afraid of their lives, as the sailors had threatened to blow
out the brains of any who would come to my assistance.
I then went among the men and remonstrated with
them upon the folly of their conduct, and begging them
not to leave me in distress; pointing out to them how I
was bound down to execute a certain charter under a
penalty, and at the same time offering to increase their
pay: but in return received nothing but curses and
abuse; for, as they said, go to the Diggings they would,
as it was now their time to make their fortune; and if
I would dare to prevent them taking the boat, they
would do for me,—pistols at that time being pointed at
me, and knives and daggers flourished before me. I
told them that they need not think to intimidate me, as
I was determined to protect the property placed under
my charge; and warned them that the first man who
dared to hook a tackle to that boat for the purpose of
taking her away, and leave the ship in distress, I would
shoot. The cook, with a heavy oath, hooked on the
after-tackle, and then pulled on the fall, and encouraged
the rest to do the same. The doctor and myself warned
them a second time of the consequences; but he put me
to utter defiance. I then pulled a pistol from my breast
and fired. He fell. The sailmaker then fired at me,
and put a second pistol to my ear, which snapped. He
then pointed at the doctor, his pistol again snapping.
We were then all overpowered, myself being thrown
face downwards on the deck; when I was most brutally
kicked and stabbed, and lashed head and foot up to the
wheel-chains, and left for dead. They then put the
boat over the side, taking their clothes, &c., with them,
and pulled for the shore. I got a passage on shore
by another ship's boat, and immediately acquainted the
authorities of the whole affair." Subsequently, seven
of the mutineers were arrested, and committed for trial.
In a postscript, Mr. Murray says—"On receiving
intelligence of the above occurrence, the authorities at
Melbourne immediately established a water-police at
Geelong."

Elizabeth Vickers, a middle aged woman, was
examined at the Lambeth Police Court on the 26th ult.,
on the charge of Murdering her master. It appeared
that she had been housekeeper to Mr. William Jones, a
gentleman 84 years old, who lived in Acre Lane,
Brixton. She had been fourteen years in his service,
and had obtained a complete control over him, excluding
his relatives and friends from his house, or only allowing
them to see him in her presence. Whenever she
threatened to leave him, the old man was greatly
alarmed. He purposed that she should succeed to his
property. He had transferred £1000 in the Funds to
the joint names of himself and Vickers. Yet this woman
treated him with the greatest cruelty. She would go
out for hours, locking him in the house, and return very
drunk. On these and other occasions she savagely beat
the old man; the neighbours heard quarrels, cries,
sounds of blows and falls; and Mr. Jones was seen with
marks of frightful blows on his head and face. When
Vickers announced that her master was dead, a surgeon
found the body extended on a couch; she told an
improbable story of his sudden death after drinking some
water. A post-mortem examination detected the marks
of numerous blows or falls and cuts on the face, head,
and body; death had been caused by a blow or fall on
the temple, which had produced an effusion of blood on
the brain. The marks were not of wounds just
inflicted; they had probably been received from six
days to a fortnight before the surgeon saw them.
Clothes that were bloody were found in the house,
though attempts had been made to wash out the stains.
All the circumstances detailed by the witnesses led to
the conclusion that the old man had been murdered.
When a policeman attempted to arrest Vickers, a woman
of great strength, she fought so furiously, that but for
the aid of a second constable the officer would have been
worsted. She was remanded, and re-examined on the
8th inst., when additional evidence was given. She
violently interrupted the witnesses, reproving them, and
sometimes exclaiming that they lied. Articles pawned
by her she declared were her property, not Mr. Jones's.
The house at Brixton was found in a shamefully dirty
state, and amid the piles of foul linen were articles
stained with blood. Under his will, which has been
proved by the executor, Jones left £1400 in legacies,
and made Vickers residuary legatee. Her solicitor
offered no defence: and she was fully committed for trial.

In the Court of Bankruptcy on the 28th ult.
Commissioner Fane gave an Important Judgment in the case of
James Holmes the shawl-warehouseman in Regent-street,
who became bankrupt some time ago. "Mr. Fane
attributed much of the bankrupt's misfortunes to a
private arrangement which followed his bankruptcy in
1848. He disapproved of private arrangements generally,
as inducing the bankrupt to purchase secrecy by the
promise of a higher dividend than his assets will allow,
and as unfair to future creditors. To these motives for
secrecy the law adds the expensiveness of bankruptcy.
But how can bankruptcy be otherwise than expensive,
under a system which taxes only those who use the
courts established for protection, and exempts private
arrangements from taxation. The bankruptcy system
(said the Commissioner) indeed, goes further, for it
throws on the actual suitors not only the expense of the
court itself, but the burden of compensations long since
granted to retired or displaced officers; and "hence
expense is constantly diminishing the number of public
bankruptcies, and substituting for them private arrangements.
If our legal reformers were desirous of
discovering some palliation for this evil, I think they would
find it in imposing a moderate charge on all insolvencies
settled under private deeds, and applying the proceeds
for the maintenance of the courts; for such charge would
diminish the burden on public and increase that on
private insolvencies, and thus diminish the temptation
to privacy by making publicity less dear and privacy
less cheap; nor would there be any injustice in this,
because the creditors under private insolvencies are
indirectly protected by the existence of those courts for
whose protection they at present pay nothing. In the
present case. Holmes owed, in 1848, £15,907, and had
£4151 available assets; but the arrangement specified
that he should pay not five shillings but ten shillings in
the pound. Of course the extra five shillings could only
come from the future profits of the business. Then he
had agreed to pay the dividend by instalments extending
over a space of eighteen months. Yet to some he had
paid twenty shillings and fifteen shillings instead of ten
shillings in the pound, and others he had paid in fifteen
days instead of eighteen months. Mr. Fane censured
him for extravagant personal expenditure—£800 a year.
He also adjudged him guilty of obtaining forbearance of
debts by fraud; the fraud being concealment of his
dealings with the money-lenders, to the amount of £6518.
Holmes likewise, when sued in June 1852, instead of
meeting his creditors, as he should have done, being
insolvent, had pawned some valuable shawls sent him
by a French merchant on sale or return. That was a
violation of commercial integrity. The judgment of the
Court is, (Mr. Fane said in conclusion) that the certificate
of the bankrupt be suspended for three years from
the date of the bankruptcy, without protection, and
when granted to be of the third class. If he should be
imprisoned, I shall be willing to release him after three
months' imprisonment. I am sorry to be compelled to
pronounce so severe a judgment against a person who
had such excuse for his errors as the circumstances of
1848 furnish; and if all his creditors should abstain from
exercising the power of punishment which the law gives,
it will not surprise me, for I have seen in my judicial
life quite enough to convince me that the severe creditor
is the rare exception to the general rule."

In the case of Achilli v. Newman, in the Court of
Queen's Bench, judgment was given on the 29th ult.,
by Mr. Justice Coleridge. He expressed the conviction
of the Court, that Dr. Newman honestly believed the
truth of the allegations he made against Dr. Achilli, and
that he did not compose and publish the libel from
personal malice, but because Dr. Achilli had assailed a
religion Dr. Newman held dear, and had done so in
Birmingham, where it was extremely important his
authority should be lessened. Then came the consideration
of the truth or falsehood of the allegations put
forth in the plea of justification. There was great
improbability in the story, as one could hardly believe
that a man so wicked as Dr. Achilli was represented to
be could have been caressed, honoured, and trusted with.