Ct

The usual Wardtuotes were held in the City on the 21st to elect members of the Common Council and Ward officers. There were several contested elections, considerable speaking, but no excitement ; and no- thing occurred at any of the meetings worthy of detailed comment. The chief topics of the speakers were the dead meat market, river navigation, and drinking fountains.

A public meeting has been held in the disturbed parish of St. George's- in-the-East to pass resolutions and memorialize the Queen on its un- happy state. Churchwarden Thompson presided. The conduct of the Reverend Bryan King was declared to have rendered him unworthy of esteem or respect, and the meeting determined to do their utmost to abo- lish the innovations he has introduced into the worship and the church. In their memorial to her Majesty they ask for a Royal Commission with power to displace clergymen who teach anti-Christian, anti-Protestant, and unseriptural doctrines, who use Popish vestments or genuflexions, and replace him by a clerk " of honest Protestant Evangelical report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom." They ask for the publication of " a Protestant catechism and hymn-book," and make it a breach of dis- cipline to use any other. In a petition to Parliament they minutely set forth the wrongs they have suffered for seventeen years.

The North-West London Reformatory Institution wants to raise 10001. by the end of March. This is necessary to maintain the institution in its present state of efficiency. It provides a refuge for youths discharged from prison, teaches them trades, and starts them in an honest career. A meeting on Thursday was held to promote the objects of the institution. Lord Shaftesbury presided. The Reverend Canon Dale and Mr. Stephen Cave, M.P., took part in the proceedings.

One Hynam, a Jew, brought an action against the Law Fire Insurance Company to recover 600/., which he claimed under a policy of insurance. The trial took place in the Court of Queen's Bench, and led to some curious revelations. Hyman purported to have a large stock of teen's wearing apparel in his shop, and good furniture in his house. It was shown that he had really a very small stock, and very little furniture, and that he was a needy man. The plan seems to have been to obtain invoices for gouda from members of the Jewish fraternity residing in Houndsditeh. These purchased invoices, which did not really represent.goods supplied, did

as representatives of stock. In the present case the evidence of one Kauff- man, taken under commission in Paris, the evidence of a Mr. Nathan, showed that Hynam counted on raising money by a fire, and substantiating his claim by invoices. Kauffman informed the insurance offices of what was in contemplation. What he predicted came to pass. The plea of arson in this case was, however, withdrawn, and the jury found a verdict for the defendants on the plea of fraud.

A Mr. Simpson brought an action in the same Court against Young and Co. to recover 1280/. leas of profit and the value of goods shipped to New Zealand. "Frederick Young and Co.," afterwards " Young and Co.," ad- vertised a ship to sail on a particular day for New Zealand. It did not sail at all, but months afterwards another ship sailed in its place, and Simpson thought his goods had gone in that ship. Simpson sent bills of lading to his agent, but the goods did not go by the second, but by a third ship. Young and Co. ordered that the goods should not be delivered until the bills of lading were returned. This, Simpson's agent refused to do. The result was loss of profit to Simpson, and the action at law. The Jury were of opinion that there was a contract to sail on the day named ; that Young and Co. were not authorized to ship the goods in their own names iu an- other vessel; that they were not authorized to doinand the bills of lading as a condition precedent to the delivery of the goods. 'Verdict for the plaintiff. The Judge said he should give the defendants leave to move as to whether the letter was evidence of a contract, and whether the plaintiff could main- tain an action of trover.

A Jury in the Court of Exchequer has given a verdict against the pro- prietor of the Midland Express, for libel, damages 51. The facts of the ease arc these. One Homer, a manufacturer, at Earl Shilton, near Hinck- ley, has a wife who keeps a grocer's shop, adjoining the factory. There was a strike in the Hinckley district in consequence of a reduction of the very small wages that the framework-knitters could earn. This led to the publication in the Midland Repress of a paper issued "by order of the trade," taking Homer to task for his conduct and calling him a "truck- master." It was followed up by a letter in which the libel was reputed. The defence wasjustification, that the libels are and were true. Homer declared on oath that they were false. It appeared on evidence that Homer was charging at the rate of 21. 10s. per frame per annum for rent, which frame originally cost 3/. A knitter can earn 121. a week at the beat, subject to a reduction of nearly 28. 6d. for frame-rent, candles, &c. Some earn less. It was not " proven " that Homer forced his workpeople to buy goods at his shop, or gave tickets for goods iu lieu of money.

