The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 5, 1850.

HUDDERSFIELD, TUESDAY.—Our market continues
still, and there is not very much doing amongst the
better class of woollen goods. There has been a rather
better demand for fancy woollens of a low quality, for
exportation, chiefly from the American market. The
market is generally expected to be quiet until Christmas,
at the commencement of the new season.

HALIFAX, SATURDAY.—AIthough there has been
better attendance in our Piece Hall to-day, there is no
improvement in the demand for worsted goods, which
is more restricted than it was. The yarn trade is still
in a state of almost entire stagnation. There is very
little doing in wool; but the staplers are firm holders,
at late rates.

LEEDS, TIIESDAY.—We have no change to notice in
the woollen cloth trade since last week. There has
been little doing at the market both on Saturday and to-
day, and business in the warehouses continues quiet.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec 4.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Lord
CAMPBELL and a Srecial Jury.)
DRYDEN V. FRYER.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
By Mr. CHAMBERS—Mr. William Paxton and a page
waited upon the party at dinner, and generally my sister-
in•law acted as chambermaid on that occasion.
Mary Maxfield—l was a lady's-maid in the service of
Mrs. Graves, who was first cousin to Sir Gregory. She
is now dead. During her lifetime she used to visit Sir
Gregory, in the Alpha-road. I had opportunities of
seeing him with her. He was not like other gentlemen.
In October, 1841, I went to Brighton with Mrs. Graves,
who travelled in a carriage with Sir Gregory. William
Paxton was one of the party. The housemaid, the page,
and the coachman of Lady Turner; also went to
Brighton, as did Sutton, the barber. Sir Gregory and
Mrs. Graves had dinner together. Sir Gregory said
be was allowed seven glasses of wine by the doctor.
The quantity was measured three or four times before
he was satisfied that he had got good measure.
John, the page, used to attend him to bed, and slept in
the room with him. John put or let out the light on
one occasion, and Sir Gregory would not allow him to
sleep any longer in his room. Sutton then slept with
him. Lady Turner was expected to come to Brighton,
but did not come. I remember a letter coming from her
on a Saturday which was read by Mrs. Graves in the
hearing of Sir Gregory. I slept in the same room with
Mrs. Graves, but not in the same bed. On the night on
which the letter came Sir Gregory came into Mrs.
Gravel's room with a page behind him with a lantern.
They had both got their night clothes on. Sir Gregory
asked who was Mrs. Graves.—(Laughter.) Mrs. Graves
said she was Mrs. Graves. Sir• Gregory had Lady Turner's
letter in his hand, I think; he said he wished to have

Lady Page's letter read (meaning Lady Turner). Mrs.
Graves wished me to get out of bed and bring a light to
,14 her. I took a candle and held it over the foot of the
' bed, and Sir Gregory stood by Mrs. Graves's side. Mrs.
3i Graves, who was in bed, then read the letter to him.
• The page stood behind near the door with the lantern.
I did not cry out murder or any other thing.—
: (Laughter.) Whilst the letter was read he asked
. me if that was correct. He then requested Mrs.
Graves to read it a second, a third and a fourth time,
which she did. After that, Sir Gregory and the page
lac the room and went to bed. Sir Gregory used very
often to walk about and talk during the night. I re-
Ice member a subsequent occasion, when he came and
knocked at Mrs. Graves's bedroom door, in the middle
of the night. I believe Mrs. Graves got up and answered
him at the door. He said to her that John, the page,
had stolen all his things. She told him to go to bed,
• and he called John a d—d vagabond. I remember
one morning Mrs. Graves saying at breakfast
that she had lost a sovereign. Sir Gregory re-
plied that he had lost a piece of paper out
LN of his room. I went into the yard and found a piece of
;!,‘ paper underneath his bedroom windows, about half the
size of a letter cover. It was a plain piece of paper,
% without any writing on it. Whilst at Brighton, I re-
,34 member Sir Gregory throwing the Venetian blinds out of
the dining-room window. I remember his preferring to
have me in his bedroom instead of John one night. He
;a,' told me to sit down, which I did. He then removed a
15434 sofa from the drawing-room into his bedroom. He
lay on the sofa, and I sat by his side on
a chair. The door and window were shut.
% He got up and opened the window; and be said, " When
:34 the window is opened the door must be shut." He then
shut the window and opened the door. That he did
three times.
Lord CAMPBELL—A new system of ventilation.

were then of opinion that they, could not
successfully resist the commission. We went down
to Battlesden whero we saw a collection of valueless
things combined with things of the greatest valup, all
heaped up in one mass and covered over with old car-
pets. In July, 1824, I saw Sir Gregory three limes by
order of the Lord Chancellor and made a report to his
Lordship on each of those occasions. When I saw him

