title of the "Congregation of the Holy Child Jesus," at
Hastings, in Sussex, having brought with her from
Rome, rules for the government of this community.
Subsequently, however, and at some time in the year
1848, Mr. Connelly quitted Lord Shrewsbury, Alton
Towers, and the Romish Church. He appears to have
renounced the opinions, the costume, and the obligations
which that church had imposed upon him; and after a
personal attempt to reclaim his wife from her convent,
this gentleman proceeded to institute a suit for the
restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Arches.
Mrs. Connelly put in an allegation in this suit, in which
her claims to separation were strongly stated on the
grounds of conscience and humanity; but many
important matters in the case, especially the questions
relating to domicile, were not raised. The Dean of the
Arches rejected this allegation altogether, as an insufficient
defence. From this decision an appeal was had to
the Privy Council, which decided after two days' argument,
that Mrs. Connelly's allegation should be reformed,
so as to plead the law of Pennsylvania, where the
marriage took place, and the domicile of the parties at
Rome, where it was interrupted; so that if these points
are raised the cause may come on for further discussion
in the Court of Arches in a new shape.

At Bow Street, on the 10th, James Parker, an omnibus
proprietor was charged with Carrying more Passengers
than his License allowed. He was seen in the Strand
by a police officer with eleven passengers outside his
omnibus. The officer asked him how many he was
licensed to carry? He answered, "As many as I
please." The officer then opened the door and saw
thirteen passengers inside. One, a lady, was compelled
to stand. On the panel was a notice that the vehicle
was built to accommodate twenty-one passengers, twelve
inside and nine out. Mr. Hall, the magistrate, in giving
judgment, gave some good advice to the public. He
said that the omnibuses were a disgrace to the metropolis.
Whenever he saw a person step into a cab he
thought to himself "There goes a victim." The
proprietors were always ready, on the least pretence, to
raise their fare, but never to extend their accommodation.
He hoped that no one who had been inconvenienced
by cabmen or omnibusmen would refrain from making
their complaints. It was very likely that after the
summons had been taken out, some consumptive-looking
woman would wait on the complainant, representing
herself as the wife of the complained-of, and the mother
of ten children, and found a strong appeal on these
facts; but he would advise the public to prosecute in
every case in which he had been inconvenienced, by
want of room or by overcharge. He should fine the
present defendant 40s. for the outside overplus, and 10s.
for inconveniencing the inside passengers, by cramming
in one more than he was allowed.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, on the 10th, two
actions of Damages were tried, at the instance of
Mr. Head, the eminent brewer, and his wife, against
the Eastern Counties Railway. On the 23rd of
December last, Mr. and Mrs. Head were passengers by the
Hertford train, which ought to have left the Bishopsgate
station at 4.30, p.m., but which did not start until
ten minutes later. The Brentwood train, which stopped
at all the stations, had only started ten minutes before
it, and the Enfield express train, which did not stop
until it reached Lea-bridge, started twelve minutes after
it, and very shortly after that the Norwich express left
the station. It was a densely foggy evening, and the
effect was that the Enfield express ran into the Hertford
train at the Stratford station, and a great number of the
passengers were more or less injured, and among them
the plaintiffs, both of whom suffered so severely that
they were confined, and unable to walk for several
weeks. Verdicts were given for the plaintiffs in both
actions, with £500 damages in each.

William Cauty, an elderly man known in "gaming
circles," and John Tyler, also an old man, a returned
transport, were tried for Robbery at the Central Criminal
Court, on the 10th. On the 31st of May, a suspicious
meeting between the prisoners was observed by two
detective officers, who followed them. They walked to
the London and Westminster Bank in Charles Street,
St. James's Square. Cauty entered the bank; in ten
minutes he came out, and made a signal with his hand
to Tyler; then both entered, and staid in the place
twenty minutes. On the two succeeding Saturdays, the
detectives watched, saw the men meet, and traced them
to the bank. Tyler on these occasions carried a greatcoat
on his arm. It was now deemed necessary to warn
Mr. Vile, the manager of the bank, that some villainy
was afoot. The cash-box, usually containing a large
sum of money, occupied rather an exposed place. Mr.
Vile withdrew the money from it, and put in it a few
notes and a printed book to give weight to the box.
On the 21st of June, the two men were again traced to
the bank; but while in the building, a policeman
entered to cash a check, and the rogues were frightened
away. On the 28th, the detectives obtained permission
from Lord Dartmouth to watch the bank from his
house, which is on the opposite side of the street.
Cauty entered the bank; came out again, lifted his hat,
and was joined by Tyler; both entered the bank. In
three minutes they came out again, Tyler carrying a
bag which appeared to contain a box. The detectives
hastened after them, and arrested them. The thieves
pretended that they did not know each other. The
bag contained the cash-box. Under a seat upon which
the men sat when taken to Scotland Yard, a piece of
paper was found with these words on it—"To inquire
if any cash has been paid into the London and
Westminster Bank by the Marquis of Anglesea to the account
of Lord William Paget." The use to which this paper
was to be put, it was conjectured, was to afford a
pretence for going to the bank in order to watch for the
favourable moment to get possession of the cash-box.
The men were committed for trial by the magistrate at
Marlborough Street, on evidence to the above effect.
On their trial they pleaded guilty, were convicted, and
sentenced to be transported for ten years. Cauty is one
of the most remakable persons of his class, and perhaps
the only survivor of the "receivers" and "putters-up"
of bank and jewel robberies who flourished in the time
of the old police. He has been known to the old police-
officers and to the new detectives for about forty years;
but his history is principally remarkable in the old
police times; a retired police-officer, who has had an
intimate acquaintance with him professionally, having
declared to the bench his belief that Cauty has had not
less than £500,000 worth of property, consisting of
jewels and bank-notes, through his hands during the
last thirty years.

Mr. Caudwell, a money-lender in Oxford, was tried
at the Oxford Assizes on the 16th on the charge of
Shooting at Mr. Ross, a student. Mr. Caudwell's house
is of a singular design, with niches in its facings and
walls filled with stucco figures, with battlemented
copings, and with a court in front, armed by a low wall,
through embrasures of which are pointed some pieces
of iron ordnance of full-sized service calibre. Late at
night a party of collegians entered the court, and
endeavoured to throw the cannons over the parapet into the
Thames, which flows below. Mr. Caudwell was awaked,
crept to his window, and fired on the intruders a
blunderbuss leaded with shot. Mr. Alexander H. Ross,
of Christ Church College, received the charge in his
head, neck, and shoulders. His companions took him
home, and then returned to smash Mr. Caudwell's
windows; but being again fired on, though without
injury to any of them, they departed. Next day Mr.
Caudwell was arrested by the University authorities,
and charged with the act as a crime. He avowed the
act, and justified it as one of defence to his property;
alleging that many similar attacks had lately been
made on his premises. He was committed for trial,
but admitted to bail. On the trial, Mr. Ross, the
gentleman shot at, gave the following evidence;—"I am a
commoner at Christ Church, Oxford. About half-past
twelve on the night of the 26th of June last, I was out
with Mr. Haggard, Mr. Arnaud, and Mr. Barton, and
we agreed to go down to Caudwell's house. When we
got into the small enclosure in front of the house, we
tried to overturn the cannons that were there, and then
to send some into the river Isis. While we were there
we heard a dog bark, and thinking it would disturb
Caudwell, we went across the road, loosened the dog
from its chain, and chased it up the street. We then