The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVET-ONG, MARCH 7, 1859.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—HERTFORD, MA CH 5.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
Mark Wood, 25, and Wm. Edmunds, 33, two
stout, powerful-looking men, were charged with
misdemeanour in having, with other persons, been
upon certain lands in the night time, armed with an
offensive weapon, in pursuit of game. •
There were several counts in the indictment, and
in one of them the defendants were charged with
assaulting George Monro and Thomas Day:
There was also a second indictment against the
defendants, which charged them with feloniously
cutting and wounding George Monro, with intent
to do some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Clark, who conducted the prosecution, elected
to proceed with the indictment for misdemeanour.
Mr. Worsley appeared for Wood, and the other de-
fendant was undefended by counsel.
It appeared from the evidence that Monro and
Day were keepers in the employ of Mr. H. F.
Cavendish, who had the right of shooting over some
land in the occupation of a gentleman named Ames,
at Kimpton, near Welwyn, and that on the night
of the 16th of December they were in a wood called
Priors-wood, which was a pheasant preserve, on
the look out for poachers. While so engaged they
heard the report of a gun, and the pheasants were
disturbed, and they went round the wood into a
lane, where they found the defendants, who were
well known to them, and they at once laid hold of
them. The defendants at first said they did
not want any disturbance, and they would go
" comfortable with the keepers, and Monro took
charge of Wood and Day of Edmunds, and they all
walked away in the direction of the head keeper's
cottage. They had only gone a short distance,
however, when Wood drew the barrel of a gun
from under his smockfrock and aimed a tremendous
blow at the head of the keeper Monro. He
warded it off with his arm, and returned the
blow, and a third man came up, and he
and Wood commenced a most desperate attack
upon the keeper with the stock and the barrel of
a gun. The other keeper, upon hearing Monro cry
out, went towards him to render assistance, when
he was struck from behind and knocked down, and
the keepers were then beaten until they were quite
insensible, and the defendants got away. They were,
however, taken into custody on the same morning
at a beershop, called the Woodman,- in the same
neighbourhood, and their clothes were found to be
completely saturated with blood, and Wood had
received a most fearful injury upon the head from
blows, inflicted by the stick of the keeper Monro.
Near the place where the struggle occurred there
were found a dead pheasant, a powder flask, and a
piece of the stock of a gun, which had been broken
during the fray, and which fitted the stock of a gun
that was found in the kitchen of the beershop. The
keeper, Monro, received very severe injuries, and
when he was examined by the surgeon his face was
completely covered with a mask of blood ;he was quite
blanched and nearly pulseless, and for a considerable
time it was doubtful whether he would recover,
and it appeared that he was still suffering from the
violence that he had sustained.
The two keepers, Monro and Day, were called to
prove the above facts, and in answer to questions
that were put to the former by Mr. Worsley, he
said that he knew both the prisoners very well and
where they could be found, but his orders were to
apprehend any person he found trespassing in pur-
suit of game, and this was his object in being out
on the night in question with his comrade Day. He
also said that after Wood had struck him with the
gun barrel, he hit him with his stick as hard as he
could, but he did not know whether he fractured
his skull or not, but he had heard it said in the
neighbourhood that his skull was fractured.
Baron Martin, at the close of the case for the
prosecution, upon an objection taken by Mr. Wors-
ley, said he was of opinion that the count for assault
could not be maintained. The statute only empowered
the owner or occupier of land to authorise his ser-
vants to apprehend persons found trespassing, and
as Mr. Cavendish only had the right of shooting,
he did not possess that power. The' keepers,
therefore, had no right to apprehend the prisoners,
and they were justified in resisting.
Mr. Clark submitted that the mere act of taking
the prisoners into custody did not excuse their sub-
sequent violence, and that at all events there was
an excess of resistance that would amount to an

