The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-11 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

" SEPARATE ARTICLES.
" Art. I. Tho commercial relations of Francs
with Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sardinia, and
of Russia with the kingdoms of Sweden and Nor-
way, being regulated by special stipulations, which
may hereafter be renewed without said relations
being attsched to the regulations existing for
foreign commerce in general, the two high con-
tracting parties, wishing to avoid any misunder-
standing or cause for discussion upon their corc•
mercial relations, have agreed that the special
stipulations granted in consideration of equivalent
advantages cannot in any case be invoked in
favour of the commercial relations and of naviga-
tion sanctioned between the two high contracting
parties.
Art 11. It is also understood that the following
immunities and privileges shall not be looked upon
as infringements on the principle of reciprocity
which is the basis of the present treaty, viz. :
" On the part of France :
" 1. The immunities and bounties established in
favour of the national sea fisheries.
" 2. The privileges granted to English yachts.
" 3. The immunities granted. to Spanish fisher-
men in virtue of the law of the 12th of December,
1790.
" And on the part of Russia :
" 1. The privilege enjoyed by vessels constructed
in Russia, and belonging to Russian subjects, who
for the first three years are exempt from navigation
dues.
" 2. The permission granted to the inhabitants
of the coast of the Government of Archangel to
import free, or at a moderate duty, into the ports
of the said Government, dried or salt fish, as also
certain descriptions of furs, and to export in the
same manner corn, ropes, tar, and ravendouc (1).
"3. The privileges of the Russo-American
Company.
" 4. The immunities granted in Russia to diffe-
rent English and Netherland companies called
yacht clubs.
" Art. 111. The present separate articles are to
have the same value as if inserted in the body of
the treaty. They will be ratified and the ratifica-
ions exchanged on the same day.
" In faith of which, 4;c.,
" MORNY.
" GORTSCHAKOFF.
" BROCK.
" St. Petersburg, June 14 (2), 1857."

SIIICIDE.—CORONER'S INQUEST.—An inquest was held
last night on the body of Mr. James Davis, aged 32,
lately resident at 4, Ranelagb-street, Pimlico, who com-
mitted suicide by hanging himself. Verdict, " Tempor-
ary insanity."
SlllClDE.—Yesterday morning an inquest was held at
the Blade Bone public-house, Church-street, Bethnal-
green-road, on the body of James Waterloo, aged 48,
who committed suicide by hanging himself. Mr. Van-
' denburg said the deceased had suffered latterly fr3m the
i
great heat of the weather, which had produced an affec
tion of the brain. The jury returned a verA, .
46 Temporary insanity.".

HOME CIRCUIT. —CROYDON, AUG. 10.
Before the Lard Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)

CLARK V. POTTINGER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to
recover the sum of 841. 135., for work done and
goods supplied by the authority of the defendant,
who pleaded that he was not lia'Ae.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Malcolm ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; Mr. E. James, Q.C., and
Mr. Hawkins were connsel for the defendant.

