last week he got more excited." The Magistrates
committed William, and the coroner's jury found a verdict
of "Wilful murder" against him. He was tried at
Chester assizes, and acquitted on the ground of insanity.

Mr. Bourne, a surgeon practising at Wellon near
Bath, was tried at Wells Assizes for the Manslaughter
of Ann Noakes, who died on the 21st of June, in
consequence of excessive haemorrhage after a very
difficult delivery. Mr. Bourne had been called in
because the poor woman had not an order on the parish-
doctor; he attended her for nine hours, but left the
house at four in the morning, to go to the assistance of
a farmer's wife named Parker, to whom he was engaged.
The question involved was, practically, whether Mr.
Bourne was justified in leaving Ann Noakes in the
hands of midwives at a critical stage of her trouble.
Before he departed he told the women that they must
instantly send for Mr. Marsh, the parish-doctor. Mr.
Marsh lived six miles distant, and could not reach
Wellon until six o'clock; thus leaving her in great
danger for two hours. Mr. Marsh accomplished the
delivery with instruments, and the woman died of
excessive haemorrhage. Evidence was taken to show
that Mrs. Parker, the woman to attend whom Mr.
Bourne left Ann Noakes, was in great danger; and it
was shown that although Mrs. Parker was delivered at
half-past four, Mr. Bourne was obliged to remain with
her until half-past six. Two medical men were examined
upon the point as to whether it was dangerous to leave
the patient for an hour; and both decided that by all
ordinary calculations it was not. One thought that a
surgeon ought not to leave one patient, whose life was
in danger, to attend another to whom he was engaged.
They also thought that a patient ought not to be
removed for less than an hour after delivery. Some
evidence was brought to show that Mr. Bourne was a
kind man and well spoken of by the poor. The jury
returned a verdict of "Not guilty."

At Maidstone Assizes, William Butler, a sapper and
miner, was convicted of Uttering a forged Certificate of
Marriage. The case was extraordinary. Ann Farrell,
a young Irish girl, was courted by the prisoner at
Chatham; the banns of marriage were published at
Chatham Church; but Butler afterwards told the girl
they should be married at Gillingham. Accordingly
one morning they went to the church there, and some
men asked questions, went through forms, and one man,
"in a sort of cloak," pretended to marry them.
Subsequently, Butler gave a paper to the young woman—her
"marriage lines;" this was the forgery. Ann Farrell,
like Butler, is a Roman Catholic, and knew nothing of
the forms of the English Church. She had saved some
money, of which her pretended husband got possession.
They lived together fourteen months, and had a child;
then Butler told her she was no wife. It appeared that
the soldiers had access to Gillingham Church to make
surveys from the lofty tower. The culprit was sentenced
to be transported for seven years.

Mr. Cobbett, who has been confined more than
thirteen years for an alleged Contempt of the Court
of Chancery, was discharged by the Lord Chancellor
on the 31st ult. Having looked through the papers,
Lord St. Leonards found that Mr. Cobbett has not
been imprisoned for contempt, but for non-payment of
costs! Mr. Oldfield, to whom the costs were due,
consented to the discharge.

A determined act of Suicide was committed on the
31st ult. by a man in the employ of the Great Western
Company, named Watts. In the morning he left home
to see, as was his custom, where his or his men's
services were needed, and about twelve o'clock was
observed to be standing, apparently in a thoughtful mood,
near the Wallingford station. Shortly after that hour
an express train was seen coming up, and on its approach
towards the station, the deceased ran forward and threw
himself across the rails. By the engine he was struck
and knocked forward at least 150 yards, and the whole
of the carriages passed over him, mutilating him in a
dreadful manner.

In the Edinburgh Jury Court, Mrs. Janet Donald or
Eadie has obtained a verdict of £100 for herself and
£200 for her children, as Compensation for the Death
of her Husband, who had been killed in the pit of the
Barton's Hill Coal Company, at Dykehead, owing to the
unsafe condition of the pit, in which the deceased was
engaged as a collier.

