The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-12 00:00:00

COULSTRING V. COULSTRING.

This case came before the Court upon a plea put
in by the defendant to the bill of the plaintiff
The plaintiff and the defendant are husband and
wife ; they had lived together for some years and had
four children. They quarrelled and separated, and
upon that occasion the defendant, the husband,
executed a deed, by which he allowed the
plaintiff, his wife, twenty-eight shillings a week
to keep herself and her four children. In that deed was
a proviso, that if they should live together again, and
thereby invalidate the deed, that upon any future
separation another deed to the same effect should be
executed. It appeared from the statements in the
bill that the parties lived together again for about six
weeks, and then separated, and the defendant refused
to exeoute another deed. Upon this event taking
place the plaintiff filed her bill to compel him to do
so, to which the defendant put in his plea.
Mr. JAMES, who appeared in support of the plea,
was proceeding to open his case, when
The VICE-CHANCELLOR inquired who appeared in
support of the bill ? _ _

A little dapper female here stepped forward, and
said she was the plaintiff, that she had very little to
say, and she therefore thought that she could do it as
well as employing counsel.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR (smilingly) said he was
always happy to see the ladies, but he thought it
would have been much better for her if she had
entrusted her case to counsel.

The lady, notwithstanding the good advice, pro-
ceeded in a rambling strain to argue her case, and
the result was as might have been expected.
His HONOUR ordered the plea to be allowed.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 11.
STONE AGAINST STONE.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON gave sentence in this case, which
was argued in Trinity Term last. It was originally a
suit commenced by Mrs. Harriet Stone against Mr.
George Stone, her husband, for a divorce by reason
of cruelty and adultery. Mr. Stone denied both
charges, and in return accused Mrs. Stone of adultery
with Lord Sussex Lennox, and her adultery with
Mr. Thomas Knox Holmes was incidentally pleaded.
Mrs. Stone, in a third plea, charged her husband
with connivance at her adultery with Mr. Holmes.
The parties were married on the 23d of February,
1835, Mr. Stone being then a bachelor, and Mrs.
Stone a widow, of the name of Hawkins. They had
one child, and on the '24th of August, 1841, they
separated. Mr. Stone is the partner of a m ell-known
banking firm in the City. The adultery of Mrs.
Stone with Lord Sussex Lennox, the Learned Judge
observed, was proved to demonstration ; indeed, it
could not be denied. Mr. Stone, therefore, would be
entitled to the separation he prayed for unless barred
by his own misconduct. To be deprived of remedy,
he must himself have committed adultery, or have
connived at his own dishonour, or have condoned the
adultery of his wife after it had taken place. These,
therefore, were the only questions he bad to try. A
great many circumstances might arise in matrimonial
intercourse deserving of severe reprobation ; but
unless they bore upon the questions of adultery,
connivance, or condonation, they were not properly
within the cognizance of this Court. In consider-
ing the charge of adultery brought against Mr.
Stone, it was a great relief to his (the Learned
Judge's) mind, to be able to dismiss altogether
the allegation of a connexion with the sister
of Mrs. Stone, which had been abandoned, and
of which, in his opinion, there was not the slightest
evidence. The first charge of adultery against
Mr. Stone respecting which evidence had been offered
was, that in 1839 he had gone to the Lyceum Theatre,
and accompanied a woman to her apartments, where
he left his banking-book, keys, and a sum of money.
No direct evidence of this charge was produced, but
it was stated to be proved by the adthission of Mr.
Stone himself—a species of evidence of the highest
kind, provided always that it was accompanied by
certain requisites, namely, that the party reporting
the admission was credible, that the expressions were
clear and distinct, and that the admission was sincere.
Only one witness was produced to prove this charge,
Ann Knowles. What bad she been brought to prove ?
Why, that Mr. Stone at a subsequent time (about a
twelvemonth after) acknowledged the fact in her
hearing and in the presence of his wife and of Mr.
Holmes. (The Learned Judge here read the deposi-
tion of Ann Knowles upon this article of the allege-
' tion.) Now, laying out of consideration for the pre-
sent the degree of credit due to Ann Knowles, was
the statement quite consistent with probability and
with all the other facts of the case ? Assuming that
Mr. Stone had been guilty of the fact imputed to
him, was it very probable that he should have std.•
milted it in the presence of three persons, one
his wife, another the person with whom his wife
is accused of having committed adultery, and
the third the nurse of his child P If lie had
done so, he would have been guilty of the grossest
imprudence, unless it could be supposed that
it took place with the knowledge and acquiescence of
the wife, and that alb iya a habit of the husband,
for had this been an isolated transaction, in all human
probability it must have been concealed by him. But
the charge was highly improbable, from the statement
of the witness not relating all that passed, for nothing
was said as to any observation from Mrs. Stone. It
was impossible for the Court on such evidence as this,
so inconsistent with probability, to bold that the

