them, and went in another direction of the fair, while
Mrs. French and her hushand proceeded to a public-
house where the girl and Boatman were regaling
themselves. Within a short time of Mickleburgh parting
with the Frenches he went to the stall of a hawker in
the fair and purchased a stiletto knife, with a blade
some for four or five inches in length and protected by
a spring back. In the course of the next half hour he
visited the house where Mary Baker was. There was a
sort of village frolic going on, and all were enjoying
themselves, the company amounting to about forty or
fifty people. What followed will be best gathered from
the unfortunate girl's own statement, which was taken
by a magistrate shortly after she had received the fatal
injury. She said: "I was sitting in this house alongside
of William Boatman, with whom I had been keeping
company, and my sister, Clara French. About eight
o'clock in the evening my master came in, exclaiming,
'Ah! Mary, I see you.' I made no reply, nor did I
observe anything in his manner to excite alarm. He
left the room immediately, and returned in about two
minutes, and without saying a word he came up to
where I was sitting and plunged a large knife in my
side. I did not feel it until he drew the knife out,
when he said, 'Now, Mary, you have it now.' I saw
the knife in his hand. Boatman was sitting by my side
all the time. I recollect nothing more until I found
myself up stairs in bed. I solemnly declare there has
been nothing improper between me and Mr. Mickleburgh."
Most of the persons in the room witnessed the
occurrence. He was instantly seized. He offered not
the slightest resistance, nor did he evince the least
emotion at the fearful act he had committed. He said
that he had had his revenge, and all he regretted was that
his arm had not been stronger. The poor girl expired
a few hours afterwards.

On the 20th; a dreadful case of Attempted Murder
and Suicide took place at Tottenham. A German,
named Carl Raegelaek, said to be of a highly respectable
family, came to England some twelve months since,
with a recommendation to Mr. Broad, clerk in a bank
in Lombard Street, and has since resided in that gentleman's
family. He is said to have had an attachment
for Miss Broad, whose father, however, objected to their
union on account of the disparity of their age, and of
the German having, on several occasions, evinced
symptoms of a disordered mind. About three months
since he disappeared from home in an extraordinary
manner, and nothing was heard of him for a considerable
time, until at length he wrote from Liverpool to Mr.
Broad, who went to that place and brought him back.
On the day above mentioned, after having been in
London during the day, he returned about eight o'clock
in the evening to Tottenham, and had scarcely entered
the house when screams of "Murder" were heard,
and immediately afterwards Miss Broad and her mother,
who were alone in the house, ran out bleeding from
various wounds. Mr. Ryan, the railway station master,
having entered the place, found Carl Raegelaek lying
dead in the parlour, and a dagger, covered with blood,
lying beside him. It appeared that he had attacked
Miss Broad with the dagger, inflicted a slight stab upon
her body, and a more serious wound upon her hand,
with which she had endeavoured to ward off the blow;
and her mother, on hastening to her assistance, hearing
her cry out, was attacked, and received a stab in the
chest. The two ladies then ran out, and fell fainting in
the road; and Raegelaek turning the weapon against
himself, plunged it nearly to the hilt into his abdomen
five or six times, and terminated his existence in less
than two minutes. Mrs. Broad and her daughter were
placed under the care of a surgeon, and it was happily
discovered that their wounds were not mortal.

At the Liverpool assizes, on the 21st, Mr. Booker, a
surveyor at Manchester, obtained a Verdict, wiith 1500l.
Damages against the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and
Cheshire Railway Company. He was one of the persons
injured in the Cheshire Tunnel, on the return from the
Chester races in April last, when, it will be remembered,
a passenger train, having come to a stand from want of
sufficient locomotive power, was run into by a following
train, and many persons were killed and seriously hurt.
One of his legs was dreadfully fractured, his left arm
was broken, and he had received other injuries, from
the effects of which he was still laid upon his back in
bed, from which he could not be moved though the
accident had happened so long ago. The judge expressed
his opinion that sufficient care had not been taken by
the railway company to guard against accidents when
a large increase of traffic was likely to take place; and
the jury, without leaving the box, found the above
verdict.

In a trial at the central criminal court on the 21st,
Mr. Justice Erle made some remarks on the Treatment
of Witnesses by Counsel. Two labourers, named Best
and Kelly, were indicted for assault and robbery.
A witness for the prosecution, named Appleton,
was severely cross-examined by the prisoners' counsel,
who put many questions respecting his way of gaining
his livelihood for a long period, with the view of
throwing discredit upon his evidence; and afterwards,
in addressing the jury, the counsel attacked the witness
with great severity, and called upon the jury to place
no reliance on his testimony. In summing up, the
learned judge remarked, that the privilege enjoyed by
an advocate of cross-examining witnesses to any extent,
and of commenting upon their demeanour and character,
in the same manner, was undoubtedly very valuable
when it was exercised in a conscientious and fair manner,
and with a view to advance the interests of truth and
justice; but, when witnesses were attacked in the
manner Appleton had been in this case, without, as it
appeared, there being any grounds for it, the privilege was
turned into a most pernicious nuisance. The prisoners
were found guilty.

A singular case of Assault was tried at the Chester
assizes. The plaintiff was Ralph Hulse, a small freeholder;
the defendant, Mr. William Spencer Tollemache,
brother of the member for the county. Mr. Tollemache
had horsewhipped Hulse, though without doing him
much injury. But it appeared that Hulse had for a
long time been annoying Miss Tomkinson, sister to
Mr. Tollemache's wife: he persecuted her with letters
offering love, waylaid her out of doors, planted himself
opposite her at church in order to stare at her, make
grimaces at her, and threw kisses to her. He received
not the slightest encouragement, only evidences of fear
and disgust. As the law gave no remedy, Mr. Tollemache
was impelled to administer what he thought was
preventive justice. The evidence was very laughable in
some parts, and far from creditable to the plaintiff and
his attorney. Mr. Justice Wightman left it to the jury
to assess the damages for the assault upon a consideration
of the circumstances provoking it. They gave one
farthing, and requested the judge not to certify for
costs. The decision was met with a burst of cheering.

At the Liverpool assizes, last week, Thomas Williamson
and Thomas Egerton were tried for the Manslaughter
of nine persons at Manchester. Williamson was
proprietor of a circular saw-mill; Egerton had charge of
the steam-engine and boiler. In March last, the boiler
burst, and nine persons were killed. The evidence
adduced showed that the disaster was the result of
neglect and mismanagement: the water was permitted
to get too low in the boiler, and there was a great
pressure on the safety-valve; a large fire was continued
under the boiler while the engine was not at work;
part of the boiler became red-hot, steam at a vast
pressure was engendered, and the boiler was torn asunder.
The boiler was a sufficient one if it had been properly
treated. Mr. Williamson had been dissatisfied with the
engineer, and purposed superseding him. Ray, the
man who was to succeed him, examined the boiler on
the day of the explosion, and told Egerton the boiler
was nearly empty of water: Egerton retorted, that Ray
had nothing to do with it; Ray thereupon left the
premises, and in five minutes the explosion occurred.
At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Baron Platt
expressed an opinion that there was nothing to prove
criminality on the part of Williamson; and he was
acquitted. Egerton's counsel contended, that the
defective state of the boiler, not the man's negligence,
caused the accident. The jury returned a verdict of
guilty. The judge said that in all cases of negligence
on the part of persons having charge of engines and
machinery, where fatal results ensued, the courts were