assault.
Baron Martin said he could not see that there
was much excess when one party used a gun.barrel
and the other fractured his skull with a bludgeon,
and he was clearly of opinionthat the count charg-
ing an assault not could be supported under the
circumstances.
Mr. Worsley then addressed the jury upon the
counts in the indictment which charged the de-
fendants with being in the night time in the wood
in question in pursuit of game, and after observing
upon the melancholy consequences that were con-
stantly resulting from the system of game pre-
serving, and the orders given to gamekeepers to
apprehend_poachers, he said that if Mr. Caven-
dish were present and heard the details of the
sufferings of his victims and the shocking vio-
lence that they had sustained, he thought he
would pause before he enforced such orders in
future. He then commented on the facts of the
case, and said that before they convicted the pri-
soners the jury ought to be satisfied, first that there
were three persons at least in the wood at the time
in question ; and next, that they were there in the
pursuit of game, and if they were in doubt on
either of those points the prisoners were entitled to
an acquittal.
Baron Martin, in summing up the case, said he
should be verry sorry to make any observations
that were at all calculated to encourage poaching,
because he looked upon it as a most serious offence.
It was a trespass for any one to go upon the land
of another without his permission, and the offence
was aggravated by his doing so for the purpose of
takingc, the game, to which he had no right what-
ever. He must, however, repeat the observation he
made to the grand jury in reference to this case,
that it appeared to him that where the keepers
knew the parties whom they found trespassing, it
would. be a much wiser and more prudent
course for them to allow them to depart, and
obtain a summons or warrant against them on the
following day, and thus all temptation to violence
and resistance would he obviated. In this country
there was a general obedience to the law, and per-
sons would readily go with a police-officer who was
known as such, but it was a very different thing
where men were seized hold of by keepers in the
night time, and the natural tendency of such a pro-
ceeding was to cause resistance and violence, and to
such serious consequences as had resulted in the
present instance. It might be said that the parties
might run away if they were not secured at the
time, but it appeared to him that this was just what
was required, and he believed that the course he
suggested would be much better calculated to pre-
vent poaching than the proceeding that was now
adopted of endeavouring to seize the parties, and
thus occasion these fearful acts of violence.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a
verdict of guilty against both prisoners.
The learned Judge, in sentencing them said that
Wood appeared to have commenced the affray, and
he should, therefore, pass a more severe sentence
upon him than upon the. other prisoner ; but still it
would not be so severe as it otherwise would have
been, on account of the suffering he had undergone
and the serious injury he had sustained. He then
sentenced him to be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for 12 months, and the other prisoner, who
did not appear to have taken so active a share in
the transaction, was sentenced to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for four months.
Elijah Smith, 34, was indicted for night poaching
and shooting at a keeper, named John West.
Mr. Glyn prosecuted.
This was a similar case to the last. The prisoner
was found with a gun in a wood belonging to Mr.
Bosanquet, at Broxburne, and he was seized by the
prosecutor, and during the struggle the gun went
off and the charge passed through the coat of the
keeper, fortunately without doing him any injury.
It was not, however, clearly made out whether the
the jury
gun
was
dischargedther e foreachayuiatrd accident or
prisoner. designedly, and
He was then tried upone
another indictment for
night-poaching, and sentenced to
four months'

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—DURHAM, March 5.
CROWN COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
indictment
M`Hugh, deScribed as a surgeon, wha had
been committed under a coroner's Inquisition, sur-
renderednt to take his trial under indi
charging him with the manslaughter of Martha
Davis, at Kelloe.
Mr. D. Seymour and Mr. Greenhow prosecuted ;
Mr. Davison defended the prisoner.
Mr. Seymour opened the case. The deceased,
Martha Davis, was the wife of a pitman residing at
East Hetton. She was a woman of 42 years of age,
in the enjoyment of good health, of robust frame,
and broad build. At the time at which the occur-
rence took place out of which this inquiry arose
she was pregnant with her thirteenth child, and on
the morning of the 24th of August Mr. Ives, a wit-
ness of great importance in this inquiry, and an
assistant of Mr. Carnes, a surgeon at Coxhoe, was
sent for. When he saw her,,he would tell them, she
had incipient labour. He remained in the house
about two hours, when he left, but returned in the
course of the day. He then found that her position
had somewhat improved, but the progress was not
so satisfactory as he could wish. He then left her
again, and returned the following morning; but the

