The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-15 00:00:00

PARR V. WITHERINGTON.-TURF TRANSACTIONS,

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
gentleman well known on the " turf," to recover
stakes from the defendant, which the plaintiff had
won on a race at the races at Catterick. The case
was tried before Mr. Justice Crompton, and resulted
in a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty to the
defendant to move to enter the verdict in his
favour.

Mr. Knowles, in now moving, said the plaintiff
was the owner of a horse named Kelpie, and entered
it to run for stakes against a horse named Pelissier,
which was nominally, for the purposes of the action,
the property of the defendant, who was clerk of
the course, and held the stakes. There were three
stewards, to whose decision all disputed questions
respecting the running were to be referred, namely,
the Earl of Zetland, Captain Lawson, and Mr.
Merry, and when the race was about to take place
notice was given that Kelpie was a defaulter, and
had not paid forfeit; and Capt. Lawson, one of the
stewards, decided that the defendant was entitled to
the stakes. The race, however, was run, and Kelpie
won, when Capt. Lawson decided formally in favour of
the defendant, with an intimation that the matter
would be referred for the opinion of the other
stewards. It was subsequently referred to the Earl
of Zetland and Mr. Merry, who decided against
Captain Lawson's judgment, but in the absence of
that gentleman. He (Mr. Knowles) was of opinion
that the decision was void, inasmuch as it was not
the joint decision of the three stewards, who were
in the character of arbitrators, and as such were
bound to meet together and give their decision
when so met. He submitted, therefore, that he was
entitled to a rule.

Lord Campbell was of opinion that stewards at
races were
.judges of a peculiar description, who
were not called upon by the common law to meet
together, as arbitrators were, in order to give bind-
ing force to their decision, but whose decision
might be taken separately, that of the majority
being final. That was the opinion of the Lord
Chief Baron in a recent and somewhat similar case
in the Court of Exchequer, and to that decision of
a co-ordinate court this was prepared to adhere.
The rule must therefore be refused.
The other judges concurred.
Rule refused accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron,
and Barons Martin, Watson, and Channell.)
HARRISON V. PEARCE.--LIBEL
Mr. M. Chambers moved fora.. new trial.
in this
case, which was tried at the
B sittings at Guildhall
on Martin. It was
after last term before Mr.
an action for libel brought
ebia3crirtheTimes,
plaintiff, who is
of thenekt against the
the proprietor of the Sheffi
a eeld Daily
defendant, the proprietor
members
dispute
b several h had
Telegraph. It appeared that
arisen between the plaintiff
vvaenrde
the men in his employ who eieti.s of
the Printers' Union, with regard to terms andru
of work. A manifesto was issued by the socieutyrs
headed " Trampling on the Rights of Labour,"e
which Mr. Harrison's conduct towards the men inn
his employ was most severely censured. This docu-
ment was published in the defendant's newspaper,
and at the trial he pleaded a justification, but the
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with damages
of £5OO. The learned counsel now moved, on behalf
of the defendant, for a new trial, on the grounds of
misdirection, improper reception of evidence, and
that the damages were excessive.
The court postponed further proceedings until a
copy of the shorthand notes of the learned judge's
summing up was produced.
Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Baron Bram-
well and Common Juries.)

HAMBLIN V. WHITE.-COLLISION.
Mr.. Sergeant Shee and Mr. D. D. Keane were
eounsel for the plaintiff; Mr. EdWard James and
Mr. Cross were for the defendant.
The plaintiff, who is the owner of the smack
Halifax, brought this action'to recover damages for
injuries received by his vessel in a collision with the
defendant's brig the Glasgow. It appeared that in
April last the smack was anchored off the North

