The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-03 00:00:00

THE StrN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 3, 1844.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 2.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury )
HOPE V. HARMAN AND OTHERS.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. KELLY, having stated the case to the jury, pro-
ceeded to call witnesses to support his case.
Among the witnesses called were Mr. Hertz, of whom
Mr. Philip Hope bad purchased a great portion of the
gems contained in the cabinet. He deposed to the state
of the cabinet in 1832, 1838, and subsequently. He
had seen Mr. IL I'. Hope deposit the vellum writing in
the drawer of the cabinet, and had been frequently in-
formed by Mr. H. P Hope that he had given the cabinet
to Mr. Alexander Beresford Hope. On his cross-
examination by Sir Thomas Wilde, it was elicited
that, between 1832 and 1838, a great many jewels which
had formed part of the collection, had been sold or ex-
changed. He also admitted that a sapphire had been
purchased for the collection since 1838.
Viscountess Beresford stated that plaintiff was her son ;
that her eldest son, Mr. H. 'l'. Hope, hadinherited the bulk
of the property of her late husband, Mr. Thomas Hope ;
that the property of her late husband's brother,
Mr. Adrian Hope, who died in Holland, had been divided
into two parts, one part of which had been inherited by
Mr. H. P. Hope (who had a great aversion to the legacy
duty), and the other part had been divided equally be-
tween her sons, Henry Thomas, Adrian, and Alex-
ander Beresford ; that Mr. 11. P. Hope had left
his pictures to Mr. H. T. Hope, and his chinas and
bronzes to Mr. Adrian Hope ; and that Mr. H. I'. Hope
had asked her, in 1838, if she thought that Mr. Alex-
ander Beresford Hope would preserve his collection of
gems intact if he left them to him, to which
she replied in the affirmative ; that in April,
Ib3B, Mr. H. P. Hope gave her Ladyship
a sealed parcel to be delivered to Mr. A. B.
Hope, after his, Mr. H. P. Hope's death. That parcel, by
the evidence of Gibbs, the footman, and of Banks, the
butler in the Beresford family, was traced into the pos-
session of Mr. Alexander Beresford Hope, and by the
evidence of Viscount Beresford was proved to have con-
tained a deed of gift dated April, 1838, of the gems in
question to Mr. Alexander Beresford Hope.
The deed was then put in and read, as was the probate
of the will of Mr. 11. P. Hope.
The case for the plaintiff having closed,
Sir T. WILDE, for the executors, contended that it was
evident the deed was not intended to operate imme-
diately, for Mr. H. P. Hope was very fond of the jewels,
and therefore was not likly to have given his nephew
the power of ousting him of possession during his life-
time. No one knew of the existence of the deed—not
even Lady Beresford or Mr. Alexander Hope—
as long as Mr. 11. P. Hope lived. Mr. H. P. Hope was
averse to the payment of the legacy duty, and there
could be no doubt but that he intended this
deed to operate as a will. In fact, it was
a will and not a deed, for he had never parted
with his power over the deed, or over the property,
until his death. The deed, therefore, was not a perfect
deed, and the party could take nothing under it. He
asked the jury, did Mr. Henry Philip Hope intend that
his nephew should have the power of depriving him of
possession of the jewels the day after he had exe-
cuted it, for, if he did not, the deed was void.
He submitted that the so-called deed was not a deed at
all ; that there was nothing to show that it was
intended to operate as a deed. There was, be-
sides, an alteration made in the body of the
deed in describing the cabinet, which was sufficient to
vitiate it. The cabinet described in the deed was a
former old cabinet ; that description had been erased,
and a description of the dimensions of the present cabi-
net inserted in pencil. That erasure being unaccounted
for, vitiated the deed entirely. The property, therefore,
remained undisposed of, and passed by his will.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, told the jury that the
question was, whether the delivery under the deed of
gift had been so complete as to vest the property in
the plaintiff. If it were not, then the plaintiff
could not claim the property. If the deed were properly
executed, so that the person witnessing the deed, or any
other person knew of its contents, although the donor
might not, that would be a good delivery. They would
therefore consider whether he intended, at the time
of executing the deed, to part with the property to Mr.
A. B. Hope ; if he did, the execution was a good one.
There was, however, a difficulty upon the face of the deed
itself. The description of the cabinet was most impor-
tant. If the original description, that of the old cabi-
net, had stood, great doubts might arise as to whether
anything was given at all; but that description had been
altered. The question was, had, or had not, those altera-
rations taken place before the execution of the deed ? If
they had been made before execution, the deed
was valid ; if not, the deed was invalid. The
question for their decision was Did Mr. H. P.
Hope intend to part with the property to Mr. Alex-
ander Beresford Hope when he executed the deed ?
With regard to the clause reserving to Mr. H. P. Hope
an almost unlimited power over the property during
his life, it was a question of law for consideration after-
wards what might be the effect of that clause, rather
than a question for the consideration of the jury.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 40,000/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 1.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
THE ATTORNET-GENERAL V. THR MARQUIS 01'
HERTFORD. _ _ ___