9 offence was established. If such a charge could be
established upon the testimony of a single wit•
ness, the circumstances must be probable, and the
witness omni exceptione major, and this, looking to
the testimony of Ann Knowles upon other points,
could not, with propriety be maintained. Consider-
ing, therefore, this charge as not sufficiently estab-
lished, he proceeded to the next charge,—that Mr.
Stone had been infected with a certain disease. Of
this charge there appeared to be an ample field for
evidence, inasmuch as several men were vouched.
But the testimony of Mr. Liston, the surgeon, who
attended Mr. Stone professionally, pronounced the
symptoms to be equivocal ; and when a professional
gentleman of eminence and of great medical
skill declared the point to be doubtful, it would not
become him (the Learned Judge), who had no
medical skill and none of the opportunities afforded
to Mr. Liston, to come to a different conclusion. Mrs.
Knowles spoke to the same point ; but it would not
he safe to credit her, even if her evidence were not
apposed to that of the medical witness. The
evidence of Mr. Scanlan to an alleged confession of Mr.
Stone showed that it wanted one of the requisites,
namely, sincerity, and that of Mr. Martindale did
not go to convict Mr. Stone of matrimonial infidelity.
Upon this point, therefore, the proof was not suffi-
cient to satisfy the Court. The only remaining
charge of adultery was that alleged to have taken
place with Mrs. Cole, his housemaid and housekeeper,
at Mr. Stone's house at Fulham, in 1842, which
rested upon the evidence of the gardener, Maxwell,
and his wife, the only other servants in the house.
The Learned Judge went into a very minute exami-
nation of the details of their evidence, commenting
upon the inconsistencies and improbabilities in their
statements, and upon the fact that Mary Maxwell did
not believe that adultery had taken place at the time,
though she had come to that conclusion since. Whilst
there was no proof of any improper familiarities be-
tween Mr. Stone and Mrs. Cole, still less of any act of
adultery, the circumstances stated by the witnesses as
affording an inference of guilt were consistent with
innocence. It turned out likewise that the facts al-
leged in three articles of the wife's plea, which ap •
peared to be separate and distinct, all occurred on the
same day. The two most essential circumstancer were
Cole's being alone with Mr. Stone in his bedroom,
and her being outside his door in her night clothes, in-
toxicated ; the door, however, being locked. The
latter circumstance could not be taken as evidence
against Mr. Stone, and it was admitted by Mary
Maxwell that Mrs. Cole had occasion to go into Mr.
Stone's room in the ordinary fulfilment of her house-
hold duties. Under such circumstances the Celia
could not infer guilt; it could not give way to sus-
picion ; it must be governed by the legitimate results
of legal evidence. There was not a single act of
indecent familiarity directly proved ; and, had there
been a criminal intercourse carried on between the
parties, he (the Learned Judgo) could not conceive
that there would not have been more direct evidence.
He must, under these circumstances, pronounce the
charge of adultery against Mr. Stone not proved. He
had now arrived at a stage of the investigation
which entitled him to say that the adultery of Mrs.
Stone with Lord Sussex Lennox being proved, and
no charge of adultery against Mr. Stone being estab-
lished, it followed that he was entitled to a sentence
of separation from his wife, unless he had condoned
her offence, or had forfeited his claim to relief by
connivance. It was unnecessary to define what in
legal parlance was meant by the term "connivance ;"
it might be sufficient to say, that the conduct of
the husband might be most reprehensible and yet
not connivance, He knew no authority for holding
that coarse and brutal words, obscene and disgusting
language, and an entire disregard of decorum, would
alone constitute connivance. Such conduct, though
