The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-28 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

PIRILT of th

THE DUBLIN LEVEE OF
TUESDAY.

SHUTTING OUT OF THE WHIG GENTLEMEN !—The
show is not, apparently, so great as the last—though
we are told that. Mr. Sidney Herbert left the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury to baptise the Prince of Wales,
for the purpose of attending his Excellency, as well
as of voting at the election—the Mail thus giving
us to understand that the said Sidney Herbert preferred
the interests of Young Grig and the Orangemen of Ire-
land to his duty to the Queen. We shall have an ex-
planation, of course, of this extraordinary and very
inconsiderate escapade of our Contemporary. But, in
the meantime, we have to state that the Castle doors
were jammed full in the face of several Whig gentle-
men who attended the Levee. We have heard some of
the names of those who were insulted ; but, as much more
will be heard on the subject hereafter, we shall forbear for
the present. We may say this, however, that the present
Levee is the last—whatever his Excellency's tenure of
office may be in Ireland—ins which he will ever see the
face of a Whig or Liberal within the precincts of the
Queen's Castle. We need not add how delighted we are
at 'this.
POUR O'CLOCK.—We have caused inquiries to be made
touching the extraordinary circumstance mentioned
above. The statement we find is quite accurate. Among
the most prominent Whig characters who were shut out
from the Vice-regal presence were Alderman Purcell ;
David Ross, of Rosstrevor ; Captain Laird, Member for
Carlow ; one or two Whig parsons ; and about sixteen
others.—Dublin Evening Post of Tuesday.

LLOYD'S SHIPPING.
EAST INDIA SHIPPING.
Arrivals.—Ann Lockerby, Burt, from Mauritius, in
the Downs, sailed 31st October ; Sir Charles Forbes,
Bacon, from Mauritius, off Margate, sailed October 4,
Cape, Nov. 20 ; Margaret Bergh, from Moulmein, in the
Downs, sailed Aug. 3, St. Helena, Nov. 27.
Arrivals in Table Bay, Cape of Good Hope.—Achilles,
Nov. 13, from Jersey ; Mary Reid, from Algoa Bay ;
Sultana, Scott, from London, and sailed, 16th, to Sydney;
Anna, Page, from . Rio ; Ninus, Ludlow, 14th, from
Simon's Bay ; Levant, Holmes, 15th, from the Mozam-
bique ; Emma, Aubin, 18th, from Marseilles ; Royal
Albert, 18th, from Calcutta.

Departures from Table Bay.—True Briton, Coonsitt,
Nov. 12, for Madras ; Janet Muir, Thomson, 15th, to
Trieste ; Coriolanus, 17th, to New York ; Iris, Fisher,
17th, to Madras.

Departures from Simon's Bay.—Mexborough, Bridg-
man, Nov. 12, to Hobart Town ; her Majesty's brig
Curlew, Ross, 17th, to East Coast.
Arrivals at Mauritius.—Sea Witch, Oct. 19, from
Bourbon ; Charles Hiddle, 21st, from Angoutey ; Cale-
donia, 23d ; William Allen, 26th ; Lord Saumarez, 27th,
all from Madagascar ; Marchioness of Breadalbane, 28th ;
Lawrence, and Elizabeth Walker, all from Calcutta. The
Juverna, Ramsay, and Eliza Leishman, were to sail
Oct. 30, from Mauritius, all for Calcutta.
Arrivals at Teneriffe.—Her Majesty's ship Cambrian,
Nov. 22, from Plymouth, and sailed to the East Indies
her Majesty's ship Siren, Dec. 3, from Plymouth, and
sailed, sth, to India ; John Brewer, Dee. 27, from Sheer-
ness, and sailed, 28th, to Hobart Town ; Doolcot, 30th,
from London, and sailed, 2d January, to China ; her
Majesty's ships Belleisle, Sapphire, and Apollo. 30th,
from Plymouth, and sailed let January, to China.

SALE OF A MENAGERIE-
Yesterday, the splendid collection of wild beasts, ele •
phant, &c., belonging to Mr. Batty, was sold by auction
by Mr. Wisby, on the grounds of the Beehive Tavern,
Castle-street, Walworth. There were upwards of 300
persons present, among whom we noticed Mr. Womb-
well ; Mr. Oliver, of Cheltenham ; Mr. Isaacson, pro-
curer to the Liverpool Zoological Gardens ; and a greal,
many dealers, &c.

