The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—May 10.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings in Nisi Prius in London.—Before Mr.
Justice Williams and a Common Jury.)

COOPER V. LLOYD.-ADULTERY AND CONDONATION

This was an action against Capt. Lloyd, R.N., to
recover a sum of money for board and lodging sup-
plied to his wife, who was living apart from him.
It was admitted by Mrs. Lloyd that she had been
guilty of adultery with a Mr. Winslow, and that in
consequence a child had been born, but she alleged
that after that event she detailed the circumstances

to her husband in writing, that he forgave her, and
that on three subsequent occasions they cohabited
together. This, it was contended, condoned her
offence and rendered Capt. Lloyd liable for her debts.
The case was partly heard a day or two ago, and
the further hearing was resumed this morning.
Mr. Layton and Mr. Patchett appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Francis for
the defendant.

Captain Henry Lloyd was called, and deposed as
follows :—I am the defendant. lam a commander

in the Royal Navy. I joined the navy in 1828. I
have no means beyond my pay. In 1847 I married
Miss Wragge, and I took a house and furnished it
at St. Heher's, in Jersey. I stayed there very hap-
pily with my wife •about three months, and then
left for India, on service. I constantly corresponded
with Mrs. Lloyd during my absence. I remitted
her in the three years I was away rather more than
£4OO. I returned to England on Oct. 30, 1850. I
had not until then the slightest intimation that my
wife had left my house and deserted my child. I
knew that she had been at Fort St. George, at In-
verness, where her brother was, and had been there
some time. I expected her to return to my
house in, Jersey to meet me. Immediately our
anchor was let go in Plymouth Sound I sent
her two orders for money. I received a letter from
an aunt of mine, and as soon as the ship was paid
off I went to Jersey. I did not find Mrs. Lloyd.
My child was at Mrs. Col. Hornsby's, my wife's
aunt. I could not get the slightest intelligence of
where my wife was. My house was altogether unoc-
cupied. I communicated with Capt. Wragge, my
wife's brother. He did not tell me where my wife
was. I made other ineffectual inquiries. I got a
letter from my wife at the latter end of 1851 or the
beginning of 1852. That was the first I heard of
her. I received it on board the Waterloo. The letter
came by post from Portsmouth. In eonsequence of
that letter I granted an interview to my wife. It
took place at the Chest Arms, Chatham, about the
17th of January, 1852. I met Mrs. Lloyd there be-
tween six and seven in the evening. I asked her
'where she had been for the last 16 or 17 months,
an'l why she had deserted me and the child. She
cried, and said she could not tell medthen—Nothing
more passed that evening.. (The letter of Mrs. Lloyd,
asking for the interview was read, and in it she
`alluded to certain reports,- and denied; their truth,
:and said that it was her dearest wish to 'meet her
husband, and bid " God guard him on his voyage."
She professed great affection fel. her husband, and
implored him in the most fervent language to grant
her an interview.) in answer appointed' an inter-
vievi. When I was on the eve of leaving my wife
at my first interview, I appointed an interview that
she might see her son the next morning. The first
interview lasted half an hour. I left Mrs. Lloyd at
the hotel, and the next morning I went to her and
conducted her to Miss Davis's, where she saw her,
son. She spoke about my taking a cottage for her,
and about her being reconciled. I said before that
she must give me a detail of the life she had been
leading for the 16 or 17 months. I urged her to
sit down and relate it to me. She began to cry,
and said she could not do it by word of mouth,
but if I would return to my ship for a few days she
would be prepared to give me a history of her life
during that period. I went to my ship, and she,
as I arranged, remained at Miss Davis's with her
boy. I remained on board ship four days, and then
again saw Mrs. Lloyd at Miss Davis's. This was
about seven in the evening. I saw my wife alone.
She produced a written statement, which I read,
and when I had done so, I was so shocked at the
contents that I exclaimed—" Oh God, my worst
fears are realised." She cried, and besought me to
forgive her and she would still make me a good
wife. She clung to my knees. The paper con-
fessed that she had had a child by Mr. Winslow.
While she was clinging to my knees I said,
" Phillis, I pity you and forgive you, this shall
never tell tales against you," and I tore the paper
up and threw it behind the fire. But I said, " You
never can live with me as my wife." She begged
still, and she proposed that I should throw up my
commission, and that we should go on to the con-
tinent with the two children, and the affair would
soon blow over. I said she seemed regardless of
my feelings and of the dishonour brought on me
and my son, and that she must leave the house.
The witness then contradicted in detail the descrip-
tion given by Mrs. Lloyd of what took place at
this interview, and added—lremained in the house,
but not in the same room with her. I went early to
bed, but I think I saw my wife at the supper table.
I did not then speak to her or recognise her. The
next day she did not come down to breakfast, but I
told her the time she was to leave the house, and
made arrangements for her departure. Half an hour
afterwards she sent me a note, and threatened if I did
not relent to destroy herself. I made no answer,
but I went out with my son for a walk. I first
made a communication to Miss Davis. In half an
hour I was fetched home, and found my wife in a
state of stupor, the effect of laudanum. I went for
an emetic, and it was administered. She appeared
very ill. She was put to bed in the evening. At
her own request I went to her room. She said she
did not think she should live the night through,
and requested me to stay by her. I remained in
the room off and on through the greater part of
the night. The Misses Davis remained in attend-
ance on her until two or three in the morning. She
appeared in a state of lethargy. She had great
thirst, and asked for water, which I gave her from
time to time. I left the room between five and six
in the morning. I did not undress myself that
night, nor did Igo to bed. It is untrue that I had
any connexion with her that night. The next day
I saw her I told her she must prepare for her de-
parture, and I afterwards accompanied her to the
station, where I took leave of her. The next time
I saw her again was about the end of February in
the same year at Blackheath. I visited her in
consequence of a letter I received from her. I was
there about 20 minutes. I did not then consent to
recein her as my wife again, nor anything of the
kind. She had a nurse and a child. I saw her in
very poorlynss.
state
eedi ieownfahbgpe?linnr.
penury,
asked
rmySa,hi
neaensdtdaoi dibtnhesahtrthee
her bedroom about six in the afternoon. She was
ica
nhn
child
her
ri latahream tcewhe
iaravotseowdln very
rss yihmi her
wife. I said the thing was past and gone, she
could never live with me as my wife again.
I had occasion to go to the Admiralty the
next morning, and I told her so. She asked me to
call in the morning and see how she was. I called
next morning, and the nurse was present at the
interview. I had slept at an hotel at Blackheath.
I saw Mrs. Lloyd in the evening on the London-
bridge platform. The meeting was accidental.
The carriage I got into she also got into. She got
out at Blackheath, and I went on to Chatham. I
next saw her about May, in the same year, at Wool-
wich. I was fitting out a ship, and I took apart-
ments at the Ship Hotel for my son and the Misses
Davis. I met her outside the hotel in the street,

