The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-23 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 23, 185'7.

RE AT WESTERN RAILWAY.-
lr CIIIUSTNIAS lIOLIDAYS.—EXCURSION, at low fares to
Oxford, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Shrewsbury, Chester, Bir-
kenhead, and Liverpool.—On SATURDAY, Dec. 26th, a Train will
Icave Paddington at 8 a.m., returning on Wednesday, the 30th of
Dec , from Liverpool at 8-1 s a.m., and intermediate Stations as per
hand bills. Fares there and back :—Oxford, 6s 6d. and 4s. ; Ban-
bury, Bs. and 55.;
Leamington and Warwick, 10s. Gd. and Os.; Bir-
mingham, 123. and 7s. ; West Bromwich, Wednesbury, and ails-
ton, 12s. Gd. and 7s. 6d.• Wolverhampton, 13s. and Bs. ; Welling-
ton and Shiewsbury, and 10s.; Chester, Ills. Gd. and 11s. ;
Birkenhead and Liverpool,lls. and 12s. 6d. Further particulars au
application at the Company's Offices.

LONDON and NORTI
LAND RAILWAYS.—C
FIRST and SECOND CLASS DAY
the Euston Station, LONDON, to
Lincotn
Collingham
Newark
Flekcrton
Thurgarton
I owdham
Nottingham
Del by
by all trains on Thursday, De?. 24,
ordinary trains up to and including
Day tickets will also be issued frc
B or
General Manager's Office, Eustoi

1-WESTERN and MID-
HRISTMA.S HOLIDAYS.
TICKETS will be issued from

York
Bradford
Leeds
Normanton
Oakenshavr
Doncaster
Sheffield, and
Masborough.

available to, return with by the
Tuesday, Dec. 29.
Hu the above stations to London.

m Station, December, 1857.

LONDON and NORTII-WESTERN
RAILWA7,'.—C9NTItACT for PERMANENT WAY MA-
TERIALS.—The Directors of the London and North-Western Rail-
way Company arc prepared to receive Tenders for the supply of the
undermentioned Materials :
.. 6,000 Tons of Chairs
1,000 „ Fish Plates
170 Spikes
200 „ Bolts and Nuts
370,000 Oak Keys
725,000 Oak Trenails
Specifications, with particulars, may be obtained on application
to Mr. Woodkouse, at the Permanent Way Office, Italiway Station;
[afford.

Tenders addressed to the Secretary, at this Once, to be sent in
oa or before Wednesday, 6th January, 1858.
By order,
CIIAS. ED WD. STEWART, secretary.
Secretary's Office, Euston Station, 21st December, 1857. •

CHRISTMAS and TWELFTH-DAY CAKES.
--ALEXANDER ROBB, Family and Exp rt Misc,tit Baker
and Con'ectioner, begs to return his grateful thanks to his patrons
and the public for their long-continued favours, and to remind them
that as Clint t nas is again approaching he is preparing an Extensive
SHOW of CHRISTMAS and TWELFH-DAY CAKES, and all the
usual concomitants in his line for the festive season. Christmas
cakes, Is. Gel. per lb. Twelfth-day cakes, highly ornamentei, 25.,
Is. Gd., and Is. per lb. ; a large assortment of Savoy, almond, and
arrow-root cakes In moulds, Is. 84. per lb. i • pound cakes, Is. 61. per
lb. ; Szotch buns, Is. 4d. per lb. ; Scotch short bread in cakes of Gd.
1055.; macaroons and ratatla., Is. Bd. per lb. ; mixed wine biscuits,
Is. per lb.; assorted CflS35l for pres •nts, at 2s. 6d, and upwards.
Pastry of every description. Creams, jellies, ices, &c., &c. A large
show of wedding cakes always on hand.
79, ST. 31.1 ItTIN'S. LANE, London.

ALEX. ROBB bets to inform export houses,
families going abroad, and others, that he has always on
hard a Large STOCK of WINE, DESSERT, and culler BISCUITS,
made by machinery expressly for exportation ;, also his GINGER
NUTS and GINGER BISCUITS, so much approved of in warm
climates, In cases of 2s. and upwards. Only goods of the first
quality made.