progress was still unsatisfactory. He thought sleep
would be of service to her, and he gave her a gentle
dose of opium. In the course of that afternoon she
made complaints of the lingering nature of her
labour, and gave evident signs that she wished to
have assistance in the delivery of the child. Mr.
Ives then went for Mr. Carnes, his principal, but
not finding him at home returned, taking with him a
forceps. He then applied the blade of the forceps,
after which the pains increased. The learned coun-
sel, having explained the use of the forceps, said it
would be proved by Mr. Ives and other witnesses
that the deceased improved after this, and that no
injury could at that time have been inflicted. The
deceased, however, still expressed a strong wish to
have some operation performed which would relieve
her more rapidly. Mr. Ives endeavoured to soothe
her, but she insisted on another surgeon being called
in. Accordingly, Mr. M'Hugh, the prisoner, was
sent for about 9 o'clock. Mr. M'Hugh went, and
some of the witnesses would tell them that on en-
tering the house his manner was somewhat peculiar,
and his appearance was that of a man labouring
somewhat under the influence of drink. That fact
was of very serious importance and significance in
this inquiry. The prisoner put his hand upon her
pulse, and remarked that it was very good. The
prisoner then proposed to perform the operation
of craniotomy. This operation, from its being
based upon the destruction of the child, was to be
resorted to only in the last extremity, when there
was no chance of a natural delivery. The learned
counsel explained at some length and great clear-
ness the nature and uses of the instruments used,
the cases in which it became necessary to use them,
and the manner in which they ought to be
used. They would see from the explanation he
had given them it was an operation requiring
great care. The prisoner proposed to resort to this
operation. Mr. Ives objected, but the woman in-
sisted. The operation was then performed, and
the woman died under it. Mr. Ives would tell them
that in his opinion great violence had been used by
the prisoner, and a post mortem having been made
it was clearly shown that the operation must have
been performed with great negligence, a wound
being discovered which was, in the opinion of all
the medical men who would be called, the cause of
death. The prosecution charged the prisoner at
the bar that he was responsible for the death of this
woman. They said, first, that under the circum-
stances it was most improper to resort to the opera-
tion of craniotomy at all ; and, secondly, having
resorted to it, the prisoner had been guilty of gross
and culpable negligence in the performance of it.
Mr. Robert Ives deposed to the facts as set forth
in the opening of the learned counsel, and then de-
scribed the conduct of the prisoner as follows :
Mr. M'Hugh introduced the perforator, and I
assisted him in holding one of the blades. The per-
forator was then withdrawn, and it was then intro-
duced a second time. The blades were separated a
second time, and a slight flow of blood followed.
They were afterwards introduced a third time and
forcibly separated. The prisoner made a remark at
that time, "I'll crucify the child." The consequence
was a considerable flow of blood, and the woman
became very faint. He afterwards introduced ano-
ther instrument (a crotchet), and brought away a
piece of flesh. He said, " I believe I have gone
through the walls of the uterus." The prisoner
afterwards introduced the perforator a fourth time,
separating them very widely. There was a gush
of arterial blood, and the woman died almost imme-
diately. The prisoner afterwards proposed to per-
form the caesarian operation. This is a most for-
midable operation, and is done to save the life of
the child. The child would at this time be dead.
When the woman was dying he said, " Christ, she
is dead !" He afterwards laid his hand on the
abdomen of the deceased, and said, " She's not with
child at all, or if she is, it is a devilish little one."
During the time he was attempting to deliver her
he also said, "D— the Devil, why can't I
deliver this woman ?" The prisoner used extreme
force in using the instruments. I was present on
the following day when a post mortem examination
was made. Mr. Carnes, Mr. Scott, Mr, Wharton,
and Mr. M'Hugh were also present. The prisoner
made the first incision. He said we should find a
rupture of the uterus, and rickets. We found a
jagged wound, but no rupture of the uterus and no
rickets. There was also a severe wound on the
right iliac artery, the length of my finger nail.
There would be a great flow of blood from this
wound. There were no appearances of rickets.
The wound in the uterus and that in the iliac artery
had not been produced at the same time. The wound
in the iliac artery was the cause ()Meath. The po-
sition of the child was proper. There were no ap-
pearances to justify the operation of craniotomy.
Several women who were present in the house,
and the medical gentlemen who attended the post
mortem examination, corroborated Mr. Ives.
Mr. Dawson,who had practised 30 y4trs, and at-
tended above 6,000 cases of labour, stated that,
having heard the
.particulars in this case, he was
decidedly of opinion the operation of craniotomy
was not necessary, and having heard a description
of the injuries done to the woman, he was of opinion
it had been performed with great negligence and
want of skill.
Mr. Wallis and Mr. Ridley, of South Shields,
concurred in the statements of Mr. Dawson.
Mr. Davison made an earnest address to the jury
on behalf of the prisoner.
His lordship then summed up with great care,
commenting on the most important points.
The jury retired, and after an absence of nearly an
hour returned into court with a verdict of guilty.
The prisoner, on being called up for judgment,
said, " I approve the verdict, because, from the tes-
timony given against me, the jury could not pos-
sibly have come to any other conclusion ; but I
have fault to find with the prosecution. God
Almighty forbid that 1 should unjustly attribute
false swearing to any one, but in this case I am the
victim of spite and malice, because my professional
success has interfered with Mr. Carnes, with whom
I was assistant for nine years, and who himself
always treated me as a confidential professional
adviser, but from the day I left him and started in
business for myself he has been my bitterest enemy."
He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
SATURDAY, MARCH 5.

Mr. Justice Willes disposed of the only four
cases left by half-past 12 o'clock, and then left for
York to open the commission there.
BEULAH V. MARCHIONESS OF LONDONDERRY.
The action was to recover damages for excessive
distress and for trespass. The defendant pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. Jones was for the plaintiff; Mr. Temple,
Q.C., and Mr. Cleasby for the defendant.
The plaintiff became tenant to defendant on a
farm at Wolverton. The rent was regularly paid
from 1856 till 1858, when before May of that year
there was some difficulty about paying the rent,
and an application was made by Mr. Hornsby,
defendant's agent, which plaintiff could not comply
with, consequently a distress was put in for £64,
and on the 25th of November a sale took place.
The property was worth between £2OO and £3OO,
and £152 3s. 6d. was realised. The distress was
put in on the 13th of November, and on the same
day another half year's rent became due, but not
until after the distress was put in. The beans, oats ,
&c., on the farm were sold in a way contrary to
law—namely, to be consumed on the premises.
For the defence it was contended thht the plain-
tiff had taken the sale into his own hands, and the
auctioneer had -acted without any authority from
defendant ; but under his Lordship's direction- a
verdict was entered for the plaintiff for £5l 10s.

