streets. Of course, if the parents had been in the
workhouse the infant would not have been exposed to this
fate. The coroner remarked that this was an important
case, for if the Poor-law were carried out generally as it
had been in this instance, it would be a curse rather than
a blessing to the poor, as no man could know his fate if
he became utterly destitute: the Poor-law commissioners
had decided that even a casual pauper who is houseless
is entitled to admission; in this case the Walshes had a
settlement, and had actually been in the house six
months before. The jury found this verdict—"That
James Walsh died on the 22d day of November, 1853,
from congestion and inflammation, caused by cold and
exposure to the night-air; and the jury are unanimously
of opinion that great culpability attaches to Messrs.
Poland and Russell, Directors of the Poor, and to Mr.
Messer, Assistant-Overseer, for not admitting the child
and parents into the workhouse when application had
been made by the parents of the deceased, stating that
they were utterly destitute."

A singular case has occurred of Contempt of the
Authority of English Law by a Russian Naval Officer.
Two Russian frigates, the Aurora and the Navarin, were
lately allowed to enter Portsmouth harbour for
purposes of repair. Some time ago some of the sailors
belonging to those ships not relishing the service in
which they had been compulsorily engaged, determined
to leave the service of the Czar. Accordingly six of them
having contrived to get on shore at Portsmouth,
proceeded towards London, and had nearly reached
Guildford, when they were overtaken by an officer of the
Aurora, accompanied by an English inspector of pnlice,
and were by them brought back by railway to
Portsmouth. Here they were placed on board the English
ship Victorious, that vessel having been placed at the
disposal of the captain of the Aurora for the
accommodation of himself and his crew. The deserters were
confined on board the Victorious, and were subjected to
severe corporal punishment. These infractions of the
law of England became known in London. Persons
proceeded to Portsmouth to ascertain the circumstances
of the case, and on their instructions an affidavit was
made in due form, and a writ of Habeas Corpus was
issued by Mr. Justice Wightman, directed to Rear-
Admiral Martin, to Captain Scott, the Captain of the
Guard-ship of the Ordinary; to the Captain of the
Russian frigate Aurora, and to any other person having
the custody of the sailors in question, commanding them
in the name of the Queen to have the bodies of the said
sailors immediately before the Lord Chief Justice of
England. On this writ being served on Rear-Admiral
Martin, he declined to obey it until he communicated
with the Admiralty. Captain Scott being absent on
leave, could not be served, but the writ was served upon
Commander Worsfold, officiating for Captain Scott in his
absence. This officer's answer was that he would
consult the officer commanding in chief at Portsmouth.
The writ was next taken to the captain of the Aurora.
The Russian declined receiving it (although its nature
was fully explained to him) except through the Russian
ambassador or consul. The consul being absent the
vice-consul was waited on and his assistance requested,
but he positively refused to interfere, alleging the absence
of his superior as his excuse. The writ was then again
taken on board the Aurora, .but the person bearing it
was refused access to the captain and not allowed to
come on board, and when it was tendered to the
lieutenant, who appeared at the gangway, that officer
declined receiving it. The bearer then, as he went down
the side of the ship, placed it in through one of the
portholes, but the lieutenant having perceived this, took
the writ up and threw it from the ship, and it fell into
a boat alongside. Writs were again sent down from
London, addressed to the Commander-in-Chief at
Portsmouth, and Commander Worsfold, of the Neptune,
commanding them in the Queen's name to produce not only
the six men in question before the Lord Chief Justice,
but also to bring the Russian captain himself before that
dignitary. These officers, however, again declined to
obey the writ, except by the orders of the Admiralty;
and the Russian captain cut the matter short, by sailing
before any further step could be taken.

The Rev. H. F. Hewgill, curate of Crofton, near
Fareham, Hants, was brought on the 9th inst. before the
magistrates, at Fareham, on a charge ot Obtaining Money
under False Pretences. On the 17th of November last
the accused, who has resided in the parish about
eighteen months, and is a married man, thirty-four years
of age, having a wife and four children, suddenly left
Crofton with a young woman named Macfarlane, the
daughter of a pensioner living in the village, who has
lately filled the office of mistress at the village school.
During the absence of the rector for the benefit of his
health, at Bournemouth, the general duties of the parish
and the superintendence of the village school devolved
upon the curate, who had, therefore, frequent
opportunities of conversing with the schoolmistress, and a
close intimacy sprang up between them. The missing
pair were traced to Boulogne, where they remained for
about a week, living in the first style, and frequenting
the theatre and other places of amusement. From
Boulogne they returned to England, and having spent
some time in London, afterwards visited various parts of
the country, until at length the young woman was
deserted by the clergyman, in the metropolis, without
a penny in her pocket. Soon afterwards the seducer
was apprehended in London, and sent to Fareham,
where a crowd had assembled at the railway station, and
expressed their indignation by hooting, hissing, and
groaning. The young woman was brought to Fareham
and handed over to her relations. On Mr. Hewgill's
examination before the magistrates, several tradesmen
preferred charges against him of having obtained money
from them on false pretences; and he was committed
for trial at the next assizes.

The police reports contain every day cases of savage
Assaults on Women. The following are a few of the
most recent:—At the Thames office the depositions were
received of a woman named Flynn, who, owing to the
brutality of her husband, was lying in a very precarious
state, which offers little hope of her recovery. The
facts of the case are these—On the morning of Sunday
week police-constable Defaets found the injured woman
in the London Hospital, under the hands of the surgeon,
who was dressing her arm. He asked her by whom the
injury had been inflicted, to which she replied that her
husband did it with a chopper. The constable went to
his house, and took him from his bed, beside which the
chopper, a large and heavy instrument, was lying.
When told of the charge, he said, "Yes, I did it," but
in his defence before the magistrate, when first
examined, he said it was his wife's fault, and that she
fell against the axe. In her present deposition, having
been warned that her life was in danger, she said it was
all accidental. Her husband was always kind and good
to her—too kind, and too good. They quarrelled
sometimes, of course, as she would occasionally take a
drop, but she was sure he would not willingly injure
her. At the conclusion of her evidence Mr. Yardley
permitted the prisoner to go at large on his own
recognizances.—At Worship Street, R. Stanton, a
horsebreaker, was charged with a brutal assault upon
Margaret Robertson, a young woman with whom he
cohabited. The prisoner had struck her a terrible blow
on the forehead with an iron tea-kettle. A certificate
from the house-surgeon of the London Hospital was
handed to the magistrate, stating that she was now out
of danger. The prisoner said that he was very sorry for
what had happened, but he was greatly exasperated at
the time, and he understood that it was not the wish of
the complainant to prefer any charge against him. Mr.
D'Eyncourt ordered him to be committed and kept to
hard labour for six months.—At Bow Street, H.
Bennett, a carpenter, who has been repeatedly fined at
this court tor ill-treating his wife, was charged with
assauting her in a ferocious manner in Drury Lane.
The complainant, whose face was sadly disfigured,
stated that she had not lived with the prisoner since her
last complaint against him, but got a living for herself
and her two little children without his assistance. She
met him accidentally in Drury Lane, and, having her
face tied up at the time, he asked her what was the
matter; She said that she had the face-ache, and
passed on to avoid him, not wishing to have anything
further to say to him. He followed her up, however,
saying, with a coarse expression, "I'll make your