a conveyancer, was indicted for Perjury, alleged to
have been committed before the judge of the
Chelmsford County Court. It appeared that Mr. Tillett kept
an account at the bank of Messrs. Mills, Bawtree, &
Co., at Colchester, and that at the latter end of 1849
his account had been overdrawn to the amount of £968
odd, and the bankers had communicated with him upon
the subject, and insisted upon having the amount
reduced; and it appeared that the defendant had
promised to do this by the end of the year. The case
for the prosecution was, that the defendant having
received a cheque for £1600, he sent it to the bank of
Messrs. Mills & Co., accompanied by a memorandum
to this effect, "Pay this at Mills's bank, and bring
receipt, £1600—Samuel Tillett," and the bankers accordingly
placed the amount to his credit, and sent a receipt
for the amount. The defendant subsequently became
insolvent, and upon his being examined in reference to
the sum of £1600, he declared that he did not intend it
should have been placed to his private account, and
said that the cheque had been taken to the bank of
Messrs. Mills by mistake, instead of to that of the
Messrs. Round, where a trust account in which he was
concerned was kept, and that Messrs. Mills had insisted
upon keeping it, and refused to hand it over to Messrs.
Round, notwithstanding that he pressed them to do so.
He likewise made a statement, to the effect that the
memorandum which was represented to have accompanied
the cheque was not sent by him on the day in question,
and that it referred to another sum of £1000; and he
asserted that the first cipher had been altered while in
the possession of the bankers to a 6, to make it tally
with the cheque. In order to support the charge,
every one of the gentlemen belonging to the firm of
Mills & Co. were called as witnesses, and they stated
most positively and distinctly that the memorandum
was brought with the cheque in the ordinary course of
business, and that credit was given to the defendant
upon it, and that the memorandum was now in
precisely the same state it had ever been. They likewise
said that there was no truth whatever in the statement
of the prisoner that he had represented to them that
the cheque had been paid into their bank by mistake,
and that he requested them to hand it over to Messrs.
Round, for whom it was intended. A variety of other
facts were brought forward, all tending to establish the
case against the prisoner in the most conclusive
manner; and it also appeared that upon the final
hearing before the judge of the county court, the
prisoner was remanded for a period of two years for
fraudulently disposing of the property he had been
intrusted with, and the present indictment was subsequently
preferred against him.—The jury, after a very
short deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. When
the prisoner was brought up for judgment he asserted
that he did not send the paper in question with the
cheque, and that it in reality referred only to a sum of
£1000 , and that it was taken from his office after he
was in custody. The Lord Chief Baron, upon hearing
this, said, with considerable warmth, that he was
satisfied that the defendant had uttered a wicked and
impudent falsehood. His offence was base enough in
itself, without the aggravation of attempting to fix
upon respectable gentlemen the crime of forgery, and
he felt called upon to say that there was not the least
ground for the assertion he had made, and he had now
no hesitation in expressing his opinion that, upon the
face of the document, it was evidently genuine; and
there was not the slightest trace of any alteration
having been made in it. The judge then ordered the
prisoner to be imprisoned for one day, and then to be
transported for seven years.

Kirwan, the artist, convicted of the Murder of his
Wife at Ireland's Eye, near Dublin, has not been
transported according to his sentence, but is still at
Spike Island.

At Huntingdon Assizes an action for Breach of
Promise of Marriage was tried. Mr. Hart, a farmer in
good circumstances, promised to marry Jane Jackson,
the daughter of a farmer at Cockayne Hatley. At the
time he proposed he was forty–one, and the lady only
seventeen. He seduced her, and then married another
woman. The Jury gave £500 damages.

At York Assizes a verdict of £110 damages was given
against Mr. Wilkinson, a card–manufacturer, at Newton,
for the Seduction of the daughter of Mr. Wilkinson,
foreman to card–makers at Linley. The case was
peculiarly painful. The couple were cousins; the
young woman was seduced; a few weeks after her
confinement she died; and it appeared that her death
arose from a "broken heart"—from shame, and from
sorrow at the defendant's desertion of her.

At Lewes Assizes, Miss Hannah Hore, of Drayton,
near Bognor, has obtained £400 damages from Mr.
George Duke, for Breach of Promise of Marriage.
Miss Hore's father is a man of property; and she has
expectations of a fortune of some £9000 Mr. Duke
is a gentleman–farmer, forty–five years old, a widower
for the second time, and has three children. Miss
Hore's father has shown an aversion to the match,
but at length the couple were formally engaged.
Mr. Duke then made inquiries about the lady's money
prospects; and he found that the receipt of the £9000
was only contingent upon her surviving her mother
for twenty–one years, with other qualifications. No
substantial defence was offered by his counsel, who
admitted that a verdict must go against his client.

At the same assizes, John Broome was tried for
defrauding Mr. Hamp of a large sum of money by
Cheating him at Cards. It appeared, however, that
Broome was asleep when two other men were cheating
the prosecutor; so the Judge directed an acquital.

At York Assizes, Messrs. Thompson, Seymour, and
Priestman, Directors of the York and North Midland
Railway Company, were tried for Manslaughter. The
grand jury had ignored the bill against them, and they
were arraigned on the coroner's inquisition. It was
alleged at the inquest, that the "accident" by which
the men perished arose from the bad condition of the
permanent way; and the coroner's jury held the
directors to be responsible for this. Though the grand
jury threw out the bill, they expressed an opinion that
the "accident" arose from the defective state of the
permanent way, and that further inquiry should be
made into the matter. When the three gentlemen had
pleaded "Not guilty," the counsel for the prosecution
announced, that after the grand jury, under the judge's
direction, had pronounced the directors not criminally
responsible, he should not offer any evidence against
them. They were then formally acquitted.

At Stafford Assizes Sarah Baker was convicted of
the Murder of her Child, by throwing it down an, old
pit–shaft. The poor creature was seduced by a wretch
who deserted her when it was apparent she would
become a mother: he fled the country for a year, that
he might avoid the liability of supporting his child;
then returned, and married another woman. Sarah
struggled hard to earn a living by cinder–washing. A
vain attempt was made by her counsel to get an
acquittal on the ground of insanity. The jury
recommended her to mercy on account of her
desponding state when she committed the crime, and
all the distressing circumstances. Sentence of death
was pronounced; but the Judge promised to
forward the merciful recommendation to the proper
quarter.

An unmarried woman, who calls herself Ann
Brookes, living at Birmingham, Murdered her Two
little Children, and attempted to destroy herself. At
night she admmistered a narcotic poison to the children
in milk; they were found dead in bed next morning.
On that morning the woman herself swallowed
laudanum; but by medical aid her life was preserved.
The father of the children is reputed to be one Brookes,
whose name the mother assumed.

At York Assizes on the 23rd, Miss Tweddle
obtained £3000 damages from Mr. Ramshay for Breach
of Promise of Marriage. The plaintiff is the daughter
of a respectable farmer in Cumberland, the defendant is
steward to the Earl of Carlisle at Naworth Castle, and
a man of large property. The gentleman is about forty–
five, the lady twenty–five years of age. He had paid his
addresses to her since the year 1848; had made known
to his friends his intention to marry her, and introduced
her to the best society of the county as his intended
wife. In 1850, however, he suddenly broke off the