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

STEAM MOTIVE POWER IN 1700.

The discoveries which are from time to time made in
the Ecyptian tombs authorise the belief that many of
the inventions and machines of the present day were
known to the ancients, and used by them. A gentle.
men who is curious in such things. says the Baltim)re
Patriot, sends us the subjoined extract from the History
of China, by Peri du Heide, which was published is
1741 (folio edition). It is certainly nothing less than a
miniature locomotive and steamboat which was here
noticed. The extract is taken from a description given
by du Halde of the various inventions made by the
Jesuit missionaries in Chine, fer the instruction and
amusement of the Emperor Kanghi, who died in 1722.
The inventions there described were made about tee b+.
ginning of the 18th century:—" The pneumatic engines
did no less excite his Majesty's curiosity. They caused
a waggon to be made of light wood, about two ,'ePt long,
in the middle whereof they placed a brazen vessel full
of live coals, and upon them an eolipile, the wind of
which issued through a little pipe upon a sort of wheel,
made like the sail of a windmill. This little wheel
turned another with an axletree, and by that means the
waggon was set a running for two hours tegether; but,
for fear there should not be room enough for it to pro-
ceed constantly forwards, it was contrived to move cir-
cularly in the following manner:—to the exit-tree of the
two hind wheels was fixed a small beam, and at the end
of this beam another axletree passed througt the stock
of another wheel, somewhat larger than the rest; and
accordingly as this wheel was nearer or further from the
waggon it described a greater or a lesser circle. The
same contrivance was likewise applied to a lit le ship
with four wheels: the eolipile wain hidden in the middle
the ship, and the wind issuing out of two small pipes
filled the little sail's and made them turn around a long
time. The artifice being concealed, there was nothing
heard but a noise like wind, or that which water makes
about a vessel."—Boston (American) Journal, Oct. 24.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec 4.
DRYDEN V. FRYER. •
(Continued from our Third Edition of last night.)
After 11.1". M. CHAMBERS had replied,
Lord CAMPBELL then proceeded to sum up. He
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 loft it to the
jury to say, from the evidence which they had heard,
whether toey thought he was in a 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 ver-
dict 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.)
HARGRAVE V. HARGRAVE.
_

This was an issue directed by the Master of the Rolls,
to try whether the plaintiff, John Robert Hargrave, is
the son of John Hargrave, deceased, and Mary, his
wire, and the legitimacy was affirmed by the plaintiff
and denied by the defendant.
Mr. Butt. Q.C., Mr. Sergeent Wilkins, Mr. Welsby,
Mr. Hugh Hiln and Mr. PhipsOn, appeared on the part
of the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Chancel], Mr. Sergeant
Byles, Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., Mr. Adolphus, and Mr.
Willes, were couusel for the defenrient.
Mr. BUTT opened the plaintiff'. case, and stated that
the jury were already aware that the question was whe-
ther John Robert Hargrave wes the son of John ape
Mary Hargrave, two persons who we. a married, hut
also separated under circumstances to which he would
their attention, and tin- mutter ark*, out of s..eue
proceedings in the Court of Chancery. founded upon
the will of Thomas Hargrave, the father of Jot's,
Hargrave, This testator wee at one time an inn-
keeper in Old Cullum-street, but subs,- qusnfly he lived
t Ley ton, in Essex, and he was a man of some pro-
p erey,Head, in
possessing among Aid g
aother
n
things the
Februaryfre, 8
e hlol dl;,f
hee
Saracen's
made his will, and devised his property to Messrs. Jos-
hing and Smith, in trust, for his son John for life, with
remainder to his children in tail, as tenants in common,'
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 5,0001., but he regretted to
ray that litigation bad been going on respecting it since
the year 1840, 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 remove
sane 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 Rolls 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, but the only surviving ones were the plaintiff
and defendant, the date of the plaintiff's birth being the
18th November, 1836, and the defendant baying been
born in 1819. The father of these children, John Har-
grave, was a man of very dissipated habits and loose
morals, One of his principal failings being his connexion
with the softer sex. During the early part of his mar-
ried life ho 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 Rogere, 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 alter that
time he cohabited with a person named Tune. Whilst
Mrs. Hargrave lived at Woodford she bad 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 Box-
logne. He, however, was in the habit of coining fre-
quently to England, and it would be seen that he per-
sonally collected his rents, which were paid half-yearly.
At this time he owed Mrs. Tresler 6631 ss. upon a pro..
missory not-, and he used to call aid pay the interest e f
the debt to her daughter, Mrs. Pope. In the 3 ear 1830
he called upon Mrs. Pope and asked where his wi.e rived,
and she gave him her address in the G!obe-road, Mile-
end. She also accempenied him on a visit to his wife,
whom he addressed ii, his usual manner, and said, Well,
mother, how tire you ? " and they appeared very
friendly together, and the husband nursed Emily,
who bed lived at Woodford, and 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, loßaalzephon-street, in the 130-
rough, arid occupied one room in a house belonging to
Mr. Sturmy, two other rooms being occupied by E!iza-
bath Haltyer. The important question to be decided
waa whether early in 1836 the husband was in com-
munication with his wife, under such circurastancee
that the jury might fairly infer that he was the fah: r
of the plaintiff. They were probably aware, that seine
Lime ago a doctrine obtained in England, that if
the husband and wife were Within what was called
" the four seas," and a child were born, it should be
taken that the husband was the father of that child.
This rule was no doubt esialAished,
but' in
of the die.-
fictiltY of proving the.; contrary ; but in latter timers-it'
Was held that it was not ehough to show that the hus-
band and wife :wete in the same country, if it should
be shown satisfactorily that there was no communication
between them. In this case it would be proved that

