PARISH SCANDALS.

Some extraordinary proceedings have occurred in St. Pancras. A few months ago the board of directors of the poor elected a new assistant- surgeon—Mr. Muskett. Recently they are said to have discovered that Muskat had availed himself of his position to Seduce some of the female inmates, and to have recourse to violent means for preventing the scandal becoming known. One of his victims, however, became so -ill in consequence of the peculiar treatment she underwent to prevent her

from becoming a mother that she was removed to the infirmary, and ' Muskett fearful of exposure and punishment ,went into hiding. Under these circumstances he wrote to the'Reverend Mr: Pugh,' chaplain Of the workhouse, ' begging hit* to come and console his disturbed mind,- and give spitintal aid in his indescribable sterrOw. Fearing Mttskett 'would commit suicide Mr. nigh consented, and obtained "Muskett's address on condition that he would keep it secret. The fact of Mr. Pugh' being o in 'eominunication with Muekett got wind, and the directors asked Mr. Thigh to, give up Aluskett's /Adz-cos.; In cense-queue° of bis refusal the board unanisisously,distuisseal Mr. Pugh from his aituaticiu as chaplain. . The vestry, by 249 to 12 confirmed this decision.

Mr: Pugh has stated in a lettmeto.the vestry, that Mr. Dale, Vicar of .St. . Pancras, Dr. Sioclair, Archdeacon of Middleamt, the Bishop of -London, and two "eminent barristers". concur in the propriety of the course he has' pursued. [it has been remarked that Mr. Pugh only nets as 'a gentlemen in refining to Violate hisfiltdged word; but that his mistake lay in placing hiniself in a position where he would have to de- cide between shielding an alleged. criminal and acting as an honourable man.] The Coal, Corn, aud Finance Committee have presented a report to the Common Council. on the corporation .finances, suggesting improve- meals in the management thereof. It appears front their statement that the bond debts of the :city have increased from 592,7004 in 1852, to . 1,601,6001. in 1858—a large part having been contracted without re- ferring to the Committee as to the means of providing for it. The city has been acemstemed to necumulate a reserve' for certain purposes. This reiterOe is out at' a lovainterest, and it is bolstered up by additions made from money borrowed at a higher rate. This must result in a dimi- nution Of available means. The Committee proposes to stop the practice and apply 'the accumulated reserve towards the payment of debt- 293,300?. 'falling due in 18:59. Various ether measures are proposed, all with a view to save ce:pense of management and get rid uf debt,

At a meeting of the Court onellursday, the report was carried by acelamation • The Metropolis demands morn Members of Parliament. A number of locally prominent Men—Mr. Westerton, Mr. Nicholay, Mr. Matson, 'Mi. Fit, Dr. Bowkett, and others—met on Monday, and resolved that the number of the Members of the Metropolitan boroughs is most inade- quate to represent the population and property of those constituencies, _and that efibetive meastmee should be taken to bring their just claims to additional representatives, before the public and the Legislature. A Committee was formed. to press the claims of London.

Tho services at Si.. Paul's continue to attract crowded congreiations. begin to aseentble outside as early as four' o'clock ;. growing denser every hour they patiently wait for the opening of the gate at six • when -so many as tie area will : hold are admitted slowly and gradually. Numbers are excluded. The crowding ceases the moment the interior is reached and every one admitted finds a chair for himself. The preacher on Sunday was Dr. Bickersteth, Bishop of Ripon—once a popular metro- politan preacher, and still remembered, as tho great gathering of Sunday proved.

