one of the private boxes, and on looking out from his
hiding-place he saw the prisoner standing up throwing
something on the stage, which struck witness on the
side of the head a very heavy blow. Finding that it
was a cauliflower, he went forward and appealed to the
audience, when nearly everybody pointed out the prisoner
as the party who had thrown it. The uproar was
so great that it was impossible to proceed with the performance,
consequently witness went with his pass-key
into the box lobby and demanded an entrance into the
box where the prisoner was, but they refused to open
the door. Mr. Orger, however, forced it open, and
insisted upon the prisoner and his companions quitting
the theatre. On their refusing to do so, witness seized
hold of the prisoner and pulled him out, and handed
him over to the custody of the officer. There was
another gentleman in the box with two ladies. This
evidence was corroborated by Murray, the constable of
the theatre. In defence, the prisoner contended that
there was no proof that he had thrown the cauliflower,
and denied having done so. He called the two females
who were in the box at the time. One of them, Mary
Ann Williams, said she saw a cauliflower thrown on the
stage, within a few yards of the performers. She did
not see who threw it. Immediately afterwards Mr.
Higgie came into the box and pulled the defendant out
very roughly, and in the scuffle made his nose bleed.
After Mr. Higgie left the box, he said that he had given
the defendant a sound thrashing. Emily Forrester, the
other female, said the cauliflower was certainly thrown
from their box, but not by the defendant. Mr. Higgie
was the Mouse at the time, but she did not think the
vegetable hit him. The Magistrate said it was quite
certain, from the prisoner's own witnesses, that the
cauliflower found its way from their box, and he had no
doubt the prisoner was the party who threw it. It was
a most disgraceful act, and as a caution to others, he
should order the defendant to find bail to keep the peace
for twelve months. Sureties were put in.

Two boys, named Campbell, dressed as highland pipers,
and each provided with a pair of bagpipes, were charged,
at Marlborough Street Police Court, with having Refused
to Quit Suffolk Street, where they were playing, when
requested to do so. A clerk to Mr. Garratt, an inhabitant,
said, about 11 o'clock the boys put their pipes at
work, and kept up such a concert of groaning and
screeching with them, that his employer gave him
directions to tell them, to remove; the witness did so;
and the boys refusing to comply with the request, a
constable was employed, and they were brought to this
court. The boys said they were the sons of a Scotch
piper. They got their living by playing on the bagpipes,
and they were employed by a lady who liked bagpipe
harmony, to play before the door of the hotel in Suffolk
Street, where she was staying. The magistrate told the
boys they must not adopt such a mode of getting their
own living as would hinder others from getting theirs.
It would be impossible for professional men or tradesmen
to carry on their daily avocations in the hearing of such
a din of discordant sounds as would be caused by a
couple of pairs of Scotch bagpipes. To the street-musical
abominations of the Italian boys had recently
been added that of Scotch bagpipers—a kind of concert
sufficient to drive invalids and ordinary people crazy.
The street musicians must be told that the law obliged
them to go away whenever they were told to do so by
any housekeeper in streets where they were playing.
For the present offence he would inflict a fine of Is. only,
which should be made 20s. on the next occasion.

A dreadful Murder and Suicide were commited at
Ballinagh, near Cavan, on the 9th. Dr. Creighton, a
gentleman rather more than thirty years old, after
practising as a surgeon in Dublin, became the victim of
a delusion that his family were in a conspiracy against
him. His friends removed him to the country, and
settled him in a farm; thinking that the change might
tranquillise his mind. Here he lived with an old maiden
aunt and a man-servant; recently Miss Faris, a young
relative, had been staying on a visit before she proceeded
to America to join her friends. Dr. Creighton was now
afflicted with a notion that his household wished to
poison him; he would refuse food for days, and would
eat grass on the lawn: on other matters he appeared
rational, and so he was not placed under restraint. On
the day above mentioned he went to his aunt's room,
said the man was waiting to shave him, and thus got
possession of his razors. A little while afterwards. Miss
Creighton entered the kitchen, and was horrified by
seeing Miss Faris dead on the floor, with her head
nearly severed from the body. A train of blood led from
the spot to the pantry; and there Dr. Creighton was
found just expiring, with a gash in his throat: he seems
to have wounded himself while standing by Miss Faris's
body, and then walked to the pantry. An inquest on
his body found a verdict of insanity.

Lord Brougham was engaged in a Border Fray
lately near Brougham Hall, Westmoreland. There
is some difference between his lordship and the
Eamont and Eden Angling Association, as to the right
of fishing in the river Eamont, or the right of fishing
there at particular seasons. Lord Brougham has
lately asserted his right through his keepers, and has
futhermore taken parties of visitors to see the sport.
He did so on the afternoon of Monday the 16th; the
party, in two carriages, comprising Lord Brougham
with his lady, the Marquis of Douro, Lady Malet, and
Master William Brougham, with his wife and children.
The game-keepers threw their nets; on which a party of
ten men in ambush rushed forth, sprang into the water,
and began a fierce conflict for the nets. A local constable,
formally seized the nets under the Solway Act,
which confiscates nets of a certain littleness of mesh.
At length the Society's men managed to cut off about
eighty yards of the net, and made off.

This matter became the subject of a legal investigation
before the county magistrates, at Penrith on the 24th.
John Robson, a blacksmith, one of Lord Brougham's
men, was charged with illegally using a net of a construction
prohibited by the act of parliament above
mentioned. Mr. W. Brougham, for the defendant,
stated that his brother and a party of friends had gone to
the river Eamont on the day in question, with the express
purpose of trying the construction heretofore put upon
the Solway Act, their notion being that they had an
undoubted right to fish in the manner they had done.
The bench, however, were of opinion that the charge
had been fully made out, and fined Robson £5., which
was immediately paid.—John Robson then made a charge
of assault against one of the men belonging to the opposite
party. After hearing the Marquis of Douro, Mr.
W. Brougham, and other witnesses, the Bench gave it
as their opinion that a good deal of violence had been
used, but as there were cross-charges for assaults, they
recommended that all these charges on both sides should
be withdrawn. The assault charges were accordingly
withdrawn by mutual consent, and so the matter ended.
This inquiry excited great curiosity, and the room was
crowded with the neighbouring gentry.

Captain Aaron Smith was charged at Bow Street on
the 11th, with Assaulting the toll-keeper of Waterloo
Bridge. It appeared that on the previous day Captain
Smith being in a hurry to catch the railway train, and
finding the side-gate blocked up by passengers, had
endeavoured to pass by the carriage-way. Being stopped
by the toll-keeper, he attempted to force his way through,
but was repelled and given into custody for an assault.
He denied the toll-keeper's assertion that he had struck
him, but justified his attempt to pass through the
carriage-way. The magistrate fined him £5., but called
the attention of the Waterloo-bridge Company to the
inconvenience frequently occasioned to passengers by
the narrow accommodation at present afforded to them.
This has been attended to, and the tolls are taken from
foot-passengers on both sides of the way.

A Coroner's Jury, sitting at Mallow, has returned a
verdict of Manslaughter against Captain Bushe, of the
Fifty-ninth Regiment, for killing a little boy by striking
him on the head with a whip. The verdict seems
extraordinary. From the evidence it was not very clear
that Captain Bushe struck the child at all, though one
witness alleged that he did so because a dog belonging
to him had yelped, and he thought the boy had struck
it. On the other hand, surgeons declared that the child
died of water on the brain, and that there was no mark
of violence on the head or face. The verdict, however,
was received with expressions of delight by the crowd.