The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-09 00:00:00

BANKRUPTS.

Charles Christie, timber merchant, Vauxhall-walk, Lam-
beth. to surrender March 15, and April 19, at one, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basing-
hall-street; Barton, Wolsingham-[lace, Lambeth.
Thomas Long, picture dealer, Belgrave-street South,
Pimlico, March 20, at one, ard April 19, at twelve, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Stansfeld, official assignee; Wey-
mouth, Temple-chambers, Fleet-street.
James Wigg Hickling, wharfinger, Mann's-wharf, Mon-
tague-close, Southwark, March 16 and April 27, at half-past
twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official as-
signee, Guildhall-chambers; Yetts, Field-court, Gray's Inn.
Robert Parker, commission agent, Nottingham, March 15
and April 19, at ten, at the Birmingham District Court. Bit-
tleston, official assignee, Nottingham; Campbell, Not-
tingham._ _ _

John Brearley, timber merchant, Sowerby-bridge, near
Halifax, Yorkshire, March 22 and April' 5, at eleven, at the
Leeds District Court. Young, official assignee, Leeds;
Stocks, Halifax ; Courtenay, Leeds.
Robert Brown, tailor, Howden, Yorkshire, March 20 and
April 24, at half-past ten, at the Leeds District Court. Car-
rick, official assignee, Hull; Blackburn, Leeds.
Charles Burgin, steel manufacturer, Sheffield, March 23, at
twelve, and April 27, at ten, at the Leeds District Court.
Freeman, official assignee, Sheffield; Saxelbye, Hull; Hors-
fall and Harrison, Leeds.

Edward Underhill, builder, Chelsea, March 14, at eleven,
and April 19, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Stans-
feld, official assignee; Lawrence and Plows, Old Jewry-
chambers, City.
w imam Henry Swinton, merchant, South-street,
Finsbury, March 22, and April 19, at two, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Edwards, official assignee, Basinghall-
street ; Peddell, Cheapside.
PRICE OF SUGAR.

The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from the returns made in the week ending March 5,
Ibso, is 265. 53/4d. per cwt.

