The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-20 00:00:00

THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 20, 1859.

was not upon the present occasion bound to say
more than that it was a point for discussion which
might have to be decided hereafter. There might
be a question as to whether the joint line was not
to be taken as independent of either of the two
companies, and as belonging rather to a third
species of company created as to this joint portion
by the Act of 1847. It was a difficulty in the
way of the contest of the plaintiffs that they
were compelled to admit that anything which
had traversed any part of the South-Western
proper became part of their traffic. Then,
again, the case had been suggested by Mr.
Baggallay, of the Portsmouth Railway joining the
South-Western shortly before the junction with the
South Coast line. There appeared to be some
balance of doubt as to what was intended, but not
sufficient to induce the Court to interfere by injunc-
tion. He could not conceive any reason for calling
upon the Legislature to restrict the user of the joint
line. Each company would endeavour to get as
much traffic as possible upon it for their joint
benefit. Care, no doubt would be taken as much as
possible as to the user of the joint station, and to
prevent any competing line from coming direct from
London. Section 35 of the Act of 1858 appeared
to have no bearing whatever on filo rights of the
two companies as between themselves. It in no
way affected or restricted their rights to the entire
user of the joint station. No third company was to
have the right of entering that station. Section 36
provided, rather singularly, that unless the Ports-
mouth company came to an arrangement with the
two companies for the use of the joint station they
must within one year buy land and make an inde-
pendent station. The South-Western Company did
not admit that the Portsmouth Railway Company
were using the joint station, for that would be a
direct contravention of the Act of 1858 ; but they
said, "_We are using our own station on our own
line, as we are fully entitled to do under the Act
of 1847." He could not tell how far it might appear
afterwards that the course taken by the South-
Western Company was in reality that of the
Portsmouth Company. At all events, it could not
be taken as now established against them; nor did
the bill allege more than that some agreement had
been come to. Upon the question of costs it was to
be observed that the question was reduced to a dry
point of law. The plaintiffs stood upon their strict
legal right, and the Court had said that it would
always assist companies in such a contest to assert
their rights. No order would be made upon the
present motion, and the costs would be costs in the
cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Campbell, and
Justices Wightman, Crompton, and Hill.)
THE QUEEN (ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE EARL
OF DERBY) v. GEE.
This case came before the Court upon the return
to a mandamus, and raised a question as to whether
the Earl of Derby or the authorities of the town-
ship of Bootle, near Liverpool, should remove a
nuisance existing at the mouth of a sewer running
into the Mersey.
Mr. Mellish having been heard on the part of
the Earl of Derby, and Mr. Atherton on the. other
side,

The Court thought the return was bad, as it did
not show that the mandamus had been obeyed, nor
give any excuse for not obeying it, but intimated
that the defendant should have leave to amend on
payment of costs.
THE QUEEN V. STEEL.—LIBEL.•
Mr. Knowles said he was instructed to move for
a rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against Mr. Robert Steel and
Mr. James Steel, the proprietors and publishers of
the Carlisle Journal, for a libel inserted in that
newspaper on Mr. James and Mr. Fawcett, two
magistrates. Mr. James had been a magistrate of
the county of Cumberland for forty years; he had
represented the city of Carlisle in Parliament for
two or three sessions, and had also been member for
the eastern division of Cumberland. Mr. Fawcett
was not a magistrate for the county, but he was a
barrister resident in Carlisle and a magistrate for
that city. In November last the site of the toll-bar
on the road leading from Carlisle to Penrith was
changed off this road. Mr. James and Mr. Fawcett
were trustees, in common with 200 or 300 people.
Formerly the bar was at a place about nine miles
from Carlisle, and the fund for repairing the road
was derived from the tolls taken at it. It was found
that it took as much to repair the half mile of the
road which led to the Newcastle Railway station as
was sufficient to repair the whole of the other eight
miles and a half; and at a meeting of the trustees
on the 28th of October it was unanimously resolved
that the bar should be removed nearer Carlisle.
A new bar was accordingly put up, and the tolls
paid for some time, but an organisation was got up
on the part of the town against it, and during
the night 'of the 7th of September the bar was
forcibly broken down. On the 9th the two gen-
tlemen in whose behalf he now applied signed an
order directing that two police-constables should be
stationed at the gate for the preservation of peace.
Shortly afterwards there appeared an article in the
paper in question, headed " Illegal toll-bar—
County versus City," containing the following pas=
sage :—" The motives that have actuated the two
trustees who have thus prostituted the office of
magistrate to give vent to their irritation and
spleen, if not to serve their own ends or crotchets,
are of the paltriest kind." In another part of the
article Mr. James and Mr. Fawcett were mentioned
by name ; and it was further asserted that they had
used the power with which they were invested to
serve their own ends, regardless of property_and
the public interests.
Lord Campbell—That is the whole of the alleged
libel ?

court and gave the child up to the nurse, but said
she would apply to another tribunal.