then In the fleet, a Mr. White Weatherley, an ex-veterinary surgeon, sought to recover damages from the Duke of Beaufort for assault. In the second, the Duke sought damages from Weatherley for assault and false im- prisonment. The origin of this litigation was a scene on the Brighton race- course in August Last. There is a game called "Aunt Sally." The figure of an old woman is set up, and a pipe plit in its mouth. The object of the .player is to displace the pipe without touching the figure by throwing a stick theteat. The Duke of Beaufort was playing at Aunt Sally when Mr. Weatherley riding by pushed his horse against him. Mr Weatherly says that he slightly pushed the "'person" playing; the Duke that the push sent him, forwards, and that he had to cateli at a splinter-bar to sustain himself. Weatherley averred that the Duke, swearing loudly, thereupon threw three sticks at him and struck him, although he said more than once "it is not my fault" ; and that then the Duke seized his foot and flung him off the horse. The Duke says that be threw the sticks because Wea- therley rode away without expressing regret, and that he unhorsed him be- MIN Weatherley rode at him with his riding-stick uplifted as if in the act to strike. As to the foul language used on the occasion, a Mo. Henry Dun- dee Drummond, while corroborating the Duke's version of the affair, de- posed that lie had .uttered the oaths and opprobrious terms. Weatherley sought the aid of the poise; and as the Duke declined to give his name to the constable he was taken to the chief officer on the course. That consti- tuted the "imprisonment." Mr. 1Veatherley's version was sustained by several witnesses—a tailor, a widow, an innkeeper, and a flyman. On the 'other side were Mr. Drummond and two officers in the Army. Lord Camp- bell instructed the Jury that the Duke's plea of acting in his own defence had entirely failed, and also the plea that he had been falsely imprisoned. But it was not a case for large damages. If they thought Weatherley had assaulted the Duke first by pushing his horse against him, they must find a verdict for the Duke in the sectoad action ; and give " way, very, very small damages." The Jury did so. They found, first, verdict for Wea- therley, damages 100?.; second, verdict for the Duke of Beaufort, damages one farthing.

A decision in the Court of Queen's Bench is worthy a brief notice. A house was advertised for sale, particulars to be had from a house-agent. A Mr., Morgan obtained the particulars from the agent, and subsequently dis- covering that the owner was a friend, treated wills him and bought the house, obtaining it for a sinallersum than that specified by the ageut as the price. Was the agent entitled to recorcr a percentage from the vendor ? The Jury decided, in accordance with the custom of the trade, that the agent could recover under these circumstances. Verdict accordingly.

In the same Court, the Saddlers' Company were called upon a etandamem to restore Mr. Kay Dimsdale to the office of assistant. Mr. Dimsdale, it was alleged, was removed because at the time of his election he falsely re- presented himself as solvent. He proved to be insolveut. A Jury justified : the removal, while admitting it to be irregular.

Colonel Waugh, like John Sadleir, and Cole, Davidson, and Gordon, j seems destined to flourish perennially in the law courts. On Monday a Mr. ' Nestle brought an action against a Mr. Samuel Isaacs to recover upwards of • 10001. Neale had been manager of Waugh's alum-works at Branksea. lie -was employed by Isaacs to examine and report upon certain wonderful cop- per-mines near Valverde, in which Waugh had an interest. Then he was sent again to Spain by Issaes to obtain front Waugh an affidavit stating that

In the Court of Queen's Bench, on Saturday, two actions were tried toge-

W-augh had acted improperly in lodging with the Eastern Banking Corpo- ration csrMin seeurities for motley- lent rightfully bclongiugto leases. Neale went naSeville and obtained the tdlidavit and claimed, but did not Assisi I000/. which he said had-been promised. Mr. Isaacs pre a different version of the story, making out Neale to be a votuntear in the matter of this ofil- davit. Some long letters were read, going minutely into Watiesh'e trans- actions. The jury found a verdict for Neale—damages, 345/. 7$.