in 1824 his disease had not in the least lessened. I
saw him three times in 1825, with Sir Henry
Halford, when he was still the same. I
also saw him in April and May, 1826,
before the trial of the traverse, when he continued still
the same; he then laboured under the same erroneous
impressions; he said his family bad conspired against
him (which was one of his delusions), and spoke of his
brother as being illegitimate. I then congratulated him
on leaving off cutting his linen; he seemed annoyed at
that, and said his linen was better washed there than it
had been elsewhere. On inquiry I found he had
not been allowed the use of scissors. When
a species of insanity like that with which
Sir Gregory was aflEcted has lasted so many years the
chances are very much against the patient's recovery.
If this insanity continued from 1823 to 1839 I should
say it was u moat unpromising case to cure; and I have
known no instance of a man being cAnpetent to make a
will after being so long the suti ct of insanity. Epilepsy
usually impairs the powers of the mind. After an in-
sanity of that lapse of time, and under such cir-
cumstances, I should not expect a man to con-
verse rationally on the ordinary topics of conversa-
tion; nor, if he did talk rationally on those topics,
should I say he was restored to a perfectly sound state
of mind, unless I found he was labouring under no delu-
sion. I never heard Sir Gregory talk of his property.
I have heard the will which has been read in court, and
from the state his mind was in I should have thought
Sir Gregory was incapable of making such a dispositio❑
of his property, A fit of epilepsy in March, 1841,
would not aggravate his disease, unless accompanied
with paralysis. After an insanity of such a
lapse of time I have never known a recovery when the
insanity has been followed by fits of epilepsy. Occa-
sional drunkenness would aggravate the disease of in-
sanity. I have heard Dr. Southey's evidence, and that
has not altered my opinion.
Cross-examined by Mr. CHAMBERS —I have ceased to
practice for ten years.

By a juryman—I have not known a person have a
lucid interval after an insanity of such duration as Sir
Gregory's.
Dr. Conolly—l have been in practice about twenty-
eight years as a physician. lam physician of the
ilanwell Lunatic Asylum, an appointment which I have
held fur ten years. For the last eleven years my pro-
fessional practice has been entirely confined to cases of
insanity. Assuming an insanity of fifteen years' stand-
ing, and fits of epilepsy supervening, I should expect the
malady would become increased. The mind almost
always becomes weaker if the epilepsy continues. Epi-
lepsy is not at all uncomman after an insanity of four-
teen or fifteen years. I have heard the evidence in this
case as to the character of the insanity. I should think
the supervention of epilepsy after an insanity of so long
a duration was a very unfavourable circumstance to reco-
very. I have never known insanity of such duration,
followed by epilepsy, terminate in a cure.
Cross-examined by Mr. M. CHAMBERS—I have advo-
cated the taking off of personal coercion and restraint
from lunatics with a view to promote their recovery. Be-
fore my time a very different mode of treatment was in
vogue. By the mode of treatment adopted by me cases
of insanity of 15, 16, and 17 years duration have been
cured after a residence in Hanwell. I have known four
or five such eases. That has happened in eases
of raving madness and dangerous lunacy. In two or
three of those cases I found the patients were at first in
straight waistcoats, and subject to violent paroxysms.
The severe systems of restraint on lunatics has been ge-
nerally abolished, but not universally, I am sorry to say.
I believe the change of system has produced extraordi-
nary cures.

Re-examined by Sir F. KELLY—I think all the cases
of cure I have mentioned have been cases of raving mad-
ness, unaccompanied by epilepsy.
With this witness the defendant's case closed.
Mr. M. CIIAMBERS replied.
Lord CAIIIPBELL then proceeded to sum up. Ho
commenced by reading two cases of disputed wills from
Williams's book on Executors, by which it would appear
that if at the time the testator made his will he was
of competent understanding—if he knew the contents of
it, and was in such a frame of mind as to enable him
to understand the act, then the act was a valid one, and
the will could not be set aside, even though it was
proved that he was of insane mind before and after the
execution of the will. Having recapitulated the evidence,
commenting upon it as he proceeded, he left it to the
jury to say, from the evidence which they had heard,
whet'ler tney thought he was in st competent state of
mind in June, 1841, when he made the will the validity
of which was now called in question.
His Lordship did not conclude his charge until twenty
minutes after nine o'clock, having occupied three hours
and a half in the delivery of it.
The jury, without quitting the box, returned a vet.;
diet for the plaintiff, thereby declaring in favour of the
validity of the will.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 4.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, before Chief
Justice JERVIS and a Special Jury.)
HAncatAvii. V. HARGRAVE.