In this case the question was as to the applicability
of the Stamp Act to certain legacies bequeathed in
the will of the late Marquis of Hertford. A verdict
was taken for the Crown by consent, subject to a
special case for injunction in full Court.—Verdict en-
tered for the plaintiff accordingly.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WESTCOTT.
FRAUDS ON THE REVENUE.

The information was filed in this case by the At-
torney-General to recover certain penalties from the
defendant, a paper-maker in the city of Bristol, for
having paper in his possession which had not paid the
Excise duty.
For the Crown appeared the Solicitor-General, Mr.
Jervis, Q.C., and Mr. Wilde ; the defendant was re-
presented by Mr. Brammell.
It appeared from the plaintiff's case that the de-
fendant carried on business as a paper and pasteboard
maker in Pike-lane, Bristol, his private residence
being in Avon-street in that city. On the 23th of
February, 1843, in consequence of information they
had received, the Excise officers visited the defend-
ant's private house, when they found in his back
kitchen a quantity of paper which had not paid the
duty. It was ascertained by the officer that this paper
had been clandestinely conveyed from the Weston
Mills, which are situated near Bath, and are the pro-
perty of a person named Bryant. The several papers
thus conveyed from Bryant's to Westcott's had never
had the excise label put on them. They had never
been brought under the cognisance of the Excise
officers; and when taken to the premises of Westcott
they were cut up into sizes for pound and half pound
sugar papers. The evidence for the Crown was di-
rected to the showing that continuous frauds on the
revenue had been committed from the month of May,
1842, to the 28th of February, 1843, at which time
the seizures were made which led to the present in-
formation. The quantity of paper seized by the Ex-
cise officers was upwards of 10 cwt.
On the part of the defendant, Mr. Bryant, the
owner of Weston Mills, against whom there was
another information, was called to state various facts
in connexion with his dealings with the defendant.
The substance of the defence was, that the paper in
question has been previously sent to a person named
M'Carthy, and having been returned by him with the
wrappers open, had been for warded in that state to
the defendant, by whom the wrappers were burnt.
The jury, not being able to come to an immediate
decision, retired, and after the lapse of half an hour,
returned with a verdict for the Crown. They found
one penalty on the transaction of the 28th of February,
that the duty, 71. ls. 7d., had not been paid upon the
1,0791b5. of paper; and that it had been sent to de-
fendant without any wrappers whatever.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 2.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
TUE ROMFORD BANK.--JOHNSON AND MANN'S BANK-
RUPTCY.
Mr. Charles Mann came up to-day, upon adjourn-
ment, for his last examination; and this was also the
day fixed for the audit of the accounts of the joint
estate.
Mr. LANDMAN, who appeared for one or two of the
private creditors of Mr. Johnson, applied to the Court
for leave to examine Mr. Mann, with the view of ascer-
taining if there were not funds applicable to the separate
estate of Mr. Johnson. He did not object to Mr. Mann's
passing his examination, but he mentioned the subject in
order that he might not bo precluded on a future occa-
sion from raising this point, because when the accounts
came to be furnished by Mr. Johnson, it might appear
that a portion of the property transferred from the Rom-
ford Bank to the Aldgate business belonged to Mr. John-
son's separate creditors.
Mr. Mann was then examined at some length, bat he
could not give any satisfactory account of the money
transactions of the firm, because, he said, this depart-
ment was left entirely to Mr. Johnson, he (Mr. Mann)
being only a working partner.
Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN said it was to be re-
gretted that Mr. Mann had not looked into the financial
transactions of the business himself.
Upon further examination, the bankrupt said that he
drew out 4,000/. in 1838, which sum was lent. It was
drawn out at the instance of Mr. Johnson, who said he
thought there was too much cash in the concern.
Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN did not think there was
anything to prevent Mr. Mann from passing his last ex-
amination.
Mr. LINGHIM said that the creditors whom he repre-
sented had no objection at all to his doing so, provided
they would not be precluded from examining into this
matter when Mr. Johnson brought up his accounts.
Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN did not think that the
assignees or the Court could pledge thomselves to any
such course.
The official assignee here said that an accountant, (Mr.
Wryghte), who had looked into the affairs for the last
six years, had found that the balance-sheet, so far as Mr.
Mann was concerned, was consistent with the books.
Mr. WILKINSON (solicitor for the assignees) said they
were quite satisfied that the bankrupt should pass his
last examination. The accounts, as far as they knew,
were consistent with the books kept by the elder John- ;
son. If Mr. Johnson sought hereafter to estabilsh fur-
ther
accounts, or said that those now before the Court
were not correct, that was not Mr. Mann's fault.
Mr. LANGHAM said, that as the bankrupt, Mr. John-
son, had brim called upon_to furnish full accounts, he

