act of giving money to several voters, and the rumour was speedily followed by the defendant being taken into custody upon that charge. Two detainers were afterwards lodged against him, upon the informations of persons of the names of Lee and Walton, for like offences. The defendant having obtained a writ of habeas corpus, was discharged from custody as to Large's accusation, upon the ground that his arrest, being on a Sunday, was illegal; but he was ordered to be detained upon the other two charges. He shortly afterwards procured bail, and was thereupon liberated. At the last assizes the present indictment was preferred, and a true bill found.

Mr. Kelly stated the nature of the charge, and the evidence he proposed to adduce in support of it. William Large was examined, and stated as follows:-I am a shoemaker, living in Cambridge, and a voter for the borough. On Saturday evening, the 26th of last June, the defendant called at my house, and said he wished to see me in private; I said, "Yes," and sent my wife up-stairs. The defendant, then asked " if I had promised my vote?" and on my say ing "I had promised Sutton and Grant," he asked, "If I could not change my mind;" and said, "if I would vote for Lord Cosmo Rus sell and Mr. Foster, he would make it worth my while." I replied, "I wanted nothing;" and he said "He would call again in the evening." I then sent for Mr. Flack, my master, and a barrister, and the defendant came and left before they arrived. Defendant called on me on the following morning (Sunday) between eleven and twelve o'clock. I had previously sent for one Beckett, and

he (Beckett) placed himself in the passage outside the door of the room into which the defendant went, where he could hear all that passed. The defendant, when he got into the room, asked me if I had considered about my vote, to which I answered I had no call to do so, my mind was made up. He said, "Do you wish for a cheap loaf and free trade?" I said I did not consider that was the question, and then he asked me what he should give for my vote? I said, " Nothing;" and then he said he'd give me 101. if I would vote for Russell and Foster. I said I could not take it, I should not be able to hold up my head if I did; my friends would accuse me of bribery, if I did. He said that was all nonsense, and nobody would know it; and added that he would give me 10l., and a sovereign, to spend the day out of town, if I would vote as he wished. With that he took a 10% note and a sovereign out of his pocket, and said, "would I take it?" and I said, "I suppose I must," and did, he saying, "That's to vote for Russell and Foster." He said he would come with a fly and take me to the poll, but I said if I went, I should walk. He then shook hands with me; and as he was going out I called in Beckett, and showed him the money the defendant had given me. Beckett followed him out directly to take him into eustody.

James P. Beckett corroborated this statement.

The wife of the prosecutor was also examined, and confirmed the testimony of her husband in various portions she having heard parts here and there of the conversations at the several interviews.

John Titterton, superintendant

of police, proved searching the defendant at one o'clock on the Sunday. There was found on him seven 101. notes and three 51. notes, all of local banks, ten sovereigns and a half, and some silver. Besides this he had a printed copy of the register of voters for the borough of Cambridge, and a small memorandum book. In the latter were various names of voters arranged under the headings of va rious streets. Under" Watson's gardens," was the name of William Large, the prosecutor.

The policeman further stated, that the defendant gave his name at the station-house as "Robert Jones," and stated that he was "a general dealer, with no fixed residence." It had, however, been ascertained that his name was Hart, and not Jones; and that he was a slay-maker (part of the machinery used by weavers), and not a gene ral dealer; and that he was an inhabitant householder of Norwich, in lieu of having no fixed and settled residence.

This was the case on the part of the prosecution.

Mr. Andrews, in the course of an able speecli on behalf of the defendant, charged the parties con cerned with having fabricated the accusation, and tortured that which was nothing but an ordinary case of canvass into the serious accusation of bribery. The learned counsel pointed out various discrepancies in the evidence given by the principal witnesses, and concluded by expressing a confident belief that the jury would acquit the defendant.

The Lord Chief Justice carefully and minutely summed up the evidence, commenting as he proceeded on the most important features it presented.

The jury, after a short deliberation, found the defendant "Guilty."

29. HOME CIRCUIT KINGSTON. LIABILITY OF MEMBERS OF CLUBS. STEPHENS v. EMLY AND ANOTHER. The plaintiff, who is a builder, sought to recover the sum of 521. 15s. 9d. for work done at the Alliance Club-house, Pallmall, of which the defendants, Mr. Emly and Mr. Hastings, were members.

