The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-01 00:00:00

r.HE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 1, 1859.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Tan. 31.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
'Before the Judge Ordinary and a Common Jury.)

JOSEPHS V. ABRAHAMS.

Sir C. Cresswell gave his decision in this case,
the facts of which were recently inserted in our
journal.
The Court was called upon to make a decree set-
ting aside the will of Mr. Abrahams, upon the .
ground that, when the document was found, it had
an ink line drawn through several of its clauses,
and the names of the witnesses and attestation
clause, and also the attestation to a codicil written
on the back of the instrument, were torn off,
thereby mutilating the last sheet of the will, and
papers had been subsequently found referring to
certain legacies which the testator intended to give
away. The question raised was whether the act
of Mr. Abrahams was to be considered an act of
aninzo revocandi. It appeared he made this will in
favour of his sister, soon after his wife's death, but
that he afterwards quarrelled with her ; and,
looking at the papers, it certainly seemed that
nearly every clause referring to Mary Abrahams
had been struck out. Under the circumstances, it
appeared to the Court that the will was revoked
aninzo revocandi, and it must therefore decree ad-
ministration.

HAYWARD V. HAYWARD.
This case has already been before the Court. It
was a suit brought by the wife against her hus-
band for restitution of conjugal rights. On the
present occasion, affidavits were produced to show
that the petitioner, Mrs. Hayward, was now an
inmate of a lunatic asylum, and that the respondent
was defraying the expense of her maintenance
there.' Under these circumstances, the direction of
the Court was asked as to what should be done with
the petition.
The learned Judge said, of course it would be
impossible to decree a restitution of conjugal rights
when the lady was in a lunatic asylum. He should
therefore order the proceedings to be suspended,
and the payment of the alimony stayed for the
present.

STOATE V. STOATE. •
The petitioner, Mrs. Sarah Selina Ann Stoate,
was represented by Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr.
Swabey ; Mr. Denney for Mr. Wm. Stoate, the
respondent.
This was a suit for a judicial separation, brought
by Mrs. Stoate against her husband on the ground
of cruelty and desertion.
The petitioner was the daughter of respectable
parents., residing at Bristol, and the respondent was
a- member of the bar, although he had never prac-