WESTERN, CIRCUIT.--WINCHESTER, MARCH 5.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Watson)
Benjamin Crook was indicted for the manslaugh.
ter of James Wicks.

Mr. Russell prosecuted, and W. M. Cooke de-
fended the prisoner.
It appeared that the deceased, a wheelwright, a
year ago suffered from a cancer in his lip. He went
to the Reading Infirmary, where the cancer was cut
out, and he returned home comparatively in good
health. In about six months afterwards another
cancer appeared on the left side of his face. He
consulted the surgeons who hadpreviously operated
upon him, and they told him that it would be dan-
gerous again to use the knife, and that he had bet-
ter not by any means attempt it. The prisoner,
who was a blacksmith at Marlborough, was brought
to the deceased, and he told him he would cure him.
The deceased, however, hesitated for several hours,
but upon the persuasion of his family, he consented
to place himself in the hands of the prisoner, who
then put some kind of oil on his face with a piece
of whalebone, and then applied some kind of powder
to the face. It made the poor man very sick, and
the part affected began steaming and swelling most
wonderfully. He was in the greatest agony, and
walked about nearly the whole night in great pain.
He was almost distracted ; but at last he got into
bed, and never rose again, but died in nine days.
He suffered fearfully all the time. The prisoner
was 20 minutes applying the oil and powder. He
charged 505., but the deceased's son-in•law remon-
strated with the prisoner at the charge. He said at
first he should not go until he had his money, but
he. eventually consented to take 255., which was
paid him. The deceased was 68 years of age. The
prisoner was asked by the family whether what he
was going to do
told
was
lltiokecloyme and
toinjurseee
hihims
.health.
He said it would not, and that in less than a fort-
night he would be
himw
esed Mr. Si
n yand w tl in g
, asurgeon
of
it
as cancer,Basingstoke,and thatsawde-
a
eventually it must prove fatal, and that he had
better not do anything to it. He was in tolerably
good health. Saw him several times, and on the
19th of November; he then appeared more cheerful

and better. Saw him soon after he had bee., 1 under
the prisoner. There was a line of demt trcation
around the tumour, and all the tissues NA Terc; de-
stroyed, as if some powerful caustic hr Ld been
applied. The general symptoms showed poi soning
by some irritant poison. Corrosive subli mate was
sometimes applied to wounds, but not to cancer.
Caustic was applied to cancer, but it was 'dangerous
to apply it to a large surface. The' quantity- used
should be very small. Made a post 'nor tem exami-
nation of the body. There were marl cs of extensive
inflammation in the bowels and nu serous ulcera-
tions. They were the effects of mere airy applied to
the tumour. The deceased died from the effects of
corrosive sublimate. Knew the case was hopeless.
The deceased might have died withi ii 12 months,
but the death was accelerated.
Cross-examined—The last time we :saw him, on
the 19th of November, there was a alio° ;ht discharge
from the cancer. Did not see the first cancer. Told
his family that we could do nothing for him, and
that it must be fatal. Had extracted cancers with
success. Had used nitric acid and m-uriatic acid,
but not arsenic. Differed from Dr. Fell as to the
use of arsenic and corrosive sublimate. The cancer
would not be touched until the skin was destroy ed.
The cancer itself would not have caused t he ulcera-
tions in the stomach. The blood might become
impure. There must be an ulcerous tumour be fore
there would be ulcers in the stomach. He had been
salivated during life.
By the Judge—The use of corrosivt3 sublin tate,
and those strong remedies, required an experie- aced
person. Cancer was a blood disease.

Mr. George May, surgeon of the Reading H ospi-
tal, removed a cancer from the lower lip of th e de-
ceased on the sth Nov., 1857. Saw him ag: itin in
October, 1858 ; he had a tumour in his neck ; told
him it was a cancer, and recommended him no t to
submit to any treatment. Saw him again after
death ; there was a large surface in the neck covered
by a brownish paste ; there was an e- rtremely
offensive smell from it, which he believ ed arose
from the presence of mercury in the syste ; there
was congestion of the stomach and intest Ines, with
extensive ulceration at the lower part. The other
organs of the body were healthy. Tc ,ok part of
the cancer and paste adhering to it home, and
analysed it, and proved the presence of corrosive
sublimate. Mercury produced the appearances of
the body. Did not find arsenic. Death was caused
by the application of corrosive sublimate. That
would not be proper treatment for cancer. Con-
sidered it an improper caustic, because it was very
painful and dangerous if used in large quantities.
The caustics generally used produced a local effect
only. Was for some months at the hospital for
diseases of the skin ; and in some cases the applica•
tion of any caustic was fatal, as he should have ex-
pected it would have been in this case. As a gene-
ral rule, cancer would kill a young person more
quickly than an old one.
Cross-examined—The case was hopeless, and the
patient must have been left to die ; he was past all
medical skill. If the cancer was superficial it
might be remcved by caustic. In this case, had he
been compelled to use the knife or caustic, he
should have preferred the latter ; but he should
have left the patient to die. Had never seen cor-
rosive sublimate used. Did not consider this was
a constitutional cancer, but a local one. Believed
the cancer communicated from the lip to the jaw.
Had never known cancer commence by ulceration.
It was legitimate to use muriatic or nitric acid, but
he should not use it. When he saw deceased in
October he thought he might live for some months.
By the Judge—Should not have expected ulcera-
tion in the bowels from this cancer.

