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

VIIITECROSS-STREET PRISON.-PRAC-
- - -

TICES OF SOLICITORS.

In the early part of the present year a great many corn-
ints were made with regard to the discipline and genera
'e of the debtors' prison in Whitecross-street, and various,
ps were taken by the Gaol Committee of the Court of
lermen with a view to its improvement. About the same
to Mr. Border, who bee been governor for many years,
ired from his situation, and Capt. G. M. Hicks was
jointed governor in his steal. This gentleman, during
fen months that have since elapsed, has devoted him-
r with great success to the discharge of the duties of his
tee, and among other points in conneclon with which he
e endeavoured to ameliorate the condition of the prisoners
tier his care, he has turned his attention to the imprsper
ictices of solicitors, and has addressed to the Court of
lermen a most important reimrt upon the subject.
In this report, which will be foiled of great public interest,
p 5. Hicks says:—
" As governor of this prison I think it my duty to bring
der your cocsideratioa all matters affecting is well being,
ether as regards abuses that may have crept in, which
i be corrected without danger of recurrerce by bold and
tire measures, or in reference to salutary changes of other
mriptions that can be effected without difficulty unless
ma for reformation be suffered to accumula'e.
„I regard as of paramount importance the subject which
lave now the honour to submit to you.
•' Several of the debtors confined in this prison have
eplained, and complain, of needless delays, great inat ten-
oe,. or of exorbitant demands on the part of their
miters, and have appealed t i me, unaware that 1
restric'ed from recommending any professional gentle-
in to them, however urgent may be the necessity or
thful the plea that they know not whom to
sit, and are debarred from personally seeking out of doers
ne one in whom they could confide. The prisoners not
wing any scale or estimate as a guide to the probable
arges for being taken through the Insolvent Court, the
leitore demand at their own pleasure various sums—one
in asking £l2 for what another wiled° for g 6 or £7, but the
isoners know not which to trust. Bargains are sometimes
ide and sometimes broken, and there are instances of even
ore money being paid by a prisoner than he had agreed
r with his solicitor, yet he has been utterly neglected, and
s had to commence anew with some one else. It therefore
•pears to me that prisoners anxiously seeking their email-
iation should, as far as possible, I e protected from extor-
n and unnecessary delay, as he former tends to plunge
sir families into deeper eistrees—perhaps throwing them
to the workhouse ; and the latter unfairly presses upon
e prison expenditure.
" prisoners 100 are relieved by the charitable funds re-
tire particular attention, as they are often obliged to give
arrants of attorney and I 0 U's to their legal advisers, in
eler to make up the difference between the tut libitum
tn demanded by the solicitor and the amount cf relief
eeived, so that instead of being made free by the Insolvent
'urt, they are sent out on the world, nut only penniless,
it in the power of the solicitor, to be at any time re-arrested
id sent back to this prison.
"A great change in these matters is most desirable, and
.ader that conviction I Pifer certain suggestions the adop-
tion of which will inevitably be attended by—
"l. The expeditious discharge of prisoners.
"2. Economy of charitable funds-.
"3. Increase in the number of cases relieved.
"4. The absolute freedom of the prisoner on his discharge.
"5. The prevention of extortion on the part of the solicitor.
"These objects obtained, a death blow to most pernicious
practices would be struck.
"To effect them prison solicitor' should be appointed
to conduct all charitable ease., at the same sum for each,
calculated on the averatee of both the great and small ones.
" Many solicitors of respectability would accept this
trust, contented with moderate emoluments ; it being of a
very confidential nature, the business continuous, and cases
numerous, £6 per head should be the maximum ; but it is
possible that the contract would be taken at a less rate, and,
by reducing the legal charges per case, by means of an
arrangement of part of the fund at the disposal of the
Commissioners of the Insolvent Court, a further saving
would be effected.
" Among instances of misconduct on the part of certain
legal practitioners, the following are submitted
" A prisoner arranged with a solicitor to be taken through
the Insolvent Court for £B, £5 to be paid during the pro-
gress of his case, and £3 after his discharge ' • yet, although
he paid £7 out of the £B, the first payment having been en
the 3d of May last, neither his petition nor schedule was
filed up to July 14.
" There is now a prisoner here who employed a solicitor,
and agreed with him, for £lO, to be taken through the
Court, and counsel's fee £2 lls. extra, all which lie paid,
and when brought before Commissioner Law, it was dis-
covered that the solicitor neglected to file the necessary
papers, though he had them in his bag, and the commis-
sioner said the solicitor did not know his business, and re-
buked him as the cause of the prisoner's remand. The
solicitor pleaded ignorance of the forms of that court, yet
this same solicitor afterwards sent to the prisoner a docu-
ment, of which the following is a copy, requiring him to
sign It as the condition of further services:—
" I undertake that all costs, charges, and expenses, which
have been, or may be incurred by you in relation to my
petition and discharge, to which the £lO already paid to you
do not extend, shall be paid, either by me or some person on
any behalf; within a reasonable time after the delivery of
your bill.'
" A prisoner now here states that in December last he was
Introduced to a person who represented himself as a solici-
tor, to whom he stated his case, and asked if lie would take
him through the court for £B. The answer was " Yes." He
was then asked if that would include fee to counsel, and was
told it would not, when he agreed to give that fee extra.
This so-called solicitor drew from him from time to time
£1 165., in sums of from fie to 10'. Then there was an
interval of some weeks ; during the whole time the supposed
solicitor and an associate of his said that the business, was
progressing. Afterwards a meeting took place at a public-
house, when the supposed solicitor introduced another (a so-
licitor practising in the prison), but neither of them said he
was a solicitor, and lie did riot give the prisoner the least
hint that lie intended to act for him. lie casually asked
prisoner if al that was in a schedule ii hich the supposed so-
licitor
had bought was true, and prisoner said it was, and
the person then poiuted out the place far prisoner to sign.
Ile met him afterward s once outside the cowl, when lie said
" I hear you have an opposing creditor," and prisoner said
" It can't he helped." This was all that passed, and prisoner
had not the remotest idea that this person assumed to act
for him until he got a hill from the Insolvent Court, costs
taxed, amounting to £l9, in which this person appeared as
prisoner's solicitor. Prisoner took no notice of the bill, not
having employed any person of the name. Soon after prisoner
received a notice so attend before the taxis; -master to have a
further bill tax, making a whole of £33, on a writ for I
whirl) the prisoner is now confined. Prisoner also states
that the person who first represented himself as a solicitor,
and whom the solicitor who has imprisoned him now stales
to be his clerk, has been in the House of Correction two
years for perjury and false bail.
" Touter' from the courts frequent this prison, as do also
the agents and cltrks of obscure solicitors ; they sometimes
attempt to pass off as principals to get business fir them-
selves. I have seen one of the towing agents with a person
in a state of beastly dtunkenness, who he said was a solici-
tor and his principal, and whom I ordered out of the prison,
and threatened to give in charge of the police for making a
diet us hence.
" I know an instance of a solicitor cautioning a prison
authority not to pay his representetiee agent any money on
ale account, yet the casts of peer prisoners anti their money
also were at the treicy of that very person, the principal
seldom attending.
t. A prisoner discharged within, this year was kept (in •
had health) in this gael far nearly six months fr,h his
solicitor appropriated the (elegize handed to himby
a clerk in Somerset-heuse to pay the detriser, and that.
prisoner was at last released by charity-money, anti left sue
prison in a dying state, Idle his solicitor let pt the cash
without say p-etext whatever, or a claim for arts.
" In the following or similar phrases the prisoners are
all ire-sed by the illegitimate canvass; re for business :
• The officer who arrt stet' you recommended rue to you. I
• sin an old practitioner. 1 have the ear of the Court. If
you have ne nutty we will talk rf that al erward,. Sign
this paper (a retainer)! Af er this is dote, lie it,cites the
prisoner to make rpplicatien for charitable a-sistaece,
certain sum is granted, aryl g. or £3 are drawn from tee
priseeer. " There is I,to possibly a -econd demand befn
filieg the petition, whirl, is at last clone, and the seheditle
then might he filed in four days, but at many weeks ate]
frequen•ly tuontles pass without its b' ing done, because
more money is not forthcoming ; at last it is obtained or an
1 0 U given fer it, the prhotier gets his discharge, end
shortly the I 0 U comes under the consideration of a
county court judge." _ .

