he would commit them all for trial, but ordered them to
be brought up again, in order to have the authorities of
the Mint present.

A case, Important to Emigrants, was tried on the 15th
at the Bow County Court. It was an action brought by
Matthew Smith, an emigrant, to recover £50 as compensation
in damages for breach of contract on the part of
defendant, Mr. Gumm, an emigrant agent. The particulars
in which the contract was broken, and the sufferings
and privations resulting therefrom, appeared from the
plaintiff's evidence. He deposed that in the month of
July he went to Mr. Gumm's office in St. Katharine's
Dock, and agreed there to pay £17 10s. for passage to
New York for himself, his wife, and three children in
the Delia Maria. The vessel was to sail July 25, and
he was told that a surgeon would accompany the vessel.
He made particular inquiry on this second point, as his
wife was advanced in pregnancy. The vessel sailed
three days after her time, and he had applied for the
legal allowance money, 1s. per diem, and was refused.
When the ship sailed there was not only no surgeon, but
no medicine on board. The vessel was heavily laden
with railway iron, so much so that the bull's-eyes were
obliged to be kept closed, which stopped all ventilation
except from the hatchway and windsail. The weather
was not bad. A great many had no berths, as the sea
spoiled the beds, as it did also the provisions. Such was
the state of the vessel below that the passengers could
scarcely breathe. The plaintiff and his family, according
to the contract, were entitled to 51/2 pounds of meat
per week. On arriving at Gravesend, he applied for
meat, but the captain said they had got none on board.
He and others made a complaint to the mayor, but
were referred to Captain Lean, the government
inspector, who told him he would be on board; but the
government inspector never visited the vessel, and she
sailed from Gravesend the same night. The captain
wanted to alter the contract, to strike out the meat, and
put on more flour and bread. The plaintiff was for nine
days without any meat, and on arriving at Gravesend
he had 51/2 pounds of meat (He here produced a sample
of the pork.) It was unfit for human food, and some of
the passengers threw it overboard. The flour was also
very bad. He subsequently showed the meat to the
government inspector, who pronounced it unfit for food.
The cook-house was not protected from the weather, and
its size was totally inadequate for the number of passengers.
When the plaintiff got to Plymouth he declined
going on, as they could not eat the meat; but the
captain refused to let him go unless he signed a paper to
exonerate him (the captain), the crew, and broker. The
vessel got to Plymouth on Saturday, and he signed the
paper on Monday, as he was afraid the vessel would
sail. He would have signed anything rather than go
on. About ten passengers left the vessel at Plymouth:
one threatened to jump overboard. The plaintiff was
compelled to pawn two watches to bring himself and
family to London. Upon applying at the defendant's
office, they were told to do what they pleased. The
plaintiff's evidence was confirmed by that of several
other passengers. The defence was that the vessel had
been properly fitted out, and had passed the examination
of the government emigration officer. Mr. John
Foster, the assistant government emigration officer,
deposed that he had made the survey of the vessel required
by the act of parliament; that he had examined the
provisions, and considered them good, and sufficient in
quantity. On cross-examination, he said he had never
been employed in examining emigrant vessels previous
to May last. Captain Lean, the emigration officer for
London, was examined and produced the document
permitting the vessel to sail, called the clearing certificate.
He said he certainly would not pass the pork or flour
produced. Mr. Gumm, the defendant, was himself
examined. He said he had been a ship-broker twenty-
three years, and had personally nothing to do with the
supply of the vessel, having directed Mr. Ford, the
provision-merchant in the Minories, to supply such provisions
as would pass the survey. The jury returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages £40.

A most Brutal Murder has been committed in the
vicinity of Swords, a village a few miles to the north of
Dublin. The victims were an old man, named Patrick
Smith, about 70 years of age, and his sister Margaret,
still older and nearly bed-ridden. They resided together
in a house situated on a small farm, and remote
from any other dwelling; and it is certain that the crime
was committed by some persons who expected that the
old pair had accumulated a little money, especially as it
had been rumoured that the son of Patrick Smith had
on his death, a short time since, left his father some
money and a watch. The police received intelligence
of this deed on the 14th inst. The scene, on entering
the cabin, presented a truly awful appearance, the
corpses being extended before the hearth, at which they
had evidently been sitting when the murderers entered.
Upon the floor, with her feet towards the fire, lay the
woman, with a fractured skull; and across her body lay
that of her brother, with two wounds upon the back of
his head. Behind the door stood the instrument of
death, the heavy wooden bar of the door, upon which
was a quantity of blood and human hair. In the inner
room the furniture had been pulled about, and one of
the boxes broken open evidently by parties in quest of
plunder; the lining of one of the pockets of the
unfortunate victim's trowsers was partially turned out, but
the search was evidently hasty and ineffectual, as in an
inner pocket money was found, as also upon the person
of the female. Two young men were arrested on suspicion;
but at the inquest there was no evidence against
them, and they were liberated; the jury finding a
verdict of wilful murder against persons unknown.

An important decision, Overturning the regulation of
a Railway Company as to Cabs which ply at the Station,
has been given by the magistrate of the Southwark
Police Court. A gentleman called a cab within the
gates of the Brighton Railway terminus at London
Bridge; the driver declined to take him as a fare, as it
was not his turn: the company had ordered, for public
convenience, they allege, that the cabs in the station
should be hired in rotation, so that there shall be no
confusion created by a number of vehicles driving off at
the same moment. The gentleman summoned the
cabman; and the company took the matter up. Their
counsel urged that the cabs within the terminus gates
are not hackney carriages within the meaning of the act
of Parliament; that the cabman was not plying for hire;
and that the terminus was not such a public place as the
act contemplated. The magistrate pronounced against
the validity of all the pleas: to admit the last would be
very inconvenient to the company itself, for if a driver
were not amenable at a terminus for one offence, he
would not be for others—abuse, extortion, or other
misconduct. Mr. A'Beckett pointed out that railway
companies assume another right to interfere with the
act, by recommending passengers to pay certain extra
rates for luggage, as otherwise the charge is
"discretionary" with the cabman; whereas the law
distinctly says that cabmen shall not charge for luggage
at all. As there had been an obstinate continuance at
the terminus in violating the law, in spite of previous
complaints, Mr. A'Beckett fined the driver forty
shillings.

At the Middlesex Sessions on the 18th, Richard
Burnell, an old man, was indicted for having unlawfully
obtained from Ann Edwards a sovereign and a
half sovereign with intent to Defraud her. It
appeared that the prosecutrix is a hardworking woman,
residing in Montpelier-row, Brompton, and in the
month of June last, the prisoner came to her house
and asked for a lodging. She told him that she
had a room to let, but as she did not like his
looks "she told him that she did not take in gentlemen
lodgers. He then said, "Oh, you only take in
females?" and she replied that that was so. He then
asked what rent the room was, and she named double
the amount she would have asked anybody else, and he
went away saying, "She would hear from him on a
future occasion." On the 30th of June he called again
and said, "That he was Richard Burnell, agent to the
Society for the Protection of Women, at Westminster,
and that he had an indictment against her for keeping
a disorderly house." She told him that she did not
keep a house of the sort, but he said it was of no use
her denying it, and that the Rev. Mr. Harness and the
parish authorities had taken the matter up. He himself,