of Ely, for refusing to read the burial service over the corpse of the infant daughter of two parishioners, named Rundall, who were of the class of Protestant Dissenters called Independents, after due notice given to him for that purpose. The articles charging the offence had been admitted, and a defensive allegation was offered in reply thereto, the substance of which was, that the baptism which the child had received at the hands of a minister of the Independents, being in fact heretical and schismatic, was invalid and null; consequently, that the child was unbaptized, and as such was not entitled to interment with the services of the church, under the rubric of the church of England. The admission of this allegation was opposed, and the decision of the Court as to its admissibility stood over (owing to the indisposition of the judge) till this day. The learned judge observed, that the validity of lay baptism had been determined in this Court and also by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of "Mastin v. Escott;" but a distinction was taken between that case and the present. In the former case nothing had turned on the question of heresy and schism, but only on the want of holy orders in the person administering the rite; whereas, in this case that question was distinctly raised, it being averred that the baptism was heretical, the person who administered the rite being an heretical person. But, although there had been no absolute decision upon the point

in "

Mastin v. Escott;" the point not having been raised in that case, and courts not going beyond the questions before them, yet a

great part of the argument in that case turned upon the question whether heretical or schismatical baptism was valid or not; and he had no doubt that the same principle applied to both cases, and that whether the baptism had been performed by an heretical person or by a layman, though irregular, was valid, and did not require that the rite should be repeated. Every one of the authorities stated that such baptism was not to be repeated; it was therefore valid, and, if so, the child could not be said to be unbaptized. The only doubt he had was, whether he should not admit the allegation in order to have the question more formally argued, and that the party might carry the case by appeal to a superior court. But there was a mode by which he could effect this object; although he should reject the allegation, he would, if required, give the party leave to appeal. The learned judge then went more minutely into the grounds of his decision. The main principle was, that if, as had been admitted, baptism by a layman was valid in itself, he could not understand wherein consisted the difference as respected the validity of the rite between baptism by a layman and by a heretic or schismatic. Both were irregular, but both were valid, and, in the words of the rubric, the person was "lawfully and sufficiently baptized." It had been contended that there was a deficiency in the rite, and that deficiency might have been afterwards supplied, had the party lived and appeared before the bishop for confirmation; but the want of confirmation did not disqualify this infant, any more than one baptized by a person in holy

orders, from having the burial service read over it. Some reliance had been placed upon the argument that the excommunication ipso facto worked at once, without sentence, a disqualification; but the learned judge showed, from authorities and upon principle, that such excommunication could not attach till there had been a declaratory sentence; and even then all civil disqualification and incapacity whatsoever had been taken away by statute. Upon the whole, he was of opinion to reject the allegation, but he should allow the case to stand until next courtday, for the party to apply, if he thought fit, for leave to appeal.

pended the money left by Mr. Kinder, who had proceeded to London to pay the instalments of the Peruvian Loan, for which he was contractor; Mr. Kinder was consequently unable to pay an instalment of the loan and to meet his other engagements. Messrs. Baring had early discovered that the estate was a bad bargain, and were willing to forfeit what they had paid to get rid of it; and to escape their engagements with Staples and Company, it was alleged that they bribed some legislators of Mexico to pass a law preventing aliens holding estates in that country. The law was passed in March 1827. The conspiracy with which the defendants were charged was this bribery to

July 1.

Before Lord Denman, Chief Justice. KINDER V. LORD ASHBURTON, THE HON. FRANCIS BARING, AND MR. H. ST. JOHN MILDMAY.

This was an action brought by the plantiff against the defendants above named for an alleged conspiracy to inflict an injury on him with respect to the Parras estate, purchased by both parties in Mexico. This estate occupied 8,000,000 acres, extending from one side of the coast of Mexico to the other; and in 1825, it was purchased by Mr. Francis Baring, for the house of Baring, and Mr. Holdsworth for the house of Staples and Company, of Mexico, of which Mr. Kinder was the principal partner; the price agreed upon being one million dollars. Mr. Baring and Mr. Holdsworth each paid 100,000 dollars down, and agreed to pay the remainder by annual instalments. To pay this sum, Mr. Holdsworth had ex

injure the plaintiff. Such were the statements of the plaintiff. A vast quantity of documentary evidence was read, and Mr. Kinder was examined. In his crossexamination, he admitted that he owed the house of Baring 16,0007. at the present moment, the balance of an account due to them on the 10th May, 1825.

