The Sun.
London, England, 1861-09-23 00:00:00

rE EXTRAORDINARY ROMANCE IN
HIGH" LME.

RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PRISONER,
RUGBY, SATURDAY EVENING.
Richard Guinness Hill, charged with falsifying
the register concerning a male infant, born of the
body of Amy Georgina Hill, by the said Richard
Guinness Hill, her husband, in the district of Rugby,
on the sth of January, 1859, was to-day brought
up at the Tows-hall for further examination.
Owing to the extraordinary interest the case
has excited there was an unusually full bench of
magistrates, amongst whom were C. M. Caldecoott,
Esq. ; Broughton, Esq.; J. A. Campbell, Esq. ;
J. W. B. Leigh, Esq. ; and Rev. R. Lickornish.
Many of the leading gentry of the town and dis-
trict were also present.
Since the prisoner was remanded on Monday
last he has been confined in the police station here,
under the charge of Mr. Superintendent Wild, of
the Warwickshire Constabulary. In the earlier
part of the week he wrote a very large number of
letters, many of them respecting bail, which, how-
ever, was not forthcoming. The majority of the
communications were forwarded to Ireland, where
the prisoner states he has a large circle of friends
and relatives. He has also frequently telegraphed
to various persons, with a view either of obtaining
information with regard to the alleged circum-
stances of the case against him, or to obtain advice
and assistance in defending himself. The prisoner
has conversed without reserve nn the features of
the case, and has expressed his annoyance at the
publicity which has been given to the case through
the medium of the press, as being calculated to em-
bitter the minds of his family connexions, whom he
states to be the richest in Ireland, as well as the
family of his wife, whom he represents as being
one of the most wealthy in England. He has
availed himself of the privilege granted by the
magistrates with regard to his personal wants, and
has purchased bottle stout and other luxurious com-
estibles, which he has enjoyed with great apparent
relish. A rumour was freely circulated in the town
last night and this morning, that the prisoner would
at the hearing to-day bring a charge of infidelity
against his wife, and that he would plead that he
had not any felonious intentions when he placed
the child out to nurse, bat that he had himself been
deceived as to the character of the person into
whose custody he had delivered the child. This
rumour tended still further to heighten the excite •
merit which existed here, and the popular feeling
ran so high that it was considered advisable to con-
vey the prisoner from the station-house to the Town
Hall in a fly, through the back streets, the officers
in charge being dressed in plain clothes, in order to
attract as little attention as possible. The ruse had
the desired effect, and the prisoner was safely con-
ducted before the magistrates. Long before the
doors of the Town-hall were opened, a dense crowd
besieged the vicinity, and when admission was
granted every available nook of the court-room was
immediately occupied, a large proportion of the
. auditory being women.
Upon the prisoner being placed at the bar there
was a considerable difference in his personal appear-
ance, he having had his hair cut and been shaved,
and so got rid of that careworn and dissipated
aspect which was so evident on Monday last.
Mr. George Francis Cooke, solicitor, of 30, King-
street, Cheapside, London, again appeared to con-
duct the case for the proiecution ; and the prisoner
was represented by Mr. Philbrick of the Home
Circuit, instructed by Messrs. Whyte and Collisson
of 61, Russell-square, London.
Mr. Maltby, her Britannic Majesty's Vice-Con-
sul at Brussels, was also present, having come from
his post of duty especially for the purpose of as-
sisting in the investigation.
On the application of Mr. Collinson, the prisoner
was allowed to be seated.
Mr. Philbrick said that as he was quite unac-
quainted with the proceedings he begged that the
evidence taken on the previous examination might
be read over, which wad done by Mr. Bloxam, the
clerk to the magistrates.
Mr. Cooke, in opening the proceedings, said—lt
was an information under the Act of Parliament of
the 6th and 7th William IV., cap. 86, sec.4l, charg-
ing that the prisoner on the 7th of January, 1859,
at Rugby, did unlawfully and wilfully make to one
William Herbert, then being the registrar of births
for that district (for the purpose of being inserted
in the registry of births for that district), certain
false statements touching the particulars, by the
statute required to be made known and registered,
of and concerning a male infant barn of the body
of Amy Georgians Hill, by the prisoner, her hus-
band, on the sth of January, 1859. The Act of
Parliament was entitled " An Act for Registering
Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England," and
sect. 17 enacted that the Registrar-General should
provide register books for births in a certain form,
the entries being divided by printed lines. Section
20 enacted that the father or mother of every child
born in England after the Ist of March, 1837, or
in case of their illness, absence, or inability, the
- occupier of the house where the child should have
been born, should within 42 days next after the
birth give information upon request to the registrar,
according to the best of his or her knowledge and
belief of the-several particulars by the said statute
required to be known and registered touching the
birth of such child. Section 41 enacted that
that every person who should wilfully make or
cause to be made for the purpose of being in-
serted in any register of births, deaths, or marriages
any &be statements touching any of the particulars
required by the statute to be known and registered,
should be subjected to the same pains and penalties
as ifhe were guilty of perjury. The learned gentle-
man proceeded to say that the prisoner, on Aug. 28,
1852, was married at the house of H.M.'s Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at
Brussels to Miss Amy Georgiana Burdett, then of
the age of 19 years, with the consent of her mother.
Upon her marriage the fortune of the young lady
was settled, and by the settlement a certain life in-
terest was given to Mr. Hill, the present prisoner.
The property consisted of about £14,000 ia posses-
sion and reversion. There was a reservation of £lOO
a year for the wife, free from any control of her
husband, and in the absence of any issue of the mar-
riage, power was given to the wife to appoint by
"will. The parties lived together continuously and