Mr. Chambers, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff carried on the business of a house agent
and furniture dealer in Cambridge-street, Pimlico ;
and the defendant was Sir Frederick Pottinger.
The action was brought to recover the value of
certain furniture that had been sold by the plaintiff,
and for other business connected with his trade,
under there circumstances. In the commencement
of the present year a person named Russell, who,
he was instructed, he should be able to prove acted
as the agent for the defendant, applied to him to
hire a house in Cambridge-street for the use of the
defendant and a lady, but he at the same time
stated that Sir Frederick did not wish to hire the
house in his own name, but in that of John Perry,
andsafter some negotiation he let the house, No.
165, Cambridge-street, and an agreement was
drawn up, wherein the defendant was described as
John Perry, of Lansdowne-terra.ce, Bath, and a
young lady, wits was subsequently called Mrs.
Perry, and occasionally Lady Pottieger, took pos-
session. Some of the furniture she brought with
her was cleaned and polished, and a piano and
other articles were supplied, and the bill of the
plaintiff amounted altogether to 841. 13s. When be
sent in his bill, Mts. Perry asked him not to draw
the whole amount, and he accordingly made out a
bill for 441., and the defendant called upon him
and offered to pay 201. on account, but when he
became aware there was a larger sum due, he re-
fused to pay anything, and the plaintiff was in
consequence compelled to bring the present action.
Mr. F. Clark, the plaintiff, deposed that in April
last, Russell, whom he knew as a sort of agent,
called upon him and told him that Sir F. Pottiuger
wanted to have a house in Cambridge-street, but
he did not wish his own name to appear in the
transaction, as he did not want to be liable to serve
on juries or to have his name in the rate books.
He agreed to let him have No. 165, Cambridge-
street, and a young lady came to reside there, and
under her directions he did all the work for which
the present claim was made. A short time after-
wards he saw Sir F. Pottinger in the dining-room,
and he complained of the bill that had been sent
in, and said that he would pay everything that was
reasonable, but he would not be done. Sir Frede-
rick after this called at his shop and offered to give
him 201. on account, but he then told him that his
bill was 841., and not 44/. ; and Sir Frederick then
said he would not pay anything, and:that he was
going abroad, and be might get his money where
he could. Among the articles he supplied to the
house was a piano, which he had purchased for
12/. 10s.,- and he had it polished and tuned and
charged 201. for it. He received a note in the
handwriting of the defendant, requesting him to
take this piano back.
Cross-examined—Was sure this note was not in
the handwriting of Miss Perry, because she could
not write. He never saw the defendant until two
months after all the goods had been delivered. He
acted entirely under the direction of Russell, whom
he considered to be Sir Frederick's agent, but he
could not swear that be ever saw them together, or
that Sir Frederick was ever present on any occasion
when directions were given by Russell. He charged
a small discount upon all the work that was done,
and he also charged 5/, for commission, but when
Sir Frederick objected to that item he struck it
out. The landlord of the house supposed that it
was let to John Perry, Esq., of Lansdowne-terrace,
Bash, and he knew nothing of Sir Frederick Pot-
tinger in the transaction. The goods were all sent
in by the direction of Sir Frederick's lady. She
was called sometimes Mrs. Perry, but he believed
she also went by the name of Lady Pottinger. The
servants used to call har "My Lady." (A. laugh.)
In re-examination the plaintiff said that he
had endeavoured to subpoena Russell since these
proceedings, but was unable_ to find him.
The different accounts of the parties who had
been employed were put in, and it appeared that
the plaintiff in his bill had nearly doubled some of
the charges made by them to him.
Martha Westwood deposed that she acted as cook
at the house in Cambridge-street. Sir Frederick
used to come there frequently, and stayed all night
and breakfasted, but never dined. She remembered
that when the bill was sent in Sir Frederick was
very angry, and she had repeatedly heard him say
to Miss Perry, " You must not be extravagant,