AN AMERICAN CARDINAL —The President of
Mexico announces in his message, that Pius IX., in order
to manifest nis gratitude for the lively interest taken in
his welfare by the high functionaries of the republic and
its ecclesiastics, has signified his desire to confer upon
some Mexican bishop the dignity of cardinal. A Pon-
tifical agent is expected at Mexico, and if this cardinal
is made, he will be the first dignitary of that sort on
this continent.—New I'Qrk Tribune.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Ilicirch 7.
,HARTLEY'S DIVORCE.
The Howe assembled this afternoon, according to
special appointment, and proceeded to hear counsel
and evidence in Hartley's Divorce Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM occupied the chair. The Earl of
Devon and Lord Hawarden were also present.
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham (with whom was Mr.
Crompton) appeared on behalf of the petitioner ; and
Mr. M. James represented Mrs. Hartley.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAM said, in opening the case,
that the petitioner was a gentleman who was well
known to many of the Members of that House—
Mr. John Bernard Hartley, who was the engineer to
the Liverpool, and also to the Hull, Docks. It would
appear; in the-course of the evidence that that gentle-
man had been married, on the 6th of September,
1842, to Miss Harriet Say Hall, the daughter of a
Liverpool merchant, with whom he had lived for
some time upon the meat happy and affectionate
terms. Mr. Thompson was the engineer to the
Liverpool and Bury.. Railway, and it was owing
to that circumstaracO, that an acquaintance be-
tween the parties had commenced. At the
period of the marriage Mr. Hartley was twenty-
eight years of age, while Miss Hall had not then
attained twenty years. The engagements of Mr.
Hartley, in a professional sense, had caused his fre-
quent absence from home, and he
was not only called
to Hull every fortnight, but during the sittings of
the two House of Parliament he was compelled to
attend :very frequently before Committees of both
branches of the Legislature. It would appear that
the acquaintance between the parties commenced
during the year 1846, and in the course of the middle
of that year Mr. Hartit- noticed some difference in
the bearing of Mrs. Hartley. He, however, made no
remark to the lady, and matters continued to proceed
in this way for some time. During the summer of
1847, Mr. Hartley had occasion to go to Glasgow on
professional business. In the meantime reports bad
been spread in Liverpool to the effect that an im-
proper intimacy was going on between Mrs.
Hartley and Mr. Thompson. It had been even
alleged that an elopement bad taken place. The
falsehood, however, of that portion of the
rumour bad at the time been sufficiently proved
by the fact that the lady was still residing in her
husband's house. On the return of Mr. Hartley from
Glasgow, he heard of those rumours, and instantly
set on foot such inquiries as he thought would be
likely to lead to the truth. Some time having elapsed
he at length traced the report to a Mr. Prest, of Li-
verpool, and he accordingly obtained an interview
with that gentleman, and, in the course of conversa-
tion, Mr. Prest stated that he had heard of the cir-
cumstance from a Mr. Parker. That gentleman,
however, denied that he had ever made such a com-
munication to Mr. Prest. The result of this inter-
view was, that Mr. Hartley bad, by the advice of
several friends, personally chastised Mr. Prest. For
that act Mr. Prest had brought an action, which had
been eventually compromised, at an expense of 1201.
to Mr. Hartley. These several circumstances had
taken place during the summer of 1847. Mr.
Thompson having heard that Mr. Hartley had disco-
vered the person by whom the rumour had been set
afloat, had written to Mr. Hartley, and had adopted
in that communication just such a course as would be
calculated to blind the eyes of that gentleman against
the proceedings he was carrying on. The letter was
to the following effect:—
"My dear Hartley,—l only wish to God I had been
with you, although from all accounts you needed no
help. I stayed last night at our worthy friend Fore-
shaw's, who gave me full particulars. I would have
run down to the yard to see you, but am obliged to go
to Manchester with my brother; most probably, how-
ever, we will get back this evening, and if in time to go
to the French plays, I may perhaps s©e you there. If
not I shall be sure to see you to-morrow.

" Ever most-truly yours, in haste,
" JAMES THOMPSON.
" 47, Monet Pleasant, August 17, 1847."
Mr. Hartley, feeling satisfied that the rumours were
not true, had allowed matters to go on as heretofore ;
but he could not disguise from himself that there ap-
peared to be an increased coolness exhibited towards
him by his wife. The result, therefore, bad been that
in the course of the month of November in that year,
the parties had agreed to separate, and iu the follow-
ing month a deed to that Effect had been drawn up
and executed, and that instrument contained a cove-
nant on the part of Mr. Hartley to pay his wife an an-
nuity of 2001., in addition to another 200/. settled upon
her, which gave her an income of 4001. per annum.
The separation accordingly took place, and it was
not until some days after the execution of the deed
that Mr. Hartley had received any satisfactory proof
of his wife's infidelity. Some days subsequently,
however, to that event, a letter, anonymously signed,
had been received by Mr. Foreshaw, the brother-in-
law of Mr. Hartley, intimating that Thompson was
on the point of eloping with Mrs. Hartley ; and a
consultation having taken place, an advertisement
was put in the Times asking the writer to come for-
ward and establish his charge. There was no reply
to the advertisement except a letter, which, from its
terms, had induced the suspicion that it had been
written at the instance of Thompson. These inquiries
had been carried on throughout the whole of 1848,
with the hope that some proof of the adultery might
be gained, and it had not been till the very end of
that year that the clue had been obtained. That in-
quiry and search had of course been carried on at a
large expense.
Lord IlaouGnam—Was that the 600/. that were
charged as costs ?
Mr. Sergeant WRANGITAM-Oh, no ; those were
the costs of the action. The Learned Sergeant said
in continuation that the information which had by
this time been obtained was sufficient to establish the
fact of the adultery, and therefore Mr. Hartley had
brought an action against Thompson, who in the first
place had pleaded not guilty, but afterwards, upon
hearing that a Mrs. Jones, who had been his house-
keeper, had been found, he then withdrew that plea,
and allowed judgment to go by default. It had been
subsequently found that Mrs. Jones had, by the di-
rection of Mr. Thompson, taken the house in her own
name at which he had held his secret meetings with
Mrs. Hartley. The case, therefore, had come before
the Sheriff of Liverpool with a view to assessing the
damages. Counsel—witnesses having in the mean-
time arrived at that town at a considerable expense—
agreed, however, ere the trial commenced, with the
view of sparing the feelings of all parties, that a
verdict should, be returned for 4,000/. damages and
the costs.