most derogatory to a gentleman, and offensive to good
feeling, even though accompanied by cruelty, and
even the desertion of a wife, would not amount in the
eye of the law to connivance, though it might have
a direct and necessary tendency to lead her into a
course which would expose her to the commission of
adultery. The Learned Judge then stated briefly the
facts upon which the charge of connivance was
founded. An extract of a letter from a lady named
Price, was communicated to Mr. Stone, wherein the
intimacy of Mrs. Stone with Mr. Holmes was repre-
sented as the subject of observation, and it was alleged
that notwithstanding this warning, he promoted their
intimacy. But there was no proof of adultery be-
tween Mrs. Stone and Mr. Holmes, and could the
Court act without evidence, and assume a fact which
was essential to establish the charge of connivance ?
The letters discovered by Mr. Stone in his wife's re-
positories were not produced, and their contents were
not known to the court. There had been no case in
which connivance had been established where the adul-
i tery was not clearly proved. Even though the husband
might be supposed in foro conscientm to be guilty of
connivance, in the eye of the law there could not be
connivance without proof of the adultery and of the
conduct of the party with relation to it; and there
was not a shadow of proof in this case. The last
topic in the case was the conduct of Mr. Stone on the
24th of August, 1841, on the discovery of the letters
from Mr. Holmes to his wife. The facts alleged
against Mr. Stone were, that he took his wife and
child on that day, after the discovery, in the carriage
to Fulham, and treated her with great kindness aria
attention. The evidence of Ann Knowles upon this
point was highly improbable, and was inconsistent
with the fact of the separation on that day, and with
the letter of Mrs. Stone. Upon the whole case, he
acquitted Mr. Stone of all legal culpability which
would bar him from obtaining a separation. He (Dr.
Lushington) was not called upon to give any opinion
how far Mr. Stone s gross and offensive conversation
and demeanour, and his. permitting his wife to asso-
ciate with persons not of the best or purest character,
might have led to her abandonment of all delicacy of
feeling, and so have paved the way for her violation
of the marriage bed. Such matters were not within
the cognisance of this Court; and he rejoiced, in this
case, to be relieved from the responsibility of passing
his judgment upon them. He pronounced for the
divorce.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-ROUSE.
Yesterday the new Lord Mayor commenced the
Justice-room proceedings of the Mayoralty.
After the cases of several pickpockets who were
charged with having pursued their calling in the
streets on Lord Mayor's-day were disposed of, a case
of smuggling, which caused a great deal of interest,
came before his Lordship and Sir George Carroll.
An old, and apparently very infirm man, named
Henry Knowles, was brought up in custody, upon an
linformation charging him, under the 3d and 4th
William IV., cap. 53, sec. 40, with having carried
and conveyed, on the 7th of November, three gallons
and seven pints of foreign brandy, upon which the
duty had not been paid,
Mr. Goodman (the chief clerk) having asked the
prisoner whether hp pleaded Guilty or Not Guilty ?
The prisoner replied, Guilty.
The prisoner was then informed that he was fined
in the penalty of 100/., and that the law did not give
to the magistrates any power of mitigating the fine.
Knowles having been removed from the bar,
Edmund John Phillips, a licensed victualler, re-
siding at No. 41, King-street, Snow-hill, was charged
upon an information, founded upon a section of the
same Act, for having assisted in carrying and con-
veying three gallons and seven pints of foreign brandy.
Mr. Poilbury, from the office of the Solicitor of
Customs, attended for the prosecution ; and Mr.
nobler appeared for the defendant, who is a man in
very extensive business.