Another remarkable trial has token up much of the time of the Divorce Court. Mr. Keats, late Sheriff Of London, petitioned the mart for a 4isso- !alien of marriage on theground ofoultfitery. The teorespondent wastone Don Pedro de Montezuma, a Spaniard, and tearley of languages. The answer was a denial of adultery and condonation. Mr. Keate, a aidower, aged 46, married in 1854, a Nisi Marett, sense 'sixteen years his junior. They seem to have lived happily until in 11357,they made tho aseitatatamee of Don Pedro ut Brighton.. Don Ptah° had a tine voice mud great ',melee' talents; and "high words" frequently passed between Mr. and Mrs. Keats on the subject of Montezuma. Mr. Kite removed to Tendon ; • Mentrontua removed to London, sad the cliaputes wen; revived. Mr. Keats oven:used " lattgllag,f3 to the too faseinating Spaniard, -flee shich. he apolagiced and invited him again to his house. It was shown that NIrs. Keats viaited Montezuma • at his lodgings in Lerndon ; she proposed a sepatation ;•'then went away and was traoed to Dover, Dub in, end other places•faithfully followed by Montt:enema—her stock of jowels stud clathes growing leuesand less daily, until at length she quitted Montezuma and returned teheMuother. Some tiniein 1858, however, Mr.-Keats seems to have entered info nego- tiations with a-view to a reconciliation, and soutually had an interview with his wife, on which occasion he parted from her expressing a hope that they should understand each other better in frame. This wo: the condonation. Mrs. Keats was-represented as the vi.uim,m of a tinnily eemseiraey. Dr niilmg upeSir Cresswell Cresswelloseemed to besot' opinion that :alultony, had been committed. Mrs. Keats's interest in the issue was a pecuniary one. Her character could not be affected. With regard to condonation the Judge spoke at length. The question the jury bad to try was eondonation.,eMrs. Keats did not deny the adultery, but she said that it haul been eoudoned. With regard to this part of the case, looking to the circumstancee wider which the judges had held that condonation was esteldished, or time con- trary, Sir O. thweetwell bad Comet' the ronelusion that condenation meant a blotting out of the (Aimee imputed, so as to restore the etlentlin,g party to the position she occupied before the aisles: was committed. The term for- givenesa " had very often been used, but he thought the word, as current in the English language, did not fully express condonation. party might forgive without meaning to restore to the original poeitiou. A servaut who had robbed his master alight be forgiven, but the master would hardly re- store him to bis former situation. Condonation was more than that ; it was like releasing a •debt, and letting things stand as though no debt ever ex- isted. It had bean held, with referenee to condonutien, that a person, in order to condone, must know ef the offence, otherwise he could not be sup- posed to condone it. 'I hat, perlope, was not strictly applicable in all eases. A man might condone in this way—He might say, "I have heard stories about my wife ; A and 11 say that she has committed adultery. I can hardly believe them. I cm in doubt about the matter; but, whether she is guilty or net, I will take her bark to my bed." This would be con- donation without actual knowledge Where it man had reoeived informa- tion as to the guilt of his wife, be was presumed to know of her guilt, and it under Allell circumstances, he did that which demo!' sleeted condonation, he was presumed to cotelenie with knowledge of the guilt. But it might be thatmu nian had-knowled ge, and yet his intellect Met obtuse. If a man were told that his wife had been seen to commit adultery, there was positive information, and a person of ordinary capacity might say that he believed it, while a man of a less clear and firm mind might be.provailed upon, by argu- mut and insinuation, to ascribe that, inibrmation to SOTee evil motive, or to sonic plot—some false proceeding on the part of the ioformants ; So that, although ho had the information, he might not believe it, and therefore, in taking his wife home, he would not necessarily condone the adultery. In thia case the evidence of condonation was by word of mouth only, and the Judge believed the present was the first ease of the sort, since, in all former cases, there was the act done—the husband had taken his wife to his own bed again. The fact of a person pardoning his wife with a view to restore her to cohabitation might certainly be established by words. There was no reference in any of the letters which had passed beta-eon the parties to Mr. Keats taking his wife home again. There were no acts, even of writing, and therefore the ease entirely depended on words. After the Jury had retired some time, they returned and said all were agreed except one, who refused to accept the Judge's definition of condona- tion. The Judge said he was responsible for the law, and they must take it from him. Another hour elapsed, when the Jury again returned, and said there was no chance of their coming to an utoininious verdict. One of their number refused to accept his Lordship's directions, and what were they to do ? They had argued and talked the matter over in every way.Sire. Creoewell expressed his surprise that a juryman should act himself up as a court of appeal from a direction of a judge upon a point of law. Perhape. a special verdiet might be taken, and then the question woeld be &elicit in the first instance by the full,Court, and then by the House of Lords--a ten. bunal which would probably give as satisfactory a judgment as the gentle- man who was upon the Jury. It was found impossible to devise the terms in which a special verdict should be drawn up, and the Jury were again locked up. Within half an hour they returned, and then found that Mrs. Keats had been guilty of adultery, and that Mr. Keats had not condoned that adultery. They assessed the damages to be paid by Don Pedrude Montezuma at 1000/.

