The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-23 00:00:00

THE SUNIAAoNDON, MONDAY
_MO-RNING, DECEMBER 23, 1844.

John Mullett—l am in the employ of my brother,
the plaintiff. The defendant dealt with my brother
for paper, and during the last six months it averaged
at the rate of 12,0001. a year. In April last he owed
us 4,3001. He had about 1,3001. worth a month.
The 4,3001. have been paid in due course.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walesby—The defendant
dealt with us for three or four years.
The Parliamentary return of newspaper stamps
was here produced to prove the sale of the publica-
tions of which the defendant is the proprietor. This
closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Cocx.BURN then addressed the jury on behalf
of the defendant, and said he was not instructed to
deny the offence of which proof had now been laid
before them.

The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up ; and the
jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a
verdict fur the plaintiff.---Damages, 750/.

CONS IS TOR Y COURT, Dec. 21.
(Before the Right Hon. Dr. LUSIIINGTON.)
PHILIPS V. PRIA.IPS.
Dr. LUMINGTON pronouneed judgment in this case.
This was a suit instituted by Mr. Philips, who is a bar-
rister and conveyancer, for a separation, a mensa et thoro,
from his wife, on the ground of an adulterous connexion
between her and Mr. Charles Benny. The defence was,
that there was connivance on the part of Mr. Philips ;
and the state of the facts was as follows :—The parties
were married in 1825. They became acquainted
in Dieppe with Mr. and Mrs. Ranny, and in consequence
of circumstances which came to the knowledge of Mr.
Philips with regard to the degree of intimacy subsisting
between his wife and Mr. Ranny, he referred the matter
to two gentlemen to have the circumstances investigated.
They seem to have diligently inquired into the facts, and
reported that they believed Mrs. Philips was inno-
cent of any real criminality, though they left it
to be inferred that she was guilty of consider-
able indiscretion. The parties were separated at this
time, and they recommended Mr. Philips, if he so thought
fit, to take back his wife. It appeared from the evi-
dence that Mr. Philips resided at this time in Sloane-
street, and that his professional avocations used to call
him from home at nine o'clock, and that he used not to
return till six in the afternoon to dinner. Mrs. Benny
was frequently on a visit at Mr. Philips's, and Mr.
Ranny used sometimes to sleep in Mr. Philips's house.
Mr. Philips took back his wife, and in the year 1840
it appeared that the intercourse between Mr. Benny
and Mrs. Philips was renewed. Mrs. Philips used to
sleep from home frequently, and very often she used not
to return to her home till ten o'clock at night. She used
at these times to sleep at Mr. Ranny's, and to remain at
his house, and though this was the case, it did not ap-
pear that Mr. Philips, who used to come home regu-
larly at six o'clock, made any inquiry as to the absence
of his wife. One occasion when she slept from home
two nights in succession, he asked her where she had
been, and upon her saying she had been at her sister's,
he appeared to be satisfied. Now it appeared that she had
not slept at her sister's house more than once during the
summer of 1841, and that they were not, in fact, on
good terms. Mr. Philips was also aware that Mr. Ranny
was in the neighbourhood, for he knew that he gave his
(Mr. Philips) boy a model of a ship. Subsequently Mrs.
Philips went to Dieppe, where she met Mr. Ranny; and
there was no doubt of the fact of the adultery being
committed there. When she re turned the same kind
of intercourse between her and Mr. Ranny, which had
previously existed, was renewed, and then is was that
Mr. Philips moved in the matter. The parties finally
separated on the Bth of October, 1842, and the.
present suit for separation was brought. The question
therefore was, whether Mr. Philips under those circum-
stances was entitled to a separation, and whether his
conduct did not exhibit such a degree of connivance as
to disentitle him.to it ? The Learned Judge, afttr going
thmtigh the. whbfl case in detail, said with the. know-
ledge which Mr. Phillips had that his wife was absent
from his house by night and by day—that with the
knowledge that Mr. Ranny had been in the neighbour-
hood—that his boys had been at Mr. Ranny's, and after
having instituted previously an investigation into the
conduct of his wife, which he knew to be at least indis-
creet, he ought at once to have interposed in some way
or other. 1 here was, therefore, a degree of culpable
negligence on his part, but the question which he had to
decide was, whether this culpable indifference, with a
previous knowledge of the great indiscretion of his wife,
and ao active steps taken by him to interpose but where
cohabitation continued, whether that was in the eye of
the law such a connivance as to bar a suit for separation
a mensa et thoro. The Learned Judge, after referring to
the authorities, none of which were applicable to the pre-
cise circumstances of the present case, but showed that
there must be consent and intentional negligence on the
part of the husband,went on to say, that though he could
not acquit Mr. Philips of the most supine inertness, when
his own honour, the happiness of his children, and the
,peace and sacredness of his domestic hearth were con-
cerned—though he could not acquit him of the most
culpable and supine indifference—though the circum-
stances called; and most loudly called for, immediate
and active interposition, yet he thought the facts.
and the law as he found it laid down, Justified
him in saying that this case must be - brought
within the case of "Moreson and Moreson," and he
gladly availed himself of the shelter of that high autho-
rity to give to Mr. Philips the relief hp prayed fur. In
pronouncing judgment in Ealisit7Al6lhit high autho-
rity, Lord Stowell, says, " I feel I shall tolerate neglect
and inattention on the part of husbands, and that I shall
pronounce a decree which will not lead to the peace and
honour of families, nor the parity of wives." And
never would Lord Stowell, feeling and uttering
those sentiments, have followed them up with a
decree for separation, unless he felt himself bound
by the stringency of the law to adopt such a course.
If such were the consequences of the law, it was not even
for Lord Stowell, and much less for him, to deviate from
the decisions to which it led, on account of any conse
quences. He therefore pronounced in favour of this se-
paration, but he wished it to be most clearly understood
that the grounds of his judgment were, that there must
be a corrupt connivance, which he did not find in this
case ; there must be a knowledge, or necessarily pre-
sumed knowledge, of adulterous intercourse or indecent
familiarity, and not finding those circumstances, he
thought he was entitled to give Mr. Philips the remedy
for which he prayed.—Judgment accordingly.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTERN CIRCUIT.—Exeter, Doc. 19.'
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
Richard Wrigferd Clompit, a tenant of Lord Clifford,
was indicted for maliciously wounding three colts, the
property of George Gill.
Mr. Rowe and Mr. Cox defended the prosecution; Mr.
Cockburn and Mr. Stone the defence.
Mr. Gill, the prosecutor in this case, had several colts
in the care of a farmer of the name of Elias Randall,
which were suffered to run upon the slopes of the bank
of the river Teign. The case for the prosecution was,
that the prisoner, seeing that these colts trespassed upon
his land, had shot at and severely wounded some of them.
To prove this, two witnesses were called, who stated that
they saw the transaction and could swear to the person
of the prisoner; and two other men also swore that at a
greater distance they saw the transaction, as described
by the first witness, but could not speak to the identity
of the prisoner, though one of them said he believed it
was him.

