that false references hod been given by the party
hiring the house, and he therefore instructed the complain-
ant to rotain possession. Wood was therefore employed to
get possession for the hirer, for which purpose he went to
the house, accompanied by our men, when a regular attack
was made upon Turner, with the view of turning him out;
but although his shirt was torn from his bock, he succeeded
in keeping possession, and gave the defendants into custody.
For the defendants it was conten•!ed that they acted
legally in attempting to get possession, even forcibly, for
Mr. Wood's client ; but the Lord Mayor took a different
view of the case, and committed both prisoners fur trial to
the sessions, taking their own recognisances for their due
appearance.
Two cases of indecent assault on children came before the
Court.
In the first case an intelligent little girl, nine years old,
had been sent to a German tailor, named Moses Blum-
b2rg, to learn the business, a circumstance of which he
had taken advantage so far as to assault her indecently,
and endeavoured to corrupt tier mind, pacifying her
with a " penny for gooseberries," and warning her not to
tell her mother or sister, as they would laugh at her ; but
upon going home the little one told her mother at once,
" because she couldn't rest," and the prisoner was given
into custody.
With the most disgusting effrontery ke now said—The
little girl was saucy to me, she kissed me for a halfpenny,
and that made use feel sick, and I didn't know what I
was doing.
In the second case, Richard Colley, living in the same
house with Mary Jaae Striation, 14 years old, caught her
indeceNtly as she ores going indoors, and forced her into the
water-closet, where he attempted to effect his purpose by
violence, pressing his hand to her mouth to keep her from
crying out. She was, however, heard to say, " Leave go,
you'll strangle me," and upon her mother calling out to
know what was the matter, the ruffian let her go.
The Lord Mayor expressed himself in strong terms of
indignation on both case, and sentenced the vagabonds to
four months' imprisonment each, with hard labour, under
the Aggravated Assaults Act.
" B. 0." sent 10s. for the poor-box, being the produce
of 2d. per day, abstracted from his salary of £72 per year
by a clerk, who recommended the adoption of a similar plan
of charitable action to his fellow clerks, with an assurance
that they would find it easy to persevere if they once com-
menced it, even with a small salary.