Cohby Atkinson Davis (Custom-house officer)
stated that about seven o'clock in the evening of the
7th of November, as he was watching the house of
the prisoner, he observed Henry Knowles (the last
prisoner) carrying into the premises, wrapped up in
an old cloak, what appeared to be a long bottle, the
handle of which he held. Knowles went to the
back parlour, at the door of which Phillips
was standing, and both of them went into
the parlour together with the bottle or jar.
Witnesss observed what occurred through folding
doors, which were not quite closed. Knowles soon
afterwards came out without anything, and proceeded
in the direction of Smithfield, followed by Pattison,
a brother officer, and witness, after watching at the
door, went into the house and asked for the landlord,
who came down stairs in a few minutes. Witness
said he was an officer of the Customs, and that he

(prisoner) had been receiving contraband goods, and
asked him whether he had the article in that room
(the parlour into which Knowles had been seen to
go with the landlord)? The prisoner replied that
there was nothing there but two small bottles of
gin—nothing whatever else. Witness told Pattison,
who had returned, having missed Knowles, to look in
the corner of the room, and then Pattison drew from
under the seat a sealed jar. The prisoner, upon being
asked who had sealed the jar, did not answer, but
appeared much confused and when asked whether
he had permits for the goods, replied that his
permits had been some days ago given to the
Excise-office. Witness then cut off the seal and
kept it, and he found that the contents of the
jar was brandy. He then said to the prisoner, "Now,
14i give you a ehanue, or wait any time you think
proper, if you bring proof that this came legally into
your possession, and that you have sealed it yourself."
To that the prisoner returned no answer, and he ac-
cordingly seized the brandy and brought it away.
Witness continued-H" I laid the case before the Board,
and received directions. Subsequently, on apprel
bending Knowles in Sun-street, Bishopsgate, I founti
upon him smile ocltntlyld tr4l)s,eci, and h ze4i which
corresponded with the impression upon the jar. He
then told me"—

Mr. I-Tobler—Now, you know the rules of evidence
well enoligh to be convinced that what he told you is
not evidence, and cannot be heard.

Witness—l went, after I took the Feat from
Knowles, to apprehend

Mr. Hobler—Why did you not take Mr. Phillips
into custody when you seized the brandy ? Witness
—I waited to receive the directions of the Commis-
sioners.
Mr. Hobler--You arrested Mr. Phillips on the 9th
instant, in his own house? Witness—l did.
Mr. Hobler—ls not Mr. Phillips well known as a
respectable publican ? Witness—He is well known
to me as a receiver of contraband goods.
Mr. Nobler condemned, in indignant terms, such
a mode of answering his questions, calculated and in-
tended as it was to prejudice the case.
The witness said the prisoner was well known as
the keeper of a public-house, and repeated that the
prisoner was known to him in the character just de-
scribed by him.
Mr. nobler submitted to the Lord Mayor and Sir
George Carroll that there was no case against his
client. The Act alluded to persons carrying or con-
veying contraband goods, and to persons assisting in
carrying or conveying contraband goods, but no proof
whatever had been given that Mr. Phillip.; had been
so engaged, nor had anything been stated to show that
contraband brandy had been passed from the person
stated to have entered the house to the landlord of it.
Mr. Podbury—l intend to call Knowles as a wit-
ness, Mr. Nobler.
Mr. Holler—Even then you will have no case, for
Mr. Phillips never assisted in carrying or conveying
the goods.
Mr. Podbury—l'll show that the prisoner's conduct
was in direct violation of the Act of Parliament. We
have had numerous legal opinions upon the subject.
Cobby Atkinson Davis, in continuation, deposed that
the article contained in the jar was French brandy,
anti liable to seizure. He never lost sight of the door
from the moment Knowles went in, and there was no
bottle or jar on the premises so large as that which
Knowles had taken in.
E iward Pattison (Custom-house officer) in every
respect confirmed the testimony of his brother officer,
and added that Davis said to the prisoner, "If you
show me the seal the brandy was sealed with I'll give
you the brandy," and that the prisoner observed to
Davis, " You are going to take away part of my
stock."

