The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-06 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. Jan. 5.

BOW-STREET.--John Lloyd was charged by a
schoolmaster named Marquis with robbing him of
a silver watch.

The prosecutor was robbed of his watch in the
crowd waiting for admission to the pit of Drury-
lane theatre. The prisoner, who was standing be-
side him, suddenly withdrew his hand from the
prosecutor's dress, and apparently passed some-
thing-away in the crowd. The prosecutor gave
him in custody on suspicion. He had no money to
pay for his admission to the theatre. He was taken
between the inner and outer door.

The prisoner said he had a check, but had lost it.
Mr. Henry said checks were not given at the
early part of the evening.
The prisoner meant to say an order. It was given
him by a friend about a week ago.
Mr. Mace (the chief usher)—They do not give
orders away now; the house fills too well for that.

The Prosecutor—No, and they don't give orders
for the pit at any time.
The Prisoner—Oh ! it was for the gallery. I had
mistaken the entrance.

Mr. Henry thought it still more unlikely that
orders or tickets would be issued for the gallery,
especially a week in advance. But, if it was true,
the prisoner could easily call his friend to prove it.
The Prisoner—He is not a friend, and I don't
know where to find him. I ;net him in a public-
house, and we got talking and drinking together.
I don't know him at all.

Mr. llenry—l shall remand you for further
inquiry. If you turn out to be a known bad cha-
racter I must send you for trial. I cannot convict
you summarily, as you say you are innocent, so it
must go before a jury.

CLERKENWELL—Thomas Birchmore, late
relieving overseer of the parish of St. Pancras, was
re-examined on the charge of embezzling various
sums of money belonging to the Board of Directors
of St. Pancras.

Mr. Humphreys, jun., attended for the prosecu
tion, and Mr. Lewis for the defence.

Air. Humphreys, in opening the case, said that
since the last examination an investigation of the
parish books had been made, and a great many de.
falcations had been discovered. The prisoner ap-
peared to have received many large sums of money
which he had not accounted for till some long time
afterwards. He intended to prefer nine cases of
embezzleinent against the prisoner. Mr. Hum-
phreys, after stating the nature of the cases he in-
tended to go into, and which will be found in the
evidence given below, said that, in order that the

magistrate should fully understand the case, he
might state that the prisoner held the office of re-
lieving-officer and relieving-overseer. All the money
the prisoner received he had to enter in a book entitled
" Mr. Birehmore's receipts," and that book at
the end of the week he had to add up and give to
the clerk, aperson named Chas. Hibbard. The duty
of the man Hibbard was to check the prisoner's ac-
counts, and receive the money from the
.prisoner,
and then apply it to the benefit of the parish. Hib-
bard having entered the amounts he had received
in a rough book, that book would go to the accoun-
tant, who would make a fair copy, and afterwards
place it before the audit committee for them to exa-
mine. He had gone thus far because the man Hib-
bard could not be produced. Hibbard was a de-
faulter to a very large amount. He proposed first
of all to call persons who had paid the prisoner
money, and which prisoner had not accounted for.
As on the last occasion the prisoner had only been
a short time apprehended, and the inquiry was only
one of a preliminary. character, he proposed to
commence the case again. He then called--
Sergeant Robinson, 27 A, of the detective force,
who said—l produce a warrant which was granted
from this court on the sth Nov., 1858, for the ap-
prehension of the prisoner.
Samuel Chadwick said—l am a chimney-
sweeper, of 2, Little Welbeck-street, Cavendish-
square. My father is an inmate of the workhouse
of St. Pancras, and has been so for some years: I
have been in the habit of paying for his mainten-
ance at the rate of 3s. 6d. per week to the parish.
On Nov. 3, 1858, Ipaid the prisoner the sum of
£2 ss. 6d. for the parish on account of my father's
maintenance, and prisoner
.gave me the receipt
produced. The receipt was signed by the prisoner
—" Thomas Birchmore, Overseer."