tised at it.
The following evidence was taken in support o

the petitioner :
Mrs. Sarah Selina Ann Stoate—My father was a
merchant at Bristol. He died when I was quite
young, and I resided with my mother, after his
death, until she died in 1849. I have four brothers,
and they are abroad. I first became acquainted with
Mr. Stoate in 1846. He made me an offer soon
after. I was living at Ashleydown, near Bristol,
at the time. I afterwards went to Ramsgate, and he
renewed his offer in September, 1852. We were
married in that month at St. Lawrence Church,
and took lodgings at Southwood, close toßamsgate.
It was at a very humble house. Shortly after our
marriage he became very violent, and used bad lan-
guage. On one occasion he said he would knock my
brains out, and on another occasion after he was in
bed, I went down stairs, and he followed me, and
knocked the candle out of my hand, and gave me a
black eye. In December, he threatened to scald me
with boiling water. He shortly afterwards changed
his lodgings to Ellerton-road, near Ramsgate, but I
did not join him there, because I had heard it was
not a proper place. He said I might stay where I
was, and he remained there three weeks. I dined
with him at the second lodgings, and before he left
I slept there at his wish. About this time he told me
he was going to Bath, and I asked leave to go with
him, but he put me off, saying he was going hunt-
ing a little, and would come back and fetch me in a
month. He left me no money when he went the
next day. As I was walking towards the station
with him I asked for some money, but he said he had
none, and I had better go to the union, and then ran
away from me. That was in the early part of Jan.,
1853. I remained at Southwood until the following
April, and I received several letters from Mr. Stoate,
but he never sent me any money there. In April I
came to London, and went to live in Craven-street,
Strand. Mr. Stoate subsequently arrived in London
to fetch me, but I would not see him. I received
several letters from him in April. The letters pro-
duced are his. [One was to the effect that a friend
of his wished particularly to know whether she was
with child, and it concluded by saying that she had
better not act hastily, for that he had sacrificed a
lady of property for her. Another was as follows :
—" Sarah,—The servant would have more to do for
two than one." A third began, " Sarah,—The
sooner you comes down the better. I have made a
packet of cocoa last me nearly a month, without
milk or sugar." These literary productions of the
respondent were such as to entitle him to be called
an illiterate, rather than a learned gentleman.]
I afterwards changed my residence to Brampton
and at this time I occasionally received a
post-office order for a few shillings from my hus-
band, but not sufficient even to pay for my rooms.
In July, I went down to Bath, and resided at No.
2, Belvedere-place, with Mr. Stoate. While there
he struck me several times, and once threw me out
of the door without clothes, and threw my clothes
out after me., This occurred between ten and eleven
at night, and I took refuge in a neighbour's house,
but I returned home the same night. There was a
woman named Mary Morris living as servant with
Mr. Stoate, and he treated her far better than he
did myself. He frequently struckme and threatened
to murder me. I had food but it was of the worst
kind. On the 29th of September I left Bath to
.fetch my clothes from Mrs. Hammond's, at Bramp-
ton. She, hoivever, kept the clothes, and I retraced
to Bath early in October. I was denied admittance
at Belvedere-place, and I accordingly went to the
house of a friend and wrote to my husband, but he
took no notice of the letter. I ho-rover contrived
to get into the house one Sunday morning, and I
took away some of my things, and returned again
in the evening, when my husband said he would
shoot my brains out if I attempted to come in.
There were hundreds of people round the door. I
made subsequent attempts to get into the house,
and at length succeeded while he was absent. Upon
his returning he said I should not stop there, and
he seized me violently round the waist. We
struggled a great deal, and at length he threw me
out of the door into a court. I was very much
hurt, and was taken to a friend's house. On the
following day I took out a summons against him for
the assault, and he was bound over to keep the
peace. I went back to Belvedere-place, and Mr.
Stoate was locked up. In January he came with
some men and nearly stripped the house. Out of
humanity the men left me some furniture, for which
my husband abused them very much. He after
wards came and took away every thing, and sent t
person named Taylor to take forcible possession
Taylor let some of the rooms to very low tenants,
but I still remained there. Mr. Stoate never came
back there. He sent me a notice to quit in Octo-
ber, 1855.
Cross-examined—l first became acquainted with
Mr. Stoate at 'Weston. We came by the same
train to Bristol. I did not tell him I had a fortune
of £lO,OOO in my own right. He came to the house
with me, but he did not offer to send for some wine.
I next saw him at Bath, where I saw him several
times. After the marriage he took a small place at
£5 rent, only a parlour and bedroom. He might
have expressed his dissatisfaction atpeople smoking
there. He left because he received notice to quit
in consequence of his cruelty to me. After he left
me at Ramsgate I disposed of the furniture without
consulting him. It was very trumpery. I lodged
at various places in London afterl came up. I
first went to Mrs. Payne's, in Craven-street, and a
very respectable person she is. On my subse-
quently leaving my husband at Bath, I did not say
that I was going to my aunt at Clifton to receive
£lO,OOO. When I came back he did not say my
conduct was so indecorous, in going to London
alone, that he would not receive me. I know a lady
named Sargetson. Not being very proud' of my
marriage, I may not have told her that I was a
married woman.
Re-examined--I was in great distress when I
sold the furniture at Ramsgate. It only fetched
about 30s.
John Fort, a confectioner, of Lansdowne-road,
Bath, living exactly opposite 2, Belvedere-place,
deposed to having seen Mr. Stoate, at 11 o'clock at
night, drag his wife out of his house by the hair of
the head. She was only half dressed, and he threw
some clothes out after her.
Some further evidence in corroboration of the
above testimony closed the case of the petitioner.
The respondent was examined in support of his
denialwi
‘Bi
rh Mrs.
s et
.I°.
lv
fthe cruelty and desertion.
.Mr. Stoate--I first became acquainted
eSt
accompaniedot
raat ev
travelled
eth the platform
togetherphl aetrform homeiant laVtnhedes t ogt nraa-vsi
eun p
he
tero
r.
some
money
to procure some wine. " I think I gave
her
a shilling.
(A laugh.)drant h
el
wmhaeyl e have tasted
i stayedthe
wine. I think she
with her about an hour, and we afterwards wrote
,to each other. The next time I met her was by
appointment in the Lowther Arcade, in the Strand,
where we walked about together. She was living
in the Old Kent-road. She came down to visit me
at Bath, and I found her very easy. (Laughter.)
She may have stayed three weeks. We afterwards
agreed to go down to Ramsgate. I went down