WESTNIINSTER.—CHARGS: OF PERJURY AGAINST
A RESPECTABLE TRADESMAN AND A POLICE-CoN.
STABLE.—A very lengthened and tedietts charge of perjury,
which has occupied bath magistrates at this court some
days, was yesterday brought to a close before Mr. Payuter.
Mr. Sleigh, barrister, conducted the prosecution, and
Mr. Haines, solicitor, the defence. The accused were
{{'illiam Neville, a butcher, carrying on bis business
at Richmond, Surrey, and John Wenham, police-con-
stable, 77 T. The charge proceeded from an action
brought in the Brompton County Court by Mr. Neville
against Mr. Tisdell, of Holland-park Farm, dairyman, for
damage done to his pony cart on the 20th of January, at
Kensington, on which occasion be himself was much injured
by Mr. Tisdell's man driving carelessly against him,
whereby the damage occurred, and he was thrown
out of the cart. A verdict was given for Mr. Neville
for £25, and a yew trial subsequently moved for,
which was emphatically refused with costs, and the
assignment of perjury was that Neville had sworn on
the trial that he was within five feet of the curb on his own
side at the time of the collision, and that he alone was in
the cart, which was alleged to be false, and that the police-
man Wenham, who had sworn that be saw the accident,
and confirmed Mr. Neville's account, did not come up until
some minutes afterwards, and knew nothing about it.
Ten witnesses were examined by Mr. Sleigh in support
of the assignment of perjury, showing that Neville was on
the wrong side, and drove into Mr. Tisdell's van, that he
had a man in the cart with him, and that, so far from Wen-
' barn being on the spot and witnessing the collision, he came
up after it was over and inquired what was the matter.
In the course of a very lengthened and severe cross-exa-
mination, Mr. Haines elicited from some of the witnesses
that there had been a compromise offered on the other side
after the accident, and that Mr. Tisdell's man had been to
Richmond on the subject of the amount of damage done to
Mr. Neville's cart.
Mr. Haines, after a very energetic address in favour of his
clients, produced a letter from Mr. Tisdell complaining of
the amount of the charge made at the time an arrangement
was contemplated between the parties. He then called the
defendant Wenham as a witness for Neville, who again
swore most positively that he saw the accident,
was caused by Mr. TisdeTs man (Mr. T,sin:ll bting
nbsent), and teatt Neville was alone in the cart. Mr.
Haines then sought to clear up a misunderstanding which
he conceived existed in the minds of the witnesses, from a
combination of circumstances, respecting Wenham not being
present, and a man named Mowdon being in the cart. He
called 76 T to show that it was be who came up after the
accident was over, mistaken by the witnesses for 77 T
(Wenham), who had at that time run after the cart to stop
it, and put Mowdon into the witness-box to prove that he
was not in the cart, but coming up at the moment of the colli-
sion was by its side assisting Mr. Neville, and then flung his
(Mowdon's) coat into the cart, the better to pursue the van,
which had been driven off.
Mr. Paynter said that having looked over the evi-
dence for the prosecution,, he was clearly of opinion,
without going into the defence, that no jury in the
world would ever be per•anded to convict the defen-
dants of perjury. The learned judge, Mr. Adolphus,
before whom the motion had been made for a new
trial, had said that the evidence for Tisdell proved Neville's
case. Apart from discrepancies in the testimeny in support
of the present chat-ge, how could the fact be got over that
an attempt had been made on the part of Tisdell to settle it?
No jury would he induced to believe that a man made an
offer to-pay money to another if not in the•wrong, and,
added to that, shortly before the suit was commenced in the
county court, Tisdell, writing on the Bth of May, when ob.
jecting to the amount of charges, used the expression, "The
blame, if any, was as much on one side as on the other."
Ccwld it be alleged in the face of that that Tisdell's man was
in ino resprct to blame; that all the blame was on
the other side ; and that, if sworn, it was not the
parties so swearing who were guilty of perjury ? He (the
worthy Mag,istrate) would like to see the spot where the
accident occurred, and, notwithstanding his strong opinion
in favour of the defendants, would adjourn the case if Mr.
Sleigh pressed it.
The legal gentlemen consulted, when, after a payment of
£lO from the other side to Mr. Neville for costs, with a
understanding that no further proceedings should be taken
on either side,
Mr. Sleigh said that after weighing the testimony, and
after bearing the able statement and explanation of Mr.
Haines, he had taken upon himself, in the exercise of his
discretion as counsel, to withdraw this prosecution ; because
lie felt that a man was unworthy in his profession who per-
severed one moment longer with a case when there was not
sound reason to believe he could obtain a conviction. He
felt that there had been a lamentable misunderstanding in this
case. Both Mr. Neville and Mr.Tisdell were men moving io a
very respectable position of life, and, according to the repre-
sentation of those in his employment, the latter had really
thought the former had been guilty of pedury. It was much to
be regretted that two such men bad had a difference. The
a hole case arose from an honest misconception and misun-
derstanding:, and be was bound to say that both defendants
left that court without the slightest stain on their character
for respectability or veracity.
Mr.. Paynter fully concurred in what had fallen from Mr.
Sleigh, and complimented him rpm] the course he Lad
pursued.

WORSHIP-STREET.—SUPPOSED ROBBERY.—Chas.
Davis and Margaret Rogers, . the former a common
lodging-house keeper ;in Tnrawl-street, Spitalfields, were
brought before Mr. Hammill, charged with having in their
po,session property which had no doubt been stolen.
Savage, a detective constable of the 11 division, stated
that, from certain information, he and Dubb, another (dicer,
went to the lodging-house kept by Davis, No. 17, Thrawl-
street. The female prisoner was standing at the door, appa-
rently on the look-out, and the moment she caught sight of
witness she hurried into a back room, and he follbwing her
before she had time to shut :he door, found her there with
the male prisoner, and saw a writing-desk lying upon the
bed, another box mapped i a tablecloth, and a number of
letters strewn about. tae asked Davis whether be was the
man who had brought the things in a cab ; to which the
prisoner replied that a man named Jones bad brought the
things, and had invited him into a cab.
Dubh, the officer, said that in the tablecloth with the
workbox he found the prisoner Davis's cap, and under the
bed a pair of candlesticks, and other things, which he
now produced. The letters almost all bore the address
of a clergyman, and there wes information as to the rob-
bAry, evidence of which would he produced.
The prisoner Davis assured the magistrate that be was
quite innocent of stealing the property.
The prisoners were remanded, to affird time for the pre-
daction of evidence.

