now sought to eject Lord Mountgarret from the succession,
inasmuch as the marriage with Mrs. Colebrook
was valid according to the Scotch law, and consequently
the marriage with Miss Harrison was illegal. Evidence
was brought to prove the marriage between Henry
Butler and Mrs. Colebrook: and the trial, of four days'
duration, terminated on the 5th instant, when the jury
returned a verdict for the complainant, with 6d. costs.
They were engaged three hours in coming to this
conclusion; and so great and painful was the excitement in
the court, that a gentleman named Brown was seized
with a fit on hearing the verdict. The property at
stake is about £10,000 a year, and a contingent peerage.

Mr. Francis Robert Newton, and Mr. William
Philip Newton, the sons of a gentleman residing in
Curzon Street, were brought before the Lambeth police
on the 12th inst., on a charge of Assault. Mr. Stewart
Ker, a gentleman residing in Brompton Crescent, went
with his wife to Beulah Spa. In the gardens, he was
assaulted by the prisoners. Francis Newton, holding a
heavy whip, with the thong wound round his wrist,
demanded an "explanation," which Mr. Ker refused to
give; whereupon Francis beat him over the head with
the handle, and William struck him once with a stick.
The blows of the whip caused a great loss of blood;
Mr. Ker was carried off; and it was found that he had
suffered a concussion of the brain. It was proved by
medical evidence that he was not even in a fit state to
be examined in his own room: he could not recognise
his wife, nor move his hands, nor open his mouth, nor
hear what was said to him. On the 16th, the dangerous
symptoms not having abated, the prisoners were
remanded for a week. Bail was refused for Francis,
and he was sent to Horsemonger Lane Gaol; but
William was liberated upon heavy recognisances. The
origin of the assault has not transpired.

At the Central Criminal Court, on the 14th inst.,
William Shepherd pleaded "guilty" to the charge of
Embezzling £6. 5s., the property of his employer, Mr.
Fenwick. The prisoner received an excellent character:
he had been in business in the city for many years, but,
in consequence of reduced circumstances, he had been
compelled to take a situation. The recorder was about
to pass sentence, when the prisoner remarked, that he
admitted he had received the money, but he had
debited himself for the amount in the prosecutor's
books; he did not intend to appropriate it, but his
pocket had been picked, and he had been unable to
replace it. The recorder then observed, that this was
not a case of embezzlement, but of debt. Shepherd was
allowed to plead "not guilty," and he was acquitted.

On the 17th, Henry William Hall was convicted of
Setting Fire to a Dweliing-house, with intent to defraud
the Westminster Fire-office. The evidence was
circumstantial, but conclusive. Hall kept a coffee-house in
Fleet Street; he insured the contents for an exorbitant
sum; one night the place was left untenanted—a fire
broke out, and it was consumed. Hall made a large
claim on the insurance-office; but afterwards he
absconded. Sentence, transportation for life.

