The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY MOAN'IVG, DECEMBER 6, 1845.

these eitclimstancee, be sought an interview with Mrs. Clark,
but wag at first refused, though she afterwards received
him in the afternoon of the same day in
ller bed- rooin. Another interview was -had between
them the next day ; and in three , or four days she
quitted her home, and went to her sister's residence at
Newport."*Hester,lthe parlour-maid, accompanied her tkither,
Rot only by her mistress's own earnest desire (as she declared
in giving her evidence), but by that of the plaintiff's
brother, with whom she was to communicate with regard to
what occurred during her stay with Mrs. Clark at Newport.
At first, however, there existed some doubt as to what the
nature of this communication between them was to be, as it
at one time appeared that it was to be in case there was any
money wanted, as it was desired that the lady should be
comfortable. But, in cross-examination, this servant admit-
ted that she was to write to Mr. H. Clark all concerning the
conduct and proceeding of her mistress; though in re-exami-
nation she declared that she had not intended to act the spy,
and that the only letter she had forwarded him had pre-
viously to being posted been shown to Mrs. Clark herself.
As that lady and her sister, however, did not agree very
well, she soon left Newport, proceeding to Chepstow, and
then to Gloucester, and, after staying some little time at
each of these places, to London, where she remained for a
while at the Bull-and-Mouth. Nobody received her in the
metropolis, and the servant then returned to Bristol, and re-
entered Mr. Clark's service.

Such is a general statement of the purport of the evidence
given on behalf of the plaintiff's case.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the jury for the
plaintiff, and entered into a detailed account of the cir-
cumstances under which the cases was brought before them;
and having concluded his speech, the following witnesses
were called :

Elizabeth Jones—Was servant to the plaintiff in the year
1842, and afterwards in 1844, when they resided at Bristol.
During the first period of service she knew the defendant as
being the partner of Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's bro-
ther. Ile used often to visit Mr. and Mrs. Clark, she thought
as a medical man. During the second period he was a con-
stant visitor, and generally came when plaintiff was out. He
always used to go up stairs by himself, which no other
visitor ever did. He used to let himself out, which was
also unusual. When other visitors were going, the bell was
always rung for her (witness) to show them out. She re-
membered his calling on the 6th of June, 1844. On that oc-
casion he was shown into the library, and Mrs. Clark met
him there. After they had been together a little while
witness heard the door either locked or bolted, and the win-
dow-blind pulled down. This excited her suspicions, and she
went into the pantry, which was under the library, where
she got upon tift dresser to listen to what was going on in
the room above. She heard the no* of feet, as if some one
was walking towards the sofa, and then a noise, as if two
persons were on the sofa. She then called to Elizabeth
Hertford, her fellow-servant, who did not come to her imme•
diately, and when she did come the noise had ceased. Soon
after this witness heard the door unlocked, and, almost at
the same moment, Mr. Clark came home.
Hester Bevan, examined by Mr. Burr—l: entered the ser-
vice of Mr. and Mrs. Clark on the 18th of February, 1845,
and lam in Mr. Clark's service now. I recollect Mr. Duns-
ford frequently calling to see Mrs. Clark. On one occasion
after he had gene the sofa was very much tumbled. I saw
my mistress afterwards, and she appeared confused. In
the spring the baby was vaccinated. In the week of
the vaccination the library was freshly arranged, and the
sofa was taken into it out of the dining-room. The
library was arranged on the Tuesday, and the vaccina-
tion took place on the Friday. Mr. Dunsford called
on the Friday. I showed him into the library, and the
child was brought to him almost immediately. In about
10 minutes afterwards the baby was taken away. Mr.
Dunsford and my mistress remained in the library together
for nearly three hours afterwards. My master was out of
town. The defendant called again on the Friday following.
My mistress went into the library, and the child was taken
in there also, with a basin and a towel. The child was
hardly in the room ten minutes. The defendant said to
Mrs. Clark when he came in, " Make haste and bring the
child, as I have a great deal to say to you." He came at a
quarter before three o'block and left at a quarter before seven.
He let himself out when he went away. While he was in the
library with my mistress I went to the door and listened. I
heard Mr. Dunsford say, " If I do love you better than any
other woman in the world, you need not say so. You
say to me, be cautious, be cautious,' and yet you your-
self say things that lead people to suspect." Mr. Duns-
ford charged her with something she had said to some
one, and she wished to known what it was. He said,
"Well, shall I tell it you just as I heard it ?" She
said " Yes." At that moment the bell rung, and I went to
answer the door. Two ladies came to the door, and I told
them, as I had been directed, that my mistress was engaged.
While I was listening at the library door, I heard the de-
fendant kiss Mrs. Clark. I saw the defendant go out, and I
immediately went up to Mrs. Clark, and asked her whether
she would not take something, as she had had nothing but
her breakfast that day. Her face was remarkably red, and
she did not look up, but smoothed her hair with her hands
when she spoke to me. That was the last time Mr. Duns-
ford came to Berkeley-square. About a week afterwards
the Misses Kirkby came on a visit. In August last the
family went to Weston-super-Mare. Mr. Clark came every
evening to Weston, and returned in the morning to Bristol,
except on the occasions when he went to Exeter. While the
family were at Weston, Mrs. Clark went to Bristol three
times. I went to Bristol on the second of those occasions.
Miss Kirby went with us. We arrived at Bristol in the
evening. On the following day my mistress went out with
Miss Kirkby, and remained out all day. On the third day
we returned to Weston. While at Weston my mistress went
many times to the post•office. There was a boy who took
letters to the post-office from the plaintiff's house. My mas-
ter was in Bristol when the family returned from Weston,
and he left the next day. Mr. Henry Clark came up to the
house the day after my master left, and spoke to me. "He
saw Mrs. Clark in laer bed-room on that day. He had called
before, but by mistress would not see him. I went with Mrs.
Clark afterwards to Newport.
Elizabeth Hertford, fellow-servant of the former witness,
gave evidence as to the suspicions which had been excited
in her mind by various circumstances.
Mr. Henry Clark, the plaintiff's brother, spoke to a con-
versation subsequent to the commoncemuat of this action, in
which defendant said, " Joseph and Potar's wife has been
acted over to the life ;" and added, that five words from him
would have ruined Mrs. Clark.