yet had no issue until the month of January, 1859,
but during the six years and a half the prisoner had
for a considerable time been afflicted with illness.
At the time Mrs. Hill was pregnant she was re-
siding with her husband at Dublin, and the pri-
soner, for some reason of his own, not material to
the present inquiry, expressed a wish that her
accouchement should take place in London, to which
place they were on their way on Jan. 5, 1859. The
lady was taken unwell while journeying to the me-
tropolis by the London and North Western Railway
and could not proceed beyond Rugby. She was re-
moved to the nearest house that could be found open,
a small inn called the Globe, where she was, soon
after her arrival, delivered of a fine male child by
Mr. Sadd, surgeon and accoucheur, at Rugby. One
of the first duties of the prisoner as a parent was,
as he appeared to have been aware, to register the
birth of the child under the statute referred to, and
at this point of his marriage career the offence
charged against him was committed, no doubt with
the view to supress and conceal the fact of there being
a child of the marriage at all. Much had appeared
in the public newspapers concerning the case since
the prisoner was brought before the magistrates on
Monday last, and public interest and indignation
had been widely excited against the prisoner for
his unnatural and inhuman treatment of his own
legitimate offspring; though he (Mr. Cooke) might
be permitted to remark that the statements pub-
lished in the newspapers had beery substantially
true, although the fortune of the lady had been
over-estimated. However, the prisoner was not
there to be tried and punished for all the wrongs
done by him to his wife and child, or the pain and
ho had subjected his wife to for more than
two long years, in uncertainty whether the child
had lived or had died, or for the misery and wretch-
°dile" 110 h had
subjected the child to, and the con-
sequent state of ill health that child was now suffer-
ing from long
although probabl7 are to want and neglect,
hPe°smight have to answer before
toothQc tribunal fur those wrongs. Mr. Cooke con-

I tended that the falsification of the register, if done
at all, must have been done wilfully, as it was per-
fectly impossible for the prisoner to have forgotten
his wife's name and his own, especially while in the
performance of an act of such a character,and in-
volving such important results ; and he believed he
should call such evidence as would justify the
magistrates in sending the prisoner for trial on the
charge. The punishment, however, was of minor
importance, compared to the establishment of the
rights of his ill-used child, and the restoration of
that peace of mind to the child's unhappy mother,
by securing the safety both of herself and child
from any further brutality at the hands of the pri-
soner, wilfully designing to suppress his son, and
disinherit and lose him, and get rid of him by some
means short of directly depriving him of life.
Mr. George Frederick Sadd said—l am a sur-
geon and accoucheur at Rugby. I recollect the sth
of January, 1859. On that day I was called to the
Globe to a lady in her confinement. It was in
the morning, between eight and nine. The Globe
Inn is near the railway terminus and I there de-
livered the lady of a male child. I have seen the
lady I then delivered.
Mr. G. V. Hefford--I am superintendent regis-
trar of births for the district of Rugby, in the
county of Warwick. I produce the register of
births from the 30th of June, 1858, to the 26th of
August, 1859. There is a signature of William
Herbert, who was the registrar. He died in May
last. The entry of register No. 221, dated the
7th of January, 1859, has the signature and writing
of William Herbert, except the signature of R.
Hill. The register was read, and stated a boy
named Robert Hill to have been born on the sth of
January, 1859. Robert Hill being the father, and
Mary Hill (maiden name Seymour) being the
mother.

