right and left. But the crowd increased, and about six
o'clock fresh divisions of police were ordered up.
Numbers assembled in front of Lord Robert Grosvenor's
house, which was guarded by a strong force. It was
not till late in the evening that the park was cleared.
A number of prisoners were brought before the
Marlborough-street magistrate next day, some of them
respectable persons. One of them was a gentleman
named Mair. A constable said that Mr. Mair refused,
when ordered, to "move on"; that he put up his stick,
and that then the constable took him into custody. Some
evidence of the harsh conduct of the police was given.
Mr. Mair denied that he had committed an assault. He
was admitted to bail on his own recognisance. The
rioting was continued in Marlborough-street on Monday
night, and consequently a number of prisoners were
brought before the magistrate. Some were discharged,
and others were fined in various sums from 2s. 6d. to 20s.

A third attempt of a similar kind was made on the
following Sunday, the 8th instant. A crowd assembled
in the Park, and while there were peaceable. About
five o'clock, however, the main body left the Park,
gathered in a dense mass at the head of Grosvenor-
place, and shouted at the carriages. Cabs and
omnibuses were permitted to go by unmolested, but the
only exception otherwise made was in favour of Lord
Cardigan, who was recognised as he drove past, and
heartily cheered. Lord Palmerston passed along on
horseback. The mob did not recognise him; but they
made an uproar, resembling cheers, to frighten his
horse. After a few minutes of obstruction, during
which the premier bowed, he was allowed to proceed.
Lord Brougham also passed, with a humorous smile on
his face; to which and the steadiness of his horse he
probably owed the quietness with which he was
permitted to go on his way. By and by the young
reprobates, who did all the mischief, passed through
Belgrave-square, Upper Belgrave-street, Eaton-square,
and other places, smashing windows with untiring
perseverance, and attempting to fire the straw in front
of Lord Sefton's house. Admiral Sir George Seymour,
who resides at No. 115, Eaton-square, indignant at the
wanton destruction of property committed, sallied forth
and severely chastised one of the offenders. He was
assailed, however, by a shower of stones, and, being
badly cut on the head, was compelled to retire. When
the police came up in force, the mob rapidly disappeared.
Among those which suffered the most were the
mansions of the Earl of Sefton, in Belgrave-square; of
the Duke of Marlborough, at the corner of Upper
Belgrave-street; of Lady Somers, and of Count
Kielmansegge, the Hanoverian ambassador, in Wilton-
street. The Archbishop of York's residence has also
suffered, and a large number of fine plate-glass windows
have been entirely destroyed. There was also a
wanton destruction of windows in Park Village East
and the Hampstead-road, by a mob headed by two
privates of the Guards. Several prisoners were brought
before the Westminster, Marlborough and Marylebone
police courts on Monday. Some were fined and ordered
to find bail to keep the peace. The two privates of
the Guards, Hutchins and Ford, and six boys, were
charged with having taken part in the Albany-street
and Hampstead-road riots, where damage was done to
the extent of £300. It was clearly shown that the two
soldiers headed the mob, waving their canes, and crying,
"Come on, boys!" Two of the boys, Tanner and
Kelly, one eighteen, the other sixteen years of age,
were also implicated. Mr. Bodkin stated that the
government intend to prosecute these four by indictment.
Remanded. The other lads were discharged
with a warning from the Marylebone magistrate.

Mr. William Corfield, a solicitor of Gray's-inn-square,
has been remanded by the Clerkenwell magistrate on a
serious charge—attempting to Extort Money from Mr.
Alexander William Radford, of Audlem, in Cheshire.
Mr. Radford's son, while at college, got into debt; had
recourse to the money-lenders, and then went abroad.
His father directed his solicitors to pay all just claims
against the young man. Mr. Corfield claimed £250 for
procuring money; the demand was resisted as unfounded;
he reduced it at a stroke to £150; and he threatened,
if it were not at once paid, that he would post bills
around Audlem for the apprehension of young Radford
for "forgeries" and "perjuries:" this was the attempt
to extort money, which Mr. Radford resolved to punish.

At the Central Criminal Court, on the 2nd instant,
Charles William Winchelsea Bevan, formerly secretary
to the Deposit Insurance Company, who was acquitted
on one charge at the last Sessions, was tried for Stealing
Three Orders for the Payment of Money. These were
cheks signed by the directors, and intended to be paid
to medical gentlemen who had acted for the company:
Bevan paid them to his own bankers. The defence set
up was, that the directors were very lax in conducting
the business of the company; leaving nearly everything
to Bevan, who thought he might pay the checks to his
own bankers without any criminality. The prosecution,
it was alleged, arose from spite: Bevan it was who
had made the business of the company; when his
irregularities were discovered, the directors entered into a
compromise; but as Bevan joined another company they
prosecuted him. The jury found the prisoner guilty,
but recommended him to mercy, on account of the loose
manner in which business was conducted at the office.
When the Recorder passed sentence, he severely
lectured the prisoner; pointing out that the defence
attempted to be set up was unwarrantable. The prisoner
had been treated liberally; he knew he was acting
wrongly; and his imputations against the directors
were untrue—their conduct had not been disgraceful.
The sentence was eighteen months' imprisonment.

An action of some interest on a Bank of England
Note was tried before the Court of Common Pleas on
the 3rd instant. The action was brought by Raphael
and Co. against the Bank of England for the recovery
of the value of a note for £500. The note was one of
many stolen at Liverpool in 1852. On the 26th June,
1854, one Howard presented the note at the money-
changing house of St. Paul and Co., Paris. Seeing the
value of the note, Mr. Vincent St. Paul asked to see
Howard's passport; which was found regular, and he
changed the note, remitting it the same day to Raphael
and Co. in London. When Raphael and Co. presented
the note to the Bank, payment was refused. The
questions fcr the jury were—whether the money was
paid; whether the notices of the robbery were served
on St. Paul; and if so, whether St. Paul had the means
of knowing of the robbery at the time they changed
the note? The jury held that the full value of the note
was given; that the notices were served; that St. Paul,
had he taken care of the notices, might have known,
but that he did not know of the robbery; and that
Raphael and Co. took the note bonâ fide. Verdict for
the plaintiff, £534.

In the Second Court, sitting at Guildhall, a curious
action for Breach of an Agreement was tried. Miss
Thomas, the daughter of an attorney at Wigan, was
engaged by Miss O'Beirne, the proprietress of a ladies'
school at Grove-house, Hammersmith, for, as she
alleged, six months, as an assistant. She remained
three months at the school, but on returning after the
Easter vacation, Miss O'Beirne refused to receive her.
She alleged that Miss Thomas had only gone to her on
trial, on the understanding that if she suited she should
be engaged for six months; that Miss Thomas did not
suit, because she was incompetent, and "deficient in
example;" and that, even had there been an engagement,
it was void in consequence of the improper
conduct of the young lady. The improper conduct was
this. One of the girls, Miss Traill, received a flattering
valentine, and showed it to all her schoolfellows and
the teachers. It was signed "An Officer," and to keep
up the joke, Miss Thomas caused a love-letter, concocted
by the school-girls, and again signed "An Officer," to
be copied by one of her father's clerks, and posted to
Miss Traill. This letter, the schoolmistress alleged,
unsettled the mind of her pupil. With the permission
of Miss O'Beirne, Miss Thomas had also acted in
charades, on St. Patrick's Day, in the character of a
Highland gentleman. Moreover, Miss O'Beirne alleged
that the young lady played practical jokes, such as
sticking a ball of cotton under the coat-collar of the
writing-master. The jury, however, were satisfied from
the evidence that the plaintiff was in the right, and gave
her £20 damages.