The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, MARCH 31, 1845.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME Cll?CUlT.—Kingston, March 29.
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.)
DoE ON THE DEMISE OF NEWTON AND OTHERS V.
BROOKS.—This was an action for the purpose of ejecting
the defendant from the possession of certain premises,
situate in Stoney-street, Southwark.
Mr. Sergeant Slice and Mr. Wines were for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Charnock for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant SHER stated the case, and said the plain-
tiffs were compelled to adopt the present proceeding, to
recover possession of certain property leased to them by
the Bishop of Winchester, and which had been taken
possession of by the defendant, or by a person named
Cox, who acted under him, but neither of whom had any
more right to it than the greatest stranger in Court.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to state that the
lease was granted to the plaintiffs by the Bishop of
Winchester in 1835, and they made use of the property
for some time, but it became unoccupied and remained
so for some time, and at length a person named Cox
obtained possession, and without the slightest right or
title whatever persisted in remaining there, and set up a
title to the property. The present proceedings, therefore,
became necessary to remove him.
The lease granted to the plaintiff in 1835 was then
put in and formally proved.
Lord DENMAN—What have you to say, Mr. Char-
nock, on behalf of your client ?
Mr. CHARNOCK—Does your Lordship think that the
lease is sufficient proof of the plaintiff's title ?
I.4ird DENMAN—Certainly.
Mr. CHARNOCK—Then, my Lord, I have nothing to
say.—(A laugh.)
Lord DENMAN to the jury—Well, gentlemen, the de-
fendant admits he has no title, and therefore, you will
find for the plaintiff.
Verdiot accordingly.
TOOVEY AND ANOTHER V. SWEENEY.
Mr. Sergeant Shee was for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Petersdorff for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE said, that this action arose out of
a case of a similar character to the one just disposed of
by the jury. The defendant without any right or title
had taken possession of a house of considerable value,
and he could not be got rid of but by an action of eject-
ment, which was accordingly brought against him, and
at once decided in favour of the plaintiff. The present
action was to recover the sum of 251. incurred in that
action, and also the amount of rent to which the de-
fendant was liable during the period he was in posses-
sion of the house.
Mr. PETERSDORFF Said he had no answer to the plain-
tiff's case, but he wished the costs to be taxed.
Sergi ant SHEE said he bad no objection.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff.
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)

EVELYN V. WORSFOLD.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, who is Lord
of the Manor of West Cott, near Dorking, to try the
liability of the defendant to pay a certain fine upon his
coming in as one of the copy holders of the manor.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Dawson were for the
plaintiff. Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Peacock ap-
peared for the defendant.
The case was one of a purely technical character, and
eventually a nominal verdict was taken by consent for
the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon
certain points of law.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Hereford, March 28.
CROWN COURT.
Joseph Yeomans, aged 23, was charged with having
stolen, on the 20th instant, one wether sheep, of the
value of 1/., the property of Mr. Thomas Morris,
Guilty, to be imprisoned twelve months.
James Pritchard, aged 30, was charged with breaking
into the dwelling-house of George Willim, for whom he
worked, and stealing therefrom a quantity of bacon,
bread, and cheese. Verdict, Guilty. The prisoner, on
being called up for judgment, protested that he was in-
nocent. Imprisoned twelve months.
NISI BRIUS COURT.—(Before the CrlliE BARON.)
FRETWELL v. BLISSETT, CLERK.
This was an action brought by a land surveyor, re-
siding near Ensham, in Oxfordshire, to recover the sum
of 1471. 4s. for work and labour done for the defendant,
the Rev. Mr. Biissett, residing at Lelton, on the banks of
the Wye, his estate being surrounded, as it were, by a
perfect peninsula, formed by the windings of that river.
To obviate this by alterations, cuttings, and improve-
ments, had long been the wish of the reverend defendant,