Several discrepancies appeared in the evidence by the
cross-examination, and the prisoner received an excel-
lent character from several respectable witnesses, and
among others from Lord Clifford, who said that he
could be justly proud of his tenants, but of none more
than his friend Mr. Clompit.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
attended Beaty George Carpenter was indicted for ravishing
Elizabeth Hibbert.
conAldru.cCtedekthbeurncas
(who
forthe
prosecution s pecian,y)anandd fir Alr. It
. S toown
ee
and Mr. blerivale appeared for the prisoner.
The prosecution was instituted by Lord Clifford.
The prisoner was a respectable druggist, residing at
Chudleigh. Elizabeth Hibbert was a poor girl living
with her mother, near that town. She had for some
time been unwell, and her mother having lived long in
the neighbourhood of Lord Clifford, that nobleman
allowed them, as was his habit with regard to the in-
valided poor, to reside in one of his Lordship's cottages.
The girl having been recommended to take medicine had
several times gone to the shop of the prisoner to have her
prescriptions made up. The prisoner always conducted
himself in the most proper manner until the time in
question,
and then he behaved to her in the way described
by the girl in her evidence.
Elizabeth Hibbert was examined and said—l am
twenty-one years of age, and lire with my mother in a
cottage belonging to Lord Clifford. On the 22d of October
I went to Chudleigh, and about one o'clock in the day I
called at the prisoner's shop, and asked him to let me
have a box of pills, and I would call again for them. I
went away on some business, and called again at his
shop in about an hour. He said he had not begun to
make the pills, and he asked me to sit eown, which I did.
In answer to a question which he asked me, I told him I
Iliad a pain in my stomach. He then asked me different
questions, and what I was going to treat him with on my
birthday. I said, " Nothing at all." He said, " You
may as well give me a glass of shrub." I told him I

it, for he has explained where he has been. I never
saw him strike or throw anything at her.
Mrs. Dibble—l am sister to the defendant's wife.
They were living in Salisbury-square in April last.
The defendant did not sleep at home at that time,
because they had had words, and a difference in con-
sequence. I was there a few days after the plaintiff's
wife had gone off from her husband, when the latter
called there. It was about seven o'clock in the even-
ing. He saw my sister. He was not very much
excited when he was speaking to her. The defendant
came home while"the plaintiff was there. I heard the
plaintiff ask the defendant for his wife. Mrs. Lloyd
was crying very much in consequence of what the
plaintiff had communicated to her. I heard him after-
wards say, " You are a black-hearted villain." The
plaintiff said, "You have got my wife ;" and the de-
fendant said, " That is to be proved." Afterwards the
defendant said, " You may take my old wife, and I'll
have your young one." The defendant ordered the
plaintiff to leave the house, which he was about to do
when blows ensued. Mrs. Lloyd left the house to
protect her life, and afterwards she left her husband
altogether, in consequence of his connection and be-
haviour. Mrs. Lloyd left her home on the 29th of
May. The defendant lives now at Forest. hill. They
have two children living. Mrs. Lloyd is my sister.
Mr. COCKBURN rose, and said he would save at
once his Learned Friend the trouble of offering any
further proof of the criminal act. That fact he now
was not there to deny. _He was prepared to admit
the fact, and that the parties were residing together
at Forest-hill.