Cross-examined by Mr. Philbrick—l have been
superintendent registrar since 1838, and William
Herbert, who made this entry, was district registrar
for about twelve years. He ceased to be registrar
in March last. He was about 77 when he died,
and exceedingly infirm, so much so as to be almost
past business. I knew Me. Herbert some time,
and remember him relieving officer, and his resign-
ing that appointment. lam not aware that any
special inspection was made of this book (the
register), but Mr. Godfrey came in his ordinary
course, and did inspect it some time before Christ-
mas last. I made complaints myself of the inaccu-
racies and irregularity in Mr. Herbert's keeping
the register. There were many of them, and to
such an extent as to lead me to make such com-
plaints, and Herbert resigned under compulsion.
(A laugh.) I have no doubt that every word, letter,
and figure, except the signature, R. Hill, is in the
handwriting of Herbert.
Re-examined by Mr. Cooke—Amongst my com-
plaints I never made any as to any inaccuracy
in this entry. Although as infirm as I have stated,
he was able to walk. Many registers of births were
omitted. My complaints extended to his putting in
letters which ought not to be there, and also to mis-
spelling, but never to entering any names wrong-
fully.
By Mr. Leigh (the presiding magistrate)—Her-
bert was infirm in his faculties.
Mr. Thomas James Maltby—l live at No. 4, Rue
de la Paix, Brussels, and have been for some years
acquainted with Mr. Hill, now present. I was pre-
sent at his marriage with Miss Amy Georgina
Burdett. This document, which I hold in my hand,
purports to be a certificate of that marriage, which,
to the best of my recollection, took place in August,
1852. I gave instructions for the preparation of the
settlements between Richard Guinness Hill and
Amy Georgina Burdett. This deed of settlement,
now produced, I saw executed by the parties.
Having seen the prisoner write, I am perfectly
acquainted with his handwriting. I believe the
writing "R. Hill," in the register-book now pro-
duced by G. V. Hefford, to be the signature of the
prisoner. I have seen Mr. Sadd, the surgeon, this
morning. I took him to see Mrs. Hill. By the
settlement, after the death of the survivor, whether
husband or wife, the settled property is to go, subject
to a joint power of appointment, to the survivor,
and if no appointment, equally amongst the chil-
dren of the marriage, or to one, if only one ; but if
no issue, then all to go to Mrs. Hill, if the survivor,
with absolute power of appointment to her as if
not married, and in default of appointment one
moiety to Mr. Hill, and the other moiety to next of
kin or wife. In possession there is about £5,000,
and in reversion about £9,000. Mr. Hill has re-
ceived between £2,000 and £3,000 from another
portion of the property. I have seen Mr. Hill
write a dozen times, and swear this writing in the
registry is his handwriting. I cannot be mis-
taken. lam a solicitor. I have not been either
insolvent or bankrupt, and am at present on the
rolls of the court. I shall be very much astonished
if lam not. lam not concerned in the prosecution.
I took it up at first, but gave it over to Mr. Cooter,
who is my general agent, but: I have nothing now
to do with it. lam in receipt of my fees as the
Vice- Consul of Brussels, and never have assigned
them to my creditors or any other person. I cer-
tainly have not always been able to pay my debts.
I have been thirty years on the roll cf attorneys, '
and it is an utter falsehood to say or insinuate that
I have ever been struck off the rolls, or did any-
thing whatever to justify any such proceedings.
Mr. Cooke objected to this course of interroga-
tion, and it was not persisted in.
Sarah Parsons—l am the wife of James Parsons,
who is a bricklayer, living at 38, Queen-streets
Rugby. I recollect nursing a lady who was con-
fined with a little boy at the Globe Inn, Rugby. I
nursed her about three days. I did not see any
gentleman with her whilst I was there. My
daughter Catherine nursed her longer than I did.
Catherine Parsons—l am the daughter of the last
witness, and am in service. I remember nursing a
lady and a little boy at the Globe Inn, Rugby. I
do not know when it was. I think about two years
ago, but it was not very warm. The lady was
known as Mrs. Hill. There was a gentleman there
whom I now identify. I was with them about a
week. I did not receive any directions at Rugby
from the prisoner as to that child. I took the child
from Rugby to the Euston-station, London, by
Mrs. Hill's direction. I also took a box, which is
now produced by Brett, the detective officer, and
it contained baby's clothes. The child was
wrapped in a shawl, which is the one produced.
Mr. Hill met me at the station, and he called a cab
and told me to get into it. We drove to a house,
and Mr. Hill took the box out of the cab and put it
into the house. I do not know where the house was
as lam a stranger to London. After that he drove
some distance till we came to a cab that stood still
at the side of the street. Mr. Hill and I got out of
the cab that brought us from the station, and he
went to the cab that was standing still. A dark
woman came out of the cab, and he went with her
into a shop, and I remained with the child in the
street. They remained in the shop for 10 minutes,
and then went to the cab. Another woman then
came out of the cab, and they all three then came to
me, and the dark woman asked me if the child was
clean. The prisoner then said to me, " Give the
child to this person," and I gave it to the light
woman—the second one who came out of the cab.
The two women now in court are the twl who came
out of the cab, and the light one is the one to whom
I gave the child. The woman walked away with
f the child too.—
Mary Ann Idle a( Ilii
pe
both Andrews.), Prisoner and
sy4oomokenin gavefemale, the ndamEels.
Eliza-
Prisoner -
gmmyself
at n The
cab and went to a eoffee-house, where got into
Next
day I got up and prisoner said he would go and see
the baby. He went out, and came back about two
o'clock. I asked him if he had seen the baby, and
he said, " Yes, but it had cried all night." He went
away, and came again about five,_ when he went
with me to the station and he brought me to Rugby.
I rode in the same carriage. He said nothing
when
we were coming to Rugby. When one of the women
asked me if the. child was clean, I said, ~ yes, it
it will be kept as clean in London
as and I hope
~
as it was at Rugby. One of the women replied it
The night OR which I went
had got a good nurse.
up was very cold. The women were clothed very
shabbily. The dark woman was drunk. I have seen
the child in London about three months since; it
was then in the hands of the mother.
of identity
Mr. Philbrick objected to the question
hadnot
hing
to that it
being gone into on the ground .
in the ,
to do with the false representation
had
to meet. As
which was the charge the prisoner
the Court of Queen's Bench would ultimately have
the matter before them, the learned counsel urged
a formal decision.
The Chairman raid that he personally thought
the question was incidental to the inquiry, and that
thought
diffe-
rently, it ought to be put. Some of his brother magistrates
were of the same opinion, but others
rently, and he therefore suggested the bench should
retire-to discuss the point. This course was adopted,
and the chairman said that, having considered the
matter, the bench were of opinion that any question
might be put that would tend to further the ends
of
justice. (Some applause.) .
Catherine Parsons was then recalled, and in re-
ply_
to questions said—l have seen a child recently,
but I cannot swear it is the same child I delivared
to the woman I have mentioned, at the request of the
prisoner, a 1 the Euston-square station. I however
believe it to be the same child. The reason I think
so is, that it has very light hair, light blue eyes, and
light and long eyelashes. Mrs. Hill had the child_
when I last saw it, and she was the lady I attended
at Rugby.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Philbrick,
and stated that the child was in her custody about
a week altogether, and that the reasons she bad