This was an issue directed by the Master of the Rolls,
;o try whether the plaintiff, John Robert Hargrave, is
he son of John Hargrave, deceased, and Mary, his
wife, and the legitimacy was affirmed by the plaintiff
and denied by the defendant.
Mr. Butt, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, Mr. We!shy.
Mr. Hugh Hill, and Mr. Phipson, appeared on the part
of the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Channell, Mr. Sergeant
Byles, Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., Mr. Adolphus, and Mr.
Willes, were counsel for the defendant.
Mr. BUTT opened the plaintiff's case, and stated that
the jury were already aware that the question was whe-
ther John Robert Hargrave was the son of John and
Mary Hargrave, two persons who were nearried, but
who separated under circumstances to which he would
call their attention, and the matter arose out of some
proceedings in the Court of Chancery. founded upon
the will of Thomas Hargrave, the father of John
Hargrave, This testator was at one time an inn-
keeper in Old Cullum-street, but subsequently he lived
at Leven, in Essex, and he was a man of some pro-
perty, possessing amcng other things the freehold of the
Saracen's Head, in Aldgate. In February, 1819, he
made his will, and devised his property to -Messrs. Jos-
ling and Smith, in trust, for his son John for life, with
remainder to his children in tail, as tenants in coalmen,
and if John Robert were the son of John, he would be
entitled jointly with William Gosling, the other son, to
the property of Thomas Hargrave. The value of the
testator's estate was about 5,000/., bat he regretted to
tay that litigation had been going on respecting it since
the year 1640, when John Hargrave met his death by
drowning, up to the present time. In the course of the
proceedings this issue had been twice tried; on the first
occasion before the Lord Chief Justice Tindal, when a
verdict was found for the plaintiff; but an application
was made by the defendant for a new trial. Unfortu-
nately, Chief Justice Tindal died before the Master of
the Rolls could confer with him, in order to r,move
some doubt from his mind, and therefore he directed a
new trial. Upon the second trial the verdict was given
for the defendant, and the Master of the Bolts not being
satisfied with that decision, the case was sent down for a
third trial. Under these circumstances, they might
easily imagine that after all this litigation, there
would be but little of the property left
for either of the claimants. Shortly after his father's
death in 1840 the defendant became very
dissipated, and in consideration of certain advances, he
assigned his interest under the will to Mr. Simmons,
who had died since the last trial, and whose widow was
now the real defendant. On the::l4th of December,
1816, John Hargrave was married to Mary Snow at St
Bride's, Fleet-street, and they lived together until 1824,
when they separated. Of this marriage several children
were born, hut the only surviving ones were the plaintiff
and defendant, the date of the plaintiff's birth being the
18th November, 1836, and the defendant having been
born in 1819. The father of these children, John Her-
grave, was a man of very dissipated habits and loose
morals, one of his primpl failings being his connexion
with the softer sex. During the early part of his mar-
ried life he occupied part of the Ipswich Arms, in
Cullum-street, as a feather-merchant, and at this time
Mary Rogers, a relation of his wife, assisted in the
household work. Early in that year, it would be proved,
that John Hargrave seduced Mary Rogers, and that
under the pretence of being ill he had, in the spring,
left his wife, and taken her (Mary Rogers) to Hastings
and Brighton, it being subsequently ascertained that she
was at this time in the family way by him. In June
he returned to his wife, and she having become ac-
quainted with his conduct, separated from him in the Sep-
tember following. Upon this her husband took lodgings
for her at Woodford, and made her a small allowance,
and occasionally visited her. As regarded Mary Rogers,
he lived with her until her death, in 1835, and after that
time he cohabited with a person named Tune. Whilst
Mrs. Hargrave lived at Woodford she had a daughter
born, who was named Emily, but during this time no
complaint was made against her by her husband. In
1829 dissipation produced its natural result, and he be-
came involved in his circumstances. Upon this ho re-
duced, and ultimately altogether withdrew his allowance
to his wife, and quitted the country and lived at Boa-
logne. He, however, was in the habit of coming fre-
quently to England, and it would be seen that he per-
sonally collected his rents, which were paid ball-yearly.
At this time he owed Mrs. Tresler 6631. ss. upon a pro..
missory note, and he used to cull and pay the interest cf
the debt to her daughter, Mrs. Pope. In the year 1830
he called upon Mrs. Pope and asked where his wire lived,
and she gave him her address in the Globe-road, Mile-
end. She also accompanied him on a visit to his wife,
whom he addressed in his usual manner, and said, " Well,
mother, how are you ? " and they appeared very
friendly together, and the husband nursed Emily,
who had lived at Woodford, sad treated her as his
own child. Subsequently, Mrs. Hargrave lived in New
Swan-street, Bermondsey, and worked at stay-stitching;
but she removed, in 1835, to Baalzephon-street, in the Bo-
rough, and occupied ono room in a house belonging to
Mr. Stormy, two other rooms being occupied by Eliza-
beth Hallyer. The important question to be decided
war, whether early in 1886 the husband was in com-
munication with his wife, under such circumstances
that the jury might fairly infer that he was the father
of the plaintiff. They were probably aware, that some
time ago a doctrine obtained in England, that if
the husband and wile were within what was called
the four Seas," itict iv child *ere born; it should be
taken that the huSband Was' the father of that child.
This rule was no doubt estehliihed, because of the dif-
ficulty of proving the reontrn,ry, ; but in latter times it
was held that it was not enough to show that the hus-
band and :wife, were in the seine country, if it should
be shown satisfactorily. that there was no communication
between them. In thin cue_ it would be proved that