Mr. Cooke then addressed the jury for the pri-
soner. What the prisoner had done was done in
the hope that it would help suffering humanity. If
he had acted honestly and bona fide he was
not guilty of manslaughter, although
he was not a regular practitioner. e hoped the
time would never arrive when the poor should be
prevented from having the assistance of their
neighbours. The first question was whether the
application caused or accelerated the death, and
then, had the prisoner acted with a criminal inten-
tion or with gross neglect?
Mr. Baron Watson said, if with a criminal inten-
tion it would be murder..w.ii was criminal inatten-
tion.

Mr. Cooke said it was a mistake in the print.
The deceased had been visited with this almost fatal
disease ; heliad. submitted to an operation. The
disease reappeared, he applied again to Mr. May
and other surgeons, and they told him he must die,
for they could not administer a remedy, and they
declined to give any assista . Let them place
N
themselves in the situation o unhappy man, s
looking to a speedy death. He ap e4l. to the p
ii
soner, who had a reputation for skill (he was
quested to come and see him, and his opinion
that in the course of a short time the dec
would be able to come to him. He applie.* ..,
i powder; but were the jurfr satisfied that if there
had not been this application the deceased would
not have died as soon as he did? Five weeks be-
fore his death he began to fail, and he became an
exhausted and dying man. Under all the circum-
stances, he trusted the jury would think they were
not justified in convicting the prisoner.
Three witnesses were called, who stated the pri-
soner had cured them of cancers.
The learned Baron then summed up. If an igno-
rant man acted without skill it was an injury, and
not a benefit to mankind. When a man was given
up by men of great skill and ignorant men stepped
in, they often rendered the last days of a sufferer
most miserable and painful, if they did not cause
death.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but recom-
mended him to mercy.
Mr. Baron Watson, in sentencing the prisoner,
said he was quite satisfied in his own mind that he
thought he could cure this man, but unfortunately
he had taken upon himself to do that which no
man but a man of skill had a right to do. He had
deprived a family of a parent; such persons were a
great injury to society, they deprived persons of
those they loved dearly and tenderly, or rendered
their last days most miserable and unhappy. He
quite agreed with the: jury that it was not a case
for severe punishment. The sentence would be
three months' imprisonment without hard labour.

SOUTH WALES CIRCUIT.—CARDIGAN, March 5.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
DAVIES V. DAVIES.

This was an issue sent down by the Court of
Probate and Divorce to be heard before a special
jury. The petitioner was Mrs. Jane Davies, and
the respondent Mr. John Davies, a farmer, residing
at Glynucha, and the questions for the jury to try
were whether or not John Davies had treated his
wife with cruelty, and committed adultery.
Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Giffard, and Mr. Brown
were counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. H. Allen
for the respondent.
In opening the case Mr. Grove said this was the
first case of the kind. that had been sent into that
or any other part of the kingdom by the Court of
Divorce. He stated the case, and that he should be
able to prove not only acts of great cruelty by the
husband towards the wife, who was in sickly health,
but also the act of adultery wits a woman
named Rowlands, who worked upon his farm.
The marriage of the parties having been formally
proved,
Mary Evans, servant to Mr. and Mrs. Davies, proved
that during the absence of Mrs. Davies, her mis-
tress, on a visit in 1853, Elizabeth Rowlands was
at the house and remained there a night. Between
2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, the daughter of her
mistress called her up, and, from what she said,
witness went down stairs to the best kitchen, when
she saw Elizabeth Rowlands lying on a sofa, and
her master lying with her in such a position as
could leave no doubt of their criminality. At other
times witness had frequently seen her master in the
fields visible from the house making signs by-waving
his handkerchief, or putting his hat by his side.
After these signs she had seen the woman Row-
lands go out to meet him, and had seen them go to
a wood together.

Cross-examined—Had never seen Mrs. Davies
under the influence of drink. Had seen her hus-
band carry her upstairs, but that was on account of
a spinal complaint under which she was suffering.
David Williams, farm servant to Mr. and Mrs.
Davies, slept in a storeroom detached from the
house, and in March, 1854, he recollected seeing his
master come out of this storeroom. Soon after
witness saw Mrs. Rowlands peeping out of the
door, and she afterwards came out. Witness saw
enough when he went to bed that night to convince
him that a man and woman had slept there. This
witness had also seen the two go to the wood to-
gether, and had seen marks in the wood where two
persons had been lying. There were toe and heel
marks in the soil.