CLERKENWELL.—A SURGEON CIIARGED WITII
ASSAULTING THE POLlCE.—Rowland Jackson, a sur-
geon, residing at 8, De Beauvoir-terrace, Kingslaud, was
.charged before Mr. Corrie with assautting_ police,constable
N 507 in the execution of his duty..
The constab!e stated that that morning, about one o'clock,
he be4rd a loud knocking at a door, and saw the defendant
leave one of the houses in De Beauvoir-terrace and go to a
cab and tell the man to drive olf. He spoke to the defen-
dant about his knocking at the door, when he said he resided
ere, and then went up the garden and again knocked.
He almost immediately afterwards returned and struck bim
(tbe constable) a Wow on the face, the pain from which he
felt for some time. He then took the defendant into custody
fur the assault.

The defendant said he was very much excited at the con-
duct of the constable when be was knocking at his own door,
and, although he was struck, the blow was intended for his
hat.

Mr. Corrie asked the constable how it was that he took
the eefendant into custody when he learnt that he resided at
the house at which he knocked ?
The constable replied that be had then been assaulted.
Mr. Carrie did not think there was any necessity for
locking the .defendant up, as be could be found at any time,
and at once:dismissed the charge.
NOVEL POINT UNDER TILE BASTARDY LAWS.—James
Hunt, of 26, Newport-market, was summoned by Mary Ann
Crouch, of 5, Rheidol-terrace, Islington, for the-support of
an illegitimate child.
Mr. John Wakeling, solicitor, said the party summoned
had left this country for Anetralia before the summons was
taken out, and es he could not be served he thought the
case should not go on. He then produced two letters, dated
from Liverpool and on board a ship.
The complainant said she bad seen the defendant a short
time befae, but heli?ved that he had gone to Au,tralia.
Mr. Carrie said the. summons wonld be Report:led sine
die, and tslien he was seen in England a fresh surnames
would be granted.

SOUTHWARK.—ROBBERIES AT THE EXTENSIVE
FIRE IN BERNIONDSEY.—Sarah Cook, a female living
with her husband - in Willow-walk, Bermondsey, and
William Cook, her son, were brought before Mr. Combe,
changed with stealing a large quantity of leather, the pro-
perty of Messrs. W. and G. Almonds, leatherdressers of
Bermondsey.
James Harvey, foreman in 'the prosecutors' employ, said
that about two o'clock in the morning a fire raged fear-
fully in theirs and the adjoining warehouse, in Willow-
walk, noar the railway arches, and a large quantity of hides
and bundles of so!e icather were thrown into the street and
grounds adjacent. About three o'clock witness received in-
formation that some of, the leather bad been takettanto the
prisoners' house, when, obtaining the assistance o an officer,
they went there and found a bundle, of half-hides and a

