the shopman who was attending on her went to another
part of the premises, she was seen to take four
handkerchiefs and put them into her pocket. When she
left the shop she was followed; she entered a stationer's
shop; as she left it, one of Mr. Moule's people spoke to
her. She at first denied that she had been at Mr.
Moule's; then admitted that she had, and volunteered
the statement that she had got "the handkerchiefs" in
her pocket. She was taken to Mr. Moule's, when she
produced the handkerchiefs, saying, "I merely took
them for the purpose of showing them to my sister, and
if she had not approved of them I should have returned
them." She hoped Mr. Moule would "look over this:"
when he said he could not, she exclaimed, "Do as you
like!" She was much excited and confused. Mr.
Broughton said he must remand Mrs. Ramsbotham, as
the shopman who had served her was not in attendance:
he refused to take bail; and said, if he should eventually
consent after the second examination, he would require
two sureties in £1000 each. On the 30th, on the production
of a medical certificate to the effect that her reason
would be endangered by confinement, she was liberated
on bail. On the 2nd inst., she was brought up for
re-examination. No new facts were elicited, and she was
committed for trial; bail being taken, as before, for
£2000. The trial came on at the Middlesex sessions, on
the 11th inst. The grand jury had found a bill for two
larcenies; one, on the 15th March, of two sleeves; the
other, on the 27th, of four handkerchiefs. Mr. Bodkin
appeared for Mr. Moule, the prosecutor. It appeared
that Mrs. Ramsbotham was observed to secrete the
sleeves on the 15th March; Mr. Moule was not at home
that day, and no proceedings were taken; when Mrs.
Ramsbotham visited the shop a second time she was
watched and detected. After Mrs. Ramsbotham was in
custody, she admitted that she had taken the sleeves as
well as the handkerchiefs. The evidence, in a great
degree similar to that given at the police-court, proved
that Mrs. Ramsbotham took the goods. Mr. Ballantine,
for the defence, made no attempt to rebut the facts of
the case; but he asked the jury to acquit on the ground
that there was no felonious intent. He dwelt on the
improbability of a lady like Mrs. Ramsbotham really
intending to rob a shopkeeper,—perilling reputation,
happiness, health, and life, and exposing her children
and husband to the most poignant sufferings, for the
sake of a few shillings. He impugned the conduct of
Mr. Moule: after the lady had taken the sleeves he did
not communicate with her husband, but "laid a trap"
for her. Did he not know that many ladies have a
"mania" to commit these acts? Women have morbid
delusions at certain times—as during pregnancy, and
when a great constitutional change occurs: Mrs.
Ramsbotham had arrived at the latter crisis. A number
of clergymen, gentlemen, ladies, and tradesmen, were
called, who testified to the honour and integrity of the
prisoner during the long period they had known her.
The assistant judge summed up favourably to the
prisoner; repeatedly telling the jury, that if Mrs.
Ramsbotham was suffering from a morbid affection, as
urged by her counsel, and had no desire of gain or
profit when she took the goods, they must acquit.
After four hours' deliberation, the jury could not agree
upon a verdict: they were equally divided, six for
conviction and six for acquittal. After some consultation
had taken place, and all imputation against Mr. Moule
of setting "a trap" had been withdrawn, it was agreed
that the jury should be discharged; and Mrs.
Ramsbotham was liberated.

An important judgment was delivered on the 31st
ult. by Mr. Pemberton Leigh, in the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, on an appeal from the
Admiralty Court, touching the Laws of Blockade. It
appears that the Ostsee, a vessel from Mecklenburg, left
Cronstadt on the 16th May, 1854, before the blockade of
that port was established. On the 1st June, Captain
Otter, cruising in the Alban about the Gulf of Finland,
fell in with and detained her. The skipper of the
Ostsee pleaded ignorance of the blockade, apparently
with truth; and Captain Otter referred the case to Sir
Charles Napier. The Admiral placed one of the mates
of the Duke of Wellington on board as prize-master of
the vessel, and sent her to London for condemnation.
On her arrival, the law-officers of the crown appear to
have admitted that there was no blockade on the 16th
May; and on their advice the claim to the ship was
abandoned. The owners of the ship were not satisfied
with this, but went into the Admiralty Court and
proceeded against the captors of the Ostsee for damages and
costs arising from detention. The judge of the
Admiralty Court decided against them; they carried an
appeal to the Lords of the Privy Council sitting as
a Supreme Court of Prize; and this court reversed the
decision of the lower court. Mr. Pemberton Leigh, in
delivering judgment, laid it down that officers detaining
neutral ships without sufficient grounds, and under a
misapprehension of their duty, must be held liable to
make good the loss and expense their act may have
occasioned.