It appeared that in the early part of the year 1837, a number of gentlemen established a club, which they called the Alliance, and took suitable premises in Pall-mall, the lease of which was granted to the defendants and two other gentlemen. The affairs of the club were conducted by a committee selected from the general body of members, whose duty it was to give orders, audit the accounts, &c. The defendants were on the committee from its first appointment to the final breaking up of the establishment in 1839.

The club did not answer the expectation of the founders, and was abandoned in consequence of want of funds to meet the necessary expences. Orders to tradesmen were generally given by the committee, through the secretary; and payment was made by checks, signed by three of them.

The work which formed the subject of the present action was ordered to be done in the usual manner, and at various times; but it was not distinctly shown that on any occasion when such orders were given, both the defendants were present. One of the items was for erecting a platform in the front of the building at the time of the coronation; and it appeared that Mr. Emly obe

jected to such an outlay being made in consequence of the state of the funds of the club; but as the question was decided against him, he refrained from attending the committees from that period (June, 1838,) till February in the following year. It was then found that the receipts were totally insufficient to meet the expenditure; the affairs were wound up, and the club was found to be in debt several hundred pounds.

The defendants, feeling that the committee were bound to pay the outstanding debts, suggested that each member of the committee should subscribe a certain sum for that purpose: a few paid their portions, but others refused to do SO. The plaintiff, being unable to obtain the amount of the bill, brought the present action.

On the part of the plaintiff, it was contended that the defendants being members of the committee by whom the orders were given, were liable for the amount; and some letters, written by them jointly, were put in, in which they expressed their fears that they (the committee) would be compelled to pay the outstanding debts.

Mr. Thesiger, on behalf of the defendants, complained of the hardship of their being alone called upon to liquidate the debts of the club, after they had done all in their power to induce the other members to raise a sufficient sum to meet all demands upon them, and that no proceedings should be taken against those who had refused to accede to so reasonable and equitable a proposition. The learned counsel contended that the defendants were not liable in the present instance, as it had not been proved that they were present when the orders in question were given.

The question was not to whom credit was given, but with whom the contract was made. If it was proved that the committee made the contract either personally or by their agent, they would be liable; but if the order was given by the committee generally, the defendants would not be liable.

Mr. Baron Alderson, in summing up said, the question for the consideration of the jury was, whether the work, the order for which was given by the secretary, was ordered by the defendants, or either of them. If they were satisfied that Mr. Hastings was present when the order was given for erecting the platform at the time of the coronation, he would undoubtedly be liable; but not under the present form of action. The members of a club were not bound, unless by some special agreement. If they were satisfied that the defendants were present when the orders were given, they would undoubtedly be liable; or if they believed that they had agreed to be bound by any order given by the committee; and although they were not actually present when the order in question was given, still they would be equally liable. Mr. Emly, in his letter, said, he considered the committee liable for the debts of the concern; and it would be a question for their consideration, whether by that he meant that he considered the committee, each and every one of them, bound by a previous agreement.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount claimed.

APRIL.

1. INUNDATION AT DERBY AND Loss OF LIFE.-Derby was this

morning visited by the most calamitous and fearful flood that can be remembered ever to have occurred in the town. The footways were in some places covered deep with water. The first intimation within the town of apprehended danger was made about half-past one o'clock in the night, and those who reside upon the edge of the brook which passes through the town were promptly alarmed by the watchman. Immediate steps were taken to rescue property; but so sudden and rapid was the rush of waters, that even those who had early caution suffered considerable loss. The greatest calamity was the loss of one life, that of a young newly married woman, who slept on the ground floor, who was drowned in her bed. Copings of bridges and of St. Warbeck's church wall and railings were washed down, vaults within the church sprung, heavy town-carts floated from their yards and overturned in the streets; and an immense extent of damage was done to goods, furniture, &c. throughout the centre of the town. The market which lay in the fall or deepest part of the current, was swept away.

