The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-07 00:00:00

The only question then was, whether Parliament had
the power to separate man and wife, and he was
not prepared to say it had not that power.
He did not, however, think any parallel to the power
given by this Act could be found, except in the Act of
Henry VIII., which gave to his proclamations, during
his life, the force of law, and another Act of Henry 111.,
by which his obsequious Parliament gave to the Do
Spencers, and other minions of that monarch, the power
of making regulations that were to have the force of law.
No such power as this was ever given by any other Act.
But the separation of man and wife was now the abso
lute law in 460 unions—many of them very extensive,
some of them covering as much as 300 square miles. In
such a union as this, it was impossible for the poor to
leave their homes to go so far for relief. The hardship
they suffered from this cause was very grievous. They
had been told on many occasions, and they had been
told last night, of the abuses of the old poor law. But
it should be remembered that they were abuses, whereas
those evils of which he complained were legal parts of the
system—that was the great distinction. And these
abuses of the old law were, besides, of comparatively
modern introduction ; they were principally these—
the system of allowances, of roundsmen, and the pay-
ment of wages out of the rates. All these practices
were, he believed, introduced in the years 1795 and
1796. These were years of singular scarcity and dis-
tress, when the prices of provisions had risen to an
enormous height, in consequence of scarcity aggravated
by the war. Then arose the practice of allowances and
roundsmen, which was first adopted, he believed, in the
county of Berks. But in the county of Durham, where
he had long resided, and in the north of England, it had
only been adopted to a limited extent, though in
the south of England it was so general that it
created the impression of its being a universal
practice. He thought it was their bounden duty, when
they were endeavouring to fix on a right basis an en-
during system of poor-laws, that they should consider
well whether they could not revert to the state of things
that existed under the 43d of Elizabeth, with such

sult. He had told the Right Rev. Prelate that those
chairmen of boards of guardians who had been there
last night would not be there to night, and the result
had shown that he (the Marquis of Normanby) had
been the better prophet as to the success of the ex-
periment. He should reserve his defence of the general
measure to the time when the Right Rev. Prelate should
bring forward that motion, to which the Noble Duke
had alluded, for its repeal.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Rev. Prelate, however, had not acted quite fairly—he
had quoted a letter written by the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, in 1839, at which time he held the seals of the
Home Department, on the appointment of chaplains; but
the Right Rev. Prelate had omitted to state that since
the date of that letter there had been a decision of a
court of law on the subject. The Right Rev. Prelate
had not said one word about the first clause of the Bill,
and yet that clause amended the existing law as regarded
the bastardy clauses in the very sense in which the
Right Rev. Prelate had urged their Lordships to amend
them for the last ten years. Now, if the Right Rev.
Prelate had assumed a tone of triumph on the occasion,
he might have been excused. No doubt they must own
that the bastardy clauses had not answered the objects
which the original proposers of the measure had in view,
He agreed with his Noble Friend in opinion that, as far
as those clauses were concerned, the experiment had not
succeeded. The Right Rev. Prelate also objected to the
size of the unions. He (the Marquis of Normanby) had
always thought the unions too large, but really it ap•
peared to him as if the Right Rev. Prelate had not read
the Bill—(Hear, hear)—for the Billeontained provisions
to lessen the size of the unions.—(Hear, hear.) Then,
with regard to the schools, the Bill provided for the es-
tablishment of district schools, which would cure the
evil of which the Right Rev. Prelate complained.—(Hear.)
The Bill also relaxed the law in relation to the granting
of out-door relief, a subject to which the Right Rev.
Prelate had also alluded. With regard to the 26th
clause, which related to that subject, his Noble Friend
, (Earl Fortescue) had proposed an amendment in which
he could not concur ; widows generally wore their weeds
for twelve months only, but he was not aware that their
distresses left them at the same time. The Right Rev.

HOME CIRCUIT.
Guildford, Tuesday, August 6.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Special Jury.)
THE BLOODSTONE CASE—SECOND DAY.

HERBERT V. DAY.
William Crook examined—l live at Apperley, about
two miles from Walton-hill. In 1848 I went to Mr.
Newman's to perform an operation upon a colt belonging
to him. I had seen the same colt in the summer of that
year. He had a very pretty head, and was rather; thick
set and " cobby." This colt had a white stripe down
the face, and more white about the keels. After I per-
formed the operation the colt was taken ill, and I did not

see him any more.
Cross- examined--No money has been offered me by
Newman. He did not say that he would give me 100/.
if I would swear that I operated upon the colt. I did
not say it was a bad job, and I would have nothing to
do with it. I did say I would have nothing to do with it.
because it might expose my profession.—(Laughter.)
They did not offer me money to prove that the colt died
after the operation. lam not the Mr. Crook of Coal-
house, Apperley—(the person referred to in yesterday's
evidence). He is a relation to me, and is a licensed
dealer in horses. I don't know that he has bred a colt
within the last ten years. lie may have had three or
four brood mares within the last three years. I know a
gentleman named Walker very well. There was a per-
son named Smellcomb, but I did not say, in the. presence
of those persons, that I had been offered 1001. to swear
that I cut the Beiram colt, and that it died under the
operation. And I did not say either, that it was a black
job, and I would have nothing to do with it, as it would

.. -
all come out.
Re-examined—l did not wish it to be known that the
colt I had operated upon had died, as it might have hurt

my business.
Mr. John Noble Partridge—l am a coal-merchant at
Cheltenham, and in 1841 I lived near Mr. Newman, at
Walton, and I remember his chesnut blood-mare having
a foal in 1841. It was a very pretty colt, had a small
head, white mark on the face, and two white heels behind.
I remember the same mare having another foal in 1842.
It was in the spring of the year; April or May, I believe.
The colt Bloodstone is the same colt, if ever I saw him.
Baron PARKE—What do you mean by that ; it is an
odd expression.
Mr. PLATT—It may be very true, my. Lord.
Witness—l swear that Bloodstone is the same colt.
' He had a largish head, a white mark on the forehead,
and one white heel behind.
By Mr. PLATT—I have seen other colts upon Mr.
Newman's farm. I was not present when the second

