The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-15 00:00:00

ITZIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY .EyERING, NOVEMBER 15, 1869.

~l Vi ~l:t~

WAKEFIELD ELECTION C0M.4111

WAKEFIELI

ers t

17 14

plan in the
4

At the sitting of the commis:nu
Dan Robinson, the satellite of the
Moon," was called—l was brought to VI
at the last election by Whitehead, and was e
by him to bribe various electors. I offered ra
to many electors, but I only actually bribed three.
To Thomas Head, the baker, I gave £6O en the day
before the election. To Gosney, a confectioner, I
gave £25 not to vote at all. He would not vote
for such a small sum as that, but after a little dis-
cussion he agreed to stand neutral for that. I
bargained with Jesse Pickard, the shoemaker, for
his vote. At first he would not vote at all, but
after a while I got him to promise for Charlesworth,
and I said, " I shall not give you any money, and
then nobody can say that you have been bribed."
At the same time I stepped forward to his shop
window and dropped 50 sovereigns into a lady's
boot which was lying there, and walked off. Of
course he saw what I was doing, but he didn t
speak a word. There was no possibility of anybody
nieking up the boot and not finding out what was
in it. [Pickard swore that he had not taken money
for his vote.] I also offered money to the Haiti-
days and to a baby linen warehousekeeper named
Moxon, who said lie would not sell his vote for any
sum of money, but that if Mr. Charlesworth would
give him a situation for life, which he had it in his
power to do, he would vote for him.
Mr. Matthews, one of the voters whom the " Man
in the Moon " stated that he had bribed with £lO
or 115, made his appearance in the witness-box,
and denied the imputation with much show ofin-
dignation. The money was said to have been left
on Matthews's counter, but both Matthews and his
son, who was also called, swore positively that they
had resisted the temptations of the unknown, and
that the story of the money deposited on the counter
was a pure invention.
Mr. Thomas Serle, barrister, was next called. He
said,—l was professionally engaged at the last elec-
tion, ostensibly to assist Mr. Westmoreland as legal
adviser, but in reality to write articles for the papers,
election placards, and to make speeches on behalf of
the party. I had nothing to do with canvassing, or,
in fact, with any of the business part of the matter.
Early in the election I had reason to believe that the
Liberals had begun to bribe, and by my advice Mr.
Westmoreland employed a number of men to watch
Wainwright's offices. It was some time in the week
before the election that I heard from common rumour
in the town that Brear was bribing on our side.
Mr. Westmoreland and I had. some conversation on
the subject, and we agreed that if the report were
true it was a suicidal course, for our plan was to keep
pure, and get the seat on petition. I was aware
that Whitehead was in the town, for I knew him
before, but I was not aware of his business. I
might have had some suspicion of it, but I pur-
posely avoided asking any questions. I thought it
better, if he were doing anything wrong, to know
nothing about it. After I heard that B rear was
bribing, I avoided him as much as possible; I made
no attempt to stop the bribery. In fact, I fought
shy of the whole affair after these rumours got
abroad. When I received my retainer it was un-
derstood that the contest was to be fought on pure
principles by the Conservatives, for it is was well
known that the Liberals had committed themselves
months before, and my plan was to get together
all the evidence against them I could, in order to
unseat Mr. Leatham and. seat Mr. Charlesworth. I
believe Mr. Charlesworth entered into the contest
with a firm intention not to resort Ito illegal prac-
tices, and if he changed his mind at all during the
election—which I do not admit—lt would be be-
cause he saw a determination on the part of the
Liberals to filch the seat from him by unfair means.
I canvassed with Mr. Charlesworth, and during that
canvass I never heard a single improper offer made
to any voter to induce him to vote for us. The pe-
tition was not advised by me—it was a sponta-
neous ebullition of feeling after the election was
lost—but it was through me that the information
was conveyed to Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Nor-
ton, in London, on which the petition was drawn
out. Of course, I was aware why the petition did.
not pray for the seat. It was notorious that there
had been bribery on both sides, and my idea was
that Mr. Leatham would not attempt for a moment
to defend his seat, and that then, the seat being
vac int, and both sides finding out how expensive
the old. 'system was, would resort to a purer mode
of conducting the election. I was engaged on the
election of 1857, but I am not aware that any im-
proper practices were resorted to then, nor do I
believe that there were any. I went up with Mr.
Sanderson, with the view of doing something to
stop this commission. We saw Colonel Smythe and
Mr. Beecroft about it. it was a spontaneous act of
our own—the party did not send us. We paid our
own expenses.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Now, Mr. Serle, about
your going away. Why did. you leave the town
when the Commissioners came here ? Was it be-
cause you knew who these strangers were and didn't
wish to be asked who they were ?
Mr. Serle—No ; my reasons were twofold. First,
the state of my health; and next, that I was un-
willing to be called on to advise how the Conserva-
tive case should be conducted.
Mr. E. A. Leatham, M.P., was recalled, and in
answer to Mr. r
Slade, said he knew befoe the elec-
tion that bribery was going on on the Liberal side ;

