accounts, a defendant, after some ineffectual opposition on
the ground of expense, was compelled to set out in a
schedule to his answer mere copies of accounts from
his books—the books themselves having been produced
to the plaintiffs, and who had the original accounts,
as delivered, in their possession, of which the stationer's
charge for making a single copy amounted to £120.
When a chancery-suit is commenced after the 2nd of
November next, the plain tiff will prepare his bill
according to a concise form given in the new orders;
which he must have printed 'on writing royal paper,
quarto, in pica type, leaded,' with blank paper of the
same kind interleaved; and this is to be filed with the
Clerk of the Records. Instead of serving a subpœna, a
mere writ of summons, the plaintiff must then serve each
defendant with a printed copy of the bill, on which is an
endorsement informing him when he must appear, and
the consequences of his non-appearance; such copy having
been authenticated by the stamp of the Record Clerk.
The bill is to contain no interrogatories; but if the
plaintiff requires an answer from any defendant, separate
interrogatories may be filed for the examination of the
defendant within eight days after the time limited for
the defendant's appearance. Each defendant is entitled
to demand ten printed copies of the bill from the
plaintiff, at a fixed price, one halfpenny per folio of
seventy-four words. Thus the bill having been once
printed, all the various parties to the suit have the
benefit of this convenient form in every stage of the
proceedings; and though in some cases the first cost to the
plaintiff of printing the bill may rather exceed that of a
single written bill, yet in the end, the unsuccessful, as a
rule, having to pay ultimately all the costs, the saving
at the termination of the suit will most likely be very
considerable. If amendments or additions are required to
be made to the bill, they are to be printed and served in
the same way as the original. The orders give a concise
form for answers. But if no answer is required by the
plaintiff, or thought necessary by the defendant, he
merely files a replication, and leaves the plaintiff to
prove his case in the best way he can. At the end of
three months, if the plaintiff has not proceeded with his
suit effectually, so as to bring it to a hearing, the defen-
dant may move to dismiss the bill for want of prosecution;
when the court may make such order as may be just
and reasonable. Thus, a defendant can never have a
suit hanging over him more than three months, unless
there be substantial and active proceedings in the cause.
In many cases the object is to get a speedy hearing;
probably there is little or no dispute as to facts, and all
that is wanted is the decision of the court on legal
questions. In other cases, again, prompt decision is of
the essence of justice. This is now provided for: when
the defendant's time for answering has expired, the
plaintiff may move for a decree, giving a month's notice
and previously filing all the affidavits he means to use,
and giving at the foot of his notice a list of such affidavits.
In fourteen days the defendant must file his affidavits in
answer, giving his opponent a list of them who has
seven days more to file affidavits, which must 'be con-
fined to matters strictly in reply.' When no such motion
for a decree is made, but issue is joined, either party
may give notice of his intention to examine the witnesses
orally, when that mode of taking the evidence is to be
adopted; but where neither party requires oral examinations,
the evidence will be given by affidavits. Not
to pursue farther at present the details of the new course
of procedure, it will be obvious, that with the reciprocal
power plaintiffs and defendants will have of forcing on
suits to a termination, and with the necessity both
parties will be under of proceeding promptly, a chancery-
suit will take no longer time than may be due to the
substantial merits and difficulties of each case. When
to this we add the abolition of the Masters' Offices, and
the substitution of the judge before whom the whole
cause hast) be heard, as the functionary by whom all
incidental questions arising in the progress of the suit
are to be decided, and the great reduction of fees payable
by suitors, we may fairly anticipate that the Court
of Chancery will be deemed, much more generally than
heretofore, a fountain of prompt and speedy justice."

A Dreadful Murder has been committed near Sheffield.
On the 4th instant the body of Mr. Alexander Robinson,
a draper of Doncaster, was discovered by two boys, lying
in a ditch a short way from the town. The head was
shattered, the pockets were rifled, and the man's hat
had been thrust into an adjoining hedge. Two gunshot
wounds were found in the head. The body was
soon identified; and subsequent investigations led to
the arrest of two men on strong circumstantial evidence.
Two days before the body was found, Mr. Robinson had
dined at Sheffield with James Barber, a young man,
and with three other yooung men, all travelling drapers.
James was a nephew of Mr. D. Barber, Robinson's
employer; he had been in his service with Robinson; but
he was discarded for embezzlement. A silver watch,
intended as a gift to him, his uncle gave to Robinson.
At the dinner, James Barber was heard to offer to introduce
Robinson to some good customers at Gleadless,
a village five miles from Sheffield; the two set out together
about two o'clock, Robinson taking his pack: he
was no more seen alive; the field in which his body was
found was in the direction of Gleadless, hut quite away
from any house or public footpath. At five o'clock,
Barber re-entered Sheffield, and left the deceased's pack
at a public-house, where he carefully cleansed his
clothes and boots. On the evening of the day on which
the body was found, Robinson's watch was pawned, not
by Barber, but by a companion of his—a young fellow
named M'Cormack. Barber and M'Cormack were
arrested; on the former the pawnbroker's ticket for the
watch was found; M'Cormack admitted that he pawned
the watch, but said he did so merely at Barber's request,
to whom he gave the money. Barber denied his guilt.
At the coroner's inquest, the evidence substantiated the
above circumstances. Alexander Robinson was a Scotchman,
twenty-four years old. At the spot where the
body was found there were marks of a violent struggle;
a pool of blood was covered with long dead grass. So
mangled was the face of the corpse, that Mr. Barber,
Robinson's employer, could only recognise the body by
a peculiar formation of the feet, by the hands, and by
the clothes. The prisoner M'Cormack was allowed to
give evidence. He stated that he had been employed
by Barber in his trade; he had pawned the watch at
his desire. Barber accounted in various ways to different
people for his sudden possession of a watch. The
wife of a publican gave this evidence of a conversation
with the supposed murderer: "On Monday afternoon,
about two o'clock, the prisoner came to our house, and
he had some chops. I said to him, 'Mr. Barber, what
a dreadful murder this is! ' and he replied, ' It is, poor
young man.' I said, ' Have you been to see him? ' He
replied, 'I would not see him for fifty pounds.' I said,
'You having been companions so long, if I were you I
would have run to see him, and nothing would have
stopped me.' He never said anything in reply; and l said,
'What looks stranger still is, that you have not gone to
Doncaster to his funeral.' He put his hand before his
face, but he did not speak. I then said, 'It will be a great
loss to Mr. Barber;' and he replied, 'Yes, it will; Mr.
Barber will lose five hundred pounds, for he had three
thousand customers about Sheffield.' I said, 'When
did you hear of the murder?' 'On Friday night,' he
replied. "On a subsequent day, additional evidence
was tendered, tracing Barber to within half a mile of
the spot where the murder was committed. The jury
returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against James
Barber." He is committed to York Castle for trial.

Mr. Simpson, of Cremorne Gardens, and Monsieur
and Madame Poitevin, were charged at the Westminster
police court on the 7th, with Cruelty to Horses, which
were taken into the air suspended beneath a balloon, a
person sitting on the back of either animal. The prosecution
was at the instance of the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The chief witness
for the prosecution was Mr. Daws, a veterinary surgeon.
He said the suspension of a horse to a balloon would
cause "compression of the abdominal viscera, congestion
of the blood-vessels in the hinder extremities, extravasation
in the peritoneum lining the abdomen, producing
internal bruises, and giving a great deal of pain and
suffering to the animal." But when cross-examined,
he said he believed the two horses in question were in
good health. He thought if they were brought to him
as a veterinary surgeon, notwithstanding the