checks as ought to be provided against the repetition o,
those gross abuses which led to those evils which were
made the plea for enacting the present law. Could such a
question as this be decided that night ? He did not
think there were as many as twelve Peers present. The
House of Commons had taken six months to consider
the Bill, while their Lordships certainly would not have
as many hours. Was not this a measure of such a com-
plicated nature as to render more ample time for delibe-
ration absolutely necessary? lie must say that it was
not only a most complicated measure, but that he
thought the necessity for passing it at the present time
was so inconsiderable—there was so little reason for
passing the Bill this year, that to do so with so little
consideration would be absolutely trifling with the sacred
interests of the poor. He did hope, that what he might
have said that night, however weakly, or perhaps with
an appearance of greater warmth than he ought to have
spoken would not be permitted to injure with their
Lordships the cause he was advocating; and he hoped
he had brought forward facts enough to induce—their
Lordships to support the motion which he should now
make—that this House do go into Committee on this
Bill on this day six months.
The Dike of WELLINGTON said he had listened
with great patience to the speech of the Right Rev.
Prelate, and in reply, he begged to call their Lordships'
attention, in the first place, to the arguments which the
Right Rev. Prelate had brought forward to induce their
Lordships to postpone the consideration of this measure
to a future period. In the first place, the Right Rev.
Prelate told their Lordships, an hour and a half ago,
that it was too late in the evening to go into the consi-
deration of this Bill, and he afterwards said there was
not a sufficient number of Peers present to discuss
it. He begged to remind the House that they
had frequently sat till a much later hour than
this, and that at the present moment, though
their numbers were few, yet they were sufficient,
according to the constitution of that House, to con-
sider any question whatever. They were not at all
too few to discuss a measure that had been so long
under the consideration of the House of Commons, and
one which related to a subject so perfectly well known
to all their Lordships, and one which had, in fact, been
under the consideration of Parliament during the last
three or four sessions. It had been introduced both by
the late and present Government at different times, and
had only been postponed in consequence of the pressure
of public business. At last, this measure had been
considered and brought to maturity, in the present
session, in the House of Commons, and now came
recommended by that House to their Lordships'
consideration. And this was the measure,,which was at
this period of the session to be put off, night after night,
though it had for its object the amendment of many of
those evils in the present law of which the Right Rev.
Prelate complained.—(Hear, hear.) The real question
then was, whether they should enter into the discussion
of a Bill having this amendment for its object. The
Right Rev. Prelate had alluded to the subject of work-
house chaplains. He (the Duke of Wellington) la-
mented that the Bill did not contain all the amendments
of the existing law on this point, which he thought it
ought to have contained. But the Right Rev. Prelate having
entered into that subject very forcibly, then warmed up,
and came to what was his real object, which was the
repeal of the existing law. That was what the Right
Rev. Prelate wanted ; he wished them to return to the
system that existed before the present law was enacted.
They ought not, he said, to pass this Bill, which was
not intended to amend that law, but at once to repeal it.
Now, if the Right Rev. Prelate pleased to give notice
that, in the course of this or the next week, he would
bring in a Bill to repeal the existing law, and bring into
operation the 43d of Elizabeth, he might My upon it
that notice would bring down to that House a sufficient
number of Peers to discuss that or any other sub-
ject—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—which deserved
their attention. But he entreated the Right Rev.
Prelate not to set to work to repeal the existing law, by
preventing the passing of a Bill which had for its object
the amendment of the evils of which he himself com-
plained. Now, the abuses of the old law, which had
been referred to, grew out of the operation of the Act
of Elizabeth, and so great were the evils, that in many
parishes of England they consigned to ruin the land of
those parishes by causing a total cessation from cultivation
and labour. And everywhere the evils were such as to
require attention ; and they did receive the
attention of some of the greatest men who
ever appeared in England—Mr. Pitt, Mr. Whitbread,
and Mr. Sturges Bourne. Each of these endeavoured
to introduce and carry through Parliament Bills to
amend the 43d of Elizabeth ; but every one of them
failed, finding they could not attain their object ; the
abuses were so great and so various, varying in almost
every parish throughout England, that it was absolutely
impossible to remedy then except by the establishment
of a central and uniform system of management. That
was an epitome of the history of the Poor-law Amend-
ment Bill; and from that Act, they could not depart
without going back to the old system of abuses. With
respeCt to the Act of 1834, he had never himself acted
as a pear-law guardian. In consequence of his duties,
he could not reside long enough in the country to do so.
But he was in the habit of residing for portions of the
year in two different parts of the country ; and while
there, he often visited the workhouses of those districts,
and he must say that it was impossible for any places to
be better managed than those workhouses were ; and
he believed they gave great satisfaction. He spoke of
what he knew ; he had frequently stated this in that
House in reply to a Noble Earl not now present,
who was a strong opponent of the poor-law, and
he always should do so whenever he was called' on.
The Right Rev. Prelate had complained of many things
in the existing unions, sore of which this very Bill was
intended to remedy. Now one of the things of which
the Right Rev. Prelate had complained, was the separa-
tion of man andiwife ; and he said that he had never be-
fore heard of such a thing. Why did the Right Rev.
Prelate never hoar of workhouses under the old system
of the law of Elizabeth ?—(Hear, hear.) Did the Right
Rev. Prelate never heard of hospitals ?—(Hear. hear.)
Why the common decencies of life required that where
a large number of persons were brought toge-
ther, the males and females should be separated.
It could not be otherwise—the laws of decency required
such separation.—(Cheers.) Not only had this always
been the case in the hospitals; but it had also been the
case in workhouses under the old law of Elizabeth.—
(Hear, hear.) Then, with respect to education, it would
be much better if the Right Rev. Prelate would suffer the
Bill to go into Committee, and propose a clause to ensure
that schoolmasters should be properly qualified, instead
of declaiming, as he had been doing to-night, about the
inferiority of the present schoolmasters.—(Hear.) No ;
that was not the object of the Right Rev. Prelate.—
(Hear.) The object of the Right Rev. Prelate was not
to amend the Bill.—(Cheers.) The object of his motion
was not to postpone the Bill to-night, in order to give
their Lordships a better opportunity of considering it to-
morrow or the next day. He did not wish to go into
Committee on the Bill at all—he wished to destroy it.—
(Hear, hear.) If the Right Rev. Prelate were in earnest,
let him state his objections, and propose his amendments
in Committee, and see if his Noble Friends would adopt
his suggestions or not. On the subject of chaplains he
knew that, according to the system of legislation esta-
blished between the two Houses, no amendment could
be proposed on that point, but he might propose
amendments on other points if he chose. By doing that,
he would be rendering a service to the House and to the
country, but to pretend to stop this Bill to-night,
order to defeat another measure which circumstances
had rendered absolutely necessary, was unworthy both of
the station and the abilities of the Right Rev. Prelate.
He hoped their Lordships would not attend to the
Right Rev. Prelate's suggestions, but would go into
Committee, and allow the Bill to proceed as far as it
could do to-night, and would then proceed with the
other business before the House.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of NORMANBY would not detain their
Lordships long. He concurred fully in all that had fallen
from the Noble Duke ; but as last night he had given
his support to the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate, for
adjournment, considering that one o'clock was too late an
hour to go into Committee on a Bill of such importance, he
wished to say a few words. He could not but express
his surprise at the course which had been adopted by
the Right Rev. Prelate to-night. He had last night
ae
cpeous
rt pmtse one
h eeinet
eonfdae
df e
two ho
pursueu r s r
al yn
d, whiet h
(theout
Ps
traotlinogsedth
Marquis of Normanby) had certainly never anticipated
the adoption of such a course on the part of the Right
Rev. Prelate, as proposing the rejection of the Bill,
almost every clause of which was a relaxation of the
old law, on the harshness of which the Right Rev.
Prelate had so long descanted.—(Hear, hear.) There
was in fact no connection whatever betweeniheargituh-
ments of the Right Rev. Prelate and the motion
which he had concluded—(Hear, hear)—and he believedw
that he could assign the real reason why the Right Rev.
Prelate moved the postponement last night. The fact
was, the Right Rev. Prelate wished for a fuller audience.
The Right Rev. Prelate had last night complained of
the smallness of the number of Peers who were present,
and he (the Marquis of Normanby) had cautioned the
Right Rey. Prelate not to be too 131inguiwo as to the re.,