but several obstacles prevented the accomplishment of
his design, a portion of the property to be cat through
belonging to the Cornewall family estate, the heir of
which, being a minor, was a ward in Chancery, but having
at length obtained the necessary consent, the work was
commenced, and the plaintiff was employed to superin-
tend and direct the operations, remaining at one time as
long as 42 days at Lelton, and consequently being un-
able to attend his own affairs in Oxfordshire, where he
has two large farms. The defendant pleaded that he
never was indebted beyond the sum of 591., which he
paid into Court, and upon this issue was joined, the pre-
sent action being brought to recover the remaining items
in dispute. It appeared that a portion of the work of the
plaintiff had reference to the commutation and valuation
of the defendant's tithes.
Several letters were put in, and read, which had
passed between the partie, on the subject, one, of which
terminated thus—" bell going for church, and a glass of
cold grog to-morrow ;" and another from the Rev. Mr.
Blissett to plaintiff, ooncluded—" The old fool is gone
down the river, God knows where, to look for two planks
and a trestle, not worth a pound."
The epistolary evidence having been adduced, the
verbal testimony of several witnesses was then given, to
the effect that the plaintiff was there from the 22d Sep-
tember, 1542, until the 231 h November following, super-
intending the works and . paying the men, giving his
attendance all day, from six in the morning until the
same hour in the evening.
Mr. WHATELEY addressed the jury for the defendant,
contending that the attendance of Mr. Fretwell was ren-
dered as a return for kindness he had received from Mr.
Biissett'a family, and that nothing more than the amount
paid into Court was due.
Two witnesses, Messrs. Freer and Mar,h, civil en-
gineers, were called on the part of the defence, who
stated there was no necessity for the attemlance of Mr.
Fretwell.
The brother of the defendant, Mr. Charles Blissett, a
merchant of Bristol, deposed that on several occasions
plaintiff told him that he should make no charge to his
brother, out of kindness for what he had done for him,
as he once got him out of difficulty, and he would not
therefore leave Lelton until after the last barrow of earth
was thrown on the works.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOUIID having delivered a powerful
speech in reply, on behalf of the plaintiff, his Lordship
summed up, and the jury retired from the box. On
their return into Court in about two hours, the foreman
said eight of them were fur the plaintiff and four far the
defendant.
The JUDGE —I wish the Counsel were here, perhaps
they would agree to withdraw a juror.
The Foreman—My, Lord, eight of us are of opinion
Mr. Fretwell should have his wages and four the other
way.
Mr. SELFE here entered the Court, and said that in
the absence of Mr. Sergeant Talfourd he did not know
how to act. The plaintiff cared nothing about the costs,
but he felt it was a just claim, and that his character was
at stake.
The JUDGE, emphatically—The defendant's is far
more so. The plaintiff might have made a mistake, but
the defendant cannot, and if he is unjustly defending
this action he is doing that which no clergyman or gen-
tleman ought to do.
The defendant, in person—l feel myself exactly in the
position your Lordship has described.
After some further consultation, the foreman said from
the information my Lord has given, we are agreed
to find our verdict for the defendant.
Verdict for the defendant entered accordingly.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 29.
CROWN COURT. —(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Benjamin Anderson, 21, stood charged with an attempt
to administer poison, namely, sugar of lead, to his wife.
Sarah Anderson, and her two infant children, al
Manchester.

