The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-30 00:00:00

Cross-examined by Mr. Knowles—He keeps one
servant. Did-not know that the land at Bebing-
ton was mortiaged.
Xark Lowe said he was a servant of the defen-
dant, who rented a shop in the London-road, at
401. a year.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knowles—Did not know
that the shop was mortgaged.
Mr. James having summed up,
Mr. Attorney-General Knowles addressed the
jury for the defence. He said, his learned' friend
had appealed to their feelings with regard to the
alleged scandalous reports about the young lady,
but he must remind them that it was not the de-
fendant who brought these slanders into that
court—it was the plaintiff's own friends, and it
was themselves alone they had to thank f6r the
publicity then given to them. But to dispose of
this romancing case as well as he could. Who
were the parties The plaintiff was filling the
very respectable situation of barmaid at the Sports-
man's Arms, and, although his learned friend had
tried to conceal 'that fact, he (Mr. Knowles) did
not think it a reproach. The defendant was a
retired ropemaker—it would be much better if he
never had. retired, apparently—and feeling lonely
in his house at New Ferry had been induced to
drop in at Mrs. Jones's for the comfort of a glass,
and there he had been charmed with the barmaid,
who mixed him his drop of gin-and-water, sweet-
ening it with the fascination of her manner, till at
last, poor fellow, he fell in love, and then he begun
to be under a " breaching" mania—though it
would have been well for him never to have talked
about " breaches" at all ; for it had come to pass
in his individual case. It is really not wonderful
that while the handsome barmaid was stirring up
his glass he should have become fuddled, and be a
little amorous, and so he fell into the temptation
—though he had better have made a rope for him-
self. (Laughter.) The learned counsel drew atten-
tion to the shortness of the courtship, only four
months, 'and said he was not so rich a man as the
witness had represented ; and, as he was not there
to deny the breach of the promise given, he could
only say that he thought very light damages would
bequite sufficient for the loss of four months' court-
ship.

His Lordship, in summing up, said, it did ap-
pear a very heartless thing to send a lawyer to break
off the match, and that, too, almost at the very
altar. There was certainly nothing brought for-
ward in the evidence against the character of the
young woman showing sufficient reason for the
breaking off of the marriage in such a wanton man-
ner. It was, evident that the marriage tiot taking
place was a great loss to the plaintiff in a pecuniary
point of view, besides the, injury done to her feel-
ings by the heartless conduct of the defendant. He
thought she W'63 justly entitled to their verdict,
and it would be for them to say what damages they
thought she was entitled to.

The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 4001.
The Criminal Court to-day has been occupied
with the trial of two sailors, American citizens, for
the manslaughter of a man named George, who
was on board an American ship coming to this port.
The case was not concluded when our despatch
left.

HOME CIRCITIT—KINGSTON, March 28.
THE QUEEN V. HAWKINS AND OTHERS.
This was an indictment preferred by the Corpo-
ration of the City of London against the defendant,
Mr. Hawkins, who is the chairman, and other re-
oponsible officers, of the London Gas Company, for
a nuisance.
Mr. E. James, Q.C. Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Lush,
and Mr. Sharpe appeared on behalf of the corpora-
tion to - conduct the prosecution ; Mr. Sergeant
Ballantine and Mr. Bushby appeared for the de-
fendants.
Mr. E. James, in opening the case, said that the
Corporation of the City of London hadi felt it their
duty as conservators of the river Thames to insti-
tute the premtproceedings against the defendants,
in order to put a stop to a nuisance of the most
serious character, and one • that was calculated
most materially to affect the lives and health of the
public. The defendants represented the London
Gas-works; and.they had a large establishment at
Vauxhall ; aud, what was complained of them was,
that they caused the refuse matter from the gas to
be thrown into the river opposite their works. He
need hardly inform the jury that the gas refuse was
of the most disgusting description. it was known
by persons connected with the trade by the cogno-
men of "blue billy," and it appeared that it evolved
a gas known among scientific persons as " sulphu-
retted hydrogen," which; he believed, was the most
deleterious to human 'life, and of the most offen-
sive character. The defendants appeared to be
perfectly well aware that they had.no right to dis-
pose of the refuse from the works in this manner,
as they adopted a very ingenious proceeding with a
view to prevent it from being known that the of-
fensive matter came from their works, and instead
of casting it into the river openly, they contrived
by means of a six-inch iron pipe to convey the re-
fuse matter into the middle of the river, where it
was cast out by means of a 'steam engine, and mixed
with the water. The city authorities, however;
were not to be so easily deceived, and, suspecting
that there was something wrong about the use of
this pipe, they sent a barge with hose and attached
the hose to the pipe ;' the barge was moored near
the spot, and the persons employed for the purpose
quietly awaited the result. They bad not remained
long, however, before the operation commenced, and
the refuse, of course, instead of going into the river,
came into the barge ; and it was then directly seen
what had been going on, and the present prosecu-
tion was the result; the object of the corporation
being, of course, only to abate what they considered
to be a very dangerous nuisance.
Mr. Sergeant BALLANTINE, when Mr. James had
concluded, addressed the Court, and said that -diet e
was no desire on the part of the company whom he
had the honour to represent to oppose the present
proceeding, which he admitted was a very proper
one, with a view to prevent the pollution of the
river ; and the company were ready to do all in their
power to effect the object. He begged at the same
time to state' that, although the defendant, Mr.
Hawkins, was no doubt legally responsible in his po-
sition as chairman of the company, yet that he was
known as a gentleman of high respectability and a
member of their profession, and he knew 'nothing
whatever of the proceeding complained of, and
the moment it was brought to his knowledge, he
ordered it to be discontinued. The company
were now making arrangements to remove all their
refuse matter to_ a distance, and had incurred
great expense with that object, and were ready to
do everything that was necessary to effect
it. A plea of " guilty" might, therefore, be taken
as to some of the defendants, and they would enter
into any recognizances that might be required as
a security that the nuisance complained of should
be discontinued.
Mi'. James consented to this course on the part
of the corporation, and a plea of " Guilty" was ac-
cordingly taken against the chairman and the engi-
neer of the company, and recognizauces were
entered into by 'them for carrying out the objec.
of the prosecution.
This case concluded the business of the assizes

