to truth and fact-viz., that in compliance with instructions conveyed to him by the adjutant, on the evening of the said 8th of November, after the inspection, he had assembled his troop after evening stables, to convey to them the Major-general's approbation of their appearance, &c.;' whereas he, Captain Wathen, did not, on that evening, obey LieutenantColonel Lord Brudenell's orders to the above effect, conveyed to him through the adjutant. 5th. For that he, Captain Wathen, after having assembled the men of his troop, on Saturday, the 9th of November, 1833, at the place aforesaid, addressed them in an irregular and unofficer-like manner, by then and there not confining himself to communicating to them the Major-general's approbation of the regiment, but in adding, that some strangers, or civilians, had particularly remarked the soldierlike appearance of his troop,-or words to that effect; and also saying, that he had no doubt that had they gone on service, they would have done their duty as well as any other troop, notwithstanding any unpleasant circumstances which had occurred in the troop, or words to that effect; which address was highly improper, inasmuch as allusion was therein made to Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell's recent censure on the want of attention to the care of the horses in Captain Wathen's troop. 6th. For having, on the 12th of November, 1833, at the place aforesaid, refused to obey an order then given to him by Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell, his commanding officer, to repeat verbally what he had said to his men on the said Saturday, the 9th of November; and in having afterwards, when permitted

by his said commanding officer to commit to writing the nature of the said address to his troop, repeatedly refused to obey the order then and there verbally given to him by his said commanding officer, to leave his written statement locked up in the Regimental-office during his absence at parade. Such conduct being insubordinate, unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, and in breach of the articles of war. Upon which charges the Court came to the following decision:

"The Court having taken into its serious consideration the evidence produced in support of the charges against the prisoner, Captain Augustus Wathen, his defence and the evidence he has adduced, is of opinion, that he is not guilty of any of the charges preferred against him. The Court, therefore, honourably acquits him of each and of all the charges. Bearing in mind the whole process and tendency of this trial, the Court cannot refrain from animadverting on the peculiar and extraordinary measures which have been resorted to by the prosecutor. Whatever may have been his motives for instituting charges of so serious a nature against Captain Wathen (and they cannot ascribe them solely to a wish to uphold the honour and interests of the army), his conduct has been reprehensible in advancing such various and weighty assertions to be submitted before a public tribunal, without some sure grounds of establishing the facts. It appears in the recorded minutes of these proceedings, that a junior officer was listened to, and non-commis sioned officers and soldiers examined with the view of finding out

from them how, in particular instances, the officers had executed their respective duties; a practice in every respect most dangerous to the discipline and the subordination of the corps, and highly detrimental to that harmony and good feeling which ought to exist between officers. Another practice has been introduced into the 15th Hussars, which calls imperatively for the notice and animadversion of the Court-the system of having the conversations of officers taken down in the orderly-room without their knowledge, a practice which cannot be considered otherwise than revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman, and as being certain to create disunion, and to be most injurious to his majesty's service."

His majesty has been pleased to approve and confirm the finding of the Court. Although it would appear, upon an attentive perusal of the whole of the proceedings, that some parts of the evidence might reasonably bear a construction less unfavourable to the prosecutor than that which the Court have thought it their duty to place upon them, yet, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, his Majesty has been pleased to order that Lieutenant-colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the command of the 15th Hussars. 8. SURREY SESSIONS.-John Crofts, a stout fellow, in the garb of a countryman, was indicted for entering the house of a poor widow woman at Cheddingford, in the county of Surrey, and stealing therefrom all the little property she was possessed of in the world.

On the day mentioned in the indictment, the prosecutrix having occasion to go to the next village, locked up her cottage. On her return,

