trial on the 3rd of January last was only nine. At
Rochester there were only four prisoners for trial. The
contrast of these four boroughs with the city of Hereford
presented a result of an alarming character. He
repeated, therefore, it became all persons anxious for the
welfare of society to consider whether some measures
could not be taken to check that vice and immorality to
which, in his opinion, was principally to be attributed
the increase of crime in this district.

At the Middlesex Sessions on the 8th, A. Weston, a
coach-painter, was indicted lor Assaulting Mary Weston,
his wife, since deceased, and Mary Ann Coney. The
prisoner and his wife lived in an upper room of a house
in the Colonnade, Russell Square; but from his being
out of employment and his intemperate habits they
experienced severe privations. They frequently
quarrelled, and on December 6, they and Mary Ann Coney,
the wife's sister, sat down to a breakfast procured with
a borrowed sixpence, when the prisoner applied a foul
epithet to his wife. She replied, that if she deserved
the name, he was then eating the produce of the
conduct that entitled her to it, whereupon he threw a
spoonful of hot tea into her face, and she in return
threw a mug full of tea over him. He had their child,
about 16 months old, in his arms, and, rising from his
seat, he dealt her, with the hand he had at liberty, some
blows on the side of the head, and would have done
more had not Coney taken up a knife, and threatened
to use it if he did not desist. The same afternoon he
told Coney that he should turn her out of his place,
seized her by the wrist, and threw her with great
violence into the passage. On the following day he beat
his wife, who was in such a weak condition that she
could not stand, and she fell, striking her head against
the fireplace. She died on the following Wednesday.
A surgeon stated she had died from congestion on the
brain, which from her condition of body a slight cause,
such as a fall, might have produced. The defence was
that the prisoner had received great provocation, his
wife being a woman of lazy and dirty habits. The
prisoner was found "Guilty," and sentenced to two
months' imprisonment in the House of Correction.

At the Wandsworth Police Office on the 9th, Mr. John
McDonough, a surgeon practising at Clapham, was
charged with Assaulting Sarah Baldwin, one of his
servants. On the morning of the 7th, after some
altercation in the surgery, he followed her into the kitchen,
and taking hold of her by the shoulders gave her a
tremendous blow on the head. Then wresting a hot
poker out of her hand he raised it to strike her on the
head. The blow was warded off by her uplifted arm,
which was severely hurt. When about to strike her a
second time, the poker was forcibly taken from him by
her fellow-servant. He was fined the full penalty of £5.

At the Central Criminal Court on the 10th instant,
Sarah Drake was indicted for the Wilful Murder of her
male bastard child by strangling it with a handkerchief.
The prisoner, of whose previous history little was known,
had been recently engaged in the service of Mr. Huth,
of Harley Street, as cook and housekeeper. From the
evidence it appeared that in 1848, when three months
old, the child was placed with Mrs. Johnson of Shorley
Common, to nurse. Payment was regularly made for its
maintenance for some time, but gradually fell off. On
the 27th of November 1849, the nurse received a letter
from the prisoner, stating that she was going with a
family to Madrid, and regretting her inability to pay her
the arrears owing at present. In consequence of this the
nurse took the child the same day to the prisoner in
Harley Street, and left it with her, refusing her intreaty
to take him back for a week. The child was carried up
to the housekeeper's room, and nothing further was
seen of it. At the usual dinner hour the prisoner
absented herself under the pretext of writing a letter,
and having a box of clothes to pack for her sister. She
did not appear again until three o'clock, when one of the
servants entering her bedroom saw the box packed in a
wrapper and corded. It was carried down stairs next
morning and sent to the station, addressed to her
brother-in-law, Mr. Theophilus Burton, North Leverton,
near Retford. A letter, which had since been burnt,
was sent advising the forwarding of the box. Mr.
Burton went the day following with her brother to East
Retford and received it. On forcing the lock, the dead
body of a child was discovered. On the box being
searched by the police an apron was found slightly
stained with blood, and marked S. Drake. Various
articles of clothing were identified by the nurse. At the
Marylebone station, in answer to the inquiries of the
female searcher, she stated that, afraid of losing her
place, she had hung it and sent it to her sister to be
buried. The counsel for the prisoner made an eloquent
and feeling defence, endeavouring to prove that the
crime had been committed in a temporary frenzy of
insanity. He urged the jury to look at the situation of
the prisoner. After her seduction—after receiving the
greatest injury that could be inflicted upon her by one
of the other sex—she had been abandoned and left with
limited resources, and suffering from bad health, to
provide for this unhappy child. She had done so. She had
struggled to preserve her reputation, which was all she
had to depend upon, to protect her from utter destruction,
and there was no doubt that the manner in which the
child was suddenly thrown upon her hands, and the
dreadful consequences which she foresaw must result
from it, had for the moment unsettled her reason, and
drove her to the commission of the dreadful act. A
verdict of "Not guilty, on the ground of insanity" was
returned by the jury, and the prisoner ordered to be
detained in safe custody during Her Majesty's pleasure.

