The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-04 00:00:00

ILIIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Oct. 3.

`undoubted commercial value, busy themselves only
in a paltry trade in ivory.
" A station is to be put up at the mouth of the
Shire by way of claiming all our exploratifits in
the north, and a custom-house is to be erected at the
mouth of the Zambesi, whose navigability we alone
discovered. They durst not enter the Shire till
about the end of last year, when a rebel party ran
away and allowed them to go about three miles
into the river. . . .
" We have had fever amongst us, but of so mild
a character in consequence of being well provided
for, that I failed to recognise it as that from which
I suffered so severely when destitute of every corn-
fort. We cure it readily; it looks more like a com-
mon cold than fever. .

• •
" DAVID LIVINGSTONE."

OLO UCESTER ELECITON COMMISSION

GLOUCESTER, MONDAY EVENING,

The inquiry into corrupt practices at Gloucester
elections was continued to-day. The two hon.
members were present, and one of them (Mr. Price)
was examined.
Mr. W. P. Price was examined at some length
as to his interview with the deputation from Glou-
cester at the Reform Club in London. He corro-
borated the account given by Mr. Wilton, Mr.
Innen,- and Mr. Moffat as to that interview, at
which Messrs. Innell and Wilton sought a Liberal
candidate, and Mr. Monk consented to stand. As
to the proportion in which the expenses were to be
divided, Mr. Price said he thought the best plan
was for each candidate to pay his own expenses.
At that time he (Mr. Price) was, as it were, wearing
a mask on his face, inasmuch as he was treating
the matter as if he fully intended to be a candidate,
whereas he did not intend to stand at all, and had
been in correspondence with his agents, Messrs.
Ellis, Elliott, and Swan, of Gloucester, as to his
intention of retiring and the best mode of doing so.
Remembered at the interview at the Reform Club
that a programme was produced of the sums re-
quired for the purposes of the election ; it showed
a total of £1,200, and some one said that it could
not at all events exceed £1,500. 'His (Mr. Price's
election in 1852 costa little over £BOO, which include_
£125 which he gave to the Mayor to distribute ammi
the charities in place of his being " chaired," to
which he had a great objection. His election in
1857 cost, £350. He
.did not suppose that Mr.
Monk, being a stranger, woUld be able to keep his
expenses within such a limit, but hethought his
election Wight cost £5OO. Saw nr.Moffat afterwards,
and he asked him to let him (Mr. Moffat) know how
the canvass was going on. Understood by that