darling." (A laugh.) At the time he saw the
plaintiff's bill be gave Miss Perry 201., and he then
gave her and her fellow-servant half-a sovereign
each and went out of the house. Sir Frederick
would not allow any one to come to visit Miss Perry
but himself, and she bad heard him say that if he
ever found any one in the house he should kick him
out. (A laugh.)
Cross-examined—Miss Perry formerly lived in
Stanley-street. She would rather not answer the
question whether other gentlemen besides Sir F.
Pottinger used to visit her there.
Mr. James then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, in his usual able and effective manner, and
he said that the amount sought to be recovered
was not of the slightest object, but the claim was
resisted because Sir Frederick Pottieger considered
it to be merely an attempt to extort money, and
one for which there was not the slightest founda
tion. He could not, of course, attempt to justify
the conduct of the defendant in a moral point of
view, but he submitted that it was quite clear from
the evidence that the goods were supplied through
the agency of Russell, who was one of the bangers-
on that were always in connexion with unfortunates
women of this class, to Miss Perry at the most ex-
orbitant charges, with the idea that he would be
paid either by Sir F. Pottinger or any other gen-
tleman who might visit the house, rather than that
his name should be brought before the public in
connexion with such a transaction.
Sir Frederick Pottinger was then called—He
said, I am the defendant in this action. I was
acquainted with Miss Kate Perry, and remember
her taking the house in Cambridge-street. I never
authorised her to do so, and I know nothing of the
man Russell who has been spoken of, and never
saw him. I never passed by the name of Perry
at the house in Cambridge-street, and Miss Perry,
to my knowledge, was never called Lady Pottinger.
I never ordered a single article of this furniture, or
authorised it to be ordered. I used to give money
to Miss Perry occasionally for her expenses, and
I remember seeing a bill of the plaintiff's upon the
mantle-shelf, and I saw that the charges were most
exorbitant, and I spoke to Miss Perry upon the
subject, and she sent tor Mr. Clark, and I had
some conversation about his bill, and told him
that I was astonished to see that persons who
called themselves respectable should attempt to
fleece an unfortunate girl in such a manner. He
was very indignant, and said he hoped I did net
allude to him. The plaintiff came repeatedly to
the house afterwards, and made a disturbance, and
I saw him upon one occasion, and he said he was
determined to have his money, and that his claim
was not 44/., but 84/. This was the first time I
had heard of such an amount, and I was very
angry and gave Miss Perry 20/., telling hei;achtse
might pay it if she pleased, and I gave the
a sovereign, and left the house intending
offered to
turn. When I heard of the first bill, _
Mliss Perry ;
pay the plaintiff 20/. on account o servants
trto re-
kfan interest in
but I did this solely because I
thiteooclaim
was 841., I
her ; but when I found that th' I
Soon after is was
refused to pay a farthing.
on a Saturday evening,
arrested, while at dinner, _
on an affidavit
at the Great Western Hotel , up
made by the plain
tiff that I was about to leave the
deposit
country, and I was obliged tothe amount
of the claim.
Cross-examined—l have known Miss Perry for
four or five months. I first met her in April, at
dinner, with two or three other gentlemen. lam
not aware that she was under the protection of
another gentleman at that time. I
believe that
she was attached to one of
those gentlemen, but as.
he happened to he almost a pauper in his circum-
stances it was not likely that
she could have been
under his protection
h© referred had, he The gentleman to whom
believed, been a colonel in
the army. Miss
Stanley-street,Perry at this time was living in
there. There' and she had furniture of her oar
was no particular agreement made
that she should come under my protection, but the
arrangement was carriedout by
understanding. (A
laugh.) She - was
looking for a house, and she void rae she ,
setly said °lle
had found one in Care' subseque eat no-
thing to me t eet but she
Me --•orsage-S r e
furratur • _
ck-
„out wattittg 1:11° Who talks of ki
A gentleman w happen
Chambers— that he ay
to do with
'se out of a house
more -
of ling Irn37 isld SurelY
UM'
ct4e e
to find there, vich.._