Elizabeth Trueman stated that Elizabeth liibbert
came to her on the day in question, and appeared dread-
fully frightened ; she was crying.
Elizabeth Strowbridge said she kept a grocer's shop
at Chudleigh. The la t witness called her to see Eliza-
beth Hibbert. She appeared pale and trembling, and
made a complaint of Carpenter's conduct,.
Charity Hibbert deposed that she was the mother of
the prosecutrix. When she came home that afternoon
she complained that Carpenter had ill-treated her.
Elizabeth Williams, the housekeeper of Lord Clifford,
had that morning sent the prosecutrix to Carpenter's for
some pills.
Louisa Trowbridge, a witness whose deposition had
been taken, but who was not examined before the grand
jury, was now put into the box by Mr. Cockburn, for
cross-examination by the prisoner,
Mr. Baron ALDARSON saying that it would be com-
petent for Mr. Cockburn to contradict her.

- Mr. ROWE cross-examined her, but nothing :wag
elicited.

Joha Trueman, a constable of Chudleigh, had a war-
rant against the prisoner on the 23d of October.
Searched for him for a week, but could not find him.
His shop was shut the day after this happened.
Cross-examined—The prisener:afterwards gate him-
self up.
Mr. RowE then addressed the jury at great length for
the prisoner, urging upon them the improbability of such
an offence being committed in so public a situation.
Mr. Baron ALDERBoN, haying summed up with great
care,

The jury found the prisoner Guilty of an assault.
Sentence deferred.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Lincoln, Dec. 19.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
The Learned Judge, who was occupied yesterday
until about five o'clock in the evening in trying unim-
portant cases of larceny, this morning, at half-past nine
o'clock, attended Divine service at the Cathedral. Thence
he proceeded to the Castle, and opined the county com-
mission shortly after eleven o'clock.
Mr. Justice PArrxsoN shortly charged the grand jury
(of which Viscount Alford, the eldest son of Earl
Brownlow, was foreman), and then proceeded with the
trial of prisoners.
Wiliam Hamilton, Edward Howes, and James Jordan
were charged with feloniously assaulting the person of
William Wetherill, on the night of the 12th of October
last, and stealing one 51. note of the Wisbeach and
Lincoln Banking Company, ten sovereigns, one half-
sovereign, and other moneys, the property of the said
William Wetherill.
It appeared that the day upon the night of which the
robbery was said to have been committed was Holbeach
fair, and that the prisoners, ,w,ho had, with tho prose
cutor, on their way home been-at a 'public-house kept
_by
a man named Carpenter, left in the direction of Wisbeach
together. While on their way the prosecutor was
knocked down, and robbed, not only of his money, but
of various articles of wearing apparel. Tlec next day
the prisoners were found together at Wisbeach, one of
them wearing a cap belonging to the prosecutor, and all
of them wearing clothes purchased by the money which
they had stolen the previous evening. '1 he 51. note
(which had been cut and rejoined) was clearly identi•
fled as the note stolen from the prosecutor.—Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE sentenced each of the prisoners
to 15 years' transportation.
William Haynes stood indicted for having stolen a
horse and geleing from Horncastle, in this county, on
tho 20th day of August last.
Mr. Wildman appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Boden for the defence.
The circumstances, although somewhat singular, are
very shortly stated. On the evening of Tuesday, the
19th of August last, Mr. Brown, a farmer residing in
the neighbourhood of Horncastle, saw his horses safe in
the field in which they at that time grazed. The follow •
ing morning they were missing, and strange as the fact
may appear to be, the prosecutor and others traced his
horses from Horncastle to the neighbourhood of
Reading, in Berkshire, a distance of upwards of 200
miles. The conduct of a Mr. Price, a young farmer
living near Reading, is deserving of particular notice.
It appeared that on the Thursday (the robbery of the
horses having been committed in Lincolnshire on the
Tuesday) Mr. Price saw two men conveying four horses
by side roads and across grounds in the neighbourhood
of his farm in Berkshire. He immediately suspected
the horses were stolen, and pursued the men by
whom they were conducted. At first he endea-
voured to banter and " deal" with them, but
at last exclaiming. " One of those horses looks
very like a horse belonging to Mr. Brown, of Horn-
castle," the man now missing said, " If you have got
any better title to the horses than we have, take them."
Mr. Price, in a most determined tone, replied, " I'll not
be content with the horses, but I'll have men too." The
prisoner and his companion immediately made off in
different directions, one taking to the right and the other
to the left. -Mr. Price followed the prisoner, who, find-
ing himself closely pursued, threw himself from his
horse and took to the fields. Mr. Price, like a good
sportsman, followed his game, and, to use the expression
he this day used in his evidence, "ran the prisoner to
cover," but afterwards " broke ground " and secured
him. It turned out, upon consulting that unerring
chronicle the Hue and Cry, that Mr. Price's suspicions
were perfectly correct, and on the following Monday
Mr. Brown arrived in Reading to identify the stolen
horses. The master-man, as he was called, sans horses
of course, got away.
It was stated yesterday and this morning that a great
defence was to be made for Haynes.
An attorney, or an attorney's clerk, from Essex-street,
Strand, represented that they should prove that the pri•
soner (who is a London man, but who represented him-
self to come from Glastonbury) was at Sleaford the night
the robbery was committed.
The case for the defence, so far from benefiting the
prisoner, after Mr. Wildman's very able reply, tended to
convict him, and he was sentenced to fifteen years'
transportation.
Mr. Justice PArrEsots- ordered Mr. Price to receive
from the county 101., in addition to the ordinary allow-
ance

