The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-13 00:00:00

1.,
LONDON, TtEBDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 1,2, 18ta

1 ~r 1

(1111

LAW INTELLIGENCE, Dec. 12.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Nisi Frills, at Guildhall, before Mr.,
Justice. Blackburn and agommon Jury.)
AI MITAGE V. CIIAPLIN.
Mr. E. James and Mr. H. James were counsel
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff and
Mr. B. C. Robinson for the defendant.
This was an action for breach' of promise of mar,

singe.
Mr. E. James stated that the plaintiff, a very ire-
spectable young lady, had: brought this action to
recover damages from the defendant for having
broken his engagement to marry 'her, -ander very
trying circumstances. The plaintiff and defendant
' became acquainted in 1855, and an attachment was
formed which continued until the latter end of 1858,
when defendant chose to break it Offon the pretence
that he was too ill to marry her; but at that very
time it would appear that he was actually paying
his addresses to another young lady, whom he mars
vied last September. Defendant had visited the
plaintiff's friends during the courtship, and par-
taken of their hospitality, and she and her friends
had visited defendant at his country house at Syden-
ham. lie had sent her presents.trom time to time;
and written about-375 letters to her, and promised
her marriage. The plaintiff had bees much attached
to the defendant, and-when it was broken off re-
ceived a severe shock. in consequence.
David Wilkine-I, am the -plaintiff's uncle, and
senior partner in the firm of Wilkin and Pugh, of
St. 111ary-"axe. My wife and I brought up and
educated the plaintiff, who is now 24 years old.
In 1855 she was shopwoman and manager at Mr.
Turner's, a confectioner in the South-Eastern
'Railway Arcade. The defendant then ,kept a
jeweller's and watchmaker's shop in the, arcade.
After a communication from the plaintiff to me the
defendant was introduced, and visited at my house
two or three tithes a week, and occasionally dined
there, and I introduced him to my sisteras the gen-
tleman who was paying' his addresses to my niece.
He paid her very marked attention, and visited at
my house for two years. I understood that he had
taken a house at Forest-hill, and I gave my niece
permission to visit him there: I heard that my
niece went to see the defendant's friends. Irk the
spring of 1858 I was negotiating for a business in
the confectionery line . at - Cheltenham for my son,
and intended that the plaintiff should go there to
manage it for him.. I asked- the defendant if he
would have any objection to her going. He said,
" No, his circumstances at present would not per-
mit him to marry her," and he then made no com-
, plaint of ill health or chronic disease. In the course
of that year my niece received these two letters
from the defendant :
"My darling Girl,—l hope dear, you got home quite safe
last night.. It was better, indeed, dear girl, to tell you last
night. Ido so hope, dear, you do not doubt me--do you
now, my girl ? I love you as much as ever, dear ; and I
think of you the same day by day as I am the same Robert,
dear Clara, awl always Was.
" Good bye, dearest Clara,
" With best love, your affectionate,
"ROBERT."
"Dear Clara.—lf you leave England, 'dear, I must and
will -see you before you go, to tell you, dear, that I am the
same to you as I ever was. I love and honouryou,:dear
good heart, and truly think, dear, there is not a better
woman on this earth. I am afraid, dear, I have sunk much-
in your love ; 0, but do not for a moment think it is for
any cause I would not marry you, but the one I have told
you, dear girl. You have not thought so of my sisters
and mother, as they have not a word or thought in it.
Pardon me, dear, for writing this to make it painful
to you, but I must do it, and wish 1". could bear the
pain for you. -why do you say I shall not know whereyou
go, and bow you are, dear? ' •
" Good bye, dear girl, with best love, yOur ever affec-
tionate "'ROBERT."
In consequence of these letters and what was com-
municated to me, I called on the defendant, and
asked if it was true as to his inability to marry. He
said it was true. I told him I did-not believe it, and
that I should watch him very narrowly. I asked
for his doctor's name; and he gave me the name of
O'Neil, Aldersgate-street. He-said nothing about
the plaintiff's having rescinded the contract. I said,
" Young-gentleman, if I find you have been deceiv-
ing' my niece, I'll punish you." My niece has been
living at home about 12 months, ever since she left
her situation at Highgate?- The defendant is about
26*years of age. •