Foreland, showing, as it was alleged, a bright light,
when she was run into by the defendant's vessel.
The substantial defence was that the smack did
not show a light, and that the defendant had taken
every possible precaution to prevent the collision,
which was the result of mere accident.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; da-
mages, £34 Bs. 2d.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
LAKE V. COLLETT.-ALLEGED FRAUD.
The alleged testator in this case was Mr. Thomas '
Collett, late of Wendover Hall, Bucks, who died in
June, 1857. His estate amounted to about £,1,000
in personalty, and £lO,OOO in real property. His
niece, Mrs. Lake, propounded a will, by which she
was left sole executrix and universal legatee.
The Queen's Advocate (with whom was Dr.
Spinks) opposed the grant of probate on behalf of
Mr. Collett, the nephew and heir-at-law of the de-
ceased. The learned advocate contended that the
document was a mere forgery, and that the evidence
given in support of it was perjury. In fact, of so
questionable a character was the transaction that
the proctor first employed (Mr. Abbott) had refused
to go on with the case. Mrs. Lake's account of the
subsequent steps which had been taken in the suit
was that she had come up to London, and had been
captured by a touter in Doctors'-commons.
Sir C. Cresswell—l am aware that pirates of that
description infest the neighbourhood of Doctors'-
commons, for attempts have been made more than
once to capture me. (Laughter.) It is a disgraceful
practice, and I wish I knew any means of putting
a stop to it.
The Queen's Advocate said the parties had got
" howsoever" into the hands of a gentleman who
did not now appear to support the case. He should
therefore pray that probate be refused with costs,
and that the pretended will should be impounded.
Sir C. Cresswell said he must take time to read
the evidence, and should therefore postpone his
decision.
CHAPLIN V. HUNT-A RESPECTABLE WITNESS.
The testatrix in this case was Mrs. C. Bailey, late
of Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, who died on 30th
April last, leaving avery small estate—about £2OO.
The only controversy in the cause was whether her
last will had been duly executed ; and after calling
some witnesses there appeared no doubt that such
had been the case. The ground of opposition was
the story of an old man named Salter, who charged
his son-in-law, a Mr. Moxey, with having forged
the will.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., supported the will ; Dr. Spinks
and Mr. Honeyman appeared for the plaintiff, who
was the executor in a previous will.
The learned Judge had no doubt that Salter was
a most gross liar, and had perjured himself before
the Court. Indeed, if he (Sir C. Cresswell) had the
power which was given to the common law judges
under the late Procedure Act he should order him
to be indicted for perjury. He considered that Mr.
Chaplin had shown great want of caution in the
mode in which he had conducted himself; and he
should, therefore, take time to consider whether he
ought not to be condemned in the costs.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN RE WALTON AND WALTON. -JUDGMENT.