Maria Withers examined—ls sister to a Mrs. Needes, who
keeps a lodging-house, No. 17, Norfolk-street, Bath.
In July, 1844, her sister left Bath for a time, leaving the
house in her care. During her sister's absence, a gentle-
man called upon her, and represented that he was secretly
married, that he wished it to remain a secret, and that he
wanted lodgings in Bath. He called himself Mr. Lisle.
After this she wrote to her sister about it, and on receiving
an answer, she desired her nephew, a lad named Kinchen, to
write to Mr. Lisle, to tell him that his terms were
accepted. She knew his address, which was at the
British and Foreign Hotel, Hanover. square, London, from a
letter which she had received from him. (This letter was
produced in Court, but the part which contained the address
had been cut away.) After this Mr. Lisle came several
times to sleep at her sister's house. He used to come at
night and remain till the next evening. On each occasion
he said, in the morning, that he expected Mrs. Lisle, and a
lady came at about tea o'clock. She remained each time till
four, when she went away alone, and at about nine he went
away also. He never slept there two successive nights.
'1 hey met there four times.
Mrs. Needes, and George Kinchen, her nephew, corroborated
the above statement. The three witnesses had seen Mr.
Dunsford and Mrs. Clark at Bath, and identified them as the
lady and gentleman whom they had known as Mr. and Mrs.
Lisle. The servant of the house was also examined, and
said that on one occasion Mr. Lisle had not slept there the
night before, and the bed was not disturbed during the time
he and Mrs. Lisle slept there. On the three other
occasions he had slept there, and the bed had been left un-
made by his wish, so that it was tumbled before Mrs. Lisle
came, and she could not say whether it had been used while
she was there. This witness had also identified the defen-
dant and Mrs. Clark.