_
After dwelling upon the lamentable consequences but too
often arising from the detention of debtors in prison, and
going into details clnnected with the suggested appointment
of a " prison solicitor," the report concludes thus :
" I should be unworthy of the responsible, confidential
situation I have been appointed to, and be totally unfit to
}.reside over a prison in which sra confined between 200 and
300 person*, not criminals, and of every ca's of society, if I
hesitated to submit plans by which impositions on them, in
their defenceless positions, could be preven►ed, and their
own opportunities and temptations to fall into improper
courses diminished.

" I am prepared to encounter any obloquy that interested
parties may cast on me. The plan. I have prot•osed may be
discussed even by the press itself; but, conscious cf the
rectitude of Inv motives and the soundness of my prorsi-
lions, I am willing that my name should be associated with
their acceptance or rejection.-1 have. &c.,
"G. MONTAGUE HICLE, Governor."

[ADVERTISEMENT.I—HoIIoway's Pills Preferable to all
Otters for the Cure of Bile and Indigestion.—Mr. Black-
wall, residing at Halifax, was a great sufferer for several
years from indigestion and bile; he had an extraordinary
appetite, but never could partake of any of the luxuries of
• the table, fearful of the consequences that invariably ensued.
He had consulted many medical men, and tried nlmost every
kind of medicine, but without deriving that benefit be s^
ardently snneht for ; but, aPer all these disappointments,
by taking Holloway's pills a permanent cure was effected,
and he can now enjoy every kind of food. Sold by all medi•
rine vendors ; and at Professor Holloway's establishment,
24.1, Strand, Loudon.
[ADV./3 RTISEAI ENT.]—We have read with much plea-
sure Du Barry's report on the cure of diseases without me-
dicine by Du Barry's Food, of Indigestion (Dyspepsia),
Ft at Oen ey,:Const 'nation, Nervous, Billions, and Liver Com-
plaints, Cough, Asthma, Consumption, and Debility. The
Ulm; ing are a few extracts which a pear to merit
Edhe t azabetht-
tention of many :—Cure N
Jacobs, of Nszing Vicarage, lValtham-crose,
cure
indigestion, • .a
indigeglipn,gatherin.g.s, spirits,
of extreme nervousness,
and nervous backs. Cure No. -18,314.—adiss Elizabeth
Yeoman, Gatestere, near Liverpool : a cure of 10 yeat's
flysnepsia and all the horrors of nervous irri
reland tability.
9.th.Dec„,
Cure
52,612.—Rosetrevor, County cf Down, I,
1834.—The Dowager Countess of Castlestuart feels inducDu ed,
in the interest of suffering humanity, to state that
Barry's excellent Revelenta Arabica Food bas cured her,
after all medicines had failed, of indigestion, bile, great ner-
vousness and irritability of many years' standing. This foo
deserves the confidence of all sufferers, and may be consi-
dered a real blessing. Inquiries will he cheerfully answered.
Supported by testimonials from the f Povving celebrated Pro-
frssors of Chenaistry : Dr. A lire, Dr. Sborland, Dr. Harvey,
Dr. Campbell, Dr. Gattiker, Dr. Wutzer, Dr. Ingram,
Lord Stuart De Decies, the Diwager Countess of Castle-
*Wart, Major-Gen. Thomas Kinm and many other respect-
side persons, whose health has been restored by it, after all
other means cf cure had failed. Suitably packed with full
instructions. In canisters, lib. 9.5.0t1.; .21b. 4s. 51b.
lls. ; 121 b. 2'24. The lilb. eanistera are sent. carriage free
on receipt of Post-office order. Barry Du Barry, and Co.,
fl, Regent-streee, Lennon. Impsrt ant Caution against the
fearful dangers of spurivus imitations.--The Vice Chancel-
lor Sir William Page Wood granted an iniunetion on the
10th Match 1e.'51 against Alfred Hooper Nevill for imitat-
ing " Du iarry's, Revalenta Arabica Food."

