giving him notice. An application was made to the
court to rescind the protecting order and to re-commit
the insolvent to Maidstone Gaol on the ground that it
had heen improperly obtained. The question was now
argued at some length, and the learned commissioners
having conferred together expressed their opinion.—
The Chief Commissioner held that the court had power
to rescind the protecting order, but doubted whether it
could re-commit to prison.—Mr. Commissioner Law
said he had no doubt of the power of the court both to
revoke the order and to re-commit the insolvent to
Maidstone, He was, however, not disposed to adopt
the latter unless it was shown that the insolvent had
wilfully acted in the matter.—Mr. Commissioner
Phillips was clearly of opinion that the court could both
revoke and commit.—A question arose as to the
proceedings to be adopted in the case, and it was ultimately
decided that the rule should remain open, and the
insolvent appear for examination on the 6th of December.

An action was tried in the Court of Common Pleas on
the 20th, on a bill of exchange for £245., accepted by
Lieutenant Ronalds of the 77th Foot. The defendant
pleaded that the bill was given for money Won at Play,
and without value. The circumstances of this gaming
transaction, as stated by the defendant's own counsel,
were these. Last year his regiment was stationed at
Plymouth. On the 20th August, Plymouth races were
run, and about that time there appeared in the town a
number of persons assuming to themselves the name of
"The Bath and Bristol Club." They started a roulette
table, but as it required some precaution to evade
proceedings by the magistrates, this club never carried on
play two nights in succession in the same house, so as to
prevent their being caught whilst they were at work.
On the second or third night, they opened a room at a
livery stable-keeper's, named Hex, and it was the
misfortune of his client and some brother officers to go there
on that occasion. It was after mess that he went, and
he was sober; but, as usual, there was every attention
paid to gentlemen who wanted to use the roulette table,
and champagne was thrown about for their use. The
consequence was that Lieut. Ronalds became elated,
and having lost the £15. which he had in his pocket, he
played on credit until he lost about £500.; and an I O U
for £50., and the bill in question, were given on account
of part of this sum. This I O U was afterwards handed
over to another officer who had won; but he, however,
went the next night and lost it back again. When the
bill became due a letter was written applying for
payment, on behalf of the "Town and District Banking
Company;" and an intimation was given that if it was
not paid, the case would be laid before the Commander-
in-Chief. The communication was not answered, and
another was sent enclosing a copy of a letter which had
been sent to the Commander-in-Chief, and subsequently
the action was brought. Mr. Ronalds is about five or
six-and-twenty. He was to have been in court to be
examined; but he failed to appear; and the court, after
waiting for some time, gave judgment against him for
the amount of the bill, with costs.

In the case of libel, Dr. Achilli against Dr. Newman,
the Court of Queen's Bench, on the 22nd, granted a rule
for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict, formerly
given for the plaintiff, was against evidence.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, on the 23rd,
application was made on the part of Sir Charles Napier for
Criminal Information against Mr. John Murray, the
publisher of the "Quarterly Review," in respect of an
article in the October number of that journal, alleged
to reflect unjustly on Sir C. Napier's character, in
reference to the investigation made by him into the
matter of the Ameers of Scinde, and to the conduct of
his troops towards the women of the Ameers on taking
possession of Hyderabad. Lord Campbell was of opinion
that there was not a case for the interference of the
court. If (said his lordship) there had been any
passage written with the intention of calumniating Sir
Charles Napier, their lordships would undoubtedly
have extended to him the protection of the court. But
he could find nothing showing such an intention. The
article seemed to him to be an historical essay, turning
on a disputed point as to whether the Ameers of
Scinde were harshly treated or not. On that point, of
course, the court could say nothing. It would be, in
fact, encroaching on the liberty of the press if their
lordships said a criminal information should issue under
these circumstances. Whatever might be the case
elsewhere, we in England possessed a free press, which he
trusted would ever continue to discuss every question of
history, as well modern as ancient, without apprehending
applications like that before the court. It was true
that in times when the law of libel was yet unsettled,
or settled at best in a vexatious and tyrannical manner,
it was a libel to accuse any officer of the crown of
incompetency; but that doctrine was long since exploded,
and now there was no impropriety in questioning the
capability of any public functionary to discharge his
duty. As to Sir Charles Napier personally, he (Lord
Campbell) believed him to he one of the most gallant,
meritorious, and distinguished officers that had ever led
an army to victory; but believing all that, and looking
to him as one whose assistance might be calculated
upon by his country in the hour of need, his lordship
thought this application was not well founded, and that
the rule must be refused. The other judges concurred,
and the rule was refused accordingly.

William Baker, a boy of eleven, was tried at the
Central Criminal Court, on the 23rd, for the
Manslaughter of his brother, a lad of thirteen. This lad
had been eating his dinner, and had just finished when
the prisoner came in, and he was about to sit down to
the table to eat his dinner, and took up a knife and
fork, when his brother scolded him for coming home so
late, and also said that he should not have the knife
and fork. The prisoner said he should come home
when he pleased, and he should have what knife and fork
he liked. He then sat down to his dinner, when the
brother took up the lid of a saucepan and struck him
on the back with it, and then went to the other end of
the room. The prisoner at the same instant threw a
knife at him, and it entered his left side and stuck
there. The brother pulled the knife out of his body
and gave it to the prisoner, and he laid it on the table
and exclaimed that he did not mean to do it. The
wounded lad ran into the room of a lodger, and was
conveyed to tbe hospital; but the hurt was mortal, and
he died two days afterwards. The judge told the jury
that if they thought that the prisoner in a moment of
passion had thrown the knife at hazard and with no
deliberate intention whatever, they would be justified
in acquitting him; and even if they had any doubt upon
the point, the prisoner was equally entitled to the
benefit of that doubt. The jury, after a short
deliberation, returned a verdict of Not guilty. The boy
was discharged and delivered to the care of his father.

A singular case of Bigamy was tried at the Central
Criminal Court, on the 24th. The prisoner was a
respectable-looking elderly woman, named Smith. She
was married in October, 1816, at Tonbridge, to one John
Smith, with whom she lived some ten or eleven years.
They then separated, from some cause that was not
stated. After that period it appeared that she had
amassed some property, consisting of two small houses
and some money, and was again married in January,
1841, at Newington, to a man about her own age, named
Joseph Hensman, stating herself to be a widow. She
placed the whole of her property at his disposal, and
acted the part of a good wife to him, and had worked at
her business as a wire-worker. Two years after the
second marriage the second husband heard that she had
a husband living, and taxed her with it, but this she
denied, and they went down together to Maidstone, and
the first husband was introduced to the second one as the
brother of the first one, and it was not until a few weeks
ago that the second husband did find out the truth.
When the police-constable told her with what she was
charged, she said that she had not been guilty of any
offence as her first husband was married again. This
was not proved, but it was shown that he had from the
period of their separation lived with a woman, calling
her his wife. The jury found her Guilty, recommending
her to mercy, and the Recorder, ordered her to be
imprisoned for one month in Newgate.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, on the 24th, judgement
was given on the application of M. Barthelemi
and M. Morney, the gentlemen in custody for being