first, and she came to me, and she lived as my wife.
We were afterwards married. She told me her
godmother had given her £lO,OOO, and used to drive
her about in a Carriage. She said she had two
guardians who were trustees for her. I find we
were married in September, 1852. Upon my find-
ing men smoking at our lodgings at St. Lawrence,
I determined to leave, and took new lodgings, but
my -wife said she should stop where she was.
When my money was getting exhausted I thought
I had better go to my own house at Bath, and as I
thought Mrs. Stoate had £lO,OOO, I considered it
was not of importance that she should accompany.
me. She followed me soon after that time, and I
took her in. She remained with us a few weeks,
but then she would go to London. In about four
or five months she came back, and upon my finding
her in my parlour I said, as she had gone away
-without my consent she should not stay ; and I took
her in my arms and carried her out into the street.
I never took hold of her by the hair of her head.
She broke open my chest and took out my title-
deeds and plate. She also sold a houseful of furni-
ture, which I had at one time at a place near Mar-
gate. (Much laughter, which was excited by the
admission of the witness that the furniture com-
prised a bed, a bedstead, and a gun.)
The statement of the husband was not at all
strengthened by the testimony which was called in
support of the truth.
Sir C. Cresswell having gone carefully through
the evidence in his adSress to the jury.
The jury found that. Mr. Stoate had been guilty
of cruelty towards his wife, and that he had de-
serted her for two years and upwards.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—Ian. 31.

NEW COURT.

(Before the Common Sergeant.)
Philip Coxford, 61, sawyer, a dirty, decrepid old
man, was indicted for unlawfully abusing Emma
Jane Bulwinkle, she being above 10 and under 12
years of age, and also attempting to know and
abuse Rose Bulwinkle.
Mr. Sleigh prosecuted upon behalf of the Society
for the Protection of Young Females ; Mr. Ribton
defended.
The circumstances attending the case were of a
most extraordinary character, and the evidence
given by the girl, Emma Bulwinkle, created great
excitement. It appeared that the prisoner has for
many years been in business as a lath-render at
Kingsland, and within a short distance of the chil-
drens' parents, who keep a newsvendor's shop, at
which the prisoner used to deal. In the early part
of last year the girl Emma was sent into the ser-
vice of a lady near her mother's, and after she had
been there about six weeks she stayed out all night.
' The account she gave of her absence was that she
had met a neighbour who took her to the theatre,
and that when she got home she found her mis
tress's house shut up, and walked about the streets
all night. This neighbour she afterwards stated
was the prisoner, and that he met her several
times during her stay in that lady's service. After
quitting she went back-to live with her mother and
stepfather, and assisted them in the news business,
but having some words with her stepfather she left
her home. About a week after that, she being on
London-bridge in company with a girl named
Cunningham, they were met by the prisoner, who
asked Cunningham, whom he appeared to know,
to allow the prosecutrix, Emma Bulwinkle, to go
with him to a house of ill-fame, and offered to pro-
secutrix a shilling and to Cunningham 9d. Cun-
ningham refused to allow prosecutrix to go with
him, but at his solicitations went herself, and pro-
secutrix accompanied them to a house, and waited
until they came oat. A few days after that prose-
cutrix met the prisoner again, and he persuaded
her to allow him to take her home, to which she
agreed. Upon their way home he induced her to
accompany him to a brothel in Whitechapel, where
he seduced her, and afterwards took her home to
her parents' shop, and she stayed with them a short
time, and used to help in the business. While so
doing the prisoner used to meet her and get her to
rob her parents and give him the money. He also
said he would take her to live with him and allow
her a guinea a-week, and that she was to go out at
nights and meet gentlemen, and give him what she
received from them. After staying at home a short
time she again ran away from home and went to
live with Cunningham, and during that absence the
prisoner used to meet her and be on the closest
terms of intimacy. Finally, her mother met her
near the Victoria Theatre in company with Cun-
ningham, and took her home. The girl Cunning-
ham went with them, and at her mother's shop pro-
secutrix saw the prisoner, before whom she told her
mother how he had acted. Prisoner said it was all
lies, and upon the mother of prosecutrix threatening
to call the police the prisoner ran out of the shop,
and she did not see him again until he was in cus-
tody. That was on the 21st of last July. The girl
Cunningham had since then been got into a re-
formatory institute.
In cross-examination the prosecutrix gave the
following account of her acquaintance with the
girl Cunningham. She had, she said, a few words
with her father-in-law. She went down the
Kingsland-road as far as Shoreditch, when the girl
Cunningham came up to her and asked her to take
a walk with her. Cunningham was about her own
age, 13. Prosecutrix said she wanted to go home,
but had been quarrelling with her mother and did
not like to do so. Cunningham then persuaded her
to go home and live with her, which she did. They
went to a house in Kent-street. It was kept by a
woman who had two daughters there. Other girls
lived in the house with them, and men used to come
and see them. The prosecutrix used to go out at
night with Cunningham, who used to meet men
and take them to brothels, and prosecutrix waited
for her until she came out. Cunningham took men
sometimes into Kent-street, and sometimes into
Smithfield. They did not have their meals in
Kent-street, but at coffee-houses. The prisoner
used to see her after she left home the second time.
She was away then about nine days.
The remaining evidence, which is unfit for detail
in full, proved that while the prisoner knew where
the girl Ann might be found, he visited the mother,
and to her expressed his sympathy, and at that
time, during the absence of the mother from the
shop, criminally assaulted the younger sister, a
child about 10 years of age. As soon as the prisoner
found the police where after him he absconded, and
was nal-, taken into custody until December, when
information was given to Inspector Langdon.
Mr. Ribton, for the defence, argued most ably
on the absence of proof to corroborate the extra-
ordinary narrative of the girl.
Upon the indictment charging the assault upon
the younger child the prisoner was acquitted, but
found guilty upon the other.
The Common Sergeant said the offence of the
prisoner was the most infamous he had ever heard,
and but for the prisoner's age he should pass upon
him the extreme sentence. He was then sentenced
to 18 months imprisonment and hard labour.
The case lasted until a late hour in the evening.
a

