The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-03 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY _EVENING, DECEMBER 3, 1850.

Sir Gregory; the second was superseded at the instance
of his brother Si: Edward Turner. That second con-
; mission was traversed, and the traverse was tried in
1826. I conducted the defence of that traverse,
and Ng:6 preterit at the trial. I was employed
to support the commission. That commission
was established en the inquest on the traverse.
I have had consuhations with Sir Francis Milmau
Dr. Warhurten, sod other medical men who attended
Sir Gregory. In the interval between the two commis-
sions, between 1815 and 1823, Sir Gregory was attacked
nearly in every year, beginning with intoxication, which
led on to direct lunacy. Those attacks continued upon
him for a few weeks at a time. On the cessation of those
attacks he returned to a lucid state of mind. There was
a personal restraint put upon him whilst the attacks
lasted. He was allowed to do as he pleased afterwards.
Sir Francis Milman was on every occasion called in; he
imposed the restraint and he directed the liberation. Sir
Francis Milman is long since dead. I communicated
with the medical gentlemen on the. e occasions, Sir Gre-
gory having requested me to interfere when he was
in his senses. On his recovery ho expressed
perfect approbation of what I had done. The
! falter of Sir Gregory died in 1805. Sir Gregory
had not then come of age; but he came of age next
year, when be succeeded to considerable landed property,
part of which he was tenant for life, and the other part
of which he was tenant fee. There was also money di-
rected to be laid out in land, of which Sir Gregory was
tenant for life. The property altogether was worth
about 20,0001. a bear. When he came of age Sir
Gregory mode, acquaintances uncongenial to his own
rank; he mixed in the company of disreputable profli-
gate persons, who sought his society for their own in
tereat, and who led him Lao habits of intoxication. I
do not know that there was any insanity in the family.
Both father and son were eccentric men. I know he in-
dulged in habits of intoxication shortly before the issuing
of the first commission. After he was put under re-
straint his mind gradually improved, and so much so that
in the following year the commission was superseded.
It was superseded after Lord Chancellor Eldon had an
interview with Sir Gregory. After the commission was
superseded he soon recurred to those habits of intoxica-
tion, which he continued up till 1823. I would certainly
describe Sir Gregory as at all times an eccentric man.
He was perfectly regardless of personal appearance at
all times, negligent of his person, shy and sullen towards
strangers, had habits of talking eagerly and very loud,
and his demeanour was calculated to create an unfavour-
able impression on the first appearance. He had also a
pecaliarity, such as sometimes fearing infection; if he
met a funeral he would cross the street rather than meet
it. He would never shake hands with a person with his
naked hand of late years, He had a habit of stuffing
large things into his breeches' pockets, which gave him
a grotesque appearance. On further acquaintance he
showed himself to be a man of education; he had very
considerabie conversational talents and was greatly ad-
dicted to reading. He graduated at Oxford; I think he
was a student at Brezenose. He had a strong power of
memory. Towards 1539 or 1840 his bodily health be-
came a great deal impaired. Sir Gregory's mind became
much improved as his body began to decline. When
his brother, Sir EdWard Turner, came to visit him he
used to declare that he was not his brother, but Captain
Calloway, and was the sou of a butler in his family of
that name. Oa the 14th of August, 1839, Sir Gregory
called on me and said his breather Edward had been to see
him, with which he was very much pleased, and he de-
sired me to appoint his brother to meet him at my office.
I did so. Oa the 17th August, 1839, Sir Gregory and
his brothers Edward met at my office. Sir Gregory
addressed him most cordially, appeared greatly pleased
to see him, and they sat in friendly conversa-
tion together for about half an hour. Sir Gre-
gory afterwards expressed his satisfaction at
that interview. That was when I was making his will.
On the lath of February, 1841, Sir Gregory called on
me at my office by himself, without any keeperattend-
ing him, this being the first time I had seen him after his
liberation from restraint. He said he had called upon
me to be congratulated, meaning for his liberation; he
held out his naked hand and cordially shook hands
with me. The circumstance struck me, for I
had not for twenty years before known him
do such a thing. Sir Gregory's' habit heretofore
had been never to open any door with his nakediand.