LAW INTELLIGENCE

ADMIRALTY COURT.—AuG. u.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
TUE MARGARET MITCHELL.
This was a proceeding on the part of Messrs. Ashton and
Co., of Lombard-street,inerchants, as agents for Messrs.
Vachcr and Wills, cf Shanghai, in China, merchants, the
assignees of the estate and effects of Peter Felix Richards,
also of Shanghai, the alleged owner of the ship Margaret
Mitchell, of 930 tons burden, against Messrs. Morice and
Towne, of Cannon-street, shipowners, in a cause of posses-
sion, civil and maritime. The act on petition stated that the
vessel arrived at Shanghai with a cargo of sugar in
February, 1855—Mr. Thomas Mitchell, of Glasgow,
being then owner ; that the vessel had shortly
before been aground off Woosung, in China, and having
again grounded at Shanghai, sustained serious damage ;
whereupon the master, being destitute of the necessary funds
to defray the expense of repairs, endeavoured to negotiate a
I.an by hottomry fur the purpose, but without success ; and
having consulted the principal merchants at Shanghai, and
the consignees and insurance agents of the vessel, he adver-
Used her for sale by riblic auction, with the view of doing
what was best for the interest of the owner. It was alleged
that Mr. Richards purchased the thip for the sum of
£2,383 65. Bd., with the intention of using her as a hulk ;
but that afterwards he repaired her at an expense of
about £lO,OOO, and having appointed Dewan Stiles master,
despatched her from Batavia to Amsterdam, and suli!equently
to London, art ere she arrived in the month of May last. It
was further alleged that, notwithstanding the premises, she
had since been taken possession of by Messrs. Morice and
Towne, who pretended to have purchased the vessfrom
Thomas Mitchell, of Glasgow. It was alleged on the other
side that Jameson, the master of the vessel, had illegally
and without any instruction or directions to that effect from
the owner, abandoned the voyage end sold the ship by pri-
vate contract to Mr. Richards, and that upon her arrival at
the port of London, being in want of repairs, Stiles, the
new roaster, applied to the authorised agent of Richards,
who, however, tefused to advance any money, and that the
master then determined on selling her in virtue of a
power of attorney which be possessed. Messrs. Morice
and Towne being disposed to purchase the vessel, made
inquiries, and eventually ascertained that Mr. Thomas Mit-
chell was the sole owner and duly registered es such, &-
though, by an endorsement on the certificate of registry, the
ship purported to have been transferred to Peter Felix
Richards, and also the certificate contaimed a notice of a
mortgage of 56-64th shares of the vessel for a certain con-
sideration. It was asserted that on the 13th of last June
the said Peter Felix Richards, by his attorney Dewar' Stiles,
by a toil of sale, transferred the ship to Messrs. Morice and
Towne free of all incumbrances save the interest of Mr.
Thomas Mitchell, for the bona fide consideration of £4,000,
and that Mr. Thomas Mitchell had also transferred his in-
terest to them for the sum of £1,200.
I)rs. Phillimore and Deane appeared in support of the
claim of Mr. Richards, of Shanghai, and contended that,
while the sale of the vessel at Shanghai was of the most
bona fide character, the subsequent sale in London was a
fraudulent and iniquitous one, affecting all parties con-
cerned in it.
Drs. Addams and Twiss were beard on the other side.
The Court, after going at considerable length into the
evidence adduced on both sides, was of opinion that the sale
to Richards at Shanghai was valid ; that the sale by Stiles to
Morice and Towne, in Landon, was not valid ; and that,
therefore, it must pronounce for the claim made by Messrs.
Ashton and Co. as the representatives of Richards, and
condemn the other parties iu costs.