oved

from the hints dropped occasionally by Gilbert at
Wainwright's office, he could not fail to be aware
of it. He had, however, no knowledge of any indi-
vidual case of bribery.
Wm. Barret, gardener, said—l was employed at
the last election to bribe Ritchie. 1 gave him £4O
to vote for Charlesworth. I also offered Lynas,
grocer, £4O, but he would not have it. I got £65
from Mr. Serle, £25 of which I have got still. I
have offered it to various members of the committee,
but none of them would have anything to do with it.
John Dixon, a commercial clerk, was offered an
unlimited amount by the " Man in the Moon" if he
would vote for Charlesworth, but refused. Was also
offered five guineas a day for working as a Conser-
vative committee clerk if he would vote for them.
Voted for Leatham without any inducement. When
canvassed by Mr. Charlesworth he told him he did
not want any immediate pecuniary advantage, -but
a situation which would provide for him for the fu-
ture. Mr. Charlesworth turned it off, and said he
could not do it.
T. H. Brownbill voted for Leatham at the last
election, though he had at former elections always
voted for the Blues. Did not receive ans bribe for
turning. His reason was that some time previous
he had written to Mr. Charlesworth for a loan of
£5O, but received no answer. -
G. Allet, publican, promised both sides, butvoted
for neither. He owed W. Bayldon, a Conservative
agent, £27 145., and he got that wiped off, with a
present of £5 to his wife to vote for Charlesworth.
After that Woodhead, a Liberal agent, gave him
£1.5 to stand neutral.
Mary Fieldhouse said—My husband had £2O for
voting for Leatham. Archie Crowther offered us
£5O to vote for Charlesworth, but we would have
nothing to do with him.
J. Perkin,landlord of the Manor House Inn, voted
for Charlesworth without a bribe. Just before
the election was offered £lOO for two Cheshire hams
if he would vote for Leatham. The offer was made
by a stranger whom he had since seen talking with
Winter (one of the Liberal bribery agents). He
refused the offer then, and a day or two afterwards
the same man offered £lOO for the use of a small
piece of grass land until Christmas, if he would vote
" Yellow." The same man attempted to drug. him on
the polling morning, by putting something into a
glass of sherry, to which he had treated him, while
his back was turned. Understood that this mail
lived at Kirby, near Hemsworth.
John Barton was the medium of bribing James
Winter to vote for Leatham. Sharpley placed £4O
in his hands, which was to be Winter's if he voted
right. The man did vote right, and he put the money
under a flight of steps in his back yard, whence it
was fetched away by Arundel, Winter's son-in-law.
Arundel told witness that Shand, the spirit mer-
chant, had offered his father-in-law £lOO worth of
spirits if ae would vote for Charlesworth. Had also
£2O deposited with him for another voter; but as
the polling-day came on the voter said that prices
had risen, and he_ would not take £4O then, The
money was returned to Gilbert.
Mr. Stephen Seal, stone merchant, was associated
with Mr. Ash in the management of the non-electors'
department on behalf of Mr. Leatham, and took a
very active part generally in the election. Canvassed
along with fir. Ash, but had no knowledge of any
in-Trope:: offers beilg made to any voters. One
David Stocks had stated to the Commissioners that
he (Seal) was present when an offer of £4O was
made to David Turner, bat the statement was a
fabrication. Neither he nor Mr. Ash had any au-
thority to offer money to voters.
James SaVil:e, grocer, received £3O from Gilbert

to hand over to Caldwell if he voted for Leatham,
as he had bargained With Sharpley- to do. Caldwell
voted right. awl got the money.
Maria _Ripon wls hou-11(,:.,per to .Toscph Beau-
mont, who had died since the election. On the
day of poring- &ear canto into the house and
gave Beauty': int a packet of money, and then
took him off to vote. On his return, Beaumont
said, "I belie ra they have given me £5O for my
vote," but on 1 we2king open the parcel it was only
found to contain. 10 sovereigns. Beaumont had also
an of 2r of £4O. from Sharpley to vote for T.catham.
John WoodhE .ad paid G. Abbot's wife £l5 for her
husband's neutrality; and also £5O to G. Seller's
wife for her hug fband's vote for Leatham. In both
cases got the mca ley from Gilbert.
Mrs. Sarah W heater was offered £lO by George
Marriot persui ;do her husband to vote for Lea-

tham, but refused to do so.