George Grimmell, a city missionary, 19, Willis-
road, Kentish-town, said—My wife in the years
1856 and 1857 was an inmate of St. Pancras work-
house, and was there for eight weeks. I was in the
habit of paying 4s. por week for her maintenance
during that time to the parish. On the 24th Dec.,
1856, I paid prisoner4s. on account of the parish, a
like sum on 31st Dec., 1856, and the 7th of Jan.,
_ _

1857. On each of those occasions the prisoner
wrote the receipt in the book produced for each
amount.

Thirza King said—l am the wife of Robert King,
and I r3side at 16, Grafton-place, Euston-square. I
am the stepmother to a boy who is an inmate of
St. Pancras workhouse He has been an inmate
about seven months. On the 31st of July last
year I paid the prisoner the sum of £1 is, Bd, on

account of the maintenance of Mr. King's son in
the workhouse. On the 31st of August I paid the
prisoner a like sum, and he put his initials, " J. 8.,"
in my book.
Joseph Henry Clarke said—l am the relieving-
overseer of the parish of St. Pancras. I reside at
22, Winchester-street. On or about the 4th of
May, 1857, I received the sum of £2 from Mrs.
Pyles on account of the parish for the maintenance
of her son in the workhouse. I entered its receipt
in the book produced, and handed the money to the
prisoner, and he signed his initials in .the book.
On the 12th of December, 1857, I received the sum
of £4 on the same account, and entered it in the
book produced, which I paid to the prisoner, and
he put his initials for its receipt. There is a per-
son named William Pyles in the workhouse.
William Jaques, of 19, Clarendon-street, Somers-
town—l am accountant to the directors of the poor
of the parish of St. Pancras. The prisoner was the
relieving-officer and overseer in the service of the
directors of the poor. It was part of the prisoner's
duty
.to collect and receive moneys due from per-
sons in respect of the maintenance of paupers, and
he did receive moneys in that way. It was the
prisoner's duty to enter moneys received in a book
called " Mr. Birchmore's Receipts." When the
moneys were entered the book was added up
weekly, and handed with the cash balance to Hib-
bard, who was clerk to the directors. It was the
course of business for Hibbard to check the pri-
soner's receipt-book with the amounts received, and
to enter the total in his own book, called " the
clerk's rough weekly abstract of receipts and pay-
ments," under the head of the individuals. It was the
course of business to hand the book to me. It was my
duty to check Hibbard's book with the prisoner's re-
ceipt-book, to enter it in a book called " the clerk's
weekly abstract of accounts," and then place that
before the audit committee for examination. There
is an account in the ledger of Mr. W. Chadwick. In
the prisoner's receipt-book for Nov., 1856, I findno
entry of the receipt of £2 ss. 6d. from Mr. Chad-
wick, nor yet in the month of December. For Dec.,
1856, I do not find any entry after the 20th of
money paid by Grimmell, nor of any money being
paid to prisoner in Jan., 1857. There is no entry in
July, 1858, or any other month, of moneys paid. by
King. There is no entry in the book in May, 1856,
nor since, of money paid by Mrs. Pyles. I remem-
ber seeing the prisoner at the vestry, in No. 6 room,
on the 22d Oct. last. I saw him between 9 and 10
o'clock. He stated to me that he was back in his
accounts. I asked him to what extent, and he stated
about £lOO. He asked me what I thought he had
better do, and I said I should advise him to com-
municate with Mr. Wyatt.
Mr. W. H. Wyatt, of 1, Harrington-square, St.
Pancras, said—l am one of the directors of the poor
of the. Parishl of St. Pancras. On Friday, Oct. 15.
one Adams was called up to the board-room, and
was sent to the prisoner with his receipt-book. The
next day the prisoner called at my house about 10
o'clock. He 'said he had heard that the audit com-
mittee had made a report about him on the previous
day. He said that he bad received the half-yearly
dividends due in April at the time they were due,
and that when the book was sent down to him with
the question whether he had more to enter in it, he
thought it applied to the other accounts and not to
the dividends. Another half-year's dividend was
then due. I advised him to go and receive the Oc-
tober dividends and pay in both accounts that
day. At that time I bad no suspicion he was a de-
faulter on any other accounts. He then asked me
if I thought the audit committee would withdraw
their report. I told him I could not say, but he
could make any statement he liked to them. The
committee met on the 18th, when the prisoner was
called in and asked whether he was backward in
any other accounts. He said he mightbe to a trifling
amount, but if he were allowed to the following
Friday he should be able to give a full explanation.
I then asked him if he had received moneys from
King ? At first he said not, but afterwards he said
he might have received £1 or a guinea. The special
committee met on the following Friday to receive
the report. Before the committee met on that day
the prisoner called upon me at my house. I said,
" I do not wish you to make any statmeent to me;
I would rather you reserve it for the committee."
He then begged me to hear him, and gave the fol-
lowing reason for asking it. He said he would so
much rather that I should draw out the fads in
committee than it should be left to a director whom
he named, and who, he said, had always persecuted
him. He then told me he was a defaulter for about
£lOO, but that his surety was good and would fully
cover it.