COURT OF BA.NKRUPTCY.—AuG. 5.
Mr. Commissioner Fane disposed of the business of the
day, but nothing occurred of sufficient irovrtance to warrant
a detailed report. An adjudication of bankruptcy was made
against Messrs. Walton, shipowners, of Gracechurch-street.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, AUG. 4.
(Before Mr. Justice Wiles and Special Juries.)
EASTWOOD V. HOLME.s AND ANOTHER.
This was an action of libel.
The plaintiff is a dealer in antiquities, and the defendants
are the proprietors of the Atheneum newspaper, and the
action was brought to recover damages for a libel published
in that paper on the Bth of May last. The defendants pleaded
that the statement which was alleged to be a libel was true.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins were for the
plaintiff,. Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, Q.C.,
appeared for the defendants.
Mr. James, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff
had for more than 20 years carried on the business of a dealer
in curiosities and antiquities, and he brought the present
action with a view to vindicate his character from a very
serious imputation that had been cast upon it by an article
which appeared in tbedefendani's journal,and which charged
him with defrauding the public by selling counterfeit anti-
quities. The learned counsel then stated that in the course '
of last year a large number of ancient relics were dis-
covered in an excavation at Shadwell, and these relics,
a great portion of which, turned out to be what were
known among antiquaries as pilgrims' signs, he should
show without a doubt were perfectly genuine, and came into
the possession of the plaintiff as such, and he paid for them
a considerable sum of money. The article that was the sub-
ject of the present action appeared in the Athenceum cf the
Sth of May in the present year, and it purported to be a re-
port of what took place at one of the meetings of the
British Arclueological Association, and it represented that
the proceediegs concluded by Mr. Cuming reading a paper
on the subject of the " Recent Forgeries in Lead," and in
that paper he stated that certain leaden articles which
were representee to be pilgrims' signs, and to have
been discovered in the course of an excavallAt upon the
basks of the Thames, for the purpose of making a new
dock, were forgeries, and that Mr. Coming had himself
examined 800 of them ; that Mr. Planche had also seen a
great many, and that the number of these forged articles,
in the aggregate, was supposed to be twelve thousand. The
paper went on to state that these articles were entirely
counterfeit, and that the metal of which they were com-
posed appeared to have been rubbed with some strong acid
to give it the appearance of age, and that they had then
been smeared with river mud. The paper concluded
by expressing a regret that the law would no.
punish parties who were guilty of such a disgraceful fraud.
The learned counsel said there could be no doubt that ibis
article referred to the plaintiff, although his name was not
mentioned, as he was the only person in possession of such
articles, aid who had purchased them from the parties who
had actually inind them at the place that had been men-
tioned. He should call these parsons to show that these
relics of antiquity actually were found in the manner
stated; and he should also call several eminent antiquaries,
who would state to the jury their opinion that they were
genuine relics, and that there was consequently no
foundation for the allegation that they were fraudulent
imitations, got up for the purpose of deceiving and
imposing upon the public. lie then said that the
plaintiff, in bringing the present action, only sought
to clear his character, and he did not ask fir vindictive
damages, but by the verdict of the jury to free himself from
the serious charge that had been made against him.
Mr. George Eastwood, the plaintiff, was then examined.
He deposed that he bad carried on the business of a dealer
in curiosities and antiquities between 20 and 25 years, and
'he said he believed he was one ef Vie best judges of such
things in the United Kingdom. In June, 1857, a Mr.
Edwards, ev`aom he knew as a dealer in antiquities,
called upon him and showed him 40 articles made
of lead, which comprised different subjects, and were
known among antiquaries as " pilgrims' signs." He
examined them, and made up his mird immediately
that they were genuine articles of antiquity and he pur-
chased them, and eterwar,ls lie purchased other articles of
the same kind of him, in number amounting to 1,100. He
was told that they had been found by the men who were
empl 'bed in excavating for the basin of the new London
dock, and he went to the spot and examined the soil. lie
afterwards purchased a number et the same de'cription of
artieltz; from two young men named Smith and Eaton, who
lie understood we:e the .parties that le.d found them ori-
ginally and sold them to Edwards. Ile paid Elwartist.29:3
for those be purchased of him, ant be gave the young men
£:O0 for the portion they sold him. A small quantity
n•f the " signs" were cfn ern studs s to Mr. Franks for
!he British Mos-um, and a gentleman named \Vigan
al-n p tre!•aced a great many of them. lie then explained
that p•leairro.' signs was a term that had only recently been
made use of among antiquarians, and that Et ey were sup-
posed to be artit ha worn by the monk: in the religious pro-
cessions of the olden tune, and also when they made a pll-
gritnage to the shrine of any particular saint. The whole of
the at titles were made ef lead ; and in addition to those
which he said would come under the description of pilgrims'
signs there were other antiquiti, s, such as bells, dagger
sheaths, the basses of shield:, and also reliquaries, the whole
of which, he said, Ire had no doubt were genuine antiquities,
and had really been found at the place mentioned.
Ire onswer to estions put
that. Chambers in cross-
examination, thenplaintiff said at the time this article
appeared he was the only pet son who had so large a number
a'; BCO " pilgrims' signs" in his possession ; but he said that
at one time he had so many as 1,100.
A box, containing a large number of the alleged valu
andabla
e
articles of antiquity had been pup
goon th
d.extar,ahoerrdei
wnaerrye
ao
rda
cd
teearl
oo
ff
saommues eotfn
termts tel. at
that
createdwere
pbrUduthcee
ch
of tem, crudeh
manner, and in all sorts of attiludes, h
warriors, and females fashioned out in one lead in the mos
learned judge observed, locking very much like Znmiel.
One of the things that was produced appeared sorely
_to
puzzle every one. It bad somewhat the appearance of a
object
chimney-pot, about eight inches long, but no one seemed
to be able to give the least goes what its original
Fled that
possibly could have been, and Mr. James suggeste
possibly it might have been the model of some ancient ex-
tinguisher.
In answer to further questions, the plaintiff said that he
bail heard of such articles as crepundia, or children's toys,
having been found on the banks of the river, but these, he
said, were to•ally different things, and he believed them to
be genuine ancient pilgiims' signs.
Mr. W. Edwards, the person from whom the plaintiff
had purchased the articles in question was then exa-
mined, mid he stated that he had been a dealer
in antiquities for 20 years, and he considered he was
well aequaint2d with such maters. He purchased the
whole of those that lnd been produced of two boys named
Bill and Charley, of whom he had been in the habit of
purchasing such things. Bill, lie said, was in attend-
ance to give evidence, bnt Charley had got married, and
his wife would not let him come. (A laugh.) He was
aware that these young men were in the habit of being
about the river, and that they also purchased things that
were found by excavators in the soil. They brought these
articles to him eight and ten at a time, from June, 1837, to
June, 1858, and he peid them altogether £2OO.
In cross-examination this witness said that he might have
sold old coins to navigators, but he did not know what they
did with them, and he had not the least idea that thew ever
buried them, in order that they might afterwards dig them
up and sell them as antiquities. He should not have been
such a fool as to buy his own coins again if they had been
bought to him. lie paid Lilly and Charley for the articles
as they brought them to bi,o. Ile had had dealings with
Billy in the same way for 13 or 14 years, but he had not
dealt with Charley quite so long. (A laugh.) Ile was
unable to form any opinion as to what particular age these
pilgrims' signs belonged—he left that to the Arehmological
Society to decide. (Laughter.)
win, Smith, a rough-looking young man, who described
himself as a " shoderaker," was then examieed. He said
that he and Charley were in the habit of seeking for
articles such as those that lsad been produced, and sell-
ing them to the curesity dealers. lie then said that the
first time he found any of the articles in questioa was in
June, 1657, and he did not find any after March, 1858.
They were found in the excavation for the new deck at
Shadwell, and very near the place where the swing bridge
• paid liiw as much as in a day, and he now was. They found about '2,000 alto.pithe . Mr. Edwards
sometimes
d th
used to buy the articles as the navigators covere em,
re-
ceived £4OO from him altogether
.during the year. They
for them.
and used someirnes to give them a shilling and a pot of beer
In cross-examination this witness said that no strangers
were allowed to go into the dock, or about the works, and