Manufactory, 79, ST. MARTIN'S-LANE, London.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 22.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

;Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Campbell and a
Special Jury.)

[A portion of the following appeared in our impression
of yesterday.]

THE QUEEN V. BOBINB. ON-PERJURY.

The further hearing of this extraordinary case was
resurnei yesterday morning. The first witness cal'ed was
Sarah Grocott—l am the wife of a butcher in St.
John's Wood. I was engaged on 25th June, 1854, by
Field to go to Mrs. King's. I was to be paid 2/. a
week; I went there on Thursday the 29tb.
know the defendant. I saw him on that day
about luncheon time. He went to the Crystal
Palace with Mrs. Evans and Mr. Mellins. They dined
that day on their return between 7 and 8 o'clock. I
remained in the house till the following Saturday
week. I had been engaged specially to watoh Mrs.
Evans. Mr. Robinson came again on the 30th
about luncheon time. That was his usual time
for calling. Mrs. Evans was in the house, and they
were alone together for some time. He
called again the following day (Saturday) ; they were
alone on that day together for some time. I had ob-
served nothing up to that time. Oe Sunday Field gave
me a gimblet, and I made a hole in the foiling doer be
tween the drawing-room and back drawing-room. I
was unable to command a view of the sofa through the
first hole I made. The second time I was more sue
ceesful, and could command a view of the sofa in the
drawing room. On the .4th of July Mr. Robinson came
as usual. Mr. Mellins was there ; they had luncheon
about 1 o'clock, and Mr. Mellins went out. After he
had gone out the defendant and Mrs. Evans were alone
in the drawing-room. I went into the back drawing-
room, where I found Mrs. Price taking an inventory.
I looked through the second hole I had made, and
I raw the defendant and Mrs. Evans sitting
on the sofa, side by side. Mrs. Price
looked through. and in doing so made a slight noise.
On that Mrs. Evans came into the room and asked
what we were about. Mrs. Price said taking an
inventory. I think we then both went down st ars.
After that I heard the drawing-room door shut as 1
supposed by Mrs. Evans. I then went up stairs
again with Mrs. Price. I again looked through the
bole and I saw the defendant and Mrs. Evans
on the sofa. Mrs. Evans was sitting astride the defend-
ant's lap. I fetched Mrs. King up, who looked through
the hole also. The defendant came again the following
day, July 5, and was alone with Mrs. Evans for some
time. I again looked through the hole and saw them
on the sofa. I witnessed a similar act to that on the
previous day, only they were in a different posi-
tion. I left, and asked Mrs. King to came
up, and she looked through the hole. I again
looked through and saw that they had not changed their
position on the sofa. That night, before going to Liver-
pool, in August, I saw the defendant in company with
Mrs. King. She corroborated Mrs. King's evidence,
relative to the defendant's meeting them in Bryanstone-
street, previous to the trial in Liverpool, in August, and
the conversation that passed between them.. Defendant
did not speek to me.; he did not know me.
Cross-examined—When Field engaged me I was
to have 2/. t week for a month. .1 knew I was to
watch a lady. I remained 9cr 10 days, and had my
money, 8/. I did my duty very carefully. I did not
look through the keyhole, but I went once to
the door and listened ; that was the only time
I listened. I made the bole in the door in the
middle of the day, when they were ali out. I found I
could not see the sofa, and I had to make another. The
familiarity was taking place when I saw them. I went
to Mrs. King in the dining room, and fetched her up.
She came up immediately and looked through the hole.
I was not a minute fetching Mrs. King. I did not tell
Field of it for some time afterwards. Mr. Mellins 1 aid
me the 8/ , and I bad given my evidence to that gentle-
man before seeing Field. I saw Field yesterday, and spoke
to him several times ; once I believe after Mrs. King
had given her evidence. I have been examined twice
at Liverpool and once in Doctors' Commons. I said
nothing about the conversation with the defendant
except on the second trial, because I was not asked
about it.
Re-examined—l was to have 8/. for the month
whether I discovered anything wrong or not.
Mrs. Price deposed: I keep a lodging-house in Ryder.
street, St. James's. My husband is at present in Aus-
tralia. She combated the evidence of the last witness
relative to what the saw on looking through the bole in
the panel of the door. She added that the defendant's
hand was partly up Mrs. Evans' clothes.
Cross.exarnined—l did not know Mrs. King's real
name, or her mode of life when I became acquainted with
her. I once accompanied her to the Marble Arch to meet
as she said Mr. Evans; she did not te!l me eke was
going to meet Field. We met the latter there ; Mr.
Evans was not with him. I did not bear her say,
"Here's my friend, Mrs. Price, perhaps she will oblige
me." I did not hear Field's answer. I always knew it
was supposed an intrigue was going on at Mrs. King's
lit was desirable to discover ; I had been separated from
my husband, but I lived with him before he went
to Australia. After the discovery I went to Margate
with Mrs. King. Field spoke to me about it, but I
can't say if it was there. It was before the first trial in
Liverpool.
Ite-examined-TI have had no conversation with Field