that Mr. Moffat was acting,is Mr. Monk's -friend.
He might have had a conversation with Mr. Moffat
in the House of Commons after that, but he did not
remember it. He wrote two letters op the subject
of the election, the first withinob9ut 10 or 12 days
of tho election, and the second two or three days
before the nomination. About that time he was
applied to by Mr. Innell and Mr. Wilton about
providing the expenses necessary for carrying on
the election. He replied that Mr. Ellis would pay
his expenses, bat he had nothing to do with Mr.
Monk's expenses. The parties, however, continued
to be urgent in their applications to him for money,
and he thought that it would be well to communi-
cate with Mr. Moffat, and he accordingly wrote to
him, recommending that a sum, £5OO he believed,
should be transmitted to Gloucester, and if he ex-
pressed any opinion at all no doubt he recommended
that it should-be sent by private hand. He had no
other way of sending it. If he had wanted the
money in the ordinary course for himself he should'
have directed it to be paid to Messrs. Williams,
Deacon, and o his credit with the Gloucester-
shire Banking Co.,dompapiy, but in the first place, he
did not know who was going to send it ; nor,
secondly, who would receive it. He thought, there-
fore, the best plan would be to send. it down by
private hand. The messenger's railway fare would
cost no more than the banker's commission. In his
second letter he mentioned Mr. John Wilton as the
most proper person to send it to. No agent had
been appointed for Mr. Monk at that time. It was
possible that the second letter which he wrote was
addressed to Sir W. G. Hayter, instead of Mr.
Moffat, as he knew Sir W. G. flayter would be one
of the last members of the house in town. Did not
know at the time when he wrote to Mr. Moffat or
Sir W. Hayter that £2OO had been paid into the
Gloucester County Bank. He had only had one letter
from Mr. Moffat, which had unfortunately been de-
stroyed. He remembered its contents, which were
very brief, as follows :—" I've seen Sir W. G.
Hayter behind the Speaker's chair. I have pro-
vided the money, and he will take charge of it as
I am going to Ashbuiton." Witness went on to say
that he did not know of any messenger being em-
ployed until Mr. Monk told him that something
like 70 messengers had been employed. He then
went with Mr. Monk to the committee-room and
ordered them to be taken off. Was not aware that
112 messengers had been engaged, and had never
seen more than a dozen or 15 about the committee-
room. Was in the House of Commons at the time
of the passing of the act which regulated the audit-
ing of the accounts—the Corrupt Practices at
Elections Act. He considered it, however, as so
much waste paper. Every attempt to introduce
efficient amendments which would really tend to
prevent bribery having been opposed by both par-
ties, he troubled no more about it. He considered
it merely as homage paid by vice to virtue.
(Laughter.) Did not think the act could have the
slightest effect, or was intended to have the slightest
effect, upon corrupt practices. It had been effectual
in putting an end to bands and colours ; but more
than used to be spent in colours and music was now
spent in other ways. Did not think it required the
expenditure of a large sum of money to gain an
election for the Liberals in Glocester. The sum
which he had paid was exactly the amount men-
tioned in the auditor's account, and not a shilling
more, nor had he been asked for more, That was
£4OO more than his election cost him in 1857, and
£lOO more than it would have cost him in 1859 had
his election been conducted on his own account.
Was quite sure there was no intention on the part
of Mr. Monk to bribe, and it was unnecessary on
his (Mr. Price's) part. Was a candidate for Glo-
cester for the first time in 1847, but he retired,
finding that if he went to the poll he should imperil
Sir Maurice Berkeley's return. He had become a
candidate on that occasion entirely with the view
of keeping the Liberal party together. The Liberal
party in Glocester always desired to have a local
candidate, and the Conservative party—a rich one
—concurred in the opinion already expressed, that
the Liberal party was strong enough to return two
Liberals if corrupt practices were not resorted to,
and that without bribery no Conservative would
have a chance. A good deal had been said in that
city about dividing the representation; but if they
took off the 200 or 300 venal voters, and polled the
rest, there would be a great majority for the
Liberals.

By Mr. Fitzgerald—Did not pay any money
himself ; Mr. Ellis paid what was necessary for
him.

By Mr. Welford—Never heath of Thompson or
Clarke until the election was over.

By Mr. Vaughan—Never heard from Sir R. W.
Carden what the election cost him, because he had
never held any intercourse with Sir Robert in his
life. Mr. Norris, M.P. for Abingdon, told witness
that he had been dining with Sir R. Carden at a
sheriff's dinner, when Sir Robert told him (Mr.
Norris) that his election and petition had cost him
£4,500 in 1857, and that his unsuccessful election
in 1859 had cost him £l,OOO, and £2,000, or £3,000
more for the petition. Had heard that Sir R. W.
Carden frequently boasted, on the Stock Exchange,
of the large sums of money that he had spent for
political purposes. He (Mr. Price) was morally as
sure of the fact as he could be of anything that he
bad not seen with h s own eyes that gross and sys-
tematic bribery had been carried out at the last
election.