the husband and wife were in communication, and,
therefore, in accordance with law, the jury would
infer that he was the father of the plaintiff; for if it
could be shown that thsy were in the habit of meeting
the legitimacy must be presumed. The deceased, when
he came to England, was in the habit of going to the
Ship Tavern and Hotel, in Water-lane, where his wife
visited him several times, and it would be shown that he
was there in the early part of 1836. It would also be
shown that Mr. Smith, one of his father's trustees, met
him in Aidgats iu January, or February, 1836, and that
on the 10th May in that year, he went with him to the
Hope Insurance-office, and transferred ten shares in that
company, which were part of the property of his father.
This latter circumstance would be proved by the best
evidence—the books of the Hope-office, which contained
the signatures both of the deceased and Mr. Smith. In
the waiter's book at the Ship was an entry, stating that
an account was received on the 30th March, 1836, from
the deceased, and thus it would be proved that he was in
London in January or February, in March, and in May,
1836, tho plaintiff being born in November of that year.
The deceased also called upon Mrs. Pope in the early
part of 1836, and gave a new note in the place of the
old one which her mother had formerly held, and the
executor of Mr. Godfrey, the late tenant of the Sara-
cen's Head would produce many receipts for rent in the
hand writing of John Hargrave. one of them dated on
Jan. 10, and another iu April, 1836, the receipt stamp
having been purchased by the deceased personally at a
shop in Aldgate. Another witness would be Mr. Yang-
hen, who for many years kept the Burton Cone-hou-e,
in Cheapside, but who got into difficulties, and in 1836
was in the Fleet prison; and he would state that the
deceased called on him there, in February of that year,
he having ascertained from his son where he was. A
piece of evidence connected with this part of the case was.
that the deceased was in the habit of meeting his wife at
the Burton Coffee-house, as would be stated by Mr.
Vaughan, and also by his son. In the house in Baalzeo
phon-street, in which Mrs. Hargrave lodged, there also
lodged a Mrs. Elizabeth Hallycr, and she would be
called before the jury in the course of the cause. Her
evidence was that in February, 1836, a man answering
the description of the deceased called at the house, and
inquired for Mrs. Hargrave, whom witness called down
stairs, and when she saw him, she exclaimed
Holloa, Jack! what in the name of fortune brought
yen here?" and he replied, "My legs." They
then went up stairs together into Mrs. Hargrave's
only room, and remained there alone for an hour
and a half. When he left they shook hands, and in re-
ply to the question when he would be there again, he
said he would be back in about six weeks. Part of this
statement would be corroborated by Mrs. Payne,a green-
grocer in the same street, at whose shop the man in
question called, and inquired where Mrs. Hargrave lived.
The plaintiff was born on the 18th Nov., 1836, in Pau-
line-street, Bermondsey, and Mr. Tovy, a surgeon, at-
tended his mother in her confinement. The circum-
stances attendant upon the birth, he submitted, were
conclusive as showing the legitimacy of the child. The
mother used no concealment, but gave her proper name,
and stated the fact that her husband was abroad, and
further, the child was baptised at the church where his
mother had been married, and was described in the re-
gister as the son "of John and Mary Hargrave." Ano-
ther most important piece of evidence was, that the de-
ceased acknowledged the plaintiff to be his son. It ap-
peared that W. J. Hargrave went to sea, and that the
deceased, shortly before he was drowned in March,
1840, called upon Mrs. Pope, and entered into
conversation with her in reference to this son.
He said h© had seen a letter from him, in which
he cursed his father, and he appeared much hurt
at the circumstance. Mrs. Pope endeavoured to con-
sole him, and said that the curse would fall not upon
him, but upon the writer. The deceased, upon this oc-
casion, said, "If his mother would let me have John
Robert, I would send him to school, and have him edu-
cated; for if anything should happen to Biil, he will be
my heir." At this conversation a Mrs. Heald was pre-
sent, and this lady was examined on a former occasion,
but as she was now eighty- three years of age, and in-
firm, her evidence would be read from the judge's notes.
He understood that the defence to he set up was that the
deceased was in Boulogne all the first halt-year of 1836,
his wife being in England, and, therefore, that he could
not be the father of the plaintiff. Another matter to be
raised was, that Mrs. Hargrave had so misconducted
herself that it was probable that a person named Mortle-
main was the father of the p!aintiff; but even if this
were so, the husband being in a position also to have
connexion with her, they would learn from his Lordship
that the law would presume the legitimacy of the child,
and the immorality cf the wife would not at all affect
the case. These being the facts, he would now proceed
to prove them, and he had no doubt that at the end of
the case, they would be of opinion, in the terms of the
issue, that his client Jchn Robert Hargrave was the son
of John Hargrave, deceased, and Mary his wife.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to call witnesses to
prove the statements contained in his speech, and, in ad-
dition thereto, evidence was given as to the various
places at which Mrs. Hargraye had resided after the
birth of the child in question down to a recent period,
and it was sworn that she had always been a woman of
good moral character, and had not, to the knowledge of
the witnesses, been in the habit of receiving any male
visitor whatever.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL then addressed the jury for
the defence, and stated that his case was not merely that
John Robert was not the son of John Hargrave, but he
would show, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he was
the son of the man Mortlemain. He admitted that the
deceased sometimes visited this country, and he did not
deny that he was here in May, 1836. He did not deny
either that he had gone to the Ship Hotel, and had had
there in his company a person passing as Mrs. Har-
grave, but he did deny that this was the mother of
the plaintiff, and ho should endeavour to show that it
was the woman Tune. He also did not dispute that the
deceased separated from his wife in 1824, but he did
not agree with his Learned Friends as to the cause
of that separation, and he shoall show that it
was nut in consequence of the intimacy of the de-
ceased with Mary Rogers, for that in fact did not exist
until after the separation. The fact was, tLat the sepa-
ration was in consequence of the deceased suspecting his
wife of an improper intimacy with a Frenchman named
M. D'Arbrue. There were two questions for the jury;
first, whether John Hargrave was in England at all in
February, 1836, and if they thought he was, they would
then have to ask themselves whether there was sufficient
evidence of what the law called "generating access"
to warrant them in the conclusion that the plaintiff was
the son of John Hargrave. It was true that he had
made his wife an allowance of a guinea a week, but after
the birth of Emily it was reduced to such an amount as
(if he could not distinctly prove adultery) the parish
would enforce, namely, Bs. a week. At a subsequent
period Mrs. Simmons, the sister-in-law of John Har-
grave, was living with a man named Mortlemain, and the
allowance was then altog-thor stopped. It would also
be proved by positive evidence that John Hargrave was
at Boulogne all the first, part of the year 1836, and there-
fore could not have been in England in February of
that year. The Learned Sergeant went through the cir-
cumstances which he intended to adduce, and then called
witnesses, who gave evidence, of which the following is
a digest:—