The preliminary investigation into the Riots at Stockport
closed on the 2nd inst., with the committal of
twenty prisoners—ten English and ten Irish. The
Home Secretary has declined to prosecute on the part
of government, and has left the matter in the hand of
Mr. Frith, the priest whose house was ransacked, and
Mr. Foster. But it was intimated that the government
would take upon itself any reasonable expenses properly
incurred by these gentlemen, over and above the costs
of prosecution allowed by the county.—The trials of the
prisoners took place at the Chester Assizes, before Mr.
Justice Crompton. The Irish prisoners, ten in number,
were first tried. Only seven answered to their names;
three forfeited their bail. The names of the accused are
Thomas Feeney, labourer; Patrick O'Hara, tailor;
Roger McDermot, labourer; Michael McDermot, throstle-
doffer; Thomas Murphy, labourer; Thomas Garvey,
labourer; and Patrick Naughton, piercer. It was
proved that they all had been actively engaged in the
various riots and encounters which preceded the burning
of the chapels and the storming of Rock Row. It
appeared, also, that the causes of the riot were the
longstanding animosities of the two races, both as regards
competition in the labour-market and variance in religion.
Of the accused, Feeney was proved to have acted
as a leader; and the others as active combatants. All
the prisoners were found guilty of rioting; Murphy of
maliciously wounding; Naughton of an assault; and
Roger McDermot not guilty of assault. The English
prisoners were subsequently tried. Three of them were
convicted of rioting, the others were acquitted. The
prisoners were sentenced to imprisonment with hard
labour, for terms varying from two years to two
months.

A case which has been for some time before the
Prerogative Court, was concluded on the 10th. It was
a question of granting Probate to a Will executed
by Mr. John Easthope, son of Sir John Easthope, Bart.,
on the 10th of February 1814. By this will, the bulk
of his property was left to his sister, Miss Easthope;
legacies of £500 each being given under it to Mrs.
McGillivray and Mrs. Doyle, his other sisters; and the
riding-horses and carriages to Sir John Easthope. Mr.
Easthope kept this will until the 3rd of September 1846,
when he went to the office of his solicitor, Mr. Joseph
Parkes, and requested him to revoke the appointment
of Sir John Easthope as executor. But Mr. Parkes
refused, thinking from his manner that Mr. Easthope
was of unsound mind. Such turned out to be the fact.
On leaving the office of Mr. Parkes, Mr. Easthope met
Mr. Harkness, his principal clerk, and then gave
instructions as to the purchase of stock and shares
which led Mr. Harkness to the same conclusion as Mr.
Parkes. Leaving his clerk, Mr. Easthope went to the
house of Mr. Doyle, his brother-in-law, at Camberwell;
and, according to the account of Woods, footman at
Mr. Doyle's, Mr. Easthope rose early the next morning
and destroyed a quantity of papers at the kitchen-fire,
threatening to knock down Woods if he interfered.
After this date, Mr. Easthope became so evidently
insane that he was put under restraint; and his father
was made committee of his person by the decision of
a commission de lunatico. In 1849 Mr. Easthope
died: the will could not be found; Sir John became
entitled to the personal estate and effects of his son;
Miss Easthope felt aggrieved, and hence the lawsuit.
Since 1846 Miss Easthope had been from time to time
accusing her father of destroying the will. Search was
made for it, but Sir John could not find it either among
the papers of Mr. Easthope or at any banker's or at Mr.
Parkes's. Sir John Easthope had promised, that if any
reasonable account could be made out respecting the
missing will, he would set it up by a deed; but he
refused to sign a deed making all the property over to
Miss Easthope. Sir John Dodson accepted the draught
will propounded by Miss Easthope; he also held that
Sir John Easthope was free from any imputation, or
that there had been a conspiracy among his daughters
against him. Each party to pay their own costs.

Lord Frankfort appeared at the Bow-street police