• Cross-examined—The plaintiff was assistant to a
pastry-cook. She left the arcade about two years
ago, and went to another situation at Highgate. In
September, 1858, the plaintiff and defendant met
laet; I cannot. say I have seen them together for
the last two years, as I do not interfere with that
department. (A laugh.) He never represented to me
that the business in the arcade belonged to' hiS
father, nor do I know it. It is a small -shop; but a
very profitable -one.
Re-examined'—The defendant was in the Artillery
Company, and sent my niece his portrait in the
company's uniform.
The defendant's photograph -in the uniform of the
Artillery Company was then put in'in evidence, and
also an invoice describing the business as the de-
fendant's.
Martha Pearse—l am sister to the last witness,
and aunt to the plaintiff. I was introduced to the
,defendant'as-the gentleman who was paying his
addresses to Clara. Since the match was broken off
the plaintiff has been very -different to what she was.
In fact she hays been ill. They appeared partially
attached, and he always behaved as if he intended
to Make her his wife.
Alfred Wilkin—l am a cousin of the plaintiff.
I became scquainted with the defendant through
the plaintiff. He told'me that the rent and taxes of
his shop earneto about £l5O per year. He is now
living in rather a handsome eight-roomed house at
Forest-hill. I have seen him riding on horseback
and in a chaise, his own, I believe. •
Mr. Sergeant Petersdorff—The defendant was
rather fond of show, was he not ?
Witness—Wells I think he was rather fast. (A
la_ugh.) •
Mary Ann am a cousin of the plain-
tiff. ••••I went to Forest-hill once- to the defendant's
house there, with my cousin, who presided at -the
table. The defendant was two years and nine
months paying his addresses-to the plaintiff, and I
considered glut they svere engaged- persons, and
that he was going to marry the plaintiff when he
was in a position' to do so.
Ceoss-examined—The house at Forest-hill was a
small cottage, not the same as that in which he
now lives.
Margaret Wilkhf, another cousin of the plaintiff,
gave similar testimony to the last witness.
John Fisher--4 am a baker and confectioner at
Highgate. The plaintiff came as shopwoman to me
in Nov., 1856, and left at Christmas, 1858. in the
latter part of the service sl--e fretted very much, and
did not attend to the business. 'I did not know the
cause, and told her she had better leave.
John Chandler—l was at the defendant's wed-
ding breakfast, and heard him return thanks.
Mr. James—l believe it was a very gay one ?
Witness'—A gay one !It was very much after
the 'fashion of my oWTI.
Amelia Spaekman—The defendant married my
eldest daughter. Op the 20th Jan., 1858, the de-
fendant naked my permisSion to pay•his addresses to
my daughter. My daughter had been previously
visiting in London for about six weeks, at the Chap-
lins, among others. My daughter has received
£1,200 since the inarriage.'. I believe the defen-
dant rentsilie house at'Forest-hill of his father.
The fellowing'was put in evidence as a specimen
of ttie defendant's letters to• the plaintiff : •
"My own dear, dear Clara,—lf you only knew the great
anguish of my mind you 'would forgive me,' I know, for
causing so much unhappiness to one I do so dearly love,
end one I know to be the best and dearest girl on earth.
I say this coolly, dear, for I am the sante as always, 'and
would not tell you a falsehood. .-I know, dear, lam greatly
to blame in letting you go to ingligate; but Lthought of
what you said on my first love `and respect for you, that you
did not mind waiting for some time for me; and I am cer-
tain ron will not find any one who would think and make it
his duty to do more to make you. happy, &c.
P.S.—My dear girl, do receive-this as it comes from me
from the very depth of my heart ; and do not think, because
I let you-go home alone by.yoursolf, I lova you any the
less, but more and more every day, and my only wish is I
was near you. now to- ask your forgiveness iu .person, and
give me ono dear kiss."
Mr. E. James then addressed the jury at the
close of the plaintiff's case, and said that the de-
fendant's answer to this action would be a mere ap-
peal to them in mitigation of damages. It was a
mere pretence to suggest that the business belonged
to the father, as he was in court, and did not deny
that it belonged to his son. As an act of justice to
the plaintiff, something like,a reason or suggestion
should be given in palliation of the defendant's con-
duct-, but the defendant gave none.- It was clear,
said the learned' counsel, that lie had seen Miss
Spackman, and intended to throw the plaintiff off
when he set up the pretence of inability to marry
her.