If he had not a glove onahe would stand still awaiting of
me to open the door for him. If I did not do that, he
would take the skirt of his coat in his hand and open the
door with it. On this occasion he opened the door with
his naked hand. He was always greatly averse
to any medical man visiting him ; but after this
occasion that in a great measure disappeared.
In the following year, when Dr. Southey was called in,
it was at his own request. That was in the winter of
1840. He was continually complaining of the existence
of the second commission, but he would not allow me to
mention the word supersedeas. He insisted that it
should be traversed. lam speaking up to the period of
1839. He was dissatisfied with the traverse which had
been tried. He objected to the supersedeas, because
that implied it was a right act at the time, but he thought
that a traverse would show that it had been wrong from
the beginning. In 1839, however, be talked no more
about a traverse. He then wished a supersedeas, but it
that could not done he should be content, if he was
freed from personal restraint. That was in 1840.
When he came to me, in 1841, he was freed
from personal restraint, seemed in high spirits.
and was perfectly satisfied. Dr. Warburton approved of
the restraint being removed, in conjunction with Dr
Southey. The committee of his person were Lady
Turner and Mr. Dryden. Those particular delusions
never occurred again to the end of his life; never any of
them, to my knowledge. In July, 1838, I received in-
structions from Lady Turner and Mr. Fryer to prepare a
marriage settlementfor the daughter of Sir Gregory. Miss
Turner was then under age, and an application wan
made to the Court of Chancery to permit the marriage.
That was referred to the Master, to inquire whether it
was a proper marriage, and the Master reported that it
was. The date ef the report is August the 2d, 1838.
I then gave instructions to Mr. Hodson, the con-
veyancer, to prepare a draft settlement, and he
did so. Mr. Stephens acted as solicitor on behalf
of Mr. Fryer, and I submitted the draft to Mr.
Stephens, who returned it with some alterations, sub-
stituting other properties for the sum of 20,0001. origi-
nally proposed to be settled by Mr. Fryer. I submitted
those alterations to Mr. Hodson, who would not
approve them unless with the approbation of the
Court of Chancery. I called on Mr. Fryer to
complete the original agreement for a settlement made
at Southampton, but a year elapsed without any com-
pliance. The marriage had then taken place. Mr.
Fryer did not complete the article, and a bill was filed
fif een months afterwards. Mr. Fryer was eventually,
though not at first, made a party to that bill. Upon
the bill being filed Mr. Fryer applied to the Master of
the Rena, who eventually ordered that the infant wife
should be made a party plaintiff. In Feb., 1841, she came
of age, when "she disavowed the bill, and desired her name
to be struck out as plaintiff in an application to the Master
of the Rolls. The Master of the Rolls desired to see the
lady herself, and on the 19th April she went before him
and disavowed the suit. (Shown the will in question.)
I saw that will signed by Sir Gregory Page Turner on the
15th June, 1841, Henry Elston being the other attesting
witness. When he signed his will I thought Sir Gregory
as perfectly competent to make a will as any man who
now hears me. The will was executed at my office. The
first time he mentioned to me the subject of a will, by
the name of such, was on the 22(1 April, 1841; that
was at my office; he gave me generally to understand what
his wish was with respect to the disposition of his
property; he said his great object was to protect his
daughter, and he appealed to me, that I must see the
necessity of this from what had taken place on the
19th. During the proceedings in Chancery Sir Gregory
was continually calling on me to hear how things went
on, and expressed very great anxiety about them. Sir
Gregory called en me again by appointment on
the 29th of April. He came alone, as on the
former occasion. I think then Rook had discontinued
attending him. There was a general conversation on
the 29th about the will, and he explained more fully his
object. He made an' appointment to call again on the
6th May, and be came on that day pursuant
to his appointment, when there was nothing
passed but general conversation. He made an
appointment to come on the 13th. I rather
induced him to come again and again that I might not
be in haste to prepare the will for him. Between the
6th and the 13th May I prepared a draft will (pro-
duced) pursuant to his instructions. That is wholly in
my handwriting. The original instructions were so
simple that they required very little memorandum and
I carried them in my head. When Sir Gre-
gory called on me, on the 13th, I spread the
draft on my desk; I invited him to come and sit down
by my side, which he did. I read the whole over to
him, and with him. He made his observations as we
went on, end he directed certain alterations or addi-
tions to be made. There were several parts of his will
that he required to be read more than once.