the navvies were not permitted to take anything out, not
even any uld boles they might find, but still, he said, he
managed to get access to the place, and to purchase all
these articles. He also said that ke found a great many of
them hiros:lf by raking over the earth after it was dug out,
and he managed to get a rake into the cock for that par-

po e.
Mr. C. Roach Smith, a fellow of the Society of Anti-
quaries, was then examined, and be stated Ibis belief that
ttie articles in question were genuine relics of antiquity,
and that a great many of them came under the designation
of pilgrims' signs, but he attribute: them to a later date
than t tie 16th century. It was tlifli.ailt to say what actual
use was originally made of such articles, because
they were a new class al'ogether, but they were all
evidently connected with some religious proceedings ;
and he had no doubt that when the subject came
to be considered, antiquarians would be able to assign
some origin to them. He added that he firmly believed
them to he genuine, but at present he really could not say
what they were. When he read the article in the A themetivi
lie had no doubt that it referred to the plaintiff, and to the
pilgrim's signs that were in his possession.
Cross-examined—The pilgrims' signs with which he was
acquainted, and to which he had first given that desigs
cation, were very different to the things now produced. A
good many of these articles are certainly inconsistent with
each other, and evidently relate to different ages.
The Rev. Thomas Hugo, also a fellow of the Society of
Antiquaries, and who has written several works upon the
subjset of antiquarian researches, was the next witness, and
be gave similar evidence to that of Mr. Smith. He also ex-
pressed his opinion that the articles in question were un-
doubtedly genuine relics. He said be believed they be•
longed to the fifteenth, or the beginning of the sixteenth,
century, but he could not give any other description of
them than that they appeared to be "leaden objects."
Cross-examined.—He was unable to give any reason for
coming to the conclusion that these things da•ed from the
fifteenth or sixteenth century; all he could say was,
the ladies reason—he thought so because he did think
so. (A laugh.) He was then asked to look at
saute of the articles, and to state whether he did not
think that the sharpness of their edges, and their fresh
appearance, did not indicate that they could not have been
in the ground for three centuries, but. he replied that he
was of opinion that it did not; and he said he believed it
was possible for a piece of metal to be in the ground for
many centuries and still present sharp clear edges. He
also said that, in expressing the opinion that these were
genuine ancient relics, he bad no facts to ground his opinion
upon, but merely judged from the general appearance of the
articles.
Some other evidence of a similar kind was then given,
and this closed the case fur the plaintiff.
Mr. Chambers then submitted to his lordship that there
was no case to go to the jury. He contended, in the first
place, that the evidence failed to affect the case of the
plaintiff as laid in the declaration ; and also that, even sup-
posing the article in quevion to be a libel, which, however,
he submitted it clearly was not, there was not a tittle of evi-
dence to show that it applied to the plaintiff, and that con-
sequently there was nothing to go to the jury.
Mr. James, in reply, urged a good litany ingenious
arguments to show that at all (vents the opinion of the
jury aught to be taken. The plaintiff was really charged
with a very serious offence, and he was desirous to clear his
character.
Mr. Justice Whiles, after a brief consideration, said he was
of opinion that the article complained of was not a libel
in the eye cf the law. It bad been laid down by one of
the sages of the law that what a man said honestly and bona
fide, in the course of a public discussion in matters concern-
ing the public interest, no matter even if he spoke rashly,
and what he said was not true, still, any statement made
under such circumstances, would not be a libel. t had also
been equally clearly laid down that before any plailntiff could
ask redress for a libel, he must show distinctly that the libel
complained of applied to him, and to no other person. It
would be a new doctrine, indeed, if it were to be held that
any persan who said that all lawyers were rogues, might be
sued by every individual lawyer in the kingdorn
n ;ed annf
d
it appeared to him that the article now complai
seemed to apply to the particular trade of dealing in
antiquities rather than to the plaintiff personally.
no
It
appeared to him, therefore, that the plaintiff must be
suited.
Mr. James suggested that his learned friend Mr. Cham-
bers ought to withdraw the plea which alleged that the
plaintiff had been guilty of fraud in the transaction.
Mr. Chambers said it was never intended to impute any
fraudulent intention to the plaintiff, and he was not In-
structed to make such a sestion. He had bought the
articles no doubt under the ugg
impression that they were
genuine.
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendants.