Mr. Sergeant Peterttdmff addressed the jury for
the defendant, and said that other parties were in-
terested in the inquiry besides the defendant, and
exhorted the jury not to give such damages as
would in effect he to masse the defendant's wife to
pay them out of the few hundreds she had received
on her marriage, and hefurther reminded them that
the proper test was to consider the defendant's posi
Lion before his marriage, and then estimate what
the plaintiff had lost by the breach of the englgc—
!teat. : Of that the plaintiff's present house and
meaßs were not the criterion.
• The learned Judge having summed up the case,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff-
11'11111e c
'lllag
esiLiol jury, .l.
at the sitting of the court,.
complained that they shopld be
astudnmsuOg, no.eedsteevdetiyo
day n
, and detained the whole day,
the judge that a part should be summoned on alter-
nate days.
The learned judge said he felt the hardship, but

NUE SUN;

did not see the remedy. However, to-morrow- he
would not call on any of those gentlemen who had
already served, until all the names of the others had
been called, and the defaulters fined: .

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
Tina' V. THE POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION.
This was one. of several actions which have
arisen out of the lamentable fall of the geometrical
stone ,staircase at the Polytechnic in January last.
In one action, tried at .Kingston, a verdict of £lO
was recovered. In another, there was a nonsuit.
In the present instance (in which the trial coin-
inenced on Saturday) the evidence was lengthy and
contradictory. The declaration charged that the
defendants, the directors of the institution, had so
carelessly constructed and maintained the staircase
that it fell, the plaintiff being ene of the injured

parties.
The evidence for the plaintiff was heard on

•
Saturday: . • , .
The evidence for the defendants was now heard,
and took up the greater part of the.day. '
It was admitted that the building was erected
before it waS'leased to the institution in 1838; so
that they had nothing to do With the original con-
struction of the staircase. The staircase was found
in 18.8 very much worn, and it was deemed neces
sary to repair the step's, which was done by letting
in an iron trellis into each step, cutting away the
stone to the depth of an inch and a quarter, and
fining Up the interstices of the ironwork with con-
crete or cement. On the evening of the 3d of
January, while people were descending the stair-
case, it broke away from the top-landing, all the
steps breaking off close to the wall. The witnesses
for the plaintiff stated that the stones' had been
weakened or split by the operation of cutting them
to let in the ironwork. The witnesses for the de-
fendants stated that the cause of the catastrophe
was the want of a•prnper "joggle-joint" at the point
of junction between the top stair and. the landing.
Which was an original defect in the constraction of
the Staircase hefOre the building came into the pos-
session of the defendants. 'They also spoke. to a
defect in the stone itself (hy reason of fossils, in it),.
,both defects being latent, and, not discernible by
ordinary care. Part of- the case for the defendants.
was that the cutting into the,steps 'to let in the iron
could not. have caused the break, because stone
staircases in various public buildings had been
safely repaired by letting in stone slabs of. greater
thickness than the ironwork in the present instance.
One of the defendants' witnesses,
,Mr., M. Nelson,.
an arphiteet of eminence, expressed his decided
opinion, which he said ho had entertained for
years, that geometrical staircases were 'unsafe and
improper for public buildings, because sudden jerks
or vibrations struck hidden flaws and produced ac-
cidents. 'He added, , however,.. that • the •most
eminent architects were of a contrary opinion, .and
continued to erect such staircases for public build-

in gs.
The Lord Chief Justice laid it down that if-the
accident arose from an original defect, either in the
material or the construction of tho staircase, the
defendants having, taken it as safe would not be
liable. His lordship left it to the jury, on the
whole case, whether that was so, or whether, if the
mode of repair adopted was improper and was the
cause of the catastrophe, there was any negligence
on the part of the defendants in allowing it to be
adopted.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
mages, £l5O.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. J. T. Clark were for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. J. Brown
for the defendants.
Two similar actions by the same person on behalf
of two of his chihlren were tried at the same time
by the same jury, and a verdict of £25 in each case
was given.

COURT OF EXCIIEQUER.
;Sittings at Nisi Prius before the LOrd Chief Baron
and a Special Jury.)