Lord Baouoneat—Enormous ! I never heard of
such a sum taken by consent. The costs never could
have been so large where it was an undefended cause.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAM said that the costs had
been taxed in the usual way, and both sums had been
paid by the defendant's attorney.
Lord BUOUGRAM—What ! 4,0001. as damages and
costs too—an engineer against an engineer. Why, it
is perfectly monstrous.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGLIAM—Two railway engi-
neers, my Lord,
Lord Baouonast—l do not care, Sergeant, even if
they were Californian engineers. I say the amount
is monstrous.

Mr. Sergeant
WRANGUAM was sure ultimately that
the Noble and Learned Lord would be satisfied that
410001. was not too large a sum. The taxation of the
bill of costs had been carried on in the most hostile
way. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to say,
that upon the separation of Mr. and Mrs. Hartley,
the lady had gone to live with an uncle and aunt of
the name of Shaw, from whose house she had gone
to London, where she had taken up her residence
with Mr. Thompson, at a private hotel in Sackville-
street, and with whom she had afterwards proceeded
to Southsea, near Portsmouth. Having proved these
facts, he felt sure the House would read the Bill a
second time.

The usual documentary evidence having been ad-
duced, and a very desultory conversation having
taken place in connexion with the payment and
transfer of the damages and the costs of the action,
Mr. Joseph Newby, a relative of the petitioner,
proved that Mr. and Mrs. Hartley had lived upon
affectionate terms.

Mr. Henry Foreshaw was next examined, and
having corroborated the Learned Sergeant's state-
ment in the material points, stated that he, Mr. Hart-
ley, Mr. Prest, and a mutual friend had assembled at
the Waterloo Hotel, Liverpool, and that Mr. Hartley
had upon that occasion, and under his direction,
horsewhipped Mr. Prest in retaliation for the promul-
gation of the alleged false rumours imputing crimi-
nality to Mrs. Hartley.
Lord BROUGHAM—You, as a lawyer, directed Mr.
Hartley to horsewhip Mr. Prest?
Witness—Yes ; and I then handed the whip to
Mr. Prat, who, however, declined to use it. The
door of the room I had locked, and bad they key in
my pocket. The witness concluded by stating that
3,0001. had been already expended in the prosecu-
tion of these proceedings, and that the damages and
costs in the action for trim. con. had been laid aside
for that especial purpose.
The following letter was then put in and read to
show that, prior to the introduction of Mr. Thomp-
son, Mr. and Mrs. Hartley had lived happily toge-
ther :