give me a shilling if I would go and steal the whip,
and I went and did it. (A laugh.)
The Lord Mayor—Have you brought the cabman
here to prove the truth of your defence ?
The prisoner—Not at all, my lord ; I didn't
think it necessary.
One-of the policemen—l had him in custody here
last time for stealing a pair of boots which had
been hanging up at a door, and I ascertained that
he had just before stolen the knife with which he
had helped himself to the boots. He has been for
a great length of, time a sneaking thief, creeping
about in quest of plunder.
The Lord Mayor said that, as the prisoner had
been so frequently guilty, and seemed so deter-
mined to keep himself in practice, an interval of
honest employment should be granted to him, and
sentenced him to imprisonment for three months,
with hard laboiir.
The occupier of a house in Aldgate High-street
was summoned by the Commissioners of Sewers for
net having paid due attention to the notice of the
Court by taking down the house, which was repre-
sented to be in a dangerous condition.
The surveyor of the district had, it appeared,
surveyed the house, and pronounced it to be unsafe.
He had sent notice to the occupier a considerable
time back, but that gentleman merely " shored" up
the building, and it was the belief of the surveyor
that if the shoring were removed the building
would in an instant be a mass of ruins.
The extraordinary defence of the occupier was
that his wife was so unwell he could not think of
removing her from the house. (A laugh.) He begged
that the Lord Mayor would grant him some more
time in order to get out of the premises with con-
venience.
The Lord Mayor said the defendant was bound
to consider that his wife's life was in imminent
danger, and that the safety of the public was also
jeopardised by the condition of the building.
The Defendant—lf I thought there was any
danger it is not to be supposed that I would .stay
in the house myself.
His Lordship could not be prevailed upon by the
appeal of the defendant to withhold the order,
which was thereupon signed, and which directed
that the house should be taken down within one
week, in the event of non-compliance, by the sur-
veyor at the charge of the occupier, who was
ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings
on the spot.

MARYLEBONE.—James Davison, a middle-
aged man, of rather short stature, and respectably
dressed, was brought up on remand, charged with
endeavouring to obtain money from charitably
disposed persons under false and fraudulent
pretences.
Mr. Broughton asked if there was any further
evidence against the prisoner. He understood that
on the last occasion a gentleman stated that he had
received a memorial in a similar handwriting, but
he believed the prisoner was not the person who
left it.
House, the officer, stated that such was the case.
In the course of the examination of the witnesses
it was elicited that a paper, purporting to be a
memorial, was found near St. Mary's Church.
House produced the paper, which was to the
effect that it was proposed by a few friends to enter
into a subscription on behalf of John Taylor, who
carried on the business of a carrier for several
years between Marylebone and the city, by which
means he had supported a family in respectable
circumstances. On the evening of Saturday, the
Ist of January, he met with an accident while in
his cart by coming in collision with a waggon,
when his horse was killed, in consequence of which
he was thrown from the cart and received a com-
pound fracture of the arm. He was taken to St.
Mary's Hospital in a dangerous state. Appended
to which was the following :
- • ' .