BRIDGES V. .BAKER.—TnE SOUTH ESSEX•ELECTION

This was an action brought by the .plaintiff, Air.
William ,Bridges, the proprietor of the Green
Dragon, Bishopsgate-street, against Mr. Wingfield
Baker, the unsuccessful Liberal candidate at the
late election fol. the Southern Division of ESsex.
The declaration stated that the plaintiff sued the
defendant for the use and occupation of certain
rooms in the Green Dragon, used us committee-
rooms, kir Meat, drink, and lodging supplied to the
defendant and others, at his request, and on an
account stated. .

The defendant simply' pleaded "Never indebted."
Mr. Bovill and Meadows were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Woollett
represented the defendant. •
'Mr. Bovill opened the case for the plaintiff, and
stated the chief circumstances, from which it ap-.

is arecl that at the last general ele.etion tt,e Green

)ragoii had been used :is the head-quarters of the
.oudon Committee of Mr. Wirprfield Baker, the

Liberal candidate for South Eisex, and that after
the contest plaintiff sent in a bill to Al r. Baker for
the use of rooms and for refrtAments to the eorn-'
rnittee,'&e., amounting to 1;172 17s. 4d., of which
Mr. Baker had paid £lOB 45., but disputed his
liability as to the balance, £64 13s. 4d.
Mr. Frederick Smith examined—l am. a mem-
ber of the bar. . Mr. Wingfield Baker was the
unsuccessful candidate for Seitth Essex at the
last election. In 1857 he' successfully contested
the division. I was a very active member of his
committee: • The' committee 'in 1857. consisted.
chiefly of Mr. Tindal. Atkinson and myself. lie
was the expense agent, and called me on. At the
last election, in the spring of this year, Mr. lames

Parker, of Chelmsford, wlis the cx-pense agent.
Mr. James—What an " expense agent" is I do
not know. We all know what an expensive agent
is. (Laughter.)
Mr. Bovill—lle Was the general gent.
Exaniihation continued—l was not the 'chair-
man: Mr. Gurney, of Lombard-stract, wns•adver-
tised'as the chairman, but we never saw him. Ho
was the ornamental chairman. saw Mr. Baker
in reference to tho election
,before the dissolution

took place.' I was Very much averse to taking part
in the election, but I was much pressed. Mr.
Baker. asked abcut my fee, and I said I Would leave
it to him. it was arranged that •1 should have 100
guineas. Finding it inconvenient to go home daily,
I took up my residence at the Green Dragon. That
was with the knowledge of both Mr. Baker and
Mr. Parker. Mr.' Littler also came to the Green
Dragon. It is important in election matters to
Watch how the candidates' speeches. are reported, so
that nothing shall appear to injure them with their
constituents. Mr. Bilker's.speeches had been mis-
reported, and part of our duties was to correct them.
Mr. Bakti:, and Mr. Parker used to partake of the
refreshnients. Sometiines,when 31r. Baker had
attended meetings, we had refreshments on our re-
turn, When correcting the manuscript of the re-
porter. Perhaps the reporter .had a chop for sup-
per. Very likely he did if he was not a voter. The
account was mude:ont in my name; in order to pre-
vent,voters coming in and getting refreshments on
account of the committee. Ido not. think Mr.
Baker or Mr. Parker ever paid anything. There..
is an item in the account for 76 breakfasts
at half-a-crown apiece. It was in order
to get the canvassers together to bring up
the voters to the poll—which had answered so well
in 1857, indeed, think that manceuvre won the
election in 1857--that I ordered breakfasts to be
providei for them.
Cross-examined—l looked upon my position in
1859 as a general agent to carry out the election. I
was not merely the manager of the London corn=
mittee. • •Mr. Gurney was the sleeping chairman,
and I was the actin; chairman.
'Mr. James—You never slept at all. (Laughter.)
CrosS•eXamination continued—l have, not seen
the bill which, has been paid. Mr. Littler was en-
gaged as an'agent by Mr. Baker to assist him in
the conduct of the eleetion. I received £l,OOO from
Mr. Baker in three-sums, of £200; £5OO, and £3OO.
I will explain this. There were a numberof clerks
and eatiYarleers, and when the account was checked
they had to be paid on Saturday. I had an account
• with my private bankers of £2OO, and I arranged
with them fora rower to overdraw, in case I had
to pay more on the • Saturday. When Mr. Baker
heard this he said, " Oh, you ought to have the
money," and he gave me the £5OO. The money
was gat given to me to pay for Mr. Baker's refresh-
ments, or Mr. Parker's sherry.
Mr. James—You have used that expression two
or three times. Did Mr. Baker ever have a dinner
Out of the. account ?
%Vitneas—Yes, he dined with me once. There are
two bottles of champagne in the bill. That. was
when there were two editors who.were very influ-
ential in the county, and had given In great assist-
ance in their columns. We asked. them to take
something with us,.and we had' the champagne.
(Laughter.) I thought that a very legitimate Mode
of conducting an election. (Laughter.) The Lon-
don expenses were not £5,000. The account as
certified by the election, auditor is what • I call a
fraud on public'eredulitv. (Laughter.) it is made
out se as to show that the expenses were very large
in London, anal very small in the country. For
instance, I do not see the fee of 600 guineas paid to
Mr. Parker.
Re-examined—l have furnished all the vouchers
to Mr. Parker. The hooka were regularly kept. I
have no action against or dipute with 'AI r. Baker.
the plaintiff in this ac-
tier), and arn the proprietor of the Green Dragon, in
Bishopsgate-street. Before the itzst election. Mr.
Pallier, of Chelmsford, came to me, but I objected
to have the committee there, on account of the trou-
ble on previous occasions. Mr. Parker said I must
make it convenient, and as the bow had been ad-