Her husband voted for

Charlesworth.
Mrs. Blackburn sold a ham and her husband's
vote for Charlesworth for £25. The purchaser was
a " stranger." ' Had never told her husband of this
little transaction. He was a Liberal, and voted
for Lcatham, as she believed, without a bribe.
A number of other witnesses were examined, whose
evidence was mostly either corroborative of previous
statements, or contributed very slightly to the ad-
, vanciment of the inquiry.
The Court was still sitting_when our parcel was
despatched.
•

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 14.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

NEWMAN Y. lIEMMINGS—BREACH OF PROMISE.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff,
Charlotte Newman, a young lady 23 years of age,
against the defendant, a gentleman farmer of about
the same age, for a breach of promise of marriage.
The declaration stated that the defendant:promised
to marry the plaintiff when he had attained the
age of 23, and that he had not fulfilled his promise.
The defendant pleaded, first, that he did not promise
as alleged ; and secondly, that the plaintiff had.
wholly exonerated him from such marriage.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Phillips were
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Edwin James, Q.C.,
and Mr. Phipson were counsel for the defendant.
Mr. T. Atkinson, in statini, the case to the jury,
said it would appear that plaintiff and defendant
were both young, the young lady being about 23
years of age, and the defendant a year older. They
both residd at Moreton-in-the-Marsh, a small town
in Gloucestershire, where her father up to the time
of his death, had kept the Black Bear for 24 years.
When he died, about three years ago, he left a widow,
four daughters, and one son. After his death the son
took up the business, and the female portion of the
family went to reside at a private house adjoining.
The defendant used the public-house and was friendly
with the family; and after they left he visited the
plaintiff at the mother's private residence, where he
expressed his intention of making her his wife, and
was in the habit of making those little presents which
usually showed the tender feelings a young gentle-
man has towards the young lady upon whom his
whole desires are built. The period fixed for the mar-
riage was when he attained the age of 23, when he
would be his own master and possessed of consider-
able property. The learned counsel then detailed
the facts of the case, which will be found in the sub-
joined evidence.
Miss Emma Newman deposed—l am the eldest
sister of the plaintiff, and I reside with her and my
mother at Moreton-in-the-Marsh, where my father
kept the Black Bear before his death. After his
death we left the public house and resided in a pri-
vate house close by. My mother has some property.
The defendant visited my sister so late as 1858. His
visits were very frequent, and he made my sister
Charlotte presents of gloves and handkerchiefs, and
he used to call her " Lofty." He took my sister to
the annual gipsy
.parties, and he took her on one
occasion to Warwick races. In 1858 mysister asked
the defendant what were his intentions, because at
times she did not like his manner, and he said when
he was 23 years of age he would marry her. My
mother also spoke to him,andwhen on one occasion
he absented himself, he said he did not like to be
under petticoat government—(laughter)—that he
loved my sister and intended to marry her, and that
he could not love another as he loved the plaintiff.
There was same unpleasantness about Miss Har-
graves. He said he had written to her, but in very
friendly terms. She was willing to show her letters
to my sister if she wished to see them. The defen-
dant is in very good circumstances. He keeps dogs
and three saddle horses—two of them are hunters.
His farm is well stocked. My sister and defendant
had visited at defendant's aunt's, Miss Jane Hem-
mings, who rents a house of nay mother. My sister
on one occasion said to defendant that she had had
an offer of marriage. He replied, " What did you
say, my dear ?" She said that she was already en-
gaged, and he rejoined, " That is quite right." He
told her that she was not to buy any dresses with-
out showing him a pattern, and that after the
marriage he should buy her dresses, &c. My sister
purchased some wearing apparel for the marriage
in February, 1856. My sister received a valentine,
which she told the defendant afterwards she be-
lieved came from him. It was addressed in his
handwriting, contained writing inside in his name,
it was sealed with his usual seal (Shakspere's head),
and contained a lock of hair. The defendant lived
about a mile and a quarter from our house. The
letters handed in are in the defendant's handwrit-
ing. He wished my sister to have the lock of hair
in the valentine put into a brooch.
Cross-examined by Mr. James—When the letter
came it was valentine time. Ido not know if my
sister sent him a valentine. I did not.