Prelate had apologised for his warmth and excitement;
now he must say that he had observed no symptoms on
the part of the Right Rev. Prelate of anything like warmth
or excitement.—(Hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate had
spoken as he always spoke—with great ability and great
tact, but he had shown no warmth—(Hear)—and, in-
deed, considering the state of the House, it would have
been remarkably odd if he had shown much excitement.
There was, however, a great deal in this. The Right
Rev. Prelate had not intended that speech specially
for their Lordships' ears—(Hear, hear)—and no doubt
the Right Rev. Prelate felt that if the speech should have
the good fortune to reach those for whom it was really
intended, a little confession of warmth would not make
it tell the less effectually.—(Hear, hear.) He could not
think that any person could be considered as labouring
under warmth and excitement, who had availed himself,
as the Right Rev. Prelate had done, of a quibble.—
(Hear, hear.) The /tight Rev. Prelate had said that
the union houses resembled prisons, and had quoted a
letter of Mr. Tufnell, in which he stated that the exte-
rior of those houses resembled prisons ; but in the same
letter, Mr. Tufnell stated that the ladies who had visited
them had found them so comfortable, that they were
afraid persons would be desirous of getting admitted to
them. Now, seeing that the poor were more concerned in
the comfort of the interior, than in the appearance of the
exterior of those houses, he thought the Right Rev. Pre-
late was not justified in the quibbling use which lie
had made of Mr. Tufnell's authority.—(Hear.) He
himself had recently visited the Bethnal Green work-
house, and when he compared the condition of the poor
in that house with that of the labouring poor in the
eastern parts of the metropolis, he could not but be
struck with the contrast, and this was more particularly
the case as regarded the children.—(Hear, hear.)
Having held the office of Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment for two years, he could bear his testimony to the
justice, humanity, and kindness with which the Poor-
law Commissioners exercised their functions.—(Hear.)
Lord WROTTESLEY, as a chairman of a hoard of
guardians, and as one of those who had originally col-
lected evidence on whcih the new poor-law was founded,
could not but protest against the first nine clauses of the
present Bill, which were calculated to revive all the evils
of the old law, as regarded bastardy, and would give a
premium to perjury and incontinence, and place the
guilty in a better position than the honest and indus-
trious. He admitted, however, that the Government
were placed in a difficult situation, and he thanked the
President of the Council for the speecAt with which last
night he had introduced the measure 7
Their Lordships dirided/ when there appeared—.
-_,.-
For going into Commitoe—Contents 1 l7
Non Contents ..... .....:.-4 — " .1.,. , 1
Majority against the Bishop of Exet e amendment-16
The House then wen - to Corn I,t4•e • on the Bill.
f
On clause I. being P: used,
"
Lord WHARNCLI E conten*'-that the present
.
law was a great improv ent on theild. system. Under
that system the poor suffered under* great grievances,
and it was to remove those grinees that the new
poor-law had been introduced. Coulli the Right Rev.
Prelate for one moment entertain the idea of re-establish-
ing the Act 43d of Elizabeth ? The Right Rev. Prelate
knew that it was impossible to do so. The present law
he contended, was far more humane than the original
laws, and the poor were better off under it. The law of
Elizabeth was passed for different times to these in
which he now lived, and it was idle to suppose that such
a system could be applied now.
The Bishop of EXETER took that opportunity of re-
plying to the arguments which had been used against
his amendment. He said that he had brought that
amendment forward solely on his own responsibility,
and without reference to any party out of doors. It was
truo, the law of Elizabeth was passed for other times,
and so was Magna Charta; but we still held Magna
Charta to be a good foundation for legislation, and he
contended that the law of Elizabeth was a good founda-
tion for legislation on the subject of the maintenance of
the poor. He concluded by giving notice that, early in
the next session, he should move for a Committee to in-
quire into the means of spiritual instruction afforded in
union workhouses.—The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 2 was proposed.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE explained its operation.
The Bishop of EXETER objected to that part of the
clause which provided that, in affiliating a child, there
should be some corroborative evidence added to that of
the mother. He thought that, the more modest the
woman, the less chance was there of corroborative evi-
dence. He thought it was right to give the magistrate
a discretion, but that was an additional reason why cor-
roborative evidence should not be demanded. The Right
Rev. Prelate concluded by moving the amendment.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE must oppose the amendment.
The Right Rev. Prelate alluded to cases of seduction by
the men, but the fact was, the greater number of bas-
tards were not the fruit of seduction at all. In most
cases the woman seduced the man. The Right Rev.
Prelate talked of the indecency of an expose in a court
of justice, but he did not apprehend that any such would
be the case. There would be no indecency whatever in
the corroborative evidence.
The Marquis of BUTE differed entirely from the
Right Rev. Prelate, and would oppose the amendment.
He thought the clause went too far.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
The Bishop of EXETER thought some other mode of
receiving the money should be devised than that of the
woman's receiving the money from the putative father,
which was exposing him to further sin or to further bru-
tality.
The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE agreed with the view
taken by the Right Rev. Prelate, and would devise a
remedy.
The Bishop of EXETER said in case of appeal by the
woman's father from the decision of the two justices, the
woman in most cases would not be able to sustain the ex-
pense of the appeal at the quarter sessions.
The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE said, there undoubt-
edly might be cases where the woman might not be able
to sustain the expense of an appeal ; but it should be re-
collected that the man was bound in security not only
to pay the allowance to the woman, but to
pay the costs likewise if the appellant were un-
successful ; besides, many attorneys would be glad to
take up her case for the purpose of pocketing the costs,
and gaining a certain degree of notoriety for himself.
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The fifth clause was likewise agreed to, as were the
sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, which
are the bastardy clauses.
Clauses up to 40 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 41 being proposed,
The Bishop of EXETER suggested that the chaplain
should be appointed by the Commissioners instead of the
guardians.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the subject had
been fully discussed in the House of Commons. He
could not accede to the suggestion made by the Right
Rev. Prelate.—The clause was agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed
to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-
morrow.
The Merchant Seamen's Bill went through Committee,
and was ordered to be reported to-morrow.
The Irish Arms Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed to-morrow.
The House adjourned at a Quarter before 1:-ivelve till
to-morrow at a Quarter to Four o'clock.,
in

