He was fined 20s., and his assistants 10s. each, with
costs. But the fines were not paid by the proctor and
his assistants till the form of capturing them had been
gone through. An arrangement was made, by which
the superintendent of police formally arrested them at
the office of Mr. Fenwick's solicitor, and the fines were
paid. This was done to form the basis of an action for
false imprisonment by the University authorities against
those of the town.

Mary Ann Doe, the girl who told two such different
stories respecting the conduct of the Rev. R. A.
Johnstone, was brought before the Brentwood magistrates
on the 2nd, on a charge of Perjury. The information
was laid by Superintendent Coulson. The girl's solicitor
objected, that it was incompetent for any one but the
person injured, or a Judge of Assize, to lay an information
of the kind. The bench overruled this objection.
Another objection was about to be raised, when the
chairman made an inquiry as to the amount of evidence
at present obtained; and the answer of Mr. Coulson
induced the magistrates to stop the case. The chairman
said—"This case is dismissed, on the ground that there
is insufficient evidence to support the complaint. The
bench have come to this decision with the less reluctance,
in consequence of their confident belief that subornation
of perjury has been committed; and they are determined
that the matter shall be fully investigated." Some
difficulty was anticipated in the apprehension of the
girl, and an artifice was adopted to place her in custody.
A man dressed in rustic attire, with a gun in his hand,
was sent into a field at the back of the cottage where
her parents reside. He fired off the gun several times,
and the girl presently came out of the cottage to see
what he was shooting at. She walked up to him; and
as soon as she came within reach, the disguised officer
intimated to her that she was a prisoner, and
immediately took her to Brentwood.

A Burglary vith Violence was committed at Frenchan
Common, near Farnham, on the evening of the 30th
ult. About eight o'clock, Mr. Marshall, who lives with
his sister alone, was aroused by a loud knock at his
front-door. On opening, he found a group of seven
men standing round it; and as soon as he presented
himself, one of their number inquired the road to
Guildford. Mr. Marshall was in the act of stepping out
to direct them, when he was suddenly knocked down,
it is supposed by a life-preserver. The men immediately
entered the house; but they were encountered by Miss
Marshall, who, with great presence of mind, rushed up
stairs to procure a gun which her brother always kept
loaded, calling out at the same time, "I'll fire at them."
The villains caught her upon the staircase, and
presenting pistols at her, dragged her to the front-door,
where they pointed out her brother lying in an insensible
state on the ground, and cautioned her to be quiet.
They then ransacked the house of everything of a
valuable character it contained, taking off amongst other
property a number of old guineas. Before leaving,they
abused Miss Marshall in good set terms for not having
more property in the house. Mr. Marshall was insensible
for two hours, and has suffered much since.

Mr. Thomas Waters, a gentleman of Bedminster,
while staying at Wrington in Somerset, made a very
determined attempt to Murder his Wife, in a fit of
delirium. He sharpened a knife, went into his wife's
room, locked the door, and endeavoured to cut her
throat; she struggled with him, and they fell on the
floor; he there persevered in his efforts, but she held
down her chin on her neck, and so preserved herself
from a mortal wound, till relatives, attracted by her
screams, burst open the door and saved her life. She
was terribly disfigured on the face, and had one of her
fingers cut off. Her husband was removed to an
asylum; he sank into a state of prostration, and died
after three days of reaction from the intensely excited
state in which he had been.

The Consistory Court gave judgment on the 7th, in
the divorce ease of King v. King, promoted by the
Honourable Robert King, eldest son of Lord Lorton, on
the ground of the adultery of his wife with a French
gentleman called Vicomte de Saint Jean; and resisted
by Mrs. King on the grounds of her husband's
connivance at her immorality, and of his own adultery
with Madame de Saint Jean and other persons. The
Judge, Dr. Lushington, held that the wife's unfaithfulness
was proved; that the proof of the husband's
connivance failed, but that the husband's own
unfaithfulness was established; he therefore dismissed
both parties, and refused to pronounce for a divorce.

At the Liverpool Winter Assizes, on the 9th, William
Threlfall pleaded guilty to Forging a Bill of Exchange
for £1,000. It was stated for the prosecution, that the
prisoner had uttered forged bills by wholesale. His
forgery of thirty, for £32,811., and his guilty knowledge
with respect to a hundred and fifteen others, for
£133,000., could be proved. It was said in defence, that
in nearly every instance the bills had been taken up
before they became due—£113,801. in all. Others would
have been met but for the breaking up of his business
by the discovery of the forgeries; still his estate would
pay from 12s. to I5s. in the pound. Morally speaking,
he had no intention to defraud. Mr. Justice Talfourd
said that, morally speaking, as well as legally, he
considered a person who should commit forgery with the
intention of taking up the bill before it was due was
guilty. When the offence was punishable by death,
many persons had been executed who, no doubt, intended
to do what it was said had been the prisoner's intention.
He had no doubt that Dr. Dodd never intended to
defraud Lord Chesterfield when he forged his name. It
was quite impossible that he could adopt a notion that,
in such cases, there was not a moral as well as a legal
guilt. The prisoner was sentenced to be transported
for life.

An action of Libel, at the instance of Captain Aaron
Smith, against Captain Cook, formerly in the Merchant
Service, and now the agent in London of the Scotch
Equitable Association, was tried before the Court of
Queen's Bench on the 9th inst. It arose out of some
statements made at a public meeting held in January last,
on the subject of piracy in Borneo. Captain Smith
having spoken of circumstances which, from his own
personal knowledge, placed the existence of the alleged
piracy beyond a doubt, was at once accused of having
been one of the very miscreants he denounced, and Mr.
Cobden afterwards stated in the House of Commons
that Capt. Aaron Smith was an ex-pirate. A hostile
correspondence ensued, in which Capt. Smith demanded
satisfaction, which was refused; and, in the course of
the correspondence, Capt. Cook came forward, and
adopted the full responsibility of the charge affecting
Smith by distinctly reiterating it in a letter to the
"Times." This letter was the subject-matter of the
action. It appears that as far back as 1823 Capt. Smith
was formally put upon his trial for his share in the
capture of two vessels (one being Capt. Cook's), and he
was formally acquitted. In 1829 he was again tried for
supposed complicity in a similar act perpetrated by the
same band. His defence on each occasion was, that he
was a prisoner, completely in the power of the pirates,
and that he acted by compulsion. Capt. Cook was
examined as a witness at the first trial, and was present
at the second, when the jury, after hearing a single
witness for the prosecution, stopped the case. On the
present trial the whole of the former evidence was
recapitulated, and at its close Lord Campbell summed
up. Capt. Smith, he said, was placed in a situation of
great hardship in this trial, the occurrences with which
he was charged having taken place thirty years ago. It
was true that the law did not recognise limitation to
charges of crimes; but men would not fail to see that
after a certain period a charge could not be brought without
pressing with undue hardship on the accused, and
especially in a case like this, when the party had already
three times successfully answered it. By this libel
Capt. Cook charged Capt. Smith as a pirate and a
murderer. Now the question for the jury to consider
would be, first, whether there was any evidence at all of
murder; and secondly, whether he had voluntarily taken
a part in the piratical transactions. There was no
evidence either that the pirate captain was dead, or that
Captain Smith took his place. If the jury believed
that he had voluntarily joined the pirates, and voluntarily
remained with them, when it was said he might have
escaped, they would find their verdict for the defendant;
but if the contrary, for the plaintiff; and in this latter