Joseph Hall, a police-officer at Bath, had taken the four
last witnesses to Mr. Dunsford's and :Mr. Clark's: house, in
order to identify the persons. On stating his object to the
defendant, the latter said, " What is done cannot be
helped."
The witnees having been, examined,. evi-
denee wah giveh' with respect to the marriage settlement.
The deed itself was putin, and proved by the attorney who
had prepared it and witnensedits signature: EVidence was
also adduced of a notice that had been served upon the
trutaes under it. It appeared that in this deed it *as a
condition that 5,0001. should be in trust for the sole use and,
benefit of Mrs. Clark ; and, further, certain, property she
would inherit from her grandmother and rnother,"the interest
arisiag,frono which was to be duly= paid' over tolier 'tor her'
soleuse eand benefit, by, the befOrs-mentfoned tiustioe-S,
receipts bearing her own signature, There was, he ever, a
proviso, to the effect thatithizinterestshonidnet,be paid over
to life nntil she,had formallyolereanded the. payment of it,
and notice had been regularly served,upon the trustees, • It
was, aecordingly new proved, that the payments had been de-
manded in due forra sinee,Mra. Clark had quitted her husband's
house: _
The-evidence for the plaintiff (of which the above presents
the material portions) having been concluded,, ' -
Sir THOMAS WILDE addressed the jury' oft behalf, of the
defendant, and contended that they could not, npon the Oil-
demo as it now stood,:corne to a conclusion adverse to his
client. He submitted that there was no direct or clear, satis-
factory or by any means conclusive proof of adultery having
been committed by the defendant and the plaintiff's wife.
Even if they were disposed to place entire reliance upon
all that had been given in evidence by the witnesses
which had been adduced in support of the case on the
other side, he did not believe that it could be held that more
than a case, he admitted, of great suspicion had been esta-
blished by the witnesses. That, however, would not be suf-
ficient to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict at their hands;
and still less would he be entitled to it upon testimony of
such a very doubtful and improbable nature as they had
heard that day. Upon such evidence no one who was stand-
ing at the bar of a criminal court could be found guilty ; and
lie contended that a similar doctrine should be applied
to such a case as the present. Before they received such
testimony with anything approaching credence, they ought
well to consider its value and probability. They ought to
exercise the utmost caution before they so received it. It
would, he admitted, be impossible and useless to deny that
great and suspicious intimacy had existed between Mrs.
Clark and his client, or that there had been no improper
familiarities between them. It was most probable that
such had taken place ; but a far more decided conviction
must be entertained before a verdict could be given for the
plaintiff. He contended that there was no reason to come
to the positive conclusion that this intimacy and those fami-
liarities had been carried to the last act of criminality be-
tween the parties, and that adultery had really been com-
mitted by them. And unless that were clearly established
no verdict for the plaintiff could be returned or damages
awarded him. But even if the jury were satisfied that there
were sufficient grounds for such a verdict, he sabmitted that
this was a case that called for nothing beyond a low and
trifling amount of damages. Little would compensate the
plaintiff fully, for, regarding matters in the most unfavour-
able light. his loss could not be looked upon as heavy. After
commenting on the evidence that had been adduced before
them, the Learned Sergeant concluded by leaving the ques-
tion in the hands of the jury, being assured they would, ac-
cording to the best of their judgment, do justice: between the
partiee, and meet the merits of the case. _ .

The 'Learned JUDGE then proceeded to sum up the evi-
dence, and carefully and clearly laid all its material por-
tions before the jury. In the course of some remarks upon
crguments that had been used by Counsel, his Lordship said
that much might be insisted on respecting the inadequacy
of pecuniary compensation in instances such as the present.
As was usually the case in actions of this nature, many ob-
servations had been made as to the total inefficiency of any
amount of pecuniary s
compensation to sooth a husband '
wounded feelings,' or to satisfy
his injured honour, and the
sufferings he must endure under such circumstances. The
law, however, had awarded no other than a money compen-
sation in all such cases; and, notwithstanding all that might
be alleged against its adequacy, it would be extremely diffi-
cult to point out any other remedy that would be mere satis-
factory and efficacious. The
jury, therefore, would new only
have to decide whether the plaintiff, under the circumstances
of this case, judging from the evidence that had been laid
before them, WAS entitled to any compensation, and if so, to
what =Milt they should award it to meat the merits. They