foal was dropped.
Robert Shorter—l am an ostler at the Royal Hote
Cheltenham, and am acquainted with Mr. Newman. I
1841 I had a half-bred colt at Walton. It died abou
Christmas in that year. I remember the thorough-bred
mare having a colt in 1841. He had a very neat head,
rather small inclined, and cobby. The same mare had
a second colt in 1842, and this one was much larger and
lengthier, and when it was five months old was inclined
to be as big as the other. A colt, very much like him,
stopped at my house on the way to Jones's, to be trained,
but I did not recognise him as the same colt. I observed
that he had capped hocks, and looked at him particu-
larly, and I am sure the horse Bloodstone is the same.
By Mr. PLATT—I cannot swear it is the same colt I
saw in the paddock at Mr. Newman's.
Re-examined—He was very much like him, but I
cannot swear he was the same colt.
Edmund Jones—l live at Rockley-house, near Marl-
borough, and have been a public-trainer of race-horses for
many years. I saw Mr. J. Newman at Tewkesbury
Races in 1843, and ho spoke to me about a colt he had
at Walton, and I went to see him the next day and exa-
mined him. He was very plain-headed, and had large
ears, but had length, and some racing qualities. I saw
that he was inclined for curbs, and that his hocks were
capped. lie had a small white diamond-shaped mark on
his forehead, and one white heel behind. The same horse
was brought to me to train, and he remained with me
until he went to run at Ascot, but before this I heard
Mr. Herbert had bought him, and on the 19th of May he
was transferred to Mr. Herbert's account. I saw the colt
run at Ascot in the name of Bloodstone for the New
Stakes. A filly named Carissima met with an accident
during the race, and was thrown out, but I do not think
any of the field had a chance to beat Bloodstone, and he
came in several lengths a-head. I did not examine the
colt's mouth until after Ascot Races, but I do not pretend
to be able to tell the age of a horse by examining his
mouth; but he appeared like:all the other two-year-olds
that were under my charge, and there was nothing to in-
duce me to believe that he was other than a two-years-
old. I saw the mare Romaike, and she was pointed out
to me as the mare that had run against a mare of my
own named Susannah. She ran for the Guy Stakes. The
mare that run against mine was a large chesnut mare
similar to the one I saw at Mr. Newman's, but I cannot
swear it was the same mare.
Cross-examined—Race-horses are generally handled
when they are yearlings. Whether a race-horse should
be gelded depended a good deal upon the character of the
animal. There were some very good geldings. I have
bought a good many horses, but I know nothing about
their mouths. I don't know when horses lose their
sucking teeth, but I can guess to five years. I know the
difference between five and six years old. The persons
who send horses to me are respectable men, and it is not
my business to look at their teeth. When I first saw the
colt, I told Mr. Newman that he was a horse of power,
and he sent him to me on the 28th August, 1833. I
looked in the horse's mouth after the race at Ascot, and,
according to the best of my belief, it was not a three
years old mouth. I could tell the age of a horse cer-
tainly better by his mouth than his tail.—(Laughter.)
The colt is now in my keeping. Application was made
to me to show the colt, and I refused to do so.
Re-examined—The horse was examined on the day of
the races, and the day after; he was also examined on
the third. I told Mr. Day the horse should be at his
disposal whenever he wanted to see him.
William Lovesey—l live near Walton, and occasion-
ally went to Mr. Newman's, and remember seeing a
chesnut mare there that was called Romaike in the
spring of 1841. At that time she had a chesnut colt,
with a remarkably pretty head, but it was too small for
a race-horse. The same mare had a second colt in the
following year. He had a large head, with a white spot
on the forehead, and one white heel, and was much
more like a racer than the other. Bloodstone is the second
colt that I have referred to,
Cross-examined--I am related to the Newmans.
Richard Newman is my cousin. I had no bets on the
race that Bloodstone won. I have kept race-horses, but
I did not run a horse at Hungerford races which was
afterwards disqualified after it had run. I have been in
the army, and am now living on my property. I have
bought several horses, and I generally looked in their
mouths to ascertain their age. I know nothing of a
horse's age until after ho is four or five years -old, and
before that age I could not form any opinion. I do not
know when a colt sheds his sucking teeth, but I should
say that the permanent teeth present a very different
appearance from the milk teeth.
William Brunsdon—l am a farmer, and live at a
place called Deerhurst, near Walton, and have been
acquainted with the Newman family for several years,
and frequently was at his place. I knew the blood mare
Romaike, and remember her having a colt in 1841.
The witness described the Beiram colt in the same terms
as the former witness.) He also described the second
colt represented tobe the horse Bloodstone, and said that
he had that day seen the same colt at Guildford.
Cross-examined—I don't know much about horses,
but I can tell a horse from a handsaw.—(Laughter.) I
have bought and sold horses, and I always look in the
horse's mouth when I buy. I can tell a four-year old
horse, but I know nothing of their mouths before that
age. I have had several colts, but I never looked at
their teeth. I know that they do shed their teeth, but
I cannot tell at what periods.
By the Jury—l don't know what became of the first
colt, but I heard that it died from an operation.
John White proved that he saw the blood mare and
the two colts at Mr. Newman's, and he gave a similar
description of them to that of the last witness,
Cross-examined—Witness saw several colts at Wal-
ton, both in 1842 and 1843. The Newmans breed horses
occasionally. Witness was positive that the white mark
on the forehead of the first colt went down one side of
the face, and I am positive it had oils White heel behind,
and I believe it -had two, I think the second colt also
had a star on its forehead. I was not at all interested
in these colts, and had no reason for takitig partiettlar
notice of them. I don't know ttletch about horses, but I
can tell a horse from a mare.—(Laughter.)
Re-examined.—l am sure the hilts„ 1 have seen at
Guildford is not the first eolt that was with the mare.
Watton, the driver of a fly, deposed that he saw a
chesnut mare and a colt at Mr. Hicks's, and he remarked
that the mare had a very long tail, Med thitt the colt had
a white mark down the face, and two White heels. He
saw a second foal with the Mare, in the opening of
1842, and he had seen the same Colt end Mate itt
Guild-
ford. He was sure it was not the first colt that that was
shown to him at Oath:ford.
Crosseexerained—Had been among horses all his life,
but eooltl not tell the age of a colt by its Mouth, Or
what teeth:it had when it was two years old. My mas-
eer has bought some hundreds of horses, and I have
looked into the mouths of a good many of them, butt ant
no judge. I know nothing about the age from looking,
and only did so from Curiosity.—(Laughter.) I cannot tell
anything about the age of a horse by looking In
its mouth.
William Taylor.a farmer and coal-dealer, tesidinght*
Walton, gave Similar testimony to thtt former, witnesses
relative to the two colts being at Newman's., ferth iii
1841 and 1842. Ile also said that the lid.* at Guildford
was marked in the same Way as the second colt, but ht
could not svvest positively that it was the same houses
although, reccording to the best of his belief' It Was.
Margaret Hopkins proved that she weht to work Mt:
Newman's, and remenairertid sW.ng thte colt in 18p, end
remarked that it had atty Pfle'LLY lithe head. She
also saw tha second foal in 1842; and she gate a similar
description of it to the Other witnesses; and ekpi•essed
her opinion that leloodstone was the sanite
John Hawkins
std foal
colt
in laBt 43 1 73
Cross-examined—ls sure she did not see the mare
first
depose 4 isaeing the mare and the
coltse ant( also stated that he had frequently heard it
remarked of the first colt that he would make a good one
to drink out of a jug, as he had such a small nose. Ho
expressed his opinion that the horse now in Guildford
wassecond
he lt that
Mr. Newman's. saw in 1842, with its dam, at
William Taylor, a butcher in the neighbourhood of
Walton, gave similar testimony.
ande
_ Patience ICitling was called to speak to the same facts,
but she stated that she saw nothing of the mare and tilt,
co
several times sae
altered
ani-
mals
foa
up
in 1843.
Cl'hhrei
twmi tanse. s s
Thewas
witness
tiadeesnatlyw confused,as cross_
and she at length
somegth ln
eexpglathine;and shedthatshesa saw the
m
examined at
the dates of the different transactions
which she pro-
fescnel
. to speak to, but she persisted in saying that tilt
mare and the horse she had been shown at i:T'uildfoi;
were the same Animals she had Seen in the paddock. J-

LLOYD'S ,HIPPING.
I`TOTICI. TO MARINERS.
SAFETY BEACON ON THE GOODWIN SANDS
CARRIED AWAY.
" Admiralty, August 6, 1844.
" Sir, am commanded, by my Lords Commissioners
of the Admiralty, to transmit to you herewith, for the
information of the Committee for managing the affairs
of Lloyd's, a copy of a letter from the clerk in charge of
her Majesty's naval yard at Deal, reporting that a
schooner, in crossing the Goodwin sands, had run against
and carrie4 away the safety beacon erected there some
years since, by Captain Bullock.
" I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
" SIDNEY HERBERT.
" W. Dobson, Esq., Secretary, Lloyd's."
(corn.)
" Deal Yard, August 6, 1844.
"Sir,—l have the honour to acquaint you, for the in-
formation of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty,
that a schooner, in crossing the Goodwin sands early
this morning ran against and carried away the safety
beacofterected there somo years since by Captain Bullock.
" From subseequent inspection it appears that the
vessel struck the top of the beacon on the western side,
and carried it away ; that the mast is gone just above
the surface of the sand ; and that the whole is a perfect
wreck, held by the rigging and chain plates.
"I have cleared and brought on shore to-day as much
as the state of the tide would allow of, and I shall avail
myself of the first opportunity to secure the rest.
"I have the honour to be, &c.,
(Signed) " CHARLES WOOTTON,
" Clerk in Ch'arge.
0 The litel S. ilerbert, 151.1)., &c. &c., Admiralty." '

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNItSDAY EVENING, AUGUST 7, 1844,