By Mr. Fitzgerald—Left the payment and ap-
portionment of his election expenses entirely to Mr.
Ellis. Did not consider himself liable for another
shilling, but if Mr. Ellis asked him for £l,OOO he
should consider he owed it. Did not believe there
had been bribery in 1857—not direct bribery, the
buying votes like pigs at so much per head.
Mr. D. M. Walker, proprietor of the Gloucester
Journal, deposed that on the 21st of April, Mr.
Robert Wilton represented to him that money was
wanting for the necessary preliminary expenses of
the election on the Liberal side. Witness suggested
that Mr. Ralli should be applied to, and that the
money—no sum was mentioned—should be sent to
Mr. Robert Wilton. Two days afterwards the
money was paid to the credit of Mr. Wilton in a
bank in London. It had been the custom of Glou-
cester that the candidate himself should not be ap-
plied to for money until after the election. As a
Gloucester man, he felt the position in which the
character of the city was placed, but he wished to
express his opinion that the principal cause of the
demoralisation among the constituency was the scan-
dalous manner in which, year after year, money had
been spent in elections to the Town Council. Before
the Reform Act the Gloucester election were compa-
ratively pure. But still at that time there was a
system of giving head money, and large sums were
paid for travelling expenses; voters coming down
from London, bringing their wives and families with
them, and having to be maintained for a 'week.
By Mr. Welford—Should think that upwards of
200 of the voters in Gloucester are venal. Among
them are a large proportion of-outlying voters and
a great many freemen in the town itself.
Mr. William Higgs, salesman to W. C. Lucy and
corn merchants, was 'actively engaged during
the last week of the last election, but did not can-
vass any voters. Was engaged in preparing a set

of books to ascertain the gain and loss of each can-
didate as the polling went on. The result showed
gains and losses on each side. They expected Mr.
Price to poll 822, Mr. Monk, and, giving Mr.
Carden all the doubtful votes, 624. The result of
the poll was that Mr. Price polled 807, Monk 709,
and Carden 595. There were 135 who did not vote.
Never polled a voter, but had seen a list handed to
the committee of the House of Commons of persons
who had bribed voters, in which his name was in-
cluded. He denied that he had ever bribed a voter.
Wm. Probert, jun., landlord of the Queen's Head,
received several sums of money during the election
—perhaps £7 or £B—before the election from Mr.
Wilton, £6 or £7 from Brewer Monk, and about
£2 2s. from Mr. Innell. Spent it principally in
treating voters, but could not tell the names of the
parties treated. Mentioned several public-houses
where he had treated voters. Bribed Robert
Dowers, of St. Catherine street, with £5 to vote for
Price and Monk • Walter Wood, a freeman, he
bribed with £4. Was in treaty with several others,
but could not come up to the mark. Henry Hatch,
of Burton-street, had been drinking at the Tories'
houses for some days, but he told witness that he
would like to vote for the Liberals if they would do
for him the same as the other side. He said,
_ _