At the New Central Criminal Court on the 11th, Daniel
Blackmore, a shoemaker, aged 57, was indicted for
Stabbing Henry Alexander Matthew, a policeman, with
intent to murder him. On Sunday night, Dec. 23rd,
whilst the officer was on duty in the Old Bailey, the
prisoner's wife came up to him and said, "You are the
thief that locked me up the other night." Becoming
still more abusive and a mob assembling, he was obliged
to convey her to the station-house, where the prisoner
went and begged for her liberation. After being detained
a short time, she was let off. About a quarter to eleven,
having just been warned that her husband was in search
of him and threatened to do for him, while standing at
the corner of Skinner Street, the prisoner came up to
him and said, "Are you the man that took my wife to
the station?" On replying that he was, he instantly
said, "Take that, you—," inflicting a wound just
about the navel. Feeling that he was stabbed, the
officer called out for help, and another policeman
coming to his assistance, the prisoner was arrested. The
defence of Blackmore was, that being intoxicated he
knew nothing about the transaction. The jury having
found him guilty of the whole charge, the Recorder
ordered sentence of death to be recorded, intimating
that in consequence of his age, and having been wounded
as a soldier, he should recommend the sentence of
transportation for life to be commuted to fifteen years.

In the Court of Queen's Bench on the 11th, Sir
Frederick Thesiger applied on behalf of the Count de
Thomar, Prime Minister of Portugal, for a rule Nisi
calling on the proprietors of the Morning Post to show
cause against the issue of a criminal information for the
publication of a Libel, accusing the Count of obtaining
£158,000 by corrupt and unwarrantable political
practices, and imputing "light conduct" to the Queen of
Portugal in connexion with the Count. The rule was
granted.

A notable instance of Gullibility was exhibited a few
days ago. A maiden lady in Harley Street was waited
upon by a decently dressed, serious-looking person named
Brown, who presented to her the following letter:—

Alderman Farebrother presents his compliments to Miss—,
and begs to recommend to her notice the case of Mr. Edward
Carless Brown, of Richmond (son of the late Mr. George Brown)
who has sustained a severe loss of property in emigrating to
Australia, which the enclosed certificate specifies, signed by the
civic authorities; and if stronger claims on Miss—'s purse
do not prevent her subscribing to this case, I can assure that
lady it is one meriting her sympathy, inasmuch as Mr. Brown
and family are now entirely ruined, their object being to realise
a sum sufficient to defray their expenses to Port Adelaide.
Mr. Farebrother takes more than usual interest in this case
from the circumstance of the bearer making his statement at the
Guildhall. He therefore trusts that the motive which actuates
him in addressing Miss — on his behalf will be deemed an
apology.

Lower Thames Street, Jan. 4, 1850.