Mr. Commissioner Fane delivered the following
judgment in this matter, which occupied the court
for several days :—The bankrupts, Mr. Charles
Walton and Mr. Wm. Walton, now asked for their
certificates. Their father, Mr. Charles Walton, had
carried on business for many years (it is mid 30
years before 1856), as a 'shipowner, and he consi-
dered, and had been considered by others, as a
wealthy man. He at one time estimated his pro-
perty so highly as to have left each of his daughters
£lO,OOO. His property, however, consisted princi-
pally of ships, and shipping having fallen very
much in value before his death, he had reduced his
daughters' legacies to £7,000 each. He had pro-
vided for his two sons by taking them into part-
nership with him, giving each one-fourth of the
property. On the admission of the sons the busi-
ness was carried on under the style of Walton and
Sons. Before April, 1856, the bankrupts had sus-
tained a heavy loss in connection with a consign-
ment to Australia, and Win. Walton had gone to
Australia to see what could be recovered. In April,
1856, whilst Win. Walton was in Australia, the
father died, and Charles Walton carried on the
business under the style of the old firm, Walton and
Sons, on behalf of has father's executors, himself,
and brothers. This continued until the early part of
1857, when Wm. Walton returned to England,
bringing very unfavourable intelligence as to the
Australian loss. It is clear that at that time the
firm was utterly insolvent, partly from losses and
partly from depreciation in the value of shipping,
of which their property chiefly consisted. That,
therefore, was the time when they ought to have
looked their affairs steadily in the face, ascertained
how they stood, and if they Were tillable to meet
their engagements, to have brought their affairs be-
fore their creditors, and proposed a further arrange-
mentwith them Butcreditors are a large bodytowhom
Quot hontines, toe sententim, is singularly applic,
able, and it rarely happens that ail St ill ad reason-
ably; hence debtors have seldom courage to en-
counter their creditors sufficiently soon. The
debtors shrunk from the ordeal, struggled on, and I
regret to say, not only for a reasonable time, but
until their joint debts amounted to £44,000 and
upwards, and their joint assets to very little indeed.
They represent their joint assets as £3,000 or
£4,000, but the official assignee is of opinion that
no such sum wil be produced, and if it be, ifwill be
by the aid of a sum of £1,794 10s., which, if re-
ceived, will be raised under circumstances inflicting
a very cruel injustice on the owners of a ship called
the Natolia. lam not sure that lam stating the
facts quite correctly, but I am stating them with
sufficient accuracy for my present purpose, which is
to show how unjustly Charles Walton acted. The
Messrs. Marten and Co., of Liverpool, had a vessel
for chartering called the Natolia ; Dale and Co., of
Liverpool, were shipbrokers to Marten and Co.,
charterers. They put themselves in communication
with Charles alton, who had a place of business
in Liverpool, as a shipbroker, and Messrs. Walton
found a charterer in Messrs. Perie and Co., of Liver-
pool, who were willing to take up the vessel to
carry coals to Bombay. Having regard to the
circumstances of Walton and Co. it is clear that
Charles Walton ought to have made the chartering
of the Natolia direct to Messrs. Perie, in which case
Messrs. Perie and Co. would have made the pay-
ment due on the charter party to the owners of the
ship which had earned it. Instead of doing this,
Charles Walton took the Natolia on charter to his
own firm, and then rechartered her from his firm
to Perie and Co. The donsequence of which is that
Perie and Co. have to pay to Walton's joint estate
£1,794 10s., and the real owners of the vessel will
set, not the L 1,794 10s., but a pitiful sum of ls. 6d.
in the pound as dividendupon Walton's estate. This
transaction took place on the 3d of Oct., 1857, and
on the 18th Jan., 1858, the Waltons stopped pay-
ment. Why did not Mr. C. Walton, in the then
state of his circumstances, which he must have
known on the 3d of Oct., 1857, take care that the
charterparty was direct between the owners of the
Natolia and Messrs. Perie and Co., by which he
would have earned his brokerage, and which and
which only was his due; and why did he not ab-
stain from doing a great wrong to the owners of
the Natolia by taking the chartering of the vessel
on his own firm, and then chartering her to Messrs.
Perie and Co. ? There was another transaction re-
lating to a ship called the Eugenie, which involved
the placing of bills on the money market with the
Waltons' names upon them, and this transaction
also was commented upon as an accommodation
transaction. lam satisfied that it was a perfectly
legitimate transaction in itself, though owing to a
forgery, or something like it, it involved a loss to
the bankrupts ; but whilst I exempt the bankrupts
from the above and other charges, made through
misapprehension, and whilst I believe that the
bankrupts are in the main well-intentioned men,
and whilst I look upon them as, to a certain extent,
objects of commiseration, as having found them-
selves, as successors of their father, involved in dif-
ficulties, for which it would be harsh to say that
they were wholly responsible, still I am obliged to
fall back upon my original charge against them,
that they shut their eyes against what they did not
choose to see, namely, to the fact that they owed
£44,000 and upwards, and really had scarcely any
assets to meet it ; and that rather than meet their
creditors, as they ought to have done, while they
had yet substantial assets to distribute, they went
on to the last, paying, amongst others, the Bank of
England to the extent of £4,000 a short time be-
fore their bankruptcy, and thus unjustly preferring
some and sacrificing other creditors. Under these
circumstances I can only give them certificates of
the lowest class. I pronounce this judgment with
a certain degree of regret, but I feel myself com-
pelled-on all fitting occasions to denounce the great
commercial offence of which a debtor is guilty, who,
when there is no reasonable hopo of recovery, per-
sists in struggling on day after day, increasing the
loss which must fall sooner or later on his unfortu-
nate creditors.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment.—
Influenza, Colds.—ln diseases of the throat and chest, so
prevalent in this country during the winter, nothing so
speedily relieves or so certainly cures, as these inestimable
remedies. These disorders are too often neglected at their
commencement, or are injudiciously treated, resulting in
either case in disastrous consequences. Whatever the con-
dition of the patient Holloway's medicines will restore if
recovery be possible ; they will retard the alarming symp-
toms, till the blood is purified and Nature consummates the
cure, gradually restoring strength and vital nervous power.
By persevering in the use of Holloway's preparations, tone
is conferred on the stomach and frame generally; the fluids
are regenerated ; morbific matter is expelled ; and a happy
revolution occurs throughout the system.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Jan. 14.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Wm. Vaile, * respectable
looking man, about 36 years of age, described on
the sheet as a "press reporter," 'was brought before
the Lord Mayor by Jarvis, the detective officers
charged with having forged and uttered a bill of
exchange for £24 Ms., with intent to derma