nothing material at all—about the trial. My husband
was a warehouseman. He left me before he went to
Australia.

Margaret Clarkson Saunders, 31, Saville-street—l
was at Mrs. King's house on a Tuesday in July. I be-
lieve it was the 4tb. I was in the house-keeper's room
on the basement cleaning paint. I know E len DAVi.,
Mrs. Evans's maid. I saw her that day in the house-
keeper's room between two and four o'clock. She was
ironing, and did not go up stairs at all during that time.
Cross-examined—l occasionally worked for Mrs. King
in Brydges-street, Covent-garden. lam her cousin. It
was after the first trial that I was asked about Elea
Davis.

John Clarke, fly-driver, at Cheltenham—l recollect a
party being given at LanAowne-crescent in 1845, about
]5O yards from Mr. Carriugton's. It was a private ball.
Miss Carrington and the' defendant got into my fly : it
was between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. He directed
me to drive to Berkeley-place, where the defendant
resided : it is a mile and a quarter from Lansdowne-cres-
cent. I drove them towards the place, and when near
Belle Vue, the defendant stopped the fly, got out and
paid me, directing me to drive the lady home to 15,
Llnsdo Tent-terrace. I did so, and the lady got ou►,
have repeatedly seen them walking together in retired
places in the suburbs of Cheltenham.
Cross-examined—l spoke of it at the time in 1845,
because it was something so unusual. At the request of
a fly-man I went on 'Friday last for the first time and
told Mr. Evans of it. I saw him at the Assembly-

rooms. The lady and defendant 'were both in ball
dresses. It was a very common thing to see the de
fondant going to Mr. Carrington's house on a Sunday
morning between 10 and 11 o'clock.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Sir F. Thesiger, in addressing the jury for the defend-
ant, said he felt certain they were all deeply impressed
with the impor!ance of this case, both as to its character
and its consequences, for they could entertain no doubt