(Tile first twelve lots comprised a variety of monkeys,
which varied in their prices from 30s. to 12s. ; lot 15,
puma, or silver mountain lion, 141 ; lot 16, handsome
Senegal leopardess, 9/. Clot 17, a hyena, 71.: lot 18, splen-
did Barbary lioness, 241 ; lot 19, handsome Bengal
tigress, 90/. (Wombwell) ; lot 21, a white Polar bear,
supposed to be the largest in England, 37/. ( Wombwell) ;
lot 23, a fine esquimaux sledge dog, 2/. ; lot 26, hand-
some gold. pheasant, 2/. Bs. ; lot 28, handsome silver
ditto, 11. 3s. ; lot 37, handsome orange-crested cockatoo,
3/. 12s. 6d. (Wombwell) ; lot 40, handsome peacock,
1/. 2s. ; lot 41, handsome performing Barbary lion,
1051. (Oliver) ; let 42, ditto, ditto, lioness, 941 10s.
(Oliver) ; lot 43, handsome Senegal performing leopard,
34 guineas (Oliver) ; lot 44, ditto, ditto, 25 guineas
( Wombwell) ; lot 49, an Indian buffalo, 9i- guineas ;
lot 50, a sagacious male elephant, about eight years'
old, and very docile. This lot caused great com-
petition, Mr. "Wombwell commenced by offering 501. the
bidding increased until it reached 3501., at which sum it
was knocked down to Mr. Oliver. The travelling-vans,
&c., were then sold, and fetched high prices, It is said
that the elephant was worth 5001

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
field for the I COURT OF EX ,CHEQUER, Jan. 27.
The Conservatives are already
t by the elevation to I
LIVERPOOL EdLyEinCtThe I lON.
h 1 JEWISON V. DYSON.
the judicial bench, of Mr.
representation of Liverpool,
Cresswell.'acan T e two gentle- This case had been already before the Court on Friday
oed themselves are
former
rreis SairbacHkowboanred . last. The question was as to the right to appoint a Co-
Dmoenogwlasho,
' roner within the Honour of Pomfret, which was claimed
lhaateveGoavnneronuonrc. f the lonian Islands, and the 1
by the plaintiff as nominee of the Crown in right of the
list, and a Tory of the most bigoted school. Duchy of Lancaster, and by the defendant as the ap-
onoo
Twice has he set forth his claims on the good people of
Right Hon. J. C. Herries.
pointee of the freeholders of the .West Riding of York-
Liverpool, and twice has he been most unceremoniously shire. The case was tried at the last Assizes for York-
rejected. Mr. Herries was formerly connected with the shire, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff ; but at the
Board of Trade, was Member for Ipswich, the constituency
commencement of last term a rule was granted to show
of which place soon became tired of him, and elected an- cause why the verdict should not be set
aside and a new
other in his place. The Right lion. Gentleman's defeat trial granted. Mr. Cresswell, who opposed the rule on
in Liverpool is certain, if he should hare the pre- Friday last, submitted that, under the Charter of Richard
sumption to allow himself to be nominated. The the Second, the Crown was entitled to appoint a person
Liberals have not been idle. Although they have not to execute the duties of Coroner in the locality referred
yet announced their man, it is believed they have to, and that the verdict obtained by the plaintiff might
fixed upon one of high standing and considerable in- not be disturbed.
fluence—of much experience in foreign and colonial The case having been appointed for re-hearing to-day,
affairs, and possessing an intimate acquaintance with Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Martin were also heard in favour of
our commercial and diplomatic relations. Liverpool is the right of the plaintiff, the nominee of the Crown.
deeply interested in the trade of the St. Lawrence and Mr. S. WORTLEY commenced his argument for the de-
its tributary rivers, and therefore it is the duty of the fence, which, at the rising of the Court, was not brought
electors to secure the services of one who is conversant
with their interest, as connected with these important
again postponed till to-morrow.
subjects. The attention of the whole empire will be
directed to the conduct of the merchants, tradesmen,
and other inhabitants of Liverpool, in the forthcoming
contest. The avowed intention of the predomi-
nant portion of the landed aristocracy is to limit to a conclusion, and the further hearing of the case was
the manufactures and commerce of the country
to the capabilities, already exhausted, of her own soil,
and to starve out or export tne superfluous population.
The verdict of the first commercial town in the kingdom
is now asked on this mad—this inhuman policy, and it is
for its inhabitants calmly to ponder what answer they,
will give. The election will take place early in February
—there is no time for delay.
[The Tories have, it appears, fixed on Sir Howard
Douglas as their man.]

