inches wide, and its price was less than sixpence. The
Attorney-General had contended that it was liable to
duty as a newspaper, under the act 6 & 7 Will. IV.,
c. 76. Looking at the schedule annexed to that statute,
there might be some room for doubt; but that doubt
was dispelled on a review of the several previous statutes
on the subject, and the language and course of former
legislation. The learned judge then recapitulated and
commented on the different provisions of the various
statutes, from the statute of Anne downwards, and
proceeded to say, that the "Household Narrative of
Current Events" must be either a pamphlet, or a paper
as contradistinguished from a pamphlet. If it was a
pamphlet, it was not chargeable with duty, because it
did not fall within the description of the act 60 Geo.
III. He himself was not satisfied that it was not a
pamphlet; but assuming, for the sake of argument,
that it might be a newspaper, it was necessary to look
at the schedule of the statute 6 & 7 Will. IV., to see
what newspapers were liable to duty within the meaning
of its provisions. After reading the words of the statute,
the learned judge said he could not distinguish the
present publication from that of a pamphlet or a
magazine, such as the "Gentleman's Magazine," or any
similar publication which was not taxed, and it seemed
to him therefore on the whole that as the publication
was not published at intervals of less than twenty-six
days, the judgment of the court should be against the
Crown.—Mr. Baron Parke thought the judgment ought
to be in favour of the Crown. There was no doubt on
his mind that the 6 & 7 Will. IV. never contemplated
a publication of the nature of the one in question; and
his opinion also was, that that of Anne did not either.
The statute applied to news of recent events, and the
publication in question contained such news. The
question then arose, whether it was meant news which
arrived within the twenty-six days, or news which was
published in a paper published at intervals of more than
twenty-six days. He was of opinion that what was
meant, was to restrain such publications from publishing
news of a more recent date than twenty-six days.—The
Lord Chief Baron said he was not convinced, either by
the arguments of counsel, or the opinion of his learned
brother Parke, that the "Household Narrative" was
a publication which came within the term newspaper.
Under the circumstances he thought the judgment
should be for the defendants. The language of the act
of Anne was applied to newspapers which were to be
dispersed throughout the United Kingdom. The
statute of William IV. was a legislative recognition that
a pamphlet was not a newspaper, and that the
publication in question did not come within that term. It
mattered not whether the news was in a publication
published at intervals of twenty-six days, or two days
earlier or later than the date of publication, but it was
evidently not a newspaper. Although it might come
within the description of a chronicle of passing events,
he did not see that it was therefore to be considered a
newspaper, even if it brought passing events down to a
very recent period before the publication. If to-morrow
Mr. Macaulay published a work bringing down events
to Saturday last, could such a work come within the
description and character of a newspaper? In the
"Monthly Register," "Monthly Magazine," and other
monthly publications, births, deaths, and marriages,
were given; so also was news of recent date given of
bankruptcy, commercial intelligence, and of both houses
of parliament, but no one thought of considering such
publications liable to stamp duty. He could not consider
that the publication in question could be considered
as under the general character of a newspaper; and he
certainly differed with his learned brother (Mr. Baron
Parke) as to the meaning and object of the statutes.
Looking at the whole question he thought a certain
unfrequency of publication gives it the character of a
chronicle of events, or a paper chronicling historical
events, rather than that of a newspaper. According to
his reading of the act of parliament, if the publication
was published at intervals of twenty-six days, then it
was a newspaper; but if above that, then it was a mere
chronicle, whether it contained late events or not.—
In consequence of these opinions, the judgment of the
court was given in favour of the defendants.

The Court of Queen's Bench was occupied during the
1st and 2d inst., in trying the case of the Queen v.
Holder Alleyne, M'Geachy Alleyne, and T. D'Arcy.
It was a prosecution for conspiracy to defraud Robert
Blair Kennedy, and to obtain from him the sum of
£7300 by false pretences. The whole of the parties
concerned were within the last few years officers in her
Majesty's service. Kennedy is the son of Colonel
Kennedy, and the nephew of Sir R. Blair; he was
educated at Sandhurst, and was there a fellow student
with M'Geachy Alleyne. Both these young men
obtained commissions in the 89th Regiment of Foot, and
joined their corps at Montreal, in Canada, somewhere
about 1843. Holder Alleyne was a lieutenant in the
Second Light Infantry, also in Canada during 1843;
and was introduced to Kennedy by M'Geachy Alleyne.
D'Arcy was also an officer in the Eighty-ninth. While
in Canada, the young men all gambled, betted, and lived
much beyond their income. Kennedy had good
expectations. They had all returned to England in 1846.
Towards the end of 1846, Holder Alleyne made a bet
with Kennedy that a certain mare of his should trot
half a mile while a horse of Kennedy's galloped three
quarters of a mile. Holder Alleyne stated that he had
picked her up at a dealer's, and that she was an English
mare of extraordinary mark. By skilful management,
Kennedy was at last induced to take the following bets
against this mare. "The bet that was made was £100
that the mare could not trot twelve miles within the
hour, £200 that she could not trot thirteen miles, £400
that she could not trot fourteen miles, £800 that she
could not trot fifteen miles, £1600 that she could not
trot sixteen miles, £3200 that she could not trot seventeen
miles, £500 that she could not trot fourteen miles,
and £500 that she could not trot fifteen miles within the
hour—total, £7300. The match was to come off on or
before the 1st of January 1847. Holder Alleyne was to
name time and place, and give me one week's notice,
and he might withdraw from the bet on payment of a
forfeit of £500. No forfeit was named for me to pay."
At the time Kennedy made this bet he had never seen
the mare, and only took her qualities on Holder
Alleyne's representation. He afterwards saw her; she
was of no particular promise in looks; her name was
Pigeon. In December Kennedy received notice to be
ready with his money, as Pigeon was fit for the match.
But just on the eve of the match, M'Geachy Alleyne
and D'Arcy made such strong representations that the
mare was able to do more than she was backed to do,
and urged a compromise so strongly, that at last Kennedy
consented to pay the £7300 down, and as an off-set
to become half-owner of the horse. The money was
paid. About this time, Kennedy was obliged to leave
the army; and after a time his uncle obtained him an
East India cadetship. He went to India. On his
return, he completed an investigation into what he
suspected had been a fraud on himself in these
transactions. It was discovered that the English mare
Pigeon was no other than the celebrated American
trotting mare Fanny Jenks, who had performed a
hundred miles in ten hours, and could cover nineteen
miles in the hour. It further turned out, that, in
December 1846, she had suddenly fallen lame, so as to
be totally unfit to run a match; that the compromise
urged by M'Geachy Alleyne and D'Arcy was a scheme
to save the loss of the wager through the mare's
lameness; and that the money was divided between the
two Alleynes—and a reverend brother of theirs, Joseph,
who was not included in the indictment—and D'Arcy.
In consequence of these discoveries, this action for
conspiracy was brought. The whole of the facts were
fully proved. The chief witnesses were the prosecutor,
Kennedy, and Ignatius Francis Coyle, who was lately
convicted of a bill fraud on M'Geachy Alleyne, and is
now enduring his sentence in Newgate. Coyle was a
gambler, who was once the "intimate friend" of
Holder Alleyne, and Holder had told him the whole
scheme of fraud in confidence. At the present time,
M'Geachy Alleyne and D'Arcy were engaged in the
manufacture of beer-barrel staves, under a patent, in
Bermondsey. The jury found all the defendants guilty.
The prosecutor recommended M'Geachy Alleyne to
the mercy of the court, from a belief that he had been