The valentine was then put in and read. It was
a very pretty thing, highly embossed, with a heart
in the centre, tied with a true lover's knot, and an
arrow through it. There were some lithographic
lines on the fly-leaf, and underneath there was
written in the defendant's handwriting, " Charlotte
Newman, from her affectionate and attached lover,"
below which were some hieroglyphics or rather
short hand, which Mr. T. Atkinson said they were
unable to decipher.
The letters were also put in and read. 'The first
letter was as follows:

" 18th Nov.

" My dear Charlotte,—Many happy returns may
you have of this your natal day is my sincere wish.
In great haste, from yours sincerely,
"WILLIAM llEmmiNGs."
The second letter was as follows :

"Friday.
"My dear Miss Newman,—l should have written
a line yesterday, but really I did not feel able to sit
over pen and paper; but I am happy to tell yon
that. I am on the mend to-day, and sincerely live in
hopes of getting out to-morrow. Mr. King pro-
gresses much the same as myself. Hoping that
your little cough has vanished, and that you are
well, believe me to remain, yours truly,
" Wm. HEMMINGS.

" Thanks for your enquiries."
The third letter was then read.

" Thursday.
" My dear Charlotte,—This I know is the anniver-
sary of your birthday, and I wish you many happy
returns of it. I intended coming to drink your
health this evening, but from your assurance this
morning it appears that my absence will be more
acceptable than my presence at your door, and there-
fore I will not annoy you, Charlotte. Hoping that
you may live to see many months of November, I
am faithfully yours,
" WILLIAM lIEMMINGS."
The last letter read was as follows :

"Friday.
"My dear Miss Newman,—l beg to acknowledge
the receipt of yours this morning, but lam at a
total loss to know the meaning ; but as I am full of
apprehension, I will call very shortly, when per-
haps you will kindly make me understand verbally
what you have certainly failed to do by writing. I
would have come this evening, but I am compelled
to go further on.—l remain, dear Miss Newman,
yours, &c.,

" WILLIAM llEmmiNGs."
Cross-examination continued—l don't know what
was done with the lock of hair, it remained some
time in the valentine, but it was not put into a
brcoch. My sister showed me the letter she re-
ceived. I never heard what she did with the lock
of hair.`9 never' heard she:told him not to call
again ; she never told me anything of the kind.
My sister is 23 years of age. The defendant was
24 in October last. They went to school together
when children and grew up together on intimate
terms; they did not see each other for a year after
leaving school. My mother frequently pressed
him about the marriage, and sometimes in
my sister's presence. Defendant rents a
farm of tho rector of the parish. In 1858 I
' first beard that ho had written to Miss
Hargraves. I think it was in June or July of that
year. . I don't remember when defendant's father
died. My sister was in London in the autumn of
1858 on a visit to some of our friends—Mr. Harris
and Mr. Morley; the latter was a betting man and
liquor merchant, residing in Brewer-street. Morley
has not advised this action. She is now stopping
with him. He did not recommend the attorney.
Re-examined by Mr. Tindal Atkinson—The de-
fendant said he wished my sister to wear the hair
in a brooch. His father was in the ceaupation of
the farm before him. It contains about 400 acres.
The farm is well stocked and he keeps three saddle-
horses. Two of them are hunters. I think Mr.
Morley bets sometimes on horses at races.. He has
been known for several years to our family. I can't
say if Mr. Morley is known to the defendant. He
has met him with Mr. Morley is a married
man with four children.
Mrs. Mary Newman, the mother, was next
examine I by Mr. Tindal Atkinson. She deposed.—
I ant the mother of the plaintiff. My late husband
kept the Black Bear Inn, Moreton-in-the-Marsh,
28 years from the time when we were married. Just
before my husband's death I had four daughters.
He died four years ago last March. Ile left some pro-
perty. My son took the business, and I and my,
daughters to k the house adjoining, Mr. Hem-
' mines visited there very often. I askei him what
his object was in calling, about twelve months after
I loft the public-house. I asked him his motive
for coming, and he said he was not then in a posi-
tion to marry. He used to make her presents of
gloves, game, and fruit. lie took her to Mrs. Hol
tier's gipsy party—a friendly party for the people'
of the town—where there was dancing, &c. The
object of the party was to raise funds for a benevo-