large square hide. He identified them as his employers'
property, being part of their sleek in the warehouse prior
to the fire taking Place.
Joseph John Hurst stated that he was at the fire, and he
saw the lad aloe up a square hide from she pavement near
the prosecutors' premises, and carry it into his mother's
house. Witness gave information to the eolice.
Sergeant Upton, 18 M, said he went to the prisoners'
house, and under the stait case leading to the cellar he found
the leather produced. The female came in at the time,
when he asked her how it came into her possession. She told
him she put it there for safety, and in ended to send it to
the owners.
The female prisoner here denied making such a statement.
She told the officer that she did not know the leather was
there. She was very frightened about the fire.
Sergeant Upton swore positively she toad him she pat it
there to take care of.
The lad told his worship that he certainly did carry the
leather to the house to keep it from the thieves.
Mr. Combo observed that most likely such might be the P
ca-e; therefore he should discharge them ; but he cautioned
them not to touch any more property at a lire.
Philip William Keating was next charged with stealing;
a quantity of sole leather, the property of the same firm.
Oae of the we:le:nen said that after the fire was extin-
guished lie saw the prisoner at the rear of the warehouse
washing several pieces of sole leather in a ditch. It was
scorched and very dirty, and had been taken from the stick
thrown out of the warehouse.
Mr. Combe fined him 40s. for the unlawful possession, or
one month's imprisonment.
AN OLD GERMAN SWINDLER.—WiIIiarn Conariling,
an old Gateau, who a few years ago was connected with
some religious es'ablishments in this country and Gertnauy,
and who in May last was brought to this court charged on
suspicion of stealing a gold watch and swindling various
lodging-house keepers, was now brought before Mr. Combo
by Hewett, an officer of the Mendicity Society, charged
with begging alms in the public streets.
Hewett said lie saw the prisoner begging that met:ening
in Newington-causeway. His looks were so deplorable that
several persons gave him money, but believing him to be
an impostor he took him into custody.
Mr. Combe inquired what was known of him.
Sergeant Raymond, the acting inspector at the Stone's-
end station-house, said that he was a notorious swindler,
anti for a long time had carried on an artful system of fraud
on lOging-house keepers. He had been connected with a
religious establishment at Brunswick, and in 1850 he was
sexton of a church in Liverpool. In 1852 he resided at 1
' Cambridge-heath, and he had recommendations from the
Rev. Hugh Allen, and other clergymen and gentlemen., at
the time. He used those to victimise the parties he vi•sited
under pretence of hiringlapar;ments.
Mr. Combe thought he had been blore him on a prior
occagon.
Raymond replied that that was true. He was charged at
that court on the 25th of May on suspicion of stealing a
watch from a house in Walworth, where he called under the,
pretence of hiring apartments. ' Ile was also chargeu with
swindling a lottging-house keeper out of board and lodging
to the value of 1;25. He was previously watched by Sea-
well, 177 M, to 30 or 40 houses where lodgings were to let,
and it was proved that he had for five or six years swindled
people all over London. The charges not being sustained at
the time, he was discharged.
The prisoner here said he was an ill-used man, and at
that time there was no pretence fur giving him in charge.
The reports which appeared then in the newspapers had
ruined him.
Mr. Cornhe asked him what he had to say in answer to
the charge of begging ?
Prisoner replied that be was in very great distress, and
some people had compassien on him and gave him money.
Mr. Coinbe told him be had uo doubt bow he got his live-
lihood; that was by begging and imposing on the public.
His old system of swindling lodging-house keepers was very
likely put a stop to by the publication of his conduct in the
newspapers, and it was fortunate for him that the law did
not reach him, as he would have been punished with great
severity. For the offence of begging, which was clearly
proved, he should sentence him to one month's hard labour
in the Hotise of Correction. He advised Hewett to look
after him when he came out of prison, as there could be no
doubt he was a professional beggar.
The prisoner was then removed by the deputy-gaoler.
JEALOUSY AND HUSBAND BEATING.—MAY AND
DEcEmBER.—Mrs. Lucy Rolfes, the wife of a tradesman
in Great Suffolk-street, Southwark, was charged before
Mr. Combe on a warrant, with assaulting her husband
and threatening to stab him.
The complainant, a hearty-looking old gentleman, 75
years of age, said that unfortunately he married the prisoner,
a widow with three children, about two years ago, and he
not only treated her well, but her children. She, however,
grossly misconducted herself, and when he remonstrated with
her she assaulted him, and on the previous day took up a
knife and threatened to stab him. He had some trouble to get
away from her, when he came to this court and obtained a
warrant.
The wife told him he was a jealous old brute, and that was
the cause of all the disturbance.
The complainant here said that it was enough to make
jealous when she left her home m)lactilucs hate nigitis
during a week, and when he asked her where she had been
she refused to inform him, and told him to go to the devil.
He thought he had devil enough in her.
Mr. Combe asked how old the prisoner was?
She replied that she was 35 ; and as for her beastly hus-
band he was a brute, and not fit to have a wife.
Mr. Combe told her it was very wrong on her part to
leave her home all night. There was a great disparity in
their ages, and he did not wonder at her husband being
jealous of her. What had she to say in answer to the
charge ? •
She denied having threatened to stab him, but she acknow-
ledged throwing a knife at him, which did not touch him.
As for going out of a night, she did not disgrace herself.
Mr. Combe told her that it looked very much like disgrac-
ing her husband by doing so, and refusing to tell him where
she went. There was no doubt she was a very violent
woman, and he should order her to find bail for her future
conduct.
LAMBETH.—Tnet: LATE INCENDIARY FIRE AT
BRIXTON.—James Finch, a lad of 16, who has been in
custody for nearly a fortnight on a charge of wilfully and
maliciously setting fire to a cow-shed in Robert-street,
Brixton, and thereby causing the destruction of seven valu-
able cows, the property of Mr. William Towler, was again
placed at the bar before the Hen. G. C. Norton.
Mr. Solomon, as before, attended for the prisoner.
By the deposition which contained the testimony of the
various witnesses, it appeared that the prisoner had been in
the service of the prost tutor for some months, and when
discharged had been heard to make threats towards his late
master, such as that he owed him a grudge and should serve
him out, and that he should serve hint a trick before long.
Soon after this the cows of the prosecutor were on
several occasions found loose in the shed, their ordi-
nary fastenings having been undone by some malicious
person, and thus causing them to injure each other.
Besides this, the top of the grain bin was found to have
been forced open, and some human excrement mixed up with
the grains. On the day of the fire, Wednesday, the 21st of
last month, the prosecutor and his brother-in-law were both
in the shed a very short time before the fire had been disco-
vered, the 'alter only ten minutes before, and at that time all
was cafe, ant. there was not the slightest semblance of fire, but
immediately after the prisoner was seen to come away from
the shed looking quite pale, as one of the witnesses described
it, and in a few moments the flames were observed to burst
forth, and were so rapid in their progress that all efforts to
save the seven valuable cows contained iu the shed were
wholly unavailing, and the poor animals were destroyed.
When the fire was raging the prisoner suggested that it had
been caused by the beating of some grass, but the prosecutor
and his brother-in-law when questioned by the magistrate
denied that there had been any grass on the premises at the
time, and therefore the fire could not be occa'ioned by any
such cause.
Mr. Solomon addressed the magistrate contending that
the case was one in which he felt assured that no jury would
convict. He had witnesses in attendance to show that the
prisoner had not been near the shed at the time mentioned
by taio of the witnesses, but if his worship had made up his
mind to commit his cheat for trial he should decline calling
his witnesses.
Mr. Norton said he certainly did intend s...ndina the case
before a jury, and he was constrained to say that he con-
sidered it a very strong one. It was not erten that in cases
of amen the parties were seen to set fire to property, but in
this instance a motive was not only shown, but the prisoner
himself was seen to run away front the premises just before
the fire wars discovered. lie had made up his mind, there-
fore, to send the prisoner f.r r ill, but as it was sail that a
witness who can't' give important evidence was not in at-
ter dance, be should order the witnesses in attendance to be
bnund over to appear at the 041 Bailey, to give evidence fur
the prosecut on, and have the prisoner brought up again on
Saturday to hear the additional evidence given against hits.
On the application of Mr. Solomon, however, the prisoner
was admitted to bail.

