he got a receipt signed "H. Roney"; the goods were
called a "job lot." The wholesale value of the
property thus purchased was £147. Saward sold some of
the merino in his shop at 4s. 11d. per yard; the wholesale
value was 10s. 6d. Serjeant Wilkins contended
for Saward, that he had fairly bought the goods as a
"job lot," and that he had behaved like an innocent
man when the officers came to his house about the
goods. Several witnesses gave him a good character.
The jury deliberated for three-quarters of an hour,
and then found both prisoners guilty of feloniously
receiving the property. They recommended Saward to
mercy for his previous good character. Mr. Baron
Martin remarked, that Whicher was, if anything, more
guilty than Winter; such men as he gave facilities for
disposing of stolen property, without which persons in
Winter's position might have no inducement to rob.
He sentenced Whicher to be transported for ten years.
As regarded Saward, although he quite concurred in
the verdict of the jury, yet it was possible that he
had acted without consideration, and in an unfortunate
moment had permitted himself to assist a party of
robbers in disposing of their plunder; the sentence on him
was one year's imprisonment.

On the 20th Mr. Fenn, the Secretary of the Royal
Free Hospital in the Gray's Inn-road, waited on the
sitting magistrate at Guildhall, to give an account of
the contributions received from benevolent persons on
account of Jane Wilbred, whose case excited so much
public sympathy. He stated that this poor girl had
been in a highly respectable family for the last five
months as housekeeper's assistant, and had won the
esteem of every one by her cleanliness, industry, and
cheerful disposition. She had written several letters to
the matron and nurse of the hospital as well as to
himself, acknowledging in the most grateful terms the
kindness she had received from them. From the funds
which had been contributed by various benevolent
persons she had been supplied with two complete sets of
clothing. The total amount of money received for her
was £72 3s. 6d., out of which £8 10s. 6d. had been
expended for her outfit, leaving a balance in cash of
£63 16s. 8d., which had been invested in the names of
trustees for her future benefit.—Sir Peter Laurie said,
the conduct of Mr. Fenn and the authorities of the
Royal Free Hospital was exceedingly praiseworthy, and
great credit was due to Mr. Fenn for having expended a
portion of the money so economically, and disposing of
the balance judiciously. He hoped that it might be the
means of bringing an increase of patronage.

At the Lambeth police court on the 23rd, William
Bowen, a well-dressed young man, described as a
clerk, was charged with comitting a most outrageous
Assault on Eliza Smith, a young woman about 16 years
of age. The complainant, an interesting looking girl,
who cried very much during the examination, said that
at the end of August she left her parents' home in
Yorkshire for the purpose of seeking employment in London,
and obtained a situation with a lady residing in York
place, York-road. On Sunday night, the 21st, about
9 o'clock, she went out for a walk, and proceeded a
greater distance than she intended, causing her to lose
her way. She felt very much alarmed, and asked
several persons the way back to York-place, when she
again missed her way. While proceeding along she met
the prisoner at the corner of a street, and asked him to
point out to her the way home. He replied that he was
going to the York-road, and he would show her the
nearest way. She accompanied him up a street which
she had ascertained since was Granby-street. Perceiving
the railway at the end, and some carriages resembling
railway vehicles, she turned round to him, and said,
"Surely that could not be the way to the York-road."
He replied, "Oh it's all right, it's the nearest way."
When they got to the end of the street he threw her
down in a recess, and assaulted her in an indecent
manner. She struggled hard with him, and screamed
very loud for help, but he nearly overpowered her before
any one came to her assistance. Her story was
confirmed by several persons who were attracted by her
cries, and by a police-constable who took the man into
custody. Ihe prisoner said that the young woman had
accosted him, stolen his handkerchief, and given him in
charge for a pretended assault. The magistrate said
that the brutality of the assault was aggravated by the
impudence of the defence, and committed the prisoner
for trial. On the girl saying that she was poor, and
had not the means to pay the expense of prosecuting, the
magistrate told her that the expense would be paid by
the county aid.

At the Middlesex Sessions, on the 24th, William
Weale, was tried for an Assault upon John Farrel, a
child of six years old. The defendant was teacher of a
school connected with a Roman Catholic chapel at
Islington. One day in July last, violent shrieks were
heard from the school; and several neighbours, being
drawn to the spot, found the little boy who had been
turned out of the school, crouching outside the door;
Mr. Hinchley, one of the witnesses, described the child's
condition:—"I picked up the child and examined him.
He was scarified from the ancle to the thigh, and his
posteriors had the appearance of raw beef. He was
exhausted as if from beating, and from the ancle to the
calf of the leg there were wales as thick as a little
finger." Mr. Huddlestone, a surgeon, said: "I
examined the child on the 29th of July, eight days after
the occurrence. On examining his person I found his
posteriors perfectly black; his thighs and legs on the
right hand side particularly exhibited cuts, long, deep,
and broad, some of them side by side and interlacing
each other. The skin was broken in seven places. I
believe the wounds would be made by such an instrument
as that whip." The schoolmaster was arrested
and brought before a police court. The child's father
was summoned, and appeared, but refused to prosecute;
and the matter, consequently, was taken up by Mr.
Hinchley, who originated a subscription for the
prosecution of the schoolmaster. It was pleaded in defence,
that the boy had been punished for stealing a brush,
and telling lies in reference to that affair; and that it
was impossible to suppose that the defendant could
have been actuated by any malicious feeling. The
Judge, in summing up, observed that the defendant
had at one time been represented, wrongly, it seemed,
as a Roman Catholic priest. It was, he thought, a
melancholy fact that after some 25 years, during which
they had been endeavouring to treat their Roman
Catholic fellow subjects as brethren, a circumstance
should have arisen on the part of the Roman Catholic
body which it was to be feared would have the effect not
only of retarding the promotion of the feelings of amity
which had taken root, and the amelioration of their
supposed disabilities, but of throwing them back at least
half a century in the divisions of religious feeling. The
jury, in dealing with this case, had nothing to do with
that; they were not to uphold Protestants against
Catholics, or consider in any way what the parties were.
The only question was, had the defendant exceeded his
duty as a schoolmaster, and had he thereby transgressed
the law? The jury found the defendant Guilty of a
common assault, but under aggravated circumstances.
The counsel for the prosecution then said that the cries
of the children had been frequently heard from the same
school since this occurrence; and it was clear that
defendant was a person unfit to be in the position of a
schoolmaster. The judge hoped the superiors of the
school would never suffer anything of the kind to take
place there again. He agreed with the verdict of the
jury, and was of opinion that the defendant ought never
again to be allowed to fill the situation of schoolmaster;
for it was quite clear that he had no mastery or control
over his passions in his treatment of pupils. The
defendant was then sentenced to three months' imprisonment
in the House of Correction.

At the above Sessions, on the same day, William
Dugdale, a bookseller in Holywell street, was tried on
the charge of having in his possession for the purpose of
sale, Obscene Books and Prints. The prosecution was
at the instance of the Society for the Prosecution of
Vice. It was proved that, in consequence of an information,
the defendant's premises were searched by the
police, and a seizure was made of a large quantity of
French lithographic prints, some lithographic stones
ready for press, copper plates, books, coloured
engravings, &c., the whole of which were of a most
abominable description. Ultimately they took away