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 27.
CRANE V. PRICE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The argument having been concluded with Mr. Ser-
geant Bompas's reply,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—This case involves
an important question, and we shall take time to consider
judgment.

CONSISORY COURT, JAN,
DILLON V. DILLON.
This was a suit for divorce by reason of adultery by
the Rev. R. C. Dillon, D.D., against Frances Charlotte,
his wife. The libel pleaded that the parties were mar-
ried on the 26th of November, 1839; that on the 29th of
December, 1840, Mrs. Dillon, with the permission of her
husband, proceeded in a Gravesend steamer_ on a visit to
her mother, Mrs. Drury, who resided in the neighbour-
hood of Gravesend; that, instead of going thither, she was
met on her arrival at Gravesend by a man unknown to
Dr. Dillon, with whom she proceeded to the Sir John
Falstaff, a road-side inn, midway between Gravesend
and Chatham, where they passed the night, slept to-
gether, and left the next morning ; that Dr. Dillon was
ignorant of this fact till May,. 1841, when he proceeded
to the inn, and, in order to ascertain the identity of
his wife with the female who slept at the inn on that oc-
casion, he arranged with the landlord that he should
come to the Polytechnic Institution on the 10th of May,
whither Dr. Dillon would take his wife ; and that the
landlord there recognised her to be the same person. The
defensive allegation on the part of Mrs. Dillon denied the
imputed adultery, and pleaded that, in fact, she had
passed the night of the 29th or December at her mo-
ther's
house ; and further, that Dr. Dillon was barred
by his own conduct, after he had, as he alleged, reason-
able ground for suspecting his wife's infidelity, and even
after the suit had commenced, from the remedy. he
sought. In his answer to his wife's allegation, Dr. Dillon
admitted that, on the night of the day on which he had
been informed of his wife's misconduct, he had slept with
her and conducted himself towards her cordially and af-
fectionately, in order not to excite her suspicions till he
had established her identity with the person who had
slept at Gad's-hill, by means of the recognition on the.
10th of May.
Dr. ADDAMS, for Dr. Dillon, began by observing that
the marriage of the parties had not been celebrated under
very happy auspices, and had not led to very happy re-
sults. The defensive allegation attempted to set up that
the affections of Dr. Dillon having become alienated
from his 'wife, he had by his language and behaviour
evinced an anxiety to get rid of his wife, and said he
would get rid of her. In the teeth of this it was also
pleaded, that he had barred himself of that remedy by
a condonation. The two witnesses brought to prove
the terms on which they lived differed from each
other. Both agreed that they lived very unhap-
pily ; but one of them imputed declarations to Dr.
Dillon to this effect : " I wish to God I could get
rid of you, and I'll see if I can't do it." The other
witness declares she never heard him. say he was
anxious to get rid of his wife, or that he would get
rid of her; but only that "he would not bear it
any longer, and would leave immediately." Now, one
of Dr. Dillon's witnesses, Mr. Wingate, had been in-
terrogated as to whether he did not kick his wife, and
whether his conduct was not disgraceful, unmanly, and
brutal. The witness denied this expressly, as well as
that Dr. Dillon declared his wish to get rid of his wife ;
but Mr. Wingate said he had heard Dr. Dillon declare
that it was impossible they could live together much
longer, owing to her violent conduct towards him, and
to her frequently absenting herself from his house. The
libel charged Mrs. Dillon with adultery with a person
who is unknown to Dr. Dillon.
Dr. LIISIIINGTON—Is he ? One of the interrogatories
would lead us to suppose the contrary.
Dr. ADDAMS—Whatever suspicion Dr. Dillon may
have had, I presume it was not confirmed. The charge
of adultery was proved by Wilson, the, landlord of the
inn at Gad's-hill, his wife, and the chambermaid, who
stated that a lady and gentleman came to their house on
the evening of the 29th of December, 1840, slept there,
and departed after breakfast the next morning. These
witnesses had identified Mrs. Dillon as the same
lady. They could not have been mistaken, nor could
it be contended that they were not credible. On
what ground could it be suggested that they came for-
ward to support a false story ? Not to gratify any pur-
pose of malignity, and no money could bribe such per
sons to be guilty of perjury for such an object, nor was
there reason to suppose that if Dr. Dillon had the incli-
nation he had the means of bribing them. The witnesses
had ample opportunity to notice the lady's person, which
was in one respect remarkable, she having had the mis-
fortune to lose an eye. The landlord waited upon them;
the chambermaid undressed the lady, who told her that
she was going to see her mother at Gravesend, whom
she had not seen for eight or nine years. Was it pos-
sible that on the 29th of December, 1840, about six or
seven o'clock in the evening, another lady, having lost
one eye, and so like Mrs. Dillon that three witnesses