Mr. Joseph Pratt, a coach proprietor, driving upon
the road, pasts Mr. Newman's paddock, also spoke to
seeing the mare and the two foals, but he could not
identify the horse at Guildford, known as Bloodstone, as
one of those colts.
Mr. Davis deposed that he had seen the mare and the
colts, and he expressed his opinion that Bloodstone was
the colt brought to Mr. Newman's in 1842.
Cross-examined—Witness has bought several mares,
and, of course, he always looks in their mouths for fear
he should buy an old one for a young one,--(Laughter.)
Does not know the appearance of the mouth of a three
year old, because be does not buy them. Thinks he
could tell when a horse was under three years old ; but
over three, he would have a full mouth.
By the COURT—A horse has not So many teeth when
he is under three years old, as when he is over that age.
Cross-examination continued—He did not touch the
horse that was shown him at Guildford. Did not look
in his mouth, but it was not because Mr. Newman told

him not to do so.
Mr. W. Coleman—l am a veterinary surgeon, and
have been in business for twenty years. I carry on busi-
ness at Cheam, in Surrey. In my judgment the appear-
ance of the mouth of a two or three-year old is not an
infallible rule to ascertain the age, but I think you can
generally tell the age. It is sufficient to decide between
an early two year-old and a late three year-old colt. If
an early two year-old colt was taken care of, and fed with
cow's milk and corn, as well as being suckled by its dam,
it would make a considerable difference in its growth and
general appearance. There was an appearance of lace-
ration in the gums where the tushes would be expected.
The training, or the manner in which a horse was bitted,
would make a great difference in the appearance of the
colt's mouth, and keeping the bit in the mouth would be
likely to remove the temporary teeth much earlier. In
my opinion the horse now in Guildford is thirty months'
old, and if I had been called upon to examine him pro-
fessionally, I should have given a certificate to that

effect.
Cross-examined—l was at the last Epsom races when
Running Rein won the Derby. I don't know whether I
gelded a colt by 'Saddler out of Mab, but possibly I
might. I am not aware that Running Rein was des-
cribed as a colt by Saddler out of Mab. It was so des-
cribed, but I know nothing about it ' • but I know that
the horse that did run was an entire horse. I did not
give any information to the stewards, because I knew
nothing of the matter. I castrated a bay colt for Mr.
Goodman, or Mr. Levi Goodman.
Mr. PLATT—Or Mr. Goodman Levi, for I believe he
goes by all these names.
Witness—He may, for what I know.
Cross-examination continued—l don't think I knew of
a horse named Gladiator, but I may have seen him at
Epsom. If I had to give a certificate of the age of
Bloodstone, I should say he was thirty months old.
Re-examined—l had nothing to do with the races at
Epsom, or with the pedigree of the horse described as by
the Saddler out of Mab.
Mr. Brown, veterinary surgeon at Warwick, confirmed
the evidence given by the last witness relative to the
effect the biaing a young horse would be likely to have
upon the teeth. Ho said that he examined the horse
Bloodstone at Rockley, and he considered he was a two-
year old, and according to racing rule he would be con-
sidered a two-year old in January last. I have exa-
mined the mouth of Old England, the second horse ;
and, although his teeth are not so forward as those of
Bloodstone, I have no doubt they were both two-year
olds. Old England is certainly a two-year old.
Cross-examined—l don't think there is any certain
rule to tell the age of such young horses. If a horse is
entered to run as a two-year old, I consider he is a two-
year old—especially if he belongs to a respectable person.
That is not the reason why I say that Bloodstone is a
two-year old. Bloodstone has got four permanent teeth,
but I do not think that is a proof that he is a three-year
old horse.
Mr. Bradshaw deposed that he was a veterinary sur-
geon, and carried on business at Stratford-upon-Avon.
He saw Bloodstone run the race at Ascot, and he
examined him on the 21st or 22d June. He did not
consider the mouth of a horse a certain criterion of his
age, but in his opinion this horse was a two-year old.
The mouth of a race-horse developer itself much sooner
than that of another horse, on account of the mode of
feeding and sweating them. He had examined Blood-
stone and Old England at Guildford, and was satisfied
they were both two years old, but Bloodstone was six
weeks forwarder than Old England.
Cross-examined—Bloodstone has not got any of his
racing age is calculated from the January preceding, .!0
molar teeth. If a horse is foaled in April or il fa y his
that he should consider Bloodstone to be now two years
old and a little more, and he would be considered a two-
year old until January, 1845.
Baron PARKE—The issue is whether he was foaled in
1842. Any part of the year will do.
Mr. PLATT—Exactly so, my Lord.
Mr. W. W. Bryan, another veterinary surgeon, de.
posed that he examined Bloodstone yesterday at Guild-
ford, and, according to the best of his judgment, he was
two years old. He did riot consider the appearance of
the mouth a certain proof of the age of a horse, and
witness had been mistaken on some occasions with
regard to the ages of horses he had examined.
Cross-examined—He was of opinion that a horse
being well fed would cause his teeth to grow faster.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT then rose to address the jury, and he
observed that, having at length got to the end of the
plaintiff's case, it was his duty to lay before them the
evidence upon which the defendant relied, to satisfy
them that the real facts of the case were very different
to those that had been alleged on behalf of the plaintiff.
The jury, no doubt, perfectly understood that the ques-
tion at issue was whether the horse now called Bloodstone
was foaled in 1842, and that his dam was Romaike, and
his sire Bubastes, and, although many of the plaintiff's
witnesses had boldly sworn that he was, the same animal,
he had no doubt that he should be able to give
them conclusive evidence that in truth he was not so.
It would be the duty. of the jury to look at all the cir-
cumstances of the ease and see on which side the truth
really was. He submitted that the plaintiff's evidence
was very unconclusive, and he said it was very extra-
ordinary that veterinary surgeons should have been pro-
duced from distant parts of the country, when a hundred
skilful men, who could have no interest in the matter,
might have been found in London, or in this imme-
diate neighbourhood, who could have proved the horse
to be a two year old horse if he really were so. He
would now state the history of the transaction. In
1840, the mare Romaike was put to Lord Exeter's
Beiram, and in due time produced a foal, and while this
foal was at her foot she was sent to Mr. Hicks's to be
put to Bubastes, and it would then appear that the
fraudulent proceedings commenced, for the next year
the same mare, which was a thorough-bred fine mare,
was sent in a false name to a gentleman named Gib-
son, being represented as a half-bred mare, to be put to
a horse called Liverpool, and while in the possession of
that gentleman, she was delivered of the real Bubastes
colt. The jury had seen the conduct of Richard Newman
with regard to those letters that had been produced re-
ferring to this transaction, and he put it to them whe-
ther they could doubt that he was not perfectly aware
that some improper transaction was going on. (Mr.
Platt then read an extract from a letter written by
Richard Newman in the name of Crook, in which he
stated that the mare was in foal by Bubastes, and that,
as she was only half-bred, and his object was merely to
breed a steeple-chaser or hunter, he should not give
more than 101. for putting her to the horse Liverpool)
In March, 1842, the mare Romaike was sent to Mr.
Gibson's as a half-bred mare, and at this time she had
the mange. and was in very bad condition; and it
would be important for the jury to remember the
evidence given by John Newman that he had had the
mange in his stable, which was a catching disorder,
in confirmation of the assertion that this was the same
mare, although all the witnesses had positively sworn that
she never was at Mr. Gibson's. On the 17th of April,
1842, the mare dropped the real Bubastes colt,
which was a weakly, small, miserable animal, and to
this one no doubt the story told by the wit-
nesses about the castration affair referred. He should
prove those facts beyond the possibility of doubt, and he
should also show that Richard Newman applied to Mr.
Hicks to give him a receipt as for a mare covered in
1841, when the occurrence really took place in 1840,
which evidently showed that he intended to make some
animal a year younger than it really Yeas. Mr. Hicks
was aware that such a false receipt could only be re-
quired fat some dishonest purpose, and he therefore re-
fused to give it. The Beiram colt *as at that time a year
old, and if he had succeeded in getting the falsely dated
receipt it would have been evidence to show that he was
two-years-old instead of three at the period of the races.
The whole of the proceedings were very suspicious, and
there was strong reason to helleve that Bloodstone was
in reality the Beiram three-year old colt. It was not,
howeitr, for the defendant to prove that fact, and it
was enough forhim to show that Bloodstone was not the
Bubastes colt foaled in 1842. The principal witnesses for
the plaintiff were all deeply interested in the matter
—the horse had been entered for ±tek.le amount-
ing to between twelve and thirteen thousand pounds,
and thep b eaui•se, feltiq strong desire to make out
their case, and this Would firobahlY ti.-a'eunnt for the
mariner in which they, had given their evidence; and the
cOlidtict Tr!tfe*roan .frith ref ard to the letter,
which it was quite clear had been written by libth 'the
horse having been entered for certain races his name
*otild be pladed in the hating Calendar, and it became
necessary that some caution should be used with regard
tO lei t+'
at Ascot, Mr. Newman felt that if he won he
itfid; ste*Rirdingtri in his first race for the New
vt fluid Stake
.tit
attentiott and inquiry, and he therefore
gave Bell, his jockey, ilitttnetiene to lose the race, in
order; no doubt; that he tnig,bt be regularly entered as a
nbeo iancqukniroyvv.
trod be,r old told hfiiitig been beaten it was thought
but he wouldi
jos'l SC% horse in 41.
would beas maadtewoab3o.ueta
r Imitiediately after,tlie retie eminent veterinary surge,7-'s
were called in, and they it once pfoilotinted thts eolt to
be ii three vdar Old, horse, and they Would itaiti to-
, 40
evasion or doubt, but positively and certainly,
as they did at first, The Learned Counsel
then went on to state other facts, which will be detailed
in the evidence, and concluded by expressing himself
confident that the jury would award the stakes to the
defendant, who was the proprietor of Old England, the
second horse, and that they would be satisfied Blood-
stone was not the horse he was represented to be.
The following witnesses were then examined.
Mr. Henry Hicks, examined by Mr. SHEE—I live at
Atherley, near Cheltenham. In the spring of 1841 I had
a stallion called Bubastes, which I had hired. In 1841
two mares were sent to Bubastes. One of them was
Romaike, and she was covered by Bubastes. Romaike
was a chesnut mare ; the other was a brown mare. Ro-
maike came to me in the name of Mr. John Newman.
She had a colt at her foot, which Mr. Newman said
was by Beiram. Just before Warwick Races, John
N;:aarnan came to me, and requested me to ask Mr.
Gibson what he would charge for half-bred mares
to be put to Liverpool, a stallion then in the pos-
session of Mr. Gibson. I asked Mr. Gibson, accordingly,

