THE GREATS POISONING CASES AUCKLAND. HORRIBLE REVELATIONS. After a lengthened investigation into the antecedents of the woman Mary Ann Cotton, who is at present in Durham Gaol awaiting her trial on the charge of wilfully murdering her step-son, Charles Edward Cotton, at West Auckland, on the 12th of July last, and who is supposed to have caused the deaths of some eighteen or nineteen others, her career has been made known, and the report we publish this morning, from Superintendent Henderson, of Bishop Auckland, to the Secretary of State, detailing with great minuteness her life for some years past, and requesting an order for the exhumation of more bodies, shows a series of suspected crimes which are almost without a parallel in the criminal annals of this country. The prisoner is a woman 41 years of age, little over the ordinary height, and of swarthy complexion, and she is said to possess a degree of intelligence not often found in women of her class. She left her mother's house at Murton Colliery when she was eighteen or nineteen years of age, and since then deaths, in which she had a pecuniary interest, robbery, and prostitution have marked her career. She has been four times married, the last marriage taking place while the third husband was alive, and two of her husbands were widowers with families. No fewer than twenty deaths are supposed to have occurred in her hands, and the victims are her mother, three husbands, fifteen children, and a lodger. For come time prior to the last marriage she appears to have been leading a loose life in several towns in the North of England. In July, 1870, she obtained a situation as housekeeper to Frederick Cotton, a pitman, living at Walbottle, near Newcastle-on-Tyne, and in the October following he married her, the marriage taking place at St. Andrew's Church, Newcastle, where she passed under the name of Mary Ann Mowbray. Having quarrelled with some of her neighbours, who accused her of poisoning a number of fat pigs, the family during the following April removed to West Auckland, where the husband obtained employment at the colliery close by. They lived a quiet and apparently peaceful life for some four or five months, when the husband died somewhat suddenly, his death being followed by that of his eldest son, youngest son, lodger named Nattrass, and then his only remaining child, Charles Edward Cotton, into whose death, owing to the suspicious circumstances attending it, an inquiry was ordered to be instituted by the coroner. The husband, who was thirty-nine years of age, died on the 19th of September, 1871; his eldest son, Frederick Cotton, died on the 12th of the following March, aged 10 years; his youngest son, Robert Robson Cotton, died on the 31st of March, aged 14 months; the lodger, Joseph Nattrass, died on the 3rd of April, aged 35 years; and Charles Edward Cotton, on the 12th July, aged 7 years. The verdict at the inquest on the last-named was to the effect that the boy had died from natural causes. Dr Kilburn, who attended him during his illness, and made a post - mortem examination of the body, stated that he found no trace of poison, and a verdict was returned in accordance with his evidence. The decision of the jury, however, gave the greatest dissatisfaction in the village, and a few days after Dr Kilburn was induced to make another examination, and on submitting a portion of the contents of the stomach, which he had buried in his garden, to Reinch's process for the detection of poison, he discovered indications of the presence of arsenic. He accordingly informed the police, the prisoner was apprehended, and after an order had been obtained from the Home Secretary for the exhumation of the body and portions of the stomach and intestines sent to Dr Scattergood, of Leeds, for analysis, that gentleman discovered 8 complete saturation of the system with white arsenic. The prisoner was shortly afterwards examined at the Bishop Auckland Police Court on the charge of causing the death of her stepson, by administering to him, or causing to be administered to him a quantity of arsenic. The evidence which was adduced on that occasion showed that the prisoner had been in the habit of treating the poor little fellow in the most heartless manner. Two or three of the neighbours told heartrending tales of the way she ill-used him. One said that on the Saturday evening before the boy's death, the prisoner "brayed" him with a belt until he was unable to stand, and then "jauped" his head against the door-post. Another witness, speaking of the way the prisoner illused him in the course of the same day, said the prisoner called upon the deceased, who ran to her, and as soon as he reached the doorway, she struck him with her hand, and sent his head against the wall. She then followed him across the floor, and first struck him with one hand and then the other, and kicked him with her foot. She afterwards took him up and put