of the ringleaders, named Hogan, who was armed with
a heavy bludgeon, struck the poor animal upon the head
and stunned it. Two others, named Haley and Cratty,
the one armed with a poker, the other with a stick, then
forced their way into the house, and at once demolished
all the china, glass, and other articles in the lower rooms.
They next raised a wild Irish cry, and in a minute
stones and brickbats poured through the bar-window,
compelling the landlord and landlady to seek shelter in
a corner. Haley coolly drew out the money-till, and
cleared it of its contents—some £14 or £15. Further
damage was done to the premises; then they retired,
and met two policemen, upon whom they made a furious
onslaught. The officers were knocked down, beaten,
kicked, and jumped upon until they were to all appearance
lifeless, and are lying in a dangerous state. About
this time a man named James Rhodes was passing along
the street, in company with his son, a boy of 10 or 11
years; three men stepped from the crowd; one of them
flung a brick at Rhodes, which struck him upon the
temple and knocked him to the ground insensible. He
was conveyed to the infirmary, where he lay in a state
of unconsciousness until Monday evening, when he
became delirious, and died on Thursday. Six of the
men and a woman have been apprehended and examined
before the borough magistrates, by whom they have
been remanded.

A remarkable case of Fraudulent Concealment and
Disposal of Property occurred at the Insolvent Debtors'
Court on the 18th. Hugh Swan, the insolvent, had been
a linendraper, in Camden Town. He had been a bankrupt,
and his last examination was adjourned sine die.
He had, since he petitioned the insolvent court, applied
to the Court of Bankruptcy to pass, but had not been
allowed. The opposition now made against him was
that he had kept fraudulent books, had defrauded his
creditors of goods, and concealed and made away with
considerable property. It appeared that in January,
1849, he contemplated a failure, and schemes were
concocted to defraud his creditors. In April of the same
year he was made a bankrupt, having previously offered
his creditors a composition of 5s. in the pound. He now
admitted that he had removed, by the assistance of one
of his shopmen, George Boone, £300 worth of stock just
before his failure. He also admitted that other property
had been removed to several persons to conceal. Also,
that he had £400 in money, which he concealed, and
spent after his bankruptcy. He had some plate which
his wife concealed, and which was pledged after the
bankruptcy. He had a lease of his house in Camden-
town, which was mortgaged to be kept for him after his
bankruptcy. For some months before his failure he
had sold goods in his trade by auction. In the month
preceding his bankruptcy he got £1500 of goods from
his creditors, and sent about £800 worth to an
auctioneer's to be sold, and destroyed the documents, to
conceal it from his creditors. He also omitted debts
from his balance-sheet, and concealed the bills, in order
to receive the money afterwards. He advanced, prior
to his bankruptcy, to a market-gardener, named Bishop,
at Mortlake, £350 to lay out on a farm, so that he might
have the benefit of it after his bankruptcy. In order to
account for about £700, he got a hairdresser named Main
to swear in the Court of Bankruptcy that he had pressed
him for payment. Both Main and the insolvent swore
to the transaction, and the latter now admitted that
there was nothing due. The insolvent declared that he
was assisted by Boone and an attorney named Albert
Reed in his affairs. They tutored him, and he lent
himself. Both these parties were in court; but as neither
side would call them they were not examined. The
insolvent declared that Reed, to whom he was
recommended by Boone, owed him £100 prior to his
bankruptcy, and since he had advanced him (Reed) £350, of
which he was to return him £200. He, however, had
turned upon him, and he (the insolvent) had given all
the information to his assignees. Property to about
£1400 had been recovered for the creditors. He made
the disclosures in court without hesitation. The details
of fraud and perjury amazed the auditors. He had
been in prison since March, and during the time his
wife and two children had died! He was now without
funds, and appeared to receive the judgment of the court
for his offences. The judgment was that he should be
discharged when he had, from the date of his vesting
order (made about three months back) been in prison
for two years.

At Westminster Police Office, on the 18th, Goss,
butler to Mr. H. Drummond, of Bryanstone Square,
was charged with attempting to create a Disturbance at
St. Barnabas Church on Sunday morning. A police
inspector said he hastened to St. Barnabas Church on
Sunday, in consequence of information which reached
him that a very large mob had assembled round the
church, threatening to break open the doors and commit
other acts of violence. On his arrival he saw a crowd
of several thousand persons around the church, principally
composed of thieves and low characters, who were
threatening to break open the doors. He desired his
men to disperse the crowd; and while they were doing
so, the defendant, who had made himself particularly
active, endeavoured to force his way into the church.
Upon this, the crowd became more excited, and made
use of the most violent and threatening language. The
defendant was then taken into custody. A number of
policemen corroborated the evidence of the inspector.
Several witnesses were called by the accused; tradesmen
residing near the church, who were present at the
disturbance, attempting to gain admission to the church.
They averred that Goss was not disorderly, and merely
tried to enter the church when it was known that there
was standing-room within. The man at the door
produced a "warrant" to exclude people, which was read
aloud. One witness stated, that during the altercation
at the door, a gentleman came out, got over the boundary
wall of the area of the church, and said he was disgusted;
the candles were lighted, and it was Popery in the most
malignant form: and that led to the mob crying out
"No Popery!" Up to that time nineteen-twentieths of
those present were respectable persons. A boy then
came up with a life-preserver swinging in his hand.
The witness called a policeman's attention to him, and
said it was calculated to excite a breach of the peace.
The knot of persons of whom Goss was one were inside
the wall, not part of the mob outside. The Magistrate
said—"I have now heard the whole of the case, and the
evidence on both sides is now before me. It is quite
clear that a very large mob of persons was present, a
proportion of whom were highly respectable, and a
portion thieves and low characters. The question is,
whether the person before me was at all active in leading
the mob, or doing that only which he might have a
right to do—attempting to gain admission to the church.
Now it appears from the evidence, that there was room
inside the church when admittance was refused. I find
that all he is charged with is, putting his foot to the
door to get in; but a great many of the witnesses swear
that he did not do so, and therefore I do not think it is
a case for me to call on the defendant for sureties for his
good behaviour, and I must dismiss him. But the
Queen's peace must be preserved, and I am determined
to preserve it within this district: but those persons
have much to answer for, and undertake a serious
responsibility, who provoke breaches of the peace by
exciting the indignation of their fellow-subjects by the
ceremonies of the Romish Church at such a time as the
present." These expressions produced a general burst
of applause—clapping of hands, &c., which was taken
up by the persons assembled outside the court.

At Bow Street, on the 29th, Catherine Priestly, a
servant, was charged with obtaining a situation by
means of a False Character; and an elderly woman,
named Ashley, was charged with having Forged the
Letter of Recommendation by which the situation was
obtained. Priestly had applied for a situation to Mrs.
Farrell, of Craven Street, Strand, and had given a
reference for character to a Mrs. Angell, whose address
was given. Mrs. Farrell wrote accordingly, and received
an answer, giving the servant a high character. She
soon found it was wholly undeserved; and on making
inquiry respecting Mrs. Angell, discovered that Mrs.
Angell was dead, and that the letter had been fabricated
by the woman Ashley, who was a gentleman's
housekeeper. The magistrate observed, that so many
robberies were committed in the families of gentlemen by
servants of disreputable character obtaining false