He appointed to come again to me on the
20th of May, and . desired me to have ready,
when he should come, the will of his father. Between
the 13th and 28th May I made a new draft, which was
a copy of the alterations he had directed to be made in
it, and that I submitted to him on the 20th (produced).
In the first draft there were no trustees appointed, nor
was there any disposition of the residue. The second
draft was laid before Sir Gregory in the same
manner; he cat down by my side; I read it
aloud to him throughout very deliberately,
he overlooking and reading with me. As before, he
immediately stopped me to read again a passage ho did
not exactly comprehend, and he directed further altera-
tions. One alteration was the name of his trustee. He
had inserted the name of Henry W. Bayfield, his wife's
brother, a captain in the navy; he observed he was
not a proper person for trustee, because he
might be absent on service, and he directed me
to insert instead of him the Rev. Lemster Dryden, his
cousin. He requested me to make an alteration which I
suggested to him respecting a building lease, and that
was the only suggestion I made to him throughout the
whole business, and that he adopted. He made another
appointment for the 27th, by which time I had the draft
engrossed for his execution. Ho came again on that
day, and I again spread the copy of the will before
him ; he sat down by my side again, and
I read the will over with him word for word, he over-
locking tae; and he directed two alterations to be made
in it, ono of them having reference to a legacy to his
ezerutore. He said to me " Remember Steckpool."
That had reference to his father's will, an executer of
whom was named Stackpool, who, refusing to act, it
became a question whether a legacy bequeathed to the
executor by the will should be paid to him, is having
been given to him "for his trouble therein."—(A laugh.)
The examination of the witness in chief having con-
cluded, he was then aubjected to a long cross-ex imina-
tion by the,Solicitor-General, and at six o'clock the fur-
ther proceedings in the case web adjeureed to to-more
row morning (this day), when they will be resumed. -
There are numerous witnesses in the ease, which,
according to the opinions of some, is likely to occupy

the Court several days. The day's sitting was occupied
by the extniirtution of two witneses.

INSOLVENT DElgiiikS' COURT, Dee. 2.
(Bet Ore Mr. Cornmissionsr LAW.)
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES HENRY HANCE.
This imolvenr, an advsrtisit g oi,-count agent, hsvirg
offices in Northumberland-street. S,rnri, whose case
was bef :re the court on a former occasion, when it ap-
peared that the present was his eighth appearance at
this court and the Court of Bankruptcy, again came up.
An opposition was now made by two Government clerks,
named Drury and Pennell, who had placed a bill in the
insolvent's hands to discount.
Mr. Sargood appeared for a clergyman in Suffolk,
named Rust; Mr. Cooke supported.
The case on the part of the two Government clerks
(young men) was, that they wanted to raise some money,
and they made a bill for 60/., which jhey placed in the
insolvent's hands to be discounted, telling him they
wanted money for it. He was to have Si. for doing it.
In a few days he told them they could hove 15/. in money,
and three pictures worth 451. They took the money and
authorised the insolvent to sell the pictures for them.
The pit tares had not been seen, and 15/. was all that
had been obtained. Proceedings had been taken against
the young men on the bill, end they had made arrange-
ments to pay the same. On the former hearing, the in-
solvent, seeing one of them in court, gave him an order
on a Mr. Lewis, wine-merchant, of Water lane, Tower-
street, where he said the pictures were to be had, but on
going there the party was disappointed, and it now
turned out that they were deposited with a Mr. Levy, of
Smith-:street, Mile-end-real.