The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Armstrong
and Mr. Monk, and Mr. Pollock defended the prisoner.
The case was opened by Mr. ANDERSON. The charge,
he observed, was of a very serious character, that of an
attempt to administer a certain deadly poison, known by
the name of sugar of lead, to his own wife and children,
by introducing it into the sugar which they were about
to use for sweetening their tea. The prisoner, so far as
his instructions went, had not been in the habit of act-
ing towards his wife with cruelty ; he was, however,
when in liquor, cross and abusive. The prisoner fol-
lowed the trade of a millwright, and was in the employ
of Messrs. Fairbairn, who carried on business in Canal-
street, Manchester. For some time previously to the
6th of January last, which was the day on which the
occurrence took place, he had been drinking for several
days, having only worked half a day since the previous
Tuesday. About three in the afternoon he came home,
and said he wanted some tea. His wife replied, " the
tea will be ready presently," upan which the prisoner
took the kettle off the fire, which at that time contained
the water for tea, and after making use of some offensive
expressions, turned his little boy and wife into the street,
and locked the door. On looking through the window
they perceived him doing something at the cupboard,
with the sugar basin in his hand, at which time, it is
supposed, he was mingling the poison with the sugar.
One of them went to the window, and he put his hand up
to prevent them seeing. In a short time he came and
unfastened the door and let them in. The little girl then
came home, and prisoner's wife began to make the tea
for herself and children, and sweetened it with the sugar
from the cupboard. After the tea was sweetened she
found it a very bad taste, in consequence of which it was
thrown away. The tea was made a second time, and the
sugar again used, but the same bad taste prevailed.
Having some of the same quality of sugar in a paper, the
prisoner's wife put it into some coffee which she then
made, and found it quite palatable, and she and
the children partook of it. The sugar which
was in the basin had been used at breakfast
the same morning. A portion of the bail sugar
which had been preserved in a small bottle, was handed
over to Mr. Davis, chemist, of Manchester, which,
on being examined by him, was found to con-
maintain sugar of lead. The Learned Counsel argued
that the conduct of the prisoner at the time of the occur-
rence showed ho was_ aware of the consequences of such
an atrocious act. The prisoner left the house about four
o'clock, previously to the tea being made, and proceeded
to a beer-house, where he stayed a short time, after
which he got up suddenly and went to the door, observ-
ing to the person who kept the house, " You will hear
of a row." He afterwards returned home very drunk,
and said, "If there was meal in the house he would do
it again." Shortly after' this the police having become
acquainted with the circumstances went to the house and
took the prisoner in charge. At that time he was asleep,
and on his being awoke he said " They are not stiff yet,

but they soon shall Los." At that time no charge had
been male. Afterwards, on being taken to the police-
office, and told what the charge was against him, he said,
"It is a bad job it has nof been done." The police
twice told him he was accused of putting sugar of lead
in the sugar basin, and he replied, "I suppose you wish
to know where I got it, but I shall not tell you." About
three days before, namely, the Friday, the prisoner,
bought an ounce of sugar of lead, at a chemist's in Man-
chester. Some of the same kind of poison was found in
some meal which had been got into the house for the
use of the family. The Learned Counsel concluded by
observing that he should call witnesses to bear out the
statements he had made, and leave the result in the hands
of the jury.
A great number of witnesses were called, the principal
being the wife and child of the prisoner.
Mr. John Davis, chemist, of Manchester, deposed to
testing the portion of sugar sent to him, and found it
contained a quantity of sugar of lead. He declined giv-
ing an opinion as to its operation on the human system,
and the quantity required to produce death.
Mr. Walker Golland, surgeon, had examined the con-
tents of the basin, but was of opinion that there was not
sufficient to cause death, if taken all at once or in small
quantities.
Mr. J. Pou,ocx, in defence, called the attention of
the Bench to the Act under which indictments for of-
fences of that nature were laid, the words of which were,
" shall administer poison or any other destructive thing."
It had been shown by the evidence of the medical men
that the whole quantity of sugar of lead found in the
sugar basin would not be sufficient to produce death,
either in one dose or repeated doses, and consequently
could not be a destructive thing, although it was un-
doubtedly obnoxious. The charge, therefore, he held,
would fall to the ground.
His LORDSHIP said, that if the verdict went against
the prisoner, he should reserve the point for the consi-
deration of the twelvo Judges.
Mr. POLLOCK then addressed the jury upon the evi-
dence at considerable length ; and his Lordship having
summed up, the jury, after a short consultation, re-
turned a verdict of Not Guilty. The trial lasted eleven
hours.