LAMBETH.—LovE, LAW, AND Prrysic.--Dr.
Daniel Shannon, a medical man, practising at No.
1, Bridge•road, Lambeth, appeared before the Hon.
G. C. Norton, to answer to a summons charging
him with assaulting Mr. Louis Hangers, his late
assistant.

The complainant said that on the 12th inst. he
was passing the house of Dr. Shannon, and that
gentleman being at the door at the time, asked him
if he had not been out with his servant. He replied
he had not, and went into the cigar shop of Mr.
Martin, next door. He was followed by a man
against whom he had a summons, but who was not
in attendance, and Dr. Shannon, and the latter
shaking a stick at him, told the former he would
give him a sovereign to knock him down. The
man on the instant grasped him by the throat, tore
away his stock, and struck him repeatedly. Dr.
Shannon all the time was present, and kept abus-
ing him in the most violent language, called him a
German scamp, and even worse names.
Mr. Norton—Are you sure he offered the man a
sovereign to strike you ?
Witness—Quite sure, sir. •
Mr. Edward Martin, who described himself as a
cigar 'merchant, said that on the night in question
the complainant entered his shop, followed by Dr.
Shannon, and the man whose name had been men-
tioned. The man came right into the shop, while
Dr. Shannon was at the door, and the latter said
the complainant deserved a good thrashing. He
(witness) would not go the length of saying that
Dr. Shannon had offered the man a sovereign to
thrash the complainant. His manner, however,
was encouraging to the man.
Mr. Norton—Did you 'notice a stick in Dr.
Shannon's hand?

Witness—No, sir, I did not. I should rather say
he had not a stick- than he had. The othcr man
assaulted the complainant, but Dr. Shannon did
not that I saw.

Dr. Shannon, in reply to the charge, said the fact
was that the complainant had formed an acquaint-
ance with a young woman in his service, and on
the evening in question she was out with him. A
young man who was paying his addresses to her
happened to see them together got jealous of the
young German, as he called him, and his jealousy
having been aroused he assaulted him as he had
described, but not from any interference of his.
Dr. Shannon then called his present assistant, and
after his evidence had been given,
Mr. Norton observed he did not think the com-
plaint was supported by the evidence, and there-
fore dismissed the summons.
On the application of the complainant, a warrant
was granted against the rival lover.

SOUTHWARK.—QUASHING AN ORDER UNDER
TIIE DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT.—
On the 4th. of the present month a middle-aged
female, who stated her name to be Charlotte
Antrim, applied to Mr. Burcham, and obtained an
order under the Matrimonial Causes Act for the
protection of her property from her husband, a
shopkeeper at Town Mailing. She then said that
her husband had deserted her many years, and that
she had lately become possessed of considerable pro-
perty. A few days ago a solicitor attended this court
on behalf of the husband, in order to request to hear
evidence on the part of the latter, as the whole of the
statement of Mrs. Antrim was untrue. Sh e
had actually applied to Sir C. Cresswell, the
Judge Ordinary, to make an order, on the 4th of
December, and after hearing her statement the
learned judge refused to grant an order for the
protection of her property. She had not mentioned
that circumstance to his worship. Had she, he
(the solicitor) was sure he would not have granted
her the order.
Mr. Burcham declined to discharge the order on
an ex parte statement, but he granted a summons
for Mrs. Antrim to appear and show cause why it
should not be quashed.
Yesterday afternoon she was accordingly in at-
tendance with her solicitor, and Mr. Sleigh, the
barrister who was 'instructed to appear on her
behalf.
Mr. Burcham asked whether it was true that
Mrs. Antrim applied to the Judge Ordinary on the
4th of December for protection of her property,
and was refused ?
Mr. Sleigh replied that such was the case. •
Mr. Burcham thought that the conduct of her
legal adviser was rather disgraceful, as be never
mentioned those circumstances to him. Had he
done so, and stated the grounds, most likely he
should have refused the order. The worthy
magistrate called Mrs. Antrim, when she was ex-
amined by Mr. Sleigh.
On being sworn she said—l married John Antrim
in 1828, and lived with him only six years. I had
two children by him, and I went out to work.
During the time I lived with him he very much ill-
treated me, and he frequently kept me without
food. He also caused me to have a certain illness
for nine months, and through his general bad con-
duct I was compelled to leave him, and he has not
since contributed anything towards my support. I
have lately had some property left me, and I wish
that protected from him and his creditors. I have
not been guilty of any improper conduct towards
him. I left him at Lews, in Kent.
Mr. Sleigh—Have you not lately seen him and
asked him for money for your support ?
Mrs. Antrim—Yes. About a fortnight ago I
saw him in his shop at Town Mailing, in Kent, and
asked him for money. He was living with another
woman, to whom he said he was married, and he
refused to give me anything. I was, however, not
in actual want.