LIVERPOOL, March 28.—The British and North
American mail steam-ship Niagara sailed hence to-day
for Boston, with 74 passengers and a full cargo.
REDUCTION OF POSTAGE ON LETTERS TO THE ISLAND
OF ASCENSION.—On and from the let April next, the
postage upon letters conveyed either by packet or by
private ship, between the United Kingdom and Ascen-
sion, will be reduced to an uniform rate of—For a
letter not exceeding half an ounce in weight, 6d. ; ditto,
exceeding half an ounce, and not exceeding one ounce,
ls. ; ditto, exceeding one ounce, add not exceeding two
ounces, 2s. ; and so on, increasing one shilling for every
additional ounce, or fraction of an ounce. The postage
of letters to Ascension must, in all cases, be paid in ,
advance.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—,Iane Hallett, of Whitty Head
near Netherbuiy, Dorset, suffered for many years from
s bad leg. From the knee to the ancle it had several
wounds, so that she was unable to stand or move about
the house. She tried a variety of means and applica-
tions, but without obtaining a cure. .By the blessing o
God and using only three pots of Poor Man's Friend,
and taking ,three boxes of pills, she was perfectly cured.
Dr. Roberts's Poor Man's Friend, for wounds and erup-
tions of every description, is sold in pots, is. lid. and2s. 9d. each. His Pilule Antiscrophulm, for all lin,
purities of the blood, is sold in boxes, ls. 1.1-d., 2s. 9d.,
4s. 6d., lls,, and 225. each, by all medicine vendors
throughout the United Kingdom and Colonies.
[ADVELTIBEMENT.I—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills
.
the Unrivalled Curatives of the Age.—John Swift, ot
Deptford, in a letter to Professor Solloway, dated
September 19, 1856, states that his wife suffered nearly
four years with au ulcerated leg. She consulted the
most eminent of the faculty without obtaining the
slightest alleviation of pain ; at last, advised to use II„ 1_
lo way's Ointment and Pills, the wounds were quichly
healed. He concludes by txpressing his heartfelt gra-
tlude to one who bad been the means, under Divine
Providence, of restoring his wife to perfect health.—
Sold by all medicine vendors throughout the world • at
Professor's Holloway's establishments, 244, Strs'nd
London ; and 80, Maiden•lane, New York ; by A.
Stampa, ConstantintTlo ; A. Guldicy,
Smyrnaand E:
Muir, Malta.

took place when he was in drink. Very seldom MANUFACTURE OF IRON AND STEEL
saw hill the worse for liquor.
Mr. Ellis, farmer, of Bromborougb, bad known
the plaintiff for the last 20 years, and the defen-
dant for the last four years. In June, 1854, wit-
ness attended a sale in Chester, where the defen-
dant purchased several lots of land, situate at
Bebington. Thought he paid otit about 1,50u1. or
1,6001. for them. BeFeved the defendant to be in
good circumstances, and he was apparently well
off.