and he told me he would take ten guineas, of which I Mr. Baron PARKE—I have seen, gentlemen, that yots.
informed Newman. Soon after this John Newman called wore of that opinion long ago, and I think you could
upon me, and told me had received a letter from Mr. come to no other conclusion.
Gibson, informing him that his mare Romaike had not Mr. Sergeant CIIA.NNELL then said that after the
foaled, and he wished me to tell him when the mare was opinion expressed by his Lordship, and what had fallen
covered, and I gave him the date, the 4th of May. I saw from the jury, he should not feel himself justified in
John Newman afterwards, and he told me the mare had proceeding any further with the caret; but he claimed
foaled, and that she had a very good colt foal. In the the privilege of making a few observions in justitica-
autumn of 1843 John Newman applied to me for a re- Lion of the plaintiff. He should have made some re-
ceipt, for his two mares in 1942. I told him I had had no marks with reference to the identity of the animal sent
no mares of his in 1842, and I should not give him any to Mr. Gibson's with the mare Romaike, because he must
such receipt as he required. I was at Ascot races, awl confess he was not quite so well satisfied with that
Mr. Herbert told me it was his horse that had run, and evidence as the jury appeared to be, and if that Were-
that he had bought it of Mr. Newman, and I understood tity was not proved, the defendant's case had completely
that ha had given 3001. for him, and was to give 5001. failed. After the strong opinion expressed by the jury,
more if he won the Derby. After the dispute about the however, he would refrain from making any observations
horse's age, Mr. Herbert told me that he should send the upon the evidence that had been adduced ; and be
horse to Tattersall's, and sell it for what it would fetch, would only observe, in justification of the conduct of Mr.
' and bring an action against Newman for deceiving laim Herbert, that there
and hones was nothing whatever toorse, show t
hhallat
as to the age of the horse. he had not fairlyhonestly bou hit
Cross-examined—The charge for the two mares was his engagements, believing him to be a two years old,
71. My charge was Si. 17s. altogether. I have betted ,end that there was no imputation whatever upon Mr.
5001. to 501. upon the result of this action. I made the liebert's character, and he was sure that he never would
bet for Mr. Gully in favour of Old England. I believe have .been a party to tee present proceeding if he had
Old England is his horse, and, of course, he is interested not belie ved that those who had given him the inforuiee
'in it. I paid down the money for Mr. Gully, and I have tion upon lehich he relied were persons of integrity.
jury said they were of opinion that
no interest whatever in the bet. I should be a winner Ttie
forema: of the
myself, if Bloodstone were to have the stake's. Mr. Herbert mig,ht have been deceived.
By the Com—Bubastes never covered a mare for Mr.
PLATT—W knew e believe thatnohing of the fraud alleged
to be the case. It i
Crook.very probable that he .
John House—l am a labourer in the employ of the against the other parties.
last witness, and recollect a chesnut mare ceming to be Mr. Baron PARKE expre,.sed his opinion that the jury
covered by Bubastes in 1841. She had a foal with her could come to no other concha:ion than the one they had
—a very good sort of foal, likely to make a good determined upon. The history of the case probably was
horse. I remember being at Ascot races, and hearioar that it was the small miserable cob: which died, and the
Harmer say, " Here's a devil of a job—the Bubastes colt I other was put in its place.
has come in and beat them all ; but they have The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
proved him to be a three year old." I said I hoped not,
and that John Newman would have the stakes. Upon
which Harmer replied, " It is the Beiram colt which
was with her when she went to be covered by Bubastes;"
and he added, " that it was no more Bubastes' colt than
it was old. Defence's." Defence is a horse that was
staying at Mr. Hicks's. Harmer then said that John
Newman owed him for two mares, and that if he did not
pay him he would toss him over the bridge. I after-
wards saw John Newman and Harmer talking together
at one place, and a boy was sent to listen to what they
said, but they moved away to another part of the yard.
Cross-examined—l am sure Romaike was the mare
that was sent to Bubastes in 1841. I wished John New-
man might win the race, but it does not matter to me
who wins. I was not aware until after the race that Mr.
Gully was at all interested in Old England.
Robert Pincher—l am in the service of Mr. Hicks. I
remember Harmer saying to me, " There's a pretty job,
Bubastes foal has won the race." I said, "Is it Bubas-
tes' foal ?" He replied, "Itis no more Bubastes'
colt than it is old Defence's, and if he don't pay me I'll
fling him over the bridge."
Mr. De Witt—l reside at Stockbridge, am an attor-
ney's clerk, and I was instructed to take the evidence of
Harmer and reduced it to writing. He told me
he was present in April, 1841, when Romaike
dropped a foal to Beiram. It was a chesnut colt with a
star on the forehead, and a near white leg behind. Some-
time in 1842, he said he saw Romaike in Newman's
paddock with Bubastes' foal, and he did not observe any
white about him. He also told me that he did say after
the race at Ascot that Bloodstone was a three-year- old,
and that he might have said that he should not have said
anything about it if John Newman had paid him his fee.
Cross-examined—The witness Harmer made the
statement of his own accord, and I took it down in writ-
ing. I was introduced to Mr. Gully on last Monday
morning.
Mr. W. Walker—l know Mr. Hicks, and called at his
house in April 1841, and stayed there all the night, and
during the night I was disturbed by a noise, and in con-
sequence of a communication'made to one I called at Mr.
Newman's, at Walton, and there I saw a mare which I
have since seen at Guildford, and Which I knew to be
Romaike. The mare at that time had just foaled, and
the mother was very savage to it. I am
sure this foal was a ehesnut ; and I am pretty sure that
it had a white star on the forehead, and one white heel
behind. I have seen the horse Bloodstone, and, to the
best of my belief, he is the Beiram colt, but I will not
swear positively to it. I saw the colt afterwards at Mr.
Newman's.
Cross-examined—I have been in the hop and seed
trade, and also a farmer. I was a bankrupt, and also
took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. I was in Worcester
gaol before I took the benefit, and I made an attempt to
escape from the officer who was taking me to gaol. I
skid one cow to Mr. Hicks shortly before I went to gaol.
Ree,.xamined—l was unfortunate in a hop speculation
eighteen y,-.4ers ago, and it occasioned me to become bank-
rupt. I have 1;,?t the slightest interest in the result of
this cause. -'
.41 I lived close to the Messrs.
Joseph Walker—ln 1e
ecollect the chesnut mare
Newman, at Walton. I
40, and I was informed
coming to Walton in foal in
he foaled in April,
Beiram.that she was in foal by Beira.
y,..-^arlin. After
1841, and I saw the colt when it was a
would not
the mare foaled she was very vicious, ant:g
take to her foal at first. I observed that the .2al,_ nee'
had,
a star on his forehead, and that he had or.e white _
behind. I have seen Bloodstone, and I believe he is the'
Beiram colt. He is the same colour and has the same
marks about him, but I cannot swear he is the same. I
know the witness Crook. He told me he had been
offered 1001. by an agent wrapped up, in paper, to tell
some stories about cutting the Beiram colt, and he said
that he bad spurned the offer.
Cross-examined—I have twice taken the benefit of
the Insolvent Act,.
Mr. Gibson—l reside at Castle Bromwich. A chesnut
mare was sent to my place in 1842. It is my habit to
record the time when every mare is brought in a book
(produced). The mare in question came on the 31st of
March, 1842. Before the mare was brought, I had
received some letters from a Mr. Crook, who represented
the mare to be his. (These were the letters represented
to be written by Richard Newman.) The mare was to be
put to Liverpool, a horse that was then in my possession.
(The letters were read. In one of them the mare
was described as a half-bred one that had never run.)
Examination continued—When the mare came, she
was in foal, and very poor. She had been dressed for
the riff and mange before she was brought to my house.
It is a catching disorder. When I saw the mare I was
satisfied :he was nearly throrough-bred. Crook repre-
sented himself to be the owner of the mare. The mare
e 17th April. It was a very small
dropped a foal on /.1t shoulders, and short in the
shabby foal, with uprii4l
!'ite hair about him, except,
quarters, and had not a No.
,:head. I never saw the
perhaps, a small spot on the forte
made any inquiries
man Crook in my life, and he never .
to my place, I
about the mare. John Newman came .
believe, after the mare had foaled, and he w all the
foaling mares that we had, and also the horse LivjP°°l.
lam certain that I showed him this mare. She vs:"
taken away, with her foal, on the Bth August, 1i42.
Since I have been in Guildford, I have seen Ro-
maicke, and lam sure she is the same mare which was
sent to me trom Mr. Crook. I have also seen Blood-
stone, and he is certainly not the foal that was dropped
in April, 1842. The circumstance of the mare being
sent to me as a half-bred mare excited my suspicion,
and I showed her to certain gentlemen, and we were all
satisfied that she was thorough bred.
Cross-examined—The mare in question was in a very
bad and diseased state when she was brought to me.
Re-examined—l am quite certain that the mare I
have seen in this town is the same mare. I have no
doubt of it.
Mr. G. Gibson—l am the son of the last witness, and
I recollect perfectly well the mare being sent to us, in
the name of Crook, on the 31st of March. I made an
entry in the book kept for that purpose, and described
the mare as half-bred. The witness then read from the
book the remark that the mare foaled a chesnut foal,
without any white, on the 17th of April. I have seen
the mare Romaike, and the horse Bloodstone. Romaike
is the mare that was at our place, but Bloodstone is cer-
tainly not the colt that she dropped in 1842. I never
saw anything of Crook.
George Swan—l am groom to Mr. R. Gibson, and
remember the chesnut mare being brought to his place.
She had a foal while she was there. It was a very
small colt—a chesnut, and had no white about it. I
have seen Bloodstone. He is not the horse foaled in
1842. Romaike is the mare. She had the mange very
bad when she just come, but was getting better when
she went away.
Mr. John Fowler—The mare was shown to me by
Mr. Gibson, and I recognised her as a mare that had
run at Warwick races for the Guy stakes, and I knew
her to be Romaike, and to be a thorough bred mare. I
saw the same mare several times at Mr. Gibson's, and I
saw the colt, she dropped there. It was a chesnut colt,
and I don't think it had any white about it. I have seen
the mare in Guildford, and am sure she is the same.
The horse Bloodstone is not the colt that was dropped
at the time in question, April 1842.
I Mr, T. L. Evans—l saw a chesnut mare at Mr.
Hicks's in the spring of 1841, and I have no doubt that
I afterwards saw the same mare at Mr. Gibson's. The
Same mare is now in Guildford.
I-fenry Bell—l rode Bloodstone at Ascot. Before the
race I saw Air. J., Newman, and he told me to ride him
a quarter of a mile, and then pull him up, for he would
not have him win on any account. I told this before the
race to Captain Rous and Colonel Wyndham's training
groom, and consulted them what to do, and they told me
to win.—(A laugh.) I did win.—(Renewed laughter.)
I had no difficulty to win. I won in a canter.
Cross-examined—I believe the horse fell lame on
the day before.' I was riding him a gallop at the time.
A mare named Carissima ran with me, but I don't know
whether she hurt herself.
Mr. PLATT—Did she gallop with you the day before?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. PLATT—Did she beat you in your gallop the day
before ? Witness—Yes, by sufferance.—(Laughter.)
Yr. PLATT—Were many persons present when she
Witness—Not many.
beat . I suppose to take the news home ?
PloATT—u
l.oi di
"tfaQb'foit e=-f was ono
races, and was present when Biome-
land. A complaint was made that Bloom._
than two years old, and the stewards sent for e...
the veterinary surgeon, from London, and another
K.
tleman, nettled. Parry, from Reading. When Mr. Field
examined the horse, be immediately pronounced him to
be three years old, and gave a certificate to that (fleet.
Mr. Parry gave a similar certificate.
. Mr. John Field—l am veterinary surgeon, and have
been in practice twenty-five years. I examined Blood-
stone at Ascot. He was a three year-old horse. I have
no doubt of that fact. I have seen the horse since, and
there is nothing to alter my opinion.
The jury here intimated that they were quite satisfied.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNTLL intimated his desire to reply.
Mr. PLATT—We hay.e plenty more evidence.
Another veterinary surgeon was then examined, and
he likewise expressed a 1 iositivo opinion that Bloodstone
was a three year-old hon.*.
The jury again said they were perfectly agreed open
thadieg fer the defendant.,