THAMES.--CASE OF BASTARDY.—Mr. Yardley was
engaged for two hours in the investigation of a case of
bastardy, wherein Rosetta Hart, of No. 4, Patriot-street,
St. George in the East, was tke complainant, and Joseph
Lazarus, jeweller and watchmaker, of No. 28, Notting-
ham-place, was the defendant. Both parties were of the
Jewish persuasion. There was a good.deal of hard swear-
ing i
n the case.
The complainant, a very pretty Jewess, wko carried a
child in her arms with an unmistakably Jewish counte-
nance, and very much like the defendant, who is about 40
years of age, said that Mr. Lazarus bad paid his addresses
to her for some time prior to December, 1856. In the
course of that month he called upon her one evening and
took her out for a walk. Ile gave her wine, and she was
• afraid it was drugged, fur she. became stupified after
she drank it, and fouud_betielf by the side of a canal at a
late hour. The intercourse which resulted in the birth of
the child took place on that occa4ion. The witness, who is
eery illitetate and never received any education, could not
tell what month the child was born in, nor the names of the
months, but she believed her child was 10 mouths old. 'She
was cross-examined at great length by a Jew solicitor who
attended for the defendant as to her acquaintance with other
men. She positively declared that the defendant was the
father of her child, 'and that she bad never indulged in
• familiarities with other reen Mrs. Hart, a widow, the
mother of complainant, who, in the course of a long exami-
nation, applied the words vagabond, fiend, villain, and
heartless wretch, to the defendant, said he was constantly
visiting her daughter, and that one evening in December,
1856, she left home fir a few hours, and on her retarn she
discovered marks of violence on her person, her body bent,
and her eyes inflamed. She also discovered that her daughter
had been seduced, and questioned her on the subject, but
her daughter would not divulge the name of her seducer.
Three months afterwards, when her daughter's shame was
apparent, she stated that the defendant was the seducer,
and he had effected her ruin under circumstances of a most
aggravated nature. She waited upon the defendant., and
on making him acquainted with the situation alter daughter,
and stating that he was the cause of it, he assailed her with
the most vulgar abuse. The witness, who has been the
mother of eleven children, expressed herself in terms of great
indignation, and said the prisoner had destroyed the peace
and happiness of a poor but respectable family by his vile
practices.
Miss Hart, a Jewess, not related to the complainant,
sated tkat on Thursday, the 19th of December, 1856, she
toak a walk with the complainant. They met with Joseph
Lez urns, the defendant, who said he had an eneacrement to
go abroai with £4OO worth of property, arid that he should
send l'or the. complainant and marry her. She parted with
the complainant and the defendant at the corner of Fashion-
street, Spitaltields, and Lazarus said he was going to give
his " dear llosey".his likeness. Oa the followieg day she
called upon the complainant, who said that she bad been
hocussed and seduced by Lazarus, and that when she came
to her senses she was by the side of a canal, and there was
nothing but sky and water near her.
Mr'. Lipman, sister of the complainant, gave similar evi-
dence.