the husband and wife were in communication, and,
therefore, in accordance with law, the jury would
infer Vasa he was the father of the plaintiff; for if it
could he shown that they 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
Sup Tavern and Hotel, in Water-lane, where his wife
visited him eeveral tines, 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 Aidgate iu January, or February, 1835, 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, the plaintiff being born in November of that year.
The deceased also culled upon Mrs. Pope in the early
part of 1836, and gave a new note in the place of the
01,1 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
handwriting of John Hargrave. one of them dated on
Jan. 10, and aucther in April, 1836, the receipt stamp
having been purchased by the deceased personally at a
shop in Aldgaie. Another witne as would be Mr. Veug-
hate who for many years kept the Burton Coffee-house,
in Cheapeide, 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 Baalze-
phon-street, in which Mrs. Hargrave lodged, there also
lodged a Mrs. Elizabeth Hallyer, and she would be
called before the jury in the course of the cause. Her
e.vineece 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
Hollow, 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 18. h Nov.. 1836. in Pau-
line-street, Bermovdsey, and Mr. Tovy, a surgeon, at-
tend, d his mother in her confiuement. The circum-
eta, ees attendant upen the birth, he submitted, were
conciusive as showing the legitimacy of the child. The
mother need no concealment, but gave her proper name,
and stated the tact 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-
cc ised acknowledged the plaintiff to be his son. It ap-
peared that W. J. Hargrave went to sea, and that the
sleceased, 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 he 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 Bill, 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-
fiem,:her evidence would be read from the judge's notes.
He understood that the defence to be set up was that the
deceased was in Boulogne all the first half-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 plaintiff; but even if this
were so, the husband being in a position also to have
connexion with her, they would learn from his Lordship
taut the law would presume the legitimacy of the child,
and the immorality of the wife would not at all affect
the ease. 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 Jcbn Robert Hargrave was the son
of John Hargrave, deceased, and Mary his wife.
The Learned ounsel 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. Hargrave 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 bad
there in his company a person passing as Mrs. Har-
grave, but he did deny that this was the mother of,
,the plaintiff; and he 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 should show that it
was eat in consequence of the intimacy of the de-
ceased with Many Rogers, tor that in fact did not exist
wail atter the separation. The fact was, that the sepa-
rations was in consequence of the deceased suspecting his
wife of an improper intimacy with a Frenchman named
M. D'Arerue. There were two questions for the jury;
first, whether John Hat grave 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 " genetatinsr access "
to warrant them in the conclusion that the plaintiff was
toe son of Johu Hargrave. It was true that he had
made his wife au 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 altogether 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'Arbrue on Southwark-bridge, and witness left them
together.