Mr. Kelly, for the defence, said the plaintiff had no case to go to the Jury. So far from his having been injured by the Barings, they had treated him well: as to the annulling of the contract for purchasing the Mexican estate, instead of tending to his ruin, it was the only thing that could give Mr. Kinder a hope of retrieving his affairs, which, it was now manifest, were in a state of embarrassment before the existence of this contract was known in this country. With respect to the bribery, the Barings had erred in not saying at once that they had not authorized it. Their agents in Mexico had

done it on their own responsibility; but it had not been done with a view to injure Mr. Kinder, as he at first had shown as great an inclination to get rid of the estate as the Barings had. This action was but a bad return for the forbearance which had been exhibited towards Mr. Kinder with respect to the 16,000l. debt.

Lord Denman summed up; and the Jury, after an hour and twenty minutes' deliberation, gave a verdict for the defendants.

IN THE EXCHEQUER. July 1.

Before Mr. Baron Alderson,

WOOD v. PEEL.

had

This action, which excited the most lively interest in the sporting world, arose out of the late Derby race at Epsom, in which a horse belonging to the plaintiff, called Running Rein, had come in first. It was alleged, however, that this horse had not been truly described, that he was not of the age which qualified him to run for the Derby, and that he ought not therefore to be deemed the winner of the race. Colonel Peel, the owner of Orlando, the second horse, claimed the stakes, on the ground that Running Rein was not the horse represented; and Mr. Wood, the owner of Running Rein, brought this action against the Colonel. Mr. Cockburn, who conducted the plaintiff's case, gave the pedigree of Running Rein, and his whole history. Among other things Mr. Cockburn mentioned, that in October, 1843, Running Rein won a race at Newmarket; that he was objected to on the score of age, but eventually the stewards had decided in his favour. The horse was

originally the property of Mr. Goodman; and Mr. Cockburn said, it was because suspicion attached to some transactions of Goodman, and because certain parties had betted heavily against Running Rein, that opposition was raised against Mr. Wood receiving the stakes. He made a severe attack on Lord George Bentinck; who, he asserted, was the real party in the cause. Witnesses for the plaintiff described the horse at different periods of its career: it was of a bay colour, with black legs, and a little white on the forehead; its heels were cracked; and in 1842 it broke the skin on one leg, which left a scar. George Hitchcock, a breaker of colts, employed to break Running Rein in October 1842, was cross-examined to this effect—

"I know George Dockeray, the trainer. I never said to him, Damn it, this colt has been broken before; here is the mark of the pad on his back.' I showed him the mark, but I never said these words, or any words to that effect. I don't know why I showed him the mark. It was not big enough for the mark of a pad, and was not in the place for the saddle to make it. I told Lord George Bentinck the same. The mark of the pad never wears out. I recollect being asked, in the presence of Mr. Smith, what had I there? and I recollect answering, a four-years' old. I have not the slightest doubt of it. Mr. Smith struck me for it. I did not say afterwards that I had forgotten all about the horsewhipping, and that the marks of the pad had worn out. I never said, either, that somebody had behaved very well to me."

At an early period of the ex

amination of witnesses, Mr. Baron Alderson, before whom the case was tried, expressed a wish that he and the Jury should see the horse; and Mr. Cockburn said he had no objection. On the crossexamination of William Smith, a training-groom residing at Epsom, it came out that the horse had been smuggled out of the way, that it might not be seen by the defendant's agents. The Judge animadverting on this, and on the evident perjury of the witness, Isaid it would be better that the horse should be seen by him and other parties. The SolicitorGeneral, who appeared for the defendant, was anxious that the horse should be seen by veterinary surgeons. To which the other side objected; maintaining that the mark of mouth, by which alone these surgeons could judge of the age of a horse, was a fallible criterion.