John Daniel had also seen the two go to the wood
together.
Edward Jenkins, auctioneer, about three years
ago saw Mrs. Rowlands and Mr. Davies proceeding
in the same direction, and, from what he had heard,
he watched them, and saw them lying down under
a wood in an " affectionate position."
Other evidence of a similar kind was given, and
a code of " signals," found by Mrs. Davies in her
husband's pocket, was found, in which directions
were laid down for communicating between two
persons.
Some members of the family were called to prove
that Mr. Davies had ill-treated his wife on several
occasions.
The defence was a counter allegation of drunken-
ness against Mrs. Davies;' but this was not sup-
ported by the evidence.
The jury found that John Davies had -treated, hie

wife with cruelty, put her in bodily fear, threatened
her life, and that he had also committed adultery
with Elizabeth Rowlands.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—March 5.

MANSION-HOUSE.—Alfred Boydell Lambe
surrendered in discharge of his bail, and was finally
examined before the Lord Mayor upon the charge
of having stolen various quantities of brandy and
wine, belonging to his employer, Mr. J. Jones,
wine merchant, Royal Exchange Vaults.
At the former examination it was shown that, by
the directions of the defendant, wine and spirits
had been removed from the premises of the prose-
cutor without entries of them being made in the
delivery book ; but it was contended by the counsel
for the defendant that this omission was owing to
the neglect of the cellarman, who had been dis•
missed from his situation for irregularity in his
accaunts. It was also contended by the defendant's
counsel, although denied by the prosecutor, that a
partnership existed between the parties.
After two witnesses had been examined to com-
plete the evidence on two charges of stealing, evi-
dence was adduced in cases in which defendant was
charged with having embezzled several small sums
of money, amounting to about V.
The defendant, in reply to the charge, said—l
am a partner, and always was so ; and I leave my
case in the hands of my counsel.

He was then committed for trial, but admitted ty
bail.

BOW-STREET.---Mr. Bowen May, of Russell-
square, the solicitor to the London Medical Regis-
tration Association, accompanied by Dr. Ladd, the
hon. secretary, and several of the directors of the
society, attended before Mr. Henry to prosecute a
criminal charge John Gibson Bennett, alias Dr.
Watters, alias Dr. Colston, alias Drs. Singletml,
Skinner, Luders, &c., for having obtained money
by false and fraudulent pretences.
The defendant was called in the usual manner by
the officers of the court, but he did not appear,
although an undertaking had been given by his
learned counsel, Mr. Digby Seymour, and his soli-
citor, Mr. Hayes, that he should attend the present
examination.

A son of Mr. Hayes was present, but he in-
formed the Court that he did not attend profes-
sionally. His father had no further instructions in
the case, and did not know where Bennet was, and
Mr. Seymour was engaged on his circuit.
Mr. Henry—l consider your father ought to have
attended. What do you propose to do, Mr. May?
We cannot entertain a criminal charge in the ab-
sence of the accused. Do you apply for a warrant ?
Mr. May—Yes, that is my intention, sir ; and I
propose to state a few of the particulars of this ex-
traordinary case, and to support them by the
evidence of witnesses who have been brought from
all parts of this country and Scotland at a great
expense to the society which represents, and which
has been recently organised to pi omote the purity
of the medical registry, and to protect the public
from the frightful consequences of the frauds re-
sorted to by a set of scoundrels calling themselves
medical men without the slight qualification or
knowledge of the profession.
Mr. Henry—You need not go any further into
your case, but prove sufficient to justify your appli-
cation for a warrant.

Mr. May then stated at considerable length the
facts which had been brought to light respecting
the concoction of a "British and Foreign Ear In-
firmary," at 32, Spring-gardens, with its branch
office at Brighton, managed by Miss Bennett, the
defendant's sister. The defendant, his brother
(against whom he also applied for a warrant), and
several other " partners" of the firm, had assumed
various names and disguises, such as Dr. Watters,
Colston, &c., granting interviews to afflicted
patients, prescribing remedies, and pocketing fees
to such an extent that it had been ascertained that
as much as £4,000 per annum had been realised by
the " infirmary." These results had been brought
about by extensive advertising and puffing, and to
show the unscrupulous character of these proceed-
ings, Mr. May read an extract from one of their
printed circulars, falsely purporting to be the
opinion of the Times, as to the extraordinary skill
and successful operations of these benefactors of
the public. Their transactions were not confined
to England ; they had been extended to Paris and
the Continent, and even to New York. Packages
of medicine in boxes, for which £5 £5O, and
upwards of £lOO had been received, were duly de-
spatched, and he (Mr. May) had. now in court
several bottles of the " mixture" which had been
palmed upon the confiding public as al? infallible
remedy for deafness, but which, on being analysed
_ medical men now present, proved to be
ly a composition of urine and alum. (Sen-
on.) It was a great source of satisfaction
the association which he (Mr. May) repre-
ted that they had been able to break up and
disperse this gang of so-called practitioners ; but
they were anxious that the leaders should be pur-
sued and punished, and it was with this view he
now applied for warrants for the apprehension of
both the Bennetts, forbearing, for the present, to
say anything of a gentleman in his own profession
who had been intimately associated with them.