"Nothing less than a double finiff.' would do.
Understood he meant by that £lO. Was to meet
him by appointment on the night of the nomina-
tion, but his price was considered too high, and he
did not go. Another person was rather too
weighty for him, John Smart, bookbinder; Wor-
cester-street. He wanted £lO —said he could go
to the Del.lin and get that from Sir W. Carden 's
party, but would rather vote on the Liberal side if
he could get the same. Took him to the Fountain
Inn (the Liberal committee-room) and left him in
the inn, but he went away. He said he was afraid
" the shop would be shut" on the other side. Had
told -him that he could offer about £5. He polled
for Sir R. W. Carden. Mr. Robinson gave witness
£5 to pay Walter Wood. Told Robinson what he
wanted the money for.
-William Roberts, landlord of the Nelson, had
not bribed anybody, but as a third party had handed
some money in a paper to a voter after he had
polled for Price and Monk. Wadley and two
other voters named Bran and Greening, were
brought to his house " for safety from the Tories,"
and received £2 10s. for his expenses. Hearing
that a mob. of roughs was coming to his house after
the voters, he took them off in a fly to a place called
Barber's Bridge. Soon atter eight or nine men,
headed by a fighting man, known as Curley Beek,
came to his house, and one of them produced a
paper, which he said was a search warrant, and de-
manded the voters. His wife dared them to set a
foot on her stairs, and after searching the lower
rooms they went away.
Mr. Wm. Henley, bookseller, Cross, Gloucester,
was engaged to canvass out-voters at the last elec-
tion for Price and Monk, and gave a long list of
persons whom he had bribed, and the prices re-
ceived, altogether £lO5 10s. from different parties
—viz., £3 10s. and £l2 from Mr. Wilks, £25 frOm
Mr. Robinson, £25 from Mr. John P. Wilton, £3O
from Jefferson Bryan, and £lO left at his shop by a
person unknown. Paid these sums in bribing
voters—viz., £8 each to Samuel Vale, E. H. Vale,
and Wm. Vale ; Samuel Skillen, £8 or £9 ; Thos.
Parks, £8 or £9 ; John Ashmead, £9 ; John Bosley,
£lO ; Wm. Davis. £3 or £3 10s. All of these
voted plumpers for Carden in 1857. Gave £5 to T.
Vale, another for his wife, he being in the infirmary
with a broken leg. Paid Mr. Davis £4, and his
nephew the same sum, and J. Drum £5. He spent the
balance in cabs and expenses. Had offered bribes
to other parties whom he named, but they had been
secured by the other party. Offered £5 to Job
Bosley, of Epney, but he said he had work to do
for Mr. Barwick, baker, of Hardwick, a Conserva-
tive gentleman, and if he voted for the Liberals he
should be out of work all the winter. Offered John
Luke £lO, as he had been offered £8 on the other
side, but he said his landlord had put the screw on.
There was a family of the Coopeys—eleven or
twelve of them—that he tried to bribe. Went to
William Coopeys at Churcham. He kept a beer-
house there. 'Witness proceeded :—I told him who
I was, and said, "I am come to see if we cannot
come to some arrangement for you, and the whole
lot of you, voting for the Liberal members." He
said, " ell, first let us come in and have some
cider," and I paid for seven or eight gallons of cider.
(Laughter.) There was a large number of the
family—men and their wives. The first question
I put was " What is your price ?" We had walked
out of the house a little way along the road. He
said he did not, know, but asked what I could give.
I said " Will £BO do ?" He at once said, " Hold
out your hand ;" and the bargain was struck, as if
it was a debt for pigs. Coopey is a pig dealer. I
offered £5 to bind the bargain, and it was arranged
that Mr. Stephens, who was examined on Saturday,
should come over and arrange how the money
should be paid. The £BO was for the lot—lo or 11.
The Coopeys' were always purchased votes ; and I
have evidence in my possession that they were pur-
chased in 1837. The witness then corroborated
the statement of Mr. Wilkes as to the transaction
with Dowding, and repeated what the bribed voters
had told him they could get for their votes on the
other side.
Thomas Miles, in the employ of the Midland
Railway Company at the Stonehouse station, was
examined as to his receipt of £5 10s. for his vote.
He swore, however, that he had received the money
for expenses. He told them he had spent 505., and
Brewer Monk gave him £5 10s., but it was not for
his vote. His wages were 16s. a week. This
witness having given his evidence in an unsatisfac-
tory manner,
Mr Coleridge, the secretary to the commission,
said the commissioners would decide hereafter
whether his costs should be paid or not.
Mr. Kendall, ship-broker, made an explanation
as to the application by him for money, as referred
to by a previous witness. The money required was
entirely for legal expenses.
Thomas Upton, landlord of the Fountain Inn,
where the Gloucester Reform Club held its meet-
ings ; John Organ, Thomas Gardiner, and James
Organ, publicans, proved that they had been paid
small su.ns for refreshments supplied to Liberal
voters. They knew nothing of bribery.
James Payne, quarryman, admitted that he had
bribed several voters. Offered one £6 to vote for
Price and Monk, as he had been offered £3 if he
would only vote for Mr. Price and not for Mr.
Monk. Bribed a man named Browning with £5.
He afterwards told him that Alderman Carden had
put six sovereigns into his pocket, so that he had
got £ll. He voted for Price and Monk. [The
witness afterwards corrected himself, saying it was
Alderman Whithorn, not Alderman Carden, that
put the money in his pocket.] On the night before,
the poll he met Mr. Robinson at Mr. J. Wilton's
house. They wanted money, and Mr. Robinson
said he had none, on which witness offered him
£95, for which Mr. Robinson gave him his cheque.
He took £25 of it to buy votes, and left the res
with Mr. Robinson on Mr. Wilton's table.
John Davis, accountant, Gloucester, was next
examined as to his knowledge of Mr. Frail, of
Shrewsbury, having been in Gloucester during the
last election. He said lie had known Mr. Frail,
and that he did not see him in Gloucester during
the election, but had heard it stated that he was
there.
Mr. Ping, ironmonger, Gloucester, related a con-
versation he had had with the last witness on the
previous (Sunday) night over a pipe and brandy-
and-water, at witness's house. He questioned Davis,
but he seemed to fight shy, and witness inferred
that Davis had seen Frail in Gloucester, and at last
said, "He went from here to Bristol," but Davis
replied, " No, he went to Wales."
John Barham and Edward Parkes were examined
as to attempts at bribery, but their evidence was
immaterial.
Mr. D. Law, shoemaker, offered Smart, a printer,
£8 for his vote, but he told him he had got £lO on
the other side. He struck a bargain, however, with
one Dick for £lO each for four votes. Did nothing
else. Thought that was quite sufficient.
The evidence of Richard Trueman, a doorkeeper,
concluded the day's business.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Mothers and nurses will find Du
,Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica Food admirably
adapted to remove all disorders of the stomach and bowels to
which infants and children are at all times liable, such as
indigestion, flatulency, colic, dysentery, diarrhoea, consti-
pation, debility and restlessness. It strengthens, nou-
rishes, and is used with more advantage than milk in
rearing infants. We quote a few out of many testimo-
nials :—" Amsterdam, 31st Dec., 1852.—Dear Sir,-.—Our
child, up to the age of eleven weeks, was very delicate, and
wasting away, and milk, sago, and arrowroot turned sour
on its stomach, causing great suffering. We then fed it
upon Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica, which agreed won-
derfully with her; and she is now, at the. age of nine
months, a plump and lively little girl.—Daniel Servas."
" Wildervank, Holland, 20th Sept. 1853.—Dear Sir,—Our
baby, which Heaven presented us with ten months back,
was attacked, when four weeks old, with a disease of the
stomach and glands, by which our seven previous infants
had all been carried off, and this last child seemed destined
to follow its sisters and brothers before many days, for our
doctor, a very able practitioner, had, during three weeks,
exhausted all his skill, and was at a loss what to prescribe
next, when he advised Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica,
which, I am happy to say, worked a great change for the
better in a few days; and in six weeks' time the child was
perfectly well, and is now a cheerful blooming boy—a
source of the greatest happiness tons all.—L. H. Vaalrnan."
In tins, at ls. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b.,
265. The 10Ib. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-
Ant:, order. Du Barry and Co., 77, ReTent-street, henti,M
Fortnum, Mas,,n, and Co., IS2, ; GO.
Gracechurch-stropt ; 4, Cheapsidc ; arid 15A, 'Oxford-
4trect ; 330 and 4.51, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate-
Street ; 8-5,. Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin,
Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburet, Raimes and Co..
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Manchester, Sharp and
Scott; at York, ltaimes, Blanchard, and Co. ; at South-
ampton, Randal; and Son.