believed he was anxious to do so. If it appeared that I
moneys belonging to Mr. Johnson had been carried into
the Aldgate affair, his separate creditors must have their
proper proportion.
Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN said that it appeared to
him that there was no reason why Mr. Mann should not
pass his examination. The private creditors of Mr.
Johnson had, by their attorney, examined Mr. Mann on
the subject of the partnership accounts, and they had of
course, a right to avail themselves of the facts which
they had extracted. The result of such examination
was that Mr. Mann told them he was only a working
partner, and Johnson the elder kept the books and cash,
with the exception of a few cases in which clerks re-
gularly interfered in such matters. The next inquiry
was whether the accounts which had been rendered
were the best that Mr. Mann could furnish to the
Court ? Ths official assignee said that an accountant
had gone through the accounts for the last six years, and
was of opinion that they were correct as they ap-
peared by the books, it being still borne in mind
that Mr. Johnson had kept those books. The assignees,
it appeared, did not see that any benefit to the estate
could arise, or that the ends of justice could be further
served, by a postponement of Mr. Mann's examination ;
and, therefore, he did not think that)he had any right to
adjourn it. Neither the assignees or himself, however,
could be called upon to pledge themselves as to what
course should be pursued when Mr. Johnson came up
with his accounts. When that time arrived they could
be carefully scrutinised, and the whole question entered
into, and the examination of Mr. Mann, as far as it went,
Mr. Langham might make use of as he thought best.
Under the circumstances, he had nothing to do but to
declare Mr. Mann entitled to pass his last examination.
Upon the audit of the accounts, it transpired that
there was already in the hands of the Court 10,000/.
out of about 14,0001. as surplus from the Aldgate
business, and that it would be sufficient to declare a
dividend of ss. in the pound at the present moment, on
the general estate, if it were not for the separate cre-
ditors of Mr. Johnson. The dividend, however, cannot
be known until Mr. Johnson comes up for his last exami-
nation in February.

It was stated that Mr. Mann's private creditors had
been paid 20s. in the pound, and that 2,0001. had been
carried over as surplus of his private property to the
general fuud of the joint estate.
(Before Sir C. F. Wxuxots.)

THE DRAPERY TRADE.-IN RE T. A. BIDDERS, AN IN

SOLVENT.

The insolvent in this case commenced business in
Prince Albert-street, Brighton, with a capital of 1001.,
and was insolvent in a month after, owing nearly 3001,
inclusive of his month's rent, seven guineas. To day
was fixed for his first examination, and he was opposed
by his landlord, on the ground of having secretly re-
moved his goods and furniture off the premises to evade
the payment of his rent.
The case is only interesting to the public as showing
the extraordinary ingenuity exercised by " the trade"
in puffing their goods and forcing sales. It will hardly
be expected that the recent exposure of drapery frauds in
this court should be turned to account for such purposes,
yet such it appears is the fact. In this case the landlord
produced two handbills, one of which had been issued by
the insolvent himself during his short career, and the
other by a neighbouring draper, with his connivance,
after he had closed. The first was headed in large capi-
tals, " Banister's Bankruptcy," and went on to describe
the sensation which that affair had created in the drapery
world. After going minutely into the flight of Ban-
nister, the transaction in Oxford-street, and the other
facts which have appeared in the papers, the placard
concluded by stating that the insolvent had bought the
whole of the recovered stock, to the amount of 9,0001,
and was selling it at a reduction of 60 per cent. under
prime cost. This placard, it appeared, had created a
great trade, but was admitted by the insolvent to be false
from beginning to end. The second was better still.
Immediately after the insolvent had closed, a neigh-
bouring draper came out with another placard, headed in
type equally alarming, " The Prince Albert- street De-
linquency," calling the insolvent an " outlaw," and
stating that the subscribers had purchased all his goods
and were selling them " for ten days only," at one third
of the cost price.
The insolvent, on being questioned by the Learned
Commissioner respecting this placard, admitted that it
was:with his connivance and consent that it was published.
lie thought that as he was leaving town there was no
harm in giving a neighbour and brother tradesman the
use of his name.