in consequence of what had been told me by a
brother officer. She again petitioned to come back,
and asked if she might accompany me to Malta.
She said she was in great poverty. I said I could
not think of such a thing, that she should never
live with again as my wife. I gave her, I think,
a £5 note, and promised her if she led a correct and
steady life, always to befriend her when it lay in
my power, as she was the mother of my child. I
next saw her at Messrs. France and Palmer's offices
in June in the same year. This was in reference
to a request of her's that there should be a deed of
separation. The deed was drawn, but the signa-
ture of the trusted could not be obtained. In July,
1852, I sailed from England, and returned- on
Christmas Eve, 1856. I had served before Sebas-
topol, and was wounded. The first time I saw her
after was in June, 1857, on board the Edinburgh.
She came quite „unexpectedly. I saw her on the
main deck. She said she was penniless, and had
come to throw herself on illy protection as my
wife. I said my affairs were in the hands of a
solicitor, and I should not assist her or protect her.
She remained about an kour. She did not go to
my cabin, or any other cabin, but remained on the
main deck all the time. I insisted on her leaving
the ship, but she refused to do so, and said she
wished to see the captain. I said--." This is my
wife, Captain Halstead, and she has come to me for
assistance and support, which I have refused her ;
and I have requested her to leave the ship, which
she has refused to do until she has seen you." It
ended in the captiiin sending her off in a boat. It
is not true that I had connexion with her in the
Edinburgh. We were in sight of other people all
the time. The next time I saw her was on the peer
at Sheerness, with Dr. Roberts. That was in
August, 1857. I saw Dr. Roberts, and refused to
speak to her. Last Monday or Tuesday week she
came to me with the plaintiff, and that is the last
time I saw her until this trial. I never met Mrs.
Lloyd at an hotel, at Chatham, as she has sworn, in
1856. I never saw her in the course of that year.
I first heard that my wife had a third child about
June, 1857. The information came in an anony-
mous letter. I have never had any connexion with
'My•Wife since I left Jersey in 1847 until the present
time. It is not true that when I saw Dr. Roberts
on board the Edinhurgh I said I had told Mrs.