Mr. Tvrwhitt—At the time had you held out
any inducement to him to make that statement ?
Witness—Neither directly nor indirectly.
Witness continued—l then advised the prisoner
to make what amends he could by telling the com-
mittee all about it. He then asked me if I thought
the directors would consent to his liquidating the
debt by retaining half his salary until it was paid.
I told him " Certainly not," and the least punish-
ment he could expect would be his dismissal. The
prisoner then said that he hoped the Board would
not prosecute him, but be content with getting
their money back from his surefv. I told him that
personally I had no desire to prosecute him, and
that I had not up to that time heard any one pro-
pose to do so, but I could not in the least tell what
course the Board would adopt. He then left. The
committee, which the prisoner had specially re-
quested, met at two o'clock that day, and the pri-
soner attended before them. The list I produce
was in my hand, and the prisoner was asked sepa-
rately if the amounts were owing by the different
persons. To some the prisoner replied that he had
not received anything, and with reference to the
others I put down the sums he had received. The
total sum he said was £179 4s. 9d. He then
repeated the proposition he had previously made
to me in the morning. The committee declined
to entertain that, and told him he was suspended
from his office. He said he should attend the board
on the following Tuesday, but he did not. The
prisoner was in the habit of receiving money from
persons who paid it for their friends, and accounted
for it in the way described.
Sergeant Upfold, 19 E—The prisoner was given
into my custody between 11 and 12 on Tuesday
night, the 20th. I told him that he was charged-
with embezzling money belonging to the parish of
St. Pancras. He said, I knew it would come to
this. lam quite ready and prepared for it."
Mr. Humphreys said that was the case to-day,
and asked for a remand, to enable him to bring
further cases forward.

Mr. Lewis contended that the prisoner was no
ongaged to collect moneys, and that he was only
liable to a civil action.

Tyrrwhitt remanded the prisoner, and ac
cepted the same bail for his appearance.

SOUTHWARK. Walter Russell, a stout,
country-looking man, dressed in a smock frock, was
charged with being concerned with another man
not in custody in committing a violent assault on
Matthew Price, and stealing from him a gold
watch and chain and a parcel containing a quantity
of grocery.
The prosecutor, a coloured gentleman, who is
well known in the metropolis by his appearance
and general display of jewellery, stated, that on the
previous night, shorstly before 8 o'clock, he was
passing along the Waterloo-road towards home
when he saw the prisoner and another man on the
other side of the road who appeared to be watching
him. When near Stamford-street he crossed over,
and directly afterwards he received a violent blow
on the head, nearly stunning him. He, however,
recovered himself immediately, and caught hold of
the prisoner as he was endeavouring to get away,
and held him until assistance came and he was se-
cured. The other man made his escape with his
property, as he distinctly saw prisoner pass it to
him:

Witness here 'exhibited several wounds on his
head, showing that he had been most brutally
treated. There were two cuts as if inflicted with
a life-preserver.
The prisoner here said he was quite innocent of
the charge. He was a countryman, and at the time
was passing along the road when he saw the gen-
tleman lying on the ground. He was, in fact, about
to pick him up when he seized hold of him and
gave him into custody.
William Molen, of 5, Hatfield-street, Stamford-
street, said he saw the prosecutor walking along
the Waterloo-road on one side of the road, and the
prisoner and another man on the other side. As
the prosecutor was crossing over he saw the
prisoner go up to him, and strike him on the
head with a life-preserver, which caused him to
fall. While on the ground witness saw the other
man snatch his watch and chain, and the prisoner
passed him a parcel, with which he ran
off. Witness called out " Police ! " and assisted
in detaining the prisoner until a constable came
up, when he was taken into custody. The other
man made his escape.
Mr. Burcham remanded the prisoner.

[ADVERTISEMENT.I—Rarey's Horse and Cattle Improv-
ing Food is equally adapted to improve the stamina of ill-
conditioned Horses, Cows, Bullocks, Calves, Sheep, and
Pigs. It causes no extra expense, as it contains far more
and better nourishment than its cost of lid. per feed sup-
plies in corn and hay; hence ensures an actual saving in
the keep. But its principal advantages are a great im-
provement in the digestive functions, the stamina and
general condition of horses enabling them to perform far
more labour without getting distressed. It imparts new
vigour to sick, debilitated, or old apparently worn-out
horses, and it puts rapidly the finest flesh on cattle gene-
rally, and improves the milk in cows, as it enables them to
extract the entire nourishment out of everything they feed
on. Rarey and Co., 77, Regent's Quadrant, Piccadilly,
London. Packed in tins of about 99 feeds, 11s. ; in casks
of about 450 feeds, 505.; of about 1,000 feeds, £5, being
lid. per feed,

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—Jan. G.

• OLD COURT.
(Before Baron Martin and Mr. Justice Willes.)
THE FIRE AND LOSS OF LIFE AT GREENWICH.