For the defence it was urged that the complainant and
her witnesses, ,who gave their evidence with singular pro-
priety, were all perjured. The defendant was sc‘orn, and
declared bis acguaintaausbip with Rosetta Hart termi-
nated in July, 18,5 C, and he never spoke to tier after-
wards.

Mr. Emapel Mob surgeon, staled lie was In attend-

ance on the defendant upon the 21t,t, 22d, end 20 h of
December, 1856 ; and also 'upon the 20i h of the same
month. lie would not say that, the diFease under which the
defendant was labourine; precluded the posAtility of his
being the father of the child.

Elizabeth Moss, a bold atd impudent strumpet, better
known as " Cambridge-heath Bess," said she was a common
prostitute, and re tollected being at a ball at the Edinburgh
Castle Tavern, Limehouse, in December, 18,56. The com-
plainant and a man named Cohen, a Jew, were there. The
complainant and Cohen left the ball-room in company. The
complainant returned two hours afterwards, and said Cohen
had seduced her.

Rosetta Hart was recalled, and said that the witness
Moss had sworn falsely.
Mr. Yardley made an order upon the defendant to 101
2s. W. per week for the maintenance of the child, and the
cots.

A burst of applause followed the decision of the magi,'
trate.

THE MURDER OF A YOUNG LADY Ar

DARL HY.

esdaY
boritlA
Tticru
other
lot t 04