Lloyd " I will give you another chance as my wife,"
nor did I tell him that his account was not paid
because there was another account which was being
discussed by the lawyers. I did not tell him when
that was settled that his account should be paid. I
did not say that Mr. Carew had told me that if it
had not been for my after conduct he could have
got me a divorce, nor that I had done wrong in
being alone with my wife and visiting her.
To the Judge—Had no fortune with my wife
whatever.

Cross-examined—Since I offered my wife £3O a
year upon a deed of separation my pay has increased
from £lB2 to £3Ol a year.
To the Judge—After the confession I gave her a
a small sum, amounting altogether to more than
£2O.

Miss Elizabeth Davis—Captain Lloyd's son was
placed in my care on the 2d of April, 1851. I re-
member the private interview between Captain
Lloyd and his wife at my house, in 1852. Tho
next morning Captain Lloyd went out for a walk
with his son, having first said to me " Look after
Mrs. Lloyd." Soon afterwards I found her in a
state of stupor with a bottle labelled " laudanum"
beside her. I sat up with her until two o'clock in
the morning, and she was then in a state of stupor.
Captain Lloyd attended on her after two o'clock.
Miss Frances Davis—On the night of Mrs.
Lloyd's illness I remained up with her until be-
tween one and two in the morning. After that I
saw Captain Lloyd frequently pass from Mrs.
Lloyd's room to his own, and I heard him drop
something in his own room. I saw Mrs. Lloyd at
at eight or nine next morning, and she was then
very ill.
George Hales —ln June, 1857, I was a sergeant
cf Marines on board the Edinburgh. I saw Mrs.
Lloyd come down from the upper deck. There are
no cabins on the upper deck. She came down alone
and Captain Lloyd followed her in a few minutes.
She sat on a chair for a few miuutes, and afterwards
they walked to and fro on the main deck. They
were in my sight all the time. Mrs. Lloyd never
went into any cabin. I was on guard, and must
have seen it if she had done so.

Captain Halstead---I am now in command of the
Minataur, and was, in 1857, in command of the
Edinburgh. I saw Mrs. Lloyd on the upper deck
of that vessel. Captain Lloyd said to me, " This is
the person that was my wife," or something of that
kind, " and she wishes to know whether she can be
allowed to remain in the ship, which she insists on
doing." I told her it was not possible for ladies
to remain. She said to Captain Lloyd that she had
no means to go away with, and Captain Lloyd
offered her money. He gave her a gold coin, re-
questing me to bear Witness that it was an act of
charity, and not in acknowledgment of any claim
she had on him. I offered her my over coat, and
she went aWay in it.
At the conclusion of the evidence for the defend-
ant, Mr.' O'Malley summed up, and Mr, Laxton
replied upon the whole case.
Mr. Justice Williams directed the jury that they
would do very great mischief indeed if they slifferbd
themselves to be worked upon by any appeal to
their feelings, in reference to the Verdict which
they should give.. It was of the utmost importarice
that a case like this.`should be decided'on an honest
straightforward view of the evidence, and on no-
thing else. If they thought that Mrs. Lloyd was
an adulterous wife, who had not been pardoned by
her husband, it would be doing an infinite deal of
mischief if they should hold that she had authority
to bind her husband by any contract. A husband
was not bound to provide for an adulterous wife.
There was not the slighest duty in the world on
Captain Lloyd towards Mrs. Lloyd if she was an
adulteress. It was, however, said that her offence
had been condoned. Condonation did not mean
merely forgiving the wife and pardoning her ; con-
donation meant a blotting out of the offence, and a
restoration of the wife to the conjugal position
which she hi forfeited by her adultery. The first
question whiat they would have to consider was,
did Capt. Lloyd condone the adultery with Mr.
Winslow; and if so, had there been any subsequent
adultery ? He had thought it right at once to tell
the jury what the questions were, but as he had
now to go to chambers he would postpone his more
elaborate summing up until the following morning.
The jury, however, said they were already agreed
in their verdict • they were of opinion that there
had been no condonation, and that there had been
subsequent adultery.
Mr. Justice Williams said that was a verdict for
the defendant.