Mr. Neale, Warden of Sackville College, East Grinstead, has failed to sustain an action in the Court of Common Pleas against the Honourable Reginald Sackville West and Mr. Rogers, for procuring a charge of arson to be made against him. The college is a Puscyite institution in connexion with a society of Sisters of Mercy. Quarrels arose ; there were fires; Neale was suspected by the police ; Rogers and West and Neale wrangled. Neale thought they incited the police. The whole affair was paltry. The Jury found for the defendants.

The case of Oakeley versus Ooddeen, referred to Last week as being before the Court of Common Pleas, came to un end on Saturday. It was an action on a bill of exchange for 65001., drawn by one Chard and accepted by Ood- deen, "Ambassador to the King of Oude, endorsed by Chard to Lord Forth and by him to the plaintiff. The defence was that Ooddeen had signed a blank bill stamp for 1001., which had been filled up for 6500/. without the knowledge of the acceptor. Four other bills for 1001. are said to have been in like manner filled up for T0001. The evidence was complicated, and in some respects conflicting. Ooddecn's evidence imputes very questionable conduct to Chard, and it is remarkable that he did not appear at the trial. The money was advanced by Mr. Oakeley, who had been in India, but it was not shown that Ooddeen had any consideration whatever for the bill stamps he signed. It appeared in evidence that the Oude people brought

over and spent nearly 140,0001. [rHow did it r ? The Times styles the Moulvie Ooddeen, the father of all the " Men in the Moon."]. 'the Jury

were satisfied that the bill was ".tainted with fraud in its inceptien," and that Mr. Roy, solicitor, who had sonic share in negotiating, " took it under circumstances from which be ought to have known that it was tainted with fraud." The verdict is to be disputed, and Mr. Roy calls upon the public to suspend judgment.

One of the most painful cases that have been Lefore the Divorce Court is that of Anthony versus Anthony—the petition of a wife for a judicial sepa-

ration on the ground of cruelty. The respondent is Mr. Mark Anthony, the painter, the petitioner Eleanor Sophia Anthony, his wife. They were married in 1846, and have three daughters. Mrs. Anthony deposed that in 1853 her husband refused to give her money to buy clothes ; that she dis- covered Emma Bennett, their servant, sitting on his knee, and that when she ordered Bennett out of the house Mr. Anthony would not let her go. One day he came home and ordered Bennett to make tea for him. Mrs. Anthony objected, and he hit her over the head, broke the combs in her hair, and pushed her out of the room. She saw her husband one night coming out of Bennett's room. In 1854 Mr. Anthony threw a jug of hot

coffee over his wife, and a jug of cold water. In 1855 she accused Bennett of stealing, and Mr. Anthony threw his wife out of the room and kicked her. Bennett had charge of the keys. In 1856 he beat her with his maul- stick when she asked him to discharge Bennett. She then went away, and refused to return, even when Mr. Anthony offered to discharge Bennett, if she did not treat Mrs. Anthony with proper respect. Mr. Anthony then made her an allowance of 721. a year and 121. for the youngest child. Under a cross-examination she admitted she secretly corresponded with a married slider, separated from her husband, and that she had broken crockery. Dr. Norton said he considered Mrs. Anthony an oppressed woman. Mrs. Dann, a needlewoman, said she had never met with a lady of such refined taste, and who was such a Christian lady.

