cheeks ache a little more," and struck her a blow in the
face, which knocked her down. He then raised her head
from the ground, and struck her a succession of blows
on both sides of the head with his clenched fist. She
managed to crawl into a shop, and was there protected
from the prisoner's further violence. The wife's statement
was fully corroborated by evidence. Mr. Henry
said this was the seventh time within a short space of
time, that the prisoner had been charged with assaulting
his wife, and even now that she had separated herself
from him, she was not safe from his inhuman
treatment. He then committed the prisoner to six
months' hard labour, and at the expiration of that
term, directed that he should find two sureties to
keep the peace for a further period of six months, or
be committed in default. The prisoner, on leaving the
dock, directed a savage leer towards his wife, and
swore that he would settle the matter yet by murdering
her outright as soon as he got out of prison.—
At Guildhall, J. Barrett was charged with a savage
assault upon a young woman of the name of Tubbs, who
appeared with a frightful black eye, and the whole of
one side of her face contused and swollen. She said—
I lodge in the same house as the prisoner, and on Saturday
night I went to his room to call out my husband,
who was drinking with him and several of his companions.
The prisoner, with a filthy expression, said
"He shall not come. I've known you walking the
streets more than once, and I'll make your husband leave
you altogether." My husband then tried to get me
away, and pushed me out; but the prisoner immediately
rushed towards me and dragged me by the hair of my
head into the room. He then struck me on the eye,
knocked me down and kicked me with his heavy boots
repeatedly about the face and body, while I was lying
on the ground. I screamed for assistance, and had it
not been for Mrs. Finnigan, who rescued me from the
prisoner's violence, I believe he would have murdered
me. I am so dreadfully bruised all over my body, that
I can neither stand nor sit without experiencing great
pain in all my limbs.—Sir R. Carden; Who gave you
that black-eye?—Complainant (pointing to the prisoner):
That gentleman, sir.—Two witnesses corroborated the
complainant's statement.—Springate (the gaoler) stated
that the prisoner was a journeyman tailor, and for the
last twelve years he had continually been in and out of
prison for assaults, and drunken and disorderly conduct.
The last time he was in the Compter he had six weeks
for assaulting his wife.—Sir R. W. Carden regretted
that the proposed enactment to empower magistrates to
punish such as the prisoner by flogging had not received
the sanction of the legislature. Had he had the power,
he would certainly have ordered him to be tied to a
cart's tail and flogged through the town, and he would
have placed the scourge in the hands of the prisoner's
victim, so that he might have known how she felt
when suffering from his brutal rage. Imprisonment
was not sufficient punishment; and he (Sir R. Carden)
trusted it would not be long before the rejected mode
of punishment was adopted. He then sentenced
the culprit to six months' imprisonment, with hard
labour.

Mrs. Frances Farquharson, widow of a gentleman
who once possessed large estates in the West Indies,
was lately found dead in a new road at Brixton from
Cold and Exposure. The unfortunate lady was an inmate
of Lambeth Workhouse; she was seventy-two years of
age. She went out one day for her monthly "holyday,"
wandered about, and at night must have fallen down in
the unfrequented road where her body was found early
in the morning. No money or food is given to
Lambeth paupers when they go out for their holyday; and if
they return to the house for their dinner they are not
allowed to go out again. This seems to have deterred
Mrs. Farquharson from going in at dinner-time, for
another pauper had brought her back to the house at
mid-day; and she appears to have had no friends to go
to. Jurors censured the rule by which a pauper loses
part of a holyday if he returns for food, while he is sent
out penniless. The verdict was—"Died from cold and
exposure."

In the Cambridge County Court, the Judge has
decided, very properly, that a master, on discharging a
servant, has no Right to search her Boxes, any more than
she would have to ransack his desk.

Mrs. Marshall, wife of a hosier in Regent Street,
committed Suicide in a Cab on the 15th inst. From
the inquest on the body it appeared that Mrs. Marshall,
who was a remarkably fine woman, elegantly dressed,
left home on Thursday afternoon and proceeded to
Camden-town, where she hired a cab and directed the
driver to take her to London Bridge. On arriving at
the tollgate in the Old Pancras road, the man at the toll
bar receiving no reply, opened the cab door and found
the occupant bleeding from a wound in her throat. She
was immediately driven to the nearest surgeon's, and
almost immediately expired. The evidence of the surgeon,
Mr. Waldegrave, also went to show that the deceased
had taken essential oil of almonds—sufficient to cause
death. The wound in the throat was infiicted with a
pocket knife, which was found upon deceased, and which
was quite new. The deceased having been for some
time in a desponding state of mind, the jury returned a
verdict of "Temporary insanity."

The Court of Session, at Edinburgh, gave judgment
on the 15th inst. in the case of the Emperor Steamer.
A company had started a steamer called the Emperor,
to run in the Clyde on Sundays during the summer
season: it was allowed to enter all ports except one
on the Gareloch, owned by Sir James Colquhoun.
There resistance was made by Sir James's men, but the
passengers of the Emperor overthrew the barricades that
had been erected, and defeated their defenders. Sir
James Colquhoun then applied to the Court of Session
for an interdict. The case has been fully heard, and the
Court have decided that Sir James has no right to prohibit
the landing of passengers upon the pier wiiieh he owns,
but which he has placed in the category of public piers
by taking revenue from it. Describing the violent
resistance made by Sir James Colquhoun as "unseemly
proceedings," the Lord Justice Clerk expressed surprise
that any one entertaining, as no doubt the complainer
did, a proper and pious regard for the sanctity and repose
of the Sabbath, such as it had been observed in Scotland,
should in the first instance have brought on the certainty
of such conflicts by the measures he adopted. On the
part of the respondents and those acting with them, and
of the passengers, these collisions and outrages which the
complainer described might have been expected as
inevitable. Entertaining what their counsel termed "their
views of the Sunday question," they could not be
expected to regard the character of the day as any
reason for abstaining from forcing a violent passage
notwithstanding the preparations made for resisting it.
These collisions and breaches of the peace were plainly
inevitable, if force were resorted to to prevent these
persons from landing; and the course adopted was as
singular on the part of one desirous to preserve the
sanctity of the Sunday, as the forcible landing was
natural on the part of those who disregarded the Sunday.
There is no public law to shut up piers, harbours, and
highways, upon a Sunday, and Sir James Colquhoun
has no right as proprietor to announce that on Sunday
these piers shall no longer be used by the public.—
Interdict refused.

At the Southwark Police Court on the 19th, William
Sullen a tailor in White-street, Borough, was charged
with a ferocious Assault on his Wife. On Saturday
night the 17th the prisoner went home drunk, and began
abusing his wife for being, as he said, intoxicated. She
denied the charge, and his conduct then became so
threatening, that she ran out of the house. When she
returned she found him in bed smoking. She was afraid
to undress, and lay down in her clothes. In the night
he re-commenced his abusive conduct, and charged her
with unchastity. Finally, he scratched her face, seized
her by the throat, so that she barely escaped with her
life, and finally struck her violently two or three times
in the face. She then got out of the house, and gave
her husband in charge to a constable. She added that
she was covered with bruises, the result of his ill-usage;
and that she had complained to the magistrates several
times, but on all previous occasions she had neglected to
appear against him. The prisoner, in defence, repeated
his insinuations against his wife's character, which she
denied. Mr. A'Beckett offered to remand the case, so as