in a few hours afterwards, she was alarmed on her approach, to see a man in the act of leaving the cottage, carrying a large bundle in his arms. On perceiving her, the fellow made a precipitate retreat towards a wood in the vicinity of the place, and was soon out of sight. The widow remained almost motionless through fright; but at length, she walked towards her cottage door, which was open, and on entering the dwelling, she found that it had been ransacked of everything of a portable nature that it contained. Her distress on this discovery was excessive; and in her anguish of mind she rushed out of the cottage into the road, uttering loud lamentations. At this critical moment a pack of hounds in full cry after a fox, happened to be passing that way, followed by Colonel Wyndham, Colonel Vandeleur, and several gentlemen of the county. The moment the sportsmen beheld the widow, they stopped to inquire the cause of her sorrow, leaving the dogs unattended in their pursuit after reynard. In a few broken sentences, rendered almost inaudible by grief, she told what had occurred, and, pointing to the wood, said, that she saw the thief disappear a short time before in the thicket. Colonel Wyndham immediately suggested, that the wood should be beat up, to try if the thief had not taken cover there, a proposition which met with the approbation of all the sportsmen. The wood was surrounded in such a manner as to render escape impracticable, while Colonel Vandeleur, accompanied by the two whippers-in, entered the thicket for the purpose of beating up for the game they had in view. The whippersin had not proceeded far when they

discovered the prisoner squatted in the bushes, and the bundle containing the whole of the widow's property close beside him. He was led from his place of concealment in triumph by Colonel Vandeleur and the whippers-in, while shouts rent the air from those who were stationed on the outskirts of the wood to cut off his retreat. The prisoner was then conveyed to the widow's house, and when the bundle containing her all was produced, she manifested the greatest joy. In the course of the examination of the various articles taken by the prisoner on the occasion, the widow complained in doleful accents, that she missed the wedding ring of her poor dear first husband. Colonel Vandeleur, on hearing this, undertook the office of constable, and immediately proceeded to search the accused, when, to the delight of the widow's eyes, the ring, wrapped up in paper in which it had remained for years, was found in the prisoner's waistcoat pocket.

The jury found the prisoner "Guilty;" and he was sentenced to transportation for life.

11. DEATH OF JUDGE BOULDIN. The proceedings of the House of Representatives of the United States were this day interrupted by the tragical death of Mr. Bouldin, from Virginia. Mr. Bouldin was the successor of the late John Randolph, of Roanoke, and having risen to address the house, began his speech by apologizing for having declined hitherto to ask the usual tribute to the great orator, who died a member of the house, and who, while living, had made it illustrious by his eloquence-when, in the act of offering his remarks, the judge fell dead in the arms of one of the members near him. Mrs. Bouldin

witnessed from the gallery the fall of her husband; and finding when she approached him, that all attempts to restore life were in vain, uttered the most piercing shrieks. She was borne from the hall, and her husband's remains were carried to the Speaker's room, to await the order of the house in relation to his funeral.

11. COURT OF KING'S BENCH Cording v. Ballantine, Esq.This was an action against Mr. Ballantine, one of the magistrates of the Thames Police-office, for false imprisonment. The plaintiff, who is a pawnbroker in Ratcliffehighway, was summoned before the magistrates by a person who had pawned with him a gun which had been destroyed by an accidental fire at the plaintiff's house, and who claimed to be entitled to the value of the article beyond the sum for which it was pledged. Upon that occasion, Mr. Ballantine, the sitting magistrate, was of opinion, on the construction of the Pawnbrokers' Act, that the plaintiff was liable to pay the sum, and he accordingly made an order, which the plaintiff refused to obey, and appealed to the sessions. On the matter coming before the quarter sessions, Mr. Marriott, the then chairman, was of opinion, that the sessions had no jurisdiction, as an appeal was only allowed upon a conviction, and not upon a mere order of justices; and the appeal was therefore dismissed. The applicant then applied to the magistrates for a warrant to enforce the payment of the sum claimed, and the warrant was issued on the7th of November, 1832. The plaintiff, however, refused to pay the money, and appeared, with several of his friends, assisted by Mr. Alley, the counsel, before the magistrates on the 12th

of November. It was on that occasion contended, that by the act of parliament a pawnbroker was not liable for any loss or damage occurring to goods in his possession, unless happening through his neglect or wilful misconduct; and the loss in this case being occasioned by an accidental fire, the plaintiff could not be considered responsible. An opinion of Sir James Scarlett to that effect was shown to the magistrate, on which opinion the learned counsel stated, that the act was very obscurely worded; but taking the 14th and 24th clauses together, he was inclined to think, that a pawnbroker was not liable in such a case. Mr. Ballantine, however, said, that although he had a high respect for the opinion of Sir James Scarlett, he was bound to act on his own judgment, and as he had no doubt that the intention of the legislature was to compel pawnbrokers to make good any loss arising from destruction or damage of goods, he felt himself bound to grant a warrant to commit Mr. Cording to the House of Correction, until he paid the sum claimed. The plaintiff, Mr. Cording, having been advised by Mr. Serjeant Andrews and Mr. Follett to resist the payment, refused to obey the order of the magistrate, and was then taken to the House of Correction, where he remained from the 12th to the 15th of November. While there, he was put upon prison allowance, but was permitted to be in the best room in the building, where there were not more than two or three other persons. On the 15th of November he was brought up to the Court of King's Bench by a writ of habeas corpus, when, after a long argument, the Court decided, that although it was pro