at all that the charge of perjury was one of the most
serious that could be brought against any individual. It
was the greatest offence against society, pciaoning the
very channels. through which justice must flaw, and he
was quite sure that their feeling on this subject would
induce them to regard with the most careful attention
all the circumstances of this most extraordinary
case, and to weigh them carefully and deliberately
in their minds before they pronounced an opinion
one way or the other on the important issue they
were called upon to decide. To prove perjury the
evidence should be clear and intelligible. Here
all the circumstances were of a conflicting character, and
he felt certain they would not convict if they had any
doubts on the circumstances of the case brought forward
by the prosecutions It would be his duty fairly to lay
before them all the circumstances in this case of any
importance, in order that they might fathom its intri
cacies, and to protect the defendant, if they thought he
ought to be, from the charge if without foundation. He
then reviewed the origin of the proceedings up to the
lady's marriage in 1850, and her separation six months
after, on the ground that she refused to live with her
husband if his mother resided in the same house. She,
however, consented to do so, bat her husband reused
to receive her, and she bad not seen him since.
After referring to the evidence of the lady's
alleged conduct before marriage, which, if
true, must have been of common notoriety, and known
to the husband, the learned gentleman made some re-
marks on the conduct of the husband, and the excuse.
he had made of that to get rid of his wife. Referring to
the conduct of Inspector Field, the learned gentleman
said that within the last few years there had grown up a
system, unusual in this country, of persons who had
been employed in the police force setting upet private
office, in which they held out that they were ready to
detect matters interesting to others to know. He
believed that that system •wraelikely to prove one of the
most mischievous description. It these persons confined
their operations to follow upend apprehend fugitive Worn.,
perhaps they would be the means of producinggood rather
ban harm, but if they were to be spies on the conduct
of individuals, and were to be empl iyed watching, month
after month and year after year, houses of individuals
for the purpose of discovering anything important for
those who employed them to know, he confessed it
appeared to him, it would lead to considerable danger
throughout all the walks of life. In obtaining their in-
formation those persons must use for their instruments
the basest and most worthless characters, because a
spy was so odious to the national feeling of Englishmen,
and so much odium was attached to the employment,
that few persons o' respectability liked to be so engaged,
and he trusted that would always be the feeling of the
people of this country. The learned gentleman then
proceeded to review at great length the proceedings that
bad been taken in the case, and the evidence given
thereon, observing that in the original libel in Doctors'.
Commons, adultery was never alleged to have taken place
in Etware-road or Bryanstone-street ; but in tl e
additional libel put in reference was made to the occur-
rence at Cheltenham, spoken to by Mann to have taken
place in August ; and on the defendant proving that he
was not in Cheltenham at that time, the witness on the
trial had shifted the time to July ; he also proved that
no adultery took pace at the above places, and con-
sequently the Court of Arches refused to grant
a divorce ; and now the prosecutor had insti•
toted these proceedings with evidence that
had come on the defendant with surprise. After some
remarks criticising the evidence, the learned gentleman
said that one of the many difficulties Mr. Robinson bad
to contend with, was that Rnfortunately Mr. Carrington
and his wife were dead and he could not call them,
which was of importance to him, because that lamented
gentleman would have proved the lodgings were taken
for him and with his consent. It had pleased Providence
to deprive the defendant of the evidence of Mr. Car-
rington. On the 10th inst. Mr. Carrington, a gentleman
of great respectability and of an advanced age, dropped
down suddenly and died, and in the course of the same
day his wife followed him to the grave. The import-
ance or Mr. Carrington'e evidence could not be over
estimated in a case of this description, because
it was admitted the defendaut bad been on terms of the
utmost familiarity with the family, and thought no more
of going into Mrs. Carrington's house than his own,aed
that he was in the habit of riding and walking out with
her, and was such a refl_ction to be thrown on this
respectable man that he would have tolerated any such
intimacy as existed between the defendant and his
daughter, whicn, if they believed the witnesses for
the prosecution, almost proved to demonstration that
criminal intercourse bad taken place between them.
The cld gentleman's evidence would have b .en of im-
portance to show that the lodgings in Edgware-road
and Bryanstone—treet were taken with his concur-
rence. He coul I not, however, call that gentleman;
but there was a witness he should bring forward,
because it was impassible to come to a conclusion
that the defendant was guilty of perjury without her,
and without casting an indelible stain on Mrs. Evans
character. Painful as was her position' anticipated
perhaps by the prosecution to place the defendant in a
vs:tion almost compulsory to determine whether to
expose her to an inquiry for which the prosecutor was
prepared, or whether he would abandon the chance be
bad of being protected by her evidence. The lady herself
however under the painful and distressing circutristanc,s
under which she was placed with her father and mother,
scarcely cold in their grave, with another member of the
family within three days having been numbered with the
dead—felt that she must protect her character by ap-
pearing in the witness-box to disprove the odium and
calumny it had been endearoueed to be established
against her ; she would appear behre the jury and sub-
mit to the most rigid and searching examination. The
learned gentleman said the whole was a fabrication, a
pl it and a contrivance, and he called upon the jury to
vindicate the character of the defendant and Mrs.
Evans. (The conclusion of the learned gentleman's
speech was received with applause.)
The final witness called was
Mrs. Evans, a lady-like person. She was dressed in
blink, and appeared at first very nervous. She deposed
—I was married to Mr. Evans in 1850. The defendant
hasanown the family since 1842, and was a most inti-
mate friend of the family. lam turned 32 years of age.
Mr. Robinson's mother resides in Cumberland street,
where he lives part of the year, and the other at Chel-
tenham. The defendant called at my father's whenever
he liked. He was accustomed to ride with me and the
family.