Mr. Burcham to Mr. Sleighz—Have you the
brief relating to the application before the Judge
Ordinary ?
Mr. Sleigh—l have. Your worship can examine
it; but I hope, sir, you will bear in mind that I did
not know the particulars of Mrs. Antrim's applica-
tion to you, sir.
Mr. Burcham, after perusing the brief, said—
Mrs. Antrim, where do you live?
Mrs. Antrim—At 5, Webber-row.
Mr. Burcham—What name do you go by there ?
Mrs. Antrim—Mrs. Wall.
Mr. Burcham—Now don't you live with Mr.
Wall as man and wife ?
Mrs. Antrim—yes sir.
Mr. Burcham—Then you may go about your
business. I discharge the order at once.
Mr. Sleigh—l hope, sir, it will not go forth that I
knew that the application was refused by the Judge
Ordinary. Had I done so, I would not have at-
tended to-day. I consider these proceedings inde-
cent and insulting towards the learned judge and
magistrate.

This was the first order that has been quashed
under the new Divorce Act.

WESTMINSTER.—.LAMENTABLE Arrxm.--
john Howell, a very respectable-looking man, up-
wards of 50 years of age, was charged with steal-
ing a quantity of silver plate and other articles,
from the house of Mrs. Maria Waldo Sibthorp,
relict of the late Colonel Sibthorp, M.P., 57, Ches-
ter-square.
The circumstances of the case are very lament-
able. The prisoner, who is a married man with
seven children, the eldest of whom is moving in a
very creditable position in life, was employed, early
in November last, upon a job at the house of Mn.w
Sibthorp, when, in consequence of the high recom-
mendation he received from one of the ministers of
the district, the lady was induced to take him fully
into her establishment under far more advantageous
circumstances than a person at his time of life could
possibly expect; and it is deeply to be deplored
thatie made so ungrateful a return for the benefits
conferred. On Tuesday afternoon the accused, who
had charge of the plate in every day use, inquired of
the housemaid whether she knew what had become
of a tablespoon which was missing, to which she
replied that she did not. This circumstance coming
to the knowledge of Mr. H. W. Sibthorp, the lady's
son, he began to entertain some suspicion that all
was not right, and upon his return home from a
party at night he determined to look over the plate
in the pantry and ascertain whether there was any
of it missing. On going to the pantry-door he
found it locked, but as, on applying his eye to the
keyhole, he found there was no key in the door
inside, he came to the conclusion that prisoner was
out, although it was his duty at that late hour of the
night to have been in the house. After waiting some
time for the prisoner, and finding he did not return,
Mr. Sibthorp awoke one of the other servants, and
having gone to the police-station, where he received
every attention, returned with a constable. In the
meantime the key of the pantry had been found
under the matting in the store-room, and upon
examining the plate, four tea spoons, two dessert
ditto, two table spoons, and two forks, were missing,
and in •a,drawer in the pantry, three pawnbrokers'
tickets, relating to part of the property, were dis-
covered. Prisoner came quietly into the house at
two in the morning, when, upon being questioned
respecting the missing plate, he admitted he had
pawned it, and gave his master four other dupli-
cates.