con

bably the intention of the legis lature to provide compensation to the owners of the goods lost or damaged while in the possession of pawnbrokers, yet as that had not been distinctly expressed in the act of parliament, in a case where the liberty of the subject was concerned, the intention could not be implied, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to his discharge. Upon this state of facts the present action was brought; and it was now tended, on the part of the plaintiff, that although the defendant had not been actuated by any improper motive, he was clearly mistaken in point of law, and by his obstinately adhering to his opinion, he had put the plaintiff to great expense and inconvenience, for which he (the plaintiff) was entitled to an adequate compensation in damages. Several witnesses who were called proved the facts above stated. It was attempted to be shown that the plaintiff had suffered greatly, both in body and mind, from his imprisonment; but it was stated by the governor of the gaol, that he had been treated with every indulgence consistent with the rules of the prison, and that he had been repeatedly advised to pay the 3l. 9s., which would have entitled him to his discharge, and enabled him to raise the question, and to bring this action, if the point should be decided in his favour. On the part of the defendant, it was urged, that the magistrate was bound by his oath to act upon the opinion he had formed upon an act of parliament, which was admitted to be so obscurely worded, that the most eminent counsel were unable to form a decided opinion upon it, and which the Court of King's Bench, after a long argument, declared to be very dif

ficult of construction. The plaintiff might have obtained a formal conviction, to enable him to raise the question, without subjecting himself to the inconvenience of going to prison; but as he had thought proper to take that course, under the advice of counsel, the consequences could not be fairly charged upon the defendant, who, it was admitted, had acted without any improper motive; and it might even be doubtful at the present moment, whether he had not put the proper construction upon the act of parliament. At all events, supposing him to be mistaken in point of law, upon notice being given of the plaintiff's intention to bring this action he had tendered the sum of 401., which he considered sufficient amends, as it appeared by the evidence on the part of the plaintiff that the proceedings had cost him only a sum of 431.

The learned judge, in summing up, said, the only question for the jury was, whether the sum which had been tendered by the defendant was sufficient compensation for the injury which the plaintiff had received. The Court of King's Bench had undoubtedly decided, that the warrant upon which he had been . committed was illegal, and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover a compensation in damages; but if the jury thought that the sum of 40l. was sufficient, they must find a verdict for the defendant. It must also be observed, that although the court had been of opinion that the defendant was wrong in his construction of the act of parliament, the act was one upon which it was extremely difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion and as it had been in the power of the plaintiff to obtain a decision upon the point by taking

a different course, and it appeared, that by going to prison he had at least the benefit of having the question decided in three days, the jury would take into consideration the circumstances under which the defendant had acted, and say, whether they thought the plaintiff had really suffered so much injury as to entitle him to a larger sum than that which had been tendered.

The Jury found for the plaintiff -Damages 1301.

14. EXTRAORDINARY TRIAL FOR MURDER.-A very singular charge of murder, supported by circumstantial evidence, was tried before the Dublin Commission Court, and terminated by the conviction of the parties accused.

A man and his wife, named Thomas and Maria Canning, went to reside at No. 14, Upper Stephenstreet, early in January last. A man named Patrick Martin, who had been lodging in the same house with the Cannings previous to their removal, followed them to Stephenstreet. On Monday evening after Christmas, Mrs. Canning left her lodgings, accompanied by Martin, with whom, it appeared, s had formed an illicit connexion., and did not return until the following Thursday. A violent altercation was proved to have taken place between her and her paramour relative to a sum of money which she alleged that Martin had taken from her and her husband. All the parties were intoxicated at the time, including the husband, who was lying asleep in the corner of the apartment when the dispute took place. The next morning Mrs. Canning and Martin again left their lodgings together, and she did not return until the following Sunday. Martin came back the