The insolvent, on his examination, stated that the bill
was discounted by Mr. Levy for 15/, and three pictures,
which pictures were to be sold by him. They were,
however, still unsold, and were deposited with a "party"
for IL On being pressed for the name of the parti, he
raid it was Mr. Levy, who had discounted the bill. He
thought they were in the hands of Mr. Lewis, when he
gave the order on the former occasion.
Mr. Lewis, wine-merchant, of Water-lane, Tower-
street, was examined at some length respecting his con-
nexion with the insolvent. He had been in the habit of
placing bills in his (Lewis's) hands to he discounted, and
he was now a creditor to more than 300/. He produced
an account of his transactions with the insolvent.
During the hearing of the case of the Government
clerks, it was suggested by Mr. Cooke thlt the pictures
deposited for 20s. should be sent for, it being admitted
that the clerks were creditors.
Mr. Commissioner LAW declared that be should hear
the case. He could give the insolvent no other designa-
tion than that of a " common cheat," and so he should
deal with him when he gave judgment.
On the part of the clergyman, for whom Mr. Sargood
appeared, it transpired that he became acquainted with
the insolvent through his advertisements, and he placed
in his hands his acceptance for 1001., which would be-
come due neat month, and for which he had not received
one shilling. He wished to ascertain what had become of
the same.

On examination, the insolvent admitted that he had
been in the habit of advertising as " James H.," some-
times as " H. James," leaving out the name " Hance."
He had placed the bill of the clergyman in the hands of
Mr. Lewis, the wine-merchant, to be discounted, and
he afterwards declined to cash it, but retained the bill.
Mr. Lewis, who was ordered out of court during the
insolvent's examination, said he had the bill, but declined
to answer any questions about it. On being told that
he was bound to do so, he stated that he received it in
September. Addressing the Court, he said he found he
had got into the hands of a disreputable p..rson, and
would give up the bill in 24 hours.
Mr. SAROOOD said of course he should be satisfied with
the bill.
It was elicited from Mr. Lewis th,:t there were other
bills which he had received from the insolvent to dis•
count, which were not in the accounts produced.
His HONOUR required a full account from Mr. Lewis,
and the case was ..ojournad to Tuesday next.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
THIRD COUR I.
• (Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Richard Hammett Drake, 28, clerk, was indicted for
,mbczzling the sums of 801. and 51, the property of
Messrs. Abraham Wildey Robarts and others, his
masters.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Iluddlestone prosecuted, Mr.
Rigby Seymour and Mr. Pearse wore for the prisoner.
Mr. BODKIN, in stating the case to the jury, said the
duty that devolved upon him was of an unusually pain-
nil nature, from the fact of his being called upon to pro-
secute a young man who had hitherto borne a highly
respectable character and came of very good family, and
had been held in the highest esteem by his employers.
The circumstances out of which the charges arose were
these:—The prosecutors were Messrs. Roberts, Curtis,
and Co., the well-known banking firm, and the prisoner
had been a clerk in their firm for between eight and
nine years, and his employers, knowing the respecta-
bility of his family connexions, and having a high
.esteem for him, had continued to advance him until he
became cashier of the provincial banking department, a
separate department in the firm. He had one assistant
under him, and his duties were to receive the
various sums paid into the bank for the va
rious banks in the country. The practice was
for the prisoner to take whatever money or notes were
brought in, make a memorandum of them, wrap the
amount so brought up in a piece of paper, place it in a
till, give the party bringing it a receipt for the amount,
and at a later period of the day make up and enter the
amount received, and send off the customary letters of
Icivices to such provincial hanks as the sums sent in
were credited to and made payable at. In the present
instance the two sums had been paid in to the prisoner
on the 18th and 19th of October, and had never been
?ntered or accounted for; and on the 21st of October
the prisoner had gone away somewhat before his usual
time, alleging that he was unwell, and never made his
appearance again at the office, and was finally taken
into custody, having been down to his friends in Devon-
shire. His reason for leaving in the hurried manner he
had was that the firm had what was termed an agree-
ment balance every three weeks, which was a general
making up of the cash accounts of the firm, and then,
unless falsification had been resorted to, his delinquency
would have been discovered; and this balance was to
nave been struck on the day subsequent to his having
absconded.