tent purpose. He took her there three yeard fol-
lowing. He t ock her to Warwick races, but I don't
think he took her to church. I afterwards spoke to
him of marriavv, and he said in the close of 1858 he
should be his ev ?n master, and then he would marry
her. He kept Et porting dogs and horses—he called
one of the dogs one of the horses "Lotty" after
her. (Laughter.)
Mr. Tindal Aficinson—That he might always
have " Lotty" by him ? (Laughter.)
Witness—Yes. I know he is married to Miss
Hargraves. My daughter spoke to him about
Miss Hargraves, and he said he had only written
to her out of friendship, and that he would let her
see the letter, but I don't think he did. He
used to. visit three or four times a day. One
fair day I asked him what was the matter
between them. He said he did not like petti-
coat government, and would never Submit to
it (laughter), but he loved Charlotte, and would
marry her. When my daughter was in London he
called, and I told him I had received a letter from
her, and that she desired me to give her love to him.
He said he had also received a letter from her that
morning. He then said he should marry her in
November. On one occasion she was working some
collars ;he asked he? to let him mark them. She
consented, and he asked what they were. She said
C. N. He said, " Let me mark H." She said
" No ; wait till the proper time arrives ; it will be
time enough then." He said it might as well be
done then as it would not be long before that time
arrived. Ho also wished to have some plate of hers
marked with his initials; but she declined. He has
a well-stocked farm.
Cross-examined by Mr. Edwin James—They
went to school together, and were very friendly.
After the father's dath he lived with his mother.
I did not visit her. We were on speaking terms.
He used to come to the Bear. My daughter assisted
L me in the business. I first spoke to him of mar-
, riage in November, 1856. At that time he must
hale been about twenty-one years of age. I men-
tioned the marriage to him frequently. My (laugh-
, ter did not visit at his mother's. We lived about
a mile apart. I knew my daughter corresponded
with him. I recollect the valentine with the lock
of hair coming. She kept the hair for a long time,
but I believe she afterwards lost it.
Mr. James—That is considered unlucky. ( Laugh-

ter.) .
•
Witness—l believe it is in some things. (Re-
newed laughter.) I believe at one time there were
a few words between them, but I don't think it was
of any consequence. 1 don't remember her writing
him that his absence would be acceptable to her.
Miss King, of the White Hart, went with the de-
fendant and. my daughter to Warwick races. De-
fendant has a sister married. We did not associate
with the family—we did with his aunt.
By Mr. Atkinson—When I kept the Bear ho
came on market days and met other farmers. It is
the practice for the farmers to meet on market days
and settle accounts.
Mr. Charles Gore deposed—l live opposite the
plaintiff.'s house. I have seen defendant visit there.
I have met him there, and I presumed he visited
Miss Charlotte Newman. He had addressed
her rather familiarly, such as " Lotty, how are
you ?"
Miss Hemmings deposed—l am defendant's aunt.
I have known the plaintiff's family about three
years. I have been a neighbour of theirs for that
time, and on friendly terms, .occasionally visiting
them. I know my nephew has visited the plain-
tiff. He has been two or three times with her at
my house, and spent one evening there with her.
I do not know of any presents being made by him
to her of my own knowledge.. I have heard so, but
he did not tell me of it. I never saw them walking
about the town together. Ido not know anything
of the defendant's circumstances. lam an annuitant
from his late father's estate. He has never said
anything to me about his circumstances.
Cross-examined by Mr. E. James—l am his late
father's sister. The plaintiff never visited, the de-
fendant's mother. The plaintiff has spoken to me
about him. She never said to me she could not
bring him to the point about marriage. She never
said anything to me about marriage, neither have I
heard anything about it.
Mr. Mace deposed—l am related by marriage to
the defendant. lam a farmer, residing near Sher-
borne, in Dorsetshire. I am one of the trustees of
the defendant's father. I produce the will. He
takes £2,500 under the will, with a reversion after
his mother's death of perhaps £2,000 more. He
had nothing at 21 years of age. His farm is well
stocked and in good condition.
Cross-examined by Mr. E. James—The £2,500
is in farming stock. He had no money. That is
reserved for paying the annuities with which the
estate is charged.
By Mr. Atkinson—The will is sworn under
£12,000. The debts ieduced it to £9,000.