stated were the only ones she could assign for be-
lieving it to be the same child.
Elizabeth Andrews, a woman who bore the ap-
pearance of having led a somewhat desolute life,
and whose hands were dyed with walnut juice,
showing evidently that she had recently been get-
ting her living by shelling walnuts, upon being
sworn, was examined as follows_ by Mr. Cooke :
Where do you live P—At No. 8, Lincoln-court,
Drury-lane.
Are you a widow, married, or single woman P—l
am a widow.
Are you also sometimes known by the surname
of Farebrother ?—Yes, I am known by that name ;
it was my maiden name.
Do you know the person sitting by my right
hand (the prisoner)?—Yes,
Have you seen him before?—Not since be gave
me the child. •
But you have seen him before. How many times ?
—I have seen him three times before.
Will you describe when and where you first saw
him P—The first time I met this good gentleman I
believe was on the 9th of January, 1859.
Where was that P—ln Windmill-street, Hay-
market.
What part of the street was it in ?—At the cor-
ner of a street where there was a public-house, but
I cannot tell what was the name of that street.
Was it near the Argyll-rooms ?—Yes, quite op-
posite.
What were you doing P—l was standing with my
baby in my arms singing.
About what time ?—As near as I can say, about
half-past nine or a quarter to ten.
At night ?—Yes.
You were singing, I suppose, in order to get
money given to you, were you not ?—Yes, sir.
Well, now, did the good gentleman say anything
to you ?—Yes, sir, he did.
What did he say ?—He gave me a shilling, and
said he wanted to speak to me for a few moments.
What then occurred P—l went then, sir, with
him, and spoke to him.
Where did you go to ?—I went round the corner
of the street, about half-way down.
Was that to get into a quiet place ?—Yes, I
should suppose so.
On arriving there, what did he say to you ?
The first thing he asked me if I had got any more
children, and I said, " Yes, two others." He then
asked me if I had a husband, and I told him
" No." He then asked me if I could take care of a
child if I was paid for it, and I told him that was
according to circumstances; that I could not give
him a decided answer that night, but I would meet
him again.
What did he then do or say ?—He promised to
meet me on the Sunday night at the place.
That was the next night, was it not ?—Yes, sir.
Did you meet him ?—Yes, sir ; I did.
According to the appointment made the previous
night ?—Yes, sir.
Had you any one with you when you next met
him —No ; I went by Myself.
What then took place ?—I told him I would take
the baby, but before I took it I should wish to see
the mother. But, fetching a very heavy sigh, he told
me I could not see the mother, for that the mother
was dead.
Who fetched the sigh ?—The gentleman.
What then occurred ?—I then consented to take
the baby.
What next P—He told me he would give me 15
sovereigns, which he did.
What were the 15 sovereigns for P—To mind the
child for one twelvemonth.
Did he give you any money that night P—He
gave me 2s. 6d. on that night.
That was on the Sunday night ?—Yes, sir.
Did he say anything more P—No sir. He did
not say anything more; but I asked him if the
child was taken ill what I was to do, where I was
to send to him ; and he said he could give no ad-
dress, as he did not wish his father to know any-
thing about the child.
Was there anything said about a further sum of
money ?-1-le told me if I could get the child into
any institution during the 12 months he would pay
me for my trouble.
Was any sort of institution mentioned P—No, sir.
I told him I knew nothing about getting children
into institutions, and when I had children of my
own I had to keep them.
Was the workhouse mentioned P—No.
Did he say anthing more P—No ; only that I was
to bring the child up like one of my own.
Was any appointment made for a future meeting ?
—Not after I received the child.
But you have only told us of the Saturday' night
and the Sunday night. You did-not receive the
child on the Sunday night, did you ? Then there
was another appointment ?—Yes, he promised to
meet me on the following Wednesday evening, at
a quarter to 10, at the same place, and he said he
would then take me to a railway station to receive