Lon' Cain?bell —What is the age of the defendant ?
Mr. James--About 49.
Witness continued—My father did not keep a riding
horse for use, and I always rode the defendant's Hack
mare. I wa4 about 17 when I first knew him. I was
Mauled Nov. 14, 1850. I became engaged to him in
Sept. of the same year. Mr. Robinson had no hand
whatever in that engagement. He ,resided at the time
at Cheltenham with his wife. After the marriage I re•
sided with my husband in Leicester, who is fond of
hunting and kept hunters. He deserted me in March,
1851, and the deed of separation was made in May. We
disagreed about living with his mother, and when I found
he would not give inI I wrote to say I would give way,
but he declined to live with'me. I wrote him a letter
which has never been produced. He never assigned
any other cause for leaving rim My father died on the
10th of this month, and my mother on the same day.
My father gave his evidence in the Arches Court, and
if he had lived he would have given evidence here. We
were in the habit of coming to London, and Mr. Robertson
was in the habit of taking,lodginge for us—he did it on
several occasions. I was never in a fly with Mr. Robin-
son at Cheltenham in July, 1849. Was in Norfolk at
the time staying atlieletead Rectory. I was never at any
time in a fly alone with Mr. Robinson at Cheltenham,
or any other place. I never left a party at Lansdowne-
crescent or any other place with Mr. Robinson. I was
always on such occasions seen home by my parents. In
1853 I cams to London and lodged in the Edgware-
road with my servant. My parents knew of it and all
my movements. I asked the defendant to take lodgings
for me, because my usual lodgings were occupied. I
arrived at E lgware-road on the 23:1 June, and removed
there for a fortnight and a day, The defendant used
to call there, and I used sometimes to go out with him.
I never saw the defendant in possession of a latch-key
whilst I was there. I never heard of it till my maid had
her deposition taken. I never knew of his coming into the
house without knocking or being announced by
my maid or
Mrs. Phillips' servant. When I have gone out with her
we have walked to the-parks and the Royal Academy
Exhibition. He never on such occasions let himself in
with a latch-key—he always knocked. I have read the
proceeding in this case. •
By Mr. James—Were you ever guilty of any act of
adultery with Mr. Robinson !
Witness—Never.
Mr. James—At any time in the evening of August f,
1853?

Witness—Never.
Mr. James—Were you ever guilty of any indecency
las deposed to by
utterly Mann?
Witness—lt is utterly false.
Toe story is
or adultery with Mr. Robinson
fslie from beginning to end. m
—Y sister Fanny was
with me in Dublin in August, 1853. Do. —y
father kept
a memorandum-book, which I was in the habit of teeing.
Mr. James proposed to put in the book.
Mr. Sergeant Byles objected.
Lord Campbell refused to admit it.
Witness—l can do very well without it. My father
took my sister to Dublin on the 2d of Aug. There was
no other Rioter at home then. She remained lilt the
end of Oct., but my lather left about the 15th of A ugust,
and my sister wont en a visit to my brother-in-law, Dr.
Wood, 16thLancerP, then quartered at Dublin, in 1854.
I went to Bryanstone-street. My father and mother
came up after me. I arrived en the 19th of June
accompanied by my cousin, Mr. Moline, a gentleman
reading for the church who had been in the army. I
think I wrote to the defendant to take apartments
for Mr. Mellins and myself. My father and mother
arrived on the sth of July, about 5 o'clock in the after-

noon.
Mr. James—l will ask you this question, during the
time you were in Brynnstone-street, did Mr. Robinson
take any improper familiarities with you, or to put the
question plainly did Sou commit adultery with him
there ?
Witness—l nover did.
Lord Campbell—Or take improper familiarities ?
Witness—Never.
Mr. James—la it true that, oa the 4th July, you