Richard Roper, 29, formerly carrying on business as a
corn-dealer, who had been remanded from last session, was
placed at the bar, charged, by the first count, with felo-
niously setting fire to his dwelling-house, certain living
persons being therein at the timr. ; in the second count,
with committing an act with intent to defraud the Kent
Fire Insurance Office; and in the third count, with felo-
niously setting fire to his house.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Gifford appeared for the
prosecution ; and Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Robin-
son defended the prisoner.
The following additional evidence in this case appeared
in a late edition of The Sun of yesterday :
Elizabeth Waterfell, the female servant of the prisoner,
said—l have been in prisoner's service about two years.
Shortly before the firel removed the articles spoken to. I
went several times to Mrs. Cowell's. I first took a dozen
plates. I took a few things at a time. It was in the evening
time. The prisoner told me when I took the things I was not to
say anything to anybody. Roper took the large diihes
himself. The wax flowers was removed on the Wednesday
before the fire. I recollect a lot of glass on the sideboard.
I missed it from its place before the fire. In dusting the
wardrobe I noticed a number of her dresses were gone. I
found a pawnbroker's duplicate. Before the fire two sacks
of books were removed. I held the sacks while the
books were put in. Mr. Roper filled the sacks. I removed
the writing-desk on the Saturday before the fire to Mrs.
Cowell's, by order of Mr. Roper. It was rather heavy, and
was wrapped in a blue cotton handkerchief. On the
Saturday before the fire, about 11 o'clock, the prisoner
sent me for some turps. He told me to get sixpennyworth.
He gave me a white bottle to get it in. I had got turps
before, but never in that bottle. I got half a pint at an
oil shop in London-street, Greenwich. Marie Harding
served me. I gave the turps to the prisoner, but I don't
know what he did with it. I told him how much there
was. I used usually to get the turps in the bottle pro-
duced, a two ounce phial. The turps I got the night in
question was in a much larger bottle. He told me it was
to clean a bookcase. I went to bed the night of the fire
about 12 o'clock. The prisoner went to his room at the
same time. Before he went up stairs he turned the gas
three-parts off in both the sitting room and shop. I had
not beeridown in the cellar for three or four days. There
was no gas in the cellar. When I went to bed everything
appeared safe. I was woke up by the prisoner calling
" Lizzy " twice. I got out of bed and went to the door.
When I opened the door I saw the flames at the bottom of
the stairs. 1 got out of the window on to the roof of the
house, and was taken from thence by the fire-escape. The
articles produced in court—the china, glass, &c.—be-
longed to Mr. Roper.
Cross-examined by Sergeant Ballantine—Twopenyworth
would about three-parts fill the bottle. The reason I got
more than the usual quantity was that I thought the book-
case would require it. I did not know in the morning
that the book-case was to be cleaned. I don't recollect it
had been ordered to be cleaned. I was examined before
the magistrate four or five times before I recollected
about the turps. I don't recollect being directed to clean
the furniture. I got out of bed as soon as I could.
did not try to save the baby sleeping in the same bed
with me. If I had attempted to do so I should have
lost my own life.
Maria Harding proved the purchasing the turpentine by
the last witness on the Saturday previous to the fire, about
11 o'clock in the evening.
Robert Morris, a lad in the employ of the prisoner, proved
moving several articles from his residence by his direction.
On the 10th of September (Friday) I brought nine trusses
of straw from Murrell's. I put it near the back door.
There is a place to go down to the cellar close by. After
the fire I saw the trusses of straw lying underneath the
steps in the cellar. The cellar, I think, would hold two or
threeloads of straw. There was only about half a sack of
flour and a few lots in bags when I left the•shop on Satur-
day. On the afternoon of the fire I saw Mr. Roper. He
told me to say, if anybody asked me questions, to say I
knew nothing. He told me to call upon him the next morn-
ing at ten o'clock to go round to his customers.
Cross-examined—l don't know that the straw had been
removed from the usual part of the cellar in consequence of
the damp. I don't know what Roper meant when he told
me not to mention anything. I didn't know anything ex-
cept the amount of stock he had in the shop. I don't know
whether the ledger was burnt. I now recollect it was, and
that was the reason I was sent round to the customers. I
will not swear that Mrs. Roper did not tell me to take away
some of the things. I know there were several applications
made respecting the letting of the shop. I did not sleep on
the premises. I swept up the shop by Mr. Roper's orders,
before I left to go home to bed.
Re-examined—l had had no quarrel with Roper. If the
fire had not taken place I should have gone to my work as
usual on the Monday.
George Lilly, fireman, London-bridge, attached to the
Southwark division, said—l took charge of the ruins after
the fire. I was in charge a week. I then handed it over
to another brigade-man. Nothing was removed whilst I
was there.
Thomas Smart—l am a fireman stationed at Greenwich.
On the 21st I was placed in charge of the ruins of the
house. I have been used to such business for 20 years.
On Friday, the 22d of October, I went down into the cellar
after the rubbish had been removed. I found the steps
nearly consumed. I produce the bottom. There was no
staircase in the cellar, merely a step ladder.
The part of the ladder was here brought into court, and
also a quantity of the burnt straw found in the cellar, and
the witness placed it in the position he found it. .
Examination resumed—The roof of the cellarwas charred
by the action of fire. The fire, according to my opinion,
must have commenced below. If the fire had occurred in
the shop, and some of the wood had fallen into the cellar,
the straw would not have been so much burnt as it was, as
the falling rubbish would have smothered it and pre-
vented it burning. There were three holes burnt in the
shop floor. My decided opinion is that the fire began in
, the cellar.