Thomas Corhall (from the Queen's warehouse)
produced a sample from the jar, the contents of which
were liable to a duty of 4/. 9s. 2d., and were 13 under
proof, the usual publican sale strength.
Henry Knowles (the man who had pleaded guilty)
was then examined. He was, in consequence of ill-
ness, obliged to give his evidence sitting. He knew
the prisoner, and had taken brandy to him. The last
time he took brandy to the prisoner was on Thursday
or Friday evening. Thursday he believed it was.
Re took it in a stone bottle, which was called a four
gallon bottle, and was sealed with the seal produced,
which had been afterwards found in his possession by
the officer. He gave the jar into the possession of the
prisoner in front of the bar, and they went into the
back parlour with the jar. The prisoner had ordered
the brandy, and witness received 3/. for it from the
prisoner. Witness was not a licensed dealer, but sold
on commission.
Mr. Podbury—Did you receive directions from the
prisoner to take the brandy to him ? Knowles—l did.
Mr. Podbury—Have you taken brandy to him be-
fore ? Knowles—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hobler—l was here just
now a party accused. I pleaded guilty. The brandy
about which I pleaded guilty is the same that I took
to Mr. Phillips. The magistrates fined me 1001.
Mr. Hobler—Did you not know, at the time you
pleaded guilty, that you were going to give evidence
in this case ? Knowles—Certainly not ; I had no
idea of being called as a witness. The officer saw
me, and what could,l say ?
Mr. Hobler then vigorously urged his former ob-
jection, and argued upon the expectation which
Knowles might have entertained of escaping the
dilemma in which he was placed, by criminating a man
so extensively engaged in business. He deprecated
the course pursued by the Custom-house officer, in
going into the house of Mr. Phillips two days after
the seizure was made, and taking him to a prison
without warrant or other authority, especially when
there was not the slightest ground for saying that he
had assisted in carrying or conveying the brandy.
Mr. Podbury submitted that the information had
been fully borne out by the evidence. The words of
the Act were " carrying or conveying, or assisting in
carrying or conveying, or concerned in," &c. &c.
The conduct of Knowles showed plainly that the pri-
soner vas concerned, and most unequivocally con-
cernt, -. There were plenty of legal decisions to prove
that parties removed at great distances from the place
of seizure came under the meaning of the Act. As
for the officer principally engaged in the matter, he
had acted with his accustomed judgment and precau-
tion. Having some doubt upon the power he was
at liberty to exercise, he applied to the Board of
Customs for directions, and, having received direc-
tions, he at once proceeded to execute them. By the
52d section of tlae Act the officer might take a man
at any time within six months from the violation of it.
The LORD MAYOR—Sir George Carroll agrees
with me in the opinion that the case has been fully
proved, and we convict him in the penalty of 1001.
Mr. Hobler called the attention of the bench to the
fact that, without the evidence of Knowles, the case
could not have been proved, and submitted that that
formed some ground for mitigation.
Sir G. CAnaom.—The case is a very strong one
against the prisoner. He is a publican, and Knowles
swears that he brought the brandy to him at his desire.
The LORD MAYOR—There is abundant evidence
of concealment, too. The case is completely sub-
stantiated.
Sir G. CARROLL—Phillips is a publican, and a man
of substance, and there can be nothing stated in palia-
tion of his conduct. He is not in poverty, as the
other may be.
The LORD MAYOR—He must pay the penalty.
The prisoner immediately afterwards gave a cheque
upon a banking-house in Lombard-street for the 1001.
CLERKEIV WELL.
Stephen ilforgan was charged with an assault under
the following circumstances :
Mr. John Camphine, residing at 60, Ossulton-
street, Somers-town, deposed that between eleven
and twelve o'clock on the previous night he was re-
turning home along Gray's Inn-lane, when he heard
screams and cries of "Police" and " Murder." He
hastened to the place, and there saw the prisoner and
one of his associates pulling up the clothes of two de-
cent-lo king poor women, and behaving in a most ob-
scene manner towards them. They were crying for
help. The prisoner seemed to be taking a part in this
ill-treatment, for when witness interfered he struck
him a violent blow on the head, and seized the
woman's dress. The prisoner again struck witness
several blows on the head. There was no policeman
near, and witness followed the prisoners into Holborn,
where he and his associates turned upon witness,
knocked him down, and kicked and beat him in a
cruel manner. A policeman at length came up and
arrested Morgan, who had previously directed his
companions that were beating witness whilst pros-
trate in the kennel, to knock witness's brains out.
Martha Kingland, the wife of a labourer, living in
Clarke's-buildings, Bagnigge IVells- road, deposed that
she was returning home along Gray's Inn-lane, when
the prisoner and several of his companions met them.
One of them knocked her down, and another pulled
up her dress. She got up on her legs, but was again
knocked down on the footway. The prisoner was
one of the party. Saw him violently assault Mr.
Camphine both in Gray's Inn-road and in King-
street. She was cruelly treated.
Inspector Rawley stated that fro:n inquiries made
it appeared the witness was a decent, quiet woman,
the wife of a carpenter, and the mother of two chil-
dren. She was perfectly sober, and the prisoner was
not intoxicated.