were in an indecent position with him on the sofa ?
Witness—That story is a perfect fabrication.
Mr. James—Or on the sth? Were you in an indecen
posture on the sofa!
Witness—l say I swear to that day. I went to the'
theatre twice with the defendant, who left me at the
I door. I went once to the opera with him and his sister,
Mrs. Thackeray. They both saw me home and lett. Oee
the 4th, Mrs. Thackeray called with her little boy, about
three years old. They came with Mr. Robinson about
11 o'clock. Mr. Mellins came out of his room and
joined them. I went out with Mrs. Tnackeray and the
chill for a walk. The defendant left the house with us,
and after accompanying us a short distance we
separated. I went with Mr. Thackeray and his
little boy into the park, returning Bryanstone-street
about one o'clock. I there found my cousin
waiting for me. I generally took lunch about 1 o'clock.
My °mein only took lunch with me that day. After
the defendant left the house in the morning I saw
nothing more of him that day. On that day Mrs.
M'Donald and her daughter called on me about 3
o'clock. She is the wife of General M'Donald, and
my mother's sister. They remained about hal:-an-hour
or three-quarters of an hour. When my father and
mother came I took the whole of the house. My cousin
went out about 3 o'clock, and' my aunt came in his
absence. They just missed them. They 1-ft before his
return. I generally dined about 7 o'clock. My cousin,
after Mrs. M'Donald left, went out wi.h me before din-
ner 'fora walk in the Park. We returned but a short
tine before dinner. lam quite positive the defendant
did not call after that morning. The defendant called
in the following morning, the sth, about 11 or half-past
11 o'clock. My cousin was then at home, and reading
in the room adjoining. Mr. Thackeray and his son
called again that day with Mi. Robinson. They re-
mained about half-an-hoar, and we all went out together.
We wafted in the park, the dafeitedaateleaving us-at-the
Marble-arch, A shower of rain came on, and we
' got wet. I returned home by myself. Mr. Tbackeray
and his son were staying at Mrs. Itlbinson's, in Cum-
berland-street, and they left me in Little Quebec-street.
I got home to lunch a little after one : I found my cousin
there. The defendant did not lunch with me that day.
My father and mother arrived about 5 o'clock. I have
no rec llection of the defendant's calling afterwards, or of
seeing him after the morning visit. lam positive he did
not. The defendant has a eon in the Treasury. He
called with his father two or three times in Bryanstone-
street. I was in the habit of going with my father and
mother to church. He never on any occasion called and
saw me on a Sunday after my parents had gone
,to
church.
By Mr. James —Either before or after your marriage
is it true that the defendant ever took any improper
familiarities or indecent liberties with you ?
Witness—Never.
Cress-examined by Mr. Sergeant Byles—T'Ao defen-
dant's mother resides in town. He has two si ter.. No
lady called upon me in the Etware-road. The defen-
dant did not call upon them every day. One day he
did not call, but I can't account for it, perhaps he can.
I never remember his calling on me three times a day.
I kept no notes of it. I have read the defendant's evi
dente in the Arches Court. I don't recollect his calling
three times a day. I won't swear one way or the other.
We might have stayed some times for an hour and a
half alone.
Mr. Sergeant Bylcs—What did you do during that
length of time ?
Witness—l suppo e I talked to him as I worke3, and
he to rne, the same as other visitors.
Have you ever been with him when the blinds have
been down I
Witness—l never noticed them. I never made a note
of it. If the sun was shining, no doubt the blinds were
down.
Will you undertake to say when ho has come in, you
or he have never pulled down the blinds ?
Witness— I don't rec elect. I will net undertake to
speak for any one but myself. If I found the sun dis-
agreeable, I might have pulled them down.
Can you undertake to say that you have not pulled
the blinds down when he came in ?
Witness—No; I cannot say one way or the other
If the sun was dieagrerrable no doubt I did it. I
recollect visiting at Miss Max vell'e once. Ido not
remember going into the garden. I bad a sprained
ankle at the time, and could hardly go from the car-
riage to the drawing-room. I know nothing about the
locality. My sister walked in the garden so far as I
can remember. Sho was between 11 and 12 years of
age at that time. I have three sisters, Fanny, Emma,
and Clara. Emma is married. Fanny died in 1846.
Clara is unmarried. In August when my sister was
in Dublin, I and Mr. Robinson were in Cheltenham.
When at Edgware-road I did not ge with the de-
fendant to Hampton Court. I did in 1852.
Re-examined—The defendant was one of my father's
oldest friends. Since my husband has deserted rue ho
has never called upon me in London. In my rides with
the defendant I invariably started from my father's
house. I never pulled down the blinds for an improper
purpose, neither has the defendant.
Lordßy Campbell—Do you recollect your father
having a servant named Cratt ?
Witness—Yes.
Lord Ca%npbell—Do you remember at any time when
he was in your father's service your leaving the room
with your little brother ?
Witness—l dont remember. I had a little brother,
and no doubt I have left the room with him.
Lord Cempbell—Do. you recollect on any occasion
the defendant's following you I
Witness—lndeed I do not.
Lord Campbell—Now, I must ado you, Did the de-
fendant at any time upon the stairs kiss you ?
Witness—lndeed, not.
Lord Campbell—He never did ?
Witness —No.
Mr. Mellins was next examined, and corroborated
Mrs. Evans' evidence relative to the lodging and her
movements in London. He came with her as her corn
pinion, and was constantly with her. lam in deacon's
orders. He was a proctor. The defendant did not take
luncheon with them on either the 4th or sth.
In his cross-examination lee said he had celled to read
a number of facts after the first trial, and made a memo•
randem of them, which he had since destroyed. He
had gone out, and on hie return found Mrs. Evans and
the defendant together alone.
Mrs. M'Donald was called to corroborate Mrs
E vans.