Martha Ann Hill (the first cousin of Mrs. Hargrave),
stated that, about six weeks before the separation, in
1824, she gave witness some letters and a portrait of M.
D'Arbrue, requesting her to take care of them, and not
let her husband see them. On one occasion witness
found Mrs. Hargrave and a Mr. Josling sitting on a
sofa together, in a room in the Ipswich Arms. On Mr.
Hargrave's return from Hastings he demanded of wit-
ness the letters and the portrait, and two days after that
he and his wife separated. A short time before she went
out to walk with Mrs. Hargrave, and they met M
D'Arbruo on Southwark bridge, and witness left them
together.
Ann Mary Taylor heard Mr. and Mrs. Hargrave
quarrelling about a foreign gentleman. Mrs. Hargrave
was in a great passion, and would not bear the accusation.
Mary Ann Porter recollected the birth of the child
Emily, and that a day cr two after the birth it disap-
peari,d, aed was not brought back for six weeks.
Eliz ib,411 Shakes was called to show that the child
was sent to the vestry clerk of Ail-Hallows, in a small
fish-basket, and that the mother was subsequently traced
by the parish authorities, and taken back. In the bas-

it
ket was a note, which was sought to prove was in the
handwriting of Mrs. Hargrave, but the document was
not given in evidence.
Other witnesses were called, who stated that Mrs.
Hargrave had been Fem with a Mr. George Beteson
walking near the forest at Woodtord, as late as nine
o'clock in the evening. That during 1836 Mr. Mortle-
main visited her three or four times a week. He had
been with her as late as ono or two o'clock in the morn-

ing, and on one occasion had been seen going away
early in the morning, as if he bad been staying all
night. After the birth of tqe plaintiff, a person, whom
the witness had since ascertained to be Mortlemain, fre-

quently visited her.fefreciuently;iept there, and on
one occasion had been seen in Mrs. Hargrave's bed. It

was also sworn that these visits continued at various

places until a rec;ntP;riod,—;:icitiat ho treated the
plaintiff as his child.
Mrs. Jane Simmons was examined by direction of the
Court of Chancery, and she said, that her husband, John
Simmons, had died since the last trial. She was the
cousin and sister-in-law of John Hargrave. He and
his wife separated shortly after his return from Brighton
in 1824. He would have left her without mak-

ing her any allowanco had not witness per-
suaded him to give her a guinea a week. lie
went abroad in 1828 or 1820, and witness saw him at

her house in Cullum-street, the Ipswich Arms, in 1832,
and again in 1835, and also about the 22d of pril, 1836.
On the last occasion ho spent the night at witness's, and
the following day went to Colney, where his son Wil-
liam was at school, and brought him to her house on

Tuesday, the 26th of April. The son William remained
with her until February, 1540. The father stayed until
the following Thursday or Friday, when the boat went.
She saw him again in May, and he then stayed about
a month. She went to Ptiuline-street, Bermondsey, to
see Mrs. Hargrave, in 1837, and witness's sister went
with her. They saw Mrs. Hargrave, and witness ob-
served that she was nursing. It was arranged that wit-
ness should pay her 83. a week on account of her hus-

band. Witness afterwards Paw her in Crosby-street,
and observed something belongirg to a child. Wit-
ness asked what she did with such things, and Mrs.
Hargrave said she often nursed the child of a woman
below.

Witness made some inquiries, and saw her

again at witness's house i❑ the following November,
and accused her of having had another child

since Emily, and said she —should not have any
more money. She said hew dared witness accuse her

of doing wrong again because she had done so once.
Witness then showed her a piece of paper which con-
tained Mortlemain's name and address. Witness thought
she would have fainted. She went'down on her-knees,
end begged witness to conceal it from her husband, find
witness promised she would, if she would 1026 Mottlemain, and go and live on the other side of the water.
Witness oleo prowited to continue thb ptspnento and

a,040i Juttert

afterwards guaranteed the payment of the rent of her
lodgings in Pearson street, Kingsland-road. Witness
subsequently visited her in Dagger's-court, Moorfields,
and saw two cups and saucers. Nir. Hargrave said the
extra cup and saucer were for the child, hut witness re
plied.thet a child of such tender age could not use a cup.
There was also a pair of man's trousers there, ehich she
said had been given to her to mend. Witness under-
stood that Mr. Mortlemain was under the bed all the
time. She refused to pay her any money, and told her
husband of what she had seen. He was so afraid of
her, that he begged witness to continue the
payments until he left the country. Witness
saw her subsequently, and accused her of being still
connected with Mortlemain, and she replied—" How
could you expect that a father would keep from his
child." Witness was present about three weeks before
John Hargrave's death, when he and his wits Mere to-

getber. She said the boy (the plaintiff) wonA he his
heir; and he said, "Do you mean to say that I sin to
educate it?" She said, " Yes, certainly." She arknow-
Mg( d that Mortlemain was the father of the child, and
she held up her linger and said, " I love his little finger
better than ever I did you."
Cress-:txarnined—She had not seen defendant since
Mey or June last, and did not know %s here he was. She
hal lent him 2911., and lisd got a deed authorising her
to reeeive the rent of the Saracen's Head. The rent
was 3:..7:01. a year. She was to allow him 31. a work, and
after discharging some debts to appropriate the rest in
payment cf her claim. Part of the time she had received
only half the rent, the other lutlf being paid into the
Court of Chancery. She had lent defendant money be-
fore he was of age, but that sbe h,rd never claimed. She
certainly hail not persuaded Mrs. Hargrave, three
months before her husband's death, to put him in a lu-
natic asylum. She had been examined twicl before; but
would not swear that she had there said all that she had
stated on the present occasion.
The witness's evidence on the two former trials was
read, and it was found that she had then spoken of the
two cups and saucers, the man's trousers, and of Mrs.
Hargrave falling on her knees, &c., but that she had
omitted some of the other matters now spoken to.
Elizabeth Hargrave, the sister of the last witness, cor-
roborated her testimony as to the interview in Pauline-
street, and upon some other matters.