him in a chair, wiped his face and then sent him on an errand. Witness had frequently seen her beat the child in a way which made her call out some of the neighbours to see her. She was very strict with the boy, and would not let him play like other children. If she was out all day he never went away from the door. The statement of Mr. Thomas Riley, assistant overseer for the township, was, perhaps the most important, as it showed the prisoner's motive for desiring to get rid of the deceased. Mr Riley stated that on the 6th July last he went to engage her to attend a small-pox patient, but she was unable to go, as the deceased, she said, tied her at home, "She complained of him being a great inconvenience. She had applied to the boy's uncle, who lived at Wisbeach, to take him and she would supply him with part of his clothing, but he refused. She then tried to get him into the Workhouse, but was unable to do 80. She thought that if witness (Mr Riley) took some steps in the matter, he could get him admitted. Witness replied that he could not get him admitted unless she (the prisoner) went with him. The prisoner said, 'That is a place I will never go to.' She added that she thought it was hard that she should have to keep a boy who was not her own, and who prevented her taking a respectable lodger. Witness asked her in jest if it was Mr Mann. There was a report in the village that Mr Mann was 'going to marry her, and he asked her if it was true. She smiled, and said it might be so, " but this boy (pointing to the deceased, who was with her) is in the way.' She immediately afterwards remarked, [° Of course, he will never be able to get up; he will go like the rest of the Cotton family.' Witness replied, Oh, nonsense, he is a fine, healthy little fellow.' On the following Friday morning, AS witness was walking up the village about six o'clock, the prisoner appeared at her own door apparently in great trouble, and called upon him to go in. He asked her what was the matter, and she said "My boy has just died." Witness was astonished at the remark, and he at once walked off and informed the police. Her conversation on the previous Saturday, and the healthy appearance of the boy, made him suspect that there was something wrong." Rumours soon afterwards became rife as to the suspicious death of the lodger Nattrass, and the sudden and mysterious way in which her husband, Frederick Cotton, and her two other children, had expired. Nattrass lay ill for about two weeks, and during that time was attended by the prisoner, who administered to him his medicine. The poor fellow seems to have suspected that all was not right, and on being visited by one of his friends, he remarked, "If I was only better, I will be out of this." Four days before his death the prisoner's youngest child died, and it is stated that she deferred the burial in the belief that Nattrass would 8001 expire, and that one expense would serve. On being questioned by a neighbour why she was putting off the interment of the child, the prisoner said, am going to put it off till Joe dies. He has gone upstairs now, and, poor fellow, he will never come down until they carry him out feet first." The day before his death, he told his medical man, De Richardson, that, except for the grinding pain in his stomach, there was nothing the matter with him, and that he would take no more of his medicines. He died in a convulsive fit, and her husband and the eldest and youngest child are said to have died in a similar manner. As already intimated, the coroner's inquiry concerning the death of the child Charles Edward Cotton gave general dissatisfaction; and on the matter being taken up by the police, an investigation was made, which resulted in the prisoner being committed by the magistrates for wilful murder. Singular as it may seem, it was found at one time almost impossible to obtain the slightest information respecting the career of the prisoner between her first and last marriage. The officer stationed at West Auckland, Sergt. Hutchinson, at length got upon the right track, and the official report, which has been drawn up and forwarded by Superintendent Henderson to the Home Office, in order that a searching inquiry might be made as to the antecedents of the prisoner, and that permission may be granted for the exhumation of more bodies, reveals an extraordinary and almost unparalleled career of crime. In the early part of the present week a communication WAs received from the Home Office granting the necessary permission for the exhumation of the bodies of Frederick Cotton, husband of the prisoner ; Frederick Cotton, his eldest son and Robert Robson Cotton, his youngest son, but up to last evening no action had been taken by the authorities. and we believe we are correct in stating that nothing will be done until the receipt of a communication from the Home Secretary respecting the other bodies. To Superintendent Henderson and