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Norwich, Dec. 19.
(Before Mr. Justice WaLraasite.)
George Dye, aged 17, was indicted for wilfully and
maliciously setting fire to a wheat stack, the property
of Daniel Watson, of Lurling.
Mr. Evans appeared on behalf of the prosecution.
The prisoner .was not defended.
The prosecutor is an innkeeper at Lurling, and also
farms a small quantity of land. On Sunday night, the 25th
of August, the prisoner and five other men had been
spending the evening at the prosecutor's house ; they
left about half-past nine o'clock, and went up the road
together until they came to the turn of the road leading
to Hockham. The prisoner then left the other men,
saying that he was going to Norwich. They had passed
the stack a minute before, and must have seen a blaze
if it had then been on fire. Soon after they had parted
company with the prisoner, they perceived the reflection
of a fire in the direction of the prosecutor's house ; but,
thinking it was far off, they did not turn back. About
half an hour after the Six men had left the prosecutor's
house, he was called up by the prisoner, by whom he I
was informed that there was a fire up the road. lie
looked out of his window, and saw his own stack in a
blaze. The prisoner made several statements of a con-
•tradictory character, in consequence of which he was
detained in custody, and was afterwards examined as a
witness against two of the men who had been in his
company at the prosecutor's house. The prisoner and
the two men were kept in custody for eleven days, but
the evidence being insufficient to connect them with the
actual perpetration of the offence, they were discharged.
However, on Oct. 8, Stephen English, a Suffolk consta-
ble, was going from Bury, to Maury in a gig, and about
a mile from Bury he overtook the prisoner and two boys,
and being requested by the former to take up one of the
boys, who he stated was his brother, the constable took
the lad up, and drove him fire mi les. During the ride,
the boy told English all about .th,-t fire at Lurling, and
when the prisoner male up, the constable observed to
'
him how fortunate he had been it, , getting off the fire
job so easily. The
fortunate ; he keg his tongue quiet, 4, :id they could get
no hold of him, e Prisoner replied that he was very
! x
then Faid_that tiler were two others

should not give him anything. He then asked me if I
would have a drop of peppermint ? I said I did not care
if.l did, if he would please to give me some. He had pre-
viously asked me to have some gin or some shrub, which
I refused. He then took a glass, and emptied something
white into it from a bottle in the shop. He took the
glass out of the shop. He stopped a minute or two, and
then came to the door between the shop and the room
behind. He said, " Come in here." I went. He told
me to sit down, Which I did. He then shut the door of
the room, and took the glass from oft the table, put his
arm round my neck, and said, " Before you drink I must
have a kiss." I said, " You shan't, and it I had known
this I would not have come in." He then kissed me, and
I sipped out of the glass. He said, " Drink, drink ;" and
I said " I don't like it." But he pressed me, and I said,
" Here's your health," and then I drank about a third of
it. I rose from my chair to get out at the door, but he
caught me and threw me back on the chair. He behaved
rudely to me. I called out as loud as I could. Some
one came to the shop. The prisoner left me, and
went into the shop. I heard some one speak in the
shop. I called out, " For God's sake, some one come to
me." The person who was in the shop went away, and
the prisoner returned to me. He fastened the door. I
tried to get to the window, but he caught me and threw
me down, and again took libel ties with me. I cried out.
At length he let me go. I said I would tell of it as soon
as I got out. He said, " No, no ; you won't." I said,
" I'm d—d if I don't." He again said, " Oh, 110 ; you
won't." I said, "So held me God, I will." He then
went out into the shop, and I went out of the house as
fast as I could to Mrs.Strowbridge's, at the King's Arms,
and saw Betsy Triiernan, and told her of the prisoner's
conduct. When I got home, I told my mother.
Cross-examined—The prisoner's house is in the main
street of Chudleigh. It is a corner house, with another
street running by it, into which the window in the hack
room looked. Two people looked in at the window
while I was screaming. There was a blind to the window.
It appeared that th• depositions of several persons had
been taken who were not taken by the prosecutors be-
fore the grand jury, and their names were not on the
•
back of the indictment.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said this was extremely im-
proper, and not fair towards a prisoner. It was reason-
able for a prisoner to suppose that the witnesses exa-
mined before the magistrates would be produced on the
trial, and he could not know the contrary until the in-
dictment came down from th• grand jury ; and then at
the last moment, when it was too late for him to send
for such witnesse,, he found they would not be called for
the prosecution, and he consequently lisst the benefit of
their testimony, which might be of the greatest import-
ance to him. It was an improper practice, and ought
not to be adopted or allowed.
The witness was a particularly modest-looking girl,
and gave her evidence in a manner which entitled her
to credit.