James Crichton, a fisherman, from St. Andrew's,
Fifeshire (whose deafness rendered it necessary to
have a brother present as an interpreter), proved
that he was attracted by the advertisement to con-
sult Dr. Watters, and, after sending a post-office
for £1 35., travelled to London .with his brother,
4NI waited upon the doctor, who was represented
Bylßenn ett. The treatment afforded him no benefit.
Mils Mary Scattergood, a young lady at present
residing in Denmark-street, Camberwell, deposed
134 that she w afflicted with deafness about two years
ago, and w • duced to consult a Dr. Colston, at
Leicester-pl She paid him £5 55., and was
made consider y worse by the treatment she re-
ceived, although her hearing was subsequently re-
stored under Dr. Yearsley. About a month or six
weeks ago she happened to accompany a lady
friend, who went to 32, Spring-gardens to consult
a Dr. Watters about her deafness, but directly she
entered the place she identified in the person who
called himself Dr. Wafters the man who, two years
ago, treated her as Dr. Colston, and received her
£5 ss. She instantly accused him of the fraud,
and demanded back her money. They 'threatened
to turn her out, but she brought 'an action against
the man, who proved to be the defendant Bennett,
and recovered her money and the costs in the County
Court, the case having been taken up for her by the
association.

Thomas Oldfield, fOrmerly a porter in the employ*
of defendant, at 32, Spring-gardens, proved that
Bennett called himself Dr. Watters sometimes.
There was a Rlace where urine was kept, and wit-
ness had assisted in the making up of medicine
from it. He had only done what he was ordered to
do, and his wages were paid. (A laugh.)
Claude Edwards, who described himself as the
chief assistant and factotum of the Bennets, de-
posed that he had known them about 15 months.
He was first engaged by John Gibson Bennett, who
personated Dr. Watters, and in that name received
fees varying from smaller sums to £25, £34, £57,
&c. There was a real Dr. Watters, who used to
call occasionally, but very seldom. He called the
last time about six months ago, and expressed his
sorrow at ever having been connected with the
Bennetts at all. William Alfred Bennett was in
partnership with his brother, the defendant, and
witness kept the books. They made about £2,000
a-year each. William also practised in Tavistock-
street as a " Dr. Brandon." The advertisements
were often sent from Tavistock-street, and some-
timee they were not paid for. (A laugh.) Dr.
Brandon used to write testimonials to the skill of
Dr. Watters, " who had cured him of a deafness of
23 years' standing."
Mr. King, an elderly, gentleman, residing at
Norland-place, Notting-hill, proved that, having
received a letter respecting an alleged cure effected
by Dr. Watters in a case of deafness of 25 years'
standing," he was tempted to call at Spring tar-
dens. He saw the person who pretended to by Dr.
Watters, and he promised an effectual cure by
means of some remarkable treatment discovered
during a residence in Japan, or somewhere in
China. (A laugh.) Witness paid him £l2 12s. at
first, and afterwards £lB 19s. 6d., the receipts for
which he now produced.
The witness Edwards here said,—That was Wm.
Bennett. I went with him to Mr. King's house,
and I went in first to rub Mr. King's back with a
mixture, while Bennett was having some brandy
and water at a neighbouring public-house.
(Laughter.) Then Bennett came in to receive the
money. He told me, " I have let him off with £l2
125., but if I can rap it into him for more I will."
Mr. King said he parted with his money in the
belief that the statment about the Chinese remedy
was true.
William Lewis said he was formerly associated
witk the Bennetts when they were card-sharpers,
&c., and did a little business in dock warrants.
They were never connected with the medical pro-
fession.

Mr. Henry granted warrants against both the
Beunetts, although the present "local habitation"
of the brothers appeared somewhat uncertain.

MARYLEBONE.—Mr. Thomas Anderson, che-
mist, 30, Duke-street, Manchester -square, was
charged upon a summons taken out by Mr. Thor-
ley, the dealer in cattle food, with having attempted
under false pretences to obtain the sum of £2 6s. 6d.
It appeared that in December last the defendant
solicited an Grder for cattle food from a veterinary
surgeon, named Poyser, of Ashbourne, Derbyshire.
A conversation took place between them as to what
Wag 010 be feed for cattle, and the defendant oid

he thought Thorley's food was the best, when Mr.
Poyser ordered a cask to b e sent to him, the price
of which was to be £2 Gs. 6,3. Mr. Poyser, having
doubts as to the quality of the food, sent a sample
by post to Mr. Thorley, wh.o said it was not his
manufacture, and it was made of different ingre-
dients.
Mr. Thorley gave evidence as to the difference in
the nature of the food.
Dr. Hassell, a physician and well-known analy-
tical chemist, said he had examined the food sent to
Mr. Poyser, and discovered that it was made of
oatmeal, linseed meal, and cut beans and peas. Mr.
Thorley's cattle food was composed of eight different
ingredients, and contained amongst them a tonic.
It was altogether different from that which was
supplied by the defendant. •
Mr. Poyser stated that he had dealt with the
defendant for two years, and had always found him
an honourable man. _ _

