The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-10 00:00:00

has never paid me a shilling. I never had any
dispute as to my charge with anyone else.
Cross-examined—Mrs. Frances Anne Davidson,
the attesting witness to this assignment, is my
daughter. A list of my plays was sent to the de-
fendant by my authority.
Mr. Murray—When ?
Witness—How can I recollect. You might as
well ask me to recollect all the hand-bills in Lon-
don. (Laughter.) The list was sent when needful
—whenever we found a slippery customer.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Murray—Have you a printed copy of these
plays ?

Witness—l don't carry plays about with me.
Mr. Murray—l ask you, have you printed copies
in court ?

Witness—No, but in my warehouse I have, and
I shall be happy to supply you with any quantity.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Murray-:--Did your daughter write this
letter, sending the defendant a list of plays, and re-
(lusting a settlement of your account for three
years ?
Witness (looking at the letter)—She did.
Mr. Buchstone examined—l am the lessee of the
Haymarket Theatre. I am the author of the comedy
"The Happiest Day of my Life," which I sold to
Mr. Cumberland.

Cross-examined—Before the passing of the Dra-
'matic Authors Act I told Mr. Copeland he might
act my pieces gratuitously.
Mr. Murray—Did you tell him that before the
Act passed?
Witness—There was no necessity, for he could
play them without asking.
Mrs. Frances Anne Davidson, the plaintiff's
daughter, proved that she had applied to the
defendant for the money for acting the pieces in
which the copyright is vested in her father.
The defendant's reply was put in, in which he
stated that if the plaintiff desired litigation in place
of waiting the defendant's leisure he might adopt it.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Murray, for the defendant, admitted that the
piece called " The Pilot" had been acted, but con-
tended, as regarded " The Happiest Day of my
Life," that the assignment having been attested by
only one witness, was invalid in law, and that the
plaintiff could not recover on that.
His lordship said he would reserve that point,
and a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, for £26,
with leave to increase it by £lO, if the Court should
be of opinion that the assignment was properly
attested.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
SMITH AND SMITH v. PRICKETT-(MORRELL CITED
TO SEE PROCEEDINGS).
The case on behalf of the respondents was again
resumed.

Further evidence having been given to disprove
the handwriting of the alleged attesting wit-
nesses, Mr. Austin, a solicitor at Oxford, and for-
merly clerk to the late Mr. Morrell, produced the bill
books of that gentleman to show that no special court
was held at the time referred to in the bill of costs,
said to have been found with the will. The fees of
the court were always paid for at the time, and
were never mixed up with charges for general busi-
ness, as had been done in the bill of costs. There
was no entry in Mr. Morrell's books of a charge for
drawing a will in May, 1835, which formed one of
the items in the bill. There was nothing in Mr.
Morrell's books of anything done for the testator at
all in the month of May, 1835.
Mr. Birch, deputy steward of the manor of Bin-
sey, produced the court rolls. There was no special
court on the 17th of November, 1834. The pre-
sentment of the death of Mr. Edward Cawser,
which was the business stated in the bill of costs
to have been transacted at the special court of Nov.,
1834, really took place in 1832.
Mr. Sergeant Shee having addressed the court at
great length in reply,
Sir C. Cresswell asked the jury if they wished to
hear any remarks from him upon the evidence ?
The Foreman said it was quite unnecessary.
They were unanimously of opinion that the will
propounded by the plaintiffs was a forgery, and
that a more shameful case had never been brought
before a court of justice.

Sir C. Cresswell entirely concurred with the jury;
and if he were sitting there in a criminal court, he
should not have the slightest hesitation in commit-
ting the parties.

The jury then found a verdict for the defendan•

POLICE INT E bLIGENCe—May 9.

