have been on several occasions insulted by the Italians
while passing through the streets. On the evening of
Sunday the 10th inst, the Rev. Mr. Gilligan was
assaulted in Baldwin's gardens, and the assailants
retreating into a casa kept by an Italian named Tresoldi.
This was followed up on the following evening by an
assault on the Rev. Mr. O'Connor, who was knocked
down and ill–treated by the same parties as he was
passing the casa about six o'clock in the evening. The
Irish who witnessed this unprovoked outrage, at once
made an attack on the house, broke some of the windows,
and but for the timely arrival of policemen, loss of life
might have ensued. Order has since been restored.

The New Cab Law has given rise to a number of
cases at the Police Courts. On the 11th., the day on
which the act came into operation, a gentleman
required a cabman whom he hired to drive to the Guildhall
Justice–room to have a dispute settled before the
magistrates. The complainant had hired a cab at the
Euston–square station, and drove to Bedford–street in the
Strand, where he stayed three–quarters of an hour, and
then drove to the Union Bank in Princes–street, and,
after a little further delay, inquired what was the fare?
The cabman demanded 4s., and the complainant asked
whether he charged by time or distance? when the
cabman replied that under the new act he was entitled
to charge by both, and he charged 2s. for the three
miles and a fraction, and 2s. for the hour he was detained.
On referring to the new act it was found that the cabman
was allowed to charge 6d. for every mile or fraction
of a mile, and if detained during the hiring by the
fare, 6d. for every fifteen minutes completed, but not
for any fraction of fifteen minutes. The cabman's
charge of 2s. for distance and 2s. for the time was
allowed to be correct. On the 12th, Mr. Bigg, fruiterer,
of Covent–Garden, "applied at Bow–street for a summons
under the new hackney carriages act, with the view of
testing the clause relative to the conveyance of luggage.
The applicant stated that for a long time past he had
been accustomed to employ cabs for the purpose of
conveying pine–apples from Monument–yard to Covent–
Garden market. For this accommodation he invariably
paid 2s., which rather exceeded even the fare under the old
act. On Monday morning he hailed a cab near London
Bridge, as usual, and having put 130 pine–apples inside,
under and upon the seats, the driver carried him to
Covent–Garden, where the witness offered him 2s. The
cabman, however, declined to take this sum, stating
his fare was 3s., besides the luggage, for which he was
empowered by the new act to charge 2d. per packet.
He then reckoned up the loose pine–apples, regarding
each as one packet, and said he could claim £1 1s. 8d.
if he went to a police–court, that being the aggregate
amount of 130 packets at 2d. each. He took the act of
parliament out of his pocket and read the clause to
witness; but he!(Mr. Bigg) declined to take the cabman's
interpretation of the new law, and, paying him
the 3s., which he demanded for the fare, resolved to
apply for a summons. The magistrate said that one of
the objects of the new act is to provide the public with
a better class of hackney carriages, and to have them
kept in a cleanly and decent condition. It was never
intended that they should be converted into market
carts. It would not be very pleasant, for example, to
the next person who engaged the cabin question, after
it had been filled with pine–apples. If once the system
prevailed of sending about merchandise of that kind in
cabs, they might soon be employed to convey fish, meat,
&c. However, as the cabman in the present instance
did not object to carry the pine–apples, which he would
be fully justified in doing, he had certainly no right to
make a charge for them. The summons was then granted.
On the 19th the cabman appeared to the summons. He
admitted that he was in error as to charging 2d. each for the
130 pine–apples, although they nearly filled the inside of his
cab. Still, he thought it was worth 3s. to take the lot,
with Mr. Bigg, from Monument–yard to Covent garden
market; but the gentleman refused to go to Bow–street
at once to settle it. The magistrate (Mr. Henry) said
that the cabman was entirely in the wrong, and
sentenced him to pay the penalty of 40s., or be
committed for a month. The defendant preferred the latter
alternative, and was accordingly sent to prison. Mr.
Bigg tried hard to get the penalty mitigated, but Mr.
Henry said that he sat there to enforce a principle, and
would not listen to such appeals.—Another case occurred
at Bow–street on the same day, when Mr. Henry gave
a judgment which has excited much surprise. A gentleman
named Bund attended with a cabman, named
Thomas Phillips, to have a dispute settled by Mr.
Henry. Mr. Bond stated that he was driven from his
residence (opposite the cemetery) to the corner of
Wellington–street, Strand. Several stoppages occurred,
and the cab went round by Birdcage–walk, instead of
the more direct road; but still witness was satisfied that
tlie distance did not exceed three miles. There was no
dispute about the stoppages, each party having estimated
these at one hour, or 2s.: but there was an extra passenger,
6d.; making in all 4s. The defendant claimed
5s., on the ground that the distance exceeded four miles;
and this was the question at issue. The cabman stated
that he was engaged the previous night to call for Mr.
Bond, and was consequently entitled to charge for the
distance from his stand to Mr. Bond's house, which was
three quarters of a mile. This, he contended, made the
whole distance four miles and a half. Mr. Henry said,
the official book of fares had not, unfortunately, yet
appeared, but if the parties were disposed to have the
ground measured, it could be done on payment of 5s.
each into court. The complainant agreed to this
proposal, but the cabman said he had not got 5s. in his
pocket, for it was his first job that day. Mr. Henry:—
"Then, as you cannot pay the 5s. deposit, I shall take
Mr. Bond's statement as evidence of the fact, and convict
you of the overcharge, for which you must pay the
penalty of 40s., or go to prison for a month.' Mr. Bond,
who appeared rather startled at the suddenness and
severity of the decision, said, he did not think the
matter would have taken this turn. The cabman was
very civil throughout the transaction, and he hoped that
the penalty would not be inflicted. Mr. Henry refused
to listen to this appeal. The object of the act, he said,
in enabling passengers to go at once to the police court
was not to dispense with the penalties, but to save the
complainants the trouble of applying for summons. The
cabman was committed to gaol in default of paying the
fine, and his horse and cab were sent to the Green–yard.