Sergeant Hutchinson no ordinary meed of praise is due for the energy and skill they have displayed in bringing the case to its present position. The following is the report in question :- Mary Ann Cotton, a prisoner, was born in the year 1832, at Murton Colliery, near Seaham Harbour, and her father, Michael Robson, was a sinker at that place, and was killed about twenty-six years ago. The prisoner was then about fourteen years of age, and lived at home with her mother at the above-named colliery until she was sixteen years of age, when she went to live as under-nurse in the family of Mr Edward Potter, colliery viewer at South Hetton. She remained in this situation about three years, and then she went home to her mother's house, and served an apprenticesbip to the business of a dressmaker. About this tims she became acquainted with a man named William Mowbray, a labourer, residing at Murton Colliery, but a native of Peterborough. They were shortly afterwards married at St. Andrew's Church, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and left the neighbourhood and went to reside at Plymouth, and afterwards at various other places in the south of England, then returned to South Hetton, after an absence of five years from that part of the country. On their return the prisoner stated that she bad had four children whilst away, but they had all died. Mowbray obtained employment at South Hetton as a foreman at the colliery, and remained their several years. On the 24th of June, 1800, they had a child died, named Mary Ann, four years of age. Mr Broadbent, surgeon at South Hetton, says she died of gastric fever. Shortly after this, Mowbray and the prisoner, with their children, went to live at Hendon. He obtained employment as fireman on board a steam vessel. On the 22nd September, 1864, a son named John Robert William, about one year old, died, and on the 2nd of May, 1865, a daughter named Mary Jane died. The two last-named were attended in their illness by Mr Gammage, surgeon, Sunderland, and he states that they both died of gastric fever. The deceased William Mowbray, and bis family were all insured in the British and Prudential Insurance office, and on the death of her husband, the prisoner got £35, and some smaller amounts on the death of the children. She then obtained a situation in the old Infirmary at Sunderland, and remained there. about six montbs, when she became acquainted with an inmate named George Ward. He married her, and they went to reside in Grey Street, Sunderland, where he died on the 21st October, 1866, aged 33 years. Mr Gammage attended him, and, although he was an ailing man, he considered that he dropped off very suddenly. From the death of Ward to the 20th December it is said the prisoner led a loose life, but she then obtained a situation as housekeeper to one James Robinson, a foreman in a shipbuilding yard at Pailion. In June, 1867, he married her, and they continued to reside together at Pallion. When Robinson married the prisoner he was a widower with five children, and the prisoner had one little girl about nine years of age. She lived with Robinson until the latter part of December, 1867, and during that time there died in his house Jobn Robinson, 10 months old, 4th Jannary, 1867 James Robinson, 6 years old, 7th April, 1867; Elizabeth Robinson, 8 years old, 13th April, 1867; Edward Mowbray, 9 years old, 2nd May, 1867, and Margaret Robinson, 3 years old, December, 1867. Mr Gammage attended E. Mowbray, and be states she died of gastric fever. Mr Shaw, surgeon, Deptford, attended the Robinsons, and he states they died of gastric fever. It is stated above that the prisoner lived with Robinson until the latter part of December, 1867. About this time he had found out that she had involved him in about £60 debt, besides pledging his clothes and disposing of his household linen and goods. She bad also charge of his bank book and Building Society book, and he also found that she had wasted upwards of £50, and entered sums in the Building Society book, which she never paid in. Robinson's sisters also began to talk about the suspicious deaths of the children, and told him they had been poisoned. Robinson taxed her with her dishonesty, and said what he heard about the children's deaths was going to be true. After Robinson left the house that day, she dressed herself and took one of her children, about eighteen months old, and went out, and he has never seen her since. She left the child in the street with a person until she went to post a letter, but she never returned, and Robinson did not recover his child for some time, when he found it in a wretched state. He states that he now feels convinced that his children were poisoned. He suspected so at the time, but he did not like his mind to dwell on the subject. They were healthy and strong, and only ill a few days before they died. He noticed whenever she gave them anything they vomited, and