An assistant to Mr. Smith, pawnbroker, Victoria_
road, produced the plate, pawned at four different
times by the prisoner, and also a blanket.
In reply to questions from the magistrate, the
assistant said that he had known the prisoner for
five years as a respectable man, and therefore did
not hesitate to take in the pledge from him, which
he represented to be the property of a Mr. Smith,
in Ebury-street. The blanket, he said, was his own.
Mr. Paynter asked whether he had looked at the
Directory, to Nee whether any person of the name

HAMMERSMITH.—POLICE DISCREPANCIES.
—John Simpson, the keeper of a beer-shop in Jen-
nings-buildings, and also a lodging-house-keeper,
was summoned before Mr. Ingham for having his
house open at improper hours.
Mr. Martin appeared for the defendant, and
pleaded not guilty.
Sergeant IVl'Qualter of the Tdi.vision, deposed that
about a quarter past one o'clock on the morning of
Sunday, the 9th inst., he received information that
the defendant had his house open for the sale of beer.
He immediately obtained the assistance of three
constables and went to the place. There were seve-
ral persons outside, and as they approached they
called—" Look out, look out." 'Witness placed one
of the constables at the back-door, and he, with the
other two, went to the front. He knocked at the door
when some person inside called out " Who's there ?"
and witness answered " The police." At that
time he heard footsteps rushing up stairs. He
waited two minutes and knocked again. A voice
called out, " Who's there ?" and witness., replied,
" The police." After waiting another minute the
door was opened by a young man with a moustache.
Witness first tried the door leading to the upstairs
part of the house, and he found that it was secured,
to prevent him from entering. He then turned into
the taproom, and found a prostitute sitting at the
table quite drunk, and a man sitting close to her
smoking. There was another woman standing in
the taproom, and she:appeared intoxicated. There
were three women sitting in front of the bar, with
a pint pot containing malt liquor. There was a
man standing close to the women, and the landlord
was behind the bar. He then asked the defendant
how he accounted for having his house open for the
sale of beer, and he made no reply.
Mr. Martin 'cross-examined the witness, and he
denied that he saw an account-book in the hands of
the landlord. He.also said that the prostitute did
not lodge at the beer-shop, but at Mr. Simpson's
lodging-house.
At the request of the magistrate, Ellen Donovan,
the woman in question was called, and she said that
she had lodged at the beer-shop for some time. She
further-said that:she:returned home about a quarter-
past 12 o'clock and she saw no beer about.
Police-constable Bull was next examined and
said he accompanied the sergeant. He saw five
males and two females in the house. The prostitute
was sitting in front of the bar with the man, and
not in the taproom. He further said that the door
was opened by the defendant.
Police-constable Fennemore was present when
the door was opened by the man in moustache.
Mr. Ingham said there appeared some remark-
able discrepancies in the evidence of the police. It
was, however, not a case he should proceed with.
Summons dismissed.
A VIOLENT PAUPER.—GRACE BEFORE MEAT.—
Edwin Skey, an able-bodied pauper, in St. Mar-
garet's and St. John's Workhouse, Kensington, was
placed in the dock under the following circum-
stances :
Thomas Brotherston, the labour master, said at
12 o'clock that day the inmates went to dinner, and
the prisoner and another man commenced before
grace was said. In consequence of that the master
turned them out of the hall, and would not allow
them to have their dinner with the rest of the in-
mates. At one o'clock, when labour was resumed,
he asked the prisoner to return to his work of stone-
breaking, but he•refused, on account of his having
had no dinner. The master told him that if he
went to his work he should have his dinner. He
still refused, and the master ordered him to be
locked up in the cell. The prisoner resisted, and
he had to obtain the assistance of the schoolmaster
to remove him to the cell. He then made a great
noise, and commenced kicking violently at the door
.and knocked out a piece of the wood. The master
then ordc rod witness to take off the prisoner's shoes
and while attempting to do so he kicked him vio-
lently in the leg. The prisoner also knocked out
the iron ventilator in the door, causing damage to
the amount of 2s. 6d.
The prisoner said the witness first kicked him,
and in return he kicked the witness.
Brotherton denied kicking the prisoner.
. The accused here bared his leg, and said the
mark was quite fresh.
Miller, the gaoler, looked at the bruise, and said
it appeared to have been just done.
The officer said he did not kick him. Theprisoner
might have got the bruise in his struggles.
The prisoner further said that when he went to
his dinner he put his hand to his mouth and took
out some tobacco which he had been chewing, and
placed it on the side of the plate. The master then
came up and ordered him out, and he had no dinner.
Mr. Ingham inquired if smoking was allowed in
the workhouse P
The witness said it was not. Many of the in-
mates chewed tobacco, but that was not allowed.
Mr. Ingham told the prisoner that it was his duty
to submit to the rules, and if not, he ought to submit
to be punished. It appeared he had not done
one or the other, and therefore he should commit
him for 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour.
THE BEGGING-LETTER IMPOSTOR.—John Clark,
the young man with crutches, who was charged
last week with endeavouring to obtain money from
Lord Macaulay, by means of a fictitious petition,
:was brought before Mr. Ingham for re-examination.
The prisoner, who has frequently been convicted
for practising frauds upon the public by begging
letters, was on this oc:. asion given into custody by
Mr. W. Read, one of the Middlesex magistrates,
residing in the Addison-road, Kensington, for ob-
taining ss. from him after presenting a well-exe-
cuted petition, purporting to have been drawn up
and signed by Mr. R. Green, the clerk of the Ken-
sington vestry. The petition, which was apparently
signed by the Duchess of Inverness, Archdeacon
Sinclair, &c., recommended the prisoner for a sub-
scription to enable him to obtain an artificial leg,
as he had lost the use of his own, and also to obtain
sufficient money to apprentice him to the trade of a
tailor. Mr. Read believed the petition to be ficti-
tious, and while waiting the arrival of the police ho
gave the prisoner the ss.' as he said, to eomenpslientgettohne,
case. Lord Macaulay, of Holly Lodge, K
was waited upon under similar eirtunistances, but
he refused to give any money until inquiries had
been made. Mr. Green attended on the last occa-
sion, and proved that the petition was fictitious.
He also informed the Court that a number o f
simi-
lar petitions had been flying about the parish for
some months.
Mr. Evan Hare, solicitor, and vestry clerk of
Putney, said a petition, purporting to have been
signed by him, had been sent, with a letter of re-
commendation: from the Rev. Mr. Robinson, the
incumbent of Putney, to Mrs. Chapman, of Bruns-
wick-square, Brighton. A cheque for £2 was sent
to the Rev. Mr. Robinson, and it was discovered
that the petition and letter were fictitious.. Witness
had now possession of the cheque and petition.
A servant in the employ of Mr. Chapman, of Roe-
hampton, proved that the prisoner called at their
house and requested to sae Mrs. Chapman. As they
did not know when the family would return, the
address in Brighton was given to him.
The prisoner had nothing to say in answer t 9 the
charge, and
Mr. Ingham told him that he appeared for a len°.
time past to have made a very handsome living by
means of the fictitious papers. He also said that
the prisoner was connected with an artful and
clever gang, and he must say there was some
credite
due to the ingenious rascality of his friends, for h never saw documents have more the appearance of
being genuine than theme before bird., Ile pentenced