No witnesses were called for the defence.
Mr. T. Atkinson then addressed the jury on the
facts of the case.

Mr. Edwin James having addressed the jury
for the defendant in a powerful and humorous
speech,
The jury retired, and after an absence of half an
hour returned into court with a verdict for the
plaintiff—damages, £2OO.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
(Before the Chief Commissioner.)
BETTING IN BRIDE-LANE—IN THE MATTER OF
EDWARD DAVIES.
This insolvent, described as occasionally " bet-
ting on the turf," who was in prison, was opposed
by Mr. Sargood on the part of a person named
Thomas Newcome, who was stated to be a " better
on the turf."
Mr. Dowse supported the application for dis-
charge.
In May last the insolvent laid a bet of £7 to £l4O
with Newcome at his " place of business," as it was
termed, in Bride-lane, on Defender for the Chester
Cup. The bet was made on the day the horge was
to run. Defender was " scratched" on the day of
the race, and on the next day the insolvent applied
to Newcome to return his money, which he refused
—and on a second refusal on the asme day an assault
took place by the insolvent for which Newcome
brought an action in the Court of Exchequer, lay-
ing the damages at £2OO. The jury awarded £3O
as damages, and the costs had been taxed at £5O
4s. 6d., and for both sums the insolvent had been
taken in
.execution at the suit of Newcome, who
now opposed his application for discharge.
The question now raised in order to bring the
case within the act of Parliament (Ist and 2d Vie..
c. 110) was, that the assault wa‘a of a " malicious"
character. It appeared from the evidence of New-
come that the insolvent asked him for the money
as the horse was "scratched" at the time he made
the bet. He told him he could not attend to him
then, and he went away. In about an hour he re-
turned, when Newcome told him that he did not
officially know when the horse was scratched, and
he was then felled to the ground by the insolvent,
as seen by several persons. When he came to his
senses he was in the Punch Tavern, and the land-
lady, Mrs. Bowie, was washing the blood from his
face. He stated that the bet was made with him
about twelve o'clock, and the race was run
about half-past three o'clock, He received the
" tissue" of the scratching when he was at the
Punch Tavern having his dinner. According to
custom, a bet made on a horse scratched on the same
day as the race took place was not to be returned,
awd when he made the bet with the insolvent he
did not know the horse had been "scratched." lie
was very much injured, and obliged to have medical
advice.

On cross-examination, a good deal was asked
about Bride-lane. Newcome said there used to be
a good many persons meeting there, but only a few
now ; they had all gone to Hyde-park. (A laugh.)
Mr. Dowse said the police had made it very un-
comfortable for the sporting gentlemen, who were
obliged to "move on."
Dr. Owen Evans described the injuries Newcome
had received. He was very much knocked about,
and he had to attend him about three weeks. The
charge was 15 or 16 guineas.
From the insolvent's examination it appeared
that in 1838 the insolvent came from India, where
he had sold some horses, having been to Australia.
He received about £6OO, and had about £4OO when
he came to England in August, 1858. He had very
little left in May last. He asked Newcome for £7
back, as the Irene was scratched two hours before
he made the bet. It was usual to return money
under such circumstances, and he had seen money
returned. He said Newcome had aggravated him
by puffing up his eye-glass when he asked for his
money; and by lifting up his hand to push him
away. He also scat ed that he arrived at the trial
too late, and the case was nearly over when he got.
into court.
Mr. Sargood submitted that the evidence proved
the assault to have been " malicious," ang. therefore
prayed for a judgment.
Mr. Dowse contended that the insolvent was en-
titled bo the money, as he believed, and the reusal
had irritated him, on which he struck the blow.
The Chief Commissioner said no witnesses had
been called, exept the parties themselves, to show
who was entitled to the money. There had been
an outrageous assault, and it was ridiculous to sup-
pose that a man, because he refused to return a
sum of money, was to be knocked abut in the
manner described. The insolvent must either pay
in. purse or person, and he would allow an adjourn-
ment to compromise.
The insolvent said he had no money. Newcome
had had about £2OO or £3OO of him since he came
to England.
The learned Commissioner told the insolvent he

must take the consequences of his n. v iciente,
and-ordered-the next case to be called.

The insolvent was subsequently sworn to the
schedule.