An attempt was made to applaud this result, but
it was checked by the officers of the court.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—May 10.

WESTMINSTER.—SKINNING LIVE CATS.—A
dirty and repulsive-looking middle-aged man,
named John Wilson, whose flesh was begrimed
with filth, and whose hands were covered with
scratches, was prosecuted by the Royal Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for skinning
a live cat.

At a little after five on Monday afternoon,
Charles Hind, waiter at a coffee-house in Eaton-
street, Pimlico, was in the Vauxhall-bridge-road,
near the Royal Standard, when he saw the
defendant, who had a bag with him, go into some
waste ground at the back of Victoria-street, and
enter an archway under the road. As he had heard
defendant spoken of as a man who skinned cats
alive, curiosity induced him to follow him stealthily,
and on peeping into the archway, he found the
defendant busily engaged skinning a poor animal
whose head he had firmly secured between his legs.
Hind saw the cat struggling, and having fully
satisfied himself that it was alive, left the spot, and
sent two boys for a policeman, who took the pri-
soner into custody.
Defendant said he picked up the cat and a lot of
bones at Islington that morning. The cat was dead
when he found it, and it was a great shame to charge
him with skinning it alive.
Police-constable Rae, 189 B, said he took the
defendant as he was leaving the archway, and
found in his bag two cats' skins, one of which was
quite warm. Near defendant he found a cat with-
out her skin, the body of which was also quite
warm, and upon opening the body a quantity of
warm blood flowed from it. Prisoner had in his
possession a clasp knife covered with blood, and a
large piece of bent wire work in the shape of a
muzzle, which also had blood upon it. There was
a nail driven into the brickwork of the archway to
facilitate such operations as prisoner had been de-
tected in, and on the ground were upwards of fifty
cats without skins.

Mr. Love, chief constable of the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said he had been
concerned in prosecuting other cases of this kind,
and could state on the authority of furriers that the
skin taken from a cat while alive was more valua-
ble than when it was dead, because it retained the
gloss.
Mr. Arnold observed that but for this informa-
tion, he should have been at a loss to conjecture
why the poor animal was skinned alive.
The defendant repeated his protestations of inno-
cence and endeavoured to account for the cat and
the skin being warm by declaring it was lying in
the sunshine when he found it.

Mr. Arnold said that he wished, for the sake of
humanity, that the case had not been proved ; but
he was bound to say that the charge had been
clearly established against the defendant. Apart
from the testimony of Hind, was the fact that
the body of the cat and the skin were both
found warm ; and defendant's attempt to ac-
count for that, by alleging the cat was found
in the sunshine some hours previously, was per-
fectly unworthy of credit, as it was impossible
that it could have remained warm so long a
time; and there was another fact in denial of his
statement beyond all question—that the body of the
cat bled when opened, which it most assuredly could
not have done had it been dead for hours. He re-
peated with regret that there was no doubt the
horrible offence alleged had been committed by the
defendant ; the piece of wirework, found in his
possession, being used as a muzzle to prevent the
poor animal injuring her inhuman tormentor. It
was one of the most• shocking cases one could con-
ceive, and he (the worthy magistrate) regretted
his means were inadequate to the punishment of the
offence, but he committed defendant for the full
period awarded by law, to three months' imprison•
ment and hard labour, in the House of Correction.
On his being brought for removal in the van, his
fellow-prisoners vented their indignation against
him in yells and execrations.

MARYLEB ONE. EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE
OF MURDER.—A considerable degree of excitement
was caused in the Ticinity of the Court, owing to a
report that a woman had been apprehended for the
murder of her newly-born female infant, the crime
having been committed as far back as December,
1857, the circumstances connected therewith being
of a most singular and extraordinary nature.
The prisoner, aged about 40, described as a char-
woman, was brought up by Inspector Sheehy, of
the S Division, and after the disposal of other
night charges was placed at the bar before Mr.
Broughton.
Mr. Keene attended for the accused.
The first witness called was Jane Richardson,
wife of a master tailor, 22, St. George's•terrace,
Hampstead. She deposed that about Christmas,
1857, the prisoner, who had just left her situation
at the Black Lion, Kilburn, took a lodging at her
house for a week. She brought with her a box.
She remained for a week and then went away for
a few days, saying she was going to Swindon. On
her return: witness told her that she could not, allow

