In the Court of Queen's Bench on the 20th, judgement
was given in an action of Libel at the instance of
William Henry Clarkson, a, Wesleyan Superintendant
Minister residing at Derby, against John Kay, the
proprietor and publisher of the "Wesleyan Times"
newspaper. A woman named Charlotte Irons, who had
lived in the service of Mr. Clarkson, became pregnant
and charged him with being the father of her child.
In September, last year, one or two articles appeared in
the journal in question stating the fact, without
mentioning any name. On the 27th November, an
investigation took place before the magistrates, when a
barrister appeared for Mr. Clarkson, and after a
lengthened inquiry, in the course of which the woman
and other witnesses were examined, the magistrates,
dismissed the case on the ground that they were not
satisfied that there was any corroborative evidence. On
the 2nd December an article was published in the
"Wesleyan Times," insinuating that the prosecutor was
the father of the child and urging the necessity of an
inquiry by the Conference into the facts; and the same
paper contained a report of the proceedings before the
magistrates. There were two other articles in the
paper subsequently, from which it might be implied
that the writer believed Mr. Clarkson to be guilty,
although the charge had been dismissed. A prosecution
having been brought by Mr. Clarkson, against Mr. Kay,
he was convicted of libel at the sittings after last term,
but strongly recommended to mercy by the jury on
account of the strong party feeling which existed
between the two parties into which the Wesleyan body
had been divided, of one section of which—that called
the reform part—the "Wesleyan Times" was the
acknowledged organ. The prosecutor's counsel now
moved for judgment, upon which affidavits were
put in by the defendant and the prosecutor. The
affidavit of the former stated that he lived at Huddersfield;
that the libels in question were not written by
him, or known to him, until they were published in the
newspaper, and that the articles complained of did not
intend to state that the prosecutor was guilty, but merely
that a case had been made out for inquiry by the district
meeting or the Conference. The affidavit of Mr. Clarkson
set forth that the libels had been most injurious to
his character; that he had been 30 years in the Wesleyan
connexion, but had been removed from his last station,
after only one year's residence, in consequence of the effect
which the statements in the "Wesleyan Times" had
produced. He also denied the truth of the statement
made by Charlotte Irons. Mr. Justice Patteson, in
giving the judgment of the court, said that although
the defendant resided at a distance from London, where
the paper in question was printed, he must have had
some knowledge of the insertion of the articles, looking
at the series of attacks which had been made on Mr.
Clarkson. If only one article had been inserted, the
fact of the defendant not having been cognisant of it
would have had some influence on the court, but when four
libels in succession had been published, they could not
suppose the defendant to have been ignorant of them.
It was most improper to assume that the story told by
Charlotte Irons was correct after the decision which
the magistrates had come to; and there was considerable
malignity in the articles complained of. Taking into
consideration the recommendation of the jury, and all
the circumstances of the case, the sentence of the court
was that the defendant should be imprisoned in the
Queen's Prison for four months.

An inquest was held on the 20th at Guy's Hospital,
touching the death of a young woman, named Joanna
Hern, who had committed Suicide by taking prussic
acid. It appeared that on the evening of the 18th, she
was at the house of Mr. Littleton, in Long-lane, whose
wife she had been charing for, and that a young man,
named Henry Thomas, who was paying his addresses to
her, came to see her home. They had been joking
together, when she said she would go up stairs in the
bed-room, previous to going to her aunt's in the Kent-
road, with whom she lived. She went up-stairs, and
Mrs. Littleton's sister, who was in the bed-room with
her, soon after gave an alarm, which called up all the
inmates of the house. The girl said she had taken
poison; she then exclaimed, "Oh, Henry, Henry!"
alluding to the young man, and immediately afterwards,
"Oh, my poor mother!" Immediately afterwards she
expired. A bottle containing prussic acid was found in
the bed-room, and it was proved by medical testimony
that her death was caused by prussic acid. The deceased
was generally in excellent spirits, but would sometimes
complain about her father and mother having left her to
go to America. Verdict, temporary insanity.

Edwin Richards, a person who has held a respectable
position in society, has been committed by the Somersetshire
magistrates on the charge of Sheep–Stealing.
It appeared from the evidence, that for several months
past, an extensive system of sheep-stealing has been
carried on, not only in Somerset, but among the sheep-
folds on the Gloucestershire side of the city of Bristol.
Sometimes the animals would be killed upon the ground,
their carcases carried off, and the skins, heads, and
entrails, either left upon the field or sunk in some pond;
and at other times, the sheep would be driven off, so as to
leave it doubtful for a time, whether they had been stolen
or had broken bounds and strayed. On the evening of
the 26th of October, eighteen sheep belonging to Mr.
Cottle, a farmer, were seen safe in the field, and at an
early hour on the following morning they were missing.
Information was given to the police, but all efforts to
detect the depredator proved unavailing, until the
prisoner fell into the hands of the Bristol police force
upon another charge. One of the officers, upon
searching him, found in his pocket a cheque drawn by a
butcher in London, and this fact, coupled with some
others that had previously come to his knowledge, led
the constable to suspect that he had been concerned in
Mr. Cottle's robbery. He further learned from the
drawer of the cheque that it had been given in payment
for some sheep; and a railway porter in the employ of
the Great Western Railway Company, at the Bath
station, identified the prisoner as having on the day of
the robbery brought eighteen sheep (the number stolen)
to the railway, where he booked the sheep for conveyance
to the Paddington station, stating that they would
be called for there by a Mr. Brown, a drover, who would
take charge of them, and convey them to their destination.
It was further proved that the prisoner himself
afterwards proceeded to London; that he presented
himself at the Paddington station and asked for the
sheep, which were given to him; and that he then drove
them to Smithfield market, and sold them to a butcher,
whose cheque was found upon him.

The Bristol County Court was occupied on the 19th
with a case which excited an interest beyond its pecuniary
amount, on account of its bearing on the Present
Differences in the Church. The plaintiff, Miss Elizabeth
Irons, is the daughter of a dissenting minister,
and the proprietor of a boarding school in the
neighbourhood of Bristol. The defendant, Mr. John Bullock,
is a gentleman of property connected with a distillery
at Bloomsbury. The action was brought to recover the
sum of about £15, alleged to be due from the defendant
to the plaintiff in consequence of his having removed
his children from her charge without giving her the
usual quarterly notice required by the rules of her
prospectus. The real question in the case was, what
induced Mr. Bullock to remove his daughter from Miss
Irons's charge? On the part of the plaintiff it was contended
that the removal would not have taken place
had not an opportunity offered itself to Mr. Bullock to
get his children instructed at a cheaper rate, and that
down almost to the date of their withdrawal, he expressed
himself perfectly satisfied with their care and
progress. The case for the defendant was, that Miss
Irons having taken the children with a knowledge, and
upon the understanding, that they were to be brought
up as the children of an evangelical churchman, she, in
violation of the agreement, instructed them in the
doctrines of tractarianism, filling their minds with
notions that extreme unction was a beautiful doctrine
which ought to be restored to the Church, that dissent was
heresy and schism condemned in the prayer-book, and
that it was wicked to enter a dissenting place of worship;
that the Virgin Mary was the queen of saints, and
above all saints; that the Catholic was the true Church;
and that fasting was proper on Fridays. It was therefore
contended that Mr. Bullock was justified in