The Court gave a judgment of seven calendar
months from tho vesting order on the 13th of
October, for the damages awarded in the action.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONB, .INrov. 14.

The November adjourned General Sessions of
the Peace for the County of Middlesex commenced
this morning.
The calendar contains the names of 55 prisoners,
all of whom, except two, are indicted for felony.
The learned Assistant-judge delivered the charge
to the Grand Jury. "
THE QUEEN V. FARINI.—A further application
was made in this case, by Mr. F. H. Lewis, and an
affidavit put in by Mr. Shaen, who conducts the
prosecution for the Associate Institute for the Pro-
tection of Women. The defendant, Pietro Farini,
was indicted for indecent conduct in the presence
of females in the Regent's Park ; but having been
admitted to bail he left this country, and is now
supposed to be at Madrid. The bail prayed for an
enlargement of the recognisances, and it was urged
that they were foreigners, and were ignorant of
the legal consequences of what they did in be-
coming bail.
The Assistant-Judge said that could not be ad-
mitted as a plea in any court of justice. Persons
undertaking to become bail must know tho respon-
sibility they assumed. Ultimately the recogni-
sances were enlarged for the next two sessions.
THE STRIKE.—THE QUEEN V. PERHAM.—Mr.
Gordon Allan stated that he had an application to
make on: behalf of Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., who
had been specially retained with him to appear for
the appellant, that the Court should appoint an
early day for the hearing of this case. It was an
appeal from a conviction by Mr. Corrie, the police
magistrate, of a workman for using threatening
language, and was a case of great importance. It
was probable, that whatever might be the decision
of the Court, the opinion of a higher sribunal
would be sought ; aud, therefore, it was desirable
that the matter should be immediately investigated
at the sessions. It appeared further, that in giving
his decision the magistrate had stated that he had
been compelled to commit a man to prison for not
supportine, his family ; that he could have obtained
work, but had refused to do so. inquiry had been
made as to that committal; but no precise informa-
tion could be obtained as to theexact circumstances
attending the case. It was the wish, however, of
those by whom he was instructed that it should

not be allowed to become currentthat they accepted
the, doctrine of the magistrate that the refusal to
sign the declaration was such a refusal to work as
would justify the imprisonment of the workman.
They were anxious, therefore, that the, whole matter
should be as quickly as possible inquired into.
Tho Assistant-Judge said that the Court would
-be willing to oblige the learned counsel, but they
were afraid that the appeal ,could not be heard at
the present session.
Mr. Allan said that he believed, on looking at the
act of Parliament, the Court would find that they
had jurisdiction.
The Assistant-Judge referred to the act, and said
that was so; and that the Court would fix Tuesday,
the 22d, for the hearing.
Mr. Poland, who appeared for the respondent,
said that day would be convenient to his client.
Thomas Bowcott, 22, was indicted for feloniously
breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Jane
Frisseder, and stealing therein a cash-box and other
articles, value .£5, the property of Wm. Austin.
He pleaded guilty, and several summary convic-
tions were proved against him.
It appeared that he got into the house of the
prosecn trim one morning at seven o'clock, with an-
other man, by means of a false latch-key. They
had packed up a large bundle of things in the par-
lour ready for removal, when they were disturbed
and made off, but the prisoner was captured.
The Assistant-Judge said he might be doing
wrong, but he would give the prisoner one more
chance in this country, but if he ever came there
again the sentence would be one of penal servitude
for a long term of years. The prisoner was sen-
tenced to hard labour for one year.
"Wm. Peake, 41, clerk, was convicted, upon his
own confession, of embezzling money to the amount
of £2 10s. 3d., received on account of his employers,
Messrs. Gardener and Co., lamp manufacturers, of
the Strand.

-Mr. Poland appeared for the prosecution.
Mr. Metcalfe, on behalf of the prisoner, addressed
the Court ix mitigation of punishment, and said his
client had hitherto, borne an unexceptionable cha-
racter, and had been well recommended to the pro-
secutors from the Great Northern Railway, where
he had been employed.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced the prisoner to
three months' hard labour.
Thomas llirons, 21, was indicted for stealing a
portmanteau, containing an apparatus for taking
photographic portraits, clothing, &c., value £22,
the propel ty of the Rev. Win. Laing. from a truck
on the London and North-Western Railway, and a
carpet bag and other articles, the property of John
Ogilby, from Luckett's Coffee-house, Bishop's-road,
Paddington. Charles Knapp, 40, a general dealer,
in Praed-street, Paddington, was indicted for felo-
niously receiving part of the same with a guilty
knowledge.
Hirons pleaded guilty.
Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted for the London and
North-Western Railway Company. Mr. Sleigh de-
fended Knapp.