the baby.
Did you meet him ?—Yes, sir.
At the time appointed ?—Yes, to the moment.
Had you any one then in your company ?—Yes,
a person named Mrs. Scott.
Is she known by any other name P—Yes, Mary
Ann Idle.
Hid she any conversation with the prisoner is
your presence P—Nothing particular that I can
think of.
What then took place ?—We went into the station.
How did you go to the station P—A cab was
taken at the top of Windmill-street.
Who called the cab P—The gentleman.
And did the good gentleman go with you ?
Yes, we all three went.
Wbat station was it ?—lt was at Euston-square.
What took place there ?—When the cab stopped
at the station he told me and Mary Ann Idle to
stay in the cab a little while, and he would be back
again in a few minutes.
Was it in Drummond street outside the station ?
—Yes, sir, it was.
Well, what then P—We waited and he came back
again in about five minutes, and said the train had
not come in, and that it would be about a quarter of
an hour.
Did you soon afterwards receive the • child ?
Yes, sir, I did from the young person who was
examined before me.
Did you receive the money also P—No, sir, Idle
received it for me.
In your presence P—No, she went into the ale-
house to receive it while I remained in the cab.
Did you see her receive it ?—No, but I received
it afterwards from her.
How much ?-1:,15.
, Was the money in gold ?—Yes, all in sovereigns.
Now, did the prisoner say anything to you before
about a bank note ?—Yes, I asked him if he had
got one, and he said yes, he had got one ; and I then
asked him to get it changed, as it was so difficult
for a poor person to change a note.
Now, was any address given to you where you
might communicate anything respecting the child?
—None at all.
Did the prisoner take your address, or did you
give him one prisoner
gave him my address.
Where was that ?—N0.19, Litchfield-street, Soho.
Did you live there ? —No, sir.
Was anything to be sent there ?—Yes, sir, a box
of clothing. It was to be addressed to Mrs. Scott,
19, Litchfield-street, Soho.
Afterwards did you receive some baby's clothing?
—Yes.
Is the box produced the one it came in ?—Yes.
Who brought the clothes ?—I cannot say; the
box came by the delivery.
Did Mary Ann Idle or Scott give you the box
now produced ?—Yes, sir, she did.
Were there any marks on the baby's clothes ?
No, all precautions and marks had been taken off.
Were the marks cut out or were they only obli-
terated P—There was a little bedgown where there
had been a mark, and it seemed as if the mark had
been taken out and a little piece let in.
Was the child when you received it wrapped in
the shawl produced P—Yes, sir, that was the shawl,
You have lived at several places since that time,
I believe ?—Yes, I have.
But always within the district of St. Giles's ?
Yes, sir.
Has the child been with you since you received it
from Catherine Parsons till lately?—Yes, till lately.
With but one exception P—One seven days.
1)3 you mean that was when you went to prison
for that period ?—Yes, and the child went to the
workhouse.
During Neither idhierewctihyolneortime you have had
. the child
has the prisoner ever seen you or had any communi-
cation with you P—N
None of any kind
whatever . —No, sir.
o, sir.
partw. hofatthheavperiysoonner indirectly
~ 9—None at all.
Has any one ever sought after the child on the
egaiuvesendiat up to
atehneematoi:thnne.e
[The child was don© with
childnto
court,
rI t haveand
finethe Everyslliigghhttesftegfiloiwmpfsoerofhihi man. The boy seemed a
xi personu s
t o
ophrteasisne de
even
ward, and appeared most
the court from his nurse'esaages
sur-
prise, little conscious of the
important with a gaze of
n; and looked around
portant part he was
playing in the proceedings.
When taken close to
the box ho looked into the witness'sfe
dentl recoomeelinfgacwea,
the sores
reps
amongst the auised hditorsw r. A painfulaesr
eletkreatotmeeunrt ev
e,sa nd
createdevi
y when it-
perceivedl that it
medical
ill-treatment to which
absrtoeursghbteinong
bowyna ist t
the
enhdeneaerdg ml
andeee ddt
it had
been subjected.]
The examination of the witness continued.
Is
continued
Is that the child ?—Yes, sir, it is.
Is that the child you received from Catherine
Parsons P—lt is the same child.