At the Kingston assizes, on the 3rd instant, the case
of Boyle versus Wiseman was tried afresh. The
reverend Mr. Boyle, a Roman Catholic priest, brought
an action for libel against Cardinal Wiseman which was
tried at the Guildford Assizes last summer; and the
jury gave a verdict for the defendant. An application
was made for a new trial, and granted, on the ground
that the Chief Baron had refused to admit second-hand
evidence of the contents of a letter in which Cardinal
Wiseman admitted the authorship of the libel; and
that Cardinal Wiseman could not be a witness, lest he
should criminate himself. The origin of the case was
this. Mr. Boyle was the curate of the Roman Catholic
Church at Islington; when Dr. Wiseman succeeded Dr.
Griffiths as Bishop of the Diocese, he dismissed Mr.
Boyle, alleging want of zeal on his part, and the
necessity for a change of system. Dr. Oakley, formerly
of the Established Church, succeeded Mr. Boyle. In a
reply to an article in the Ami de la Religion, the organ
of the moderate party in Paris, the Univers, published
a letter signed "N. Cardinal Wiseman," alleging that
Mr. Boyle had been expelled from the order of the
Jesuits; that he had shown so great a want of zeal in
the discharge of his duties that his church was deserted;
that he had kept possession of the residence of the
chapel after he had been dismissed; and that he had, by
threats, induced his parishioners to remonstrate with the
bishop against his dismissal. No evidence was offered
in support of these averments: but it was shown that
Mr. Boyle had not been expelled from the Society of
Jesus; that his church was not deserted; and that he
did not intimidate his congregation into signing a
remonstrance to Dr. Wiseman. The Reverend Mr.
Ivers, a Roman Catholic priest at Kentish Town,
holding his faculties direct from the Pope, deposed that
he had read at Paris the letter in which Dr. Wiseman
admitted the authorship of the libel. The letter was
produced in court; but Mr. Ivers said that it had
been altered since he saw it; and the letter as published
in the Univers was admitted as evidence. Mr. Baron
Platt said that the letter was a libel; and as no
justification had been pleaded, the defendant thereby
admitted that the charges were false. The jury returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £1000. Cardinal
Wiseman, who had been subpœnaed as a witness, but
was not examined, sat on the bench throughout the
trial. Cardinal Wiseman has since obtained a rule for
a new trial.

At the Petty-Sessions at Kingsclere, Hants, Miss
Emilie Frances Gordon, daughter of Sir Orford
Gordon was fined £5 for Torturing a Pony very cruelly.

At the Norwich Assizes, the Rev. F. W. Waldron
brought an action for Libel against the Reverend
William Bates, Rector of Burnham. The plaintiff,
formerly the curate of Mr. Bates, is the master of an
endowed school at Wyndham in Leicestershire. The
libel consisted of a letter written by Mr. Bates to the
trustees of the school, proffering proofs of the abominable
wickedness of Mr. Waldron, and calling upon them to
dismiss him. The defence was a justification of the
libel to the satisfaction of the jury. It was made out,
that while Waldron was curate at Burnham, he had
seduced his servant, Louisa Johnson, a girl of seventeen,
and finally had recourse to violence to gratify his
passions. In the same house lived Mrs. Childs, mistress of
the adjoining National Schools; and it seems that the
girl complained to her of the conduct of Waldron in its