must measure the, damages by the value of what the plaintiff
had lost through thegonduct of the defendant, that had de-
prived him of a wife, and his children of a mother. It would be
for them to estimate the extent of the injury the plaintiff had
sustained, and to give damages (if they were agreed that da-
mage. should be given) in accordance with that estimation.
In coming to a decision as to the amount to be aWarded, they.
must take into their consideration all the facts ; for, in such in-
stances, much depended upon the character of the wife seduced,
the manner in which the husband had ever behaved towards
her, and various other circumstances that gave each case a
distinctive character, and made all the difference between
the extremes of the hitherto virtuous wife who was se-
duced, and the wanton profligate woman, who with head-
long passion threw herself into the arms of the adulterer.
As regarded the nature of the injury inflicted, it was cer-
tainly difficult, indeed, to imagine any one that would be
more afflicting to a man who had fulfilled the duties of a
good husband and a kind father, and who was happy in
his reminiscences of the past, the enjoyments of the present,
and the bright and cheering prospects of the future, than the
seduction of the partner of his wedded life, once chaste and
virtuous, and the blight upon the condition of his children,
deprived under such painful circumstances of the care and
love of their once devoted mother. If, however, on the
other hand, a man had allied himself to a woman of free
and capricious manners, of immodest deportment, and
wanton lascivious disposition, it would certainly be his mis-
fortune to have espoused such a female, hut it could scarcely
be considered a misfortune to lose her. In such a case too,
a plaintiff could scarcely be held entitled to any con-
siderable amount of damages, even if any beyond a mere
nominal sum, by way of compensation for the loss he
had endured by her abandoning him. It would be there-
fore for the jury to decide where in their opinion the present
case stood, and at what distance from the one extreme or
the other. If they gave credence to the testimony of the
witnesses they had heard in the course of the cause, he
thought they could entertain no reasonable doubt that there
had been acts of adultery. If so, the plaintiff had been, by
the defendant, deprived of the society of her, who was at
once his wife and the mother of his children ; and it would be
for them to estimate the loss the plaintiff had thus sustained,
and to give damages accordingly. In the course of the pro-
ceedings they had heard that the defendant had spoken
slightingly of the virtue of the plaintiffs wife, and that he
had said something about the story of Joseph and the wife of
Potiphar being acted over again. He (Mr. Justice Cresswell)
had, however, observed that, from the beginning to the
end of the evidence that had been adduced, not a single
question had been put to any witness with a view of casting
a slur upon the manners or life of Mrs. Clark, or seeking to
impugn her virtue prior to her acquaintance with the de-
fendant. There was nothing either to show that her con-
duct had been light, or that she had first sought the de-
fendant, and had not been seduced by him. The law did not
in such cases seek to punish the offender, but merely to give
the injured party, the plaintiff, compensation for the loss he
had sustained in losing the society of his wife. The degree
of the defendant's guilt was an important matter of investi-
gation and consideration for this latter purpose. The blacker
his transgression, the greater must of necessity be the injury
sustained by the husband, and consequently the larger the
amount of damages to which the latter would be entitled.
It must be so, inasmuch as the more serious the guilt of the
seducer, the more subtle the artifices to which he had re-
course to attain his purpose, the more deep laid the plans by
which he at last succeeded in triumphing over the virtue
of the once spotless wife, the higher must originally have
been her value to her husband, and the higher also ought to
be the amount awarded him by way of compensation, as far
as the law allowed compensation to be made him for the loss
he had sustained. The wife, however, who, on the other
hand, yielded readily to any man who chose to approach
with a guilty purpose and solicit her, could never have been
of much worth or value to her husband; and the easiness
of the adulterer's triumph might be taken, therefore, as a
measure of the rate at which she was justly and truly to be
esteemed. The jury must, in fact, look to the particular cir-
cumstances of the case, and decide upon the evidence they
had heard what would best meet its merits.

The jury, at the conclusion of the Learned Judge's obser-
vations, retired to consider their verdict; and, after being
out of Court rather better than half an hour, returned with
one for the plaintiff—Damages, 5,0001.

!s ~:

correct, and to confirm his presentbelief, that the Colonel was a
man of the strictest honour and therefore he now withdrew
any farther opposition to the present application.
Mr. JAMES said that the amount of the insolvent's debts
appeared at the first sight to be very large,' but since the
bankruptcy his private debts were only 2401. Since, and in
consequence of the examination gone into after Lord Hun-
tingtower's bankruptcy, Colonel Copland was deprived of
his commission, which was worth 5,000/. or 6,000/., and
that had left him in a precarious condition. Colonel Cop•
land came forward on that occasion, at the request of Lord
Huntingtower, to explain some bill transactions. Although
the debts were large, being all renewals, the new debts were
only 2401.
Mr. Commissioner FONSLANQUE—The renewed debts are
at the prejudice of the new creditors. Debts to some thou-
sands to participate with the present creditors is prejudice
to them ; it is a most mischievous practice, and I always find
that creditors least entitled getrenewals.
Mr.-JaarEs said that he entirely concurred in the propriety
of his Honour's observations, but begged to state that
Colonel Copland had never received a single shilling by
giving these renewals, which were solely given from a sense
of honour.