-Ann Mary Taylor heard Mr. and Mrs. Hargrave
quarrelling about a foreign gentleman. Mrs. Hargrave
wasin a great passion, and would not bear the accusation.
Mary Ann Porter recollected the birth of the child
Emily, and that a day or two after the birth it disap-
peared, and was not brought back for six weeks.
Elizabeth 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-
ket was a note, which it was sought to prove was in the
handwriti❑g of Mrs. Hargrave, but the document was
not given in evidence.
Other witnesses were called, who stated that Mrs.
Hargrave had been seen with a Mr. George Beteson
walking near the forest at Woodford, 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 one 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. He frequently slept 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 recent period, and that he treated the
plaintiff as his child.
Mrs. Ja❑e 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 allowance had not witness per-
suaded him to give her a guinea a week. He
went abroad in 1828 or 1829, 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 April, 1836.
On tat• last occasion he spent the night at witness's, and
the following day went to Colney, where bis 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; 1640. The father stayed until
the following Thursday or Friday, when the boat went.
She saw him again in May, and he then stayed atssut
a month. She went to Pauline-street, Bermondsey, to
see Mrs. Hargrave, in 1837, and witness's sister went
with her. They saw Mrs. Hargrave, a❑d witness ob-
served that see was nursing. It was arranged that wit-
ness should pay her Bs. a week on account of her hus-
band. Witness afterwards- saw her in Crosby-street,
and observed something belonging to a child. Wit-
n-ss asked what she did with such things, and Mrs.
Hargrave said she often nursed the child of a woman
is low. Witness made some inquiries, and saw her

again at witnets'a house in the following November,
rind accused her of having had another child
Since Emily,, and said she should not have any
more money. She said how:, dared witness accuse
of doing wrong again because she had done so once. ,
Witness then showcd,her a piece of paper which cor;'
taitied UO"tienaain's name and 'address. Witness thought'
she' would have fainted. She went down on her knees,.

and begged witness to conceal it from her husband, an&
witness promised she would, if she would leave Mortle'-'
main, and go and live on the other aide of the water.
Witness also promised to continue the payments, and

DECEMBER' 5, 185&

afterwards guaranteed the payment of the ren-. or her
lodgings in Pearson-street, litegsiand-road. Witness
subsequently visited her in Dagger's-court, Moorfields,
and see taro cups and saucers. Mrs. Hargrave said the
extra cup saucer were for the child, but witness re-
plieddltat a child of such tender age could not ape a cup.
There was ahio a pair of man's trousers there, hich
said had haen oivca to her to menu. Witness under-
.stood that 2dr. Mortiemain 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 Murtlemain, and she replied—" How
could you expect that a father would keep from his
child." Witness was present about three weeks before
Jehn Hargrave's death, when he and his wife were to-
gether. She said the boy (the plaintiff) would he his
heir; and he said, "Do you mean to say that I am to
educate it?" She said," Yes, certainly." She acknow-
ledged that Mortlemain was the father of the child, and
she held up her finger and said, " I love his little finger
better than ever I did you."
Cross-examined—She had not seen defendant since
May or June last, and did not know where he was. She
had lent him 2911., and had got a decd authorising her
to receive the rent of the Saracen's !lead. The rent
was 3201. a year. She was to allow him 31. a week, and
after discharging tome debts to appropriate the rest in
pat.ment cf be: claim. Part of the time she had received
only half the rent, the other half being paid into the
Court cf Chancery. She had lent defendant Money be-
fore he was of age, but that she h:.d never claimed. She
certainly had not persuaded Mrs. Hargrave, three
months before her husband's death, to put him in a lu-
natic asylum. She had been examined twice 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, Sc., but that she had
omitted some of 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. Ho remembered the Carnival Ball at
Boulogne in 1836. It was in the middle of February.
and witness's lather 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-examined--He had entered the army in 1840.
but be could not swear in what month. He could not
tell the month in which he left Calais, nor could he tell
the month in which he first went to school, nor thw in
which he entered his first service. He bad gone to India
with his regiment, but he would nut swear whether it
was in the year 1845, or nut.
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 he was stated to have called upon his
wife in Baalzephon-street. In reply to this part of the
case, Mr. and Mrs. Blunt stated that they knew John
Hargrave, that they attended the Carnival Bull, and that
he was not there.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS, upon the conclusion cf the
evidence, addressed to jury upon the whole ca.;e in a
powerful and eloquent speech, which occupied three
hourt4nd a half to deliver. He analysed the evidence
with'great minuteness and ability, and especially urged
upon the jury that most of the witnesses ou the part of
the defendant 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, is fall 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 should
be bastardised except upon the strongest proof. The
whole question was one entirely for the jury. They bad
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 stated that they were 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 :1. BATLEY.
In this case Mr. Richard Batley, jun., promotes a sui
for divorce, on the ground of adultery, against his wife.
Dr. CURTEIS, for Mr. Batley,' was opening the pro.
ceedings, when