---
OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MoNetouni, AUG 5.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill and a Common Jury.)
HARRIS V. MORGAN.
Mr. Smythies and Mr. Barrett appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Scotland for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, Ann Harris, was a poor old
widow, aged 77, who got her living by keeping one or two
cows and carrying butter and eggs to market, and she sued
the defendant, Edward Morgan, who was a butcher at New-
port, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the negli-
gent driving of the defendant's servant. It appeared that
on Saturday, the 12th Dec. last, the plaintiff went to New-
port market with baskets of butter and ponitry to sell in
the market there. She stated that when going down the
High-street from the railway station to the market she saw
the defendant's cart coming down the road, which was on a
declivity, at a quick trot. The cart was driven by the de-
fendant's brother, and at that time was on the near side of
the road. The plaintiff presently stepped into the road to
cross, but without at that time looking to see where the
cart w es, alai she was ;immediately knocked down and run
over. There was no doubt that when the poor woman was
knocked over the cart wes on its wrong aide, and within 18
inches of the kerb. The wheel passed over the poor woman's
leg, inflicting a severe wound three inches in leng h, and
injuriug the bone to a considerable extent. She was con-
fined to her bed for 10 weeks, and had incurred consider-
I able expense in getting cured, and was still suffering from
the effecte of the check.
The defence was that the cart was driven only at the rate
of four or five miles an hour, and that it was necessary to go
on the off side of the road to avoid a scavenger's cart which
was standiag some yards ahead on the near side. The dose
fendattt's witnesses attributed the accident to the old woman
stepping into the road without looking to see if anything
was coming, and when there Ives not time for the defen-
'dant's brother to pull up and avoid the accident.
Mr. Justice Hilt summed up the evidence, and told the
jury that if they believed that the accident was owing to the
negligence of the driver, they ought to find for the plaintiff;
but if they believed she had contributed to the accident by
her own negligence, they ought to find for the defendant.
Tne jury retired to consider their verdict, end ultimately
they found a verdict for the defendant.
CRIMINAL. COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice, Bytes.)
Gco. Passmore, 27, sailor, and Alfred Barham 20,
pallor, were charged with the manslaughter of Edward
Thomas, at Newport, on tire 18th of June, 1858.
Mr. Vaughan appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Powell
defended the prisoners.
It appeared that on the day in qeeetion the deceased,
who was a ship's apprentice, was on board his ship in
the Newport flecks, when the two prisoners came alongside
in a boat, and pulled him overboard against his will, and
put him into the boat. One of the men, in what is called
a " lark," endeavoured to duck bira in the water, but the
boy resisted so much, though he was a weakly boy, that the
attempt failed. The other man then came and assisted, and
the two prisoners together put the bey overboard into the
water, holding him by the hands, and dipped him
over head and ears several times, as deep as they
could reach. They then took him back into the boat, and
he sat there recovering himself for about five minutes, and
put on his boots and jacket, which had been taken off
lefore he was put into the water. While he was sitting in
the boat the men continued "skylarking" and slapped
him on the shoulder. When the boy had put on Iris thing-, he
wished to go back to his ship, and one of the prisoners took
hold r f him behind by his breeches, and put up the ship's
side, and left hold of him, just as the boy put his halids on
the ;hip's rail. 'Whether the boy had not time to get a firm
hold, or, being exhausted by the ducking, was unable to
retain his hold, was uncertain, but it unfortunately hap.
p, ned tai +t as sogn as the wan let go the poor boy fell into
the wat r, which was upwards of 20 feet deep, end did Lot
rise any more. Drags were sent for, and he was got out of
the water in about 20 minutes, but be was considered to be
dc ad, and no attempt was mac to restore animation.
Mr. Powell, for the prio,ners, contended 'het, however
impreper the conduct of the prisoners might have been in
1 dipping the boy into the water, the putting the boy tip the
ship'., side was not an uelew fel act, and the death must
therefore be considered as accidental.
i Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up the evidence, told the
jury that if the buy fell front the ship's side in consequence
of exhaustion from being dipped in the water, they ought
to find the prisoners guilty.
The jury retire-3, at.d were absent a considerable time, but
eventually found both the prisoners guilty.
Mr. Justice Byles, after a suitable admonition, sentenced
the prisoners to he imprisoned in the House of Correction
for two calertlar months.
Jane Harris, 25, servant, was charged with the wilful
murder of her infant child by exposure on the 4th of July,
1858, at St. Mellon's.
Mr. Granville Somerset appeared for the prosecution.
The prisoner was unfit fended by counsel.
It appeared the prisoner eas confined of a male child in
the Cardiff Union Workhouse on the 17th of June last, and,
at her own request, she left the workhouse with her child
on Friday, July 2J. On Sunday, July the 4th, she went
to the public-house et Mrs. Jules, near S'. Mellon's, and
sheit iwn,mthseeernoaddanteldariu: fseoctirmehtteo:uieswvelg,rai
asked tors some gin and water fit the child. Mrs. Jones
said that '.V44 a bad thing for so young an infant,''and gave
her some peppermint and water. At between Fenn and
eight the same evening a witness named Ann Williams saw
place called Tyn-y-Pwl, five miles from Cardiff, when
which resembled a baby in form. The next morn-
ing, at between six and seven o'clock, Ann Francis,
went into Mr. Davies's rickyard, and hearingup in a skirt of :
a noise com-
menced a search. After some little time she found a child
been in the prisoners possession the previous evening. Mts.
, and atehe having
next
gownb'-' t7e g:v1:1 hick the
wasrick identified ti ilfil the
(hi ebdegr
the Cardiff workhouse, when it was
mFroaln
neiniso.watscheekd,idtreteoeed, and fed the child
identified a. the Thehi which the prisoner was confined on
the I7th of June. child lingered, and died rn the 28,h
of July, and, in the opinion of the. snrgeon of the workh-use,
the castse of death was exposure and want of its natural food.
The prisoner was apprehended (se the 14th of July, and ad_
otipnfnpeeatsdhs 'eNil,ri.l skirti
ainof a Davies,
oar
vtna,
e same statement.
irnj int
,tee,datnhda t
had
de
4o hadn
e leftsot chithbeecau :le i nt
II
et h
fea rtiol
ea
rd nh ears;
rSe
fru. s
eMde
to
Mr. Justice Byles very carefully summe up the evidence,
s u pflitioer
it) itis
oannedr,
,s line
hwears
duenf.calbi
el
ee , tom ad ni
es et
h. d
and said that if the prisoner's statement was true she was
guilty of manslaughter. of manslaughter.
Tire jury found the prisoner
guilty
of
s
Mr. Justice Byles sentenced tier' t
six months' imprison-
ment with hard labour.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.--IVAnwicK,
(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockhurn.)
AUG. 3.
A heavy special jury cause involving disputed matters of
fact and of account between two old and intimate friends
sc cond case referred throughout the circuit), the
having been referred, at the suggestion of the Judge (only
the
remaining common juries were proceeded with.
SALMON V. MITCIIELL.
Mr. Field appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Mellor, Q.C.,
and Mr. Wills for the defendant.
This was an action of trespass brought by the occupier of
a hovel and a pigstye against the owner and cecupler of
some adjacent land for pulling them down. The plaintiff
was a very poor man, whose father and grandfather had
"squatted" upon some waste land adjoining a footpath in
the pari,li of Upper Batington. Tne hovel had been erected
within some 26 years; the pigstye was antecedent to living
memory. The land of one of the defendants extended on
each side of the footpath, arid it was suggested that the little
buildings occupied by the descendant of the " squatters"