Mr. Commissioner FormiArtcrss—As to the commission, a
statement ought now to be made to the authorities at the
Horse Guards, so that they might review their decision and
in the event of his being re-instated, he must give the Court
an undertaking that he will pay his debts. It might happen,
that as Mr. Valiance was satisfied, so might the Horse Guards
also be, and then her Majesty might permit Colonel Copland
to sell his commission.

Mr. STURGEON-If the insolvent were to enter into any
such undertaking, he (Mr. Sturgeon) could say, from his
own knowledge of the service, that—
Mr. Commissioner For;BLANQuE—If the authorities at the
Horse Guards were to look to the law of Debtor and Creditor,
as other persons do, they might permit the sale of the corn-
mission, and unless you conform to these terms, I shall ad-
journ the case from time to time.
Mr. JAmts—lt was Colonel Copland's wish to give such
an undertaking, but he feared—
Mr. Commissioner Foxrn.ANQuE—Do you believe that the
Horse Guards would show more regard for Colonel Copland
than for his creditors? _ _

Mr. JAMES apprehended the result of that would be that
the Horse Guards would say you are seeking to get back the
commission for sale, and not for rank.
After some further observations the application was ad-
journed for six months, with leave to the insolvent to come
here from time to time, in order to keep the matter within
the control of the Court.—Adjourned accordingly.

Jane Edmonds was indicted for stealing a counterpane
and a quilt, value five shillings, the property of Job
Rawlings.
This was one of the many cases of robbing furnished lodg-
ings which came before the Court.
The prisoner, a poor-looking creature, wept bitterly du-
ring the trial, and in her defence said it was poverty drove
her to commit the act, but that she intended to remove them.
The police-office stated that there were no less than fifty-
six duplicates found upon the prisoner :or various articles of
of wearing apparel and furniture.
The jury found her guilty.
The prosecutor, addressing the; Court, begged to recom-
mend her to mercy.
The COURT wished to know upon what grounds.
The prosecutor said that he had made inquiry relative to
the prisoner's circumstances, and found that she was an
honest, industrious woman, but in very great poverty, and
that all the articles she bad previously pawned were her own
property.
The JUDGE certainly considered that a very strong ground
for recommendation, and would take it into consideration.
He would, therefore, only sentence her to one month's im-
prisonment with hard labour.
Eliza Kent was indicted for assaulting Thomas Cansdell,
of the Hoop and Horseshoe Tavern, Queen-street, Tower-hill.
From the evidence, it appeared that about ten o'clock on
the evening of the 24th instant, prosecutor was in his par-
lour with a few friends, and, hearing a noise in the tap-roorr.,
he proceeded thither, and found defendant lying on the floor,
she having been knocked down by her husband. The com-
plainant kindly offered her a seat, in order that she might
adjust her clothes, when she seized hold of a quart pot to
throw at him, but, being foiled in the attempt, she con-
trived to get possession of a mustard-pot, which she hurled
with great force at his head, and which inflicted a violent
blow on his forehead. Medical aid was had recourse to, and
complainant was confined to his bed for two days.
The jury found her Guilty, and the prosecutor having re-
commended her to mercy, she was sentenced to be impri-
soned for one week.