In the same Court the Reverend Henry Curtis Cherry petitioned far a re- storetion of conjugal rights. This case has often 1.):::11 before time public. Mr. Cherry married a see,ond time, and the new wife did not ;ign•c very well with the old family. There were disputes and quarrel:. Mrs. Cherry went away. Mr. Cherry sought her out, met her in a chureh at Reading, and when she refused to return home with him, he next day employed the peliee and carried her off by fume. He would stand by his " iivOienable rights." The jury held that Mr. Cherry lied uot been guilty of cruelty, and &nee a verdict for the petitioner, a verdict in which the judge eeneurred.

The Court of Bankruptcy was again engaged on Wednesday with the af-

fairs of Davidson a d (Jordon. Mr. Gordon WitS respect of his transactions, in the course of which he toqtradieted some if the evidence given by Mr. Chapman ; especially averring that no interview lush talcum piece on the 17th October like that thocribed by Chapman. .Toseph Windle Cols, was also briefly examined. S mmmc questions were pat to Mr. Chapman. He said Ile had after the 1:3i h Oeteber recommended 'meth s to be eastious in dealing with Davidson and Gordon. Iii the same way I believe it was mr. naard who ram, to ow and asked may

opioion of Cole. I wad, • Wel, I should bot trust Ile said, That as a rem Y

diiferent opinion L'ion the gene, oil iv peon!. Ever)hoily saye he hos in great deal of money.' I hem III) IIIV il:1.11,1A end said, ' Everybody may tell )ott what they like; I would not tenst him.'

Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, addressed the Court, reeiving the of the fraudulent transactisois of the bankrupts and Cole, and euteriee very

fully into the case_aait touched Overend Gurney-and-Co. When at the in- tfirritrff: ,toi which' reference ihadtheertmiarletheinterview whensOoleitold

Ur. Obapintua thet eomethingiwks not iri4ht witleithe warrants.; and :the fflood

light:beret npen Mr.Chapninuithat.,enabledihilliebo -see how:the:ease mellesetoed veitheeteasking many quostions-eit i was Clearly the- eltity: of Alm

Ohmant firm egainst botkiCole and Datideon mid

Gordou. His course, twas;ikiewever, lathe!. to ask,,ellowishall we gek mit? Hoe- much can be made ,of the distillery; and .how shall we get it ? Haying di:severed theae greet frauds,- it was :clearly the deity of:Mr. Chtipmanto take care that others were not made victims. That whichihad, beeriudnin he knowseenid be done over and over again, and yet he said not gave net a w96d .of warning tosarty living soul from Weber 13, 1853si(t1e time or the :aicovvry,) to June 1854, So far from even closiug the books