Mr. Lewis, sun., appeared in support of the pro-
secution, and M. Worrand for the prisoner.
Mr. J. 3. Brown said—l am a bill broker, at 27,
Change-alley. Some time in Nov. last the bill pro-
duced was brought to me by a Mr. Linde for dis-
count. It purports to be drawn and endorsed by
Henry Lea, and accepted by William Vaile. It is
dated the 4th of Jan., 1868, and was, to run two
months. I thought there was something irregular
about it, and refused to discount it ; but to oblige
Mr. Lindo I advanced £lO, which I should have
done to him without any collateral security, buthe
said, " I will leave this bill as a collateral security."
The bill came due on the 7th Jan. On the follow-
ing day the prisoner called on me; he saw the bill
lying on my desk, and said, " Why did you have it
noted ? If you will allow it to stand over till Tues-
day, I will give you a sovereign for the accommo-
dation." Of course I had no objection to make a
sovereign with the consent of all the parties to the
bill. (A laugh,) I told him to bring me the con-
sent of Mr. Lea, and he brought me the following
letter

" Warwick-lane, Jan. 8, 1859.
" Sir—Mr. Valle tells me he has not entirely honoured
his acceptance to me, but that you will wait till Wednesday
morning, with my consent, I hereby consent to that arrange-
ment, and hope he will fulfil his promise.—I am. &c.,
14 H. LEI."
I allowed the bill to stand over, and finding it
was not paid I gave all the parties notice, by which
means the forgery was discovered. •
Mr. H. Lea—l carry on the business of a pub-
lisher at 22, Warwick-lane, and am vendor of the
Home Magazine, on commission. I formerly knew
the prisoner as part owner of that publication, and
have had occasion in business transactions to pass
my acceptance to bills of exchange through him.
The signature and endorsement to the bill produced
are not in my handwriting. I never gave the pri-
soner any authority to use my name as drawer or
otherwise to any bill of exchange. The letter re-
ferred to by the last witness, and purporting to be
signed by me, is also a forgery. The handwriting
of the letter I have no knowledge of. The signa-
ture to it is very like his writing. The bill is
drawn and accepted by him.
The Lord Mayor—You have no doubt about that ?
Witness—l have no doubt about that.

The Lord Mayor—Your belief is that the body
of the bill, the acceptance, and the drawer and en-
dorser's name are in the prisoner's handwriting.
Witness—Yes ; the drawing and endorsing I will
swear to. I received notice of the dishonour of the
bill from Mr. Brown, and wrote to a person named
Williams, who has been his partner in the Home
211ctgazine. I then received the following commu-
nication from the prisoner, which is in his hand-
writing :

" Jan. 11, 1859.
" Sir, The matter to which you refer is paid, and the
holder ;411 ask your permission to destroy it. It is no new
transaction,. but an inevitable renewal of past transactions,
gradually reduced in amount, and with this payment finally
extinguished. I will place in your hands this day the ab-
solute proof of this statement. Do nothing to injure me
further until I see you.—Yours respectfully,
" WILLIAM VAILE."
Williams was present when I gave the prisoner
into enitodv.

After some conversation respecting the necessity
of calling Mr. Lindo,
Mr. Brown was recalled, and upon being further
examined said —Subsequently to my receiving the
bill, and before it became due, I saw the prisoner
in the presence of Mr. Lindo on two or three occa-
sions. I did not hear Mr. Lindo ask him for the
£lO due upon the bill, but I heard the prisoner say
that Mr. Lea, the publisher, of Warwick-lane owed
him money, and that he was partner with Mr. Lea
in the publication.
This Was the case for the prosecution.
The Lord Mayor, after giving the prisoner the
usual caution, asked him whether he wished to say
anything in answer to the charge.
Prisoner—l leave the matter entirely in the
hands of my solicitor.
Ile was then fully committed to the Central
Criminal Court for trial.