The Michaelmas General Quarter Sessions of the
Peace for the county of Middlesex commenced yes-
terday morning at the Guildhall, Westminster, be-
fore Mr. Bodkin, Assistant-Judge ; Mr. Payne, de-
puty ; and the following bench of magistrates :
Colonel Elsey, Mr. H. H. Harwood, Mr. Parbury,
Mr. Dunnington Fletcher, Mr. Charman, Mr Baylis,
Mr. Bashford, Mr. Cox, Mr. Hogarth, Mr. White,
Mr. Bird, and Mr. Arthur Ballantine.
The calendar contains the names of 45 prisoners,
42 charged with felony, and three with misdemeanor.
The learned Assistant-Judge, in his charge to the
grand jury, adverted in general terms to the state of
the calendar, and said there was a case which would
be brought before them to which he thought it
would be right to call their particular attention,
but in consequence of the late delivery of the depo-
sitions, he was not altogether informed of the exact
circumstances. However, it seemed that a person
of the name of Peterson had been charged before a
magistrate with having disturbed, or been concerned
in disturbing, the service of two places of public
worship—a charge arising out of the lamentable
dissensions which for some time unfortunately had
prevailed in a parish in the eastern district of the
metropolis. The charge would probably be loanded
upon a statute passed in the reign of William and
Mary, and generally known as the Toleration Act,
the 18th section of which provides " That if any