against them, there were renewed transactione, and both Cole and the

bankrupts had been ellowed to go ou from thetneriod to ,Inne 1854, to the ruin of many anti tiolose ef ;more. That was ,cenduct upoo which itt YRS 'hoposeible to avoid;comment,,tuid he was. sure that no pas couldrnmeireem regret the course, triteaued by bus firm than did k,fr. Chann lumself, eTlse platter was not alight one, Mr. Chapman might to have:mid, ",lirinte Cole, heve rubbed us pf 820,000/, ; " and from that moment his career shot-4d here teen closed by the strong hands of Overend, Gurney., and Co. Other Crectitor$ had news tight to eay that if Mr. Chepmen had adopted the right courts—the eourse,dietated by a slue sense of public- morality:and justice—

they would list now becreditors. Look at themelaneholy case at Mr. Sto- yell, a cr....titer for 11.000L, and a ruined mane A portion of his debt had been contracted subsequently to the 13th of October •1853, and he heeled- lowed another portion to he renewed, The LaInuce-sheet of the baukrueits teemed with debts contracted after the 17th of Ootobee, when Mr. eltaPiesst admitted that he had become fully aware of their frauslulenteenduct as well

of that of Cole. M. Chapman, however, allowed the two firms to ge soiling en under false. coloues. He knew they wcee haying ether liatikees.

But le did not go -to them mid inquire whether they were being wronged; The comae thus taken by Moser& Overend and Co. might be all very well according to Cole's meroantile view—first take care of No. 1; but he thought others would take a very diffeeent ,view of Mn

Chapman's duty. In common justice, fairness, ,,a0 ,kifahmss, it was Mr. Chapinan's duty to have at least given some; intimation -that so fearful a system of fraud Wt13 going on in the city of London. Mr. Linklater proceeded to advert to the circumstances under which Messrs. Overeud and -Co., had obteitted the deeds of the :distillery. ;Cale said they agreed to pur- chase the distillery for 120,0001., and why should they have allowed Cole

Werest upoe. that sum Ube had not correctly stated the matter ? Altheqgh Messrs. Overend, Gurney, , and Co. would have nothing to do with iaeknig, gin; they would have had no objection to the proceeds, of its niakipkhy others. All the circumstances showed that it wcis Contemplated to 'tale the title-deeds of the distillery as security. They had also obtained possession of Margins, and it was quite clear that Mr. Chapman was looking out to see what property lie could obtain both front the bankrupt and Cole, utterly regardless of what might become of others. After the 13th of October their transactions with Cole had amounted to 40,0001. or 50,0001., and such trans- actions were most unjustifiable. Cole had, after the 13th of October, acted as their agent in purchasing speller at 15/. per ton, worth 261.,per ton; mid this purchase was clearly effected in order that the holder of warrants

aught not discover their worthless character. The difference between 15/. and 251. amounted on 320 tons to a large sum, and was it likely that Mr. Cole was in a position at that time to make such a large .present to the great house of Messrs. Gurney and Co. ? (Cole—" res, ;teas," and laughter.)

The only excuse Mr. Chapman could give for this transaction was that they held certain spelter warrants, and that Cole had obtained for them, at W. per ton, their own speller, as represented by the warrants, butCole said this was not so, and that the spelter he found for Overend and Co. was purchased by him from the public, and it was quite clear that this was the fact. Cole

had not been given credit for the difference between the 151. and 251. per

ton, and he (Mr. Linklater) would like to know of whom the spelter was ob- tained and who had been wronged. The transaction was, in his opinion,

inexplicable in any manner creditable to any of the parties concerned. Air.

Chapman had done a great injustice to the assignees in withholding at,the several trials of the bankrupts the fraud of which they had been guilty, as diseovered on the 17th of October, Notwithstanding that the newspapers were expressing their wonder, and the City was up in arms at the enormity of the frauds committed, Mr. Chapman had concealed information very ne- cessary in the prosecution of the bankrupts. He said on the last sitting that he did this because he did not wish to volunteer evidence against the accused. Was that the way that courts of justice should be treated by per-

sons occupying the position of Mr. Chapman? Maltby was in his grave, and could tell no tales. Cole was not likely' in his position, to communicate in-