Cross-examined—l have made no inquiry where the gas
was fixed in the house. I don't think it at all
important to ascertain where the gas was situated.
I made up my mind the fire occurred in the cellar, and
I made no further inquiry about the matter. I don't know
positively what the ceiling of the shop was made of, but I
was told it was made of canvas. I tried whether canvas
whitewashed over would burn briskly, and I found it would
not. I procured the canvas for my experiment from the
wall of the shop. I merely tried whether it would burn
from pure curiosity. The fire, if it began in the cellar,
would run upstairs and fire the shop. Mr. Henderson, the
fireman, saw the holes in the shop floor as well as myself.
When I first went into.the cellar a portion of the sifted rub-
bish had been thrown there, but not in the part of the cellar
I have been speaking of. •
Re-examined—l feel confident the part of the cellar I
have been speaking of was in precisely the same state when
I went into it in October as it was left by the fire.
Richard Henderson—l am foreman in the London Fire
Brigade. I have been so for 19 years. On the 24th and
25th Oct. I minutely examined the rains. I was of opinion
that the fire commenced in the cellar, under the ladder. I
saw some holes in the shop flooring, but it is just possible
they may have been occasioned by some rubbish falling on
it. There was a large quantity of straw under the ladder

nearly consumed. The fire must have burned very fiercely.
If turpentine had been placed onthe straw it would increase
very considerably the strength of the flames.
Cross-examined—lt was very difficult to get rid of the

smell of turpentine. If some of the burning straw had
dropped from above through an aperture into the cellar,
that would ignite the straw below ; but I don't think the

cellar would present the appearance it exhibited when I saw
it. The rubbish, when I went into the cellar, had been
turned over.
Mr. Heisch, professor of chemistry at Middlesex Hos-
pital, said if straw saturated with turpentine was entirely
consumed, no smell would remain.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—You mean to say that if a
thing is entirely consumed nothing remains. (Laughter.)
Witness—Well, it amounts to the same thing.
Mr. Carttar, the coroner for East Kent, put in the state-
ment made by the prisoner when he was examined, by his
own request, at the inquest held upon the bodies of his un-
fortunate children.

The statement was read by Mr. Hemp, the clerk. I.
went on to say the fire was perfectly accidental, and that

the lives of the children were lost in consequence of the
shop door being burnt open long before the arrival of the
fire engines. The things removed from his house were
sent away merely because he was about leaving the neigh-
bourhood, he having thought that he had let his shop.
At the time the inventory was made out he said
he was in such trouble he scarcely knew an
article mentioned therein. He took no active part in
making out the list of his losses. The statement went to
show that the furniture and stock was fully worth the
amount insured for.

This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine then made a most eloquent ad-
dress to the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said that
this case had been very properly described by his learned
friend, in his very able and temperate opening address, as
one of the most fearful description, but ho believed that
every one who had heard the examination of the witnesses
for the prosecution must have felt that the charge had gra-
dually crumbled away ; and ho believed that he might
safely leave the prisoner in the hands of the jury without
any further observation, and that it was utterly impossible
that they could convict him of this dreadful crime upon the
evidence that had been laid before them. The issue, how-
ever, was a most fearful one ; and he should therefore ad-
dress a few remarks upon the evidence by which the crime
was sought to be brought home to the prisoner; and he felt
confident that he should be able to show that it was totally
inadequate to make out the charge. The crime of which
the prisoner was accused was infinitely worse than any or-
dinary charge of murder—the accusation was of such a kind
as was rarely heard of. His learned friend had stated that
it was not intended to impute to the prisoner the intention
of destroying his helpless children; but if the jury should
come to the conclusion that he had wilfully set fire to his
house, under the circumstances that had been detailed, and
he could not see how it was possible for any other conclu-
sion to be arrived at than that, he must have contemplated
the destruction not only of his children but also of his wife