SURREY SESSIONS.
(Before M. Puesuic and a full Bench of Magistrates.)
On Wednesday George Weis, alias Wild, aged 21, a well-
dressed man, was indicted for stealing from the person of
Thomas Limey, at Patton, a purse containing two sovereigns
and nine shillings.
From the prosecutor's evidence it appeared that on the
14th of October he went into the Dolphin beer-shop, at
Banstead, where he met the prisoner and two other men, all
of whom were strangers to him. That he invited them to
partake of some liquor, after which they entered the skittle-
ground at the rear of the house, when he pulled out his
purse and paid for what they had to drink. Soon afterwards
he was robbed of his purse and its contents by the persons
whom he had treated, but not knowing which of the men
was the party who had stolen it, he followed the prisoner into
the road and accused bins of being concerned in the robbery.
The prisoner, however, denied the charge, and in proof of his
innocence produced the contents of his pocket, amongst
which was a purse, w hich the prosecutor identified as his
property, and claimed its restoration. The prisoner, how-
ever, refused to give it up, and an altercation taking place,
the former knocked down the prosecutor, and was imme-
diately afterwards taken into custody.
The purse was produced in Court, and the prosecutor
identified it from a portion of it which he had sown up with
thread. At the time it was found it was empty.
Three witnesses, however, were called upon the part of
the prisoner, who, although they could not swear positively
to the identity of the purse, still they said they had fre-
quently observed one similar to it in the possession of the
prisoner.
The CHAIRMAN, in summing up the evidence, remarked
upon the fact of the prisoner having knocked down the pro-
secutor when the latter claimed the restoration of the purse;
but that if the jury had any doubts on the subject, they
would give the prisoner the benefit.
The jury, after a short consultation, Acquitted the pri-
soner; and the
CHAIRMAN, addressing him,'said he had had a very narrow
escape, and advised him as to his future conduct.
Albert Grainger, aged 24, was indicted for stealing a va-S
luable watch, a guard chain, and seal, the property of John
Post Thomson, at Kingston-upon-Thames.
The prosecutor deposed, that on the evening of the 13th
of November, it being fair-time at Kingston, he went into
the Old Crown Inn, in that town, in the large room of which
a number of persons, male and female, were assembled,
dancing. He joined in the amusement ; but had not been
long in the room, when a dispute arose concerning a lady
present, and prosecutor being mixed up in the affair, he was
surrounded by several persons, among whom was the pri-
soner, and he was compelled to have recours to his fists,
to defend himself from the attacks of his assailants. When
the affray was over, he immediately missed his watch and
guard-chain, and was informed that the prisoner was ob-
served to have taken something from the hands of a person,
and that they both left the room, and went down stairs. The
prosecutor lost no time in giving information of the robbery,
and two policemen having accompanied him into the inn
yard, they found the prisoner, who, on being charged with
stealing the watch, denied it. The policemen, however, pro-
ceeded to search him, in doing which they experienced con-
siderable resistance, but succeeded in finding the watch be-
longing to the prosecutor in the pocket of a large coat which
he wore at the time. Subsequently to the discovery of the
watch the prisoner was then heard to say that a strange man
had offered him a watch in the room at the inn, but the offer
was refused, and that when he (the stranger) found the po-
licemen were likely to come there, he (prisoner) supposed
that he dropped the watch into his coat pocket. It was also
stated that the prisoner had attempted to run away.
The prisoner's Counsel dwelt with much earnestness on
the probability of the truth of the watch having been depo-
sited in the prisoner's coat pocket by the strange man in the
confusion which arose when the policemen were seen ap-
proaching.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
In reply to the CHAIRMAN,
Mr. Keene, the Governor of the County Gaol, said the
prisoner had been confined there for assaults.
A policeman of the if division informed the Court that
the prisoner for some months past had been the associate of
thieves. _ _

The CHAIRMAN, in sentencing the prisoner to six months'
imprisonment and hard labour, told him that if ever he again
appeared in that Court on a criminal charge, and was con-
victed, his doom would be transportation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Benjamin Fenton, a lithographic writer, was summoned
on Wednesday before Mr. Alderman Hunter, to answer the
complaint of Mr. Allen, of Coleman-street, his late employer,
for refusing to complete a verbal contract he had entered
into, and commenced to serve under, to work for one year
certain at 30s. a week. .

Mr. Hobler stated the case on behalf of the complainant.
The defendant had absented himself just at the period when
there was the greatest pressure for hands to complete the
railway plans for Government. Mr. Allen had a process
peculiar to his establishment, he believed, and in which he
had instructed the defendant, who repaid this kindness by
leaving him when his services were of the utmost importance
to his master.