John Burgess, aged 22, was indicted for the offence of
manslaughter in killing William Swindles, at Staley-
bridge, on the 20th of Februury.
Mr. Brandt appeared fur the prosecution, and Mr.
Wilkins for the prisoner.
The deceased was a lad who worked at a mill in Sta
leybridge, and on the evening of the day in question he
was leaving the mill along with some other lads there,
when they saw the prisoner at the bar sitting against the
gates of the mill. He appeared to be asleep or intoxi-
cated. One of the lads kicked his clog, and desired him to
get up, and another shook him. He then rose up and
ran after the deceased into another shed. The deceased

then fell; but what it was that caused him to fall, could
not, it appeared, be at all explained. One of the wit-
nesses, however, said that the prisoner kicked him on the
heel ; but another said that he fell from catching the
kerb-stone with his toe; and a third thought that he
fell down without either of those causes. He uttered a
cry as he fell, and while he lay on the ground it would
appear that he had been struck by the prisoner, either
with his fists or his feet, if not with both. This also
seemed quite uncertain. After the fall the deceased was
not observed tJ stir at all, until the prisoner left him.
He then stretched out his arms, as if in a convulsive
state, and remained on the ground for some minutes,
till the prisoner himself began to be alarmed, and raised
him. Finding that there were no signs of life, the
prisoner asked the people standing by to fetch him some
water, and said he thought the lad was in a fit ; but it
was soon ascertained that he was dead. He was
examined by two medical men, who could not recount
for the death, and who found no marks of violence,
while another medical man stated that the brain was in

such a sta;-;Catiiecould say the lad had not died of
apoplexy. There was no effusion, and no symptoms of
disease about the body. It was said, however, that there
might have been blows on the abdomen without their
being perceptible, and that these might have caused a
shock to the nervous system sufficient to occasion death.
Mr. Pearson, who first examined the body, was of
opinion that the lad's death was to be attributed to
apoplexy, and considered that such might have been the
case without any effusion.
Verdict—Guilty of a common assault.
Sentence—To be imprisoned for one month.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

George Aihen and Charles Wright, two young men,
very respectably dressed, were placed at the bar before
Mr. Twyford, charged with having assaulted several
policemen.
Wells, constable of the F division, stated that in con-
sequence of information he received at the station-house,
that a disturbance was going on in Brydges-street, Drury-
lane, he went there and found the two prisoners assault•
ing every person who came in their way. Wright was
given into his custody on a charge of having broken a
window of the shop of a Mrs. Spicer ; and, on his appre-
hending him, the other prisoner attempted to rescue
him, declaring that he would knock his brains out if he
did nut release his friend from custody. Some other
constables at length arrived, who were severally assaulted
and kicked by the defendants, but the latter were at
length overpowered, and conveyed to the station-house.
The prisoner Aiken denied that he had done anything
more than endeavour to get his friend home, who he
admitted was very drunk.
The other prisoner admitted he was so drunk at the
time, that he did not know what he was about.
Mr. TWYFORD said he could make no distinction be-
tween the defendants and persons of a different grade in
society. The charge against them had been clearly
proved, and he should. therefore, feel it his duty, in
order to protect the police, to commit each of them for
one month to the Ilona of Correction.
The defendants beg ed hard to have their sentence
• .
changed to a fine, whips they expressed their readiness
to pay ; but the magistrate was inexorable, and they
were sent off in the van, like common persons.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

James Darby, a cab-driver, was charged before Mr
Hardwick with having ben concerned in the attempted
robbery and murder of Mr. Charles Green, in George-
yard, Crown-street, Soho.
It will be recollected that a cab-driver named John
Stack .wai some weeks since taken into custody, charged
with having rendered Mr. Green insensible by a blow
with the handle of his whip or some heavy instrument.
The prisoner's obvious intention of robbing his victim
was, however, frustrated by the timely appearance of
police constable Clarke, C 55. The prisoner Stack was
fully committed, but ordered to be brought up from tin^
to time, in order to give the police an opportunity of
finding the second man.
Mr. Green, who appeared to have raceived a wound
two inches in length close to the temple, gave a short
outline of the facts, the whole of which have been al-
ready pullshei at the examination of the other prisoner.
Police constable Clarke, C 55, found Mr. Green lying
bleeding and insensible on the pavement, in George-
yard. The prisoner was the man who was seated on the
box of a cab.