-v"
I have been solicited to draw up this statement in
order to raise, by voluntary contributions, a sum sufficient
to enable his family to carry on the business as heretofore,
and take on myself the responsibility, knowing the case
worthy of sympathy. The loss is estimated at £lO.
" WALPOLE EYRE GRENFELL.
"Dated at the Vestry-room, Marylebone, this
4th day of January, 1859."
There were several names attached as subscribed
to the object stated in the, memorial, among which
were those of Mr. Yardley, magistrate of the
Thames Police-court
_; Mr. Broughton, magistrate
of this court; Mr. Paynter, magistrate of West-
minster; the Rev. Mr. Gamier, rector of Trinity
Church, Marylebone, &c. The signature of the
last name was denied by a rev. gentleman in court
to be in his handwriting.
Mr. Broughton remarked that the signature to
the memorial was a very good imitation of his
handwriting, and only by seeing his name attached
to such a memorial he was convinced it was a
forgery.
Evidence was then given showing that a memo-
rial to a similar effect to that produced had been
sent to some other persons, and
Mr. Pares stated that he believed the memorial
was the one which was in the note given to him by
the prisoner, and -which he at his (prisoner's) re-
quest returned to him.
Mr. Broughton now remarked that he saw in
court Horsford and Freer, two of the Mendicity
Society's officers, and he wished to know if they,
or either of them, had any information to commu-
nicate about the prisoner.
Horsford—l know he has been in custody before.
Mr. Broughton—Has there been any conviction
against him ?
Horsford—Yes, Sir ; four times. Each time for
three months.'" On the last occasion it was for
making use of one of the seals of the House of COM.
mons for the purpose of obtaining charitable contri-
butions.
Mr. Broughton—Was he ever indicted at the
Sessions ?
Horsford—No, [Sir ; each conviction was sum-
mary.
Mr. Broughton observed that he should send the
prisoner to the House of Correction for three
months. He directed that a record of his convic-
tion should be obtained.
Richary Frowley, a bricklayer's labourer, was
brought up on-remand charged with cutting and
wounding John Bourke, on Saturday, the 22d, at
the 'White Lion, Edgware-road, when he was con-
veyed to St. Mary's Hospital, where he still remains.
Inspector Mackerel, D division, produced a certi-
ficate from Mr. Cruikshank, house surgeon of the
institution, in which the nature of the wounds were
described.
Police-constable 272 D, who took the prisoner
into custody, said that he had seen the house sur-
geon that (yesterda3t) morning, who informed him
that the man Bourke was proceeding favourably,
but he was not out of danger. •
The prisoner was remanded for a week, bail not
being accepted.

WORSHIP-STREET.---Matilda Symonds, a
well-dressed woman of 40, with a gold watch and
gold chain, and with five gold rings upon her fingers,
was examined upon the following charge :
Mr. E. Lloyd, a draper in Shoreditch, said—l
have known the prisoner for a considerable time as
a customer of mine, but in consequence of a disco-
very I had made with regard to her I lately gave
directions to my shopmen to tell me when she next
called. My reason was that on each of the last two
occasions on which she had bed. there she had made
some trifling purchase, and each time had paid for
it with a £5 note, both of which I afterwards ascer-
tained to have been stolen. On Saturday evening
she came again, purchased goods to the amount of
about 35., and again tendered a £5 note in payment.
On being apprised of this I asked her if she had no
change, as it was inconvenient to me to give so much
gold and silver for such a purchase ; but she said
she had not a farthing with her but the note, or she
would not trouble me; and I then asked her into the
counting-house. I sent one of my people for a con-
stable, and while he was gone I challenged the pri-
soner with having been twice there before and passed
notes which I found had been stolen, and said I
therefore had very strong doubts whether that she
now tendered had not been similarly obtained. She
said, " I don't know anything about that, but this,
I hope, is a good one." I told her there was no
doubt about that; the only question was, had it been
honestly obtained P She said the note had been re-
ceived from a man whom she knew by sight, but not
by name, who came to her house with a woman ;
that she herself had a husband, that her name was
Saunders, and that she lived in Weymouth-terrace,
Hackney-road, which name and address I wrote on
the note. I then demanded of her whether she had
not more notes, and she at length produced another
the numbers of these last two being 09,581 and
09,582. She also said she had had the notes 15 or
16 days, but the constable arrived by that time, and
I then gave her in charge, that something might be
ascertained about the notes.
Goddard, 222 H.—l lodged the prisoner in the
station, but as I was leaving it to inquire about her
in Weymouth-terrace she called me back, and said
I need not go there, as she did not live there, and
that she lived in Mansfield-street, Kingsland-road.
I found she did not live in Weymouth-terrace, and
no person named Saunders was known at either of
the houses she mentioned in both streets. A young
woman at the last place told me the description I
gave her of the prisoner exactly corresponded with
that of a woman named Beavan, who had lived
there, and, if the prisoner is remanded, I shall be able
to establish another, charge against her of passing
£2O note under similar circumstances to these.
Mr. T. Garland.—l live at Madras-house educa
tional establishment, Hackney, and on the 7th inst-,
my house was broken into by, thieves, who stole a
£lO Bank of England note, eight £5 notes, 50 so-
vereigns, and brooches, rings, and other jewellery,
altogether to the amount of about £l2O. Ido "t

