mendicants, were tried at the Central Criminal Court on the
7th instant, charged with receiving goods stolen by a
young girl named Emma Evor. The case showed the
way in which children are Regularly Trained to Crime.
The girl, who was about fifteen, had run away from her
father, a decent tradesman, and fallen into the hands of
the Griffins, who promised to show her how to get a
living, and took her home with them. She used to be
sent out and directed by the woman to steal tea, sugar,
bacon, meat,—whatever she could lay her hands on.
She never got more than a halfpenny for what she
brought home; if she brought nothing, she had no
money nor anything to eat, and was obliged to go and
pick up refuse in Spitalfields market to satisfy her
hunger. At length she was found by her father, who
took her home. The evidence was found insufficient to
convict the husband, but the woman was sentenced to a
year's imprisonment with hard labour.

An Advocate for Flogging delivered himself strongly
from the bench at the Middlesex Sessions, on the 7th.
G. Smith, a boy of twelve years old, was convicted of
stealing seventeen and sixpence. His right arm was in
splints having been lately broken. He was of a respectable
family, and a gentleman named Sharp promised to
get him sent to sea at the expiration of whatever
sentence the Court might pronounce, as he had been at
sea already. One of the magistrates could not see the
use of packing thieves off to sea, and thought the
prisoner ought to have a "downright good flogging "in
prison. "But," said the judge, "consider, he has got a
broken arm." "Oh!" rejoined his colleague, "I
wouldn't mind if he had two broken arms, or a
broken head, for the matter of that. He decidedly
ought to be flogged." The learned judge, however,
thought differently, and sentenced the boy to a month's
imprisonment, directing him to be then given up to
Mr. Sharp.

The "Agapemone" has again come under public
notice. This, it will be remembered, is an establishment
near Bridgewater, in which a number of persons reside
together, with community of goods, and professing
peculiar opinions. The founder, Mr. Prince, formerly
in deacon's orders, having married a young lady of
fortune, named Nottidge, and effected marriages between
three of his disciples and her three sisters, brought the
four ladies and their substance into the community.
Considerable noise was made by certain proceedings at
the instances of Mr. Prince's relatives, to establish her
insanity, in which they failed. Her sister, who became
the wife of a Mr. Thomas, not liking the way of life at
the Agapemone, tried in vain to induce her husband and
sisters to leave it; the consequence of which was that
she was expelled the Society, and put away by her
husband, when about to give birth to a child. She has
since resided with her relatives; and her next of kin has
applied to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint a guardian to
the infant, now four years old, on the ground of its
father's moral unfitness for its custody and education.
The case was heard on the 7th and 8th, when, after the
reading of affidavits and counter-affidavits, Mr. Thomas
defended himself in person. The following description
of life in the Agapemone was contained in the evidence
of the Rev. Mr. Price, the husband of one of the sisters:
"I married Harriet, Mr. Thomas married Agnes, and
Mr. Cobbe married Clara. We were all married on the
same day at Swansea. I and my wife dwell at the
Agapemone, and Mr. and Mrs. Cobbe also. There are
fifty or sixty living in the house. We have horses and
carriages, and live in good style. I consider that all we
do is to the glory of God. I consider that we glorify
God when we eat and drink. Every one does as he
pleases on the Sunday. We make no difference between
that day and any other day. All play at hookey, males
as well as females." Mr. Thomas vehemently denied
the charges of irreligion and immorality, declaring that
"our life is a pure and holy life, and the Agapemone a
work of God, holy and religious." The Vice-Chancellor
reserved his judgment. On the 23rd, after commenting
in the severest language on the conduct of Thomas and
his associates, his Honour ordered that the child shall
remain in the care of his mother and maternal
grandmother, and that the father and his agents shall be
restrained from interference.

Alexander Moir, a baker, was tried at the Central
Criminal Court, on the 8th, for Murdering his Wife.
The man, though holding a decent station in life,
was in the constant habit of beating and kicking the
deceased. It was proved that he had threatened to
murder her; he repeatedly said that he would not
"murder her outright," but would "kill her by inches,"
so that the law should not be able to touch him, "he
would cheat the devil and the government." He
accused his wife of being a drunkard, and it appeared
that she was somewhat addicted to liquor, though the
surgeon who examined the body said that the appearance
of the viscera contradicted the assertion of habitual
drunkenness. The jury found a verdict of manslaughter,
adding their opinion that it was of the most aggravated
kind. The judge concurred, and passed sentence of
transportation for life.

An interesting case occurred at the Worship Street
police office, on the 8th. Three sunburnt, modest-looking
young country girls, whose clothes were drenched
with rain, presented themselves before the magistrate
to tell their story and ask his aid. They were natives
of Wisbeach in Cambridgeshire, and being orphans, had
been sheltered for a considerable time in the Union
Workhouse of that place. Anxious to get employment,
and having heard of emigration and other benevolent
establishments in London, they left the workhouse to go
to London, without a farthing in their pocket or any
knowledge of the road. In four days they walked the
distance, nearly a hundred miles, and at length found
themselves in the parish of Hackney, where they were
lodged in the union for that night. During the whole
of the last day's journey they had not tasted a morsel of
food, and on being turned out that morning from the
Hackney Union had wandered into Shoreditch, where
they applied to one of the parish officers, who, on
hearing their story, advised them to submit their case to
the magistrate, who might be able to afford them some
assistance. The magistrate expressed much compassion
for the poor girls, and said he should inquire what could
be done for them, and have them taken care of in the
mean time.

Another case of swindling by means of a Mock Agency
Office for providing young men with situations, occurred
at Bow Street on the 10th, when Sidney Robert Sparks
was charged with defrauding a young man, named Levy,
of £50. The prosecutor, a country lad, was brought to
town by an advertisement in the usual style, and
introduced to a confederate, who pretended to receive him
into his employment, and took from him £50. by way of
security. He soon found that he neither got employment,
nor could he recover his money. The landlord of
the office which the prisoner had occupied, said that
young men congregated there daily, bewailing the loss
of their money, and exclaiming against the way in which
they had been deceived. The magistrate said that there
were daily complaints made to him of such proceedings,
and remanded the prisoner for further inquiry, refusing
to take bail.

Walter Watts, late lessee of the Olympic Theatre, was
tried at the Central Criminal Court on the 10th, on the
charge of Stealing a Cheque for £1400 from the Globe
Insurance Company in whose employment he was. He
was found guilty, on one of the counts of the indictment,
of "stealing a piece of paper;" but the point of law
was reserved, whether this is sufficient to constitute a
criminal charge.

A barrister, named Kenealy, was tried at the Central
Criminal Court on the 11th, on the charge of having
committed an Aggravated Assault on a Child of Six
Years, his natural son. The child was found, one day
in February last, crying in the street, and taken to a
police station, where it was found he had been cruelly
beaten; his back, legs, and neck being covered with
stripes and bruises. The child was afterwards taken to
the West London Union, at whose instance this
prosecution was brought. The defence was that the blows
were given by way of parental castigation, and that the
father had really been very kind to the child, and careful
of his education; which, indeed, was proved to have been
the case. Lord Campbell was of opinion that no serious
stain could attach to Mr. Kenealy's character. With
respect to corporeal punishment, he was rather inclined