John George Wood, a farmer, living at Moulton,
in Norfolk, who was brought before the Lord
Mayor on Thursdsy, charged with being found in
Bishcpsgate-street, in possession of a carpet bag
bontaining apparel, supposed to be stolen, and Mar-
garet Beck, who was charged with being in his
company, in the dress of a sailor, were again placed
at the bar.

The eirentistatites that led to the apprehension
of the prisoner's Were these—While Russell, the
detective officer, and W. Smith, another constable,
were proceeding along Bishopsgate-street on Wed-
nesday last, they received information that Beck,
who was dressed as a sailor, and who had just left
a bootmaker's shop at which she had purchased a
pair of boots, was a female, As she and Wood were
about to enter a cab, the officers asked them what was
the meaning of Beck's being in the dress of a man,
and their reply not being satisfactory, they were
taken to the station-house. Beck then stated that up
to within a few days previously she had lived as ser-
Vant to Wood, who had a wife and three children at
Moulton, and that she had eloped with him from
that place with the intention of accompanying
him to Australia ; £4l in notes and gold were
found upon Wood, as well as a game certificate,
and a document showing that he had been in nego-
tiation for the passage of two persons to Australia.
The Lord Mayor then remanded the prisoners, in
order that the officers might telegraph to Moulton,
and ascertain whether any charge could be substan-
tiated againgt them. The result of the telegraphic
communication was, that yesterday Wood's wife, a
pretty little woman, and the father-in-law of Beck,
appeared in court.
The Lord Mayor—ls there any further evidence
in this case, Russell, or is there any charge against
either of the prisoners
Russell—No, my lord. Wood's wife is here, as
well as the girl's father-in-law.
The Lord Mayor—Deliver the girl up to her
father-in-law, and let me tell her if she again suffers
herself to be seduced by the persuasions of any per-
son to pursue so foolish and wicked a course as that
upon which she has just entered, it will inevitably
lead to her ruin, both here and hereafter. She is
discharged, and may be given up to her father-in-
law. .

Russell—She is only 16 years of age, 'my lord,
and not 19, as she stated at the station-house.
The Lord Mayor—So much the more foolish of
her, and so much more wicked the conduct of the
man who seduced her. However, deliver her up to
her father-in-law and he will take charge of her.
She then left the dock.

BOW-STREET.—Frederick Bolton, late clerk to
Mr. Alfred Mayhew, solicitor, of Carey-street, Lin-
' coln's-inn, was examined on remand, charged with
stealing a £5O bill of exchange which had been
ntrusted to him by his employer for the purpose of
paying it in at his bankers, Messrs. Dixon and Co.,
of Chancery-lane.
The cheque was drawn upon Mr. J. S. Fulke, of
Richmond, by Messrs. Bloxam and Co., by whom it
was endorsed to Mr. Mayhew. It was dated the
Bth October, and payable one month after date at
Messrs. White and Co.'s bank, 11, Haymarket. It
was handed by prosecutor to prisoner about the 26th
October, with instructions to hand it in at Dixon's
the same day ; and it appears that it was never de-
livered to Messrs. Dixon, but was presented and
paid at White's on the day it became due, the 11th
of November. At the beginning of December Mr.
Mayhew, on receiving his pass-book from Dixon's,
was surprised to find that he was not credited with
the £5O bill. He consequently questioned the
prisoner, who said, " There is some mistake ; I
will inquire about it." After an interval of
some days the prosecutor wrote to Messrs.
Dixon, who replied by a, letter stating that they
had not received the bill. The prisoner inter.
cepted that letter and absconded. A few days
ago the prosecutor met him in the street and
gave him in charge, He said he was sorry, and
begged Mr. Mayhew not to prosecute. When
brought before the magistrate he admitted that he
had received the money.
There was a second charge against the prisoner,
of stealing or embezzling a sum of £7, paid to him
at his master's office, on account of rent due to a
client, the plaintiff in an action of " Hodder v.
Tart."

Mrs. Elizabeth Lamerton, of 67, Regent-street,
Westminster, stated that after Lady-day she paid
the above amount to the prisoner at Mr. Mayhew's
office.