swore she was her, should come with a gentleman, to
that identical inn, and pass the night, and that no dili-
gence could discover who she was, if not Mrs. Dillon ?
It was much more probable that the witnesses who sup-
ported the alibi should be mistaken.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—The great difficulty in this case is
to know how the information of his wife's infidelity came
to the knowledge of Dr. Dillon. The Court is left
wholly in the dark in this respect.
Dr. ADDAMS--By an anonymous letter,
Dr. LUSHINGTON—Where is the letter ?
Dr. ADDAMS—It is not in existence.
Dr. LusHINGToN—I remembtr that Lord Stowell re-
fused to pronounce for a divorce on the sole ground
that it was not pleaded how the suspicions first came
into the husband's mind.
Dr. A-Drums—lt is not the practice, as far as I know,
to plead precisely how the information came to the hus-
band. Dr. Dillon has used all diligence to ascertain
with whom his wife passed the night. Nothing could
be more proper than his proceedings in order to
trace out the facts. When he first heard of the charge
he thought it a mistake. After he had seen the people
at the inn he was shocked ; but what was he to
do ? To excite this lady's violence, or hurt her
feelings by mentioning it ? He took a more prudent
course, and brought up the landlord of the inn to iden-
tify her at the Polytechnic Institution, telling him un-
less he was certain it was the same person net to address
her, but if he had no doubt to speak to her. The land-
lord was certain of her identity, and, addressing her,
said, " Good morning ; I hope you are better ;" telling
her that her " good gentleman" had said she would
come to the inn again. Mrs. Dillon looked confused,,
and observed that he had mistaken the person ; but in
the course of the conversation she whispered to him,
" Say it was not me; say you are mistaken in the
person." The Old Bailey defence of alibi was sup-
ported by Mrs. Drury, the mother of Mrs. Dillon,
Miss Riunbold, Mrs. Dillon's sister, Elizabeth Lloyd,
a dressmaker, and Emily Dix, the servant. The evi-
dence of the first two and the last was nothing more
nor less than wilful perjury. As to the alleged con-
donation, Dr. Dillon, till he had ascertained his wife's
guilt, was compelled to put on his best face, and not
alarm her suspicions and provoke her violence. It was
true, that whilst the suit was depending on two occasions
he had most imprudently had some conversation with his
wife in the public road, at Bayswater, where she resided;
but this was only a proof of the simplicity of his cha-
racter. He had no doubt been decoyed into these inter-
views, and the witnesses had made the most of them.
Upon the whole he could not conceive a grosser case
of adultery, and Dr. Dillon was fully entitled to a sen-
tence of divorce.
Mr. HAGGARD, for Mrs. Dillon, called the Court's at-
tention, in the first place, to the circumstance, that the
libel did not plead the marriage in the usual form; there
was a total omission of any previous courtship. The
witness examined in support of the marriage, Mr.
William Wingate, who was present at it, states that
he had known: Dr. Dillon for fifteen years, from the
time he was curate of Willesden, consequently he was
at the time of the marriage not less than forty; whereas
Mrs. Dillon was at the time under twenty. Mr. Wingate
further said, that he had heard from Dr. Dillon that
she had been seduced, and had had a child by him,
which was born •when she was only 18. This having
been the manner in which Dr. Dillon had conducted
himself towards his wife before marriage, it was not t
be wondered at that they should not have lived hp *lo
together. As to the terms on which they lived, dea Y
clParla-
tions had been proved to have come from Dr. Dillon of
his anxiety to get rid of his wife ; but it was not till
May, 1841, that there was the slightest suggestion by
Dr. Dillon of the remotest idea being entertained by him
of her infidelity ; nothing had occurred to excite sus-
picion, no rumour, not a single instance of itvity, fa-
miliarity, or proximate act leading up to the charge ;
there was merely a single isolated imputation. The
evidence of the witnesses in support of the charge was
full of improbabilities and inconsistencies. The descrip-
tion of the female supposed to be Mrs. Dillon was
meagre ; there was no account of her dress, her height,
or even which eye was defective. Nothing, in fact, was
stated by the witnesses as the ground of their belief of
her identity with Mrs. Dillon but the loss of the eye. Mrs.
Dillon might justly say, without any silly joke, that it
was " all my eye." The same defect might attach to
half the persons who visited the inn in December. Dr.
Dillon did not make any inquiries as to the man by
whom tie female was accompanied. Mrs. Wilson, the
landlady of the inn, said that when Dr. Dillon came
there to make inquiries he told them that he had been
repeatedly written to about his wife, and advised to
watch her movements. Where were those letters ?
Did they suggest a probable cause of inquiry, or the
propriety of ceasing cohabitation? ' He stated that he
paid no attention to these intimations till he received
it letter from the friend of the.wentleman who had
been with his wife at the inn. here, then, was the

