An elderly woman who carries on the trade of a
Fortune-teller, was charged at the Marlborough Police
Court, on the 1st inst., with obtaining money from
several young women by fraudulent devices. The
evidence of two of the witnesses showed how silly girls
are fleeced by these impostors. Margaret Nicholson,
daughter of a tailor, said a female friend had told her
of the great good which she had experienced in obtaining
from the Foley-place fortune-teller the information
that in a very short time her hand and heart would be
obtained by a "fair diamond man," whose wealth
consisted of no end of gold, silver, and precious stones.
The next day (Tuesday) she went to the fortune-teller's
house, and was shown into a back kitchen, where the
prisoner was busily engaged peeping into futurity by
the help of a pack of playing cards. Witness having
stated her errand, which, of course, had reference to
her future spouse, was told to put down sixpence, and
then to shuffle the cards. She deposited her money and
shuffled as directed. The prisoner looked at the cards
and hinted at a "black man," but seeing unmistakeable
signs of dismay at the prospect of this dingy bargain,
she altered the decree of fate to a man abroad between
colours—neither black nor white. The prisoner could
promise nothing better, but she invited her to call again,
and to recommend her friends, giving her a card, with
"Catherine Meadows—one knock" on it. Sarah
Chapman had also heard of the fame of the fortune-teller,
and had made up her mind to have a sixpenny
shuffle for a husband. She went, and, as the first
witness stated, was promised within a month a fair
diamond man, young, and six feet high. Perfectly
contented with her lot, she told her good luck in
confidence to her female acquaintance, and they went, she
believed, to the same oracle, for a similar purpose.
This witness appeared to be very reluctant to believe
that the prisoner was an impostor. Besides promising
her a husband, the prisoner had told her other matters
which were marvellously true; for instance, the
prisoner told her, "She was fickle-minded, would make
a good wife, and now and then did silly things;" facts
which could not be denied. The judge committed the
prisoner as a rogue and a vagabond for 14 days.

At Abingdon assizes on the 1st, Catherine Tilley was
tried for Forging and Uttering a Check for £20. She
had been in the service of Mr. Somes, a married farmer;
three days after leaving her situation she attempted to
get the check cashed. Mr. Somes declared that he had
not written the check, had never given a blank check
to anyone, nor had authorised any one to fill up a check
in whole or in part. The defence was, that Mr. Somes
had given the woman a signed check, with authority to
fill it up, in consideration of certain favours conceded to
him by the prisoner. Mr. Somes, when cross-examined,
refused to answer questions respecting his intimacy with
the accused; and some of his answers on the appearance
of his check-book were not quite satisfactory. The
verdict of "not guilty" was received with loud expressions
of approbation by the people in court.

William Hurst was tried at the same assizes for
Shooting at his Wife, with the intent to murder her.
The woman had left her husband and was living with
another man. Hurst went to the inn at Daventry
where they lodged, encountered his wife, and fired a
pistol at her, inflicting wounds which endangered life.
The jury found the prisoner guilty; and sentence of
death was recorded.

At Oxford Assizes, on the 4th, John Lambourne, a
middle-aged labourer, was tried for the Murder of his
Wife. The woman was found dead in the garden of the
cottage, her husband giving the first alarm; death had
been caused by a wound on the head, apparently
inflicted with a pair of tongs which were found in the
house. The couple had often quarrelled, and Lambourne
had sometimes beaten his wife—a poor diseased creature;
he had often wished she was dead, and dropped
suspicious expressions respecting her. On the other
hand, there was no direct evidence against him, and no
blood was found upon him, though that evidence of
the murder had been scattered in all directions round
the body. His counsel urged that robbers might have
been the murderers. After deliberating for an hour
the jury gave a verdict of acquittal.

At Durham Assizes, on the same day, Robert Thirkeld
was tried for shooting at Joseph Langstaff with intent
to Murder him. Thirkeld was poaching: Langstaff, a
keeper, detected and followed him, and the prisoner
fired at his pursuer. Langstaff held up his arm to
protect his face, and this alone probably saved his life.
The jury convicted the poacher of assault only. Mr.
Justice Cresswell sentenced him to be imprisoned for
two years.

A verdict of "Felo de se" has been returned by a
jury, at Brecon, on the body of George Miller, a young
man who Destroyed himself by Swallowing a large
quantity of Arsenic in a Glass of Beer. The motive
is said to have been jealousy; a young woman to whom
he was attached having latterly shown a preference for
an actor. There was no evidence to prove insanity:
the witnesses spoke of Miller as having been collected,
though rather elevated with drink, when he took the
poison; he had purchased it on pretence of killing rats.
The body was interred in a churchyard at night; and
the crowd who attended sang a hymn when the burial
was over.

The House of Lords, on the 6th, heard evidence on
Heathcote's Divorce Bill, and Maclean's Divorce Bill.
The adultery of the wife was proved in each instance
by letters admitting the fact, and praying forgiveness:
in the former case it had taken place with the wife's
own brother, who has since become convicted of forgery
and been transported for seven years. Both the bills
were read a second time.

Sarah Chesham, a masculine-looking woman, was
tried at Chelmsford, on the 6th, for the crime of
administering to Richard Chesham, her husband, a
quantity of Arsenic, with intent to murder him.—This
case created much interest on account of the terrible
celebrity gained by the prisoner. She was tried in 1847
at these assizes upon a charge of poisoning two of her
children; but although the evidence was most cogent,
and left very little doubt of her guilt, she obtained a
verdict of acquittal. She was implicated in another
charge of poisoning, when she again escaped justice;
and in 1849, a woman named May, who was convicted
of poisoning her husband, and who was executed for
that offence, admitted, after her conviction, that she had
been instigated by the prisoner to the commission of the
dreadful act for which she suffered. The evidence
fully brought home the charge to the prisoner. She
administered arsenic in rice puddings to her husband,
who, after many weeks' lingering, died in May, 1849.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty; and sentence of
Death was passed by the Judge. The woman heard her
doom without the slightest apparent emotion.

The trial of Drory, for the Murder of Jael Denny,
took place at the Chelmsford Assizes on the 7th and
8th. There was no new evidence given beyond that
which was given at the time the murder was discovered
and the prisoner committed for trial. His counsel
laid much stress on the eagerness with which the Police
have followed up the case; supporting his assertion
that they have too willingly seen proofs of guilt in every
point, by reference to the actual fact, now undenied,
that Inspector Coulson deposed that the piece of rope
with which the murder was committed—found twisted
round the neck of the corpse—corresponded exactly
with a piece which he found in the prisoner's box,
whereas the two pieces were now found to be twisted in
opposite directions. Some witnesses proved that Jael
Denny had often talked of self-destruction, and had
generally said she would use "a line," or piece of rope,
in the act. Two medical witnesses also deposed, that
after considering all the circumstances, they "felt
considerable doubts whether the deceased did not destroy
herself." Lord Campbell advised the Jury not to give
any effect to suspicions or probabilities, and to acquit
the prisoner if they felt any doubt whether the case was
one of suicide or of murder. The Jury deliberated
about ten minutes, and returned a verdict of "Guilty."
Drory maintained a cool demeanour throughout his
trial; but on his removal back to gaol under sentence
of death, his firmness vanished, and he gave way to a
paroxysm of tears, which ended in a virtual admission
of his guilt to the chaplain. Subsequently he gave
some confirmatory details, but a formal confession has