person or persons shall wilfully and of purpose ma-
liciously or contemptuously come into anfcathedral
or parish church, chapel, or other congregation per-
mitted by this act, and disquiet or disturb the same,
or incense any preacher or teacher, such person or
persons, upon proof thereof before a justice of the
peace, by two or more sufficient witnesses, shall find
two sureties to be bound by recognisance in the
penal sum of £5O, and in default of such sureties
shall be committed to prison, there toremain till the
next General or Quarter Sessions, and upon convic
tion of the said offence at the said General or Quar-

ter Sessions shall suffer the pain and penalty of
£2O, to the use of the king." Further provisions of
a similar character were made by a subsequent sta-
tute, 52 Geo. 111., c. 155, by which the penalty on
conviction was increased to £4O. Whether the in-
dictment or indictments which might be submitted
to their consideration were framed either upon the
one statute or the other, they would at once per-
ceive that their duty was so plain and simple that
he should hardly have conceived it'necessary to ad-
vert to the matter at all did not every day's expe-
rience prove that the best amongst us are sometimes
drawn aside by prejudices, and especially in refer-
ence to subjects such as that out of which this pro-
secution arose. It was his duty to caution them
against any impression but that which was created
by the evidence laid before them, and if that evi-
deice established a prima facie case against the
person accused, they ought not to hesitate in,find-
ing a true bill, and so place the matter in aproper
train for further investigation. They all might la-
ment the want of some appropriate authority by
which the proceedings which have given rise to
these miserable dissensions might be regulated and
controlled, but it could not be permitted, in a coun-
try governed by law, that violent abuse or indecent
clamour should be Beard in churches or places set
apart for the celebration of divine worship. If they
found that defendant, by whatever motives he had
been -actuated, had so conducted himself as to have
maliciously or Contemptuously disquieted or dis-
turbed the performance of divine worship on the oc-
casions to which the evidence applied, no private
opinion or feeling or prepossession whatever ought
for a moment to interfere with the impartial exer-
cise of their judgment, or prevent the vindication
of the law and the strict administration of justice,
one of the chief objects of which was- to take care
that the peace of society should not be disturbed
with impunity.
The grand jury then retired to their room. The
traverse jury having been called, the court proceeded
to receive the jury lists from the constables of the
petty sessional divisions of the county. Complaint
was made in the course of the morning of the negli-
gence and imperfect manner in which the lists were
made out. The names of some persons who had
been dead for years were retained on the lists, as
also those of persons who years and years ago had
given notice that they were exempt by reason of
being over 60 years of age. Persons are summoned
who have left the premises - for which they were
rated more than a year before the making up of
the list, and it was stated that it was a common
thing for the jury papers to be left at houses and
never applied for. The result of this is that on the
average, out of 80 jurors summoned, scarcely 60
are liable to serve, and that number is reduced by
excuses. The fault does not rest with the summon-

ing officer, who acts under the authority of the
sheriff. The names are taken froin_ the list as
furnished by the overseers, lad it should be borne
in mind that the lists are exposed on the church
doors, and all persons exempt should see that their
names are expunged.