Mr. Mayhew said he had never received the
money, nor was the prisoner authorised to take it.
Mr. Jardine—lf not, it is not an embezzlement.
I am afraid it is only a breach of trust.
Mr. O'Brien (the clerk to the court)—As• it was
payable at Mr. Mayhew's office I think it is a felony.
Mr. Jardine—l shall commit him, and leave the
Court to decide that.
The Prisoner—l reserve my defence in the first
case, and shall take advice. The second charge
must fall to the ground. Mr. Sydney Mayhew was
the appointed receiver, and he owes me money. Mr.
Alfred Mayhew has nothing to do with it.
The Prosecutor—There is nothing in that. I am
appointed by my son to receive the money.
Mr. Jardine—lf you can prove that, it is a good

defence ; but I shall commit you for trial on both
charges.

WORSHIP-STREET.--William Jackson, a re-
spectably-dressed youth, was charged with uttering
thrtv forged cheques on the London and West-
minster Bank.

Mr. Richard Jackson said—l am a meat sales
man in St. John-street, and also carry on business
in Newgate-market. I bank at the London and
Westminster, and at Christmas sent my book there
to be made up, but when it was returned, in a few
days afterwards, I was greatly astonished to find
that my account had been slightly overdrawn.
This induced me to closely examine the re+.,,rned
cheques, and on doing so I discovered three for z3O
odd, which were certainly not drawn by me, although
the signatures bore a close resemblance to mine. The
cheques had obviously been cut from my own cheque
book, and as I had some time before sent my son to
pay in LlB5 for me, when he only paid in the odd
£B5, retaining the £lOO, I suspected the prisoner
had committed the forgeries, and, as he was not
living with me at the time, I communicated with
the police, who took him in bed as early as three
o'clock this morning. I wish this, however, to be
understood, that he has made a statement to the
officer of which I am convinced of the truth, and I
am convinced, too, that the handwriting in the
forged cheques is not that of my son, or I should
have looked over it, and not appeared here against
him, as I do now.

Mr. Hammill—Let the officer stand up, then.
Taylor, of the G division, said—l had directions
to apprehend the prisoner, and found him in bed
at a coffee-house in St. John-street. I said, " I want
you for uttering three forged cheques, and you must
get up." He said, "It is a very bad piece of busi-
ness, but will soon be set straight." The truth is
that I took the blank cheques from a drawer in my
father's room. had before that met a man in
Newgate-market, named Kentick or Kenrick, I
don't know which, who asked me if my father did
not keep an account at the bank, and on my reply-
ing that he did he said if I could get some blank
cheques he would fill them up. I made an appoint-
ment to meet him at the foot of London-bridge,
and having got one cheque out of the drawer, I met
him at the Adelaide-hotel, London-bridge, where
we went into a room, and he called for pen and
ink, and filled in the cheque in my presence. For
that cheque he gave me £4, and I then took an-
other cheque, for which he gave me £2, and then a
third, for which he gave me only £l, and then in•
timated that when he wanted me again he would
write to me." On hearing this statement I lodged
the prisoner in the station, and went back to search
his lodging, where, in one of the closets, I found
the cheque I produce, which is a genuine one of his
father's, and has, no doubt, served as a copy by
which to forge the others.
Mr. Geo. Dutton, cashier of the Eastern Branch
Of the London and Westminster Bank, deposed to
paying the three cheques in question. The prisoner
is in the habit of paying in money to the account
of his father and might have presented the cheques,
but who in reality did so he could not say.
The prisoner, who declined questioning any of
the witnesses, and treated the charge with a cool-
ness almost amounting to indifference, was re-
manded for a week.