The jury immediately returned a verdict for the
defendant.

Mr. Hawkins asked his lordship to certify that
it was a proper case to be tried by a speci3l jury,
but he refused to do so.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.-BRISTOL, AUG. 1.0.
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge.)
TREEN V. TULLY.

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Cole were for the plaintiff.
The action was brought to recover the sum of
501. under these circumstances. The plaintiff is the
well known breeder of race-horses, and the defend-
ant a sporting gentleman of Devonshire. In Jan.,
1855, defendant purchased of plaintiff a race horse
named Line, and two colts, upon an agreement
that he was to pay 2501. for them, and 501. more in
the event of either horse winning a race. The 2501.
was paid, and the horse Lina "having since won a
race, the 501. was demanded, and was now sued
fon.
Verdict for plaintiff—Damages 501.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LANCASTER, AUG. 8.
(Before Mr. Baron Watson.)
Edward Hardman, shoemaker, of Chorley, was
fully convicted of the wilful murder of his wife,
Ellen Hardman, at Chorley, on the sth March.
Mr. Monk, Mr. Assbeton Cross, and Mr. Allison
prosecuted ; and Mr. Overend and Mr. Brett de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner was married to the
deceased about two years ago, and then lived at
Brindle, near Chorley ; and it was averred that the
difference in their religious persuasions, he being a
catholic and she a protestant, was a cause of dis-
agreement between them, and three months after
their marriage they separated, and she went to live
with her father, but in a short time they became
reconciled and went to live together again. But
this appears to have subsided on their removal to a
small village called Botany Bay, about a mile from
Chorley, which took plact about 12 months after
they were married. He was unfortunately addicted
to intemperance, and this appeared to cause some
uneasiness, as she was frequently seen weepinc,
when he was off work. On the 25th of Marsh she
was taken suddenly ill, accompanied by vomiting
and purging, the vomit being of a yellow ec,lour.
Prisoner attributed her illness to some brothwhieh
she had taken, and called in a medical man named
Smith, who prescribed medicines for inflammation
of the stomach and bowels, under which he sup.
posed her to labour. Under this treatment she
continued to mend until the 4th March, when she
was again taken ill much more violently than be-
fore, her face became cadaverous,lher hands livid, a
cold clammy sweat bedewed the body, and she was
utterly unconscious ; and, after severe suffering,
expired on the sth March. She was buried at
Brindle on the 9th, and in a few days reports of
foul play got circulated, and it was strongly sus-
pected that she had been poisoned. The body was
exhumed, and the stomach and viscera taken out,
and submitted for analysis to Mr. H. Watson, who
discovered both antimony and arsenic, and it being
found that the prisoner had purchased both kind's
of deadly poison a short time before her fatal ill-
ness, he was apprehended ou the charge of wilful
murder. It was proved that the prisoner was in
the possession of antimony in the latter end of last
year, and was aware of its deadly effects. It was
proved that in the early part of March (the 2nd),
the prisoner purchased 60 grains of antimony, under
the pretence that it was for a horse; and about the
same period half a pound of arsenic was purchased
by him, under the representation that it was to
wash floors to kill bugs. On the 3d March, Mr.
Smith gave the prisoner three Dover's powders for
the deceased ; they were wrapped in a paper, but
not tied. The prisoner took home some powders,
tied up in a parcel, and two of them were adminis-
tered, and then the fatal sickness came on ; and
from the fact of the one powder left being found
after the wife's death, causing a burning sensation
in the mouth, it was suspected that the prisoner
had substituted antimony for the medicine sent by
Mr. Smith. Various motives were assigned—the
attachment of the prisoner to another woman, the
money he would receive at her death from burial
clubs (131.), and other cause. The appearance
presented by the body on the post mortem exami-
nation satisfied the two medical men, Messrs. Pil-
kington and Bumford, that death had been caused
by an irritant poison, and this was further con-
firmed by the analysis of the contents of the stomach
and viscera, and Professor Taylor, who attended to
give evidence, expressed his decided conviction that
antimony was the cause of death.
Mr. Overend made an able address in defence of
the prisoner. . .
His lordship summed up, and the jury, after be-
ing absent from court 22 minutes, returned a ver-
dict of Guilty ; and his lordship passed sentence of
death, holding out no hope of any remission of the
sentence.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET. - --....11. respectable
dressed person applied to Mr. Beadon to know how
he could recover 21. he had wagered OR a horse
race, and la he had won from persons who as.
sumed the character of betting agents. The appli_
who signed with their init'als
cant produced a circular -which be had received
from these persons,
H. and C., in which ho was advised that the Liver-
pooland to for-
Cup, the Chaster Cup, and other races were
to come off, and tl tat they as agents were ready to
lay out advantaged usly all sums sent to them be-
fore the races. T'he betting agents ur ,ed their
d:ansths toto
t"layh‘emout i
tliilboeurta 11, '
delay. Feeling
disposed to back Bas hi Bazouk for the Liverpool
Cup, he sent 2/., addressed to Howard
cw°arrrde 9 Pthl
Clin-
ton (the H. and C., of the circular), to and
office in Coventry-street, and in , o the post-
due time was in-
formed that his money ' had
been laid out at 6 to 1.
in his favour. The race %mei won by Bashi Bizouk,
and when he went for 11-
Ls money he found that
Howard and Clinton were n,ot to be heard of at the
Post-office in Cove t n ry-stret t. lie had caught
sight of one of the parties, bn‘s he could not find an
opportunity of speaking to hit.%
Mr. Beadon said the applicant could not recover
a bet on a race horse in any court. It was ill -gal to
mike such bete him either c , and therefore he could rrn proceed.
against the persons who defrauded i-
villy or criminally. The bestlo advi be
he could
ing give
the applicant was to let this ss e a warn to
to him not to part with his money to persons who
d especially when
were comparative strangers, an
the purposes were illegal.
same arties had been
The applicant said the
complained aga.
Dst a.
t Guildhall, but the charge
ting betting invitations.
'4 limited to eircula

nBlKle.d—tHil
eO Igh
hearing
iOnrg LORDS,of
this
Lord
and o Chancellor,ther
peers
ie
Ati:7ll.llZlLE'NeSirrirolritips:TarTreCdhs,uAes,
claim
...„-dayotrdiisot:cicZeko.
Cacopbell,
present, Lord Red€3da le being in the chair. Sir F.
Tally replied upon the whole case on behalf of Lori
Talbot. Be hub milted tilat, upon the whole of the evi.
deuce as laid before them, their. lordships would
pronounce in favour of Lord' Talbot's claim. The
n adjourned until Frid
further hearing vim the. n
morning,