2. MURDER AND SUICIDE NEAR BRISTOL The neighbourhood of this city has been the scene of an awful murder, followed by the suicide of the murderer, the victim being also the murderer's own sister. The scene of the murder is a cottage in the village of Kingswood, near the church, in which the brother and sister, Samuel and Edith Cook, had resided for several years (and their family for the last hundred years), Samuel Cook being about fifty-five years of age, and his sister about forty-six or forty-eight. It appears that Cook

"

formerly followed the trade of a timber hewer, a description of work connected with the collieries, but having, together with his sister, been attacked with typhus fever some years since, which left him in a state of great nervous depression, he had declined his trade for the last five years, having some small houses of his own, which brought him in sufficient to maintain himself, his only occupation being a little work in his garden. About half-past six o'clock on the morning of the 31st ult., a Mr. Peacock, the next neighbour being alarmed by a cry of "Murder proceeding from Cook's house, he immediately ran in and found the man Samuel Cook lying on the floor, with his throat cut, weltering in his blood, his head being towards the outer door, the door of the staircase leading to the sleeping apartments standing wide open. He ran away to give a further alarm, but was met in the garden by a milkman, who had also been alarmed, and, on their way back to the house, they discovered the body of her sister, who was quite dead, her throat being cut completely through the right side, lying in the garden. They then returned to the house, to where Samuel Cook was lying, and finding him still alive, despatched persons for medical assistance, and in the meantime continued to support the body of the dying man. They still imagined that the house had been robbed, and both parties murdered, but on raising Cook up into a sitting position Peacock discovered that he had his razor, which covered with blood, open in his hand. Mr. Biggs, the surgeon, arrived shortly after, and sewed up the wound in Cook's throat,

was

after which he was enabled, during the time he lived, to mumble out a few words, and once said distinctly, "It was I who did it; I murdered her first, and then myself." Every effort which surgical skill could direct was made to preserve life, but he continued sinking, and died in about two hours. The murderer's other razor was found lying on the table in its sheath, from which it is conjectured that he must have cut his sister's throat while sitting in her chair, and on making her escape into the garden followed her, and no doubt it was her cries in the garden which alarmed the neighbours. Finding discovery in evitable, he must have rushed back to the house and cut his own throat. The inquest was held this day, when evidence corroborating the foregoing account of the occurrence was given. The man Peacock, however, gave his testimony in a very contradictory manner, giving two or three different versions of the way in which he found Samuel Cook to be lying. The jury could not agree on a verdict, and the inquest was adjourned afterwards; and as respected the body of Edith, the jury returned a verdict of "Wilful Murder" against Samuel Cook; the inquest on the brother being adjourned sine die.

3. LAMENTABLE OCCURRENCE. -This morning between two and three o'clock, as Sergeant Morris, city police, was going his rounds, his attention was drawn to loud screams which proceeded from the neighbourhood of Fish Street-hill. On going thither, he was horrorstricken at observing a female almost in a state of nudity, literally impaled upon the iron spikes of St. Benett's churchyard, and a

large pool of blood on the ground beneath. Near her lay another female similarly clad upon one of the graves of the churchyard. Both the females were screaming in the most dreadful manner. Morris sprang his rattle for assistance, and some police constables were promptly on the spot, and with great difficulty the unfortunate female was removed from the iron spikes, her right thigh being lacerated in a most frightful manner, the iron spike penetrating completely through it, and, with the other female, was conveyed to the house of Mr. Croft, surgeon of Fish-street hill, who rendered them every assistance. As soon as they were capable of giving some account of themselves, it appeared they were' domestic servants in the family of Mr. Isaac Worley, of the Monument Hotel, and that their names were Mary Cray, twenty-four years of age, and Ann Hallett, twenty-two; that about two in the morning Mary Cray was awakened by a noise which appeared to her as if occasioned by some persons attempting to break into the house. In her fright she awoke Ann Hallett, who slept with her, and the noise continuing, they both became so terrified that they flew to the windows, and throwing them open, both of them jumped out. Ann Hallett unfortunately leaped out of the window nearest the street, and falling upon the iron spikes below, got impaled as above described. Mary Cray fell upon the ground and escaped with some internal bruises.

4. FALL OF A RAILWAY TUNNELL. An inquest was held to-day on the bodies of four men who were killed on the South-western railway the day