The Courts-Martial on Lieutenant Perry and
Lieutenant Greer of the 46th Regiment (see Household
Narrative for last month, p. 159) have led to further
proceedings, which have excited great public interest.
It will be remembered that Lieut. Perry was first tried,
on the charge of having violently assaulted Lieut. Greer
by striking him on the head with a candlestick, and that
Perry's defence was, a series of unprovoked insult and ill-
usage. Lieut. Greer was next brought to trial for conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, the prosecutor
being Colonel Garrett, the commanding officer of the
regiment. In the first trial of Lieut. Perry, he was found
guilty of the charge, and sentenced to be dismissed from
the service, but unanimously recommended to lenient
consideration on account of the great provocation he had
received. However, it appears, the Judge Advocate-
General, on perusing the evidence, found that certain
questions had been put, which ought to have been rejected,
and certain evidence refused which ought to have been
taken: he therefore recommended the Queen not to
confirm the sentence. A second court-martial on Lieut.
Perry, arising out of the previous trial, commenced its
proceedings on the 29th ult. The charges were, that on
the trial of Lieutenant Greer, Perry, in a letter to Colonel
Upton, made certain statements, to the effect that when
he made a complaint in Dublin, Colonel Garrett
reproached him and called him "a fool" for his pains;
that Perry had sent a letter to Colonel Garrett
threatening an appeal to the general of the district; and that
Captain Nicholas aided and abetted others in ill-treating
young officers; all of which statements Lieutenant
Perry knew to be false and slanderous. Major-General
Wetherall appeared as prosecutor, and stated that the
court had been convened in order that Lieutenant Perry
might have the fullest opportunity of substantiating his
assertions. The witnesses examined for the prosecutor
were Colonel Garrett, Major Maxwell, Major Fyffe,
Captain Sandwith, Captain Nicholas, Lieutenant
Dunscombe, Lieut. W. Waldey, Lieut. Dallas, Lieut. Curtis,
Lieut. Llewellyn, Lieut. A. Waldey, Lieut. Fane, Lieut.
Forde, Lieut. Greer, Adjutant M'Alister, Lieut. Hesketh,
and Captain Colin Campbell. A great variety of questions
were put to the witnesses, and other stories of ill-usage
were frequently alluded to. Generally speaking, in all
matters relating to the charge, the officers examined
declared that they "could not remember; "they believed
Colonel Garrett could not have used the words imputed
to him; they never heard him reproach Lieutenant
Perry. Some of the officers showed decided dislike of
Lieutenant Perry: one said he was shunned because of
his temper; another on account of his swaggering
manner, his contempt for everything regimental and
military, his supposed debauched habits, and other
imputations of that kind. Colonel Garrett did not
remember ever to have received a letter threatening to
appeal to the general of the district. The tenor of
Major Maxwell's evidence was, that the other officers
had good reason to complain of Perry; who, it was
believed, had told people in Dublin that one of the
officers was known by a very ugly name, which he would
not repeat. With respect to the conduct of Captain
Nicholas there was an unanimity of evidence that he
did not aid and abet others in annoying young officers,
but that he was, on the contrary, most kind and obliging.
The witnesses could not remember anything, when
specifically put, that criminated Captain Nicholas. One
officer, in particular, Lieut. W. T. Waldey, denied ever
having heard Captain Nicholas use opprobrious language
—such as calling one young officer " a b—son of a b—
of an ensign," or ever having stated, in writing, that
Nicholas used those words. Upon which Perry handed
up a letter written by Waldey, in which such a statement
was made. With respect to the opinion of
Lieutenant Perry's character entertained by his brother
officers, nearly all of them described him as a man of
"disagreeable and forward manners." One of the
witnesses, Captain Campbell, who had not been much on
any special military duty with Perry, said—"My own
reasons for shunning him are as follows: his
impertinent familiarity, his general depraved habits, a
disgusting gesture he made use of towards a friend of mine,
and the general difficulty I had, during the short time
he was under my command, in keeping him within the
bounds of discipline. That is all." Pressed to describe
the "disgusting gesture," he said, that Acting Adjutant
Shervington came one day to his room in a state of great
excitement, saying that he had never been so insulted
in his life. "I asked him what was the matter. He
said he had occasion to hand an official memorandum to
lieutenant, then Ensign Perry; who made a gesture of
wiping his posteriors with it, and then handed it back
to him." Upon this charge being made, Lieutenant
Perry called for the production of certain letters; and
after some cross-questioning, in order to make the
production of the letters formally correct, it was agreed
that the letters should be produced. This was done.
The letters consisted of a correspondence between Major
Fyffe, Colonel Garrett, Lieutenant Shervington, and
Lieutenant Perry. Major Fyffe in May, reported Perry
under arrest for the disgusting gesture above alluded to,
as well as sulkiness at drill, and absence from parades.
Colonel Garrett, "judging Lieutenant Perry by his
antecedents," writes that he was "not surprised" at
what had occurred; and instantly ordered a court-
martial on Perry. To this Perry replied by referring the
gesture to a "high flow of spirits" arising from excitement;