" Seaforth, May 14, 1846.
" My dearest John,—A thousand thauks for your

kind note. Of course I should not at all enjoy being in
London and you elsewhere, as seeing and being with ycu
will be my greatest enjoyment. I hope we shall all go
up on Tuesday, for two reasons—one is, I am longing to
see you, and hope deferred maketh the heart sick;'
another reason is, going to Willis's Rooms would have
been the greatest pleasure London could afford to Annie
Dore and I, in the shape of amusement; and the only op-
portunity of seeing the aristocracy in full dress. lam
much better than usual this week, and intend coming up
to you flourishing as a young palm tree, and my husband
may not always say his own is ill. I havelbeen thinking
with such glee of your meeting me at the station
that last night I dreamt not ' that I dwelt in marble
halls,' ,but that you were not at the station, and
I was overwhelmed with sorrow, and I rushed to the
Caledonian Hotel, and an aristocratic old man Owned
me the room you were in! You will see Henry in Lou-
don. Mary's first party was hies recherche; her second
has not taken place, in consequence of Henry's absence.
It is not absolutely necessary to write to the dear aunt;
but, if you had time, love, it would please her greatly,
and please your wile too, and your aunt is so kind t )
your own. My aunt is now at Rock Ferry, but I would
forward your letter.
"If yon can come round from Hull for us do, but
do not, dearest, come to Beaumaris, for it would be use-
less fatigue, and I could take Ann up for the same ex-
pense. She says she would rather go in the third-class
carriage.
" Your wife is well and happy, and sends her undyink
love to her husband. • '

Your own darling,
" HARRIET.

(Addressed) " Jno. B. Hartley, Esq., 16,
Bury.street, St. James's, London."
Mrs. Catharines Jones, the witness mentioned in
the Learned Sergeant's statement, proved that she had
taken a house in Buckingham-terrace, Liverpool, at
the direction of- Mri.-Thompsun, and than the • had
frequently during the year 1847 seen Mrs. Hartley
at that house. Only three rooms, namely, a drawing-
room, a parlour, and a bed-room, had been
furnished. Mrs. Hartley had remained the whole of
the night upon three occasions. Witness could not,
however, distinctly state that the bed had been slept
in by two parties. Witness subsequently accom-
panied Mr. Thompson and Mrs. Hartley to Sack-
ville-street where she had attended upon that lady;
but she was not able to prove any act of direct
criminality.
Mary Williams said that she was housemaid at the
Belle Vue House, Southsea, where Mr. Thompson
and Mrs. Hartley had taken lodgings. They had
occupied two bedrooms very near together, but she
had constantly found in the morning that two persons
had slept in Mr. Thompson's bed. The witness
having then detailed some facts which are not fit for
publication,

Lord BitouGuam said—Oh, that will do Sergeant.
My Lords it appears to me that this case is free from
all doubt. The only doubt that has ever been thrown
upon it arose out of what appeared to be a suspicius
circumstance—namely, the very large amount of da-
mages-4,000/.—which were paid, and therefore as
your Lordships may have observed, I sifted very
narrowly the evidence—much more narrowly than
usual—as to the actual payment of the money. It
certainly did raise suspicions in my mind. My
Lords, there appears to me to be no doubt whatever
that the parties were married ; secondly, that they
lived very happily together until the unfortunate in-

tercourse began with Mr. Thompson ; thirdly, that
that intercourse produced on the part of the wife
coldness and undutiful conduct towards her husband ;
and, fourthly, and above all things, which is a most
essential point in such a case, that there was no con-
nivance, no lathes on the part of the husband. It appears
my Lords, that be never believed or ever supposed it to
be possible that a criminal intimacy existed between
his wife and Mr. James Thompson. Your Lordships
have had the best evidence produced that he com-
mitted an infraction of the peace, and was compelled
to pay 1201. for costs in an action arising out of that
breach of the peace, showing, therefore, that he did
not believe one word of the rumours which had been
circulated. Last of all, we have had the account of
the circumstances of this case made very satisfactory
by the evidence which has been adduced, and there
can be no doubt therefore that the party seeking it is
entitled to the remedy afforded according to the prac-
tice of this House. My Lords, I may observe that
this having been a most costly proceeding, furnishes
one of a thousand instances how very inexpedient it
is that we should go on time after time passing
Bills for these purposes, for this might have been
the case of a poor man instead of these wealthy
people. If instead of a very wealthy engineer, it
bad been the case of a man who had not 50/. or

100/. a year, whose wife had been acting like a
strumpet, and bringing dishonour upon him, and
bringing a spurious issue into his family, he would
have had just the same moral right to the remedy now
sought, as this gentleman, Mr. Hartley, or indeed any
of your Lordships, would possess, and yet it would
have been absolutely impossible for him to obtain it.
To Mr. M'Dougall—What were the expenses attend-
ing the proceedings at Doctors' Commons ?