On the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff, the Solicitor-General, in addressing the jury for the defendant, denounced the case as a gross and scandalous fraud on the part of the plaintiff. The case of the defendant was, that the horse was not Running Rein at all, but a colt by Gladiator, out of a dam belonging originally to Sir Charles Ibbotson; and that it had the name of Running Rein imposed on it, being originally called Maccabeus, and having been entered for certain stakes under that designation. But his allegations were against Goodman, not against Mr. Wood; the former had entered into a conspiracy with other persons to run horses above the proper age. The Gladiator colt had been entered for races under the name of Maccabeus, before Good

man purchased him; and to run these races while the colt was in training for the Derby, for which he was entered under the name of Running Rein, Goodman hired an Irish horse, which he disguised to represent Maccabeus, though a year older than that horse. The Gladiator colt, the soi-disant Running Rein, when he ran for the Derby in 1844 was four years old; the race being for three-year-old horses. After hearing some evidence in support of these statements, the case was adjourned till the following day.

The next day, when Mr. Baron Alderson took his seat on the bench, a conversation ensued between Mr. Cockburn and the judge respecting the production of the horse; Mr. Cockburn asserted that it had been taken away without Mr. Wood's knowledge, and thus it was out of his power to produce it; he felt it would be vain to strive against the effect which must be produced by the non-production of the horse, after the remarks of the learned judge on that point. After some more conversation, however, the case proceeded, and two witnesses for the defence were examined, whose evidence went to prove that Running Rein was in fact the Gladiator colt. Mr. George Odell, a horse-dealer at Northampton, said he would swear to that fact; the colt had two marks on one leg.

Mr. Baron Alderson remarked "Now, if we could see the horse, that would prove the case. Who keeps him away ? It is quite childish to act in this man

ner.

Mr. Cockburn now stated that Mr. Wood was convinced that he had been deceived, and gave up the case.

Mr. Baron Alderson then briefly addressed the jury, "with much warmth, and in a most emphatic manner;" directing them to find a verdict for the defendant; observing

"Since the opening of the case a most atrocious fraud has been proved to have been practised; and I have seen with great regret gentlemen associating with persons much below themselves in station. If gentlemen would associate with gentlemen, and race with gentlemen, we should have no such practices. But if gentlemen will condescend to race with blackguards, they must expect to be cheated."

The jury found for the defendant.

William Ross Touchett, aged 21, was placed at the bar on an indictment charging him with feloniously shooting at Thomas Smith, with intent to murder him. The indictment also contained counts charging the intent to be to main and disable and to do grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Alfred Smith, the prosecutor's son, stated, "I was present in my father's shooting gallery when the occurrence in question took place. I saw the prisoner deliberately discharge the pistol at my father, who immediately reeled in the direction of the wall, and fell. My father on the instant exclaimed, 'You rascal, you have shot me.' The prisoner replied, I did it on purpose, for

I wish to be hanged.' I then sent for a policeman, to whom I gave the prisoner into custody."

This evidence was confirmed by that of the prosecutor and of a police constable, who had been called in by the last witness, and who said the prisoner stood perfectly quiet with his arms folded.

Mr. Clarkson, for the prisoner, admitted the above facts, but stated that the defence was as to the state of the unfortunate young gentleman's mind at the time of this lamentable transaction. He commented upon the absence of all motive for the commission of the act imputed to the prisoner. He should prove that the prisoner was clearly of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offence with which he stood charged, and that he was suffering from melancholia, in consequence of the state of wretchedness and poverty to which the speculations of his father, the late Lord Audley, had reduced the family. The learned counsel also added, that the unhappy prisoner was the grandson of the late Admiral Sir Ross Donnelly, who had been pronounced, by the finding of a jury empanelled under a commission de lunatico inquirendo, to be in

sane.

Lord Audley, the prisoner's brother, stated,-"My father died in 1837, and before his death the property of the family had been subjected to a protracted litigation, which has gone on since. The result of the litigation has been particularly adverse to the interests of the family, who have been in consequence left by my father in very embarrassed circumstances. The prisoner from his youth has been remarkable for a peculiar sensitiveness of mind,