The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-23 00:00:00

Arbroath and Forfar ••• .. •• • .

Bristol and Birmingham . • • • . • .......
Chester and Birkenhead
Dublin and D_rogheda.• • • ••••••••••••
Dublin and Kingstown . .........
Dundee and Arbroath . ..
Durham and Sunderland .•• • • ........
Edinburgh and Glasgow. •• • ........
Eastern Counties and North Eastern..
Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr • • •• ..
Glasgow and Greenock •••• • . • •• ..
Grand Junction • ...

Gravesend and Rochester....
Great North of England .• .........
Great Western . •• •• •• • ..... .. .. .

Hull and Selby ..... •• • • ••.• •• • •
Liverpool and Manchester ..
London and Birmingham . • • •• •• .- • .
London and Blackwall.• •• . • . • •• ••
London and Brighton. • • ..... • ......
London and Croydon...
London and Greenwich. •• • • •• ••••••
London and South Western.
Manchester, Bolton, and Bury ......
Manchester and Birmingham....
Manchester, Leeds, and Hull Assoc..
Midland Counties. • • •• •

Newcastle and Darlington •• •• .•
Newcastle and Car1i51e•.............
Newcastle and North 5hie1d5........
North Union and Bolton and Preston
Paris, Corbeil, and Orleans..
Paris and Rouen ..• .....

Preston and Wyre. ..... .....

Sheffield and Manchester
South Eastern
Taff Vale • ..... •• • ..... •• •• •• •• •• .
Ulster . .•

--------------
Yarmouth and Norwich .. .. .. .. ••
York and North Midland. •• •• •• ••

197
3,893

787
1,146

521
2,716
5,060
1,924
1,075
9,927

220
1,936
22,551
1,261
5,510
21,753
1,679
5,044
1,590
1,126
8,377

925
3,-82
6,235
11,995
1,115
1,751

510
1,503
6,023
5,892

717
5,330
1,232

354
2,729

144
2,319

631
1,064

280
2,171
4,464
1,466

956
9,153

1,432
18,476
1,309
5,514
18,570
1,556
4,213

S 4
7,366

724
3,299
5,579
8,905

650
1,702

331
1,429
5,886
6,282

5,3
4,682
782

357
:2,261

L kW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEIV'S BENCH, June 21.

BROOKES V. LOCKET.

In this case, which was argued very fully on Saturday last, Mr.
Watson, Q. C., appeared to show cause why the rule prayed for by
the defendant, should be made absolute. The great question in
the case was a construction under the new Attorneys' Act. The
declaration alleged work and labour done as an attorney, and
the plea stated that no bill had been delivered before the
commencement of the suit, as by the statute required. The replica-
tion set forth that a bill had been delivered without alleging
" according to the statute." Mr. Watson wholly relied upon the
fact that the bill had not been delivered according to the statute.
Mr. Brookes, the attorney and plaintiff in the case, performed con..
veyancing business for Mr. Rocket, a bill for which before the
passing of the 6th and 7th Vic. vas not taxable. He sent in his
bill, but not signed, and the Act referred to, which the Learned
Counsel contended was retrospective, declared it should be so. As
the delivery of the bill, which took place a month before the Act
was passed, was not good, it could not now be taxed. The Learned
Counsel went on to argue for his view of the case, but the argu.
tnents were technical and of no public interest.
The COURT postponed judgment.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

Ann Poulton, aged 30, was indicted for the wilful mur-
der of her female child, of which she had recently been
delivered.

Mr. Doane defended the prisoner.
Mr. Crouch, a surgeon, was first called, and stated that
on the 2d of May he was called in to 19, Hanway-street,
to attend the prisoner. She had a child in her arms,
which was recently born ; it wa, alive. He saw no marks
on the child. He saw the child again in about an hour,
and again in two hours. It had been washed. He saw
marks on the right temple and eye. His opinion was
that they arose from violence, and not in the course of
the birth. He saw the child again in an hour, when it
was in a dying state. He made no post mortem examina-
tion. The child lost a great deal of blood from the nose
and mouth, which he considered to be the cause of
death. The bleeding no doubt aro,ie from the same vio-
lence which produced the marks on the temple and eye.
Cross-examined—The marks might have been pro-
duced by a fall.
Mr. Hinde, also a surgeon, proved that he made a
post mortem examination of the child on the 10th of May.
It was a full-grown child. There were two marks on
the side of the neck, corresponding in size with marks
which could be produced by fingers. There was a similar
mark by the right eye. There was dry blood on the face,
which had come from the nose and mouth. On raising
the scalp he found a good deal of extravasated blood, and
also that the parietal bone of the skull had been broken,
and several parts were detached. There was also a
fracture of the frontal bone. These injuries were the
cause of death. A fall might have occasioned those in-
juries on the skull.

- Diana Hugo, a widow, proved that on the 2d of May
she went to work at 19, Hanway-street, at half past six
in the morning. She found the kitchen stained all over
with blood. The prisoner was servant there. Witness
called her several times. She came at length and said
she was very ill. Witness went up stairs when she had
cleaned the kitchen, and begged her mistress to come
down. Witness had previously accused the prisoner of
being in the family way, which she denied. Witness
afterwards found a child in the coal- hole. She was first
induced to go there by hearing it cry. She took it and
placed itbefore the fire. Afterwards she put the prisoner
to bed and placed the child with her. It died the same
day, and was conveyed to the Marylebone workhouse.
By a Juryman—Saw no marks, except a swelling of
the eye, when she first took up the child.
Mrs. Ireland, of 19, Hanway-strf•et, stated that the
prisoner had been in her service three months. She ob-
served that she was in the family way, but did not speak
to her about it. On Mrs. Hugo calling on her on the 2d
of May, she accused the prisoner of having been deli-
vered of a child, which she denied.

Henry Fowler, a policeman, proved that he removed
the body of the child to the workhouse, and that he ac-
cused the prisoner of inflicting the injuries which caused
the death. She told him she had fallen down stairs a few
days before, and that was the cause of them.
CrosQ-examined—He asked her the questions about
the violence of his own accord. It was soon after she
was delivered.

Mr. Justice PATTESOS told the constable that he had
no right to ask a woman questions when she was in such
a state.

The prisoner's defence before the magistrates was,
that she was not aware she was going to be confined so
soon, or she would have left her place before and had
proper assistance. She had let the child fall in the coal-
cellar while in her agony.
Mr. Justice PATTESON here stopped the case, and
said there was no evidence to support the charge of
murder, for the surgeons had stated that it was very
probable the injuries had arisen from a fall.