The COMMISSIONER said this was the most extraordi
nary mode of carrying on business he had ever known.
The insolvent should have reflected that his good name
might be of use to him in other places than Brighton.
The insolvent said it was only a sample of what was
done every day in the trade. His Honour had no idea of
the lengths which were gone to to obtain business.
Mr. Bury (the landlord) stated that he had attended
that day principally that the other creditors might be-
come possessed of the knowledge which he had obtained
of the bankrupt's mode of doing business, and oppose his
further progress if they thought fit. One more point he
wished to allude to. It was stated that the stock had
been sold for 33/. He (Mr. Bury) had certainly thought
there was a much greater amount in stock in the shop
on the Saturday before the insolvent closed.
The insolvent—Oh ! they were principally shawls. and
I spread them out on the stands to make as great a show
as passible.—(A laugh.)
After some further questions, the Learned Commis-
sioner postponed the interim order, to give the other cre-
ditors an opportunity of coming up.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE
(YESTERDAY.)

MANSION-HOUSE.

A great deal of interest was excited by the details
of a case of " possession of smuggled goods," upon an
information charging James and Sarah Gregson, the
latter of whom is a most notorious contraband dealer,
in Barking Churchyard, with the offence.
Mr. Potbury, from the office of the Solicitor to the
Customs, attended for the prosecution, and Mr.
Nobler for the defence. It was quite obvious, from
the manner in which part of the evidence was re-
ceived, that a good many interested in the trade were
present.
The Lord Mayor and Alderman Pine presided.
The defendants pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Potbury stated that the two defendants were
included in the one information with haling had in
their possession, on the 25th of October, a quantity
of tobacco and cigars, and a gallon and seven pints of
brandy, and six bottles of Eau de Cologne. The pro-
ceedings were instituted for the recovery of the pe-
nalty of 100/. from each of the defendants.
Coleby Atkinson Davis, a Custom-house officer,
stated that between two and three o'clock on Friday,
the 25th of October, as he was walking up Tower-
street, towards the Custorn-house, he observed a child
leave Mrs. Gregson's shop with a bundle under his
arm. He followed the boy to Sweeting-lane, and
then stopped and asked him from whence he came.
The boy said he came from Mrs. Gregson's, and wit-
ness accompanied him back to her shop, a tobacco-
nist's, which had been long known to him. The boy
then said in her presence that she had given the
bundle to him, and that he was to deliver it to a man
is Seething-lane, and she did not deny the statement.
The bundle contained two paper parcels of tobacco,
containing eight pounds weight, and two bottles of
French brandy. The tobacco was full of lumps, and
compressed. Part of it was quite warm. Witness
then sent a brother officer, who was with him,
to the Custom-house for other assistance.
While he was waiting in the shop a fo-
reigner entered, and passed into the back room, and
witness seeing that he had something bulky about
him followed, and tried to search him, but as he was
a powerful man he put witness aside and ran out.
NVitness then pursued and brought him back, and
took from him two pounds of foreign cigars. Mrs.
Gregson's brother endeavoured to prevent him from
searching the foreigner, and was fined 51. for the ob-
struction, while the latter was fined 21. 10s. for the
possession. Witness afterwards went to search the
house, and found they had locked the door of one of the
rooms, which he accordingly forced. Mrs. Gregson
ran with a bundle which she had in her apron to the
water-closet, and witness followed, but could not pre-
vent her from putting something down. In the
scuffle they tore up the seat between them. She then
took a bucket of water and emptied it into the water-
closet, saying, "Do your worst and your best now."
Witness took a candle and looked down, and per-
ceived that what had been thrown down had gone
into the sewer, which was running, but he saw some
pieces of tobacco about the seat. He returned to the
back room, and, assistance having arrived, he pro-
ceeded in the search. Upon the fire he found a
saucepan with boiling water and a steamer, and some
tobacco ready for steaming—a process used to pre-
thebstairs
brandy,
eanfodubnids
av e
jnatr
oon t alea
nt iicng far o g
am
lborne a
assistant found six bottles of Eau de Cologne.
okfintg;renUchp

In his long cross-examination by Mr. Hobler, the
witness considerably strengthened the case. He
stated that he had been nine years an officer, and had
known Mrs. Gregson the whole time. Ile had never
visited the house but when he was watching it.

