in a state of intoxication. Before retiring to bed, she
took nearly a pint of gin, besides other liquor. About
ten o'clock the same night, a lady residing with deceased
knocked several times at the bed-room door, but
receiving no answer, entered the room, and found that
she had fallen on her face on the floor. A medical
man was called in, but he pronounced her to have been
dead some time, and gave it as his opinion that her
death had been caused by suffocation, from falling on
her face off the bed.

A Scotchman, passing under the name of Robert
James Webster, has Killed Himself, and Attempted to
Murder a Girl in a house of ill fame in Dublin. He
appeared to be about thirty-five years of age; his
features indicated a life of hardship or dissipation. He
went to the house on the 30th of last month, and
remained there till the 18th instant, spending profusely,
and drinking hard, night and day. At one time he
pretended to be attached to the Queen's service in the
veterinary department; at another, that he had just
arrived from Australia. He attached himself to Emma
Fawcett, one of the girls of the house. Last Sunday
evening, he discharged a pistol at this girl, wounding
her in the side with a number of shots, but not
dangerously; he then fired a second pistol into his own
breast, and he was found dead. The police have
discovered a bag filled with sovereigns and five pistols in
the room he occupied. Latterly, his behaviour indicated
insanity; and the coroner's inquest has given a verdict
of "Temporary derangement."

A notable Railway Case occurred in the Central
Criminal Court on the 21st inst. Thomas Swift, an
engineer, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him
with unlawfully applying a break to the wheels of a
carriage on the London and Blackwall Railway, so as to
endanger the safety of the passengers. Mr. Bodkin
prosecuted, and said that the prisoner, when taken
before the magistrate, admitted the act imputed to him,
and that he was drunk at the time when he got into
the break carriage. His act was fortunately not
attended with any serious consequences, but it might
have been otherwise had they come to any part of the
line where the course was to be altered, as it would then
have had the effect of throwing the train off the rails,
and thereby endangered the safety of the passengers.
Had it only been a matter of inconvenience to the
company's servants they should have felt satisfied with the
matter being adjudicated upon without being sent
there.—The Recorder said that, having read over the
depositions, it seemed to him that it was very culpable
neglect to allow anyone to get into a break carriage.—
Mr. Bodkin said that it was allowed when the other
carriages were full.—The Recorder said that it was bad
enough to allow a drunken man at all to get into a
carriage of any class, to the annoyance of the other and
more respectable class of passengers; but it was gross
to a degree to allow such a person to get into a portion
of the carriage where he could have the chance
of endangering the lives of his fellow-passengers; and
he should require to know how it had taken place.
Mr. Bodkin called John Young, the guard of the train,
who said that all he knew was that the prisoner got in
between Shadwell and London. There were more break
carriages than one attached to the train. He was not
in the carriage in which the prisoner was, but felt the
break applied. Neither he nor the other guard saw the
prisoner. He might have got into the break carriage
from the station platform. The directors authorised
persons getting into those carriages when the others are
full. There was not any person in charge of the break,
which was turned down.—The Recorder: Am I to
understand that the directors knew and sanctioned such
proceedings?—Witness: The superintendent knew it.—
The Recorder: It was a great mercy that no accident
occurred. The practice is most reprehensible, and the
neglect very gross.—Mr. Bodkin said the company
wished to recommend the prisoner to mercy.—The
Recorder, in sentencing the prisoner, said that he
thought the company had done no more than they were
bound to do in recommending him to mercy, as they
were as much or more to blame than he was. They had
no right to let a drunken man into the carriage at all,
more particularly into a part where he could have
access to the machinery, upon which the safety of the
train depended, and he hoped that after this exposure
steps would be taken that would lead to better regulations.
He should punish the prisoner more for his
drunkenness than the act, and he should sentence him
to one month's imprisonment in Newgate.

A sickly-looking man, named Garrett, was charged at
Clerkenwell police court on the 24th, with Assaulting
his Wife, a Welch woman.—She stated that she had
been twelve months the wife of the defendant, who had
neglected to contribute to her support. On the previous
day he was skulking about their dwelling doing nothing,
and because she told him he was an idle worthless
fellow, he took on himself to knock her down, for
which offence she gave him in charge.—The defendant,
whose face was sadly disfigured with scratches, said he
was the miserable victim of his wife's ferocity, and since
the working of the act of parliament for affording a
better protection to females, she had served him out
with a vengeance, almost daily menacing and otherwise
ill-treating him, and daring him by the most aggravating
and vile language to strike her, threatening if he
did so to give him "six months at the mill." Being
exceedingly irritated on the evening before, he certainly
did give her a slight tap on the side of her head, and
she immediately collared him, in the hope that he
would suffer hard work in prison for the term
mentioned or die there. He had not been free from her
scratches scarcely a week since their marriage.—The
wife, who had been laughing and otherwise
misconducting herself, here called out, "And it served you
right, you wretch, and you shall have six months."
—The magistrate said she would be disappointed
for once, and, commiserating the husband, set him
at liberty.

A Cork newspaper gives the following account of the
position of Mr. Smith O'Brien in his Exile in Norfolk
Island; a gentleman at present in this city, lately
returned from Hobart Town, states that he had an
interview with Smith O'Brien, at Norfolk Island,
where he found him enjoying excellent health. He
was living in an hotel, where he was supplied with
every comfort and luxury he could desire. He had
none of the appearance of a convict; he dressed in a
similar style to what he did in this country. The
government allowed him a circuit of ten miles for
exercise, and he had only to report himself once a
month to the police authorities. The gentleman referred
to was two evenings in company with Smith O'Brien,
and during both interviews O'Brien avoided all reference
to politics or any subject relating thereto.

The confiscated property of the convict Kirwan has
been sold by auction at his residence in Dublin. At
the sale it was discovered that many of the pictures and
books in his possession were dishonestly obtained. It is
said that he himself was a mere dauber, and, to convey
an idea of skill, was in the habit of procuring drawings
of good artists and affixing his own name to them.
Some of the drawings used for this purpose were
identified as stolen property. It was also proved that he
had obtained possession of a set of Trinity College prize-
books, and made such an insertion as would imply that
he had received his education there, whereas he had
not received any collegiate education. A few days
before the sale a white silk pocket-handkerchief was
found at Ireland's Eye, near the scene of Mrs. Kirwan's
death, which a washerwoman identifies as Kirwan's
property. It was stuffed into a hole, and a stone
jammed in to conceal it. The "Body rock," on which
the corpse of Mrs. Kirwan was found, has been carried
away piecemeal by tourists.

A number of Gamblers, Frenchmen and Germans,
have been seized by the police at a coffee-shop in Castle-
street, Leicester-square: they were playing with cards.
One of the men is manager of the place, and a second
the door-keeper. The gamesters were evidently of a
very inferior class of society. When they were brought
before the Marlborough-street Court, their solicitor
urged that they were not aware that gaming is unlawful
in England. The magistrate thought it possible that
many of them were really ignorant on the point, and
therefore he fined them only 40s. each; the manager
was fined £25, and the doorkeeper £5.