Emma Bennett told a different story from that of her mistress. She said that Mrs. Anthony became violent in 1853. She had seen her threaten to stab Mr. Anthony and throw a knife at him. Mrs. Anthony sent Bennett with provisions and wine to her sister, and when Mr. Anthony was out, that sister, Mrs. Winston, made the house her home. Bennett denied that she had stolen wine and other things, thefts of which she was accused by Mrs. Anthony. Mr. Anthony was never in Bennett's room, and Bennett never sat on his knee. When Mr. Anthony told Bennett to make tea, he did so because Mrs. Anthony had refused. When Mr. Anthony threw the jug of water over his wife he did it in self defence—she had thrown a dish and bread basket at him. Mrs. Anthony accused Bennett of poisoning her beer, and thereupon Bennett sent for a constable and dared her to give her in charge.

Mr. Anthony said his wife drunk up the wine and accused the servants of stealing it. In like manner groceries disappeared, and he found on inquiry she took them. He then took the keys. The tea-making scene has been before referred to. Mrs. Anthony tried to turn Bennett out of the room. Mr. Anthony says—" In trying to prevent her I am sorry to say I boxed her ears with my open hand. I regret having done so, but the blow was not a violent one. On another occasion we had a quarrel about a towel, in the course of which I threw a jug of cold water over her, and she broke a bread basket, a butter dish, and a very nice jug, for which I had given 51., and I am ashamed to say I struck her with my fist. On another occasion, being greatly irritated by her, I threw the coffee grounds in my cup upon her. With 'those exceptions I never struck her or was guilty of any vio- lence whatever towards her, nor did I use threats or irritating language. . . . . It is not true that she ever saw me coming from Bennett's bed-room. We had separate bed-rooms in 1851 in consequence of my health, and we discontinued all matrimonial intercourse in 1855 in consequence of a letter I received from her mother, and of the revolting language she then used to me."

A Mr. Charles Gibson has brought an action in the Divorce Court for restitution of conjugal rights. He married, in 1853, the natural daughter of a Mr. Teast, of Clifton, near Bristol. The father-in-law set him up in busi- ness, procured for him the commission in the peace, and a commission as lieutenant in the Gloucestershire Militia. At Gloucester he became inti- mate with Mrs. Clare Hepworth, wife of the surgeon of his regiment, a professional singer. He seems to have fallen in love with Mrs. Hepworth, and he wrote to her some affectionate letters. These letters were commu- nicated by Mr. Hepworth to Mrs. Gibson. Finally, for staying out late at night, and otherwise misbehaving, Gibson was ordered to leave the house of his father-in-law, where he lived. He then brought this action. For the de- fence evidence was brought to show that a great degree of intimacy existed be- tween Mr. Gibson and Mrs. Hepworth ; but beyond evidence of " accidental " meetings at various places, and testimony showing that they were frequently in equivocal situations, there was no " proof " of any impropriety between them. Mrs. Hepworth positively and directly denies the allegations of im- propriety in her conduct. On the other hand, it is shown that Mr. Gibson had been too intimate with at least two women. The case is not yet de-

cided. •

The charge of perjury. advanced by the Honourable Hugh Rowley against his late wife has occupied the Westminster Magistrate several days. The late Mrs. Rowley obtained a divorce by proving to the satisfaction of a Jury that her husband had committed adultery and had cruelly ill-treated her. Her averments on oath were of a painful kind. She said her husband had given her no money since their marriage ; that he had on one occasion cut all the hair off her head ; on another had knocked her down in the presence of witnesses • on a third repeatedly pinched her in a railway carriage; that ho had beaten her often; short, she deposed to acts of cruelty of a very unmanly kind. Mr. Rowley now comes forward to vindicate his character, and denies, or by explanations materially alters, the character of the con- duct imputed to him, going minutely into details touching their married life for a long period. He brings to bear a number of letters written by his wife, and couched in most endearing terms. The lady's counsel aver that they can sustain the evidence she gave in the Court of Divorce, and the case promises to be as notorious as that of John Brown. Mr. Rowley was cross-examined by Mr. Metcalfe, the counsel for the accused, on Thursday. When he married be was eighteen, and his wife was-twenty-five years of age. He believed Mrs. Rowley was made to marry him against her will. Lady Longford, his mother, was deceived in his wife. " She found, in fact, that I had been caught." Mr. Metcalfe—" A great catch." Mr. Rowley—" The very words she used to me very shortly after our marriage." Mr. Metcalfe—" I think she was right." She was 'perpetually being made love to by gentlemen, and he locked her up to pre- vent a Mr. Burt from going to see her against her will. Ile did not knock her head against the shutters. She was undressing before a window with the blinds up. He remonstrated ; they quarrelled about the shutters being shut. " I tried to shut them, she to prevent me." He did not ill treat her in a railway carriage. If her maid swore there were bruises on her leg, the maid would swear falsely. He did not cram salt down his wife's throat, nor throw a dressing-case at her. On a railway journey lie prevented her froni getting out of the carriage. Why ? Mr. Rowley— She had a knack of showing her legs, which I objected to. She pulled her dress up so as al- ways to show them." Mr. Metcalfe—" You objected ? " Mr. Rowley- ' I did not make any remark. For some time I was passionately, idiotically n love with her. Of course in climbingdown the truck at the railway she could not help showing bar legs Mr. MeteiNgses'I` Oho, could„ Rot laklifit then ? " Mr. Rowley—" Not then, but at other times. She was =sieve to show them. She considered them very fine legs." Mr. Metcalfe—" Did --