were sick and purged. His sisters have often talked to him both then and since about the suspicious deaths of the children. On reading the West Auckland poisoning case in the papers, they have stated to him that that was the way his children went. One of them banded a paper to him, and said, "That is thy Mary Ann that has been doing that," little thinking that the person accused of the West Auckland poisonings WAS the very woman they were talking about. Robinson said she often wanted him to get his life and the lives of the remaining children. insured, and one day he found her at an office trying to effect AD insurance. He forbade her doing so, and said he would not pay a penny. This aroused his suspicion about the children who had died, and he determined not to have his life insured. After her father's death her mother was married to a man named Robert Stott, who is now living at Seaton Colliery. Mrs Stott (the prisoner's mother) died 9th June, 1866, aged fifty-four years, and was buried at Old Seabam. She died very suddenly after the prisoner came. She robbed the house of everything she could get away, and Stott stated that he would never allow her to enter the house more. The prisoner, after absconding from the house of her husband, is found wandering about Sunderland, Seaham Harbour, Tynemouth, and Newcastle, until the 7th of July, 1870, when she obtained a situation as bousekeeper to Frederick Cotton, a pitman, residing at Walbottle, Northumberland, In October of the same year he married her at St. Andrew's Church, Newcastle, in the name of Mary Ann Mowbray. When residing at Walbottle, a number of fat pigs died, and for some reason or other she was suspected, and the place became so hot that they were obliged to leave it, and they came to reside at West Auckland. At that time the family consisted of herself, Frederick Cotton, her husband; Frederick Cotton, step-son, nine years; Charles Edward Cotton, step-son, six years; Robert Robson Cotton, son, two years or so, who have all died, as well as a lodger named Joseph Nattrass. The prisoner herself states that whilst she was in the south of England she had four children to Mowbray, all of whom had died. The other deaths occurred as follows: :- Mary Ann Mowbray, 4 years, South Hetton, June 21, 1860. John Robt. Wm. Mowbray, 1 year, Hendon, Sept. 22, 1864. Wm. Mowbray, 47 years, Hendon, January 18, 1865. Mary Jane Mowbray, 4 years, Hendon, May 2, 1865. Mrs Scot, mother of the prisoner, 54 years, South Hetton, January, 9, 1866. George Ward, 33 years, Sunderland, October 21, 1866. John Robinson, 10 months, Pallion, January 4, 1867. James Robinson, 6 years, Pallion, April 7, 1867. Elizabeth Robinson, 8 Pallien, April 13, 1867. Elizabeth Mowbray, 9 years, Pallion, May 2, 1867. Margaret Robinson, 3 months, Pallion, Dec., 1872. Fred. Cotton, 33 years, Auckland, Sept. 19, 1871. Fred. 10 years, West Auckland, March 9, 1872. Robert Robson Cotton, 14 months, West Auckland, March 23, 1872. James Nattrass, 35 years, West Auckland, April 1, 1872. Charles Edward Cotton, 7 years, West Auckland, July 12, 1872. THE PRISONER'S CAREER IN SUNDERLAND. The Sunderland Times of yesterday has the following reference to the case:-It is said that her first husband was named Mowbray. The latter was timekee er to a contractor, and the nature of his employment necessitated the couple travelling much about the southern portion of the country. It is stated that she had several children by Mowbray, but that her husband and nearly the whole of the issue of the marriage died while she lived with thom. Upon the death of Mowbray, she came to Sunderland, and obtained a situation as nurse of the fever ward in the Infirmary here. She there made the acquaintance of a patient named Ward, a labourer, and eventually married him. They resided in Gray Street, but he died within twelve months of the marriage. A short time after this, a working man named James Robinson, then foreman with Mr Pearson, sbipbuilder, Pallion, and residing at the latter place, now foreman with Mr Gill, living near Deptford Church, was left 8 widower, with five children. He advertised for a housekeeper, and the prisoner, who had been obtaining a living by doing sawing work applied for the situation, and appearing to be a suitable person, obtained the appointment, and was installed within a few weeks of the death of Robinson's wife. This was about three weeks before the Christmas of 1866. In Robinson's pinion, she possessed all the dowestic quelities a husband could desire in a wife, and he resolved to marry her, and the couple entered into the matrimonial contract about June, 1867. But previous to this consummation--within a short period of the entrance of the woman into the house in the position of housekeeper -Robinson's youngest child-a fine, and up to the time, healthy boy of ten months- -took ill and died in the course of twenty hours. It took ill during the day, and died during