excited in his mind the same feelings that Naboth's vineyard
did in the breast of David ; aceue (Jingly he gave notice to the
plaint':: to remove the buildings on his land, or else " be
should proceed as far es the law would allow him." The
buildings were not removed, whereupon the defendants took
the law into their own hands, the pit; was ejected front the
sty, and the vel (the va!ue el which was variously esti-
mated, according to the side en which the evidence was
offered, at 10s. and £10) laid low. Damages were sought for
what is technically termed tne "conversion" of the pig;
but it was clearly proved 11;.t the on!y conversion
w
tt:e pig underwent
as into bacon, which bad been
eaten by the phintiff. The defendants attempted
to justify the trespasses on the ground that the
laud was his property anJ, f not, that flee spot where
the buildings stood had once been used as a f otway by the
public. In the opinion of the jury, however, both grounds
cf def?nce felled, and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff
—damages £:2O.

JONES V• CIIATAWAY.
Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Wills were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Field fur the de-

ftiii
This was an action on a bill of exchange drawn by John
Bradbury and accepted by the defendant, and endorsed by
Bradbury to the plaintiff. The defence was that the signa-

tore was a forgery.
The plaintiff called some witnesses to prove that the
handwriting was that of the defendant, but it turned out
that they had very little acquainanca with her writing. A
hid discounter named Eave., however, was called, who pro-
duced another bill for £lOO, purporting to be accepted by
the defendant, which he swore had been signed in his pre-
sence at the stop of the defendant, who was the widow of a
respectable tradesman, and upon which be had been paid
£BO, by a transfer of a lien she bad upon same money of
Bradbury's in the hands of an attorney at COVlntry, and he
produced a document authorising the transfer which he
sal I had been given by her to him, after proceedings hal
been taken on the bill. It was quite clear the acceptance
of the bill sued upon and of this bill were in the same
handwriting. It was also said that a bill undoubtedly
genuine, for £7O, which she had accepted for B; adbury's
accommodation, had been resisted up to the eve of trial ou
similar grounds, and paid at last, with costs of suit.
Some similar evidence was given with respect to a payment
of a £5O bill, also alleged by the defendant to be forged.
The defendant, on the other who , swore that the bill she
had accepted for Bradbury, collected rents for her,
was the only bill she had ever signed in her life, and that
she had then taken a verbal lien frim Bradbury upon the
money at Coventry, by way of security. One day Eaves
and Bradbury called upon her, and asked her if she would
let Eaves have her security upon that money, as be was
going to lend Bradbury some money to bring a Chancery
suit to a termination. Upon certain representations of
Bradbury she consented ; but she had never en that or any '
occasion signed a bill or authorized hint to do so. With re-
spect to the defence of the £7O bill she said that when it
became due she went to an'attorney in Birmingham, whose
name we withhold for obvious reasons. and who owed her a
little money. He questioned her about the matter, and said
he would soon put it right for her. She swore she never
knew of or authorized any defence to the bill, but. on the
Ysuit
it,
unt
and until
Ls6h7e
contrary, said it was hers and aondtsalixeed costswould ofp
fwoarshcearlloewd,n osupcontat,o pay
as well as the £7O, the whole proceeding
of the defence being the attorney's doing. As to the £5O
bill, she said that one day a Jew named Benjamin came
acrlss from the opposite side of the street and said, "Here
is f,50 for Bradbury ; will you give it him when he calls ?"
After some demur she consented. Presently Bradbury came
over from the same place, and called far the money, which
he had. When sued upon the bill she went to the
same attorney, who said, " You must pay it ; the money
passed through your hands. I should not like to take it
into court," and she paid the £5O also. With regard to
Eaves's bill she swore that she never heard of it at all ;
that Eaves's call on her was before the bill produced
would have become due; and that all that passed was that
he said he bad lent Bradbury £lOO, on her promise
about the security, and then she gave him the docu-
ment in question. The document, in fact, bore date the
29th of October, whereas the bill was not due till the Ist of
November. Bradbury bad absconded before the 29th of Oc-
tober, and a warrant is out against him for forgery.
Mr. Macaulay, in his address to the jury, commented
strongly upon the dreadful web of fraud and iniquity which
had been woven by some one round this unhappy woman,
and called upon the jury to set tier free from its meshes.
Mr. Mellor having addressed the jury in reply,
The learned Judge summed up with great care, and the
jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defen-
dant.
The case did not conclude till past 9 o'clock.
AUG HST 4.
GOOLD Y. lIILL.
This was the last case of the assizes, and, although ex-
pected to be short, lasted from 9 a.m. till half-past 4.
It was an action for the alleged breach of an agreement
to remove the " Sutton Grand Stand" from Sutton Cold-
field to Aston, close to Birmingham, on occasion of the
Queen's visit, at the opening of Aston-park, on the 15th of
June last, whereby the plaintiff represented that he had
been deprived of very great profits. The question turned
upon the terms of the agreement, with reference to the pay-
ment of a sum of £l2, which the defendant alleged he was
to be paid by a certain time, as the condition of his pro-
ceeding with the work. Atter a great deal of evidence,
which was contradictory to an extraordinary extent, the
jury found a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr. Field were for the plaintiff;
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Wills for the defendant.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—CARLISLE, AUG. 4
Mr. Baton Mat tia arrived at this town late last night, and
opened the commission. The Lord Chief Baron did not arrive
until this morning from Newcastle, the business havieg '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 grand jury, which had not
been first brought before the consideration of the magis-
trates, had the grand jury again before him, and in very
cogent terms advised them not to find the bills without the
most cautious inquiry, as this mode of preferring bills was
sometimes abused.
The grand jury ignored both the bills, and the whole cri-
minal business was concluded in the course of the day.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
HOPE T. BELL.
This was an action brought by the father 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 negl►gently driving Ids waggon as to
run over and crush her foot, whereby she was rendered, in
all probability, lame for lif .
Mr. Price appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Overend, Q.C.,
and Mr. Dawson fur the defendant.
It appeared that. the plaintiff, the father of the child, is a
mason, and the defendant is a iv( of merchant. In Augu=t,
1854, whe❑ 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 M:lhurn-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 coming from Brampton to Carlisle, loaded, and
drawn by three horses, one before the ether. By some
means or other the first two horses passed over the child
without hurting her, but when the shaft horse came to it he
shied, and Telft.rd said he then first observed the plaintiff
still sitting in the road ; upo❑ seeing her he snatched her
away and stopped the horses, but not before the wheel of
the waggon had crushed one of the child's feet so severely
as, according to the evidence of a surgeon, would lame Ler