POLICE INTELLIGLTICE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.
An Irish gallant, named Michael 0' Grady, was brought
before Aldermen Sir John Key and Farebrother, (-target
with having refused to contribute towards the supp qrt
his wife, who became chargeable to the parish of Aid'
gate. It was understood that the defendant intended to
plead that he had never been married to the complaina vitt
who happened to be considerably the older of the two.
The complainant produced an old, disfigured piece
paper as her marriage certificate, which appeart d to be'
of the date of May, 1827, and showed that the ceremony
had taken place in Killarney, in the district of the parish
of Aglos, and been performed by the Rev. Doctor
M`Naughton, a Roman Catholic clergyman. She said
the marriage was legal according to the Roman Catholic
creed, the religion they both professed ; and she de-
clared that her husband had for a series of years treated
her with the most heartless neglect and cruelty. She
had, however, until lately, never required any assistance
from him ; but finding that her strength was failing her,
and that her husband was able to support a youthful
substitute for her, she thought it but fair that he should
save the parish the expense that otherwise must necessa-
rily fall upon the authorities.
Sir JOHN KEY—Do you mean that he has married
another woman ? Complainant—She lives with him at
any rate, your Lordship. He gave me regular notice'
that he intended to leave me. He said, after looking hat
in the face for some time one day, your Lordship, that
I was too old and too ugly for him, and that he must
have a handsome young woman, and no other would do