For the defendant it was submitted that there
was no evidence to show he had committed any
fraud. He himself dealt in cattle food, and if that
which was sent to Mr. Poyser was described as
Thorley's food, it was done by some mistake, but
without any intention to cheat or defraud.
Mr. Long, the magistrate, said he must send the
case for the decision of a jury.
The defendant was held to bail in £4O, and
another surety to the like amount.
John Darby and John Thompson were charged
with being concerned in a burglary and robbery of
jewellery, &c., to the amount of nearly £5OO, at the
house of Mr. George Carter, of 31, Park-street,
Camden-town.

The prosecutor deposed that on the morning of
Saturday, the 10th ult., his house was broken into,.
and 47 gold and silver watches, together with a
large quantity of gold bracelets, chains, pins, &c.,
were stolen. _ _

A constable named House said that he went to
the residence of the prisoner Darby, in Weimer-
street, and asked him if he had any rings, chains,
or articles of jewellery which were not his own.
He replied that he had not ; but witness, on look-
ing up the chimney. found, upon a projecting shelf,
a gold chain, a gold pin, some earrings, and £2 4s.
3d. in silver.
_ _

When the other prisoner was taken into custody
by Constable Lodder, a gold pin and silver watch
and chain were found in his possession.
The prosecutor identified the chain produced by
House as part of the stolen property, and he be-
lieved the pin produced by Lodder also belonged to
him.

The prisoners were remanded till Thursday next
for further evidence.

SOUTH WARK.—Elizabeth Medlin, a decent-
looking woman, who had attempted to obtain money
from the Queen and Prince Albert, was brought up
for final examination, charged with attempting to
obtain a charitable contribution from Mr. Arthur
Kitt Barclay, of Dorking, and one of the brewers
of Park-street, Borough-market.
Mr. Nash, chief clerk to the firm, stated that on
Thursday, the 24th ult., Mr. Barclay put into his
hands a letter written by the prisoner, stating that
she and her aged mother were in great distress, and
that the brokers were in the house for rent.
He was directed to inquire into the matter, and
if he found it a genuine case of distress he was
to give as much as £lO. On making inquiries
in Kensington, where the letter was addressed
from, he found out that it was an imposition, and
on Saturday last the prisoner and another woman
came to the brewery for an answer. Horsford and
another officer of the Mendicity Society were in
attendance and took them into custody. Her com-
panion was discharged, but the prisoner was re-
manded in order that some former convictions
might be produced against her.
Horsford said that in 1847 she was tried at the
Central Criminal Court, and sentenced to 12 months
for obtaining a sum of money by forged documents.
She had since been committed twice for three
months—once for attempting to defraud Prince
Albert out of money by stating herself to have
nursed the Princess Alice.
The prisoner said that it was all owing to her
aged mother that she wrote the letter.
Mr. Nash informed his Worship that the prisoner
had obtained £l2 from Mr. Barclay.
Mr. Burcham said he was sorry that the former
convictions were not produced, as, had they been,
he should have sent her to the sessions for trial.
He should, however, sentence her to three months'
hard labour, and order the conviction to be re-
turned to the Clerk of the Peace.

GREENWICH.—John Robinson, 28, and Thos.
Harris, 27, both of whom are well-known thieves,
were charged with stealing two gold rings, a gold
locket, and other articles, the property of Mr.
Sheather, wholesale stationer of Aldersgate-street,
city, from his residence at 11, Richmond-villa,
Forest-hill, Sydenham.
It appeared that between 3 and 4 o'clock on the
previous afternoon a man and boy engaged at work
on an unfinished building near the prosecutor's
house saw the prisoner Robinson standing in the
roadway and holding a pair of boots in his hands.
The prisoner Harris was then observed leaving the
enclosed garden of the prosecutor, and having hur-
riedly placed the boots held by Robinson on his
feet they both ran off The man and boy, suspect-
ing a robbery had been committed, immediately
rang the bell and gave information of what they
had seen to Mrs. Sheather, who, on proceeding into
an adjoining room, discovered that the property
above named and a valuable shawl and silk scarf had
been stolen, the thieves having opened several
drawers, when it is supposed they were disturbed, as
a gold watch and a basket of plate which were within
sight remained untouched. The police were then
communicated with, and Mr. Inspector Willson
proceeded in pursuit of the thieves, and after riding
about two miles came up with the prisoners, whom
he secured, after considerable resistance, and on
Harris being searched the whole of the stolen pro-
perty was found in his possession.
The prisoners made no defence, and were com-
mitted for trial.