Mr. Hobler—Have you not been in thst habit of
smoking and drinking in Mrs. Gregson's house ?

Witness—l never smoked in the house but once in
my life.—(Here witness took a book from his pocket
and read it.) It was on Monday, the 19th of Septem-
ber, 1843, about ten o'clock in the evening. I had
been watching it from seven till ten, and I went in
and paid for a cigar, and lighted it. Mr. Gregson
was there, and there was a bottle and glass on the
counter. He said, " Will you take a glass of wine,
Mr. Davis ?" I was surprised at the invitation, and
took up the glass. At that moment in walked two
men, and I followed them into the back room, and
said to them, " What have you there ? " They, sup-
posing that I belonged to the house, replied, " Only
a little leaf." I then told them I was Davis, and I
called on Gregson, in the Queen's name, to go fur the
police, which he at length reluctantly di I. The men
had about them 31bs. of leaf-tobacco, and I had them
convicted in the penalty of twenty shillings each. I
went into the house to smoke the cigar for.my own
purposes.
Mr. Nobler—Did you never send persons to her
house to purchase brandy and tobacco ? Witness_
Never in my life.
C. 11. Sabine, a Custom-house officer, corroborated
the statements acle by the last witness,

It was stated that the duty on the tobacco was
131. 2s. 3d., and that upon the spirits was 21.55.
Mr. llobler said he was instructed that the prin-
cipal witness for the prosecution, who was a deeply
interested one, inasmuch as he would, in case of con-
viction, be entitled to a large share of the penalty,
could be proved to have been on terms of intimacy in
the family of the Gregsons, and used frequently to
smoke and drink in the house.

Mr. Potbury said the officer's character was too
well known to the Custom-house authorities to be in
the slightest degree affected by accusations of such a
description.

Mr. Hobler—Mr. Davis, do you know one Mrs.
Rose ? 'Witness—Perfectly well. She threatened to
knife me. She is one of the party.
Sarah Rose (for the defence) stated, in answer to
questions from Mr. Hobler, that she knew Davis, and
had seen him several times at Mrs. Gregson's before
that defendant was fined. Witness had been servant
to the Gregson's, and had known Davis to be as one
of the family, drinking brandy and smoking cigars as
often as he thought proper to call. She knew sea-
faring people very frequently to call and ask whether
they bought tobacco, and when she said " No," they
said Davis had sent them. She knew Davis to bring
parcels of tobacco. She did not examine.the parcel.;,
for she had no right to interfere with what belonged
to Mr. Davis, but they smelt of tobacco.
The LORD MAYOR asked the witness several
questions, the answers to which gave the lie to her
previous declarations, and convinced every person not
interested for the smugglers, that every word she
uttered against the principal witness for the prose-
cution was a fabrication.

Another female witness, not satisfied with denying
the truth of Davis's evidence, swore that he used
Mrs: Gregson in a most indecent manner.

The LORD MAYOR—Why, what did he do to her ?
Witness—He knocked her head against the door, and
she was black about the place for a fortnight after
wards, so help me God.
The LORD MAYOR asked whether the witness's
husband was not one of the persons who had been
convicted in penalties elsewhere ?—She replied that he
had been fined for an assault, hut not for smuggling.
Mr. Potbury said that her husband had been fined
for assaulting a smuggler.
Witness—Mr. Davis searched the house without
showing his warrant, and he had no right to do so.
The Lord Mayor and Sir John Pirie dis-
charged James Gregson, being of opinion that
the evidence was not sufficient to justify a
conviction in his case; but they agreed that there was
not the shadow of a doubt of the guilt of Sarah Greg-
son, whom they therefore adjudged to pay the penalty
of 1001.

Davis requested that, as such imputations had been
thrown out against his character by the solicitor to
the defendants, his Lordship would say whether he
believed any part of the statements made by the
females.
The LORD MAYOR—No, not one word.

Sir JOHN PIRIE—We are quite sure they have not
spoken a word of truth, and we are as sure that you
have done your duty most faithfully.
The LORD MAYOR—Certainly.
MARYLEBOIVE.