In cross-examination by Mr. Philbrick, she said
her husband was Thomas Andrews, and that he was
a baker by trade. When be died I lived in Shetland-'
court, Drury-lane. I have lived in Lincoln-court,
Drury-lane, all the time I have had the child. I
have only been in trouble once all that time. I had
the child on a Wednesday ; of that I am positive.
Mrs. Scott has lived at Litchfield-street a long time.
Lincoln-court is nearly opposite Russell-street, Co
'vent-garden.
At the conclusion of the evidence the witness, on
being told to sign the depositions, said she could
not write, and having affixed her mark, left the
court evidently without exciting any sympathy
amongst the people.
Mary Ann Idle, who was brought up in charge
of one of the female warders of Tothill-field Prison
under a writ of habeas, was next sworn. She is a
swarthy, copper-coloured complexioned woman, but
of a somewhat forbidding determined aspect. Her
evidence, which was given with firmness and deci-
sion, was as follows :
By Mr. Cooke—You are sometimes known as
Mary Ann Scott ?—Yes, sir.
You are now under sentence at the House of Cor-
rection ?—Yes, sir.
Do you recollect ever having seen the prisoner
now present ?—Yes, sir, perfectly well.
When did yon first see him P—l cannot say the
day of the month when I first saw him.
Who was with you P—No one at all when I first
saw him.
When did you first see him F—l was waiting in
Windmill-street, when a woman told me that a
gentleman was going to give her a child.
Did you first speak to the prisoner or he to you ?
I saw him first in Windmill-street. A Hansom cab
came up and stopped opposite the Casino. The
prisoner got out and looked cautiously round, and
then went up a court where I was. The woman
went over to him, and I saw her speak to him,
but I did not hear what was said.
When the prisoner first spoke to you what did
he say ?—He said he was going to give the woman
the child.
What took place ?—The woman Andrews said to
the prisoner that I was the woman she wished to go
with her before she took the child.
Did she point to you ?—Yes, she did.
What took place then ?—He said something to
Andrews about money, and I heard him say he had
got ten sovereigns and a £5 note.
What next was said P—l said it was very ill-
convenient for the woman to take a note, as she was
a poor woman, and could not get change for it. He
said he would go and get it changed himself, and
give us gold.
Did you go to the Euston station with Andrews?
—Yes,
there. in a cab, with her and that gentleman sitting