in the mess as well as him ; they had been iiipprehendeds
but were discharged. English then asked the prisoner
if they were the persons who did the fire. Ile replied
that he did it, that he went over the gate, and set the
stack on fire with lucifer matches, and not a ball, and
that he then gave the alarm that no suspicion might fol-
low him. The prisoner then gave the details of a fire
he did at Ipswich. English then asked him if he had
done many fires, to which the prisoner replied, that if
he had not there was no reason why he should not, that
there would be plenty of more fires this winter ; he did
not care about being transported ; if he Was there were
plenty more to take his place. The prisoner had not the
slightest idea that his interrogator was a constable,
English having previously stated that he was a liquor
merchant, and the prisoner was not a little surprised
when informed of the real calling of his companion, who,
as soon as the prisoner had furnished him with with a
detailed account of his exploits, took him into custody,
and the prisoner then thought he hail been bamboozled
by the disguised liquor merchant.
The prisoner when called upon for his defence, told
the jury that English had spoken falsely, but the jury
thought otherwise, and found the prisoner Guilty.—
Sentence deferred.
William Medlar, aged 37, was indicted for wilfully
and maliciously setting fire to a stack of wheat, the pro-
perty of Robert Samuel Thorne, Burgh, next Aylsham.
Mr. Palmer appeared for the prosecution ; Mr. Pren-
dergast defended the prisoner.
The prosecutor is a farmer, residing at the parish of
Burgh, and the prisoner is a cordwainer, living in the
same parish. About one' o'clock of the morning of
Tuesday, the 26th of November last, a stack of wheat
belonging to the prosecutor, standing in the midst of
,everal other stacks, was discovered to be on fire by Mrs.
Goodson, the wife of the constable of Burgh, who lives
near the premises of Thorne. Goodson was awoke by
his wife, and immediately got up and called the prose-
cutor, who arrived at the stockyard before the fire had
extended as far as the eaves of the stack. Persons in
the neighbourhood arrived soon afterwards at the fire,
but only in time to save the surrounding stacks. The
stack fired, (the produce of twelve acres) was totally
consumed. Two policemen arrived at the fire shortly
after it had broken out. Soon after they came up they
perceived a small gap in the fence leading from the stack-
yard into a field of wheat, where some one had got over,
and one of them watched by the gap till daylight,
to prevent any person proceeding in that direction,
and destroying any trace of footsteps that might
exist in the field ; and on examining the wheat
field the policeman discovered thirteen footsteps leading
towards the prisoner's house. From circumstances
which came to the knowledge of the policemen, the pri-
soner was apprehended between eight and nine on the
morning of the fire. The prisoner's shoes were taken
off and compared with the impressions in the field, and
they corresponded in every respect. The cottage of the
prisoner was searched, and part of a box of lucifer
matches corresponded in colour and dip with one that
was found in the ditch of the wheat field, near the gap
leading from the stack yard. The prisoner, when ap-
prehended, stated that he had been in 134 hours and
hours when the fire broke out ; but on inquiry being set
set on foot, it was ascertained that, about twelve o'clock
on the night of the fire, the prisoner called at the public-
house in Aylsham, which is the adjoining parish to
Burgh. In order to prove malice on the part of the pri-
soner towards the prosecutor, it was proved that the
prisoner had repeatedly expressed the greatest animosity
towards Mr. Thorne. On one occasion he was heard to
say that " Mr. Thorne starved him and his wife and
children, and. would not give him work, nor suffer others
to do it, and that he would mark him for it some day or
other."

Mr. PRENDERGSST addressed the jury on behalf of the
prisoner with great ability.
The-Learned JUDGE summed up the case, and the jury
found a verdict of Guilty.—Sentence deferred.

PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURT.
" We have further to present that it is the unanimous
opinion of the grand jury, that the present winter assize
was uncalled for in this county, inasmuch as a large
majority of the prisoners in the calendar would have
been tried at the next quarter sessions, within a fortnight
from this time.