A young man, who described himself as the Baron
Mansell Tkfortymer, and said that he derived his title
from the Emperor of Austria, was placed at the bar
before Mr. Rawlinson, upon the charge of forging a
certain paper containing a promise of payment of a
debt.

Mr. Rattenberry, a hatter, residing at 21, South
Molton-street, deposed, that on the 16th ult. the pri-
soner took ready-furnished apartments at his house,
having with him a female whom he represented to
be his wife, and on taking the rooms he said he was
an artist. On the 20th he decamped with the lady,
having previously sent away his trunk for the alleged
purpose of having the lock repaired, and as he ne-
glected to return, prosecutor exerted himself day after
day with the view of finding him out. He at length
traced him to 44, Charlotte-street, Portland-place,
and on Tuesday last he repaired thither, when he
demanded 1/. 25., the amount of a week's rent. He
said he was unable to pay it then, but promised
that the money should be forthcoming in the next
week. He (prosecutor) remarked that he should not
quit without the cash or satisfactory security for pay-
ment of his claim, when the maid-servant, who was
present during the conversation, went up stairs with
the prisoner, and presently brought down a written
paper purporting to be signed by Mrs. Spencer, the
landlady. It ran thus :
"Mrs. Spencer will see that the Baron Mortymer's
account shall be paid next week.

" EMILY SPENCER."
Prosecutor added, that he went to the house again for
the purpose of ascertaining the particular day on
which he should receive his money, and he then
learned from Mrs. Spencer that she knew nothing
whatever with regard to the document above referred
to. The servant admitted to him (prosecutor) that
the prisoner had written the note himself.
Mr. RAWLINSON—When did you give the prisoner
into custody ? Prosecutor—This morning, Sir; and
on my stating to him that he had committed a for-
gery, his wife offered me twenty or thirty duplicates
in payment of what was owing to me. I have under-
stood that the prisoner has had three or four lodgings
in as many weeks, and if he is remanded for a day or
two, other cases of a similar kind may very likely be
brought against him.
Harriett Young, the servant, said that she saw the
Baron write the note produced by the prosecutor.
The prisoner's answer to the charge was, that he
left the lodging in South Molton-street, in conse-
quence of the landlord having insulted him. H►s in-
tention was to pay the rent as soon as he could, and
he certainly did take the liberty of writing the note
in Mrs. Spencer's name.

He was remanded till Wednesday.
WORSHIP-STREET.

Mr. Broughton requests us to acknowledge his
receipt of several letters enclosing the following sub-
scriptions for the relief of a poor man, named Fay,
or May, who being ill himself, and having a wife
lying upon a sick bed, applied to the relieving-officer
of Shoreditch for relief of his family out of the house
until he could get work in a fortnight, and was refused
any other assistance (beyond Is. 6d.) but au order to
admit himself, wife, and two children to the work-
house. The poor fellow had such a horror of the
house that he refused it, and applied to the magistrate
for advice, which application being published in this
paper on Wednesday last, has induced the following
donations :—From "J. II.," 20s. ; " W.," 10s.;
" A. Z.," 65.; and " Beta, Newcastle•upon-Tyne,"
10s. One of the donors wished the magistrate to in-
quire into the truth of the man's story and the worthi-
ness of his family; in consequence of which Holland,
one of the warrant-officers, was directed to investigate
the case, and the report he made yesterday to Mr.
Broughton was in every respect very favourable. The
subscriptions have, therefore, been handed over to
him. Another donation of a sovereign, from "
has also been forwarded for the poor-box of this
Court.

having used abominable language, must have been
irksome and unpleasant in the extreme, and that, had
a witness of the fact been present, he should have in-
flicted the full penalty on the offender.
Inspector Dalby stated, that when the defendants
were taken to the station-house, Latham's conduct
there was very bad, using language unfit to be
repeated.
Mr. TRAILL said that, although he could not punish
Latham for his disgusting conduct in the carriage, he
would fine him for using indecent language in the
station-house. The defendants were then asked what
they had to say in answer to the charge ? Both de-
fendants said that, with respect to the charge of de-
frauding the company, they had no such intention.
That, as they were not in the habit of travelling by
railway, they went into the first-class carriages,
thinking they were the right ones.
Mr. TRAILL said that it was most improbable they
could have mistaken first for second-class carriages,
and that they were bound to have known, or to have
paid the difference in the fares when it was demanded
of them. The Magistrate then inflicted a fine of 20s
on each defendant for that offence, and an additional
20s. on Latham for his indecent conduct in the station.
house.