know whether the notes produced are part of those
stolen from my house, but the numbers of four of
my notes ran in sequence, and I can ascertain more
about them upon inquiry.
Mr. Lewis (for the defence.)—T contend, sir, that
there is nothing whatever in all this evidence which
would justify your further detaining my client.
Mr. D'Eyncourt.—lt is proved that she has given
a false address, and gone by different names, and I
shall therefore remand her. I will take bail in the
meantime, but they must be two sureties in £3O
each, and they must be strictly inquired into before
being taken.
The prisoner, however, could not get the bail, and
was therefore sent to prison.

WESTMINSTER.—Sarah Ann Fry, a well-
dressed woman, was charged with the wilful mur-
der of her infant ; and James Durant, a respectable-
looking man, with being an accessory after the fact
and disposing of the body by throwing it into the
Thames.
After some additional evidence had been given,
Mr. Paynter said he was placed in a painful posi-
tion. In the ordinary course of things there would
have been a post mortem examination, and a jury
would have thereupon decided whether the child
came by its death by violence or not. The male
prisoner had removed the body, a jury could not
therefore sit upon it, and he was in consequence
called up to act as a jury ; he would not take upon
himself to decide the case, but must send it to the
Central Criminal Court.

Two sureties in £4O were accepted for the ap
pearance of each of the prisoners.

HAMMERSMITH.—Two well-dressed youths,
who gave the names of George Anderson, 21, and
Wm. Ford, 17. were charged with attempting to
pick pockets in St. Stephen's Church, Westbourne-
park.
Mr. Ingham remanded the prisoners for a week,
to ascertain if they were known.

GREENWICH.—Robt. Murry, 35, and Johanna
Murry, 28, described as husband and wife, and tra-
velling ventriloquists of no fixed residence, were
charged with attacking and robbing Robert Hobbs
on the highway of a purse containing a £5 Bank
of England note.
The prosecutor, a man about 60 years of age, and
whose face was much disfigured from recent vio-
lence, deposed that about a quarter before eight on
Saturday night he was proceeding along the Wool-
wich road, and when in a very lonely spot met the
two prisoners. The woman immediately took hold
of his arm and requested his company, at the same
time putting her hand in his pocket and taking out
a purse containing a£s note, and running off. He
raised an alarm, on which two other men came up,
struck him aviolent blow over the eye, and knocked
him down in the road.
The prisoners protested their innocence ; but
Mr. Seeker said he should remand them for a
week, when they would be committed for trial.

WOOLWICH.—John Young, 33, a discharged
soldier of the Royal Artillery, was brought up on
remand, charged with stealing a set of chaise har-
ness, value £5, the property of Col. Erskine, of the
Military Train, and also two other sets of chaffs©
harness, value £8 and £l5 respectively, the pro-
perty of Mr. Hammond, proprietor of the Star and
Garter Tavern, Powis-street, Woolwich.
Mr. Seeker committed the prisoner for trial.

THE EDUCATED MULE AT THE

AMERICAN CIRCUS.

