removing his children from such a school. On the part
of the plaintiff all these charges were solemnly denied
both by her counsel, and by a lady, a sojourner in her
house, who said that so particular was Miss Irons, and
so averse to Romanism, that she would not permit a
Catholic singing mistress to agive a lesson unless in her
presence, and had forbidden her pupils from
corresponding with Roman Catholic friends in Germany. A
reference was suggested by the court, and it was
ultimately agreed that a verdict should be entered for
half the amount claimed, the parties paying their own
costs.

A Daring Robbery has been committed in the house
of Miss Morris, at Weston Beggard in Herefordshire.
At three o'clock on the morning of Sunday the 16th,
three men entered the house, ransacked the lower
rooms, and then ascended to Miss Morris's bedroom;
when she awoke and screamed, one thrust the bedclothes
over her head, pressed on her chest, and threatened to
murder her. They had their faces blackened, or wore
crape over them; one had a gun, and another a
bludgeon. The noise aroused the servant; but as he
opened his door, the leader, a stalwart fellow, presented
a gun, and completely cowed him. The house was
rifled, and among other plunder carried off was a large
and heavy piece of bacon. After the robbers had left
the house a few minutes, they returned, and fired the
gun through an upper window—it was heavily charged.
The neighbourhood was quickly alarmed, but the robbers
got clear off. The carrying away of the bacon, and some
other facts, have suggested that they were neighbours.

In the Sheriffs Court on the 20th, there was a writ of
inquiry to assess the damages in an action of Crim. Con.
at the instance of William Anthon Bennett, against
John Hastings Touchet. Judgment had gone by
default in the Court of Queen's Bench. The damages
were laid at £10,000. Mr. Greenwood, for the plaintiff,
said that the inquiry they were about to enter upon
would lead to disclosures of a very painful nature not
only to the parties themselves, but to their relatives and
friends. The learned counsel was here interrupted by
Mr. Hill, counsel for the defendant, who said he fully
agreed that the inquiry, if gone into, would disclose
matters of a painful character not only as regarded the
parties but others, and he therefore would repeat before
the under—sheriff and the jury an offer he had made to
his friend privately. The defendant had admitted the
facts set forth in the declaration; and he (the learned
counsel) now, on his behalf, offered to consent to a
verdict being taken for the plaintiff for the sum of £500.
Mr. Greenwood said his client's object would be accomplished
by the acceptance of this offer, which, under the
circumstances, he considered a reasonable one, and he
should consent to it. The jury then gave a verdict for
£500 damages.

At the Marlborough Street police court, on the
17th, five persons were brought up, charged with
having been concerned, with a number of others,
in Defrauding Loan Societies, to a very great
extent. A gang, amounting to nearly forty persons,
have, for some time, acted together, on a
preconcerted plan, to obtain loans by fraudulent
representations from different loan societies. Some of the
conspirators took houses for a short period, and became
referees to others who were applicants for loans. As
soon as one set of conspirators had obtained loans in
this way, the referees would change places, and become
applicants for loans, referring to the parties who had
previously obtained loans, and who now acted as house-
keepers and referees. In this way they have contrived
to carry on a most successful system of fraud, obtaining in
a very short time from different societies between £2000
and £3000, in sums varying from £5. to £10. Three of
the prisoners were committed, and two of them
remanded.

In the Bail Court on the 18th an Important Point of
Law under the New Evidence Act, was settled. In the
case of Rayner v. Arlewson, application was made under
the authority of the new Act, for a rule calling upon
the plaintiff to state upon oath whether the several
allegations contained in the affidavit of the defendant
were or were not true, and whether or not the plaintiff
had in his possession any documents, &c, and if so to
show cause why he should not produce them. The case
itself was of no interest, and referred merely to a transaction
in the sale of some tallow. Mr Justice Erle had
at first some doubts on the subject but ultimately refused
the rule. He said: That part of the rule which desired
that one party might be commanded to answer the
matters in the affidavit, the court was of opinion ought
not to be granted. The power given by the statute
extended to the production of instruments, but did not
extend to compelling a party to answer the matters in
the affidavits. With respect to written documents in
their generic term, the power extended to those
documents which the applicant could convince the judge
would probably be material and relevant to prove the
issue that was in question. A party is not to have power
to search the books of his opponent to see if he can find
anything that will serve his purpose.

In the Insolvent Court on the 21st, Alfred Walker
appeared for adjudication. He had been a student at
Cambridge, and afterwards betted on horse races, cards,
and billiards. He applied to be discharged from bill
transactions, his father having paid all his tradesmen's
accounts, but refused to pay his liabilities. The chief
commissioner ordered him to be discharged, and at the
same time admonished him as to his future conduct, telling
him that when he turned his back on this court, if he
did not turn his back on the follies which had brought
him to it, ruin and disgrace would follow.

Another Commitment for Perjury under the new law
of evidence took place in the Court of Exchequer on the
21st. Hornidge an attorney in Burton Crescent, sued
Hawkins, who described himself as a gentleman, for
£189 11s. 8d. The defendant pleaded, first, never
indebted; and, secondly, non-delivery of the bill according
to the statute; but this latter plea was abandoned.
A great number of witnesses were examined, including
the plaintiff and defendant. Mr. Baron Martin, in
summing up, observed it was impossible not to see that
on the one side or the other there had been the most
deliberate and the most wilfully corrupt perjury. It
was a case in which the parties must have known which
version was the true one; and if the truth was on the
side of the plaintiff, it was obvious that the perjury had
been committed by the defendant. If, on the other
hand, the truth was on the side of the defendant, it
was equally clear that the crime had been committed by
the plaintiff. If the latter be the guilty party, the perjury
had been committed for the purpose of influencing
the jury in favour of a claim which the defendant was
not justly entitled to pay. If, on the other hand, the
perjury had been committed by the defendant, its object
was to defeat the just claim of the plaintiff. The jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to taxation.
Mr. Baron Martin then informed the defendant that he
felt it his duty to direct him to be committed for trial
on a charge of perjury. Mr. Hawkins (who is deaf):
I hear the word "perjury." Am I to understand that
I am to be committed for perjury? Mr. Baron Martin:
Yes. Mr. Hawkins: Then I beg to say that it is martyrdom.
Mr. Baron Martin: I cannot help it. The
jury have found their verdict, after a most patient
investigation of two days' duration, and something
must be done to check this practice. Mr. Hawkins was
then taken into custody, but was immediately liberated
on bail—himself in £200 and two sureties of £50 each.

An arrangement has been made whereby the suits at
the instance of the Board of Customs, against the
London Dock Company, have been abandoned. The
Dock Company, unwilling to defend longer actions
attended with such enormous expense (the government
paying no costs), has consented to pay a nominal fine of
£100, on the goods under seizure being released, while,
at the same time, they by no means recognise the justice
of the legal proceedings. The company also protest
against the extreme injustice of having a money fine,
however unimportant in amount, added to the grievances
which the company has already had most unmeritedly to
encounter, and express their conviction, founded on the
highest legal advice, and supported by the verdict in the
Court of Exchequer, that so far from all the goods having
been "properly placed under detention," which the
government, in the course of the correspondence,
implied that they had admitted, it would have been in