The Lord Mayor inquired of the young woman whether
she could have any respect or affection for the miserable
creature at her side. She said she had—that she had
no intention of leaving him—and that they could do
very well together; at the same time taking his hand
with an air of fondness. The black, whose name is
Mahomet Abraham, said he had been dog-led through
the streets of London for eight years, that there could
be no mistake about his blindness, and if any one knew
how a blind man was to support himself except upon
the kindness of those who were not blind, he would
be much obliged to be informed in what way. Both
prisoners were remanded. A large sum of money was
found at their lodgings. On the 9th the beggar and the
girl were again brought up before the sitting alderman.
After the Mendicity Society's officer had given some
further evidence relative to the prisoner's begging
avocations, he was questioned by the alderman as to
the term and nature of his acquaintance with the girl.
His reply was—

"I went out one night to buy some victuals for my dog. It
was late, and I called out to the people I heard passing by,
where can I get any dog's meat? At last Eliza heard me, and
she came and took me to a cat's-meat shop, where I got what I
wanted, and I asked her to come home and take a cup of tea
with me, and I would try and make her comfortable. So she
agreed to come home with me, and we had our tea, and then she
said as it was a quarter to eleven o'clock she was shut out, and
she did not know where to go. I told her whenever she was
shut out to come to me, and she should have what she wanted,
And she has lived with me ever since."

It appeared that the defendant could as a Malay be sent
back to India, and at the close of his examination the
magistrate said he should remand him for a week in
order to make arrangements for sending him back to
his own country. The girl, who was next examined,
gave a similar account of her first acquaintance with the
black; and the alderman said he should communicate
with those who had it in their power and inclination to
send her away from this scene of her disgrace; and that
he should consign her to the care of proper parties for a
week, in which time preparations would be made for her
departure.

A dreadful attempt at Murder and Suicide was made
in Westminster on the 8th inst. A Chelsea pensioner,
named Martin White, having quarrelled some days ago
with a woman, named Hurley, with whom he cohabited,
left her and went into lodgings at Devonshire-place,
Broadway. On the above evening the woman came there,
and hearing he was there waited for him. On his
return, partially intoxicated, high words ensued, and on
a policeman entering the room he found both the parties
lying exhausted on the floor, bleeding profusely, the
woman from very severe gashes about the face, neck,
and arms, and the man White from a dreadful wound
in the throat. A razor covered with blood was lying
on the floor, and had evidently been the instrument
with which the wounds were inflicted. They were
immediately removed to the hospital. White has
affirmed that the woman cut his throat.

In the Arches Court, on the 10th, Sir J. Dodson gave
judgment in the case of the Rev. Mr. Gladstone, affirming
the decision of the Bishop of London, and
admonishing the rev. gentleman against preaching and
administering divine service in the unconsecrated chapel
of Long Acre, and from performing divine service there
or elsewhere in the diocese of London and province of
Canterbury till he had obtained a license. Mr. Gladstone
was likewise condemned in the costs of the
proceedings. He has appealed.

The House of Lords has given judgment against the
Duke of Atholl on a point of importance in the Glen
Tilt case. Among the preliminary defences raised by
the duke in the "action of declarator" against him,
has been one on the question whether the parties who
are principals in the cause were entitled to be parties
in that action, considering the remoteness of their
connexion with the road through Glen Tilt, and the few
opportunities they would have of exercising their right
over it, they being respectively citizens of Aberdeen,
Perth, and Edinburgh. The Lord Chancellor
pronounced the judgment of the House of Lords: he swept
away the objection, and affirmed broadly the title of
the plaintiffs to prosecute. "If parties could sue who
live in Blair, why not those in Pitlochry; and if in
Pitlochry, why not further off? Why exclude the
cities of Edinburgh, Perth, and Aberdeen—the metropolis
of Scotland, and the principal places in the counties
through which the road ran?" The appeal of the
duke from the judgment of the Court of Session was
dismissed with costs. The main question, as to the
public right of way through Glen Tilt, remains to be
tried on the merits.

In the court of Criminal Appeal, on the 14th, judgment
was given in the case of Hannah Moore. She had
been tried for Child Murder, but convicted only of the
lesser offence of concealment of the birth. At the trial,
a confession the woman had made to her mistress was
admitted as evidence: the mistress had told the prisoner
that "it would be better to tell the truth." Was this
such an "inducement" to confess as to render the
confession inadmissible? In pronouncing the judgment of
the court, Mr. Baron Parke said, it had been admitted
that confessions ought to be excluded, if not made
voluntarily. The rule had been laid down, that if a threat
or inducement had been held out by a person in authority,
it could not be received, however trifling the threat
or inducement might be; but if it should be held out
by any one not in authority, the confession was clearly
admissible. The offence had not been committed against
the mistress in this case, and neither was it probable that
she would have been the prosecutrix; therefore she
could not be considered a person having authority in the
matter. The conviction was affirmed.

At the Central Criminal Court, on the 16th, Edward
Little was convicted of Embezzling the money of his
Employer. The notable point in the case was the conduct
of the Guarantee Society, who were the sureties of the
prisoner. When Little's defalcations became known, he
proposed to repay Mr. Daukes, his employer, by selling
some property in Ireland; the society, who never pay
till defaulters have been convicted in a court of justice,
were nothing loth to the composition proposed; but
when delay and obstruction arose, they drove Mr. Daukes
to prosecute, by refusing otherwise to make up the
defalcations. Their secretary previously wrote to Little,
threatening prosecution if he did not pay. The prisoner's
counsel denounced the conduct of the society; and the
Recorder observed, that such a society was a most
dangerous one, and had the negotiation been carried out,
the parties would all have been liable to an indictment;
such conduct ought to attract the attention of the
Attorney-General. The prisoner, who was said to have
been led into dishonesty by the encumbrance of a sickly
wife and other distresses, was sentenced to be imprisoned
for six months.

The same day, Henry Baker was tried for a
Misdemeanour, in having unlawfully kept two or more lunatic
persons in his private house, without a license from the
Commissioners of Lunacy. The defendant pleaded
guilty, and was ordered to enter into a personal
recognisance of £1000, and find two sureties in £500 each, to
appear and receive judgment in case he should be called
upon to do so.

The trial of a criminal information at the instance of
Dr. Achilli, against Dr. John Henry Newman came on
in the Court of Queen's Bench on the 21st instant.
The defendant was charged with composing and
publishing a Libel, contained in a pamphlet by Dr. Newman
published in October last, entitled "Lectures on the
present Position of Catholics in England." The following
is a portion of the passage in the pamphlet on which
the prosecutor's plea was founded:—

"The Protestant world flocks to hear him, because he has
something to tell of the Catholic church. He has a something
to tell, it is true; he has a scandal to reveal: he has an
argument to exhibit. It is a simple one and a powerful one as
far as it goes, and it is one. That one argument is himself. It
is his presence which is the triumph of Protestants. It is the
sight of him which is a Catholic's confusion. It is, indeed, our
great confusion that our holy mother could have had a priest
like him. He feels the force of the argument, and he shows
himself to the multitude that is gazing on him. 'Mothers of
families,' he seems to say, 'gentle maidens, innocent children,
look at me, for I am worth looking at. You do not see such a
sight every day. Can any church live, over the imputation of
such a production as I am? I have been a Catholic and an
infidel; I have been a Roman priest and a hypocrite; I have
been a profligate under a cowl. I am that Father Achilli, who,