with every preceding question. But he now appeared
quite crest-fallen.—Sir F. Thesiger: You said yesterday,
that for eighteen months you were in the house of Dr.
Williams, in Parliament-street, during the years 1818
and 1819, suffering from illness?—Plaintiff; I did not
say Dr. Williams.—Sir F. Thesiger: Now were you not
during those eighteen months in Ilchester Gaol, under a
conviction for horse-stealing?—Plaintiff: No; I was
not.—Sir F. Thesiger: Were you not sentenced to
death, under the name of Thomas Provis, for stealing a
gelding, the goods and chattels of George Hadden; and
was not your sentence commuted to eighteen months'
imprisonment, in consideration of your youth?—
Plaintiff: It was not I; it must be some other person.—
Sir F. Thesiger: Have you got the marks of the evil on
your neck, and also on your right hand? The witness
hesitated, and at last bared neck and hand, and there
the marks were apparent. Those on the right hand
were the marks he said yesterday were inflicted in child-
birth, and which he represented in the deed as the
indelible marks of identity in the Smyth family.—Sir F.
Thesiger: You mentioned in one of your letters that
you were at Colonel Hadden's on a visit?—Plaintiff: I
do not remember the name.—Sir F. Thesiger: Was his
name George Hadden?—Plaintiff: I do not know. Here
Sir F. Thesiger pointed attention to the fact that the
motto on the deed of 1823 was " Qui capit capitor." The
cross-examination was continued a brief space further;
when the judge spoke to Mr. Bovill, the plaintiff's
counsel, and that gentleman said that after the most
appalling exhibition which had been made, he and his
brethren would not continue the contest any longer. In
this the judge and Sir Frederick Thesiger concurred,
highly praising Mr. Bovill for his general conduct. The
plaintiff was ordered into custody on a charge of perjury.
It seemed the general opinion of the court that the
solicitors and all who had spoken to the handwriting had
acted honestly. Smyth has been committed for trial, by
a Gloucestershire police-magistrate, for forgery. The
seal-engravers, Moring and Cocks, proved that the seals
applied to the documents had been ordered of them. It
happens, too, that one of the seals was engraved by a
process which has only been invented within these few
years.

A singular case of a man who has been Thirty-six
Years in Prison was heard before Mr. Justice Williams,
at his chambers, on the 13th inst. The defendant was
a Mr. Candlin, who had been committed to Montgomery
gaol in 1817. He was subsequently removed to the
Fleet, and when that prison was closed to the Queen's
Prison. He now attended on a writ of habeas
corpus, and applied for his discharge on the ground that
he was unjustly and unlawfully kept in prison and had
been so for more than twenty years. He urged that
when the prison in Wales was closed he was entitled to
his discharge. A return to the writ of habeas was
produced by the officer of the Queen's prison. Two
professional gentlemen attended in opposition. They informed
his lordship that a similar application was made two
years ago to Mr. Justice Wightman, and he had told
the defendant to file his schedule in the Insolvent
Debtor's Court, where some years ago a vesting order
was made, and a solicitor had offered to proceed for him
free of expense, but he would not let him. The defendant
declared that it was not true. He produced several
papers, and entreated his lordship to order his discharge
after his long imprisonment. His lordship told the old
man that he could not assist him; he must file his
schedule. The defendant considered that he was
unjustly detained and would not file his schedule. Mr.
Justice Williams said he must take the consequence of
his obstinacy and remanded him to prison.

A daring Garotte Robbery was committed near
Nottingham, on Saturday night, the 13th inst. Mr.
Sherbrooke Lowe Beecher, of Shakespeare-street, was
walking in a field called Fothergill's-close, in the meadows
near the town, when two men came up and accosted
him, asking him if he were not aware that he was
trespassing. Mr. Beecher answered that he was not, and
that he knew the owner of the field perfectly well.
They then told him that he was, and inquired if he
would go to the Nottingham Police-office or to Lenton
(a village near). Mr. Beecher said he would willingly
go with them to the police-office. They, however,
insisted that he should accompany them to Lenton; and,
not suspecting the robbers' intention, namely, to get him
further away from the town, he walked with them a
short distance. In a moment, one of the villains, who
was walking behind, threw his arm round Mr. Beecher's
neck, pressing him tightly by the throat, and then ex-
claimed to his companion, "Jack, come on." Mr.
Beecher was dragged to the ground, and the second
robber placed his knees upon his stomach and rifled his
pockets, while the other was holding him down by the
throat. Having secured all the money in his possession
the robbers decamped.

In the great Bridgewater Case (see "Household
Narrative" for July, p. 157), judgment was given by the
House of Lords on the 19th inst. The house had
referred certain questions to the judges; and the result
was that nine decided in favour of the Earl of Bridgewater's
will, and two against it. On the above day,
judgment was moved by Lord Lyndhurst. In a lucid
and comprehensive speech, relying both on precedent
and argument, he decided that the proviso was a
"condition subsequent," adverse to public policy, and
therefore illegal and void. Lord Brougham, Lord Truro, and
Lord St. Leonards, concurred with Lord Lyndhurst;
the Lord Chancellor maintaining the opinion which he
had expressed as Lord Justice Cranworth. The House
of Lords, therefore, on grounds of public policy, reversed
the judgment of the court below; the costs of all parties
to be paid out of the estate.

At the Coventry Assizes, three men named Danks,
Lacey, and Stanley, were tried for Burglary at Coleshill.
This was the notable case where an old couple
named Perkins made so gallant a defence against a band
of robbers; who, when they had at length broken into
the house, were fired upon by Perkins as they were
ascending the stairs. Lacey was badly wounded, and
his companions retreated, carrying him off. Next day,
Lacey applied to the Birmingham Hospital to be admitted
for a wound in the shoulder; and this led to his detection.
Stanley was acquitted; but the others were found
guilty, and received sentence of twenty years'
transportation. The judge complimented the brave old
couple, and ordered a reward of £10 to be paid to Mr.
Perkins.

Several important Railway Cases were brought before
the Liverpool Assizes: actions for damages against the
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, arising
out of an accident on that railway in March last. The
first was at the instance of the executor of M. Carati, a
Greek merchant, of Glasgow, who was killed on that
occasion. It was proved that the train was going at the
rate of 40 miles an hour, and had run off the line, that
some of the sleepers were decayed, and bolts loose. Mr.
Nasmyth, the engineer, said, that 40 miles an hour was
an unsafe speed with the line in that state. The trial
was stopped by an offer of £3000 damages being made
by the defendants; it was accepted and a verdict
was given for the amount, apportioned between M.
Carati's widow and children.

There were five other actions against the same company
arising out of the same accident, which were also
arranged. In "Tritton v. The Company," a verdict
was taken for £2000 damages; in "Pugh v. The Same,"
for £1000; in "Sofiano et ux. v. The Same," for £150;
in "Sofiano v. The Same," for £100; and in "Kay v.
The Same," for £1050—being a total of £7300 damages.

Another case, of "Ford v. The Midland Railway
Company," was also settled by the plaintiff's counsel
agreeing to accept £500 damages for injuries suffered in
a collision. This plaintiff has died during the assizes.
—Mr. Justice Earl said, he thought the damages now
paid would be a matter to quiet the public mind with
respect to proper care being taken to avoid railway
accidents. A great desire had been manifested to make
railway directors felons, by prosecuting them for
manslaughter in cases of death from railway accidents. It
had, however, always been his opinion, that civil actions
and the costs imposed consequently would secure proper
care.

The celebrated Braintree Case respecting the Liability
for Church Rates, was finally decided by the House of
Lords on the 12th. It will be recollected that, in 1841,