for him.
Sir JoHN KEY—How long is it since you parted ?
Complainant--About eight years, but we often parted
befOre that ; we have been always parting.—(A
Sir JOHN KEY—When did you last receive assistance
from Aldgate parish ? Complainant—This day I Was
obliged to apply, while he dresses out his lady ur silks
and satins.
Sir JoHN KEY—Well, defendant, why do )'Oll
refuse to relieve this poor woman, who hss
a legal claim to all you can do for her
Defendant—Please your Lordship, I was never mar-
ried to her. To be sure, we have lived together, and
better, more affectionate, or kinder-hearted husband
never breathed the breath of life.—(Laughter.)
Alderman FAREBROTHER—And to convince her 01
the warmth of your attachment, you turn her off and
take another woman into her place ? Defeizdant—Y°er
Worship, I really thought she was dead or wansportec•
There was no use in my acting kindly, for away she
would tramp from me whenever she took it into bet
head. She has been the death of me fifty times Ili 100,t;
Complainant—Oh', goodness! why,
.your LordshiPl:,
knocked me up stairs and down stairs till I was (3.10 y
insensible.
Defendant—I can call witnesses to my tenderne.s9'
your Worship. I was the sweetest tempered man'
(Laughter.)
A professional gentleman, who attended for O'Grady'
said his client had never been legally married. 11,#
°.
begged to be informed by the complainant what was tp"
name of the chapel in which she had been joined in 0311
trimony to Mr. O'Grady ?—The complainant said th,
they were married in a house, and that it was as goo'
ceremony as ever was performed by a priest.
Mr. Goodman (the Chief Clerk)—And you are boll'
Catholics ? Complainant—Certainly we are.
Mr. Goodman—Then your testimony is quite suffiej6
to to the validity of the marriage. koen
Th: defendant's solicitor—He was only severte-
ge when he formed this connection.
years et .1
—And I was so comfortable, sr '
Defenctin:
der, to her, your Lordship. and em't
donate, and Mg,
r up and down stairs.
Alderman FARIZIMOTHER—And by way of Abwing"
all this you kicked
Defendant—l never tOched her in my life, I'll be 011
my oath.—(Laughter.)
Sir JOHN KEY—Well, you will prove the sincerity.!fs
your affection by taking her ho,.ue, and sending 141'
Sniffum about her business.
Defendant—And if Ido why she must go to ,thne,
parish. It's qvite impossible for me to support eip
both upon my small means, and Sniffum is of some 01_,
me; but Mrs. O'Grady used to take delight in folloral
me from situation to situation, and then abscond•
yes
have not been in her cotivany this eight years till )1°
and I hope this is our very last meeting.
For a length of time the defendant resisted the Ait he
cation to allow his wife a farthing, declaring that 1,
should be obliged, if the authorities persisted in conWe/,r
ing him to support her, to go upon his travels to of
of
countries. At length, however, upon the assurance,,,,
the Alderman that his travels should be bounded hy,tPto
walls of a prison, of small dim,?nsions, he entered 1.131,
las '
sureties to make the allowance den:anded by the patd
JOHN KEY said he had received a letter from 'Zoo
Strangford, stating that his Lordship, haying obserire_,l;
the daily papers, an account of the impoitions Pr 4
tised by a person calling herself " Ellen C.lloughri #
and " Margaret Cope," and having recesiYe'4o
letter signed " Ellen Willoughby," inclosing a (no do 're.
forged certificate, similar to these described in the 0e
I),:rt ; he had thought it advisable to transmit the she
Mansion-house. His Lordship added that .id
w
had sent Hythe, the place in which the writer Po,
and to which she was desirous t° got,
she was knll,
at no such person was known ther.F.oo
and ascertained
he had also received a letter 110
all.
her
men:ioning that a letter had 07reci
another nobleman,
sent to his wife: (no doubt nc on the authority of the
club-house St. Jag°l,o.4
book), directed to Brookes' C.
street and subscribed " Fleming, to the same efe•,
those,, copies of which had appeared in a former Cute
sion ; that 11. had been sent to the writer befirre the or
port had been seen, and that the object in troub.lll3g ,001.
John Key was, that the Dublin police might encfeinsissi
to get hold of, the parties implicated in the Inge' eV
fraud which, if it had not been for the press, would
questionably have very extensively succeeded.
Sir JoHN KEY stated that he had received a sovere
for the relief of John Thompson Irvine, the unfortoo_lllo
merchant who lost all his property at Hamburgh,l`os
has been endeavouring for many years to suppai se•
children, whose mother has been some time, in o 0; s
quence of the pressure of adverse eircumstanceS,
lunatic asylum. The note inclosing the money
signed J. 5.," and requested that the Alderman °obi
acknowledge it in the Times. He likewise stated bet/
he had received for the same poor man the 84:0°°Acibi°
of the five-pound note which had been transiniea-f 036
benevolent person who had seen the statemenC P
distressing case in the newspapers.
CLERK.EIV WELL.
Mr. George Williams, a middle aged man, proPAerY,
of a hair-dressing establishment in Warner-street, tior
enwell, was charged with violating the person of for
beth Duckworth, aged 15. The case was remande
further evidence. d r the
Benjamin Beadle, a cab• driver was charged un-c
following aggravated circumstances: Jan
On the 7th of June an unfortunate girl, nem.- htie
Hughes, was sitting in the Guy Earl of Warwick 11110.01
house between five and six o'clock in the morning,,,,ser,
the prisoner entered, and, after using language °f bee s'l
rough and offensive character towards her, asking 000
drink some gin and milk. She refused, whereu) °O4lO
prisoner, without receiving further provocation,
flu ,c(ta
glass at her and broke it to atoms on her forehead'
tl
unfortunate woman was dreadfully mangled hcf tie;
splinters of the glass. She became insensible, 011,104
profusely from the wounds. When she fell, he t''o,o t
pint pot at her head, which fortunately did not,. 01115
feet. When the police were conveying him to tell oe hoof
Bagnigge-wells station, he suddenly threw hinise:;ooo
back and kicked Nott, police constable 99 G, s°
tfee
on a delicate part part of his person, that the ooc
most fainted from pain, and was for some days ifent,
duty. lie was sentenced to a month's

BIRTHS. tr•
On the 2d' inst. at Homerton Cottage HotnerW
,
Mrs. William Frith, of a daughter. gotl'
• oil' tiri
On the 2d inst., at Clanton, Mrs. Walter Venning%. Oe
On the 3d inst., in Portland-place, the lady o'
e fit'
Tritton, Esq., of a son. bre.,
On the 3d inst., in Berkeley-square, Mrs. ilutilP of
John Mildmay, of a daughter. he 05 01
On the 26th ult., at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, t --,„,3 t
Robert Koch, Esq., her Britannic Majesty's Vice-v—
a daughter. ar A 14011
, ae Lady
On the Ist inst., in New-street, Spring-g
...0
Hoare, of a son.•
DIED. hed Ber. jol°
On the 31st ult., at Richmond-hill, Bath, t 0 0,
Parsons, of the Island of Barbadoes, Vicar of
Blit..r.,ifee 0. ffr•
.... the 31st ult., at Avranches. Mary Frances, ''' 14,
On . vsq., of the Bombay Civil Service.
~,, oibbe
Gardiner, • -Rt., at Clapham-common, WILLA° tile
On',eshire aged 85. .afrriett,
Esq., of Hare-hill, t.,— -.4; Acton, MiddleseS, 1-m— ,of
Oa the 4th inst., at /44... A Pe°
wife of Mr. R. L. Evans. T•ionea, eldest —a
On the 3d inst., at Hampstead, .i..-
William Parton, Esq. .
000 r inn thetthh
ee
324
ddt
hii en i sant.: :t 11'.a, Itiur N•
rJsoor
vs
se po
oa I is
IdW,,,
wife
iii tfi
see
s' aged
Brooks'
itta
1,4,
8.03, y.escl.'
ofSt.John'A-1.....................e n t's-pi:: _iisoloi,
picospo Ivlo. I al
London : Printed and PublishedTrus s (3cetkoti
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at
tSlitrctro,4
it
iythecuPereervcotitovfswithet
75a:11740.Y. in t 339

of the stewards of Ascot
'tone beat Old Eng-
*one was more
'rr. Field,
-an-