The following case was tried before a jury at the
Birmingham County Court on Saturday :
The plaintiff was Mr. Richard Moffatt, equestrian,
and the defendant the popular clown and proprietor
of the American equestrian company performing
up to Saturday evening last in the Circus, Moor-
street. It was brought to recover damages for
breach of contract, £2B being the amount claimed.
Mr. Hawkes was retained for the plaintiff ; and.
Mr. Elers, barrister, of the Midland Circuit, in-
structed by Mr. Harding, appeared for 'the de-
fendant. •
From the opening of the former learned gentle-
man, who addressed the jury in a somewhat humo-
rous vein, it would seem that shortly before Christ-
mes last the plaintiff, who is the proprietor of the
well-known " eccentric mule," and who had also
two sons and a daughter in the same profession as
himself, hearing that the defendant, who chose to
style himself Jim Myers, " The Star Momus of the
World"—(a laugh)—was about to open with his
American equestrian troupe in the Moor-street
Circus on boxing-night, wrote to the defendant
from Belfast offering his services, and those of his
family, his mule, and a ring horse, if there was a
vacancy for them. In that letter he stated that the
performances of himself and family consisted of
"pantomime acts," "trick acts," double tight-rope
dancing, and feats with the horizontal pole. The
defendant wrote him a reply, to which the plain-
tiff, in answering, expressed his surprise at its
nature. He then proceeded, " I offered to come
on low terms, in order that you might see what
we were really worth. Perhaps you imagine we.
have not much talent ; and I enclose you a bill
of challenges, which you are at liberty to accept.
Had you offered. £7 a week, and a benefit on mode-
rate terms, or £8 without a benefit, I would have
accepted the terms, purposely to show our utility.
Do not suppose my family are children: one of my
boys is over 17, the girl is 17, and the other boy
nine, and it costs me a considerable sum to keep
them in clothing and dresses to make a proper
appearance in and out of the ring." The plaintiff
also added, " What is the use of talent, horses, good
dresses, woodcuts, and lithographs if you cannot
get paid for them ?" One of the " challenges" re-
ferred to was that the mule, which was also included
in the offer of engagement, could be backed for £5O
to throw any one who attempted to get on his back.
The defendant at length wrote, and agreed to give
the defendant £7 a week for himself, family, horse,
and mule, subject to a fortnight's notice, which
terms were accepted, Moffatt being duly announced
to appear as " Don Juan," " The Fat Clown," and
as the trainer of the " eccentric mule." The bill
stated that the proprietor had secured, "at an
immense expense, what the Times had described as
' the animal of wisdom—the educated mule,' which
no person had ever been able to ride." (Laughter.)
So Mr. Moffatt and his troupe came over from Bel-
fast at an expense of £l7, and joined the corps_ of
the " Star Momus." He made his first appearance
on the Monday ; the house was crowded with an
enthusiastic audience, and "Don Juan" and the
trained mule went throtigh their performance to the
delight of all. Several persons tried to ride the
animal, but one after another was pitched off his
back amidst the greatest merriment. The same
satisfactory result attended the day performance
next day ; but in the evening Jim Myers, who, it
must be admitted, was, perhaps, the most inimitable
clown of the day, after several persons had been
thrown by the mule, offered to give a sovereign to
anyone who could ride him. The challenge was
accepted by a butcher in the gallery, wno entered
the ring, and after three vain efforts succeeded,
by dint of almost strangling the animal in
holding him so tightly round the neck, in
keeping on him during three rounds in the
circle, and Myers had to forfeit a sovereign.
After this Mr. Myers did not appear to see much
clevernerness in the performance of Moffatt's troupe,
and on the Saturday, when he paid the plaintiff,
he deducted the sovereign he had forfeited, and
'gave him a formal intimation that his services
would no longer be required, stating that he had
been deceived by his representations as to what he
could perform. Under these circumstances Mr.
Hawkes submitted that the plaintiff was entitled
to a verdict, unless it could be shown that his re-
presentations to the defendant were false or in the
main untrue. After mentioning that Moffatt held
a high reputation in his profession, that he had
been engaged at Astly's, Madame Newsome's, and
other first-class establishments, and possessed testi-
monials as to his accomplishments, Mr. Hawkes
proceeded to call evidence.
The plaintiff, who was first examined, substanti-
ated the main facts stated by his advocate, and in
cross-examination said he did not hear any hissing
during his performances, or those of his family, or
his mule. He was only hissed once, and that was
because he had to follow a performer who played
a sailor, which was the character into which he
changed from Don Juan and the audience did not
care for the repetition. He made an engagement
with Mr. Holder, of the Concert Hall, on the fol-
lowing Monday, not feeling disposed to remain idle
and starve. Mr. Holder, he admitted, complained
of the rope dancing of his son and daughter, but
this arose partially from the slackness of the rope.
Mr. Flint, an equestrian agent, Mr. Cashmore,
formerly a musician at Newsome's, and Mr. Harm-
stone, manager at Newsome's, having been called
to prove that the performances of the plaintiff and
family and the mule had always gone off success-
fully, and always " drew " well.
Mr. Elers addressed the jury for the defendant,
arguing as his chief ground that the defendant was
justified in breaking the contract which was en-
tered into upon a tissue of misrepresentations on
the part of the plaintiff in his communications
with the defendant. The specific misrepresenta-
tions upon which the learned counsel said he should
rely were as to' the " trick acts," the challenge
referred to in the bill forwarded to the defendant,
and the allegation by inference that the plaintiff
and his family were provided with proper dresses.
The defendant, in fact, was deceived by the misre-
presentations of the plaintiff, who was so inade•
quate to his work that he was hissed by the
audience on more than one Qecasion, Moreover
as

he was instructed, the plaintiff was discharged by
Mr. Holder for similar reasons to those which ac-
tuated the defendant. _