Mr. SlTouGAL—About 4001., I understand, my
Lord.

Lord BROUGIIAM—AIthough it was not proposed,
and, my Lords, it might have gone from the first
court there to the Consistory Court, from Dr. Lush-
ington to Sir Herbert Jenner, in the Court of Arches ;
and the husband would have to pay the whole of
the wife's expenses ; and then, upon an appeal, it
might have come before me in the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council, and I and my brethren might
have affirmed the previous decision with all the ex-
penses incurred in the opposition. My Lords, I
have know the case of a solicitor, who was the
seducer, actually joining with the proctor iu run-
ning up heavy bills, both in the first
and in the second court, before the Privy
Council, and 1,5001. have been paid for costs by the
unhappy husband in addition to the loss of his honour
his good name, and there having been spurious issue
in that case, so that the unfortunate man was utterly
exhausted before he could come to get his remedy
here, and he never has got his divorce here, and
really, my Lords, a more unsatisfactory course of
proceeding cannot be imagined. Your Lordships see
in this case that it was a matter of compromise from
beginning to end as to the damages. There was no
collusion as to the adultery ; but as to the terms
upon which it was to be paid for, it was a com-
plete matter of compromise. The defendant paid
4,6001., and there is no sifting of the case
until we sift it here. It is a little sifted, but very
little sifted at Doctors' Commons ; the question there
is not as to collusion, or as to the conduct of the one
party or the other. The only question there is, has
adultery been committed? There is no recrimination,
and that is, therefore, no security to this House. My
Lords, although this is one of the many instances
that might be referred to of its being a most unsatis-
factory course of proceeding, yet, nevertheless, it is
the only course of proceeding that can be taken, and
therefore we are bound, and I recommend your
Lordships to give the remedy here prayed for. It is
a perfectly unexceptionable case. The conduct of
Mr. Hartley appears to have been most admirable,
praiseworthy, and reflecting the greatest credit upon
him; he appears to have behaved with the greatest ten-
derness and forbearance towards his wife. Mr. Thomp-
son's conduct has been by no means free from blame, it
has, indeed, been very blameable, and he has,paid very
heavily for it—but so has Mr. Hartley paid very
heavily ; for the 4,0001. and odd which he has got
will not be more than enough, if se much, as will
cover all the expenses of these various proceedings ;
for there will be the expenses of this Bill in Parlia-
ment, as well as all the others. I, therefore, recom-
mend your Lordships—feeling great commiseration
for this unfortunate gentleman, who is much to be
pitied—to grant a second reading to this Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed on Thursday next.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

(Before the LoRD CIIILF BARON and Mr. Justice
CRESS WELL.)

THE MURDER AT HACKNEY. - TRIAL OF ANNE
MERRITT.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Dr. Letheby, professor of chemistry at the London
Hospital was then called, and he proved that the re-
sult of the tests to which he subjected the contents of
the stomach of the deceased was the discovery of a
considerable quantity of white arsenic, much more
than sufficient to have caused death. Dr. Letheby
also expressed an opinion, founded upon his experi-
ence in such matters, that a portion of the arsenic
had been administered not more than two or three
hours before death, and he said that his opinion was
not in anyway changed by hearing that the deceased
had exhibited symptoms of vomiting on the same
morning.