difficulty of finding him out, and of bringing an action
against him? Yet Dr. Dillon, though inquisitive re-
specting his wife, asked no questions, as to the person
who was with her. On the part of the wife the case
was, that she had gone down to visit her mother on the
29th of December, and had slept at her house on that
night and every subsequent night till Sunday, when she
returned home; and the witnesses deposed positively,
supporting their recollection of the day by facts and cir-
cumstances, that it was Tuesday, the 29th, and Mrs.
Drury had made a memorandum of the day when her
daughter came. On the other hand, one of the wit-
nesses, Dix, stated that a person, whom she believed to
be Dr. Dillon, had endeavoured to persuade her to say
that it was Wednesday. Supposing, however, that the
Court thought that the evidence in support of the libel
preponderated, the question remained, whether Dr.
Dillon was not barred from remedy by his own conduct.
He had admitted that at least for one night after he had
been informed of her guilt, he had cohabited with his
wife, having been, by his own account, frequently
warned of her cenduct. What difficulty could
Dr. Dillon have found in withdrawing him-
self for one night; till he had completed his
inquiries. With his probable cause of knowledge he
ought to have ceased cohabitation. There was no
instance of a husband coming before the Court for
relief who, after he had reason for grave suspicions
against his wife, continued to cohabit with her. But
after his libel had been admitted in the suit, and the
witnesses were being examined, on the 30th of May and
the 4th-of July, his conduct and deportment towards his
wife indicated that he considered her perfectly innocent.
He came to the front of the house, where she resided,
and invited her to come out, walked with her arm in
remained with her a con-
siderable acbolnev
teirnsieed; withth eyhseiri
ogoaki y ,
hands and kissed at parting,
and behaved, as one of the witnesses observed " like
lovers." Such conduct, though not amounting to direct
condonation, established constructive condonation. Even
if the Court should come to the conclusion that it must
attach weight to the evidence on the libel, still the con-
duct and demeanour of Dr. Dillon showed that he was
not sensible of any wrong done to him.
The reply stands over till a future Court-day.

