gentleman who came daily to London, left his residence
at Chadwell Green, about half-past nine o'clock, and
walked along the London road, with the intention of
taking the rail; he was met by vagrant who felled him
with a large stick, beat him, and cut his throat with a
clasp-knife. The victim's cries attracted the attention
of Willis, a gardener working close by; who looked over
a fence, and saw the murderer at his bloody work.
Willis shouted, and the ruffian ran away. Mr. Toller
was dead. The assassin was arrested about an hour
afterwards; he did not know the locality, and had
wandered about near the scene of the murder. He had
not time to rob Mr. Toller, if that was his object. He
is a middle-sized man, with a ferocious look, covered
with filthy tatters: he had not a farthing of money.
He said his name was Saunders, that he was a gardener,
and a native of Mortlake. An inquest was held next
day. A policeman described his apprehension of
Saunders; who first denied, but afterwards confessed
the murder, and ascribed it to some unintelligible
motive of revenge. A surgeon stated that death had
been caused by a deep gash in the throat. The verdict
was "Wilful murder against Charles Saunders."

Mr. Blackmore, a miller at Clayhidon in Devonshire,
a retired village nine miles from Honiton, has been
Murdered for the sake of a sum of money. Mr. Blackmore
was a collector of taxes; on Saturday the 5th
inst. he was out collecting; and never came home again.
At four o'clock on Sunday morning his son and another
person set out to seek him: and they had not gone far
along the road when they found his corpse—his skull
fractured, and his throat cut. Gold and silver had been
taken from his pockets, but the robbers had left two
bank-notes. Suspicion fell on three men who had left a
public-house with Mr. Blackmore after midnight, and
they were arrested. One, George Sparkes, confessed
that he murdered the miller to obtain his money; but
he declared the other men were innocent. However,
circumstances seemed to prove that James Hitchcock
had been implicated in the crime; and the coroner's
jury gave a verdict of "Wilful murder" against him
and Sparkes. The third man was set at liberty.

A man named Lewis Perran has been committed for
trial by the Bath magistrates for the Murder of a woman
supposed to be the wife of a soldier. The body was
found in the Avon, at Bitton; a surgeon detected
external and internal appearances that showed the
woman to have been violently struck on the head
during life—probably with a sharp stone. A good deal
of evidence was reluctantly given by Perran's associates,
to whom he had made admissions showing that he had
a hand in the woman's death. Other men were arrested
with Perran, but they were discharged, the magistrates
considering that Perran alone was the murderer.

An action for Libel, brought by the Hon. Lennox
Butler against Mr. Oliveira, M.P., was tried in the
Court of Exchequer on the 9th inst. The libel
consisted in an allegation made by Mr. Oliveira at Hull,
during the last general election, that Mr. Butler had
been expelled from the Star Club some years ago, for
refusing to pay a sum of £10 8s. due from him; and
further, that at an interview between the two, Mr.
Oliveira had threatened to kick Mr. Butler out of his
house. After uttering this libel, Mr. Oliveira withdrew
in favour of Lord Goderich; to whose committee he
supplied the libellous matter in the shape of a letter, a
copy of which was also sent to Mr. Butler, in reply to
his demand for explanation. The committee published
the letter. Mr. Oliveira pleaded the truth of the libel
in justification; but no attempt was made to sustain the
plea at the trial. Mr. Butler was examined. It
appeared from his evidence, that he and his father, the late
Lord Dunboyne, belonged to the Star Club in 1834. In
1836 he called on Mr. Oliveira to announce the resignation
of Lord Dunboyne and pay his subscription. Mr.
Oliveira was greatly displeased, and showed much
incivility; but no threat of kicking was offered. The
witness did not remember whether any demand on him
for £10 8s. was made at that interview. The demand
was to cover deficiencies, and was made after he had left
the club, when he had paid in every sixpence he owed.
Mr. Oliveira was not examined. His counsel submitted
that his client believed he was speaking the truth at the
time; and he trusted the jury would do justice between
the parties by agreeing to a moderate verdict. The
Chief Baron applauded Mr. Butler for referring the
dispute to the civil court instead of fighting a duel. A
verdict was given for £100 damages.

Judgment was given in the Rolls Court on the 11th,
in a suit at the instance of the York and North Midland
Railway Company against Mr. George Hudson. The
suit referred to various transactions by the defendant at
the time he was chairman of the company, in the
appropriation and sale of scrip and shares during the years
1846 to 1848 and 1849, and asking for relief by calling
upon the defendant to account, and be found liable for
all shares so appropriated and sold by him or by his
order, he at the time being merely a servant of the
company, and therefore bound to account to them for
the proceeds. The shares, the matter of the subject of
dispute, were those in the East and West Riding Railway
Extension and the Hull and Selby Railways. The
cause was heard during the last term. In giving
judgment the Master of the Rolls said that the defence set
up for Mr. Hudson was quite incomprehensible. To
suppose that the company, or rather the shareholders,
ever intended that 5000 shares, which had been created
in the East and West Riding Extension Railway, and
which had been reserved out of the 12,500 shares for the
disposition of the directors, and the profits arising
thereon, were to be put into the pocket of Mr. Hudson,
and that the shareholders present at the meeting had,
out of mere gracious liberality, consented in a secret
and covert manner, to reward Mr. Hudson for services
which he had rendered the company, part of those
services being that Mr. Hudson had incurred a large
sacrifice of money by purchasing an estate on the line
of the Duke of Devonshire, although himself a large
landowner, for the purpose of preventing the opposition
of his grace to the passing of the bill in Parliament—
was a mere absurdity. The defendant admitted that he
had sold 2300 of the shares for the benefit of the
company, and had, on 6th July, 1848, paid on account of
the profits of those shares, to the credit of the company,
£16,000. 1105 of the shares he had disposed of to
various persons, whose names must be kept a secret, as
a reward for services done to the company, and the
remaining 1700 he had retained for his own use,
insisting that it was no more than a fair reward for his
exertions with respect to the 1,105 shares disposed of to
secret persons. The Master of the Rolls said that it
had been insinuated, and openly avowed at the bar, to
enable the promoters the more easily to push the bill
through Parliament, that although certain members of
Parliament were too high-minded to accept of a bribe,
they would not object to the reception of scrip at a time
when it was at a premium. He had had some experience
in Parliament, and he thought no member would be
guilty of conduct so highly improper; at all events,
that Court could not by its authority admit of such an
appropriation, and, therefore, the defendant must
account for the whole of the profits on the shares so
appropriated by him. With respect to the 1700 shares
which the defendant claimed as being but a meagre and
inadequate reward for his services—when Mr. Hudson
accepted the office of chairman, he took it with full
knowledge of the salary, and was bound to perform all
the duties the same as any other servant of the company,
without any further reward, and must, therefore,
account for the profits in respect of those shares. The
defence of acquiescence by the company had entirely
failed; and therefore the defendant must account for
the whole of the profits of the shares sold by him or by
his order in respect of the East and West Riding
Extension. The Master of the Rolls then went through
the facts with relation to the appropriation and sale of
1912½ shares in the Hull and Selby Railway, and said
he was of opinion that the defendant could not be
considered as the allotter of those shares, but that he sold
them, and was bound to account to the plaintiffs as the
servant of the company. On the whole, he was of opinion
that the plaintiffs were entitled to the whole relief
sought by the bill, and that there must be a decree
declaring that defendant was a trustee only of the York
and North Midland Railway Company in respect of the
shares in the East and West Riding Extension and