By Mr. CLARHSON—Witness had known death to
have been occasioned by the administration of two
grains and a half of arsenic ; but in general he should
say five grains were sufficient to destroy life. lie
found eight grains and a half of arsenic in the sto-
mach of the deceased, and there was also a small
quantity in the liver, and also in the intestines.
By Mr. BODKIN--The contents of the stomach re-
sembled thick gruel.
Anne Geary said—Early on the morning of the
25th of January, I was sent for to " lay out" the
deceased, and I assisted in so doing. The prisoner
appeared to have sat up all night, and she was weep-

ing all the time I was there. By the request of the
I prisoner I called upon Mr. Urry, the secretary to
the Clapton Benefit Society, to ask him to come to
the house.
Mr. James Urry said—l act as secretary to the
society mentioned by the last witness. The deceased
became a member two years ago, the first Wednesday
in January last, but according to the rules of the
society, his two years would not have been completed
until'the 2d of February of this year. Upon hearing
of his death I went to the prisoner's house. She ap•
peared absorbed in grief. I said "I am sorry to hear
of your loss." I shortly afterwards told the prisoner
that if her husband bad lived till the 2d of February,
she would have been entitled to 101. ; but as it was
she would be only entitled to 71. 10s. The prisoner
made no reply. I gave an order upon the pay-steward
of the club for a portion of the amount.
Alfred Andrew; summoning officer of Hackney,
proved that he went to the house of the prisoner on
the 25th January. Mrs. Gillett was there, and she
said she thought from what had passed between her
and the witness, that he (Andrews) thought there
would be a coroner's inquest. The prisoner upon
this said she did not think there was any necessity for
an inquest, as her poor dear husband had died a
natural death. Witness then asked the prisoner if
she thought anything had been given to her husband,
or whether he had taken anything to destroy himself,
and she replied, "God knows; he had something to
drink at Stamford-hill ; but whether anything was
put into it I cannot tell." When the coroner's in-
quest .was about to be held the prisoner said, she
had never had any objection to it, but as she knew
her husband did, she had only acted as a wife in en-
deavouring to comply with his wishes. He remarked
to the prisoner that it was a very painful thing, bat
the law must take its course, and it was necessary to
find out whether her husband had died naturally, or
from foul causes. The prisoner then clasped her
hands, and walked about the room, exclaiming,
"Thank God, lam innocent! Poor dear soul, I
loved him too well to injure him or to wrong him."
Upon another occasion the prisoner told him that the
gruel which her husband had left in the morning she
and her child Anne had eaten, and Mrs. Gillett
knew it.

By Mr. CLARKSON...4 am the coroner's constable.
I first communicated with the coroner on the 26th,
and on the same evening I received the warrant for
holding the inquest. I first began to have conversa-
tion with the prisoner on the 25th. I had some know-
ledge of her previously. I told her, when I went ;in
that I was the coroner's officer.

Mr. F. W. Brown deposed that his father was a
chemist and druggist in Church-street, Hackney, and
he assisted in the business. He knew the prisoner
from her frequently coming to the shop, and he re-
membered selling her some arsenic in the afternoon
of Saturday, the 19th January. The prisoner asked
him for two-pennyworth of arsenic, which he re-
fused to supply her with at first, and she then said
his father knew her very well, and that he often bad
let her have it, and she at the same time mentioned
her name. Witness was then about to supply her
with the poison in one paper, when she said she wanted
it in two papers, as one portion was for her sister, who
lived at some distance. He asked her what she wanted
the arsenic for ; and she said to poison rats or mice.
Witness supplied her with two packets as she re-
quested, and labelled them " poison," and also wrote
the word " poison" on both the packets, and gave
them to the prisoner, and she took them away. He
cautioned the prisoner not to put the poison upon
bread and butter, as children might eat it ; and she
said she always used the poison with a herring. The
packages would have had something the appearance of
effervescing powders. The prisoner upon this occa-
sion did not exhibit the least appearance of excitement,
and he saw nothing unusual in her manner.
Richard Clark, a policeman, proved that while
the prisoner was in his charge she said, " I suppose I
shall be hanged. They have told so many lies about
it. I bought the arsenic for my husband."
Sarah Avis, the female searcher at the police sta-
tion at Hackney, proved that when the priaoner was
brought there she asked her if she knew what she was'
charged with, and on her saying she did not, she
replied that she was charged with poisoning her poor
dear husband ; that he had been poisoned was true,
but she did not know by whom. The prisoner then
said that Mrs. Gillett was the principal witness
against her, and that she had forsworn herself.