Mr. Allen stated that he engaged the prisoner in Dublin,
about five years ago, at 255. a week, and in July last the
complainant having determined to shift his establishment
from Dublin to London, the defendant, amongst several
others, entered into a verbal agreement to accompany him
and serve him for one year certain, at the increased wages of
30s. a week. Complainant paid the travelling expenses. In
September, expecting some foul play, he drew out a written
form of engagement, and required each man to sign and send
him a copy of it.. The defendant alone refused to sign at
once. The defendant said it was to the same purport as their
engagement in. Dublin; but he preferred taking the advice
of a friend before he signed anything. This was on Satur-
day, the 27th of September. On the following Monday he
sent a note declining to sign the agreement, and refusing to
return to his work.
Walter Smith, in the service of Mr. Allen, proved that the
defendant left some work unfinished, and that tfie agreement
in writing vi'aiadmitted by defindant tei be the same imeffect
at had been made verbally in Dublin.
Michael Kehol, foreman to Mr. Allen' proved that the
defendant told him in Dublin that. he had entered into mn
.agreement to terve Mr. Allen for_ a year at advanced wages.
The defe,n4nt, at first, utterly denied that hmhad entered
into any agreement for a limited time, but afterwards ex-
pressed a willingness to return and serve the, remainder of
,the term.
'Mr. Allen said he was not disposed 'to admit such an un-
grateful man into his house. He had made other engage-
menti. He nowntily sought that he •shonld tje punished.
The defendant inquired whether he could' not force his
master to complete the contract. ' ' ' ' •
Mr. AklermartHurrrEn said: he had byrhis misbehaviour,
in absenting ,himself at a .eritieal time, left
.it. to the option
of the master to discharge him ,
,The ALDERMAN, after ineffectually,endeaveuring to recon-
cile the parties, . deferred pronouncing his decision until
Saturday.
BOW-STREET.
Mr. Jackson, a solicitor of Lincoln's Inn-fields, applied to
Mr. Twyford for his advice under the following circum-
stances:—
A few weeks ago a lad absconded from the service of a Mr.
Webb, a silversmith, in Great Russell-street, Bloomsbury,
with a number of gold and silver watches, which he after-
wards pledged at different pawnbrokers. Mr. Webb pub-
lished a handbill, offering a reward of 51. for the apprehen-
sion of the lad and the restoration of the property. A work-
ing tradesman, named Curran, observing the description of
the property in the handbill, recollected its having been in
the possession of a lodger in his house, whom he and his wife
had supposed to be a woman, but who afterwards turned out
to be Mr. Webb's boy in woman's clothing.
The consequent apprehension of the lad, and his examina-
tion at Bow-street, were reported in The Sun at
the time, and since then the prisoner had been tried and
convicted at the Old Bailey. Curran, who was in humble
circumstance, conceived himself entitled to the reward, being
the party who had caused the prisoner's apprehension and
the restoration of the property; but, on applying to Mr.
Webb for it, he had refused to pay the amount, alleging as
the reason that he had already incurred much expense in the
inquiry.
Mr. TWYFORD regretted that it was not in his power to
interfere in any way, an action at law being the only remedy
in such a case.