CLERKENWELL.—Mary Ann Hodge, a very
respectably attired and decent-looking young girl,
aged 16, described as a servant out of place with
no home, was charged with wandering about and
having no visible means of subsistence in Oakley-
square, St. Pancras.
Police-constable Whiteley, 239 S, stated that late
last night he was on duty in Oakley-square, St.
Pancras, when he found the defendant sitting on a
doorstep crying. He asked her if she had any home,
and being replied to in the negative, he said ,4' Why
not go to the workhouse ?" and being informed that
she had been there and been refused admission, he
went with ber himself, and she was then refused
admission. Finding that she was refused a second
time, he took her to the police-Station, and was
again sent with a sergeant and the defendant to the
St. Pancras Workhouse, when the girl was again
refused admission, and they were told that the
master said she belonged to Clerkenwell, and for
that reason was not taken in. It was then abort
half-past 1 in the morning.
Sergeant Edwards, 21 S, said he took the girl to
the St. Pancras Workhouses and there saw the
porter, who refused to admit her. The master of
the workhouse refused to admit her, said she be-
longed to Clerkenwell, and that he could not take
her in. He then took her to the Clerkepwell Work-
house, - and was there refused admission, conse-
quently the girl was locked up to give her a shelter.
The poor girl said that she had been out of a
situation for some time, and where she had been
lodging some sheets were missed, and she was
locked up. She was remanded for a week, and was
then discharged, and having no home went to the
St. Pancras Workhouse and was refused admission.

Mr. Tyrwhitt inquired if any one from the parish
was in attendance, and being answered in the
negative said it was a very disgraceful case.
That in a Christian country, and in this large
metropolis, a poor homeless, unfortunate girl should
not be able to obtain admission into a workhouse
when it would not cost them one shilling was
really intolerable. The parish of St. Pancras was
one of the worst regulated parishes in the metro-
polis. The master must be sent for to explain his
con duct.
The Master, who gave the name of George Wil-
liam Winlo, attended in the course of the day, in
company with the assistant-porter, and the latter,
in answer to the magistrate, stated that by direc-
tion of the porter he went up to the master and told
him that the police had brought a girl for admis-
sion, and that she belonged to Clerkenwell, when
the Master said she had better go there. He was
told more than once that the defendant had been
brought to the workhouse by the police.
The Master said the reason why he did not give
the order for the girl's admission was because he
was not told that she was " destitute ;" only that
she wanted a night's lodging.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—You do not mean to say that when
persons are brought by the police, found in the
public streets without a home, you refuse admission
because they belong to a neighbouring parish P
The Master—Well, no; it depends—
Mr. Tvrwhitt—Because the word " destitution"
had not been used admission was refused to a poor
The Master, who seemed to treat the matter with
great callousness, was about making some remark,
when he was told to sit down, upon which
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he looked With real sorrow
and annoyance on this case, and, was surprised at
the way in which the master of the workhouse
seemed to treat it. This was not one of those pathetic
cases which sometimes occurred where the girl had
been exposed to every vice and wickedness, but here
she was taken to the workhouse for a night's lodging
and refused admission, and had it not been for the
police might have lain in the streets exposed for any
scoundrels who might be passing and who were ever
ready to take every advantage of any poor pitiful
girl whom they might meet with, and thus bring dis-
grace and ruin upon them. He could not help saying
he felt a certain degree of shame that in this coun-
try, which was so ready to relieve the unfortunate
and distressed—in this country, where workhouses
only existed for such poor people that a max should
be found who could be so coldhearted as to refuse
admission to a poor helpless girl and turn her with-
out a home upon the streets. He could not help
remarking that the masters of workhouses read
poor law reports and regulations until they thought
of nothing else, and their hearts grew harder. This
was never intended by the authorities of the Poor
Law Board. What was this girl refused admission
for ? Only because she did not make use of the
word " destitute." If she had been taken in and
relieved with her four ounces of bread, the master
this morning could have made her work for it.
Such conduct as had been pursued in this case was
a perfect disgrace to the administration of the poor
law. He knew the storm that would be raised and
the strong interest which worked in St. Pancras,
but he would fearlessly do his duty, and he said
advisedly that he believed no other parish would
act in this way. In the parts surrounding this
court—viz.; Clerkenwell, Islington, more especially
the latter, and St. Andrew's, Holborn, every atten-
tion was paid to such cases—attention which was
not paid by the parish of St. Pancras. His brother
magistrate (Mr. Corrie) was, he understood, of the
same opinion. How was it that such dreadful cases
came from that parish alone ? There must be a
" screw loose" when one of their officers was now
under remand, and warrants had been issued against
others, who could not be found. The master might
have admitted the girl, for the turning of her on the
streets exposed her to many dangers which he did
not seem to know of. It was a serious thing to the
country at large. He (Mr. Tyrwhitt) must ex-
press in the strongest and the roughest terms
the indignation he felt at the neglect and indiffer-
ence which was shown to the most helpless of the
population. The parish authorities of St. Pancras
might appeal to the papers and to the poor law,
but the girl should have been admitted, and
he should have been spared the pain of hearing
such a case as that before him. He could not
understand how a man could bring himself to be so
hard-hearted and so indifferent. Were the rates
raised to be spent for the pleasure of those who sat
in judgment over the poor ? No, but for the relief
of the distressed. It was a sad case, in every
way in which it could be looked at. Mr. Tyrwhitt
then directed that the unfortunate girl should be
taken by the master to St. Pancras Workhouse and
treated kindly, and, if Clerkenwell was her proper
parish, that She might be passed in the legal way.
Marks of approbation were several times ex-

