the deposit exacted from him, and was now quite
destitute.

Charles Jopling was charged at the Marylebone police
court, on the 30th of April, with having Administered
Chloroform to Mary Ann Elton, with a criminal intent.
Jopling was the girl's suitor, and on the previous
evening she accompanied him to a singing-room at a
public house near the Regent's Park, her brother-in-law
being of the party. They walked homewards together,
and, the brother having left them, he led her down a
yard, and after attempting to take liberties with her,
poured the contents of a phial on his handkerchief,
which he applied to her nose and mouth. She called
out, and gave him in charge to a policeman who came
up. The prisoner was remanded upon bail, to afford
time for further inquiry. On the 7th, the case was
proceeded with, when, to the surprise of all present, a
certificate was produced of the marriage of the
complainant and the girl that morning at the church of
St. Mary-le-Strand. Some of the girl's relatives came
forward and alleged that she had been entrapped into
this marriage, and she was closely questioned by the
magistrate. But she steadily persisted in saying that it
was with her free will, and added, looking lovingly at
her bridegroom, "Oh, I am quite sure he will use me
well, and that we shall be happy and comfortable." It
was still insisted, however, that the marriage was a
conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice; and the prisoner
was again remanded for a week.

A young girl, named Catherine Morris, the daughter
of a farmer at Clapham, threw herself into one of the
basins in Trafalgar Square, on the night of the 30th of
April; a passer-by saw the act, and managed to get her
out when life was almost gone. The young woman was
found to be Insane from Religious Fanaticism; she said
she had been baptizing herself in the pool.

A case of Heartless Seduction came before the sheriff's
court, on the 2nd of May. Joseph Payne, a tradesman
at Bedford, was left a widower with seven children, the
eldest of whom was Emma, a girl of sixteen, on whom
the care of his family devolved. Another tradesman of
the town, Samuel Plowman, paid his addresses to the
girl, and visited her with her father's sanction, professing
the most honourable intentions. This continued for
nearly two years, till the father discovered that Plowman
had effected his daughter's ruin, and in December last
she gave birth to a child. For some time the seducer
promised to repair the injury by marriage; but, as he
evaded fulfilment, the father urged him to keep his
word, and received in answer the following letter:

                                                       "January 29, 1850.
"Sir—In answer to your request of last night, concerning
either from me, or trying other means, I suppose by that you
mean to bring it into court. If you have any regard for your
daughter, you would not think of such an exposure. As it
regards marrying, I decidedly shall not, and for this reason, I
am too fond of a single life ever to think of such a thing.
Without any further trouble on your part or mine, I propose to
pay two-and-sixpence a week for the child.

                                                      "I am, Sir, yours,
                                                              "Samuel Plowman.
     "P. S.—An answer to-morrow, in writing, will oblige.
     "To Mr. Payne."

The Jury gave the plaintiif £60. damages, for the loss
of his daughter's services.

In the Insolvent Court, on the 3rd, Josiah Wilson,
the son of a farmer near Leeds, defended himself by
means of Defamation. He was opposed by a young
woman named Jane Dunn, who complained that after
he had long paid his addresses to her, she had lent him
£27., and that instead of fulfilling his engagement, he
had married a new love in London. He denied the
loan, and brought forward gross charges against the
young woman's character, asserted that he had for
years had an illicit connexion with her, and that she
had robbed him of money at different times. The debt
however was proved, and as he had no evidence in
support of his imputations against the girl, the court
refused his application for protection.

A case was decided in the Court of Exchequer, on the
3rd, involving an important question, as to the Responsibility
of Railway Companies for the acts of their
servants. Mr. Gay, a city merchant, took a third-class
ticket at the Romford station of the Eastern Counties
Railway, for London. All the third-class carriages were
full, and, as the train was starting, he was desired to get
into a second-class carriage. At Shoreditch he was
stopped, charged with riding in a second-class carriage
with a third-class ticket, carried to the Worship Street
police office, and placed at the bar; but the magistrate
said that the proper course would have been to obtain a
summons against him, and he was discharged. He was
never summoned, and brought an action of trespass
and false imprisonment against the Company. The
defence was, that the superintendent at Shoreditch had
no authority to act as he had acted, and the Company
were not responsible. The Jury intimated their intention
to find for the plaintiff. Baron Alderson interposed
with some warmth, "Do you wish," he said to the jury,
"that we should exchange functions—that you decide
the law and I the facts? The law is clear. The
Company are not to be responsible for their servant's acts,
because they continue him in their service, unless those
acts are authorised by them." The jury, after some
hesitation, returned a verdict for the defendants, the
plaintiff's counsel tendering a bill of exceptions, for a
new trial.

Mr. Pulszky, a Hungarian gentleman residing in this
country, applied to the Court of Queen's Bench on the
6th, for a criminal information against Mr. Murray, the
publisher of the Quarterly Review, for libel. An article
of that Journal had spoken of the Hungarian agents
who had made common cause with the rebels and
outcasts from Germany, France, and Poland, and accused
them as participators in the Vienna rebellion, and in
the murder of Count Latour, charging them with having
scattered money among desperate men, and drowned
their sense of humanity in intoxicating liquors; and it
then went on to say, that among these guilty parties
were those who were now members of clubs in this
country, were received at the houses of our noblemen,
nay of our Cabinet ministers, and whose names were
blazoned in the daily papers as their guests. Mr. Pulszky
swore that he believed this libel to be directed against
him, because he was a member of the Reform Club, and
had visited at the houses of British noblemen, especially
at the residence of Lord Lansdowne, and had had his
name published in the papers as one of his lordship's
guests. He showed that he had left Vienna before
Count Latour's death, and denied any participation,
directly or indirectly, in that nobleman's murder. The
Court were of opinion that a sufficient case for
interference had not been made out. They had not the
smallest doubt of Mr. Pulszky's innocence and honour,
and were satisfied that there was nothing in the article
in question to point at him or do any injury to his character.
On that ground alone they refused the application.

On the 6th, the Electric Telegraph Company applied
to the Queen's Bench for a Criminal Information against
Messrs. Wilmer and Smith, news-agents in Liverpool,
for publishing a letter accusing the Company of
Favouritism in the Transmission of News, and for using news
for their own purposes. The defendants contended that
by Act of Parliament the Company is precluded from
using on its account the intelligence it transmits; and
that, nevertheless, the Company had assumed the
functions of regular news-agents. The Court refused the
application, abstaining from any statement of reasons,
as a civil action is pending between the parties.

Charlecote Lucy, near Stratford-upon-Avon,
celebrated as the seat of Shakspeare's Justice Shallow, was
Broken into and Robbed on the night of the 6th. The
property stolen consisted chiefly of articles of jewellery;
a ring presented by Henry VIII. to his treasurer; a
miniature of the celebrated Sir Thomas Lucy, of
Shakspeare's day; a great number of gold coins and
other property, to the value of several hundred pounds.
One of the burglars was taken in Birmingham at his
lodgings, and a great portion of the property was found
upon him.

Two little children, whose heads scarcely reached the
top of the dock, were charged at Bow Street on the 7th
with Stealing a Loaf out of a baker's shop. They said,
in defence, that they were starving, and their appearance
showed that they spoke the truth. They were
sentenced to be whipped in the House of Correction.

John and Ellen Griffin, who appeared to be