and tho infant that had just been broUghtiiieihe world.
The question-they had to consider was—whether the pri-
soner was a man who was likely to have committed such a
diabolical crime ; and whether a man who had been proved
to have always acted with kindness and affection towards
his wife and children should suddenly have become actu-
ated by the horrible intention to destroy them in this
cruel manner ? In all these cases the jury were bound to
look for a motive for such a crime, and in ordinary cases
it was shown that the motive was to obtain some large
pecuniary benefit. What, however, was :the case in the
present instance ? Instead of making any profit by the fire,
he submitted that it was quite clearly established by the
evidence for the prosecution that, instead of being a gainer,
the prisoner would have been a serious loser. All he could,
under any circumstances, have received from the insurance •
office would have been £3OO, and it had been proved that
he had been offered £l3O for his business, and there could
be no doubt that he had at least £250 worth of property
actually destroyed in the fire, so that, instead of reaping
any advantage, he must have been a seriousloser. A great
deal of stress had been laid upon the removal of a small por-
tion of the property, but he urged there was nothing to show
that the prisoner's statement of his having let his business
was not true, and that his only desire was to take what he
called " breakables" from his house before his removal, in
order that they might not be destroyed. Even supposing,
however, he had removed this property, where was the evi-
dence of fraudulent intention, when it was admitted that
there was a much larger quantity. of property actually de-
stroyed than was covered by the insurance ? He then called
the attention of the jury to the period when the offence was
alleged to have been committed, and asked them whether_
it was likely that a man who contemplated the commission
of such a clime should have chosen the period just when his
wife had been delivered, and when he must have been well
aware that any sudden alarm would in all probability prove
fatal to her. He then proceeded to argue that the theory
put forward by the firemen, that the fire must necessarily
have commenced in the cellar, ought not to be implicitly
relied upon • and he at the same time said that, even if the
jury should of opinion that it was a correct one, it was
not at all impossible that, if the fire commenced in the shop,
some sparks should have fallen upon the straw in the cellar,
and thus have produced the same result. The learned
sergeant concluded a most able speech by calling upon the
jury to dismiss the prisoner from the bar, certainly not
without having suffered pain, anguish, and agony, but at
all events free from the imputation of being guilty of a crime
of this dreadful description.
A great number of highly respectable witnesses were then
examined, all of whom described the prisoner as being a re-
markably kind and affectionate man, and apparently de-
votedly attached to his wife and children.
Baron Martin then proceeded to sum up the case, and at
a quarter to seven o'clock the jury retired to deliberate upon
their verdict. They returned into court at a quarter past
seven, and gave a verdict of Not Guilty.
There was a burst of applause when the verdict was pro-
nounced, which was with some difficulty suppressed by the
officers.

Sergeant Parry said there was a charge of misdemeanour
against the prisoner, arising out of the same transaction,
the offence imputed to him being that of endeavouring to
obtain money from the insurance office by making a false
claim. The company were unwilling to press the matter
against the prisoner, and he was anxious to have their
lordships' opinion whether the other indictment ought to
be gone on with.
Baron Martin said that he and Mr. Justice Wiles were
both of opinion that the whole case had been substantially
inquired mto, and that it was unnecessary to proceed with
the other indictment. At the same time he wished it to
be understeod that the court was very far from expressing
an opinion that there had been anything improper in the
inquiry that had already taken place.
A verdict of Not Guilty was then taken, and the prisoner
was ordered to be discharged from custody.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE-JAN. 4.

Tho supply of farmers' wheat was good, which met
brisk sale at is per qr. advance on Friday's rates. South
country and Foreign grain in limited request, but holders
firm. In the few transactions that occurred an improve-
ment of is to 2s was established. A better demand for
flour, and full prices asked by holders. No improvement
in barley. Oats steady: Beans and peas sold in retail, at
former prices, Rye in some demand, but none offering.