John Laurence, alias Henry Williams, 48, was
indicted twice for stealing pewter pots from public-
houses.
He pleaded guilty_ to the charges, and also to
having been convicted of the same sort of offence
on two former occasions.
The Assistant-Judge said the prisoner, it was
evident, was a person who lived by this sort of
plunder, than which none could be more mischie-
vous. The sentence he felt it to be Recessary to
pass might seem a severe one to some persons, but
it was the duty of the Court to protect licensed vic-
tuallers by making a severe example of those who
committed these offences. It was not the mere
value of the pots that was to be considered. Regu-
lar pot•stealers were in league with the makers of
counterfeit coin. The metal was used in the manu-
facture of bad money, which another portion of the
fraternity got into circulation, and thus the public
suffered and the loss principally fell upon the poor,
and thus a double fraud was practised. The sen-
tence upon the prisoner was three years' penal ser-
vitude.

Robert Nichols, seaman, second mate, pleaded
guilty to an indictment for stealing £32, a watch,
and other articles, from a Chinaman, who went by
the name of John Sidney.
The prosecutor, an intelligent young Chinaman,
wl:o spoke English fluently, was called into the
box, and it appeared, from answers to questions put
by the learned judge, that he was a ship's steward,'
and had formed an acquaintance with the prisoner
at Sydney. He arrived in London on the 28th of
August, and fell in with the prisoner in St. Katha-
rine's Dock. The prisoner said he would take care
. of him, and took him and his things to a lodging-
house. When he was paid off he had £36 17s. 6d.,
of Which sum he put £32 in the savings bank. The
prisoner induced him to withdraw it, saying he
would place it in the hands of the 'Bishop of Lon-
don, who was a very good and kind man, and would
send it to him by remittances when he went back
to Australia again. The prisoner said he would
show-him over London, and took him to places of
amusement—to Gravesend, Southend, and Sheer-
ness, all expenses being paid out of his (the China-
man's) money. At the last mentioned place he
abandoned .him withont a penny, and having
got the key of his carpet-bag and chest,
he came up to London by the next train,
went to his lodgings, and by representing to
the landlady that the Chinaman had got a beauti
fal. ship and wanted his things, got possession of
them all, and so left Chinaman destitute and penni-
less. The case was left in the hands of Hugh
Andrews 62 H, who traced the prisoner to No. 2,
Woodville-place, Gravesend, where in a box he
found money to the amount of £2l odd, and some
of the things which were in the chest when it was
taken, and the prosecutor's watch was found at a
pawnshop. The prisoner said the money found
there was not the prosecutor's though he at once
admitted the theft, but that it belonged to Catherine
Minchin, a young woman he was courting, who
lived in the same house at Gravesend, and who had
given it to him to take care of.
The Chinaman said his money was in notes and
gold ; of the money found in the box £7 10s. was
in silver..
The Assistant-Judge said it was a most cruel
robbery, and he doubted whether he ought not to
sentence him to penal servitude.
The prisoner said he was very sorry, though that
was small reparation ; but he was led away by
temptation. It was his first, so it would be his last
offence.
The Assistant-Judge sentenced him to hard la,
bour for a year, and ordered the money and articles
found to be given up to the Chitiathatt.
A young woman, deeply dressed' in black, and
who seemed n.uch affected, applied to the court for
the money to be given up to her. She said her
name was Catherine Minchin, and the prisoner,
who came home with one of her brothers from Ma-
nilla, paid his addresses to ber, and they had agreed
to be married. Placing every confidence in the pri-
soner, and having no other friend to entrust, she
twdoN
it
aoin
t nkh eadhtiei
esadsr
she
eaoonnhf
d. a
hands. as
wastlhs7hrtoetul
ce
ofihdrt
oeftnAgeofic:auevtthrgrhe.we: her by
hstib:hiyhaaiegnhtt
,moneyhPetwirrossgahmi money
e ;eel etsdaee nyhcrt oeo:huel rd
her,
mother's tdthheirrro'
she
thrown
will,waspe penniless
byndi
pewsrshi
‘l,
oec
nhd
the world.
Tbe prisoner said this was perfectly true. It
V7DS MOll9l, he would not touch it.
The p,..tic;entAn said it was found in the China-
man's box) and the applicant's mother had been re-
ceiving parish relief. -
Applicant--Not for three years, and this was
what she had saved up. When the prisoner brought
the Chinaman's box he put my money in it for

safety. I never dreamt of such a thing that he
could rob.