" EDMUND WODEHOITSE, J. GORDON
Foreman JOHN MOTT
GEORGE KETT R. BLAKE
ROBERT MARSIIAM ALBEMALE CATOR
HENRY DOVER H. GILBERT
JOHN STRACEY JOSEPH SCOTT
WILLIAM WINDHAM WILLIAM COLLYER
H. S. PARTRIDGE W. 13. Dom"
WILLIAM GWYNN

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, Dec. 10.
TUE WOLVERHAMPTON CASE.—The trial of this long-
expected case came on this morning, when the Court was
densely crowded, but the curiosity of the " ladies" was
most wofully disappointed, as the nature of a portion of
the evidence rendered their exclusion necessary.
Jane Railton, 30, a very interesting-looking and lady-
like person, John Sherriff, 26, and James Hildreth, 38,
both of highly respectable appearance, were arraigned
on an indictment charging them with concealing the
birth of the child of the female prisoner, at Wolver-
hampton, on the 21st of October.
Mr. Beadon, with Mr. Woolrych, conducted the prose-
cution, the prisoners being defended by Mr. Yardley,
Mr. Allen, and Mr. Huddlestone.
The prisoners severally pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Haley, surveyor, produced a plan of the premises
of Mr. Quinton, surgeon, of Welverhampton, in whose
„privy the child•was found,. and ,td whom Sheriff was- in
assistant.; -
Joseph Titley, servant to Mr. Quinton, proved the
finding of the child.
Timothy Casey, police-officer, of Wolverhampton,
said—l told Mr. Sherriff there was a child found, and
he said, "Is there ?" He tool: the fork and pressed on
the body. I said, " Don't rupture it, it seems fresh,
and has not been long in." I took the body to a public-
house, and sent to the Coroner. Mr. Foulke, the sur-
geon, saw it. It was the same child that was taken out
of the privy.
Cross-examined—lt was partly from the pressure of
the fork that I judged how long it had been in. I took
Sherriff into custody at the second sitting, in the jury-
room, by. direction of Colonel Hogg, the deputy chief
constable. I had no warrant.
By Mr. HUDDLESTONE—Miss Railton was taken into
custody on the 12th of November. She was brought to
my house about eleven at night. She was crying and
very agitated indeed, suffering under much anguish.
Miss Railton was at my house eleven days. She was
very much affected ; the whole time she suffered greatly.
My wife was with her, and paid her every attention. I
ordered her to do so, as Miss Railton was constantly
crying. My wife remained in the room one night at
Miss Railton's request.
Thomas H. Foulke—l am a surgeon at Wolverhamp-
ton. I attended an inquest on the 30th October at the
Greyhound, Bell-street, on the body of a female child,
which appeared to have been born at or near its full
time. The external body was green. I should suppose
it had been born about five or six days. I could not
perceive any sign of food in the stomach of the child,
and do not think it had received any. I found meconium
on the body. There was a marked appearance of it.
My opinion is that the child was born a ith the head
presented. The meconium may have been discharged
by pressure after death. The witness then detailed par-
ticulars of the examination made of Miss Railton. I
have nOdoubt Miss Railton had given birth to a child,
within ten or eleven days I should think.
Colonel Gilbert Hogg, deputy chief constable of the
county--On the 9th November, from information I re-
ceived, I went to Mr. Quinton's, and saw Mr. Sherriff.
I asked him if he knew Miss Railton, the sister in-law
of Mr. Darby, the postmaster, and if he had not attended
her professionally ? lie said he had not. He admitted
having given Mr. Hildreth medicine for a female in his
house, who he supposed was in the family way. I asked
him again if he had not done so ? He said he did not
know Miss Railton, and he had not attended her. On
the 11th November I had another interview with him at
Mr. Quinton's. I told him I had still reason to believe
he attended the party in her confinement, particularly so
from information I had received that he applied to Mr.
Omberlow for that purpose. He said he did so, but the
person for whom he applied was the late cook of Mr. De
Hane, a surgeon in Queen-street. He again repeated
that he did not know Miss Railton. I attended the ad-
journed inquest on the 12th of November, and in con-
sequence of what I heard I arrested him, telling him
that from the evidence given before the Coroner by
the surgeon, I thought it my duty to detain him.
On the 9th I went to Mr. Hildreth, who is a printer,
and asked him if his sister-in-law, Miss Railton, was
staying with him. He replied " No, she has left the
town since the races, but returned yesterday, and is now
with here brother-in-law, at the', post-office." I said I
had reason to suppose she had been confined in his
house ; to which he replied, " It is false ; whoever says
so shall be punished for injuring the character of a re-
spectable female." I asked if he had ever applied to
Mr. Sherriff for medicine or advice, and he said he hal
not. I went to his house again on the 15th November,
and arrested Mrs. 'Eldred). lie said to me, " You are
going too far with this business ; you had better let it
drop a good deal." This was after I apprehended Mr.
Sherriff and Miss Railton, both of whom I had arrested
without a warrant, on suspicion of felony. After the
! inquest on the 12th I went to the post-office, where I
found Miss Railton. Mr. Foulke and Mr. Casey were
with me. Mr. Darby, the postmaster, married Miss
Railton's sister, who is now dead. Before Mr. Foulke
examined her, I told her I had reason to believe she had
lately been confined, and the child destroyed. She said
"It is a mistake, and not at all the case." Mr. Foulke
then went up stairs to Miss Railton, by my direction.
After he came down I went up, and saw her. I said the
surgeon had told me she had lately been confined, and I
was sorry she had told me a falsehood.
Mr. lIUDDLESTONE here objected that this remark of
Colonel Hogg was an inducement to Miss Railton, and
therefore her statement was inadmissible as evidence
I against her. In all cases cited by Judges Gurney, Pat-
teson, Gazelee, and Littledale, it was held that the evi-
dence was inadmissible.
The JUDGE—I shall receive the evidence, subject to a
proper case.
Examination continued—l arrested Miss Railton, and
delivered her to Casey, at his private residence. The
lock-up at Wolverhampton is a wretched and miserable
place, and I did not take her there on that account, for
I am sorry to see au unfortunate woman in that miserable
place. She said, " I am sorry I did not tell you all
about it, but what will become of my sister, her seven
children, and the poor young man ? At noon, on Sun-
day three weeks, a person came to me and performed an
operation on me, which caused me excruciating pain until
a late hour of the night. At night, my sister delivered me
of a child, which she killed." I asked, " How do you
know it was killed?" She said, "It was born alive, I
heard it cry." I asked her what became of it ? She
said, " A person came three or four nights after and
took it away." She said it was Mr. Sherriff, and added
that he had performed a similar operation three or four
times in two menthe, but never with effect until that