Anne Whitbread, the companion of Martha Kings-
land on the occasion, the wife of a labourer, was then
placed at the bar, charged with stealing a gold pin,
the property of Mr. Charles Simpson, 252, Totten-
ham-court-road.

' Mr. Simpson stated that whilst he was standing
with the prisoner Morgan in Gray's Inn-lane, on the
previous night, the prisoner at the bar came up, and
saying to him " You knocked me down," tore away the
silk stock from his neck, which he recovered, but the
gold pin he did not get back. He gave the prisoner
into custody.
The prisoner, in the most solemn and earnest man-
not, denied the robbery. It was Mr. Simpson who
pulled up her clothes, knocked her down, and rolled her
in the mud; and when the policeman was coming up,
seeing that she was going to give him in charge for so
cruelly treating her, he gave her in charge for stealing
what she never saw.
Police-constable Moss, E division, stated that Mr.
Simpson gave the prisoner into his charge for stealing
a gold pin. The woman at once denied it, and said
she had been terribly ill-used by the prosecutor, as
well as by Morgan. Witness followed Mr. Simpson
to his residence in Tottenham-court•road, and when
at the door he said to witness, " I wish I could make
it up; if she was not going to give me in charge for
the assault, I vvould not have given her into custody. I
wish I could make it up." The prisoner was the wife
of a hard-working poor man, and the mother of seve-
ral children. On their way to the station, a friend of
the prisoner's said, " You know, Simpson, you have
lost no pin."
Mr. GREENWOOD—I discharge the woman.
The poor creature, on leaving the dock, cried bit-
terly, and said that she had been locked up all night
on a charge of which she was wholly ignorant, and
punished by a person who had cmelly ill-used her,
without haying. givar, aoy provocation whatever.
GREENWOOD said it was a very hard case, and
if Mr. Simpson had any manly feeling, he ought to
make the poor woman some compensation.
The prosecutor, however, shook his head.
Mr. GREENWOOD said a fouler outrage never came
under his notice. The woman seemed decent and
proper, and was grossly maltreated. He verily be-
lieved it was Simpson who pulled up the woman's