Mr. Eiger Pitt proved having on the 18th of October
paid into Messrs. Roberts, from Mr. Dixon, the sum of
5/. to the account of Messrs. Stuckey and Vivian, to be
made payable at the Wellington Batik, Somerset.
Mr. Brown, clerk to Messrs. Coutts and Co., proved
paying into the department over which the prisoner had
control the sum of 80/., in two 30/. notes and one 201.;
this was for a Miss Selina Rowley, Bristol, and payable
at the Bristol Bank. The 30/. notes were numbered
54.792 and 93, and the one for 201., 73.330. A further
,um of fifteen guineas was also proved to have been
paid in on the same day, the 19th, for the Rev. Mr.
Southwood, Cheltenham.
Two clerks from Messrs. Robarts were called, and
proved that no entry had been made of the 51. or 801.,
but the fifteen guineas had; and the moneys had not been
paid in.
On the evening of Monday before he loft, Drake gor
one of his fellow-clerks to change one of the 301. note,
for him, saying it was for his cousin. The others he
had changed the same day, the 201 one at his tailor's.
a Mr. Baker, of Clement's-lane, Lombard street, to
whom he paid a bill, and bought a new top coat; the
other, for 301, he changed with the landlord of the
Grapes Tavern, Strand, to whom he owed a bill. It
was asserted that his salary was about 150/. a year.
Daniel Forrester said he apprehended the prisoner at
the house of a friend, in James-street, Clerkenwell, on
the 31st of October.

Mr. SEYMOUR made a very forcible address to the jury,
concluding that the money might have been abstracten
without the prisoner's knowledge.
Mr. GURNEY having summed up, the jury found him
Guilty.
Mr. SEYMOUR said he trusted, for the sake of the pri-
soner's connexions, and his previous character, that the
Court would look mercifully on an act that had been
committed in a moment of temptation. The prisoner
had shown every contrition, and had made the prosecu-
tors aware of defalcations they did not know the
existence of.

Mr. BODKIN said he should shrink from his duty if he
did not state, that so far from it being any sudden tempta-
tion, it had been going on for fifteen months; and that
he had deceived the firm by falsifying the books. There
were two other indictments for the same offeuce, the
joint sums being nearly 9002, and his defalcations alto-
gether were nearly 1,500/.
Mr. GURNEY, in passing sentence, said the prisoner's
position, character, and the other circumstances were but
an aggravation of his behaviour. lie was sentenced to
be transported for ten years.
The other cuses tried in this court during the day were
a number of wholly uninteresting charges of felony and
misdemeanours.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Thomas Williams was again brought up for exami-
nation.
Mr. Humphreys appeared for the prosecution; and
Mr. Clarkson for the defence.
The eharge against the prisoner, who was first brought
up three weeks ago, was that he bad applied to Messrs.
Shoolbred and Co., of Tottenham-court-road, to pur-
chase a large quantity of silks of which he produced pat-
terns, and which had been stolen from the premises of
Mr. Watts, of Gutter-lane, Cheapside, on the night of
the 6th of November. It was soon suspected at the
house of Messrs. Shoolbred that the sifts had been stolen,
and the suspicion was confirmed upon inquiry at the
premises of the prosecutor, who stated the loss to be in
value between 500/. and 600/. Measures were imme-
diately taken by the police, and Inspector Mitchell pro-
duced some evidence at a subsequent examination of the
prisoner, who was held to bail in a larger amount than
he could procure, and of course remained in prison until
to-day.