costs.

Sunday. She said she was not ill until the operation
had been performed, She was quite well previously.
On the itith 1 saw her again, in consequence of a note
from Cisey. This is the note produced.
Casey recalled—This note is in my handwriting. I
sent it to Colonel Hoz,,g in consequence of Miss Railton
telling me she would like to see him. I said it was late,
but she desired to see him, and I wrote the note.
Colonel Hogg continued—When I got there I saw her
in the same room. She said, " I have been most un-
happy since I saw you yesterday, lest, from the state of
mind I was in, I might have told you anything that is
untrue." I then, at her request, repeated what she told
me the previous day from my note-book, which I have
with me. When I came to the part where she said her
sister had killed the child, she said, " Oh, did I say so ?
Then I must be mad, and at the time did not know what
I was saying. My poor sister ; she took the child,
rolled it up, took it to the fire, gave it some nourish- '
ment, and it died. My poor sister ! lam sure she felt
very much for it."
Cross-examined by Mr. ALLEN—I did apply to the
Coroner for a warrant, but he refused. I only made one
application. Miss Railton was arrested immediately
after the Coroner declined to interfere.

Henry Wm. Oroberlow, chemist, of Wolverhampton
—I remember Mr. Sherriff coming to me, about fire
months ago. He said he wanted to ask a favour, for
me to attend a female who was respectable, and where
secresy was required. I said, "Do you want me to pro-
cure a miscarriage ?" He said, 755.. I replied, no in-
ducement would cause me to do it. He said the party
would "some down."

Wm. Quinton, surgeon, of Queen-street, Wolverhamp-
ton—The back part of my premises are in Castle-street.
Sherriff was my assistant. I have seen Hildreth at my
surgery frequently, from August to September. I asked
Sherriff the object of Hildreth's visits. He told me Hil-
dreth wished him to procure the abortion of a highly
respectable female, who would be confined in a room of
Hildreth's house, the greatest secrecy to be observed, and
money no object. I think this was on the 25th of Au-
gust. He asked me if I would take the case. I replied,
" I will have nothing to do with it." Mr. Sherriff came
to me on the 28th of October, and said, " There is a
child found in the privy in the yard." I went out and
saw the body, which I should think had been there three
or four days.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALLEN—I saw Mr. Hildreth
at my surgery twenty times or more. The first time was
on the 18th of August. On the 25th I spoke to Sher-
riff about it for the first time. When I saw Hildreth on
the 13th of November, he said he had called upon Sher-
riff about selling him some books.
After some further evidence,
Mr. HuDati,EsToNE submitted that there was no case
to gu to the jury against Miss Railton, as her own state•
ment was the only thing which affected her, and it was
questionable whether that was legal advice.
The JUDGE—I think there is evidence to go to the
jury.

lifessrs. Yardley, Allen, and auddlestone severally
addressed the jury for the prisoners, who received exem-
plary characters from persons of the highest grade of
Wolverhampton. l
Mr. Justice C07.7M.41,7 summed up the voluminous
evidence in a most minute manner, pointing out to the
jury the law as it regarded each and all of the prisoners.
The jury retired at nine o'clock, and on their return in
half an hour Acquitted all the prisoners, which, the re
porter adds, was received with applause in Court.
There is another indictment against Sherriff.