At Winchester Assizes, William Wheeler Yelf
pleaded guilty to several charges of Forgery and
Embezlement. Yelf was actuary of the Isle of Wight
savings–bank; and he took advantage of his position to
appropriate to his own use, in the course of ten years,
no less than £8000. His counsel appealed for a merciful
sentence, on the score that the prisoner had shown
every contrition for his offence and had made all the
amends he could. But Mr. Baron Martin said he
must pass the most severe sentence the law allowed, for
the crime was a most heinous one. Yelf was therefore
sentenced to be transported for life.

At the same assizes, Aaron Crawcour was convicted
of Stealing forty–eight pounds of Gold on the High–
Seas. The theft was committed at Rio, on board the
Lady Flora, bound from Australia to London. Crawcour
was a passenger, in a destitute condition. The chief
witness was a prisoner, John Gore, formerly second
mate of the Lady Flora. According to his statement,
Crawcour, three other passengers, and himself, were
engaged in the robbery; the gold was sold at Rio.
Crawcour sold it, and he seems to have kept the
largest share. His sentence was two years'
imprisonment.

At Abingdon Assizes, a boy only nine years of age
has been tried for Placing three plates of Iron on the
Great Western Rails near Maidenhead, where the line
runs on a high embankment. A train passed over one
plate; fortunately, the weight of the locomotive cut it
in two, and the train kept on the rails. It appeared
that these plates were lying about the railway, for
daily use. The prisoner's education had been greatly
neglected. Mr. Justice Coleridge directed the jury,
that unless it was clear to them that the boy had a,
"malicious" intent in putting the plates on the rails,
they must acquit him. The verdict was "Not guilty;"
which the Judge approved, but he gave the boy a
caution before he liberated him.

At Chelmsford Assizes on the 14th, Mr. Samuel Tillett,