f it. life.
The chief controversy raised in tie case was, whether the
driver of the waggon was sitting on the waggon or walki-ig
by the side of his torses, as he himself swore. Several wit-
nesses were called on both sides, and, among others, two
who swore that Telford had told the' after the accident that
he %yes ridin on Lis waggon.
The jury found a verdie.t for the plaintiff:—Damages £6O.

Si! BRIEFS' COURT.-Au,. 5.

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff Borehell.)
PROCLAMATIoNS OP OUTLAWRY.
This morning the
characters we re " proclatilinneutile,s of several
" and ti,eywelrNe-eil-knn
severally
called upon to surrender to the exigencies of the several
processes, or they would be outlawed. The fallowing, pro-
clamations were made by the officer of the court :
Ernest Vane Tempest. commonly called Lord Ernest Vane
Tempest, at the suit of A.? Queen.
L‘..,rd Thomas Pelham Clinton, at the' suit of Edward
Packliam.
Washington Fox, at the suit of Richard Brown.
William ll'Oubrey and wife, at the suit of Thomas
Richards.
Joseph Sweenie Brockhurst, at the suit of Henry Gibbon.
Kerwen Joseph Pernie, at the suit of John Addison.
William Gihas, at the suit of Charles Sevens.
John Carnac Morris, at the suit of the Oriental Bank.
Henry Fendall, at the suit of the same.
William Batnersall, at the snit of George Lawrence.
Duncan Bea t, at the suit of Thomas Truefitt.
Gillam M. Ross, at the suit of Duncan Gerard.
Henry Pulford Plenum anti Henry Charles Macdonald,
at the suit of James Ma-tin.
No answer was made by the parties, and the same cere-
mony will be repeated for four months before they can be
outlawed.
IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO SIIERIFFS' PRES.
'At the Sheriff,' 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 aprared
that at defendant's instance an execution. was put into a
person's premises; but, a second party having laid claim to
the debtor's goods, the defendant withdrew, and plaintiff
now sought to recover the sum of Li ls. as Icts fee, and
Li 15s. for man's passessien 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 defendant, that
no levy having been made, that part of the case was at once
settled, as it was impossible to tecover fees for levy unless
it had actually been made, and the execution creditor had
got something. Now, in this ca. eno levy had actually been
made. As regarded the bailiff's charge of LI
.15s. before an
interpleader order, the interlaced's.r issue. raised . had not
been tried, the execution creditor's claim having een
barred hy a judge's order, and therefore that part of the b
case
failed also.
Mr. Lewis endeavoured to show that it was to defendant
alone, and through him, that plaintiff should lout: for his
money.
Mr. Palmer contended that no case had been or could be
cited to show that the bailiff could recover fees. Under
these eireuTstances, to decide in plaintiff's flavour would
tend to fraud, and careless:iess on the part of the sheriff.
That, apart from the cares cited directly upon the point
and by analogy, Mr. Archbold (with Mr. Lush, Q.C.)
in his book of practice clearly stated the law to be that,
where the exet:titioll creditor does not try the issue, and
gets nothing under the execution, the fees cannot be re-
covered.
His Honour held that it was so. He considered it to
he very unjust that an attorney should be personally
liable, as Le was only an agent. An attorney was not
liable for a witness who attended at his personal solicita-
tion. As the case stood plaintiff would be nonsuited.

THE CHILD iNIURDER AT HULL.--Of this case we
had a short notice in Wednesday's Morning Pod:. It
appears, f,oro further particulars, that the case is one of
those revoliing infanticides which are unfit for publication.
The prisoner, whose name is Sarah Kilvington, is not, as
the report stated, the same Mrs. Kilvington, of respectable
connections, whose husband deserted her nine years ago;
and it is even doubtful whether the prisoner is married.