no one in charge of her cottage, and upon her returning
shortly afterwards, she was very much astonished at
seeing a light in her bedroom. She gave an alarm to her
neighbours, and some of them stationed themselves at
the front door and others at the back, and in a short
time an attempt was made by some persons inside to
open the front door. The people on the outside held
the door fast, and an endeavour was made to force it
open with a poker from the inside, and finding they
could not succeed in doing so, there was a cry of "——
your eyes, shoot, fire!" This had the effect of intimidating
the persons on the outside, and they retreated a
short distance, and two men, one of whom was the
prisoner, then rushed out of the house. . A man named
M'Cree laid hold of the prisoner, who immediately
struck him on the arm with a crow-bar, and he
succeeded in getting away a short distance, when he was
secured, but his companion succeeded in effecting his
escape. Upon going into the cottage the bed-room of
the prosecutrix was found in a state of great disorder,
all her drawers having been ransacked and the contents
strewed about, and several skeleton keys were picked
up in different parts of the premises. The jury found
the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to be
transported for ten years.

A case of Bigamy, involving a point of law, was tried
at the Central Criminal Court on the 25th. William
Henry Powey, gardener, was indicted for feloniously
marrying Isabella Graham, his wife being then alive.
The first marriage was proved to have taken place on
the 30th of June, 1849, at St. Mary's, Crawford-street,
Portman-square. Jane Sleaman, the wife of a ropemaker,
residing in Edinburgh, stated that the prisoner
was married on the 23rd of August, 1851 (having been
on a visit for three weeks previously), to her sister, Miss
Graham, and after staying a few days with them, and
living together as man and wife, sailed for England.
They were married by the Rev. Mr. Reed, minister of
the United Presbyterian congregation in the Lothian-
road. They were married in witness's house: it is the
custom in Scotland, and witness had heard that the
banns had been proclaimed in the usual way. The
clerk to the magistrates of Edgeware produced a copy
of the record of the marriage of the prisoner with the
second wife; and said that he obtained it from the
sessions clerk. Mr. Parry, the defendant's counsel,
objected to the admission of the document, contending
that it could not be admitted as evidence unless
accompanied by a proper certificate of its being legal, and in
conformity with the Scottish statutes. The Common
Serjeant said that he could not admit such a document
as evidence of the marriage. Mr. Parry then, at some
length, argued that there was no proof whatever of a
second marriage, or if so, not such evidence as his
lordship could take cognisance of. His lordship, in his
judicial capacity, could only view the law of Scotland
as he would one of a foreign country, and in order that
he might act upon it the law required that he ought to
have in evidence before him and the jury the testimony
of some person well studied in the statutes of the
particular country whose legislation was the subject of inquiry.
He need only remind his lordship of the celebrated
Wakefield case of abduction, in which Lord Brougham was
engaged; there the most eminent Scotch jurists were
examined and cross-examined before the learned judges
to prove the then existing state of the law. Here there
was not any evidence that the party alleged to have
performed the ceremony was authorised to do so, or
whether he was recognised as a minister, or whether
the usual forms had been complied with to constitute
what in Scotland was termed a regular marriage. Mr.
Dearsly, .in reply, said that for the purposes of the
present indictment it mattered not whether it was a
regular or irregular marriage. He was aware that when
the question of property or descent was at issue it was
then necessary that the whole of the forms required by
the Scottish law should be complied with, and the
marriage be proven a regular one; but this indictment did
not require it. And, with regard to the other part of
the argument, in "Archbold's Criminal Pleadings by
Sir John Jervis," it was laid down that a marriage, if
celebrated abroad, may be proved by any person who
was present, and circumstances should also be proved
from which the jury may presume that it was a valid
marriage according to the custom of the country in which
it was celebrated—proof that it was performed by a
person appearing and officiating as a priest, and that it
was understood by the parties to be according to the
rites and customs of the foreign country. The Common
Serjeant said it was a case for the jury. The defendant
was found guilty, and sentence was postponed.

At the Mansion House, on the 25th, A. Campbell, a
Scotchman, was charged with having Robbed Michael
Barry, a young Irish tailor, of five shillings, the first
money ever earned by the industrious boy in this
country, in which he has been a very recent importation.
The prosecutor said,—The prisoner, who is a tailor as
well as myself, lodged in the same room, and before I
went to bed about three months ago he pressed me to
lend him the money I had, but as I wanted it myself I
refused him, and I put it for safety under my head. In
the morning I found that my money and my cap were
gone, and that the prisoner, who had never got into his
bed at all, was off along with them. The landlord of the
house in which the prosecutor and the prisoner lodged
said—I heard the prisoner ask the lad for the loan of
money, and as I knew the poor boy wished to keep his
first earnings in England, for good luck, I told my wife
to lend Mr. Campbell a shilling, which she did. In the
morning we found that the robbery had been committed,
and I was told by the magistrate to give the thief into
custody whenever I saw him. We never laid eyes on
him since till yesterday, and then he was charged, and
had the impudence to deny that he was a rogue. The
prisoner said that there was not a word of truth in the
statement that he had either wanted to borrow or to
steal, and that the whole charge was mere spite against
him because he refused to stay in the noisy quarter in
which he had lately resided. Alderman Hooper: And
what did you do with the boy's cap? The prisoner:
That was not worth a bawbee. I don't know what
became of it. Alderman Hooper (to the prosecutor):
What was the cap worth? The prosecutor: A shilling,
your honour. Alderman Hooper: We have the
prisoner's own acknowledgment that he stole the cap.
The prisoner: No, your lordship; I only clapped it on
my head for fear of catching coid, as I was leaving the
room. (Laughter.) Alderman Hooper: There is no
doubt at all that you robbed this poor lad, and if you do
not return him the money and pay him for the cap,
you shall go to prison for seven days. The prisoner:
It's vara hard upon me to have to pay for what I didn't
ever receive. I've no objactions to pay for the cap, but
not the money. Alderman Hooper: Young man, I
dare say he will procure the money you have lost; and
if so, it shall be sent to you. The prisoner was then
locked up.

A shocking case of Child Murder has occurred at
Barnstaple. A young woman named Eliza Boucher,
a servant of Mr. W. Wadham Hiil, hairdresser and
perfumer, having been delivered of an illegitimate child,
afterwards destroyed it by burning it in the washhouse
furnace. It appeared that her condition was suspected
by her mistress, who taxed her with being enceinte, but
the young woman stoutly denied such an insinuation.
Discoveries were made, however, which left no doubt of
her confinement having taken place, whereupon she was
again questioned as to her conduct. She then admitted
that she had been confined, and stated that she had
thrown the child into the river. Subsequently, however,
she said that she had buried it in the ash-pit, and, as if to
give a plausibility to her story, she commenced digging
herself, as if to bring it out. At length, however, all
attempts to conceal the truth failed, and she confessed
that she had burnt the infant in the washhouse furnace,
where she had kindled a large fire early on the washing
morning. She was then of course handed over to the
police authorities; but has been too ill to be examined.

An atrocious Murder was perpetrated on the morning
of the 25th near Stafford, at a house on the road to
Wolverhampton, down a secluded lane. The house was
occupied by an aged couple named Blackband, who, in
addition to the land and buildings adjoining, were also
the owners of several fields of land. Naturally penurious,
and imagining the safest place for his wealth to be on his
own person, Blackband always carried about with him a