formation, and Mr. Chapman withheld information that would have been very valuable in the prosecution of Davidson and Gordon. Up to the pre- sent time the bankrupts appeared to have Mr. Chapman's sympathy, and he

could not give his evidence at the last sitting without saying that he was

afraid Mr. Cole was angry with him.. Why should Mr. Chapman be afraid of Mr. Cole ? It was impossible to read Mr. Chapman's depositions in an- other court without arriving at the conclusion that he then wished it to be understood that he had had no conversation with Gordon after the 13th, and it was only last week that he was provoked to reveal the incident of the 17th. Shocked as he had been that Davidson and Gordon had robbed him of 8000/. worth of copper, he was silent on the subject until last week, and his conduct in this respect to the assignees must be utterly condemned. Against Cole's estate Messrs. Gurney and Co. had withdrawn their claim of 120,000/., besides giving up 30001., which they admitted did not rightfully belong to them, on the express condition that they should be attacked no more. On these grounds, therefore, he must seriously complaim of the con- duct of Messrs. Overend and Co.—viz., that on the discovery of the great fraud they made no mention of the circumstances ; that they had subse-

quently reduced their claim upon Davidson and Gordon and Cole no less than 23,000/. ; that they had concealed the transaction in respect of the pur- chase of the speller at 151. per ton' and by which they had benefited about 4000/., and that they had withheld information of vital importance to public justice.

Mr. Linklater thanked the Court for the great patience and attention which it had bestowed on the case.

Mr. Commissioner Goulburn said, he had only discharged a public duty. The investigation was one of great public benefit.

It is but proper to state that during the proceedings. Mr. Hawkins (on Mr. Chapman's behalf) regretted that the forms of the Court did not admit of his cross-examining witnesses and entering into other matters to which he could wish to advert. The Commissioner said, Mr. Chapman might give any explanation, but he could not be allowed to cross examine witnesses. Mr. Linklater remarked, that personally he should he glad if Mr. Hawkins could be allowed to address the Court on Mr. Chapman's behalf. The Commissioner feared that such a course could not be permitted. It would be without precedent. An adjournment was then ordered.

William-Hudsett-Guerneey,--elies-Welliugtoa-Gueerteeys-was tried-in the Cientral'CrimittallCcoutote Wiedeserdatlietinetimrebitege ofeateiding ten.pieces Of PeililitYliilliithMo IffitreffOcirtjaikaMYYAllft Qateea• Tim At- torney-lieneral prosecuted. e facts 9,g11 FffiFfe,Weli known that

niore than recapituletion unnecessary.. es o paper n ere 'Sir.

irairtiesi 'rind` used to visit i ri at hgPtighlbia f1186.119 itday left Guernsey aletwin tlliteee 1040,4firtielli4,ffebiattiteep tales Were lying on a tablet° liffiaMeller -vienttoieblerractitiow ttaigileeitutd goon after is return

to town, natitilletitinitheeithivNdv en...teeming ior the despatches appeeeee

.ke teki„;')V inh .e FP0f , proved atls. Alfejeae //u sitqb RitM„ 411-14113set'; Itttgitlat all the niferniktio he cou ex ract rem' uernse Ifeafi, , t,a person.hadleft them

I

at his house. No witnqsss „for the defelaceeewere c ted.. The prisoeees ecierisdlserel t 1, IfellidtglitWI ftiV-ittikeit , v, ',but' contended that there ' eil&stenelp Solt011rit dabenellintefitibiinew We. /4t' of Gueitsop--he only wantid'teinnalrethi-despittcheptibiicf. bIbmiesialot /dawn: that i he de- sired to deprive.itho Cold:Mal etilffieetrof Pkcillef*tan'icthe'aeaPail'01,3„..:heseir::Bnaaroint wauldiesatraistieg,:the cpseete -Web/A Was gliefte'etti tare Adestinstyeeen14 tiltetieeebteetione,i i§e4gftentifke, rey, 04 the „Government had obtained the objects sought by tile prosecution—they had shown that they were not responsible for_the publication, of these despatches, and he 1144 l'ell- riTtft KIT'Bff

