for having entered the dwelling house of George
Stevens, with Intent to Steal a cash box containing £65
in money, &c. The prosecutor was a cheesemonger
carrying on business at 79, Tottenham-court-road, and
in the month of December he took the prisoner into
his service, but only kept him a fortnight and then
discharged him. During the time he was there the
prisoner observed that his master was in the habit of
depositing his cash box near his pillow of a night. On
the 30th of January Mr. Stevens retired to rest at half-
past two in the morning, and placed the cash box, which
then contained £65 in gold, silver, and notes, at the
head of the bed. He was falling asleep when he was
startled by a rustling noise under the bed, and on
looking round—there was a light burning in the room
—he saw a hand stretched towards the cash box. He
immediately called out for assistance, and demanded
who was there, upon which the prisoner, whom he
immediately recognised, sprang from under the bed,
and pointing to his master with his left hand, and
holding his right back, said, "Sir, I warn you I am
armed." Mr. Stevens thought that the prisoner might
have a knife or a pistol in the hand he held back, so he
went out of the room in his night-shirt; and his mother
and the shopman having come to his aid, they managed
to hold the door so that the prisoner could not get out.
The prisoner became very violent, and declared he
would fire at them through the door, and the
prosecutor went down for the purpose of calling in the
police. The shopman, alarmed by the horrible threats
of his prisoner, abandoned his post, not, he said,
through fear, but for the purpose of getting some
defensive weapon; whereupon the prisoner blew out
the light, escaped down stairs, and succeeded in making
his exit from the premises through a back door. The
prisoner was apprehended on the evening of the same
day; and it was proved that he was out from his
lodgings, a coffee-house in Bridge-street, Westminster,
until past four on the morning when the offence was
committed. The only reason he gave for this was that
he had been wandering about the streets. The jury
found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to
eighteen months' hard labour.

A serious Riot, caused by a strike for an advance of
wages has taken place at Wallsend Colliery. On
Wednesday the 15th, there was a general strike, and at
one o'clock on Thursday morning Mr. Clark, the viewer,
and Mr. Atkinson, the under viewer, accompanied by
several of the men, proceeded to the pit for the purpose
of trying to induce some of the coal hewers to go down
to work. When near the pit-mouth they were suddenly
attacked by 60 or 70 men and lads, all of whom were
armed with picks, sticks, and staves. They were all
disguised in women's clothes, and wore masks and staves.
There was a very severe struggle, which lasted upwards
of half an hour, and ultimately Mr. Clark and
Mr. Atkinson escaped, but not until they were severely
injured. On the following day a body of police from
Newcastle were stationed at the colliery, and they
succeeded in preventing a further breach of the peace. On
Friday 16 men consented to return to their work, and
were accompanied down the pit by the police, who
protected them from the assaults of their fellow-workmen.
The remainder of the men, nearly 100 in number, still
continue on strike. It is said that about twelve months
ago the wages of the men were reduced one penny per
ton, a promise being held out that when prices improved,
the same wages as heretofore would be paid. Prices
having recently risen, the old wages were demanded and
refused, and hence the present strike and riot. Six men
have been apprehended on suspicion of being concerned
in the riot.

At the Northampton Assizes an action for Breach of
Promise of Marriage, tried on the 22nd inst., created
some amusement. The plaintiff is a comely widow of 30,
who keeps the Watts Arms, at the village of Hauslop, in
this county, and the defendant a respectable farmer in
the neighbourhood. The defendant, who had become a
widower for the second time, and had four or five
children, was, during 1851 and 1852, in the habit of
frequenting the widow's house, was voted into the
landlord's chair, appeared to be on very intimate terms,
used expressions as to his wish to marry her, and had
presented her to some friends as his intended wife. But
in June of last year he absented himself from Hauslop
for a short time, and then informed the plaintiff that
he could not marry her, and in fact married a sister of
his deceased wife. One of the plaintiff's witnesses
created considerable amusement by the high terms in
which he spoke of the plaintiff's personal appearance.
He stated, also, that he had on one occasion said to the
defendant, "How comes it that you are paying your
addresses to that fine-made, noble, high-mettled
woman?" To which the defendant replied, "Nothing
venture, nothing have. I have thousands on thousands,
and the settlement has done it." The same witness
also swore that in August, 1853, after the defendant had
married his present wife, he (the defendant) had stated
to the witness that the reason of his not marrying the
plaintiff was that she had been too intimate with
Mr. Bull, and three other men whom he named, and all
of whom were now called as witnesses to repudiate that
imputation. On another occasion, in July, it was sworn
that he had said, "Mr. Bull's dog was lying one night
outside the widow's chamber door, but where was
Mr. Bull? I will subpœna Mr. Bull and his dog." Bull
and the defendant were drinking together at the time;
and the defendant had previously said that there was
not a more "vartuous" woman in the world than
Mrs. Allen. The defendant had a farm of about 200
acres well stocked, and also some interest in a mill in
Lincolnshire. Mr. Macaulay, in his address to the jury
on behalf of the defendant, denied that he had ever
intended seriously to cast the slightest imputation upon
the plaintiff's character, who was, no doubt, a very
good-looking and agreeable woman. He could not deny
that the defendant had committed an imprudence and
bound himself by an engagement which he was unable
to fulfil; but upon the question of damages, he
submitted that the buxom landlady of a thriving inn, justly
popular among her neighbours, who never appeared to
profess any violent affection for the defendant, could not
be supposed to have sustained any very serious loss
because a man who farmed under 200 acres of land, had
had two wives before, and had five children living, had
failed to perform his promise to marry her. The jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £150.

NARRATIVE OF ACCIDENT AND
DISASTER.

A SERIOUS Railway Accident occurred on the Great
Northern line on the 10th, at the Offord station, about
midway between Huntingdon and St. Neots. Between
three and four o'clock in the afternoon, a train of ballast
waggons was issuing from a siding near the station at
the moment when a train of goods vans and empty coal
waggons was approaching in the opposite direction.
Though it was broad clear daylight at the time, the
two engines continued to advance towards each other,
and in a few moments came into collision with a
tremendous crash. Both engines were forced up on
end, and the driver of the goods train, John Rigby,
fell under his engine, apparently killed on the spot.
The driver and stoker of the other train jumped off just
before the collision took place, and escaped with very
little injury beyond a shock. They succeeded in getting
Rigby from under the engine, and found him alive, but
greatly injured, especially about the right leg and foot,
which were dreadfully crushed and mutilated. The
vans and waggons of the two trains were all more or less
injured, and some of them were literally smashed to atoms.

Three soldiers—a corporal and two privates of the
Seventh Royal Fusiliers—Perished in the Snow on
Dartmoor on the night of the 12th inst. They were
on their way to the Dartmoor Prison, the two privates
having recently left the Plymouth Military Hospital;
they had great difficulty in getting through the drifted
snow to reach Dourlands Barn Inn; the landlord
advised them to go no further, but the corporal said
they must "obey orders." They proceeded three miles,
and then their progress was utterly stopped: they
attempted to return; but, half way back to the inn,
they perished in a drift, which had increased in depth
since they had formerly passed through it.