her to stay any longer, as her box she had left
smelt so offensively.
Mr. Broughton--Upon your telling her this did
she quit your place ?
Witness—She did, sir, but afterwards called
se' eral times to see some of my lodgers, up to the
next March. The box had been removed by me to
the second floor landing. In June I was about to
let the room, and carried the box down stairs ; at
that time a strong smell proceeded from it.
Mr. Broughton—What kind of box was it ?
Witness—A deal box, about a yard long.
Mr. Broughton—Was it locked ?
Witness—No, sir ' • it was corded.
Mr. Broughton--When you removed it, where
did you put it ?
Witness—ln the back kitchen.

Mr. Broughton—How long did it remain there P
Witness—Till , about a fortnight before last
Christmas, when I opened it, and on pulling out a
large bundle which was in it, a lot of maggots
dropped out. I ripped open the bundle with a
poker, as it was so tightly fastened that I could not
otherwise do it, and the legs of a child dropped out.
On tl.e same day the box was taken away by a
policeman.
Mr. Broughton—When, after this, did you see
or hear anything of the prisoner ?

Witness..—Not until yesterday, when she came
for her box, and I sent for a constable. _ _

Mr. Broughton—What conversation passed be-
tween you on the occasion ?
Witness—When she asked me for the box, I
remarked to her that she knew what was in it.
She said she did not, and that a young woman had
brought to her a bundle, and asked her to put it in
her box. She (prisoner) further said, that the
female alluded to had written a letter to her the
week before, to say that she wanted the bundle,
and wishing to know if she had still the box in
her possession.
By Mr. Keene—There are eight rooms in my
house. While the prisoner was lodging with me
there were five other females, most of them married.
Any one might have gone to the landing while the
box was there. I understood that she came direct
from the Black Lion.

Elizabeth Tomlyn, 17, Clifton-road, examined—
A year and ten months ago prisoner occupied a
back room in my house. I was then living at 1,
Andover-place, Holborn. She stayed with me four
or five months. I thought she was in the family
way, and told her so morein the way of a joke than
otherwise, but she said she was not. _

Mr. Broughton—Had she a box with her while
in your house ?
Witness—She had, sir, and after paying me my
rent she took it away. She told me that she was
going into the country by the train.
Mr. Broughton—What sort of a box was it ?
Witness—About the size of that Mrs. Richardson
spokn of. •
Mary Richardson (an elderly woman, not related
to the first witness),, Stated that she lived at 18,
Portdown-mews, Kilburn, and that in July, 1857,
the prisoner was • in the service of a family nearly
opposite, to her. In the. month of September her
(witness) on carried prisoner's box to the Black
Lion. ;
Mr. liroughton—What more can you speak of as
having occurred after that in reference to the pri-
soner ?
Witness--In November I was sent for to see her
while she was in her situation, and I found her
sitting in a chair, when she told me she was very
unwell.
Mr. Broughton—Had you then any reason to
believe that she had given birth to a child recently ?
Witness—No, sii
Mr. Broughton—L-Did you afterwards see the box
spoken of ?
Witness—l did not, sir.
By Mr. Keene—l went to her as I have described
to the Black Lion, and she was there cleaning the
kitchen. On Christmas night she called upon me,
when she looked very bad, and I thought that she
might have been in the family way.
Mr. Broughton (to Mr. Sheehy, the inspector)—
There has, of course, been an inquest on the body ?
Inspector—Yes, sir, and a verdict was returned
of wilful murder against some person or persons
unknown. For some time past officers have been
in search of the prisoner, but nothing could be
ascertained of her till last night, when she was
given into custody.
John Beeforth, the Coroner's summoning officer
for Hampstead, was the next witness called. He
deposed that in December last he was shown a
box in the back kitchen at 22, St. George's-terrace.
He saw the dead body of a child, and found that
a stocking and apron-strings had been tied`
-tightly
round the infant's neck. Witness was of opinion
that deceased had died from strangulation, and he
gave evidence to that effect before the Coroner.
By Mr. Keene—l took the strings off before the
inquest. I did as is my practice to do, and I have
the authority of Mr. Ncrakley for it.
Mr. Broughton.—This is quite new to me. I
always understood that the coroner and jury were
to view the body in the same condition in which it
was found.