A statement made by the prisoner before the Ma-
gistrate was put in and read; it was to the following
effect :—" I have nothing to say, except that I never
intended my husband to take the poison. When I
bought it I intended to take it myself, if he had come
home as he had done several nights before. I could not
live with him if he had gone on so. I thought no
more about it until the Sunday, when I thought he
might have taken it instead of soda, and then I burned
it. What I said about hanging was this—l said, if I
was to be hanged this moment, I am innocent of
giving anything to my husband. I have nothing
more to say."

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. CLARKSON then made an able address to the
ury for the defence. _

- 'the CHIEF BARON having summed up,
The jury retired at half-past six o'clock, and re-
turned into court a five minutes past seven, when
they gave a verdict of Guilty, but at the same
time recommended the prisoner to mercy on account
of her former good character.

The prisoner was then asked in the usual form,
whether she had anything to urge why sentence of
death should not be passed upon her ?
She replied, in a firm tone, " I am entirely inno-
cent."

Mr. Harker, the usher, then made the usual pro-
clamation for silence.

The CHIEF BARON, who appeared very much affected,
having put on the black cap, addressed the prisoner,
and said she now stood at the bar to receive the judg-
ment of the Court upon the verdict of guilty, which
the jury, after a most patient inquiry, had felt ,
them-
selves compelled to return against her. The
Learned Judge proceeded—" This case is one which
is mixed up with so much that affects the
feelings that it almost unmans me for the per-
formance of my duty, and I feel myself quite inade-
quate to point out to you the nature of your crime,
or to describe it in the terms which it really demands.
You appear to have lived—for several years at all
events—in the enjoyment of domestic happiness with
your husband, and that you had several children by
him; and the jury, by their verdict, have found that
you administered to him, or caused him to take, the
dose of poison which led to his death. I entirely con-
cur in that verdict; and I do not see how the jury
could have returned any other upon the evidence that
has been laid before them. It may be said that no
human eye saw you administer the poison ; but if the
testimony of the witnesses is to be believed—and I
see no reason to doubt it—your guilt is made as
apparent as if you had been actually seen to ad-
minister the deadly dose to your husband. You
have committed this great offence against the father
of your children—against the man who, at the altar
of God, you solemnly swore to love and cherish,
and to whom you devoted all your love. The jury
have recommended you to mercy on account of your
good character ; and it will he my duty to forward
that recommendation to the only quarter where it
can have any effect ; but I warn you not to place any
reliance upon it, or to believe that it will avert the
sentence which lam compelled to pass upon you. I
cannot but remark the strange and horrible frequency
of the crime with which you are charged. This is
not the first, second, or third occasion on which this
terrible crime has been clearly brought home to the
party accused, and I therefore warn you not to put
any faith in the recommendation to mercy, which,
however, it will be my duty to present. I therefore
warn you again to apply to Him alone who has the
power to pardon all sins, and employ the time that re-
mains to you in this world in endeavouring to obtain
pardon." The Learned Judge then passed sentence
of death upon the prisoner.
When the Learned Judge had concluded his ad-
dress, the prisoner again asserted her innocence, and
she did not appear at all affected.
She was then removed from the bar, and the Court
adjourned at a quarter-past seven o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
George Lyon, who was on Saturday charged with
having forged and uttered a bill of exchange for 1501.,
purporting to be the acce•ptance of Mr. W. Curling,
upon the London Joint-%tock Bank, was brought up
for re-examination.
Mr. Mullens, of the firm of Bush and 'aliens, so-
licitors to the Committe e of Bankers for Protection
from Forgeries and Frauds, attended for the prose-
cution.

There were two additional charges of forgery on
the same party gone into to-day, and there are other
cases yet against the prisoner, who will be com-
mitted for trial when the depositions shall have been
made out.