Upon the representation of Mr. Clarkson, who said
that the prisoner could not, while in confinement, exert
himself properly to discover the party by whom he had
been employed to sell the eonds,
The LORD Melon, with the consent of Mr. Humph-
reys, consented to take bail for the prisoner's appear-
ance, in one security for 50/, and the security of the ac-
cused himself ie 100/.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Mr. Bingham precceded to give hie judgment on the
evidence brought before him in support of a charge
,'Saiest William St. Clair, of having &tempted by in-
timidation to obrain a higher rate of wages for the work-
men from Me-isrs. Fox end Henderson, the ceetreetors.
Mr. BINGHAM said—On Monday week Ih' defendant,
accompanied by,
and at the head of, a body of nearly 50
workmen, who had quitted their employment, accosted
the contractor for the works in Hyde-park with words
and a gesture, which, even according to the account ;

given by the defendant and his witnesses, amounted to
a b.-e.ch the peace. For rhis it'-.aeh of the peace he
was ituaAaliately givon into ctiet-dy, a al brougti‘ before
!he magistrate. 1.1.0(ai the hearing he was remanded
till the, next day, when the prosecutor, in addition to
his c• replaint touching rhr breach of peace committed
in Hyde-park, contended that the sending of a certain
letter by the tkf.,rniant; to the prosecutor before the
breaeh of the peace was committed was an i,lft.rice
under the statut, of 6 George IV., c. 129; and if so,
it is undoubtedly by far the mast :',erious and im-
p,. rtant circumstance that has been brought to the
notice of the magistrate. It is objected, how-
ever, by the defendant to this part of the
case, that no summons had issued against him, and that
a magistrate had no jurisdiction over offences under the
statute 6 George IV., c. 129, until a summons has been
issued. It seems to me that the case of ‘• Rex v. Stone,"
1 East, 649, and three others which preceded it, might
be held an answer to this objection. But as it is of great
importance that the charge against the defendant, under
the statute, stiou!d he decided on its own merits, unem-
barrassed by questious about forms or technicalities, I
retrain from expressing 119 y opinion en that charge. Is
it the intention of the prosecutor to apply for a summons?
Mr. Humphreys—Certainly, if the present proceedings
should he irregular.
Mr. BINGHAM—Then with re3pect to the breach of the
peace, which was the immediate occa,ion of the defend-
atiL's arrest, it teems to me so rub:)rdinate a part of the
whole proceedings, that I shall not err in now ordering
his discharge.
Mr. Rippon, for the defendant, applied for a certificate
of dismissal.
Mr. BINGHAM said he would consider the application.
If a certificate ought to be granted, it could be granted
at any time. - •
Mr. Rippon applied for an order on the police to re-
store the paper& which, he contended, had been impro-
perly taken from him.
Mr. BINGHAM could not give any order.
Mr. Humphreys then applied for a summons against
the defendant, which was granted.

SOUTH WARK.

George Bowler, a young man in the employment oi
Mr. George Smith, hat and cap manufacturer, of Union
Hall, Union-street. and George Smith, were placed at the
bar, before Mr. a'Beckett, the former charged with steal-
ing a cash-box from an iron safe, containing documents
and other papers of importance, together with a small
amount in money, and the latter prisoner with being
concerned in the offine?.
The complainant stated that Bowler was in his employ,
and knows that he kept a cash-box in an iron safe on the
premises in Union Hall. On Thursday week Bowler
was sent to the iron safe, which is kept under the stair-
case, for the account-books and the ea.h-box, and after
having brought up the books into the counting-house, he
said that the cash-box was not in the safe. He, however,
was not suspected at the time of stealing it, until a few
days afterwards a number of letters, amounting to forty,
were given to him to post, and instead of paying the
postage, which was given to him for the purpose, he
kept the money. He then left his employer's pre-
mises, and as he was suspected of purloining
the cash-box, information was given at the police
station, and Sergeant Barker, M division, succeeded
in taking him into custody. When taken to the
station-house, Bowler, in reference to the cash-box, said
that he was induced to plunder his employer by his fel-
low-Prisoner, who, knowing that he had access to the iron
safe on the premises, urged him to steal the cash-box.