tion, if police-officers, taking advantage of the extraordinary
power with which their office invested them, were permitted
to walk into the parlour of a respectable publican, and there
insult his customers and grossly defame one of them. The
power the police possessed of thus entering public-houses
should at least be exercised with discretion, otherwise it
would become an intolerable nuisance, and would not be sub-
mitted to by any one in this free state.
Evidence was then adduced to prove the alleged improper
language.
Mr. Wakeling contended that Archer had done no more
than his duty in apprising the landlord of what probably he
had not been previously aware.
Ultimately the complaint was dismissed.
Jeremiah-Riley and Patrick Drury were charged, by Mr.
John Nicholl, a coffeehouse-keeper in Gray's Inn-lane, under
circumstances of' an outrageous character.
The prisoners, and some other fellows, entered the shop of
the prosecutor, and called for eggs, bacon, and coffee, with
which they were served by Mr. Nichol], who demanded pay-
ment. The prisoner Drury seized the eatables, and caltcd
out to his companions to " Hook it." They run away.
Drury swore he would smash the landlord's nose if he were
not si!ent. The police were, however, sent for, and subse-
quently Riley and a gang of ruffians came and made a des-
perate attack on Mr. Nicholl, who would have been murdered
if it had not been for the timely arrival of a party of police, who
took Riley into custody. Before Riley was secured, a man
named Hannan, who came to Mr. Nicholl's assistance, was
dreadfully beaten by the ruffians on the head and upper part
of the body.—The prisoner was remanded.
Q UEEN-SQ UARE.
Martha Browning, a young woman, apparently about 25
years of age, was charged with the wilful murder of Eliza-
beth Mundell, an aged female, with whom she resided.
The case is one of a most extraordinary and mysterious
character, and before proceeding to detail the evidence ad-
duced, it may be as well, in order to render the case more
intelligible to the reader, briefly to advert to the circum-
stances which led to the prisoner's apprehension ; a course
the mare necessary from the fact, that in consequence of the
insensible state of the Accused during the examination, a
portion only of the evidence was given before the Magis-
trate. The supposed victim of prisoner's violence as-as
found dead by her daughter on Monday morning, and on
the evening of that day a coroner's
.jury sa:,- upon the body,
and returned a verdict "that the deceased had committed
suicide whilst in a state o t temporary insanity!' Since
that period some circumstances of a very suspicions nattil'a
have transpired, tending to criminate the accused as the
murderer of the deceased female; and on her being found
on Tuesday afternoon in possession of a sham bank
note, which it was obvious she had considered
genuine, as she had attempted to get change for it, she was
closely interrogated by the husband of deceased's daughter,
who at once recognised it as corresponding with one of two
which the ill-fated woman had been seen to have in her pos-
session the day before her death, and a desire on the part of
the prisoner to possess which, supposing them to be genuine
bank-notes, it was inferred might have induced her to put a
period to the existence of their possessor. The accused's
replies were anything but satisfactory, and she endeavoured
to effect her escape from the house, but was detained. The
husband of the deceased's daughter insisted upon her ac-
companying him to the station, and before their arrival
there she became much agitated, and said, " I did it, I did
it; have mercy upon me." Mr. Partridge, the inspector on
duty at the Gardiner's- lane station, whither the prisoner had
beets most unwillingly taken, haying made himself ac-
quainted with the particulars, as well as the brief space of
time would permit, immediately sent for the whole of the
witnesses whose evidence bore upon the matter, and brougL-t
the accused to this Court.
The prisoner, who had the appearance of a hearty young
woman, was lifted into the dock in an apparently senseless
state, immediately after which she fell into a succession of
strong fits, between which she gave way to paroxysms of
apparently despair and tore her hair. Everything, however,
which humanity could suggest, was done to prevent her in-
juring herself
Ann Gage, of 11, Rochester-street, Rochester row, sworn—
have known the prisoner for about six months, and she has
lodged with my mother for the last six weeks, at No. 1, Pro-
vidence-row, Prewers'-green. On Monday morning, at
about eight o'clock, the prisoner came to me at my resi-
dence, and said my mother was very ill. She said that she
had fallen •into a fit at about seven that morning, and had
screamed out, " Murder, what are you at ? what are you
at ?" She wished me to come round and see my mother,
which I immediately did. Whilst I was dressing myself I
asked her whether the person in the next room had come
into her when she screamed " murder ?" when she replied,
" No ;" that the door was locked, and she was holding my
mother's hands and washing her face at the time. 1 went
with prisoner as soon as I had dressed myself, and on
entering my mother's room I looked in the bed, but she
was not there, and I was turning to •come out of the room
when I found her lying on her back on a box, with her head
towards the door and there was a cord about as thick as my
finger twice round her neck, the knot being tied on the right
side.
Mr. BOND—Was it what is termed a slip or running knot?
Witness—lt was not a slip knot. It was, however, made in
a particular way that I cannot describe.
Did you examine the cord ?—I
• Was it tied tight ?—Very.
Examination continued—My mother appeared quite dead.
I immediately called out for assistance.
Mr. Boxn—Was the prisoner in the room at this time ?
No, she was not. I was there alone.
How was prisoner engaged during this time ?—She was
running about the house, calling for assistance.
Witness continued—Prisoner and some others came into
the room, and prisoner then rubbed my mother on the
stomach. _ _

~.........___
Mr. Bown—Did she make any observation ?—She did not
speak,
After other evidence.
- - -

Mr. BOND said, I have heard quite enough to justify a
remand. I will not trouble you (to witness) any further at
present.
It was then arranged that prisoner should be brought up
for re-examination on Monday afternoon.
The accused was then conveyed to Tothill-fields Bride-
well in a cab.