Police-constable E 159 took the prisoner into custody.
The latter said it was a bad jub, but denied all knowledge
of the assault.—lle was coNimitted for trial.
IVORSHIP-STREET.

. In the course of the afternoon all anxious interest was
excited by the appearance of four orphan children, two
boys and two girls, the brothers and sisters of James
Tapping. They were here by direction of Mr. Broughton,
the sitting magistrate, to whom application was made in
their behalf a day or two since.
Upon inquiry respecting them, it appeared that the
parents died a few years back, leaving a numerous fa-
mily, of whom the two eldest song, who are married, and
have themselves families to support, carried on their
father's business of what is called " grease melting,"
assisted occasionally by their brother James, from whom
chiefly the poor children derived their means of support.
His conduct towards them attracted notice to the poor
young creatures, who afterwards experienced very kind
treatment from several persons in authority, particularly
Mr. Sheriff Sidney.
Mr. Christcy, one of the parish officers of Bethnal-
green, to which parish they belong, was in attendance,
and expressed a readiness to receive the children into
the workhouse for a time, where, he said, they would be
well taken care of until otherwise provided for ; and he
suggested that as the preferable course for them.
The aunt, however, expressed a most decided repug-
nance to their entering the workhouse, and said she
would endeavour to keep them herself rather than they
should do so.

Mr. BROUGHTON said he thought the course suzgested
by Mr. Christey was much the best for them, but he de-
sired that they should appear before him again in a
few days, and some arrangement would be made. lie
now gave money for their maintenance in the meantime.

THE REV. MR. MONCKTON.

DIOCESAN COURT OF INQUIRY—SATURDAY.
This case was resumed this morning at the sitting of
the Court, when Sarah Huggins, Lady Galway, Lieu-
tenant Monckton, and Arthur Bennett were exa-
mined, and their depositions were taken with a view to
rebut the testimony of the different witnesses examined
for the prosecution. The next witness called was
Mr. Oldershaw, Mr. Monckton's solicitor, who deposed
as follows :—Having answered a few preliminary ques-
tions, he continued by say ing he considered that the
conversation he had with Mr. Lake was private, and
should not have been taken advantage of by Mr.
Lake. Witness here produced a letter from Mr.
Monckton, denying the charges. Did not know of the
girl being confined at Gravesend until some time in
January, and first heard of it from Mr. Lake.
Re-examined—Heard Mr. Lake say he would not
believe Mr. Monckton's denial on his oath unless he dis-
charged his servant. Told witness he recommended Mr.
Monckton to go to the country, and the matter might
blow over, and that ho would get somebody to do the
duty. Mr. Lake said to witness that if he were an un-
married man he might do the same. Witness
then distinctly offered Mr. Lake a declaration denying
the charges, both by Mr. Monckton and the servants.
Was authorised by Mr. Monckton to do this. Denied
this before the Bishop had been written to. Mr. Lake
was most violent in his language to witness. (Witness
here read a letter from Mr. Monckton, denying the
charges that he had heard were rumoured about him and
his servants )
To the COURT-At the time witness had received that
letter, he was aware the girl had been confined; told Mr.
Monckton, as his professional adviser, that he had been
guilty of gross indiscretion, at least his conduct would
be open to such for taking the girl back.
Here the Court adjourned for a few minutes, and when
it resumed,