. .
vertised as•.the committee-r00m,,1 took them in.
Mr. Parker saidl must make it answer my purpose.
I asked him whom I was to look' to for payment,
and he said, I will see,that everything is paid."
I charged £3 3s. a-day for three rooms, and a guinea
a-day for one. All my charges are fair and reason-
L able- I sent in my account Shortll2 12s. Mr. Wil-
son and. Mr. Copeland came to me with the larger
I account I had sent in, and said I must alter it in
form, because the election auditor would not pass it.
I therefore made out separate accounts, according
to their instructions. I afterwards accepted a cheque
for £99 4s. from Mr. Copeland, on his assuring mo
that it would be without prejudice to further claims.
Mrs. Bridger, the plaintiff's wife, was then called.
and proved- that when she asked to whom some
sherry should be booked, Mr. Smith said she 'might
enter it to Mr. Littler, of Baker's Committee, for
convenience. sake..
Mr. James—Can you give the name of any, per-
son but Smith and Littler who ever ordered refresh-
ments ?
The Lord. Chief Baron—l suppose not.
Mr. Bovill—There are the 76 breakfasts.
The Lord Chief Baron—That is charged to the
committee-room.
•
This closed the plaintiffs case..
Mr. Janies submitted there was no evidence of
any authority to contract this debt. Why should
'Mr. Baker be liable When there was nothing to
show it had been brought to his knowledge that
Mr. Smith and Mr. Littler had been eating, drink-
..
ng, and sleep?ng at the Green Dragon at his ex-