Bowling, 451 S, who was called in, said that on
turning up a heap of rags, he found the dead body
of an infant.
Mr. Broughton—Did anything more pass?
Witness—The prisoner asked me if her prayer-
book was safe. I told her it was. (The prayer-
book was produced.)
Mr. Keene submitted that nothing of a substan-
tial nature had been brought forward against the
prisoner, and said that he trusted she would not be
further retained.
Mr. Broughton said that enough had been stated
to justify him in remanding the prisoner on the
charge of wilful murder till Tuesday next.
Upon the re-examination, the evidence of the
surgeon and other witnesses will be gone into.

?../I LARGE SHIP LOST, WITH ALL

HANDS, OFF BA:RIF-ICH.

Within the last day or so a most lamentable ship-
wreck has been ascertained to have occurred during
Thursday night last on the Shipwash Sand, a very
narrow shoal, some 10 miles in length, situate about
15 miles off the Suffolk coast, to a large Dutch ship
named the Australia, outward bound from Shields
for Cadiz ; and there is too much reason to appre-
hend that every soul belonging to the ill-fated ves-
sel met with a watery grave. The following are
the brief particulars that have been forwarded to
Lloyd's by their agents at Harwich :
During the night in question the wind blew a
violent gale from the N.E., and a heavy sea set in
along the coast. About nine p.m. a large ship was
seen near the Middle Shipwash buoy, moored about
the centre of the sand, and later in the night a long-
boat and captain's gig were seen drifting up the
Shipwash Channel, bottom up, and several thick
Russian caps floating near them. The ship, it ap-
pears, was lost sight of, but at daylight the follow-
ing morning the remains of a vessel were to be seen
on the sands at the spot above alluded to ; and
although several smacks were near, in consequence
of the fury of the gale and terrific sea beating over
the wreck, none could approach it. In the course
of the succeeding day and night the ship partly
broke up, and on Sunday her stern-frame, part of
bow, and broadside, with white painted ports, were
picked up by some smacksmen between the Rough.
and West Rocks, and towed into Harwich. Re-
garding the crew there is but one opinion, that the
whole of them met with a watery grave. Nothing
has been heard of them by. the Trinity lightships
moored in the channel or along the coast.
The master of the smack Increase, of Colchester,
now at Gravesend, in a letter states that on the
morning in question, in coming through the Ship-
wash Channel, passed large quantities of wreckage,
including a longboat bottom upwards, with the oars
close by it, The sea was running so heavy that he
could not pick it up, but succeeded in getting in a
quarter boat, also bottom up. At low water he saw
the remains of a very large ship on the sands. He
picked up a letter floating. It is dated " Rotter-
dam, March 29, 1859," and is written by the wife
of G. Mayer, and directed to A. Mayer, of the ship
Australia, Captain Jensen. The coast guard at
Woodbridge Haven had also picked up some papers
which no doubt also belonged to the unfortunate
ship. One of them is dated "Rotterdam, 1859,"
and appears to be an account of expenses, ship
Australia, Captain Jensen; the entries therein bear
date from October, 1858, to March, 1859. The
following articles have been washed upon shore :
Two documents (dated respectively the Bth and 14th
of February, 1859), bestowing the Dutch Military
Order of William, of the fourth- class, upon Lieut.
R. J. A. Bouricius, a supposed passenger. A board
with the name " Australie" carved on it, also seve-
ral sails, similiarly marked. A ready-reckoner, and
a work on Freemasonry, each printed in Dutch ;
and a card, with the following address on it :
" George Marshall, licensed North Sea, Baltic,
Down, and General Coasting Pilot, No. 1, Char-
lotte-street, North Shields." These and other cir-
cumstances lead to the conclusion that the wrecked
vessel was the Australia. On referring to Lloyd's
list of the sth inst. we find that the Dutch ship
Australia, Captain Jensen, commander, sailed from
Shields on the 4th inst., having cleared for Cadiz
with coals. She was nearly a new ship of 700 tons
burthen, and is understood to have had several
passengers on board.

THE STATUTE LAW COMMISSION.—The total sum
expended on the Statute Law Board and Statute Law Com-
mission from the commencement (1853) up to the 31st of
December, 1858, amounted to £10,103, there being a balance
in hand of £1,396. The total sum paid to the draughtsmen
from the commencement was £7,476. The minutes of the
proceedings of the Board are given at length in the Parlia-
xneAtary‘ paper whence these particulars are eztracted.