In her crops-examination she said that she had seen
the parties together several times at Cheltenham, at her
father's house, and bad remarked that the defendant
paid 'marked attention to her, which she thought par-
ticular to a young married woman.
After some further evidence had been given, the Court
adjourned till to-morrow morning.

EXCISE INFORMATIONS AGAINST WEST END

SOPPER-ROOMS.

A batch of informations, laid at the instance of the
Excise authorities, against the owners of supper-rooms
within the jurisdiction of the court, for selling beer,
spirits, and wines without a liceace, was yesterday
heard at Marlborough-street police-court by Mr. Beadon,
the sitting magistrate.
The court was very much crowded by parties inte-
rested in the proceedings.
Mr. Weleby, instructed by the Excise commissioners,
appeared to support the informations ; Mr. Buzzard,
vestry clerk of St. James's, and Mr. Superintendant
Hannant were present to watch the different cases.
It appeared that the proceedings originated from Com-
plaints made to the police by inhabitants and licensed
victuallers of the district—the first asserting• that these
supper-rooms rendered inoperative the act which
required public-houses to be closed after 12 o'clock on
Saturday night, and the last that their business was
seriously injured by unlicensed parties keeping open at
all hours, and supplying exciseable articles to their
customers. In consequence of these complaints the
Excise authorities communicated with the police, and
the result was six ioforrnations against eight individuals
occupying and owning six houses called supper-houses.
The first information was against Matilda Wood and
Henry Cox, the keepers of the Argyll Lerder, 2, Penton-
street, better known as " Matty Wood's," for selling
spirits, &c., %about a license, on Sunday morning,
22d November.
Police-sergeants Draper, Roberts, and Silvester,
proved that the house was watched for some time, and
that they gained admission in plain clothes on the
morning in question ; that great caution was used in
admitting them, the door being carefully guarded, and a
signal given on the admission of a customer ; and that
they found the supper-rooms filled with persons of
both sexes, who were being served with beer and spirits
and water.
Inspector Lester proved the ownership of the house,
and that the business had been for a length of time con-
ducted in the same way.
The evidence of the sale of spirits was defective in one
of the links, and the defendants were allowed the benefit
of the doubt by Mr. Beadon, and no penalty was inflicted.
A second information against the same parties, for a
similar infraction of the law on the 29th Nov., was next
heard.
The evidence was similar in character and supported
by similar evidence, with this addition, that the proof of
the sale of exciseable liquors was male clear, and that
the def..ndante after the 22d Nov. ex rcised greater
caution in admitting guests, the outer dour being kept on
the lock, and no one admitted without a preconcerted
signal.
Mr. Beadon imposed the highest penalty, 501., on each
defendant.
An application for a mitigated fine was made.
Mr. Beadon could see no grounds whatever f miti-
gation.
The next case was against John Hoare, Henry C( x,
and Joseph Gray, the keepers of the Waterford Arms,
15, Haymarket.
The police proved that they visited the house on the
morning of the 28th Nov., and found about a dozen
persons there. Some were drinking spirits and water,