Sarah Huggins was recalled for cross-examination,
she having fainted when first brought into Court.—She
deposed that Susan went to her mother's, and returned
after three days' absence, to the parsonage. This
was in summer. It was after Lady Galway left in June
that Sarah left. When she came back she was ill,
and came Us be nursed, as she could not get proper
attendance at home. Has never left the parsonage
since. She is there as a servant. Will swear she
does not know what wages her sister has. Ann
Day has 101. a-year. Has had quarrels with her
sister, but not in regard to Mr. Monckton. He has
been in witness's bed-room at day and night
when she was in bed ill. Had a peculiar illness
but once, cannot say when; but it never happened before
or since. Was not ill when Sarah Lovett was at the
parsonage, but is not sure ; complained of pain to
Mr. Mathew. Will swear that Mr. Monckton did
not bathe her ; went to live with him in October,
1842. Will not swear she was a virgin then. (Here the
Counsel put other ques!,ions as to the conduct of the wit-
ness and her moral character, both before she went to
Mr. Monckton's and while there ; but she declined to
answer them.) She then continued by saying that her
sister and Ann Day suspected she was in the family-way.
A few dayi after Mr. Mathew examined her she went
to Gravesend with her sister in a cab. Witness
did not see her off. Was at Gravesend
about ten weeks. Mr.Monekton came down about three
days after she was confined. One of the children died on
Saturday, and the other on Sunday. Does not recollect
that Mr. Monckton had tea upon the occasion of his visit;
asked him to take her back when she was well. He
said he would not promise. Said she would pay him
back the money he lent her when she should get
another place. The birth of the children was en-
tered in the register as Sarah and Susan, and
witness as the wife of Huggins, a mariner.
Mr. Monckton never broke open her door to her.know -
ledge. Did not receive any wages for the time she was
away. Did not sec Mr. Moncktcn sit at the table at the
dinner on Christmas-day. He stood and carved, but did not
see him eat. After dimmer he sat in the drawing-room.
He went away about five o'clock. He returned about
supper time. Did not hear any singing that night.
Betty Biggs had a child about five years old, which
she often brought to the parsonage ; she also
brought wine to Gravesend from Mr. 3.4onekton.
Mrs. Williams used to sing indecent songs; cannot say

how many—whether thirty, or forty, or flity,or sixty, or
seventy. The new•year's dinner was at one o'clock.
Anne Day was sent for the Williamses. Mr. Monckton
was in the kitchen when they came. He had dined
before that, in the study, alone. Was never sent after
by Mr. Monckton, to go back. Never saw any impro-
priety between him and the other servants.
Re examined.—Mr. Monckton was not present when
Nirs. Williams sang indecent songs, nor did he know it.
His house is very large, and requires three servants
when there are visitors. Mr. Monckton had not the
slightest means of knowing that she had misconducted
herself with any other person.
Mr. Duke sworn.—ls a medical man. Cured Sarah
Huggins of erysipelas.
Anne Day sworn.—ls twenty-four years of age ;
went as servant to Mr. Monckton in November,
1843 ; saw Fanny Froude there ; she was a girl
of unclean habits ; heard her frequently con•
tradict herself ; saw her very- much intoxicated once.
Mr. Monckton carved on the Christmas-day, because
Mr. Williams could not do so, having lost a thumb. Mr.
Monckton was very cheerful that day, but not tipsy.
He did not attempt to throw down Mr. William;. Never
saw Mr. Monckton attempt to take Mrs. Williams
on his knee. Witness never sat there, nor saw any of
the servants do so. Never heard him use indecent or
blasphemous language. Never heard him drink a
toast, " Here's to the waitress's health. Never
heard such a thing mentioned, as that " Some
old woman had said what was doing
at the parsonage," or any such expression. Mrs.
Williams never said in the presence of witness that she
(witness) told her (Mrs. Williams) that Mr. Monckton
slept with Sarah llng4ins six nights out of seven. She
dare not say so in her presence. He never put his hand
indecently on witness's person, or said anything indecent
to her. The witness gave the same positive nega-
tive answers to all the questions relative to
smoking, eating, &c , &c., with the other servants, as
sworn to by the witnesses for the prosecution. Never
saw any one with Mr. Monckton whilit preparinn•
sermon in his study. He has taken tea in the kitchen.
Sarah Huggins wrote to witness to ask Mr. Monck-
ton if he would condescend to visit her (Sarah) at
Gravesend. Witness burned that letter some time after.
The tone of the letter was that Sarah feared she had
very much offended her master by her misconduct.
Told this to Mr. Monckton. He did not go down until
after witness had received a second letter from Sarah.
Sarah wrote to witness after her confinement, announc-
ing the death of the two children, and requesting Mr.
Monckton to visit her.

