returned to Caudwell's garden, and I endeavoured to
pull down the figure of a lion's head that was there.
Not succeeding in this, I then took hold of a rope that
was attached to one of the cannons, threw it over one
of the images, and whilst in the act of pulling it down
a gun was fired from a window above, and the contents
lodged in my right hand, side of my neck, and some in
my foot. Anticipating another fire, I ran away, and
called to my companions, one of whom took me home
to my lodgings, and then went for a surgeon. I am
very much injured in my hand, and it is doubtful
whether I shall ever recover its use." On his cross-
examination Mr. Ross said: "I have been a member of
the University nearly four years, and have obtained my
degrees. I met with Haggard and Arnaud at the
Maidenhead Hotel, where there had been a cricket-match
dinner. We drank and smoked there, and were
perfectly sober when we left. It was at the 'Tom '
gates where Arnaud proposed we should go to
Caudwell's. I raised no objection to the proposition; neither
did Haggard, nor Barton. It was the first visit I made
to Caudwell's. We only went to throw the cannons
into the Isis for a little amusement. We were there
about three quarters of an hour altogether. I have not
been in the habit of going out on these exploits. When
I was at Bromley, I and some others went and pulled
down an innkeeper's sign, and we afterwards gave him
two guineas as compensation for the damage." Mr.
Haggard, one of Mr. Ross's companions, said, that after
Ross had been taken home, he and Arnaud returned to
Caudwell's house, and began flinging stones at the
bedroom window. The stones might have been as large as
an inkstand—they were a "comfortable" size to fling
at a bedroom window. Both of them were quite
indifferent as to whether the stones hit Mr. Caudwell or
his family. A second shot was fired, but they were out
of its reach. The Jury returned a verdict of "not
guilty," which was received by applause in the court.

On the following day Mr. Caudwell was tried on a
charge of Perjury, quite unconnected with the
preceding case. In 1849, Caudwell induced Golding, a
tradesman, to sign two bills of exchange, to accommodate
a Mr. James, and to lend him £2 in cash for
James's use; Golding only intended to sign one bill,
and the other signature was obtained by trick,—Golding
seeming to have acted in a very simple manner, signing
merely because Caudwell put the paper before him.
James turned out to be a man of straw, and Golding
had to pay both the bills. He sued Caudwell for the £2
in the County Court; Caudwell there swore that he
had lent the money to Golding, who had since repaid
him; the judge did not believe him, gave judgment
for the plaintiff, and refused a new trial. Then Golding
entered plaints in the County Court against Caudwell
for the amount of the bills, on the ground that he had
accepted them for the accommodation of Caudwell.
The latter thereupon applied for a certiorari to Mr.
Justice Talfourd to remove him into one of the superior
courts, on the ground that the Judge of the Oxford
County Court had conceived a most unfounded prejudice
against him; and he made an affidavit, in which he
repeated what he had sworn on the trial, stating that
the judge had declared his conduct most suspicious and
discreditable, and refused him a new trial, though he
was prepared with the evidence of a Mr. Hitchcock to
prove what he had alleged. He specifically stated, and
it was upon these statements the present indictment
was founded, that he lent Golding £2 to advance to
James on the 18th day of May, 1849; and that Golding
came the next day to his house and repaid him the said
sum of money; and that after the report of the trial
appeared in the local newspapers, Mr. Hitchcock called
on Caudwell and reminded him of the fact that Golding
had paid him the £2 and that Hitchcock was at
deponent's house when Golding called, and addressing
Caudwell, said, "Here is the £2, and thanks." Upon
this affidavit a certiorari was granted. The real fact
was, that Hitchcock had seen a man named Jervis pay
£2 to Caudwell; Caudwell told him that this person
was Golding, took him to Jervis's shop, and induced
him to sign a paper,—he, thinking Jervis was Golding,
declaring that he had seen Golding repay the £2. The
case was made out to the satisfaction of the Jury, who
quickly found a verdict of "guilty." Mr. Justice
Erle said it was as bad a case as could well be
conceived, and passed a sentence of seven years'
transportation. Caudwell, who was not in court, made a hasty
retreat from the town.

There has been a Duel, which will help to keep
"affairs of honour" out of fashion. Two clerks having
quarrelled about a young lady, they agreed to settle their
differences by a duel at Highgate. One did not appear
in the field; and his second was so exasperated by the
jeers of the other party, that he demanded "satisfaction."
Accordingly, he and the original "principal,"
who was present, exchanged shots; the irate second was
grazed on the cheek, while his bullet passed through
his opponent's hat. They then shook hands, and
resolved to kick the recreant clerk whenever they
caught him.

An old man named Cross, formerly a farmer, being
destitute, went to the house of a daughter at Warton,
in Westmoreland, to ask for a home under her roof.
The modern Goneril refused to receive him, upon which
he left the house and Drowned himself in a canal over
which he had to cross.

William Henry Barrett, who was lately sheriff of
Gloucester, where he carried on a large business as a
miller and corn dealer, has suddenly Absconded. A
charge of forging a bill of exchange has been made
against him, and a reward of £100 is offered for his
apprehension.

A case of great hardship came before the Marlborough
Street Police Court on the 16th. Ann Hicks, a miserable-
looking woman, was charged with Attempting to sell
Cakes near the Crystal Palace. She stated that she had
once been the happy occupant of a stall in the Park,
which had descended to her from her grandfather and
father; the former having assisted to save George II.
from drowning in the Serpentine. About seven years
ago, Lord Lincoln permitted her to build a stone lodge
in the Park; she spent all her savings, £130, in erecting
it. In November last, Lord Seymour ordered all stalls
to be removed from the Park. Mrs. Hicks appealed in
vain; she was ejected, her lodge pulled down, and only
a years' lodging-money at 5s. a week given to her—no
compensation for her lodge. To gain support, she had
tried to sell cakes in the park. The magistrate had
some difficulty in making her understand that it was an
offence to sell cakes in the Park. If she would promise
never to do the like again, he said, he would discharge
her. She could not promise. What was she to do to
support herself and child? She supposed her fate would
be the same as had attended the other poor creatures
who had been deprived of their bread by the commissioners.
One who had kept a stand for twenty years
at the Victoria Gate had gone out of her mind in consequence
of this eviction; a second was in Kensington
workhouse; a third was in St. George's workhouse;
and she met a fourth that morning, nearly
broken-hearted, trying to sell medals in the Park. At last a
reluctant promise not to sell cakes in the Park again,
was extracted, and she was set at liberty. The case has
attracted much attention, and subscriptions have been
made for the poor woman's benefit.

An important point of Banking usage has been settled
by the decision in an action, Bellamy v. Messrs.
Coutts and Co., tried by Baron Martin and a special
jury. Mr. Bellamy was trustee of the property of the
children of a Reverend Edward Frank, who died lunatic
in 1834. The solicitor of the trust was that Mr. Geary,
who was transported for forging the signature of the
Accountant-General in Chancery, two or three years
ago. Mr. Bellamy had to pay a sum of £2596 17s. into
the Court of Chancery, and he drew a check for that
amount upon his bankers, the defendants. This check
was "payable to Mr. Geary or bearer;" but, with
proper precaution, there were introduced into its body
the words "General unpaid costs account;" and it was
"crossed" to "the Bank of England, on account of the
Accountant-General." Mr. Geary struck out the crossing,
recrossed it to "Messrs. Gosling and Co.," his own
bankers; and paid it to them towards his own account.
It was presented by them and cashed; and the
co-trustees brought this action against Messrs. Coutts and
Co., on the ground that they had acted in breach of