Mr. Myers was then called, and stated that he
saw the plaintiff on the Sunday after Christmas-
day, when he asked what he should do on the Mon-
day, to which he (defendant) replied that he should
like him to do as much as he could. Moffatt said.
his sons would perform on the pole, that one of
them would ride a trick act, and he himself would
"go in" as clown, with his mule, which three
things would make a " hit." On the first night
he had to complain of the dresses that Moffatt and
his sons wore, and told them he must have them
altered, as none of the members of his establish-
ment were in the habit of wearing such dresses ;
but they were not changed on the following even-
ing. The son, who was to ride trick acts, never
turned a summersault on the horse, as he (the de-
fendant) understood he was to do, and which was
one of the principal things he engaged him for.
Moffatt told him that his mule could not be ridden
by anybody, and repeatedly persisted. in the asser
tion. The first night Moffatt appeared he wa
hissed, and he (Mr. Myers) was so disgusted tha
he went out to the front of the circus and would
see no more. If he had not had the bills out for
the week he should not have allowed a repetition of
his performances, nor those of his family. None
of them in his opinion possessed " a spark of
talent." As regarded the mule, he (defendant)
suggested to the plaintiff that he ought to offer a
prize to any one who could ride him, and the plain-
tiff replied, ' You can offer what you like, for I am
sure nobody can ride him." On the night when
the butcher came forward there was general hissing,
because he and Moffatt interfered, and. the butcher
having been thrown three times, caught firmly hold
of th reins, and held on three times.round the
ring. He (Mr. Myers) observed Moffatt push the
butcher off once by a professional trick, and then
left the ring. He was obliged to continue the mule
nightly, because he was advertised, or else he
should have had a disturbance in the circus.
In cross-examination, Mr. Myers said that in
the bills for the following week the lines respecting
Moffatt and his mule, and family, were withdrawn;
but by some oversight on the part of the newspapers
they were advertised during the next week,though
he had the error corrected as soon as he discovered it.
M. Auriol, a circus clown, afterwards deposed to
the mule having been ridden two or three times to
his knowledge, and once by himself; and subse-
quently
Mr. Holder was called. Ho said he had occasion
to complain of the tight rope dancing of plaintiff's
son and daughter; and. that the pole performance
did not give him satisfaction. The performances
of the plaintiff and his mule, however, were well
received, and they were both called before the
curtain each night. (Laughter.) He only engaged
the troupe for a week.
Mr. Hawkes having ably replied,
His Honour laid the law and facts of the cue
lucidly before the jury.
After a short consultation,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages £l4. Costs were allowed, and payment
was ordered in seven days.

COUNTRY D. I-AI? I C E TS.

COLCHESTER-JAx. 29.

The damp state of the weather during the week had af-
fected many of the wheat samples at this exchange to-day,
and as regards these a reduction of 6d to is per qr. was
noted. Good samples, however, maintained late rates ; the
supply was fair. A good show of barley at previous rates.
Beans is dearer. In oats and peas little passing.
Wheat, white 46s to 50s Beans, Mazagan..22s to 34s
I red 36s to 44s Middle & small 33s to 403
Barley' 30s to 42s White peas 4os to 420
I
Oats 22s to 30s Grey 40s to 423

STAMFORD—JAN. 29.
At yesterday's market there was a very good supply of
wheat, and sales were effected at the quotations of this day
week. Barley in middling show, at extreme rates. Beans
rather scarce, and in some instances they realised a trifle
more money. Oats is higher.
Wheat 44s to 48s Oats.. 2Bs to 36s
I White do 40s to 43s Beans, new 42s to 50s
Barley 40s to 44s I Ditto, old .44s to 485

DERBY—JAN. 29.
There was a fair supply of wheat from the farmers to-
day, and transactions in the market were about the average,
wheat selling at the full quotations of last week. Barley
in tolerable supply, and at high prices. Beans were by no
means plentiful, and very high in price, being is dearer
than last week. Oats made the extreme rates of the pre-
vious week.
White wheat, new, 40s to 50s Barley, grinding.. 27s to 30s
Rbd do. 4os to 46s Oats, old, .. 26s to 305
Old white 4O:, to 48s New do 30s to 333
Red do.. 38s to 44s Beans. 48s to 51s
Barley, malting.... 385 to 44s Peas ....—s to