it he became insensible, and knew nothing of what took
place afterwards, until he found himself under the care
of a surgeon. A policeman had seen the act, and
watched the prisoner enter the public-house; she
presently darted out with a hat and scarf, and escaped in
the intricacies of the vicinity, but was subsequently
captured. The jury recommended the severest sentence
the law empowered. Sentence, ten years' transportation.

Judgment was given on a claim for Seamen's Wages,
a case of considerable importance to the mercantile
community, at the Mansion House, on the 9th. Two days
previously, several seamen of the vessel Queen had
summoned the owners for wages. The Queen, on her
homeward voyage from Callao in South America, had
touched at San Francisco, where the master of the vessel
had deserted for the Californian gold washings, with a
portion of the crew. The mate assumed the command,
and, to retain the others, promised them extra wages;
they stayed by him, and he was able to navigate his vessel
home. But the owners disclaimed the agreement for
extra wages: if the men had all left the ship at
California, they could have been punished as deserters if
they had ever been caught afterwards in England; it
was their duty to bring home the ship for the wages
originally agreed upon.  As to the master's promising
more money, what could he do? he was obliged to adopt
any means to keep some of his crew to their duty. After
taking time to consider, the magistrate made the following
award: "Taking into consideration the fact that
after the desertion of the first captain and part of the
crew, the new captain and sundry seamen appeared
before the Vice-Consul at Callao, who recorded that by
mutual agreement the wages should be twenty dollars
per month, it is my decision that the complainants are
entitled to such increased wages upon a new hiring, and
I accordingly award the same to them with costs."

Mr. Leggett, a leather-merchant, was charged at the
Mansion House before Aldermen Carden and
Humphreys, with committing an Assault upon a young Lady,
and following it up by using grossly indecent language
to her. The defendant's plea was intoxication; he and
a friend had dined together, and drank four bottles of
wine at a tavern. He had no notion, he said, of insulting
the lady. Alderman Garden said: You were not
only able to run after and persecute her, but to attempt
to escape when you found that persons were ready and
determined to protect her, and you greatly aggravated
your offence by repeating language unfit for any ears in
the presence of one to whom, as a man, you were bound
to offer succour and assistance instead of insult. We
are perfectly aware that a sum of money as a penalty
upon you would be considered of no importance. You
manifested by your smiles and indifference, while the
young lady was so modestly giving her evidence, that
you felt very little for her, or for your offence against
society, or apprehension as to the result of this investigation.
But it happens as magistrates we have the
power of inflicting a very disagreeable substitute for a
pecuniary penalty, and we think that this is a most
excellent opportunity of testing the efficacy of that
power. Our sentence upon you, therefore, is, that for
your violent and indecent conduct you be imprisoned
seven days in the House of Correction. The defendant
was shocked at this judgment, and assured the Bench
that he deeply regretted his conduct, and was willing to
pay any penalty they might think proper to inflict. He
repeated that he was most willing to be allowed to
apologise to the lady and all other persons whom he might
have offended. Alderman Carden said, the Bench did
not consider it necessary to consult the lady at all upon
the occasion, and certainly could not suppose that she
would condescend to listen to the language of apology
from one who had used language for which there could
be no apology. The defendant was then taken off to
the House of Correction. There were several gentlemen
present who were ready to testify as to the high
respectability of Mr. Leggett, but the aldermen said the
case was disposed of.

John Baguley, aged 70, who died at Chilwell, near
Nottingham, on the 16th, Confessed on his death-bed that
23 years ago he murdered a hawker, and robbed him of
shawls, blankets, &c., and disposed of the body. At
the period of his sudden disappearance, the murdered
man professed to be courting one of Baguley's daughters,
and, as he was known to be in possession of a considerable
sum of money he was looked upon as being a rather
desirable suitor, especially as the Baguleys were very
poor. The hawker had not been missing more than
twelve months before their circumstances began to
improve, and from the poverty-stricken labourer Baguley
became suddenly a comfortable cottager, with a number
of pigs in his sty. Baguley's first wife, whenever she
quarrelled with her husband, was in the habit of putting
a stop to the violence of his temper by saying, "Be
quiet, John; you know I have your coat of arms
upstairs," alluding to some bloody clothes that were
supposed to be kept in a lodging-room. This first Mrs.
Baguley died five or six years ago, and said, a short time
previously, that she had something on her mind which
she should like to reveal; but this coming to her
husband's knowledge, he never afterwards would allow a
stranger to go to her room. The present Mrs. Baguley
was married to him three years, and since which time
she says his conduct has been very strange. In his sleep
frequently he would jump up in a state of great excitement
and exclaim that some one was about to seize him.
The day before he died he said to her, "The pick that
I did it with is in the dyke;" and other revelations
followed. It is singular that the cottage in which the
murder was committed has never since been occupied
for any length of time, and in it periodically strange
nocturnal noises are said to be heard. "The Chilwell
ghost," and tales respecting "the haunted house at
Chilwell," have during the last twenty years dismayed
many thousands of persons residing within a circle of
150 miles of the locality.

An Action of Libel, which occupied several days, was
concluded on the 16th in the Court of Exchequer,
between Mr. Feargus O'Connor, M.P., and Mr. Bradshaw,
proprietor of the Nottingham Journal. The libel
was an advertisement in the Nottingham Journal, thus
worded—"The subscribers to the 'National Land
Company' and the admirers of Feargus O'Connor, Esq.,
M.P. for Nottingham, who has wheedled the people of
England out of £100,000, with which he has bought
estates and conveyed them to his own use and benefit,
and all who are desirous to witness the final overthrow
of this great political impostor, should order the
Nottingham Journal, in which his excessive honesty, in
connexion with the Land Plan, has been, and will
continue to be, fearlessly exposed." The defendant
justified his libel by calling witnesses, who exposed the
illegality and commercial failure of the National Land
Company. The plaintiff answered with witnesses from
the management of the company, who laid bare its
affairs, with the object of showing that at the worst
Mr. O'Connor had been an honest though erring
philanthropist. Chief Baron Pollock, in summing up,
recounted a multitude of illegalities in the scheme,
which required explanation,—such as a false registration
of Mr. Roberts instead of Mr. O'Connor as treasurer,
because it would "not look so well" for Mr. O'Connor
to be both director and treasurer; the irresponsible
purchase of £60,000 worth of land before the company had
been registered; the receiving of £100,000 of deposits at a
time when the company had no legal right to call for more
than £620; the non-registration of the banking division
of the scheme; the publication of Mr. James Knight's
name as director thereof after he had significantly
declined to be connected with it. The effect of these
illegalities was to shut out the shareholders from legal
remedy—they could call for no restitution against
Mr. O'Connor in any court of law or equity; his heir
might hold the land, and his personal representatives
the money, freed of all accountability; or he himself
might squander it, or lose it by speculation. The jury
found for the defendant, with the expression of their
unanimous opinion that the plaintiff's character stood
unimpeached as regarded his personal honesty.

An action was brought in the County Court of Cornwall,
on the 19th, on behalf of a boy named Robins, against
William Brabyn, a schoolmaster of Withiel, arising out
of a Savage Punishment. The master beat the boy on
the head with a stick; the brain was affected, and blindness
and deafness resulted. The jury gave a verdict
of £20 damages.