dress. He would fine the prisoner 31., or six weeks'
imprisonment.—The fine was pid.
Anne Whitbread then applied for and obtained a
warrant against Mr. Simpson for the assault on her,
which Mr. Greenwood directed to be heard before his
brother magistrate, as he might be supposed prejudiced.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Yesterday a dissipated-looking fellow, named
Joshua Chatfield, was charged with a brutal assault
upon his wife, a delicate little woman, in an advanced
stage of pregnancy, and whose face was shockingly
swollen and disfigured. She stated that the prisoner,
who was by trade an engineer, and capable of earning
40s. per week, and by whom she had had eleven chil-
dren, was a most drunken fellow, and whenever in
that state, which was of daily occurrence, invariably
ill-used her. On,Saturday night he returned home
drunk, as usual, and presented her with 55., which
was all he had left of his wages, with 4s. of which
he ordered her to redeem from the pawnbroker's his
boots, which he had himself pledged during the week
to procure drink, and with the remaining shilling told
her to procure food and other necessaries for the Sun-
day. She begged him to give her more money, as
the shilling was quite inadequate for their wants, on
which he abused her with the coarsest language, and
commenced a most violent attack upon her, striking
her about the ribs, and knocking her down and kick-
ing her for more than half an hour. Her cries at last
arrested the attention of a policeman, who forced his
way into the place, and found the woman crouched
up and bent together in one of the corners of the
room, with nothing on her but her night dress, which
was torn to pieces ; blood was fhwing profusely from
her mouth, and she had every appearance of having
been most brutally treated.
Mr. BROUGHTON characterised the case as one of the
most brutal assaults that had ever come before him,
and said he regretted that he was not empowered
to send the husband to prison for at least six months,
as he richly deserved that extent of punishment. He,
however, should punish him to the full extent of his
power, and sentence the prisoner to pay 51. to the
Queen, and in default of payment he must undergo
two months' imprisonment and hard labour in the
House of Correction.
The prisoner, who was .astounded at the sentence,
was afterwards carried off in the van.
LAMBETH-STREET.
Yesterday Captain Samuel Weeks, master of the
Maria Louisa, a vessel lying in the London Docks,
and just arrived from Oporto, and James Ramfellon,
a seaman on board his ship, were charged with smug•
gling.
Walden, a Customs' officer, found concealed upon
the first prisoner's person two pint bottles and a small
decanter, all filled with Faench brandy. On the
person of the other he also found a small decanter of
brandy, and, near to the spot where he had been
searched he found a package containing nearly a
pouni weight of foreign-manufactured tobacco, which
the prisoner Ramfellon subsequently admitted he had
dropped.
The captain pleaded perfect ignorance of doing
wrong in carrying so small a quantity of his own
stores out with him, though he admitted he had sailed
for upwards of nine years in and out of the port of
London.
The other prisoner said he had carried the brandy
at the request of his captain, but the tobacco was
his own property, as he had purchased it from his
captain.
Mr. HENRY inquired how it was that the charge
against the prisoners had not been entered on a police
sheet, and brought before him in the ordinary way ?
Walden, the Customs' officer, replied that the fact
was, that at the earnest entreaties of the captain, and
his representing the great inconvenience he would be
put to by being detained, he (Walden) had permitted
him to go at large upon his pledging his word of
honour to attend before a Magistrate on this day, and
he had kept his word.
Mr. MENRY —Did you make any inquiries as to
whether he was really the captain of the ship before
you allowed him to go at large ? Walden (evidently
much posed by the question)—To tell the truth, I
did not, your Worship. I may have acted wrong,
but as the captain told me he had to report his ship
this morning, and would be put to great inconve-
nience if detained, I allowed him to go.
Mr. HENRY —No doubt it is a great inconvenience
to any person to be kept in custody; but the law does
not give a person in your situation any discretion in
the matter. It is your duty to detain any person
found guilty of smuggling, no matter what their
rank or station, until conveyed before a magistrate;
and therefore you have acted illegally in allowing the
prisoners to go at large, and that, too, without even
making the slightest inquiry about the truth or false-
hood of their representations, though the vessel was
in the dock close by.
Walden—l judged from his appearance, your Wor-
shi, he was what he represented himself to be.
In reply to further questions put to Walden, and a
dock-officer named Fryer, it appeared that no repre-
sentation whatever of the transaction had been made
at the police station-house in the dock, or report to
the Customs' authorities, upon which
Mr. HENRY remarked that it was possible, but from
the fact of the captain and his man coming forward,
that the public would not have heard anything of the
case. The admission of the Customs' officer disclosed
an extreme laxity in the present system, or rather
want of system, which should be at once put an
end to.