Dr. DEANE, for the wife, said he must abandon that
portion of the case which related to the cotnmis:;ion of
adultery ; but upon the evidence he should pray the
Court to dismiss Mrs. Batley on the ground that her
husband had connived at her guilt, and therefore was
not ( n'ideil to a sentence. Ife (Dr. Deane) contended
it was clearly estabdshed by the testimony in the
case that the parties had cohabited together for se-
veral months precious to the marriage, and that six days
aft er 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 tne purpose by himself or Mr. Batley, sen., or by
acme other p; rson on their behalf. Ile submitteal it was
a case of malicious desertion, aed that the husband had
been guilty of active and corrupt connivance to entrap
his wife into the paths of dishonour.
Dr. WADDILOVE was heard on the same side.
Des. CURTEIS 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 COURT 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.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge.)
Sarah Burhe, 19, Sophia Dilbury, 22, Jane Finnerty,
18, and Eliza Jones, 23, were indicted for robbing Mary
Ann Foster Simmons of a mantle, and a purse contain-
ing
.133. 2d.

The circumstances of this case were of 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 daughter of a person holding a
situation on 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 no
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 that she
was very late, and one of the prisoners suggested 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 band 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,
she saw women still in the room, and some of them
bega❑ to express pity for her. Sho was going down
stairs when the prisoner Dilbury laid hold of her, in
order to pr'vent ber 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 hard labour fur the space of one year.
Isaac Ballard, 15. and George Sainsbury, 18, were in-
dicted for stealing seven books from the residence of Sir
J. Rotnilly, the Attorney. General.
Ballard was found Guilty; Sainsbury, Acquitted.
The former was sentenced to three months' hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
NIARLBOROUGH,N7'REET.
Mrs. Eleanor Hirschfeld, the widow of the late Mr.
Herman Hirschfeld, backer and merchant of Paris, came
before Mr. Hardwick, to beg some temporary assistance
for herself and four infant children from thzi poor-box.
Mrs. Hirschfeld presented several highly respmetable
recommendations authenticating her melancholy history,
and her statement of destitution. ider husband was a
Jew, but after rilarriage he emlor.:cd Christianity. This
act drew open 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, but they
denied it because their relative hai htn.me a Christian.
Th6estfen went so far as to Place obftacles irCher Way
'recOvering some paperi to
,shOw that, her httsband was
iscfceemason, and had ..claim on that. compassionate fra
ternity. She said her children had jallo sick, and she
r,4 'ow n• iyeakeilVd fratie 4ould no Longer -seive to,
iiod.t-Oan,support. She had thus'been compelled to make
the present application. -r -
Mr. lIARDwIcK, having looked over some documents