father lived at Manningham Hall. In October, 1848,
the prisoner was on a visit there, and afterwards at
witness's house, at Fairfield. Prisoner asked witness
to discount a bill for him for £100—the bill produced—
which he refused to do. The endorsement upon it,
"John Cunliffe Kay," was not in witness's handwriting.
He never gave the prisoner or any other person
authority to sign his name to the bill. After the prisoner
had left his house, he received a letter from him, asking
him to look for a letter, which he thought he had left
behind. The letter produced was dated "Bradford,
Oct. 28, 1848," and commenced—"My dear Friend,—
If the weather has not washed you away, I assume you
are at Fairfield." It then proceeded to say:—"I have
missed a letter, which I suspect will be found under
the cushion in the bedroom, among the flies. Pray let
me have a line, directed to Post Office, Bradford, to say
whether you can find it." Witness sent an answer to
that letter. He heard of this transaction before the bill
became due. He had never heard of Mr. Beresford
since till the 10th of April last. He had heard that he
was a marker at a billiard table. On the 10th of April
last, witness met him in Regent Street, London, and
said to him, "Mr. Beresford?" He said "Yes."
Witness said, "I am afraid I shall have to place you
in the hands of the police." The prisoner inquired his
name, and witness told him it was Kay. He immediately
said, "Have mercy upon me," and that if witness
would go to a Mr. Moss the money should be
paid to the bank. Witness told him he could do no such
thing. Witness then gave him into the custody of
a policeman who came up at the time. Mr. Moss
called on witness afterwards at his hotel, but witness
refused to see him.—Cross-examined: Mr. Beresford
had been introduced to him by his mother-in-law, Mrs.
Kay, as a relative of hers. He was a cousin of Lord
Decies, and next heir to the peerage. Prisoner
told witness that he should be Lord Decies in
the spring. The prisoner was married, and had a
daughter fifteen years of age. Witness never offered
to introduce him to the bank; on the contrary, from
the look of the bill, he had cautioned his father's bank
at Bradford about it. Mr. Hibbert was then called on
his subpœna, he having said that he would not appear,
let the consequences be what they might. It appeared
also that the prisoner had said that he lived at Austin-
friars, and that he had been several times in London,
and that no attempt had been made to put the Bench
warrant out against him in force. It was urged for the
defence that the length of time which had elapsed since
the commission of the offence had deprived the prisoner
of the opportunity of answering the charge which he
might have had. Stress also was laid on the high
position of the prisoner's family. His counsel also said
there was nothing to show that the bill was not a good
bill. Mr. Hibbert was not there to prove the contrary,
and General Beresford was now in India, and he could
not, therefore, be called to prove that he did
draw the bill. No search had been made for the prisoner,
and the prosecution had no right to assume that
he had been out of the way. Throughout the transaction
the prisoner had given his own name, and there
had been no attempt at concealment.—Mr. Baron Martin
disposed of all these objections, observing that the
only question was whether the endorsement sworn to
by Mr. Kay was forged, and whether the prisoner
knowingly uttered that forged endorsement. If so, it
was the duty of the jury to find him guilty. The jury
did so, and the prisoner was sentenced to be transported
for the period of his natural life. On hearing the sentence
the prisoner seemed astounded; he staggered, and
was removed from the dock supported by the officers.
It was rumoured in court that he has a living in Cork
of £1000 a year, which has been sequestered for his
debts.

At Winchester Assizes, on the 20th instant, Abraham
Baker was tried for the murder of Naomi Kingswell,
at Southampton. The particulars of this melancholy
case have already been published. There was no question
about the facts; witnesses and the prisoner's own
statement proved them. The young man was very much
in love with the girl; they lived in the same service;
she appears after at first returning his affection to have
trifled with him; and, annoyed at his jealousy, to have
intimated that she no longer loved him. She would not
speak to him. In a passion of jealousy and despair, he
bought a double-barrelled pistol, one Sunday morning,
went behind Naomi in the kitchen, in the presence of
the cook, and fired the pistol—the charge entered the
girl's brain. Both Baker and Naomi were well-conducted
and very religious persons; Baker was a Wesleyan.
His counsel pleaded that he must have been insane when
he killed Naomi; but the only witness he called made
out no case of insanity. Mr. Baron Parke laid down
the law very carefully to the jury: strong passion or
jealousy was not insanity. The jury—many of whom
were in tears—touched by the simple eloquence of the
murderer's confession—returned a verdict of "guilty."
The judge, who was also much moved, passed the capital
sentence. The prisoner was in a dreadful state during
the trial, and after the sentence he was carried out
"more dead than alive." The whole trial was a very
painful one.

An action, arising out of the late Fracas at the
Windsor Theatre, has been tried in the Court of Queen's
Bench; Mr. Nash, the lessee of the theatre, being the
plaintiff, and Lord Ernest Vane Tempest, the defendant.
It will be remembered that in September last, Lord
Ernest Vane was punished by fine, for an assault on
Mr. Nash, behind the scenes of the theatre. The
summary conviction by the magistrates had the effect of
barring a civil action for assault and battery; the present
action, however, was for trespass and damages
accruing therefrom. The case having been stated,
witnesses were called who proved the fact of the assault,
but who, in cross-examination by the attorney-general,
admitted that the theatre was improperly managed.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, told the jury that the
defence set up had entirely failed, and that the only
question was as to the amount of compensation to which
the plaintiff was entitled. The injury which had been
done to the premises was of the most trifling character,
and it did not appear that the after season had been
rendered less profitable, or that the plaintiff had
sustained any loss. Still, had the theatre been properly
conducted, he would have been entitled to considerable
damages; but such was not the case, as it had been
converted into a smoking and drinking-room. The jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, £25.

Another extraordinary case of Suspected Poisoning
has occurred. The death of Mr. John Parsons Cook, a
gentleman of Rugeley, who kept race-horses and was a
betting-man, is attributed by a coroner's jury to poison,
administered by William Palmer, a surgeon of that
place. It appeared from the very extended investigation
before the coroner, that Palmer and Cook were at times
partners in betting on horses, and also made bets against
each other; there was a bet pending between them at
the time of Mr. Cook's death; what was their general
position towards each other in money matters is not
clear—Mr. Cook's betting-book has mysteriously
disappeared. On the 13th November, Mr. Cook was at
Shrewsbury Races; his horse Pole-star won a race; Mr.
Cook received some £800. Palmer was with him. While
drinking grog at night, Mr. Cook complained that his
liquor burnt his throat—there was "something in it;"
Mr. Palmer took up the glass, drank about a tea-spoonful
of the liquor that remained, and said, "There is
nothing in it;" then he asked another person to taste
it—when none was left. Soon after, Mr. Cook was
seized with sickness: he told a Mr. Fisher that he
believed Palmer had "dosed" him; he gave Mr. Fisher
£800 to take care of, saying, "Take care of it, for I
believe I have been dosed." Mr. Cook got better. He
afterwards hinted to a Mr. Herring that Palmer—"that
villain"—had put something in his liquor, and that they
had had betting transactions: he added, "You don't
know all." Mr. Herring asked him how he could
continue to associate with Palmer. "He again replied in
an absent manner, and, walking towards the door, 'Ah!
you don't know all.'" Cook and Palmer returned to
Rugeley on the 15th November; Cook lodged at the
Talbot Arms; he continued to associate with Palmer.
On the 18th he was seized with sickness; Palmer
attended him; Palmer sent for Mr. Jones, a surgeon at
Lutterworth. Mr. Jones could not see any symptoms of