pence.
The Lord Chief Baron—lt ' might well have
entered into his mind if he had seen them there.
(Laughter.)
Mr. James—But they had had their fee.
The Lord Chief Baron—Hit had been an attorney
the case might have been different. I thought a
barrister had al waYs his fee and his grub. (Laughter)
Mr. James—l thought it was always the other
way —that the attorney had the best of it. (Great
laughter.)
The Lord. Chief Baron-1 cannot say ; there is no
evidence of 'authority.
Mr. Bridger, the plaintiff, was here recalled at
Mr. James's request, and stated in reply to ques-
tions, there might have been two bills, one in Mr.
Littler's name and the other to Mr. Baker's com-
mittee.
A Juror—Were both bills, though under different
headings, for the purposes of Baker's committee ?
Witness—They were.
Mr. James, without addressing the jury for the
defence, called - -
Mr. Albert Copeland, a solicitor, of Chelmsford,
who had conducted the election for Mr. Baker,
under the direction of Mr. Parker, who proved that
he 'had gone to the Green Dragon and given up the
committee-rooms. Witness had told the plaintiff,
that the £ll7 account was not in a proper shape,
and he could not recognise the other for £42 odd as
against Mr. Baker at all, because it belonged to
Mr. Littler. It had Mr. Littler's name on it. Wit-
ness agreed to.pay £99 4s. and £9. The £99 4s.
was to be paid subject to the election auditor's ap-
proval. The £9 was advanced to Mr. Roberts, and
that was paid at once by witness. He objected to
pay for the 76 breakfasts.
The Lord Chief Baron—Did you think Mr.
Littler was to pay for the breakfasts ?
Witness—l thought the payment would be il-
legal.
Cross-examined—l paid Mr. Bridger £99 4s. by
a cheque of Mr. Baker's.. That sum was to have
nothing to do with any previous account.
Mr. James said that now the question was rather
one for his lordship than the jury.
The Lord Chief Baron—The question is simply
whether Mr. Smith and Mr. Littler were to be there
as the whole committee in free quarters.
Mr. James—The question, I submit, my lord, is
whether they had authority to pledge Mr. Baker's
credit.
The Lord Chief Baron—l think there is evidence
of authority.
Mr. James—Your lordship will be good enough
,o take a note of my objection.
The jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff
:or £64 13s. 4d., the amount claimed.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
(Before F. Bailey, Esq., Judge.) •
THE LATE ELECTION FOR MARYLEBON E.—FORSTER
V. DICKSON.
, .
This action, heard on a former day and adjourned
for his Honour's consideration, was brought by the
plaintiff, publisher of the Panci•as and Ilolborn
Times, a local paper, against the defendant, Col.
Dickson, the late unsuccessful. candidate for the
representation, of the borough of Marylebone, to
recover an amount due for 2,000 copies of the said
paper, printing certain bills and addresses, and the
costs of advertisements relative to the election.
Mr. Anderson, as before, was for the plaintiff;
and Mr. C. Dod, solicitor,. Great Portland-street,
for Coloiiel Dickson, in whose behalf it was alleged,
on the case being gone into previously, that a Mr.
Watson, tradesman of Tottenham-court-road, had,
as an agent for the Colonel, incurred the debt.
The Judge now said-4 appears the work claimed
for was done,,advertisements published, and paper
supplied on orde.r of a Mr. Watson; who, for a short
time prior to.the sth July,' acted as agent for the de-
fendant, although he received no written appoint:-
ment as agent up to that day. The sth July was
the day of nomination, the 6th the election. The:
first item in plaintiffs bill is for 5,000 bills, and the
order is dated the 28th June, signed by Mr. Watson,
not as agent of Col. Dickson, but as chairman of Col.
Dickson's committee for the election • receipt for
those bills is dated Ist July, signed Henry Dixon,.
secretary. it does not appear who personally.gavd
the order for 22,000 addresses, but Mr. Watson says
that all articles charged for in plaintiff's account
were ordered by his direction. A receipt for the de-
livery of these 22,000 addresses is produced, signed
for H. Dixon, J. W. By section 520 of the act of
Parliament there was nothingto limit the right of
any creditor to bring any action, or otherwise to pro-
ceed against any candidate for expenses connected
with an election. ~By section 522. personal expenses.
of any candidate, and, expenses of advertising in
newspapers aforesaid any election, shall be defrayed
by the candidate himself, or his authority. These
are all provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act which
it is material to notice. Upon the facts now stated,
I am of opinion that Watson never had. any autho-.
rity from defendant to pledge his credit, and plain-
tiff had no reason to suppose he had any such autho-
rity. Watson was riot duly constituted an agent of
defendant until the sth ,July, and work and goOds
for which payment is sought to be recovered in the
account were done and supplied before that day.
Watson says they were ordered by his direction,
but no order wasgiven by any one professing to act
as his (defendant's) agent. It further appeared that,
a few days before the sth July, defendant authoris'ed
Watson to act as his agent, and. handed over to him
500 sovereigns, upon Watson's assurance that that
sum would be more than sufficient to defray the
defendant's election expenses. Indeed, he gua-
ranteed that -the expenses should or would not
exceed £3OO. By the Corrupt Practices Prevention
Act of '1854, section 524, " No Person shall pay any
expenses of any election candidate, or to or under
authority of an election auditor, except allowed by
the art." Sections 22 and 25 said, "The candidate
and his agents by him appointed in writing, may
Were. the day of nomination pay any lawful and
reasonable expenses' of election which he or. they.
shall bona • ;fide believe fit and proper to be paid, in
readY•money, and payment of which cannot con-
veniently be postponed." 5-31, the same act says,
" Each candidate shall before or at nomination de--
clare to the election auditor, in Writing, the name
or names of his agent or agents for election expenses
Who shall be appointed, in writing ; and. no other
than' such ag;erfts shall have authority to expend
any money or incur any expenses, of or relating to
an election in the name or on behalf of a candidate,
and such agents may pay any of the current ex-
penses of an election
°necessary to be, paid, in ready
money." 'Whatever authority Watson may have
had under the written appointment, I consider that
he had no authority before that appointment to
pledge defendant's credit, for which lie had not even
an implied authority, being merely defendant's
agent to lay out £5OO in defraying expenSes. It
was, however, contended that the subsequent ap-
pointment of Watson operated fas a ratification of
his previous act. There
.are no words in the ap-
•
poiutment expreSsing 'anintent to ratify any pre-
vious act of Watson,. before whose appointment as
anent there was no evidence,to show that Colonel
Dickson knew that previously thereto he had
pledged his (the Colonel's). credit. His judgment
was, therefore, for the defendant with costs.