NEWINGTON SESSIONS.
(Before T. PUCKLE, Esq., Chairman, and a full Bench
of Magistrates.)
On Thursday, a special sessions was held at the Court-
house, Newington, before Mr. Puckle and a full Bench
of Magistrates, under the 7th and Bth Victoria, cap. 101,
to adjudicate upon the applications under the bastardy
clauses of the Poor-law Amendment Bill. The applica-
tions were very numerous, and in all the cases which
came before the Court, with one exception, in which the
Magistrates thought there was not sufficient evidence,
the putative fathers were ordered by the Magistrates to
pay 2s. Gd. per week for their respective offsprings, from
the time of the first application for the summons, exclu-
sive of costs varying from 20s. to 30s.
The new bastardy clauses of the Act came into opera-
tion on the 9th of August last, and Mr. Boxer, the chair-
man of the board of guardians for St. George's, South-
wark, was in attendance to watch the eases and the
working of the Act.
In one of the cases before the Bench, Mr. PUCKLE,
the chairman, asked Mr. Ware. the magistrates' clerk, in
the event of the father not paying the costs, could he re-
cover them from the female ? Mr. Ware replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. JouNsoN (the magistrate)—Yes ; and a more
cruel, harsh, and unjust measure than these bastardy
clauses never passed the Legislature; and the more I see
of them, the more am I satisfied that they amount to a
total denial of justice, and hold out a temptation to crime.
Here is the absurdity and cruelty of the law—the third
section gives the justices power to make an order on the
putative father, and to enforce the same by distress or
committal, after one month from the date of the order.
The father has the power of appeal to the sessions; in
which case the whole of the expenses must fall upon the
unfortunate female—she must find travelling expenses,
lawyer, counsel, witnesses; and she is probably poor and
friendless, ignorant, and totally unacquainted with the
law. From the cruel operation of these clauses, the
worthy magistrate said, that in three cases out of four

the appellant would be successful,.and get off without
having, to, maintain, his child.'Then, again, as to the hard-
ship of the case, the parish officers would formerly assist
the female, and compel the father to support his illegiti-
mate child; but here, under the seventh section, the pa-
rish officers are, under a penalty, positively pro-
hibited from interfering; the words are, they shall
not interfere in any respect." Again, the eighth section
declares the parish officers to be guilty of a misdemea-
nour if they in any way endeavour to force the man, or
persuade him to do an act of justice by marrying the
female. And yet the mother is punishable for the neglect
or desertion of her bastard child, and may be committed
to prison. He (the worthy magistrate) repeated that it
was a monstrous denial of justice ; and he was at a loss
to-know how the Legislature could expect the magistrate
could conscientiously administer justice by enforcing the
provisions of such a law.
Mr. WARE said the Act was altogether incomprehen-
sible.

Mr. PUCIELE (the Chairman)—lt is extremely defec-
tive and loosely worded, and exceedingly vague in its
meaning.

The other Justices fully concurred, and the matter
then dropped.
A female applied to the magistrates for a warrant to
enforce the payment of an order of 2s. 6d. per week,
made upon the father of her child at the last sitting of
the bench. The father only laughed at the order when
served on him, and said he would pay when he was made
to pay, and not before.

kr: JOHNSON—hid you demand payment at the time
you gave the order to the father? Applicant—No, Sir;
I told him it was your worship's order, and he only
laughed at it.

Mr. JOHNSON said she ought to have demanded the
amount at the time of serving the order.
The applicant said she was really ignorant bow to act.
Mr. JOHNSON—There can be no doubt of it. How
are these poor creatures to know the working of these
monstrous laws ? The man may well afford to laugh at
the Magistrate's orders. The fathers of illegitimate
children might get out of the way, or put the female to
an enormous expense by appealing to the sc,ssions. No
wonder that illegitimate children were on the increase.
The worthy Magistrate again c‘indemned the clauses of
the new Poor law Amendment Bill relative to bastards

as an act of inhumanity and injustice.
Mr. PUCKLE remarked that hitherto the appeals had
been very few.
• Mr. JOHNSON—There were two last sessions, and how
many we may eventually have from the whole county it
is impossible to foresee.
The Magistrates were unanimous in condemning these
clauses of the now Poor-law Amendment Act, and said
that part of them were totally incomprehensible and
absurd.

In one case a man said he had so many illegitimate
children that he really could not afford to pay for any
more. He was ordered to pay 2s. 6d. per week and 208.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
UNION-HALL.

Edward Edwards was charged with being found on
the premises of a gentlemaicnamed Bright, at Brixton,
for an unlawful purpose, and Mecrgaret Sheen, a young
woman tervant in the family, was charged with admitting
the former prisoner into the house.
It appeared that the female prisoner was nurse for
Mr. Bright's family, and that she slept with an infant in
a room at the upper part of the house. Between three
and four o'clock this morning the complainant was
awakened by the crying of his infant, and, oil his wife
proceeding up stairs, it was found the child was in bed
alone, no appearance of the nurse having been there.
Mr. Bright immediately descended to the kitchen, and
on opening the door, his amaaement may easily be
imagined on beholding the two prisoners lying hugged
in each others arms on a hearth-rug, before a blazing
kitchen fire, fast asleep. He did not awaken them, hut
went for a policeman, and gave them both into custody.
On the way to the station.house the female prisoner
threw away a waistcoat belonging to her master, which
she said adhered to her shawl without her knowledge.
The other prisoner said that he was paying his addresses
to the nurse, and that having called to see her, sleep
overcame him, but he declared that he had no intention
of doing anything wrong or taking any property.
Mr. TRAILL said that he should remand the prisoners
until Monday, in order that further inquiry might be
made.