Lie at first refused to listen to such a suggestion, but his
scruples were at length overcome, and on the day men-
tioned, when he was sent to the iron safe for the books,
he took the opportunity of taking the cash-box, and, as
previously arranged, he handed it over to his associate,
who was waiting on the premises to receive it. Bowler
added that the man who had urged him to the commis-
sion of the offence was then waiting for him at a neigh-
bouring coffee-shop, and thither the sergeant proceeded
and apprehended Smith. The latter prisoner, on that
occasion, when informed of the nature of the charge
against him, and told that Bowler had confessed to taking
the cash-box, said he was glad of it—that truth was the
best—and that his being out of employ, and having no
money, was the reason that he became mixed up in the
transaction.
The complainant said that a day or two previously to
the cash box being stolen it contained between 2001. and
300/, besides bills of exchange, policies, and other doeu- "
mente of importance. A few days after it had been
stolen the cash-box was found with the lock wrenched
'pen, ins ditch, beyond- Islington, and it was brought
to him by a policeman of the K division, the bills and
other documents being uninjured.
The prisoners, who declined saying anything in an-
swer to the charge, were committed.

agsinst parties committing perjury in the courts over
Which thry pyrsid,l; tn.-.gi,trat, o. ; tnv:.;l -
pa.city had no authority whatov,.•r to do so.
The court having been cleared, t!,e
remained in dclib,rAtion for some tew tni!,ute, iTon
the objection raised. the door, ;,vert• p 7.,
The Cnairrn;_in slid utianim
Of opinion thai thy- abjection ttiken wa, unteo,,, It
the first section of Jervis' Act it we- laid d,wn ;bat
"in all cases where a charge or complaint :shall be
made h,f,re any one or more of her Majesty's jus.
tices of the peace that any person has committed, or
is suspected to have committed, any treasol, felony,
or indictable misdemeanour, or other indictable
offence whatsoever, in every such case, if the person.
so charged or complained against shall not then he in
custody, it shall be lawful tor such justice or justices
to issue his or their warrant to apprehend such person,
and to cause him to he brought before such justice to
answer such charge or complaint." The Bench con-
sidered that this clause entirely met the objection
taken by Mr. Rawlings.
Mr. Rawlings was about to raise another objection,
when

The Chairman said he wished to put a question to
Superintendent Coulson, which might, perhaps, dis-
pense with the necessity of Mr. Rawlings proceeding..
(To Mr. Coulson)—ls Mr. Johnstone here? Mr.
Coulson—l believe he is, Sir.
The Chairman—Have you any other evidence than
that we are in possession of to support the complaint ?
Mr. Coulson—No, Sir.
The Chairman—Then this case is dismissed, on the
ground that there is insufficient evidence to support
the complaint. The Bench have come to this decision
in consequence of their confident belief that subor-
nation of perjury has been committed, and they are
determined that the matter shall be fully investigated.
Mr. Rawlings addressed the Bench at some
length, and complained that the prosecution had been
got up by the superintendent at the instigation of the
magistrates. His client had been confined for four
days in a police-cell, and denied all communication
with her friends, and now she was dismissed without
even a single witness having been called. He had
never before heard of such a proceeding, and he
should take immediate measures to make those who
were answerable account for their conduct in the
matter.
The proceedings then terminated.
In consequence of some difficulty being anticipated
in the apprehension cf the girl, the police are said to
have adopted an artifice which placed her in custody
without difficulty. A man dressed in rustic attire,
with a gun in his hand, was sent into a field at the
back of the cottage where the girl's parents reside.
He fired off the gun several times, and the girl pre-
sently came out of the cottage to see what he was
shooting at. She walked up to him, and as soon as
she came within reach the disguised officer intimated
to her that she was a prisoner, and immediately
brought her over to Brentwood.