On what day was it can't say.
Where did you meet to go to the station ?—ln a
street that leads out of Windmill-street.
And the prisoner came there in a cab?—Yes, sir.
What occurred P—He said he would go, and he
went to get change for the note, and we went down
to Coventry-street, where he called a cab, and we
ail went to the Euston-square station.
What then followed ?—We went up to the station.
He got out of the cab and went away, and when he
came back he said the train was late, and had not
come in. In a short time I heard a train come in,
and the prisoner went away again, and when he
came back he said the train had come in. He
brought a woman
.with the child.
Catherine Parsons having been called into court,
the witness said—That is the young woman who
had the child in her arms.
Was the boy wrapped up in that shawl which is
lying there ?---Yes, sir, he was.
• What was then done ?—He was then going to
give ns money in the street, but I would not take
it unless I saw it in the light.
How much was it P—Fifteen pounds in gold.
Did you give that money to Mrs. Andrews after-
wards ?—Yes. I gave it her, but she gave it me
back, and I had to take it to my place.
What became of the child ?—Mrs. Andrews took
the child from the young woman.
In the presence of the prisoner ? Yes, sir.
Was any address given where the prisoner was
to be found P—No address was given in my hearing.
Was that child, to your knowledge, in the pos-
session of Mrs. Andrews afterwards ?—Yes, I saw
it very often.
That was until lately P—That was until within
the last eleven months. I have not seen much of
it since.
Should you know it again ?—Yes.
(The child was again brought into court, and the
same excitement was exhibited.)
Is that the child ?—Yes.