pressed by the spectators at the magistrate's dis-
course, which were at once suppressed by the officer
of the court.

The magistrate has received ss. in postage stamp 3
from "F. E. R." for the poor-box. Within the
past month between 200 and 300 poor and deserv-
ing families have been relieved with coals, meat,
bread and potatoes ; and great praise is due to all
persons concerned in making the inquiries and ad-
ministering the relief.

LAMBETH.—Mr. Herring, the solicitor, accom-
panied by Mr. Cave, the lessee of the Marylebone
Theatre, waited on Mr. Elliott, and said he attended
at the request of his friend' and client, Mr. Cave,
the proprietor of the Marylebone Theatre, who ac-
companied him, to make an offer of an engagement
at his establishment to the poor ballet girl, Jane
Newell, in the event of her returning to the home
of her mother. Mr. Cave, he said, on reading a
report of the distressing circumstances which led to
the want of an engagement, and consequent disap-
pearance from the humble home of her mother, had
determined, notwithstanding his having a full com-
pany, to offer her an engagement at the same
amount of salary that she was to have had at the
Haymarket ; and his object in offering it thus pub-
licly was that it might meet the eye of the poor
girl, and induce her at once to return home, and
also that it might afford the poor mother some con-
solation that a situation was open to her daughter.
A letter was received from Drury-lane Theatre,
of which the following is a copy :

" Theatre Royal, Drury-lane, Jan 13, 1859.
" Sir,—Permit me to enclose you two sovereigns on be-
hiiif of the poor virtuous ballet girl, Jane Newell, whose
case came officially before you yesterday. lam glad it was
made public, as it will satisfy the minds of the numerous
readers of the public journals (and perhaps the Dean of
Carlisle) that artists of this description who unfortunately
have no other occupation to follow, continue as virtuous on
the stage as in any other situation that females have re-
course to for obtaining a livelihood. If Jane Newell should
return to her parents, an engagement awaits her at my
establishment,
" ITemain, sir, your most obedient servant,
"Hon. G. C. Norton. " E. T. SMITH."

Mr. Herring said he was glad to find his friend
Mr. Smith acting in the case with his usual
liberality, and his offer would give the young lady
an opportunity of making an election for an engage-
ment in the profession which she had chosen to
follow, and in which she appeared to make such
progress. In conclusion, he begged to say he was
authorised on the part of Mr. Cave to hand in half
a guinea towards the subscription for the assistance
of Mrs. Newell.

Mr. Elliott said he was very glad to see the kind
offers made by Mr. Smith and Mr. Cave to the
poor girl, and he hoped she would soon return to
avail herself of one or the other.

Enquiries were last evening made at the house of
the mother as to whether she had heard anything
of her missing daughter, and her reply was that on
that morning a gentleman called on her and said
he saw a person exactly resembling her daughter
in the neighbourhood of Soho-square on the night
before, in company with two women, one of whom
had the appearance of a French woman. The
mother also stated that the gentleman took her in
a cab to Vine-street police-station to give as accu-
rate a description as she could of her missing
daughter, and she added that it was her belief her
girl was still living.
In addition to the subscriptions already acknow-
ledged, the following were yesterday received for
the mother:—From " A Lady," £2; the Printers
at Mr. Grainger's, Holborn, ss. ; Mr. Lemon, ss. ;
Anonymous, 2s. 6d. • Mr. E. T. Smith, .L 2 ; Mr.
Cave, lOs. sa. ; and ill% Arthur Dennis, 20s.

FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT.