looking about to see if the coast was clear, he stood near
his father's shop-door, and with the instrument dragged
a piece of meat off Mr. Mace's shop-board, and allowed
it to fall on the ground. After looking about again, the
little boy picked up the piece of meat and ran into his
father's shop, and gave it to his sister, who was seated
close to a table in the back parlour. The young woman
received the meat and put it on the table. The policeman
instantly entered the house. Two witnesses called
for the defence said nothing inconsistent with the
constable's story. Mr. Mace interceded for the prisoner,
and humanely suggested that the boy might have taken
the meat for his dog. The magistrate said that this
was a very bad case; for there was not the excuse of
want, Jay's father keeping a large house and appearing
to have a good business; the boy had evidently been
directed by older heads, and he would receive less
contamination in a prison than in his father's home. The
sentence was, that the prisoner should be imprisoned
with hard labour for one month, and be once whipped.
The boy screamed on hearing the sentence, and implored
of his father and mother to save him and take him away.
He was removed by the gaoler, amidst great excitement
in the court, exclaiming, "Why did I do it? Save me,
father, save me!" General regret was felt that the poor
boy was to be punished, instead of those who appeared
to have instigated his act.

Mr. Anderson, the late lessee of Drury Lane Theatre,
applied to the Insolvent Court on the 5th for his
discharge. There were 201 creditors, but not one opposed.
Mr. Anderson lost all his property—some 4000l.—and
incurred liabilities for 5684l. during his unfortunate
lesseeship. In the first season, the average loss per night
was 30l.5s.; in the second, 44I. per night. The chief
commissioner said he saw no debts of reckless extravagance
in the schedule; and he ordered Mr. Anderson to
be discharged forthwith.

At the Ipswich Assizes, Maria Cage, a woman of
fifty, has been convicted of the Murder of her Husband.
She has been a dissolute person; living with another
man while her husband was in prison for some offence,
and subsequently exposing her daughter, a girl of
sixteen, to prostitution: she got another female to buy
arsenic on a false pretence; Cage died from arsenic;
and there could be no doubt that his wife was the
prisoner, though there was no direct evidence of the
fact. In passing sentence of death, the Lord Chief
Baron deplored the frequency of similar crimes,
especially in the county of Suffolk.

John Payne, a boy of eleven, has been tried at Lewes
Assizes, for the Murder of another boy, at Horsham.
Payne had struck the boy in the chest with a knife; it
was doubtful whether any quarrel or scuffle had taken
place previously. The verdict was for "manslaughter"
only, with a recommendation to mercy on account of
the offender's youth. Lord Chief Justice Jervis stated,
that he had received information that Payne was of
violent habits and obdurate temper; sentence, to be
transported for ten years,—that is, he will be placed in
Parkhurst Prison, taught in a school, and severely
trained.

At the Carlisle Assizes, on the 6th, the Reverend
Joseph Smith, Curate of Walton, was tried for the
Manslaughter of William Armstrong. Armstrong, a
farmer, went to the house at midnight, and rattled the
shutters; Mr. Smith, in great perturbation, fired a
revolving pistol twice from the door, but was
unconscious that he had hit any one. Armstrong's body was
found in the garden next morning. For the defence, it
was contended that the prisoner under a bonâ fide
impression that his house was about to be broken in at
midnight, was justified in firing his pistol to alarm
those whom he believed to be attacking his house; and
unfortunately, in so doing, he had accidentally shot the
deceased. Mr. Baron Platt left it to the jury to say
whether they believed the prisoner had bonâ fide acted
under such circumstances of alarm; and whether, being
justified in protecting his house, in firing his pistol he
had accidentally shot the deceased. The jury retired,
and after an absence of half an hour found the prisoner
"not guilty." Mr. Smith immediately fell on his knees
and raised his hands to Heaven, amid the deep silence
of the crowded court.

At the Staffordshire Assizes, there was a case of
Homicide, in which the undoubted affection of the
criminal for his victim gave a touching interest to the
trial, very different from that usually excited by such
matters and such characters. Catherine Morris, a
woman of loose character, lived with James Jones,
described as a good-looking young man. She resolved
to quit him; he took it much to heart, and in a fit of
passion cut her throat, in a way that speedily caused
death. Then all he wished was to be dead too. Before
the woman died she kissed her assassin; after her death
he fondly kissed the corpse. During the trial (as the
report states) "there was scarcely a dry eye in court."
The jury returned a verdict of "manslaughter" only,
and the sentence was transportation for life.

An additional instance of English Thuggism in the
provinces has come out at Shrewsbury Assizes. A man
and a woman were returning at night from Church
Stretton fair; four men pounced on them, twisted
sticks round their throats, and rifled their pockets.
One of the robbers, Thomas Madeley, was afterwards
arrested with a foreign coin in his possession, part of
the plunder. He was convicted, and sentenced to be
transported for fifteen years.

At the Croydon Assizes, on the 12th, a gentleman
named Hitch obtained a Verdict for 1500l. damages
against the London and Brighton Railway Company.
The circumstances were rather peculiar, inasmuch as
the plaintiff appeared to have sustained the injuries for
which he sought compensation while he was travelliing
by one of the South-Eastern trains, and not by any
direct act of the defendants. The accident occurred on
the 14th of March, and the evidence went to show that
what is called a "pick-up train" had started from London
between the ordinary quarter-past seven o'clock
Croydon train, and the Dover and Hastings train which
started from London at half-past seven. The Croydon
train passed New-Cross, the scene of the accident, with
safety, and upon the arrival of the "pick-up" it stopped
for the purpose of having some carriages attached to
it, and to effect this it was necessary that it should be
"shunted" off the main line to a siding. At this
period it was admitted that the Dover train was known
to be nearly due; but before the tail carriages of the
"pick-up" train were got off the main line, the expected
train came up and ran into them, causing a violent
concussion and serious injury to the plaintiff. The case
for the plaintiff was that the train of the South-Eastern
company had started in due course, that they were
entitled to travel freely upon the line, and that the
accident had been occasioned by the negligence
of the servants of the defendants in not having the
line cleared, and permitting the obstruction to be upon
it, which was the occasion of the accident. For the
defence it was attempted to establish that the accident
had been caused by the negligence of the guards and
drivers of the South-Eastern train, and their inattention
to signals that were made to them to start before the
accident occurred. Several servants of the Brighton
company were called as witnesses, but their evidence
was very far from making out this view of the case;
for, although it appeared that two green flags had been
exhibited as signals, it was admitted that they only
indicated caution to the coming train, and that the red flag,
which was an indication of danger, was not shown at all,
and one of the witnesses admitted that he was not even
aware that the "pick-up" train was to be “shunted"
in the way described, and that if he had, he should
certainly have exhibited the "danger" signal. It was
likewise elicited in the course of cross-examination that
a clock at the station which regulated the movements
of a large number of trains was four minutes too slow,
and the switchman said, in answer to questions put to
him, that the clock was in his charge, and that he
wound it up, but he at the same time stated that he
had no correct means of knowing whether it kept good
time or not, it being at the same time proved in evidence
that the process of "shunting" occupied from seven to
ten minutes, that a great number of trains were
continually passing, and that every minute was occasionally
of the utmost importance, as regarded the safety of the
public travelling upon the railway. The Lord Chief
Justice, in summing up the case, expressed his strong