5 Se
LADVEHT/SE3INT.j-- SIGHT AND HEARING. --"-roP
opticians, 39,
TACLES.—POWERPUL TELESCOPES.—OPERA, RACE, ',,-;i.
PERSPECTIVE GLASSES. Messrs. S. and B. selool'/
Messrs.
Piccadilly. Obseill
opposite the York Hotel, W.—Opera, Race-course, Fled,
and general Out-door Day and Night Perspective 0,13,4
very small, for the waistcoat pocket, each containing I.'dis'
18 lenses, constructed of ,German glass. Will show
„rag
tinctly a person to know them at two-and-a-half and tte,t
night glasses in
miles, and an object from eight to ten miles distant. !-ti
Majesty's Coast Guards are snaking use of them as da3 re,
ferrod for deer-stalking by sportsmen, gentlemen, 4,0
son may Preference to all others ; they are also rod
gamekeepers. Telescopes 31 inches long, by which el gii
object at 12 to 14 miles! distance; and with an extra os,ii3cl
be clearly seen and known at 3f miles' and
nomical eye-piece, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's rings, Do
the double stars are distinctly seen. All the above eontod
had of larger and all sizes, with increasing powers, , ot,
are secured by her Majesty's Royal Letters Paten,
The Royal Exhibition, 1851. A valuable, 11,.,e1?
invented, very small, powerful Waistcoat-pocket ul „co
the size of a walnut, by which a person can be s',of and known one and a half mile distant. They ansl.
every purpose on the Race-course and at the OPeco houses. Country scenery and ships are clearly ''._et
at four to six miles. They are invaluable for shootol,
b
deer-stalkino.,- yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, gsnille
keepers, and tourists. Price 305.—Spectacle Lenses (4.4
greatest transparent power. The great advantage dell; ig
from this invention is, that vision becoming impaired to
tt
Preserved and strengthened, and very aged persons
~00
enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occupg!lis
—can see with those lenses of a much less magnify
10
power, and they do not require the frequent changes to %;10
dangerous effects. of further powerful assistance. Persua,
can be suited at the most remote part of the world by send
ing one of the glasses out of their spectacles in a letter, n,;ot
stating the distance from the eyes they can read small
IT',4
witli it, and those who have not made use of spectacles Pio
statingtheirage. Deafness.---New Discovery.—The Orge.4
Vibrator, an extraordinarily powerful small newly-inven'' _,
instrument for Deafness, entirely different from
all 0010;7
surpasses anything of the kind that has been, or probab,%3
ever can be, produced. Being of the same colour as t",.a. skin, is not perceptible. It enables deaf persons to be'
,
distinctly at church and at
.public assemblies; the unPle;.
sant sensation of singing noises in the ears is entirely re' moved, and it affords all the assistance that possibly coo
be desired.-39, Albemarle-Street, Piccadilly. Observe''
opposite the York Hotel, W.