" SEVEN YiAttit." By jULIA. KAVANACIFt, author of
"Natlialie," &c., 3 viols.--The publication of this work must
add 'still greater celebrity to the reputation of Miss Ka-
vanagh, who already holds a high po'sition in the first rank
of modern novel-writers. Miss Kayanag,h has never suc-
ceeded to a larger extent in any one of her previous works of
fiction than in these' volumes.- We meet In them the same
genial spirit she has always manifested, the same morale
which, gives such a charm to her thoughts, and the
,same
kindliness of purpOse, combined with originality, which male
ekly
her one of the most popular authors .of the day.—Wee
Messenger.
H
[ADvERTISEmENT.I -- olloway's Ointment and Pills.—
'Heal-alt.—Ss winter approaches the system becomes feeble,
and is far more liable to be attacked by disease. F.verybody
in the late autumn should take some cooling and purifying
niedicine, than which none stands superior to Hexeolloway'its
s
Pills Now, too, especially will his Ointment rt
wholesome influence over all classes of skin diseas, which
may be trifling now, but being neglected, Will ere spring,
have nUtterially changed for the worse. Nothing, equals Het-
iloway's Ointment for all external ailments, whether super-
ficial, deep, simple, or complicated. 'These purifying- Pills
exercise the most beneficial action over every Internal organ.
From the combined use of Ointment and Pills the body, how-
soever afflicted, non. regains tone and vgour.

ASSIZE IN TELLIGE'N OE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LivERP ooL, Dee.. 10.
The commission was opened on Saturday last in
the absence of either of the judges named. in it by
Mr. Robert Sowler, Q.C. Mr:
.13arc.,n Martin ar-
rived late in the evening in Liverpool, and.attended
divine service at • St. George's-church. yesterday
morning. This day (Monday) his lordship pro-
ceeded to charge the grand jury,,and afterwards to.
trythe prisoners named,in the calendar. They are
not so numerous: as usual at this perk Id of the year,
but the offences are chiefly of a violent description.
Cities of manslaughter and stabbing. form a large.
proportion of the list. • •
The civil business will not comnierrce before Fri.
day next, the. 16th, at noon, by which time Mr.
Justice Willes is to arrive from Chestier, and pro-
eeed to try causes.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
;omas Titherington was indicted for burglary.
in the house of William Dodson, at North Meols,
and stealing, a drawer, money, and. other property,
on the 28th of August.
Mr. Ashton CrOss. prosecuted.
The offence, was traced home to the prisoner
chiefly through the identification by the witnesses
of a pair of boots which had boon ctropped,,,, along
With the drawer in question, by the thief on that
night, and were brought into court. This was seen
by the police-constable on duty, who could not
speak positively to the prisoner being the man,
The evidence of the. shopkeeper who had sold ir
similar pair of boots to those produced to the pri-
soner on the 26th of July, of a companion who had
`Seen a similar pair in possession of the prisoner, and
of the person in whose house the prisoner lodged,
who was called and spoke to the fact of his going
out on the Saturday with boots on his feet and re-
turning on the Sunday morning without any was
also taken. The robbery was committed during
the night of Saturday. The prisoner defended,
himself with some enfty, if not discretion, asking'
one of themitnesses if he knew whether he was on,
his heels'or 'his head; calling another a liar, and
'making use of the Lancashire idioms in a mariner
,which amused the bystanders.
The jury found hitn guilty. Sentence deferred.
:Bridget Lenaghan was indicted for bigamy with
one Patrick Mooney, her first husband being then