John Hargrave Rogers, the son of the deceased by
Mary Rogers, was examined, and stated that he recol-
lected his father living with his mother, and afterwards
with Miss Tune. He remembered the Carnival Ball at
Boulogne in 1836. It was in the middle of February.
and witness's father was there with Miss Tune. His
father went to England in April, 1836, but not before in
that year. He was away about ten days. He went a
second time in May, and then Miss Tune went with him.
Cross•exarnined—He had entered the army in 1840,
but he could not swear in what month. Ho could not
tell the month in which he left Calais, nor could he tell
the month in which he first went to school, nor that in
which he entered his first service. He had gone to India
with his regiment, but he would not swear whether it
was in the year 1845, or not.
Several other witnesses were called to show that John
Hargrave did not leave Boulogne at all during February,
1836, and it was particularly sworn that he had attended
the Carnival Ball there with Miss Tune in that month
at the time when ho was stated to have called upon his
wife in Baalzephon-street. I❑ reply to this part of the
case, Mr. and Mrs. Blunt stated that they knew John
Hargrave, that they attended the Carnival Ball, and that
he was not there.

Mr. Sergeant Wfumts, upon the conclusion of the
evidence, addressed to jury upon the whole case in a
powerful and eloquent speech, which occupied three
hours and a half to deliver. He analysed the evidence
with great minuteness and ability, and especially urged
upon the jury that most of the witnesses on the part of
the defend:lit were interested in the result of the cause,
but the plaintiff and his mother were poor and unfriended,
and not likely to be able to influence the testimony of
any witness. In addition to this the plaintiff's case was
supported in the most important particulars by written
documents, which could not lie, but the defendant's case
was wholly deficient in any such certain proof. Under
these circumstances the Learned Counsel submitted to
the jury, in full confidence that they would have no diffi-
culty in coming to the conclusion that his client was en-
titled to their verdict.

The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up at considerable
length, and directed the jury that the law presumed legi-
timacy, and that the onus of proving the contrary was
upon the defendant. The presumption of law was strong
upon the subject, so strong that it had been said by a
learned predecessor of his, that to upset it the evidence
must be clear, strong, conclusive, and satisfactory. lie
perfectly agreed with this ruling, and his opinion was
that it was of the utmost importance that no child shonld
be bastardised except upon the strongest proof. The
whole question was one entirely for the jury. They had
heard the witnesses, they had seen their demeanour, and
he had no doubt they would come to a sound conclusion
upon the subject.
_

The jury Were absent from the court for half-an-hour,
and then came into court and stqted that they R ere of
opinion that John Robert Hargrave was the son of John
Hargrave, and thereupon a verdict was entered for the
plaintiff.

The case commenced on Monday morning, and did
not finish until half-past six this evening.

COMMISSARY COURT OF SURREY,
Doctors' Commons, Dec. 4.
(Before Dr. HAGGARD.)
BATLEY ;/. BATLEY.
In this case Mr. Richard Batley, jun., promotes a suit
for divorce, on the ground of adultery, sgs.inst his wife.
Dr. CURTEIS, fur Mr. Batley, was opeuirg the prc-
ceedings, when
Dr. DEANE, for the wife, said he must abandon that
portion of the case which related to the commission of
adultery ; but upon the evidence he should pray the
Court to dismiss Mrs Barley on the ground that her
husband had connived at her guilt, and therefore was
not orit'ed to a sentence. He (Dr. De see) contended
it was clearly established by the testimony in the
care that the parties had cohabited together for se-
veral months pierions to the marriage, and that six days
after such marriage Mr. Batley, through the persuasion
of his father, separated from her, leaving his wife in a
destitute state; and that he afterwards drove her to the
commission of adultery with a person who was employed
for the purpose by himself or Mr. Batley, sen., or by
some other person on their behalf. He submitted it was
a case of malicious desertion, and that the husband had
been guilty of active and corrupt connivance to entrap
his wife into.the paths of iishonour.
Dr. WADDILOVE was hard on the same side.
CITILTEIS and BAYFORD, on the part of Mr. Bat-
ley, contended the wife had never been left destitute, or
that her guilt had been connived at in the remotest de-
gree. They submitted that the case on the other side
failed entirely.
The Conti' considered that there was no foundation
for the charge of malicious desertion, or of the husband
having been guilty of connivance. On the ground that
the wife had been guilty of adultery, the husband was
entitled to a separation.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Sabre Mr. SPrgeant ADAms, Assistant Judge.)
Sarah Burke, 19, Sophia Diebury, 22, Jane Finnerty,
Is, and Lliza Jones, 23, were indicie i for rubbing Miry
Ann Foster Simmons of a mantle, and a purse contain-
ing
.135..2d.