PO LICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.
Baron Charles de Behr, a native of Germany, was yes-
terday placed at the bar, before Mr. Hall, charged with
obtaining from Mr. William Osborne Rich, a gentleman
holding a situation in the War Office, the sum of 501.
on the 18th of December, and' a further sum of 561. on
the 20th of December, by false and fraudulent means.
Mr. Steele conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Bow.
ditch appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Rich being sworn, said he was intimately ac-
quainted with Mr. Snow, the banker, and his wife, but
was not aware that any proceedings were pending be-
tween them in the EccleSiastical Court previous to the
18th of December, on which day the prisoner, with whom
he had no acquaintance, called on him at the War-office,
and said he had come from Mrs. Snow, who told him she
required some money for the purpose of obtaining certain
papers of great importance to her. Having presented his
card, and introduced himself as the lady's friend, he
said, " I suppose you know what is going on ?
" No, I do not," replied witness, " but I'm very
anxious to know." :He then said there were certain
letters in Portland-place, of great consequence, which
should be obtained from the housekeeper there. He also
saidt " I have advanced all the money I had in her ser-
vice, and must require of you the sum of 300/. or 5001.
for the purpose I have mentioned." Witness told him it
would be impossible for him to command either of the
sums mentioned; upon which he said, " Damn it, man,
we must have money; what can you advance?" Witness
observed, that at this season of the year it was very in-
convenient to make up so much cash, but perhaps he could
find him a less sum, and he handed him 50/. in notes
(having first taken the precaution to mark their num-
bers), with which he went away, saying he would call
again. He accordingly came again on the 20th of Decem-
ber, to say the housekeeper was not satisfied with the
amount she had received, and as the papers were of the
utmost importance she should have more ; to which wit-
ness made some demur, but ultimately gave the prisoner
45/. in notes, the numbers of which he took, together
with five sovereigns, with which he went away, promis-
ing to get the letters in question. In a few days after
the prison*. again called, and said he had obtained all
the letters, which were safe ; and, in addition to the
sums witness had. given, him for the housekeeper, he
(the prisoner) had advanced her 1302, together with a
promissory-note for the remainder. On the 30th of De-
cember the prisoner paid another visit at the War-office,
and complained that Mrs. Snow was in great distress for
money, that she could not get on, and that she must
have 1601., which witness said he could not give, as
he had already advanced- all lie could command. The
prisoner then begged witness would accept a bill of ex-
change for the amount, which he declined, as he knew
nothing about bill transactions ; but, on prisoner's ap-
pealing to his feelings, by saying it would be very unkind
to Mrs. Snow to refuse, he was prevailed upon to accept
a bill for the amount xequired. The. prisoner then told
him he might make this mind easy, as he would be re
sponsible, at the same time giving him an undertaking
to that effect. The prisoner procured a stamp, and said
that he would be in the receipt of a large sum of money
in January, when he would answer it. Witness had re-
peatedly seen the prisoner since, but did not discover
that he had been deceived until within the last ten days.
Cross-examined—The prisoner gave an undertaking
and the bill was not yet due. The two 501. were not in-
tended as a temporary accommodation for him.
Mr. Bowditch here handed in a letter, which the
prosecutor admitted lie had written to the prisoner, to
show that by the purport of it the money advanced was
merely in the shape of a loan.
Mr. Steele said the question before the Court was not
to whom the credit had been given, but was such credit
obtained by means of fraud.
Mr. Rich being recalled, said he would not have
parted with the two 50/. had the prisoner not told him
the money was for the use of Mrs. Snow, and not as the
prisoner pleased to apply it.
Mrs. Georgiana Snow proved that she did not know
the prisoner.
The prisOner here shook his head and smiled.
Witness did not remember ;ever to have seen him
before, nor did she ever authorise him or any other per-
son to apply to Mr. Rich for her, and if he obtained any
money on such a representation it was false.
Mr. Bowditch—Do you mean to say you never have
met the prisoner before ? Witness— Never. •
After repeated interrogatories the :lady persisted in
denying all knowledge of them.
Mr. HALL having perused the letter put in for the de-
fence, said the language in it was very strong, and there
was a great discrepancy between it and the evidence
given by the proSecutor. The case should go before a
Jury, but it was a bailable offence, and the letter should
be annexed to the depositions.
Mr. Bowditch having recalled Mrs. Snow, asked her
if she did not meet the prisoner shortly after her return
from Paris on the Bth of December last, to which she
answered in the negative.

Mr. HALL inquired in what condition in life the pri-
soner was, that he might apportion the bail accordingly?
—Mr. Steele said he had been seven years in this coun-
try, and as he occasionally appeared in Windsor with a
cabriolet and horse, apparently his own, he supposed he
could procure good bail.
Mr. HALL said he could not tell what success the case
would have in another place, but the Judges were at
such a loss to know what constituted a fraudulent pre-
tence, that one of them on a late occasion said he should
like to know how many lies went to make- up a
" false pretence." The bail he would require would be
the prisoner in 2001. and two sureties, with twenty-
four hours' notice, in 1001. each, to answer the charge
of misdemeanour at the next Sessions of the Central
Criminal Court.