BIRTHS..
f
a son.
EDWA
John RDS.On
rds, the of
a inst., at Finsbury, the wife
Edwa Esq., solicitor, of 15, Coleman-street,

FRERE.—On the 13th inst., at 9, Queen-street, Mayfair'
Mrs. It. Temple Frere, of a son.
SARGEAUNT.—On the 18th inst., at 55, Ctunberland-street'
Hyde-park, the wife of J. B. Sargeaunt, Esq., barrister-
at-law, of a son.
WITITEREAD.—On the 18th inst., at 25, Clifton-gardeili;l
Westbourne-termee, tho wife of Major F. G. Whiteheaat
the Essex Rifles, of a daughter.
MARRIAGES.

STAPLES—THOENE.—On the 18th inst., at St. John'e
Episcopal Chapel, Greenock, Henry Staples, Esq., of the
Stock Exchangc,.London, to Sarah Ann, only daughter
of itokirt Thorne, Esq., Greenbank, Greenock.
TOTTENHAM—STAPLBTON.—On the 19th inst., at IVlcre-
worth, Kent, Captain C. G. Tottenham, Scots Fusilier
Guards, eldest son of Charles Tottenham, Esq:', ° Ballycurry, co. Wicklow, Ireland, to Catherine Eliztr
beth, eldest daughter of the Zion. and Rev. Sir Francis
Stapleton, Bart., rector of Meroworth.

DEATHS.
BAXTER.-011 the 19th inst. at his residence, 15, Canter;
bury Villas, Maida-vale, john Cordy Baxter, Esq., age"
90.
BEST.—On the 18th inst., at 7, Park-place, the infant son
of the Hon. Wm. Best.
BOOTII.—On the 14th inst., at Brush House, Ecelesfielat
John Kaye Booth, 111. D. of of Brush House, J.P. for the
West Riding, aged 81. .
BRAY.--011 the 9th inst., at Castle Bromwich, Warwiel‘'
shire, Solomon Bray, Esq., late Town Clerk of Birrg-
ham, aged 65.
HOLIDAY.—On the 18th inst., at 6, St. Edmond's-terrae°'
Regent's-park, G. Holiday, Esq., aged 74.
SCOTT.—On the 18th inst., at his residence 13, Stratton'
street, Piccadilly, Dr. John Scott, M.D., i.R.C.P., Len-
don, aged 62.
`FARO.—On the 16th inst., the Rev. Philip Ward, vicar 01
Tenterden, Kent, aged 63.
Wolff'
aged the 16th inst., Lady Georgiana Mary
aged 64.

- -
LONDON : Printed and Publishod by MURDO
YOUN
of No. 112, Strand, Printer,. at The Sun Office, No. 11"
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the cou.utY
Middlesex: Thursday, Jeauway 20, 1859.