which he refused, and seizing the policeman by the
collar, tore his coat, but was at length taken to the
station-house. The defendant brought two respectable
witnesses to disprove the complainant's statement. The
defendant was taking a cup of coffee at the stall and
making no noise or disturbance, when he was attacked
and violently struck by the policeman. The magistrate
said that it was necessary that policemen should be
protected in the execution of their duty. In this
particular case, however, it appeared that there were no
just grounds for the policeman's interference with the
defendant while drinking his coffee, and that instead of
the latter committing the first assault, it was proved by
two competent witnesses, the policeman was the agressor;
that the public must also be protected from such
conduct as that described, and, therefore, he should
discharge the defendant.

A number of Incendiary Fires have taken place in
different parts of the country.—On the evening of
Sunday the 6th, about nine o'clock, a large stack of
barley adjoining the homestead of Mr. Boldero of
Rattlesden in Suffolk, was discovered to be on fire. A
gentleman and lady passing in a gig saw two men
running away from the stacks, and immediately
afterwards the flames burst out. The fire extended to a
neighbouring wheat-stack, and both were consumed;
but the arrival of fire-engines prevented further damage.
The two men were apprehended next day in a beer-
house in the vicinity.—On the 7th, about two in the
morning, the stack-yard of Mr. Meredith, a farmer at
Frodesly in Shropshire, was discovered to be on fire.
Engines were brought from Shrewsbury, eight miles off,
but notwithstanding the exertions of the firemen,
zealously aided by the villagers, the whole stack-yard
and farm buildings (except the dwelling-house) were
destroyed.—On the morning of the 8th, a fire broke out
on a farm belonging to the Duke of Wellington near
Strathfieldsaye, occupied by Mr. Luke Goddard. The
whole of the farm produce, consisting of several new
ricks and other corn in store, homestead, buildings, and
implements of husbandry, were consumed. A carter and
a boy about to leave the farm, have been arrested on
suspicion.—At Rainham in Kent, on the night of the 9th,
two stacks of wheat were fired simultaneously after
dark, and entirely destroyed.—On the following morning,
a large wheat-stack, the property of the Earl of
Guildford, was discovered to be in flames. Fire-engines
were useless, as no water could be obtained. A labourer
suspected of causing these fires was taken into custody.

At the Southwark Police Court on the 8th, Thomas
Claggett, a grocer in Bermondsey Street, was summoned
at the instance of the parochial authorities of St. George's,
for refusing to contribute to the Maintenance of one of
his Parents. The relieving officer said, that the defendant's
mother, an aged widow, had applied and obtained
relief of the parish, and that her son had refused to
contribute to her support, although a brother of his, who
was only a shopman, and at very low wages, allowed her
a trifle a week out of them, but not sufficient to defray
her expenses. The defendant, a well-dressed man, when
asked why he refused to maintain his mother, said, It is
not in my power. Appearances are deceitful; my
expenses are considerable, and the profits on my business
are very small; there is so much competition in the
grocery line especially, that the people in that trade,
vulgarly speaking, are "eating each other's heads off."
The Magistrate: What rent do you pay? Defendant:
I pay £45 and taxes, and that is as much as I can do.
Mother knows it's not in my power to give her
anything. The poor mother, who was present, held her
head down and said nothing. The magistrate told the
defendant that by law as well as by nature he was bound
to contribute to his mother's support, and that he
rendered himself liable to pay £1 a month for every month
he neglected it. The magistrate then directed that the
summons should stand over for a fortnight, in order to
give the defendant an opportunity of coming to some
arrangement with the parochial authorities.

On the 9th a Commission of Lunacy was held at
Uxbridge to inquire into the state of mind of Mr. Arthur
Hugh Manners Tollemache, son of the late Hon. Charles
Tollemache, nephew of the Earl of Dysart, and, on the
maternal side, of the Marquis of Tweeddale. The
commission had issued at the instance of Mr. Wilbraham
Francis Tollemache, a brother of the unfortunate
gentleman. It was shown by the testimony of several
witnesses that Mr. Tollemache, who was fifty-one years
of age, had been of weak intellect from his infancy; that
he never made any progress at school, not having learned
even writing; and that he had been under the care of
Mr. Norton, of Rose Cottage, for the last ten years.
The commission had been issued in consequence of his
father's death (which occurred three months ago), upon
which event he became entitled to a considerable fortune
—about £45,000. The jury returned an unanimous
verdict, that Mr. Tollemache had been of unsound mind
since the 1st of March, 1836.

Grace Gardiner, a gaudily-dressed girl, was charged
at the Southwark police-court on the 10th with Stealing
a quantity of Silk and other articles from Mr. Belcher, a
hatter in Great Suffolk-street. She had been only three
days in his house as a servant when she disappeared
after ransacking the drawers in Mrs. Belcher's
bedroom, and she had been taken into custody the preceding
night on Blackfriars Bridge. The girl's father, a respectable-
looking man, stepped forward, and, with tears in
his eyes, said that when he was informed of the
circumstances he immediately came up from the country to
seek for his daughter; that she had been reared with
tenderness by her parents, and was always a good and
virtuous girl until she had recently, without their
knowledge, formed an acquaintance with some persons of bad character in London. The moment he was apprised
of the robbery he lost no time in endeavouring to trace
where she had taken up her abode, and by accident met
her on Blackfriars Bridge the preceding night, and
dressed out in the gaudy manner she now presented.
When she caught sight of him she attempted to make
her escape, but he prevented it by calling a policeman
and giving her into custody. When he effected her
capture he immediately communicated the fact to her
late master, as, although she was his daughter, he would
not screen her from the consequences of her conduct;
and he added with emphasis, that he should prefer
witnessing the transportation of his child, rather than
she should lead the life of an abandoned woman, as he
feared would be the case if she were not stopped in her
reckless career. Mr. Belcher confirmed the father's
statement, and on his account, expressed a wish not to
prosecute; but the magistrate said he felt it his duty to
commit the prisoner for trial. In the course of the
examination it was stated that since she absconded, she
had been living in a house of ill-fame in White Horse-
street, and that she was proceeding thence to a theatre
when she was met by her father.

Rosina Herbert, a young woman with a delicate
infant in her arms, was charged on the 11th, at the
Thames Police Court, with Pawning Eight Shirts,
which she had received to make up for a woman named
Elizabeth Miller. The magistrate asked the prosecutrix
what she got per dozen for making the shirts, to which
she replied 2s. 6d., and she gave them out at 2s., having
but a halfpenny profit on each. The prisoner, who
wept very bitterly, said she got but seven farthings for
each, and she had to work early and late to make three
in a day. The magistrate said that it was a distressing
case, and he was embarrassed to know how he should
act. Understanding that the woman's husband was in
attendance, he ordered him to be called in, and at the
same time asked the prosecutrix within what period the
shirts ought to have been returned? She replied that
they ought to have been sent home that morning. The
husband was asked if he could pay for the redemption of
the shirts, and he said that he could not, indeed. He
was unable to save his poor wife from disgrace and
a prison. The magistrate said the prisoner had no right
to pawn the shirts; her distress was no justification for
making away with other people's property. He was
unwilling to send the woman to prison if the husband
could pay the money lent upon the shirts. The husband:
It's a large sum for a poor man. I'll endeavour to
make it up in a week. The magistrate said he would
adjourn the case for a week, and held the prisoner to
bail in her own recognisance to appear on Friday next.
As for the pawnbrokers, there was no pity at all for
them. They had no right to take in such things, which