vV
The Assistant-Judge—Well, but what has be-
come of the Chinaman's money ? How was that
got rid of ?
Prisoner—lt all went, my lord, in wanton ex-
trava gan de.
The Assistant-Judge said, under these circum
stances he should direct the money to be retained
by the police, and leave the young woman to bring
her action in the County Court toc' try the question
of right, and she had better have the,advice of some
respectable solicitor.
Two tall, powerful men, named Collins and Fos-
ter, were indicted for havinc, committed an assault
upon police-constable 151 X. This perhaps was
one of the very worst cases of assaulting a police-
man that ever came before the court. The prisoner
Foster was inciting Collins and another man to
fight, when the prosecutor, at the request of
the landlord, went into the house, but was advised
by him not to interfere alone, as they were such
desperate roughs that murder might be the result.
Another policeman came up, and they asked them
to be quiet and go away. Foster gave the prosecu-
tor a knock down blow, and while he was prostrate
gave him three kicks—one in the eye, which it
greatly disfigured, and two under the ear, from the
effects of which the blood oozed out of his eyes, ears,
and nostrils. The Other prisoner also struck the
constables. They were found guilty, and the learned
judgo sentenced Foster to two years hard labour
and Collins to one year.
George Spires, 21, journeyman baker, was in-
dicted for embezzling monies received by him for
and on account of John Cook, his master. The jury
found him guilty, and it was then proved that he
had been convicted of a like offence with a former
employer, although he got this situation with a
"good" Character. Sentenced to three years penal
servitude. •

Mr. Ribton was for the prosecution.
The Assistant Judge said the 31st instant had
been fixed for hearing the rate appeals standing
over, and Mr. Phipson would sit for him, and take
those cases which he (the Assistant Judge) had
been engaged in as counsel..
(Before Mr. Payne.)
Adolphe Bonin, 40, upholsterer, was indicted for
stealing a purse and other articles, value £3, the
property of Robert Vigny.
Both parties in this case were Frenchmen, and
the evidenCe was communicated through M. Albert,
the interpreter.
It appeared that the prosecutor is a lodging-
house keeper, residing in Rupert-street, and on the
12th of September he engaged the prisoner to make
up two mattresses for him. When he finished his
work he paid him 6s. and he went away. On the
Thursday following, the 15th of September, the pro-
secutor went into the room on the third floor where
the prisoner had been at work, and from a tin
box in the room, which had been forced open, he
missed a purse, twelve yaids of lace, a book and
some pictures, which were all safe in it before the
prisoner came. On Saturday night he met the pri-
soner at a public-house, and gave him into custody on
the charge. It further transpired that about half-
past six on the evening the prisoner had been at
work for Mr. Vigny he met a young woman named
Margaret Moske, to whom he presented a purse,
which the prosecutor recognised as his property.
The prisoner before the magistrate said he had had
the purse in his possession six months, and that he
had purchased it of a person in Crown-court, near
where he lived. Accordingly the magistrate
ordered a constable and M. Albert, the interpreter,
to accompany the prisoner to the place he stated,
and if he could do so make him point out the per-
son from whom he.. purchased the purse. They
accordingly went, and the prisoner pointed to a
man who was- standing at the door of a broker's
shop, and said he was the man from whom he
bought it. The man said be knew the prisoner,
but denied that he had ever sold him a purse, or he
should most certainly have remembered it. The
prisoner, in broken English, reiterated that he had
sold him the purse; and that he had given eighteen-
pence for it, which the broker denied. The pri-
soner afterwards said that he had picked up the
purse in the bedroom, put it in his pocket, and had
forgotten all about it.
Two witnesses were called on behalf of the pri-
soner, each stating that they had known him for
about three years, and during that time he had al-
ways borne a good character for honesty.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, but recom-
mended him to mercy, on account of his previous
good character.
Mr. Payne said but for the recommendation of
the jury he should have passed a heavy sentence.
He was sentenced to six months' hard labour.