The circumstances of this case were tf an extraordi-
nary nature. The prosecutrix, a young woman appa-
rently about twenty years of age, deposed that she was
a single woman, and the daughtcr of a person holding a
situation o❑ the Midland Counties Railway, at Derby.
She arrived in London last week on business, and was
staying at a boarding-house near the Euston-square
station. At about one o'clock on Satnrday morning
last she was proceeding along Tottenham-court-road,
when she was accosted by the prisoner Finnerty, who
asked her for a penny. She told her that she had CO
change, upon which she asked for some supper. They
walked together a short distance, and they were joined
by Jones, and at the request of Finnerty they went and
procured some ham and bread. She then said net she
was very late, and one of the prisoners sugge,ted that
as she was a stranger in the town, they would show her
a respectable boarding-house, and not knowing her way,
she said she would be glad if they would do so. They
then took her to a house in Church-lane, St. Giles's, and
conducted her to a room upstairs. All was in darkness,
but she was aware that other women were pre-
sent. One of them immediately seized her and threw
her upon the bed. She screamed, and one of them
knelt upon her head and chest, holding her hand over
her nese and mouth until she was nearly suffocated,
whilst the others proceeded to strip her of her clothes,
and rifle her pockets. She struggled with them, and
made all the noise she possibly could, but she speedily
became insensible; the last circumstance she could
recollect being, that the women threatened to murder
her if she continued to resist. On coming to herself,
sho saw women still in the room, and some of them
began to express pity for her. She was going down
stairs when the prisoner Dilbury laid hold of her, in
order to prevent her following the other prisoners, who
had just before left the room, but she broke away from
her, and ran after them. She raised the cry of " Stop
thief," and they were captured by the police-officers, on
duty in the neighbourhood"
Evidence having been given,
The prisoners Burke, Dilbury, and Jones, declared
their innocence.

- --
The jury found all the prisoners Guilty.
The sentence was, that they be each imprisoned and
kept to bard labour for the space of one year.
Isaac Ballard, 15. and George Sairzsbury, 18, were in-
dicted for stealing seven books from the residence of Sir
J. Romilly, the Attorney- General.
Ballard was found Guilty; Sainsbury, Acquitted.
The former was sentenced to three months' hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOI?OUGH-STREET.

Mrs. Eleanor Hirschfeld, the widow of the late Mr.
Herman Hirschfeld, banker and merchant cf Paris, came
before Mr. Hardwick, to beg some temporary assistance
fir herself and four infant children from the poor-box.
Mrs. Hirschfeld presented several highly respectable
recommendations authenticating her melancholy history,
and her statement. of destituti,.n. Her husband was a
Jew, but after marriage he embraced Christianity. This
act drew upon him the resentment of his family and his
former friends, and having become reduced, by severe
losses, to insolvency and starvation, he died at Berlin a
short time ago broken-hearted. The applicant applied
to his relatives for some trifling assistance, hut they
denied it because their relative had bec ,me a Christian.
They even went so far as to place obstacles in her way
Q f I..eCos,eriog sone'Papers.to show that her husband was
a:fri.iernSion; and bad
,st claim on that compassionate fie,-
,ternity.., She said: her :children had fallen 'sick,- and she
felt-her'nWtiew"l"ed framewonl42 no longer ,iserte to
'find tib-e'hiceulipoi•t.''Sheltad thus been compelled to inOke
the present application.,
b: HAtiDwICH~
having lookcd over:"aoree,docgocuts.
. „

vrhieh Mrs. Hirschfeld presented, immediately or'
her a sovereign from the poor•box.

rd

led

lei

SHIP NE WS.
LrvEnno.iL, DEC. 4.—Wind N.W.—The Sarah Jane,
from Liverpool to Dungarvon, is on shore noir Virex'
ford. The William, from. Liverpool to Londonderry. hal
been wrecked near 13c1fast. The Lyra, from LiferP°°'
to Galway, has put into Belfast with loss of malnalast'
&e., huviug been in collision with a brig. The Monts-
zuma, from Bristol for New Orleans, has put into
port with rudder damaged, cargo shifted, and leaky'
Therese, Myostois, Prince. Albert, Erin, Elizabeth, sodTbe
Elvine, for Nantes.
ANTWERP, DEC. 3.—The Jeune Armandet, B Ideas%
to Nautes, is stranded on Point de Grave, and in a clan'
gerous position.
Tho Russia. which was on shore near Calais. Nov
28, ix discharging, and it is expected will be got off;

into Cajais in a few days. -
VESSELS SPOKEN WITS.
Sphynx. Liverpool to Batavia, Nov. 4. lat. 38 N., Itglgi
17 .
BritoW l.'s P.-L.4', Jaffa to London, Nov. 9, off Car de
Gatt.
The Duchess of IsT,rthumberland, Plymouth to Moretoa
Bay, Nov. 2, iat. 5 N., long. 21. 6 N.
Isabella barque, Glasgow to Bombay, Nov. 6, lat. -
long. 22 W.
Molly Bawn barque, Llay to Liverpool, Nov. 21, Is 4
35 N., long. 33 w.
Livingstone, Calcutta to Liverpool, Nov. 23, lat. 40
loi,g. 29 W.
_Prinoa Donna schooner, Nov. 29, lat. 47 N., long. 9.
holana I argue. Sept. 27, lat. 22 N., lung. BO Vi• bel r-
Tttatnes. of Alloa brig, Sept. 24, Point de Mout°
ing W.N.W. 10 mules. - , „ W.;
Sir Harry Smith barque, Nov. 21, lat. 49 N., oat, 9
Lucy schooner, same day. 4 71'1"
Favourite, of Poole, Labrador to Naples, lat•
long. 25 W.
Moolian (•hip), London to China, Nov. 29, Ist. 48"
--14
long. 8 W. gl
Arabian, Liverpool to New York, Nov. 22, let. 49 -
long. 17 W. 102V'
Emperor of China (ship), Sept. 4. lit. 15 S.. long -,t the
Bengal Werchant (barque), for Bombay, Oct. 6, co
Cape of Good Hope. na 7,
Jane (barque), of and for London, from Madras' --t.
lat. 33 S., long. 17 E.
San Gilley, Hamburgh to Hay tin 13, Nov. 20, let
-6
long. 32 W. a a - a Nov.
Sir Robert Campbell, Hamburgh to Newfoundland'
18,t, lat. 47. long. 41.
Juliet, of Waterford, for St. John's, Nevrfoundland' Nov.
12, let. 46 N., long. 35
11. Pa terson, Zante to Boston, 24, lat. 349 lorigi,(o.
Sophia (schooner), of and from Oct.*
for )3abith
Bremen,
11,1 at. 41, long . 12. let. 501
flo 1.
ptwel (barque), of Liverpool, Nov. 2
v ,
long. 9„ W. with loss of foreitast.,.3.
Thetis (brig), of and from Liverpool, ward bound
ou
Nov. 21, lat. 38, long. 6.