The portininteaawasstolen from a train in which
the prosecutor was a passenger to St. Alban's.
Sergeant Potter, 1) division, traced out the pri-
soner Hirons as the thief, and found that some of
the contents of the box, which was found in the
room he lodged in, had been purchased by Knapp
for almost next to nothing—particularly a ♦aluable
photographic lens and some slides.
Mr. Sleigh addressed the jury for Knapp, urging
that the evidence did not make out a receipt with
felonious knowledge, and called witnesses to cha-
racter, among them Mr. T. Cotterell, the magistrate,
who said lie had known him for 30 years.
The jury acquitted Knapp, but suggested that his
lordship should administer to him a sharp caution
as to his dealings in future.

The learned Judge said-the suggestion was one
in which he not only concurred, but he should have
cautioned the prisoner had not the same occurred
to the minds of the jury. The prisoner must take
care how be received things in future, or he might
not be so fortunate as on this occasion.
Against Hirons there were two former convic-
tions upon the record ; and a third case of robbing
at a hotel at Paddington, where he took up his
abode for a night for the purpose 'of carrying off
some jewellery, but only got a top coat, was proved
by the officer.
The Court sentenced him to three years' penal
servitude.
A tall, determined, and savage-looking fellow,
named Newman, was indicted for robbing a boy
of 2,1 d., and assaulting him and putting him in
bodily fear, &o. The prosecutor stated that he was
in the tap-room of the White Lion public-house,
Edgware-road, when the prisoner, who had about
fifteen others with him, put him on the table, tied
his legs, and held one hand over his mouth,
and with the other took 21d., all he
possessed, out of his pocket. When ho got his
liberty he ran away, and next day, seeing the pri-
soner amongst a number of others, he picked him cut
and gave him in aharge. He was sure he was the
man, and there could be no doubt from his appear-
ance. This evidence was given in a clear, concise,
and straightforward manner by the boy.
The prisoner slid the case was u lie; and why.
did not the boy go and tell the landlord ; and was it
likely he would do such a thing before 15 others,
and if he did, why were not some of them called ?
The jury acquitted the prisoner on the ground
that the boy's evidence was not corroborated.
The Assistant-Judge—Juries should really pay
due regard to evidence. Unless that poor boy has
made a false charge altogether, this case was
proved, and he gave his evidence in an intelligent
manner.
Foreman—He was not corroborated.

The Assistant-Judge—Not corroborated ! If it
were neccssa-y for a witness to be corroborated in
every case, a, y one of you might be attacked, and
knocked down and robbed on the public highway,
by a desperate ruffian, who then is to be let loose
again, because your evidence is without corrobora-
tion, though you are sure of the person, and no one
but your a-saila-nt and yourself being present when
the eriu-e is committed. I believe the boy.

Foreman—He might have complained to the
landlord at the time, but did not, it appears.
Tne Assistant-Judge—lie might have done so,
bnt how can we tell what state of mind that child
was in after he had had this outrage committed
upon him in the presence of 15 men, not one of whom
interfered on his behalf. The first time he saw the
prisoner afterwards he gave him in charge, and the
prisoner admits he was there, and not one of the 15
came to sly he did not do it. But it was for you to
decide, gen t 1 em
A list of the convictions was then put in.
A lienstable—ln 1853, on one of those convic-
tions the prisoner was sentenced to 10 years' trans-
portation, and he is now on ticket-of-leave. Four
htfla
oaldi of
tet aa associate
solis term a
eisc(iiis,atitareinof
burglars. re u
n ex pired, and he is the con-
ot-rJdieurlgteh--7atTilrn.len Ia
yshiaiallveoridne.sr
lhiiomenctoe
revoked, and be remitted to serve oat the remainder
of thatsentence.
prisoner,The whose conduct below had been bad
in
jtoblienexmtraeitmlaen,
d727t,heanareeuttniojnnead.
y-looking man,

whose appearance N 70,8 calculated to throw any one
off aide glitc.,rd, was convicted on five distinct charges
of robbing ready-furnished lodgings.
'' The Court sentenced him to 18 months' hard
labour.