Lady Galway, the mother of Mr. Monckton, deposed
to the high character and morality of her son. She had
never, during her visits, perceived any impropriety of
condlict towards the servants. The general tenor of the
evidence of tho lady was to discredit the imputations
against her son. Several other witnesses were examined
upon the same points, but the evidence was not mate-
rially different from that already given on the same side.
Mr. DoINE replied at great length.
The Commissioners retired to consult, and on their
return—

Dr. LUSHINGTON said it was impossible, at that late
hour of night, for the Commissioners to draw up any
final report in conformity with the provisions of the Act
of Parliament. Still, however, he ought to state that the
Commissioners were unanimous in the report they in
tended to make. Thinking it advantageous in a case
like this, he (Dr. Lushington) would, with the assent of
his brother Commissioners, state the general result of
the inquiry under the various heads. The Commissioners
were of opinion that their decision could not fall within
the nature of a judgment, but still they thought that they
were called upon to give their return under the 4th sec-
tion of the Act—that they were bound to find in favour
of the Rev. Mr. Monckton upon parts of the charges, and
that upon just evidence, and against him upon one part.
Now, it was the intention of the Commissioners to make
a special report as to the charges in which, in their opi-
nion, he had offended against the laws ecclesiastical. The
charges were that he had offended against the laws ec-
clesiastical—that he had been guilty of fornication—that
he had taken indecent liberties with various women—
that he had been intoxicated, &c., thereby bringing
scandal upon the Church of England, of which he is a
member. Now, the Commissioners were of opinion that
as to the charge of fornication they were not justified in
reporting that it had been proved. But they were of opi-
nion that there were circumstances which had rendered
this investigation absolutely necessary—circumstances
which induced alarm to those who were anxious to
uphold the purity of the church (as we understood the
learned President.) The Commissioners would allude in
their report to the children begotten on the body of the
servant, and that she was allowed afterwards to remain
in the house, and subsequent to the time when he de-
clared that his house was well regulated. The Re-
verend Mr. Monckton ought to have afforded a
full explanation upon matters connected with those
charges. He, however, contented himself with a general
denial. Now, the Commissioners were of cpinion that
he must be relieved from the charge of fornication, but
that his conduct had brought scandal upon the Church.
As to intoxication, the Commissioners were of opinion
that no evidence had been produced as proved it. As
to the final part of the case, the Commissioners were of
opinion, especially with reference to Sarah Huggins and
other matters—the habits of Mr. Monckton—the indul-
gences which he followed have given ground for scandal
to the Church. The Commissioners had the power to
acquit. They acquitted him from the charges of fornica-
tion and of intoxication, but his conduct with respect to
Sarah Huggins, and in other affairs already mentioned,
rendered it their duty to report to the Bishop, and he
would take what measures as he might be advised. The
Commissioners could not close those proceedings without
expressing their strong and entire approbation of the
manner in which this case had been conducted by the
counsel at the bar.
The President (Dr. Lushington), after a slight con-
sultation with his brother Commissioners, intimated that
on the Bth of April a formal and written judgment
would bo delivered,
The Court sat until nearly half-past ten, and it was
as crowded by earnest hearers as at the moment when
the Commissioners took their seats, so great appears to
be the interest taken in this novel investigation.

DISCOVERY OF HUMAN SKELETONS.—On Wed-
nesday, as some workmen were engaged in excavating
the ground on the north side of the Town-hall, St. Mar-
garet's-hill, High street, Borough, they discovered a
great quantity of human bones at a depth of about eight
feet. Some of the thigh bones were of extraordinary
size, and the teeth in some of the jaw bones were in ex-
cellent preservation. They were placed in a cart and
taken to St. Saviour's churchyard for interment. The
ground in which the bones were found was formerly the
burial-place attached to St. Margaret's Church, which
Many years ago stood oh the site of the Town-hall.