The captain was convicted in the penalty of 51.,
and his man in 205., both of which the captain in-
stantly paid.
George Ramfellon, the brother of one of the last
prisoners, and who is a labourer belonging to the Lon-
don Dock, was also convicted in the penalty of 205.,
for having in his possession 1 lb. of tobacco.
This prisoner was taken at the same time with the
others, but less fortunate than them, and his circum-
stances being much more humble than the captain's,
he was locked up and kept in custody till brought to
•his Court.
He, too, paid the fine, and was discharged.
THAMES POLICE.

James Rich, a young man of wild and havard
aspect, was yesterday charged with having made a
desperate effort at self-destruction by hanging himself
with his pocket-handkerchief in an outhouse attached
to his father's premises.
It appeared that he had been subject to fits from
hydrophobia for the last eight years. As far back a:k
that time he had been bitten by a dog, and exhibited
decided symptoms of hydrophobia, though the•
wounded parts were excised. When he was seized
with the fits his bark (it was stated) was scarcely
distinguishable from that of a dog. He also exhi-
bited a horror of water.
Mr. BRODERIP—This is a most extraordinary case.
I never heard of such a one before, though I have
paid considerable attention to and am tolerably con-
versant with the subject. I always understood,that in
cases where the symptoms were decidedly manifested
hydrophobia terminated fatally.
The prisoner was given up to his friends, who were
cautioned by the magistrate to take great care of him.
UNION-HALL.

Lucy George, a respectable-looking girl, about 17,
was placed at the bar before Mr. Train, charged with
stealing the sum of ss. 2d., the property of her mother.
The mother, a hard-working middle-aged female,
stated that on Saturday evening last she gave her
ss. 2cl. for the purpose of paying a tradesman's bill.
Not returning home, she made inquiries, and found
she had not paid the money ; she then gave informa-
tion to the police, who took her into custody at two
o'clock on Sunday morning. She was sorry to say
that she had frequently robbed her, not only of money
but anything she could lay her hands on. She had
been charged at this court on several occasions, and
received the admonitions of the magistrate, who, at
her solicitation, liberated her. She had endeavoured
all in her power to reform her, but she was quite in-
corrigible, and she was now determined to have her
punished. _ _ _

Mr. TRAILL asked the prisoner what she had to
say in answer to the charge ? She replied that she
had spent the money.
Mr. TRAIL'. observed to the mother that it was
useless to deal leniently with the prisoner. She was
a hardened thief, and the best way would be to send
her to the Old Bailey for trial. Ile would, however,
remand her until to-morrow.

The prisoner, who displayed the utmost indifference,
was accordingly remanded.

WANDSWORTH.
Yesterday Maria Newton, an emaciated and care-
worn looking woman, was charged with deserting her
child and leaving it chargeable to the parish of Wands-
worth.

Mr. Unwin, the relieving officer, stated that he had
adopted the only course open to him, that of charging
the defendant with deserting the child, which was in
the union, in order that both mother and child might
be removed to their own settlement.

The defendant said she had just got into a little
work, and she was willing to take the child off the
hands of the parish. If she was passed to her own
parish she would be thrown among strangers, and
should be obliged to return to Wandsworth.
Mr. Clays observed, that if the defendant, after
being passed to her own parish a second time, re-
turned, she would be liable to imprisonment for
21 days.

Det%endant said she did not wish to go into the
workhouse. She was willing to work and maintain
the ohild.

Mr. Unwin suggested to the defendant that she had
better come into the house ; she would leave a situa-

_
tion of misery for one of comfort.
The defendant again expressed her repugnance at
entering the workhouse, and said she would prefer
going to a gaol.
Mr. CLIVE said this was a very melancholy case.
Here was a woman willing to work and maintain her
independence, and he did not like to give an order for
her removal into the workhouse, to which she ap-
peared to entertain so great a repugnance. At the