THAMES.—DISSIPATION AND CRlME.—Sarah
Jacobs, a married woman, about 40 years of age, the
mother of nine children, one a daughter, 22 years
of age, and who is very respectably connected, was
brought before Mr. Woolrych, charged with at-
tempting to commit suicide.
The prisoner is the wife of an engineer, and
dwelling with her husband and some of her family
in John-street, Stepney- causeway. She has been
addicted to excessive drinking for several years,
and has ruined her husband, a most respectable and
worthy man, and ruined herself and family. On
Wednesday -night a police constable, named Alfred
Brown, 196 K, was called into the surgery of Mr.
Bennington, in Brook-street, Ratcliff, and found her
labouring under the effects of some narcotic poison,
and, by direction of the surgeon, his assistant and
the police-constable took her to the London Hos-
pital. She remained tbere under medical treatment

Until four o'clock yesterday (Thursday) afternoon,
when the house-surgeon directed the policeman to
take her before a magistrate. The policeman, in
answer to a question, said the prisoner was quite
insensible when he was called into Mr. Benning-
ton's surgery.
Mr. H. D. Greenshields, assistant to Mr. Ben-
nington, said the prisoner came into the shop in
which he was engaged on Wednesday afternoon
and asked for four pennyworth of laudanum. Upon
asking her what she wanted it for, she said it was
to clean bonnets. He said that laudanum was rather
a strange thing to clean bonnets, and she said " bon-
nets were strange things now." At that moment a
man at the shop door nodded to him in a manner
which determined him not to serve the prisoner at
all. She then left the shop, and returned with a
neighbour, and again asked for the laudanum. He
refused to let her have any. The prisoner then said
she had already taken four pennyworth of laudanum,
and that would do for her, and that her husband
had been beating her all day. Believing from
her manner that her statement was true, he caused
her to be pinioned, and applied the stomach pump,
and dislodged from her stomach a large quantity of
rum intermixed with laudanum.

Mr. Woolrych—How much laudanum had she
swallowed.

Mr. Greenshields—l do not know, sir • the rum
almost neutralised the smell of the laudanum.
She was in a very bad state indeed.

In answer to other questions by the magistrate,
The witness said the quantity of laudanum sold
for 4d. was not the same at every shop, nor was it
always of the same strength. He mentioned the
quantity likely to destroy the life of any person.
He was not aware who sold four pennyworth of

laudanum to the prisoner.
Mr. Woolrych—Medicine vendors ought not to
sell laudanum to any one unless it is a person well
known to them, and are perfectly satisfied it will
not be misapplied.
Tbo prigoner said she was ver Rnrry indeed for
what had happened, and it should not occur again.
She had taken too much drink on Wednesday and
her husband had beaten her.

Mr. Woolrych—You are a very wicked woman
to do this, and guilty of great folly. You are
remanded to prison for a week, and I hope under
the good advice of the chaplain you will be made
sensible of the rash and foolish act you have com-
mitted, and be brought to a proper state of mind.
The husband of the prisoner implored of the
magistrate to allow him to take his wife home.

Mr. Woolryeh—She sass you have beaten her.
The husband, who is a respectable and indns-
trious man, declared his wife's assertion was false.
He had never beaten her. She was addicted to
drink and was a lost woman.
Mr. Woolrych—This comes of habitual drunken-
ness. The prisoner had lost her reason and made
an attempt on her life. He allowed her husband
to take her home.
--DISGRACEFUL SCENE,
A FEMALE OUTRAGE.
—Mary Ann White a woman of the town,, was
brought before Mr. Woolrycb, charged with assault-
ing and wounding Ann Barry.
The prosecutrix, whose nose had been frightfully
cut, and was bound up with surgical plasters, said
she was a married woman and the mother of six
children. On Wednesday evening she had occasion
to go into the Cock and Neptune public-house, in
Rateliff-highway, and saw a sailor, who was very
drunk, being robbed by a soldier, who was taking
his money. from him. She exclaimed, " What a
shame it is to rob the man." The prisoner, who
was present, immediately assailed her with the
most horrible and vulgar abuse, and took up a pint
pot, with which she belaboured her over the head
and face, and wounded her. Her nose was cut in
several places, and she was also wourided on the
cheek, and lost a good deal of blood.
George Brown, a police-constable, 181 H, said
he saw the prisoner strike the complainant three
times with a pint pot over the head and face with
considerable force, and she was about to strike a
fourth blow, when he took the pot from her. The
complainant was dreadfully cut, and he had to send
for a surgeon to dress her wounds. The prisoner
was a desperate and savage woman, who pretended
to sell oranges in the Highway.
Mr, W9colryclli after hearing a rambling fit*.