SEABORNE MAILS, ,------
..---_-_---- WMII
When made up in ;IFronllie
chle•
PLACES. General Post-office' port d
at
Loudon. patched* ......./....
_______-.--•-
...
Africa (West coast).. --
America (via N. York l
.. ' De°. 19.
by British packet) ..*N December 6 .. Liverpool
America (via Boston 1 11
by •• ' Dec' Iby British packet) .. N December 20 ..ELiverpOo •,,.. .1 4.
America (by United t.
States packet).. .. N. I December 13 1
E! SoutharhP. par
Belgium .. .. • • N Daily - .. ..!Dover ~.•.4)0.1!
1
Brazil .. • • .. N 4th of the month !Fal routu.. ;pee. -''''
Buenos Ayres • • .. N ith of the month Falmouth • ne.s
rLiverpool .''i vc.,
California ( viaChagres) Mll7th of month SouthanWt• '--
Cape of Good Hope.. N December 14 Plymouth.• nee, 5 ~,
Central America .. 31 2d & 17th of month 'SouthamPt• :;`,:a.
30
-
Channel Isles .. .. N Mon., Wed., & FrijSouthaMPt•!;„t.3Y.m.
Chili .. .. .. . M 17th of the month ISouthamptil,';ooo7
France .. .. M& N Twice daily .. .. Dover . TeeS•44.
Ilaraburgh .. .. N Tuesday & Friday !London • 300,,
Holland .. • • .. 31 Wednes. & Satur.,London • • nee. to'
Honduras .. .. . N 17th of the mouth SoutharrlPt: ;,•"wieer-
Ireland .. •.11 & N Twice daily .. .. llolyhead • Dom, !ft
India (via Southarnp.) 31 20th of the monthiSouthaniPt: lie. 25
India (via Marseilles) N 7th& 24th of month' Dover .."
Madeira .. .. .. N 1 --
Mediterranean (via ( pt. We' $S
Southampton) .. 31 20th of the month .Soathalo 23
Mediterranean (via
. DO'
Marseilles) . - .. N 7th & 21th of monthl Dover •
Mediterranean (by
French packet via -••'
5
Marseilles) .. .. • Dee' f
Mexico .. .. .. 31 2d of the month.. SouthaMP- nee, ~,
Peninsular.. .. .. 31 7 th,l7 th,27 th of inc.' SoutharoPt• -,e,2_,,,'
Peru .. .. • • - 31 17th of the month 'SouthamPt• 13,e, F'
West Indies .. .. M 17th of the month SuuthaMPt•
West Indies (except .., 5
Dv''' 0
Havanna & Na: eau) 31;2d of the month .. iSouthan3P-r. • vat..

* N signifies that the
by the night— and M by

!2d of the month .
mails are sent from
the morning—dispa

5
Southan3Pt• In 0
L the General
Itch.

THE COUNTRY IVIARK.CTS„;OOO
NEWCASTLE, DEC. 3.—We had little change .:r3
in wheat today; the demand was dull, but Pllgging
[mined unaltered. Barley continued a very vb.
sale, and the rates of Saturday were with dig'e„ tAkew
wiled; in some instances less money bad be,e-nsed',..
Flour was the turn dearer. Other articles unelt...V.A"
NEWCASTLE CATTLE MARKET, DEC. ter"
Supply of beasts to-day was moderate, but of itilwith
quality. The trade somewhat better at full rates, rot
good clearance. Sheep trade active at improve°, 4.
and all sold. Beasts, 600 ; sheep, 4,000. Deer,
to
EDINBUR6s 6d; mutton,
GH MEAL MARKET, DEC. 3.—
the meal market to-day 17 sacks oatmeal, each w'rehige.,hriens:2B°sterelil7:
imperial, which sold thus :-3 at 118 s, 10 at 1/ 7s till' -5-121:1,
anti 1 at 11 6s fid • average price of the whole 11 75't
2 sacks flour, which sold at 29s Od. 7 sacks
whereof 6 sold thus:-2 at 25s Od, and 4at 21s rd'
sp. Snic.
EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW MARKET, --„geC. tr-41
Oat straw, from 7s ed to 9s 6d per kemple of 16 5t7,-ses
wheat ditto, 6s Od to 7s Od; barley ditto, 5s Od 14!
(lay, from 10d to Is per stone.
DALKEITH MEAL MARKET, DEC. 2. There Iterit: 11P-
bags oatmeal, 11 of barleymeal, and 4of pot-barld, tbetoP
day's market ; sales ready. Oatmeal up 6d per bags „eit bsll
and :id pat bag on the second price ; barleymeal be
dearer on the top; pot-barley up is 6d per bag on the -1107,1
Oatmeal, per sack, of 280 lbs. First • Second 26$
imperial .. 27s Od 26s Oa /73 PAA
Barley meal, per ditto ... 17a 91 173 61
Peasemeal Od _.3 Od i 7 Od
Flour —s Od Od

38 Od I —; C/c1