hours of 9 and 12 o'clock at night. The verdict having
been delivered before 9 o'clock, it became imperative
that it should take place on that night. He therefore
issued his warrant to the police authorities, requiring
them to see to its fulfilment. A coffin, the best that
could be put together in the short time, was procured.
The circumstance soon became noised abroad, and
shortly before 12 o'clock a great number of persons had
assembled in the churchyard and about the house where
the body lay, many seeming greatly excited. The body
was removed in a cart procured hastily, and followed by
the father and a few other relatives, a large crowd
following at a distance. The body was interred in the
lower part of the churchyard, about a quarter to 12, without
any ceremony or observance whatever. At this moment
the excitement seemed so great, that it was feared an
attempt would be made to take it up agan; but the
grave was quickly filled, and the police all at their
posts, so that shortly after 12 the whole had dispersed
without disturbance.

An amusing case of Breach of Promise of Marriage
came before the Bail court on the 17th. The action was
brought by the daughter of a Mr. Chalfont, a jeweller,
against Hard, late a sergeant in the army, between
fifty and sixty years of age. The lady was a widow of
four-and-thirty, with one child, and. like her father, a
jeweller. The principal witness was Chalfont the father;
who deposed that Hard had "axed" him to consent to
the marriage, but that on account of the disparity of the
ages of the parties he would not. Hard, however,
declared he would marry with or without the consent of
the father; who then "gave in." Hard promised to
settle all his property on the lady, except his pension.
"Some days after this," said Chalfont, "the defendant
and my daughter came to my house together. He was
very uneasy for marriage, and wished to be married.
I said, 'Mary, I understand Mr. Hard wishes to marry
you? Do you think you can love Mr. Hard, and make
him a good wife?' She said, 'I can, father.' He
sprang forward, and put out his right hand, and my
daughter runs up and puts her hand smack into his. I
presses 'em together like that, as hard as I could squeeze
them both together. I said, 'I see you are now both
happy and pleased, and I hope you will remain so; and,
virtually speaking, I consider you are now really
married.' I saw there was a little move made, and a
bottle produced, and some wine and water was made.
I took a little drop neat. He urged very much for
Monday, this being Friday. I was the only person
who overruled it, for he was so very obstinate. He told
me he had bought a license, and it would be carried out
on Monday. I told him there was not time to draw the
deed up—the marriage covenant. The Thursday
following was then fixed for the marriage. They
remained about two hours, and went away together. I
saw the defendant the next day at night, and I was not
aware there was anything wrong till very late: he
muttered something about her not coming to meet him
as he expected. On the 17th of September I went to
the defendant's house with my daughter. He accepted
us freely and comfortably, and entreated us to drink,
which we did. I asked him for an explanation as to
what was the matter. The defendant said he had not been
well, and did not come out much. He seemed to me to
be quite amused, drinking a little wine and brandy.
He rose up and began humming. He pulled out a ring
from his pocket. He called me and showed me an
Income-tax paper. He then put a ring in my hand,
and asked me if I thought it a good one. I took it to
the light, and saw the hall mark. I said it was very
heavy, and gave it him again. He said, 'God bless you,
Mary; keep up your little heart—here's the ring.'
She advanced to him; and he placed it on her finger,
and asked her whether it was not too large? and she
said it was. I said, as she was a jeweller, she could
take a little bit out, and make it the right size. He
then said, 'We'll be married on Monday morning.'"
Hard did not keep his word, but married "somebody
else" Damages £50.

A case respecting the Liability of Railway Companies
was tried on the 18th in the Court of Exchequer. It
was an action against the Eastern Counties Railway
Company, brought by a person named Skipp, lately a
guard in their employment. He was acting as guard to
a Iuggage or goods train which quitted the London
terminus on the morning of the 1st of July, 1852. On
the arrival of the train at the Lea-bridge station he found
no fewer than forty-two trucks waiting on a siding for
the purpose of being attached to his train, and then to
be carried on to Norwich. He was compelled to do this
without any assistance, for the company would not
furnish any aid for this work. There was no man kept
at that station for the purpose, nor was there any porter
to render him help in linking these trucks on to his own
train. The consequence of this absence of aid upon this
particular occasion had been that, in his haste and
anxiety to accomplish this object within the smallest
amount of time, in order that the train might proceed
on its journey, and thereby get out of the way of the
next passenger train, and so avoid a collision, he had
been thrown down under the wheels of the engine,
which had severed one of his arms from his body. For
this accident he claimed compensation from the company.
In addition to the plaintiff's evidence another witness,
who had been a guard on the Eastern Counties line,
stated that he had, upon very many occasions, sent up
written reports to the head office, complaining of the
want of assistance at the Lea-bridge station in connexion
with the goods trains and of the inefficient staff that was
kept at that station, and of the consequent danger which
thereupon arose, not only to the guard himself, but to
the next passenger train. Of these reports there had
not been any notice taken. He had sent up many
reports to the head office upon the subject prior to this
accident occurring, as well as after; but he had never
received any answer to those reports from the company,
nor had there been any assistance sent. In some of his
reports he had had to state the stoppage of passenger trains
in consequence of there not being sufficient assistance at
the Lea-bridge station. Mr. Baron Martin gave it as
his opinion, there was no case to go to the jury. If a
servant to a railway company, or to any one else, was
not satisfied with his place, or if he found he could
not do the work assigned to him, or if he found it to be
attended with danger, it was perfectly competent in him
to leave the service. Here, the plaintiff, for whose
accident every one could not but feel regret, had
discovered that his occupation was attended, according to
the testimony of himself and the other witness, with
danger, and yet he had chosen to retain the employment.
He might have left it. In his opinion, the company
could not be held responsible. He should therefore
direct a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff's
counsel said he would rather have a nonsuit entered, as
he wished still to raise the question on the point of law.
A nonsuit was accordingly entered.

At the Court of Bankruptcy, on the 15th, an audit
took place under the estate of Messrs. Chambers and
Son, the Bankers of Old Bond Street, who failed in
1824. Dividends to the amount of 13s. 4d. in the pound
have already been declared, and there are now funds in
the hands of the official assignee equal to a further
distribution of 2s. 6d. The sum for which Messrs.
Chambers stopped payment was about £224,000.

A Tragical Incident occurred on the 9th of October
on board a steamboat on the Missouri. Among the
deck passengers were Mrs Lydia Miller and her husband.
They had been married only three weeks, and were on
their way from a visit to Minnesota. While asleep in
the night Mrs. Miller was awakened by a person behaving
rudely to her. The person went away, but renewed
his conduct. She awoke her husband, and told him
what had happened, at the same time asking him for
his pistol. He gave it to her, and went himself in
search of the ruffian who had molested his wife. During
Mr. Miller's absence the villain returned again, when
Mrs. Miller levelled the pistol at him, and shot him
through the heart. It proved that he was a watchman
of the boat, named Bugg. Mrs. Miller was examined
by the coroner at St. Louis, but was exonerated from
all guilt.

At the Central Criminal Court on the 29th ult, the
Reverend Wade Meara pleaded "Guilty" to Printing
and Publishing false and Scandalous Libels against the
Hon. Craven Fitzhardinge Berkeley and others. His
counsel, Mr. Clarkson, expressed Mr. Meara's contrition,