, The Commissioners of Patents have just issued
an epitome of the specifications enr,lled from the
earliest period to the present time, with reference
to the manufacture of iron and -steel, which to in-
ventors, and the industrial world generally, will be
of infinite value. The amount of money lost by the
re-patenting of inventions must have been enor-
mous, and. to the poorer class of inventors a
source of the greatest annoyance and disappoint-
ment. The first patent appears to be that of
Simon Sturtevant, in 1612, which was to con-
tinue in force for 31 years (this was about the
first attempt to introduce the me of raw coal in
smelting iron in place of charcoal, which at that
time was becoming scarce in England), and in ac-
cordance with the conditions of the patent he
published a description of his discoVeries in his
" lifetallica." His process, however, appears to
have failed ou a large scale, and he surrendered
his patent in the following year. The second
was John Stevenson in 1612, who also pub=
fished a " Metallica," and likewise surrendered
his patent, as did several other inventors. In 1621
Lord Dudley obtained his patent, of which an
account is given by his son, Dud Dudley, in
his " Metallum Maras (these three treatises have
recently been reprinted by Thonias Simpson, of
Wolverhampton, and are published at about 7s. 6d.)
Lord Dudley was enabled to make 3 tons per week,
which was then considered extraordinary.
After a period of more than 150 years, we corns
to the inventions of-Henry Cort, for puddling and
rolling, which appears to be the next practical im-
provements (1783 and 1784), and we may then
proceed without much interruption until we
reach 1817, when the specification of Athony
Hill shows that a process slightly analo-
gous to, although not sufficiently so to
injure, the claims of Bessem..r and Martien was
tried at that time, but whilst the inventor could .
appreciate the value of allowing the iron• to be
" blown or acted upon by the air," be distinctly
adds that the iron "must be made into bar-iron by
puddling, reheating, and rolling, or by any other
known means," thus proving that the idea of blow-
ing pig-iron into malleable iron is new, although •
the blowing process itself is but a modification of
an expired paten*.
In 1828 we come to the invention of James B.
Neilson, for introducing the hot-blast. In 1836 J.
J. Hawkins invented the construction of the mouth ,
of the "blowing-pipe," so as to deliver the blast
"in their sheets," instead of in a dense stream, PO,
that the blast might possess a great surface in pro-
portion to its bulk, impart its oxygen immediately:
to a large quantity of the ignited fuel, and also:
avoid the chilling effect. In the same year
George Crane introduced the hot-blast with
anthracite ; in 1842 a somewhat similar inven-
tion but for using cold-blast, was invented by J.
Palmer Budd, who employed a blast of at least 2i
pounds pressure on the square inch. In 1838,
Messrs. Bradley, Burrows, and Joseph Hall, in-
troduced "tap cinder" as a protection for the bot-
tom and sides of puddling-furnaces. In the same ,
year Charles Sanderson, of Sheffleld,_ patented his
process for smelting at a low temperature, so as to
dissolve the earthly particles of the ore without,
melting the metal. The iron was never in a corn- •
plete state of fusion. The iron, when separated:,
from the scoria,,was removed with tongs, or in any,
other convenient manner.

In 1839 comes the important invention of Josiah
Marshall Heath for the manufacture of .iron, and'
which as regards steel was as great a stride in'
the manufacture as Compared with any previous
process as the process of Uchatius is at the;
present time. The duration of this patent
was, after much litigation, prolonged, by an
application to the Privy Council, for seven
years. Although the principle of Heath's lir'
vention had been previously described, and even
as early as 1799 William Reynold patented,
the employment of oxide of manganese. or manga-
nese' in the conversion of pig iron into malleablo•
iron or steel, but gave no proportions or detail, it
appears that until the introduction of Heath's
patent no practical results were;arrived at.
In 1839 there was a patent obtained for ig ob-
taining metal from pyrites or mundic by Joseph:
Jennings, and as there can be no doubt :that much
good would result from a cheap process for treat-,
ing inundic, attention might be advantageouslY
given to the subject. In 1840 Sir J. J. Guest and
Thomas Evans patented the introduction of steam
into the refinery or puddling furnace, "forced
upon or into, or in contact with the metal." Any,
suitable means might be employed.
The first
.practical attempt at utilising the gases
from iron furnaces appears to have been made by
Robt. Gardner, in 1788, although John Payne,
in 1728, referred to it in a vague manner. The
next claimant was Moses Teague, in 1832, who
proposed to use the flame and heated gas usually
discharged into the open air, for heating the.
charge before it was introduced into the
furnace. The specification of Louis Nicholas
de Mecketiheim, in 1842, is too long and,
complicated to admit of a fair analysis, but
the object was to utilise the superabundant gase*<
cooled by blast or other furnaces, by the use of fur-,
naces of improved construction, and receivers,
torts,re-
arc. In 1843, A. M. Perkins patented, the'
use f highly-heated steam in place of the hot or:
cold air-blast. The specifications enrolled sine°
March, 1843, will form a separate series, and be re--
ferred to hereafter.—Mining Journal.