she show much of her leg ? " Mr. Rowley—" A great deal." Mr. Met- ,

calfe—" Ankle ? " Mr. Rowley—" Garters: He did not take her by the throat. " We quarrelled very frequently." He swore at his wife when she swore at him. He dared to say he called her a brute. He admitted he cut off her hair " down to the cheek bone," but be used no violence, Mr. Metcalfe quoted a letter in which Mr. Rowley said that if she could imagine his wretchedness she would forgive him " for all the unkind brutal treat- ment you have so often experienced at my hands." Mr. Rowley said the ill-treatment alluded to must have been the tying of an ender garment round her legs to prevent her from displaying them. When she saw a man uneerneuth the pier at Boulogne she stood over him. Mr. Rowley lived with a Mrs. Green in 1854, and Mr. Metcalfe produced an album in which Rowley described her as his wife. He said he met her at the end of 1854 ; the inscription in the album was dated June' 1854, When intimate with Mrs. Green, Rowley wrote a letter to his wife full of the moat affectionate expressions. Mrs. Green was rich. He remembered writing to his wife something of this sort : " I am in very geed keeping; I would advise you to do the same." Mr. Rowley said he could prove his wife was as guilty as himself. Case adjourned.

Alderman Copeland has exFosed a questionable proceeding in the City. A person getting up an " Equitable Investment and Reversionary Company (Limited)," used the names of Mr. Duncan Dunbar, Sir James Duke, Mr. Hayden, banker, Guildford. Alderman Copeland found that these names were used without authority, and he has taken means to make the fact public. Mr. Harris, the founder, says he had permission to use all the naraes except that of Mr. Dunbar " conditionally." Mr. Hayden admits that he was canvassed by Harris, but avers that he did not sanction the use of his name.

Au extraordinary case was heard before the Southwark Magistrate on Saturday. A Mr. Pearson and his wife were charged with defrauding one John Thomas Wells out of goods, value 14/. 108. This Wells is a minor. lie is in business and has successfully defended actions to recover the value of goods furnished to him by pleading infancy. He owed Pearson and Co. 12/. 10s., and the Pearsons hit upon an ingenious way of paying themselves. Mrs. Pearson ordered goods worth 14/. 10s. to be sent to her at the house of a Mrs. Rowe, and promising to pay for them on delivery. The goods were sent, but were not paid for on delivery. Wells went to the house with a sergeant of police. Pearson met him and they all went in together. It happened that only 12/. 10s. worth of goods were first ordered, and Wells had made out an invoice for that. Pearson required an invoice for 141. }Oa., and when Wells made it out, Pearson tendered two sovereigns and his own account against Wells in settlement. Mr. Combo said that there was then an end of the fraud. The first bill was null and void, because Wells had made out the second in the name of Pearson. The subsequent dealing was an abandonment of the first. In dismissing the case, Mr. Combe said it was one of the most unfair and unjust prosecutions he had ever heard of.