alive.
Mr. Ratites was for the prosecution. •
From the opening it appeared that the prisoner
was married to her first husband in the year 1843,
in the county of Mayo in Ireland, and had been
deserted by him in a few months. The second
marriage took place in 1854. The judge elicited
from the !second husband that there had been
squabbles between him and the prisoner, insomuch
that they had not lived together for several years.
He o'avearer into custody on this charge. A witness
proved that the first husband was alive as recently
as the Ist of November last. Thu prisoner declared
that she hail not heard of or from her first husband
for more than nine years before her second mar-

riage.
The jury acquitted the prisoner.
The Judge declined to allow the costs.
Thomas Clarke was charged with assaulting and..
robbing James Burns.
Mr. Deighton prosecuted ; Mr. Scott defended.
The prisoner was found guilty.
The Judge, in passing sentence, reminded the
prisoner that ho had received sentence for various
offences thirteen times, and condemned him to ten
years' penal servitude.
Edwin Moorhouse was indicted for robbery with
violence from the person of James Hammond, in
Ashton-under-Lyne. '
Mr. Holkcr was for the prosecution ; Mr. Scott
for the defence.
The robbery was clearly proved.
It appeared the prisoner had received sentence of
one year's imprisonment for robbery in 1858, which
expired only a few days before he 'committed this.
offence. Sentence., ten years' penal servitude. ._,

WESTERN CIRCUIT—EXETER, Dec. 12.
The coinniission for holding the. special gaol' de
livery for the county of Devon was opened •in this
city on Saturday afternoon by Mr. Baron Chan-
nel!. Ills lordship attended divine service yester-
day at the CathedraL This morning the business
commenced. In the county there are the names of
twenty" prisoners for trial in. the calendar ; the
offences are of such a character that the doors of
the court .mist be closed during the trial of nine
prisoners. In the city there are two prisoners.*
' Mr. Baron Channel', in charging the grand jury,
said he had a serious ground of complaint against
some person ; at present, without inquiry, he did
not know against whom. The grand jury Were
aware that it was • now considered necessary in
several instances to hold what was called a winter
assize. The Secretary of State decided' on the.
'Counties in which these, special assizes should be
held, and in order to guide him he had returns
made to him from the different gads in the king-
dom of the 'umber of prisoners in custody. That
return had :been made up to. the sth of November,
and it would then appear that there were but seven,
prisoners for trial in this county. There was no.
complaint against the respectable. governor 'of the
gaol of this county. The returns having been re-
ceived by the Secretary of State, and the counties
in which assizes were to be held .being determined
'upon, the judges then fixed the different days for
holding the assizes ; it was, therefore, of the utmost
importance that the number of prisoners should' be
accurately given.. There was; however, no return
made of a case a man named Kavanagh, in which
there were no less than 28 witnesses in the deposiL,
tiqps, although. it would ,seem that the man was
committed in, July or. August. The inconvenience
to which this might read might be the unavoidable
adjournment of :the assizes until after. Christmas.
The charge 'against the prisoner was of a verygrave
character—namely, scuttling. a vessel with intent
to defraud the underwriters ; it would be a case
requiring their great consideration.
Emily Ann Ormond was indicted for feloniously
marrying John Vosper Blacklce, cf the parish of
Charles, onAhe 13th nf November last, her former
husband being alive..
It appeared that the prisoner, who was only 20
years .of age, was- married to Osmond on the 23d of
February last, at the office of the Registrar of Mar-
riages, and she was married to Blaeklee on-the
13th of November last bY banns.
The defence was au address to the Court in. miti-
gation of puniShment. The first husband had told
the girl to go home, and the- -second went to sea
soon after the marriage.
The jury foundthe prisoner Guilty, and she was
sentenced to two months' imprisonment without
hard labour.