Now, was that child, to your knowledge, during
the time it was in Mrs. Andrews's possession ex-
posed to many hardships ?
Mr. Philbrick—No, no; that question will notdo
at all.

Mr. Cooke did not press the question.
Mr. Philbrick declined to cross examine this wit-
ness, and as it was found to be impossible to finish
the case at a late hour, the prisoner was again re
manded.

It is necessary to state that throughout the whole
proceedings, whenever the question of identity was
mentioned, Mr. Philbrick contended tnat such mat-
ter was irrelevant. He argued that it was imma-
terial to the pfeseat issue whatever the prisoner
had done to the child, the charge only being for
falsifying the register, and he informed the magi•
strates that they were clashing with the jurisdic-
tion of Sir Cresswell Cresswell. The learned
gentleman further said that at the proper time
a full and complete refutation of the charge would
be forthcoming. He also desired to mention that
domestic affliction of the prisoner's brother, a clergy-
man of the Church of England, had prevented bail
being given. At the commencement of the hearing
all the witnesses were ordered out of court.

Throughout the day the excitement was intense,
and the great crowds of persons who could not ob-
tain admission to the court-room thronged around
the windows, anxious to catch a glimpse of the
scene, and in spite of a heavy rain, which ,fell al-
most incessantly, they maintained their positions
till the case terminated, and then rushed to the

various points of egress in the hope of witnessing
the departure of the prisoner.
Mrs. Hill was piesent in an adjoining room, and
Col. Burdett (her brother) and several members of
both families were also in attendance. The general
arrangements of the court-room were admirable,
and Superintendept Wild afforded with great cour-
tesy every information and assistance to the mem-
bers of the press.

WILLS AND BEQUESTS.

The will of Sir Godfrey John Thomas, Bart. of
Wanvoe Castle, Glamorganshire, and of White
Chingford, Essex, who died on the 13th July
fast, was proved in London on' the 12th inst. by his
relict, Emily Lady Thomas, -sole executrix. Sir
Godfrey died possessed of real and personal pro-
perty, the whole of which he has bequeathed to his
relict absolutely, in whom he appears to have re-
posed the greatest confidence, stating in his will,
" To her guardianship and absolute control I leave
my dear children, believing that she will leave
nothing undone to promote their welfare." The will
is exceedingly brief, being comprised within the
limits of only one folio, and is in the handwriting
of the testator. Sir Godfrey was the eighth Baro-
net of that name. He succeeded his brother in
1852, married in 1853, and died at the premature
age of 37.
The will of Deputy Commissary-General George
White, who died at his residence, Sir John's-wood,
on the 3d of last month, was proved on the 7th
inst. by his relict and daughter, whom he appointed
joint executrixes. This gentlemen belonged to the
Commissiariat Department, and attained to the
rank of Deputy Commissary-General in that branch
of our military service. The will is as short in its
contents as in its directions, which merely gives all
the property of which the testator died possessed
between his relict and daughter. There are no
other bequests contained in the will.
The will of Lieutenant-Colonel Gervais Powell
Tubervill, K.H., of Ewenny Abbey, Glamorgan•
shire, was proved in London on the 12th inst. by
the executors therein appointed—namely, Sir George
Lewen Glyn, Bart., and Captain Thomas Picton
Warlow, 8.A., the testator's cousins. The per-
sonalty was sworn under £45,000. Colonel Tur-
bervill has bequeathed his property amongst his
family, with the exception of a small legacy to the
officiating minister of Ewenny. The testator was
twice married, and having, It appears, received
some property by his first marriage with his wife,
he has left the same amongst that lady's relatives.
The Colonel has given to his relect a life inte-
rest in all his property real and personal.
The estates of Corntown Court, near Ewenny, on
the decease of the Colonel's relief, is to pass to the
Colonel's sister, Miss Elizabeth M. Turbervill, for
her life ; and on her decease that estate, together
with the entire residue, is bequeathed to the testa-
tor's three cousins, Sir George Glyn, Captain T. P.
Warlow, and William Warlow, Esq.—Front the
Illustrated. _London News, Sept. 21.

_
owa
pl M [ADVERTISEENT.]—HoIIy's Pills and Ointment.—
Premature Decay.—When from free living, excessive in-
dulgence, or the enervating effects of hot climates the
nervous system becomes shaken and the bodily powers
debilitated, Holloway's remedies may be used with the cer-
tainty of :their producing relief for dyspepsia, liver com-
plaints, sick-headache, and loss of appetite. This Ointment
should be very well rubbed twice a day over the pit of the
stomach and right side, whilst Holloway's Pills are being
taken in such doses as can conveniently be borne. This
treatment will always restore strength and energy. Ner-
vousness, flushes, and fainting fits, may all be prevented
by a timely recourse to and diligent use of these remedies,
whicbt ouhot do hhou to tiro mat delicate or debilitated.