tifiatifelia no a' ony

therighte eyielleetekd eve! . el,ge,)coulert Any that Mr. Guernsey tee,) sx dv .1vis imprudent, unjus- vo "(14: eh' Irm—that is take them away to ce &tithe to s4lls4Y Vtlike•O 'ce was there that Mr. GuernSe ''ititkiit ' . ,t dithi'l OM '' ether of the property

it posi di in Aptiteltd. 'Coillfilliny' thbteth, say that Mr. Orient-

soy had dintittlitted;CYfelonyVAL')T' 'n-Li ',,,...,,,, ,"i■" -)-, • . The Attorney-General replied that it was a dangerous doctrine to say that a. inan:mightmeseessi him chief ,-iMpeetant state papers without committing a.crimilfal offima.e:t .-.amoilT unia ..L. mei :

- ,Jt,WasiirttpoisinleilloiarcwettefOlecserioftdr consequences that might result from thomeerefeercititeetefeie etleetebi

of plitoemit t monetigetntor,wprr cwirir. ,.. .,cticympus sacrifice of blood and

t donu entp, It iniold have the effect ,

trcasorq..,- An' present tnstalite a Intblication, of these despatches hail led to

serious' cd li ltiali ball Ib.lpla Villi forelb,"t Orernments, and the con- EfequentaPS iglit'hIttie Istiettiiiisiblffr elsribirs. IliS 'learned friciud seemed to rely

for theiclefeneevtilits .clienb,entnetyi Wpm the question of :law; but he could not help thilditofetiuttdm , jury ,x, ixaguidirneu, , could doubt for 3 moment that a man who porss94. iilirtYle4 of V; 1 tiblqllinfOlii: such means as the prisoner itt, appeare itqAttliftaiyiecl i0,4 i , wirw+s,...g3u ty of a criminal act. , )1r. _ seetil hui,iski . , esqou 't q jury had to decide was

7

.yietl.1.:07,t.tyl..y optye ,e1 e , It _tr -stistaction that at the time the

prisoner took the documents dw 'y me the Colonial Office he intended to deprive that office of all property in them and to convert them to hi:

ties.,teeeti mei •.33, ,i101 hml.t: -911.17.aii.i. . . • VThej{{1*,bilfteed4ribiititifilk priabOt a criaeter. of a hour, returned a verdict of Not Guilty: ?Ifr'''7°TX III.'-, '3,,,

There was a slight burst of applause when the verdict was delivered.

'

It has eome einteeeliappe4thatt.4,poliee 6:reed the limits of their duty. When this is pro'red' they deSerV4yhieet with punishment. Two con- stables of the Ci division have been fined by the Clericenwell Magistrate for this offence. They improperly interfered with two 3,-oung men, and when remonstrated with for their conduct, they talked of locking the young fellows up. The latter said they they would e to the station and complain of this conduct, and when there the constables suddenly preferred a charge first, after their manner, and a sergeant locked up the victims of this trick.

A crowd of young girls from all parts of the metropolis attended. the Man- sionhouse on Monday, and complained to Alderman Copeland that they had just answered an advertisement :for "fifty dressmakers," and that after waiting three hours had been4old that 'they were more fit for men than work. The .Alderman Sent for a- representative of the advertiser, andeteked him if lied intended to.heax; the gide. He denied the statement that so many had 1:iepat uselessly waiting, and said that after he had engaged all he wanted he put up a notice to that effect. The Alderman advised the trades- Man to define What he wanted the next time he advertised.

, Three men, Alexander Kochanowsky, Jacob Goldwater, and Myers Gold- berg, have been committed for trial by the City Magistrates on a charge of eloniously forging plates for the manufacture of Russian rouble notes with a view to defraud the Russian Government.