the night. Robinson had sought a doctor three or four times, but Dr Shaw, of Ayre's Quay, only arrived next morning, after the child was dead. The child bad seemed to work in convalsive fits while ill, and Dr Shaw, it is stated, gave 8 certificate of death, and the child was buried. A short time afterwards, the woman went to stay at her mother's at Seabam, assigning 8S a reason that the latter was bad. It is said her mother was able to sit up in bed when she got there, but that within nine days of her daughter's arrival she was dead. On ber return home, somewhere about February, she brought with her a fine, strong, healthy girl, nine years of age, one of her children by her husband Mowbray. In April, 1867, within five months of the death of Robinson's infant child, one of his sons, James, about six years of age, and his daughter, Elizabeth, an engaging girl of eight years of age, both took ill the boy a few days before his sister. Dr Shaw was called in and attended the children twice every day. The prisoner was seen to give the children the medicine the doctor sent, but they, nevertheless, died• within ten days of taking ill -the boy about three days before his sister and Dr Shaw, it is stated, gave certificate that death had resulted from gastric fever. While the children were ill, the prisoner intimated to people in the house who were discussing their illness, that she would be little surprised if her own child should be similarly affected and die and before Robinson's children had died, the girl had taken ill, and although, in consequence of being more robust than the other two children, she was able to struggle a longer time, she eventually succumbed and died. As to the manner in which the children were affected, it is said that they rolled and tossed about in bed and foamed" at the mouth, and that when they were given a drink of water a person bad to stand with a handbasin, for they immediately " retched" the water up. On one occasion one of the children " retched" in the woman's face. She became sick, and was held" similarly to the children, but resisted Mr Robinson's desire to send for the doctor, and recovered in a sbort time. It is said that while the children were ill the prisoner seemed to be in what is described to be a painful way' about them, and that between the deaths and the funerals she used to work in fits, and Robinson had great difficulty in restraining her from receiving injury. Subsequently, at proper intervals, the prisoner bore two children to Robinson. The first of these also died within a few weeks of its birth, and the other is now in the keeping of Robinson. The prisoner proved herself a clever woman, and Robinson, a bard-working man, placed the utmost confidence in her, handing over to her the whole of his income. He bad not the slightest suspicion against ber-in fact, during the whole period since her entry into his house, be had felt the utmost satisfaction with her, and would not listen to slight rumours which reached his ears as to his wife's conduct in an economical point of view, &o. It may be stated that after the death of Robinson's firstmarriage children, the prisoner reported to him that neighbours were saying that she had not "done" towards them as she ought to have done, and seemed to be much "put about" at those statements, and as her conduct to the children and in other ways appeared to have been all that could be desired, Robinson considered the imputation extremely unjust, and accordingly felt much annoyed. Bat in the course of 1869 bis eyes were opened to the fact that the statements of his relatives and friends were not altogether without foundation, and in the result the prisoner left him about October, 1869. As we have previously stated, she bad bad the control of the whole of Robinson's income. Out of the money, she was expected to maintain the payments of two building societies. When book, in connection with Mr Trewhitt's society, came to be made up" about the beginning of 1869, it was found that the book gave credit for about £2 more than the society's officials stated had been received, and the larger sums in the subscriber's book, it may be at once stated, had been produced by figures being placed alongside of the single figures entered in the books by the society's officials, thereby increasing amounts conveyed by single figure into teens, &o. After some delay, partly caused by his wife's plausible stories, Robinson learnt this state of things, and such was his confidence in his wife's integrity that be repeatedly maintained before the society's officials and committee that the money indicated in the book bad been paid, and exhibited much annoyance at what he conceived to be improper conduct on the part of the officials. But, as we have stated, about October, Robinson received new light on the subject. It seems that at the latter period he had proposed that £5, which he had expected, and which his wife led him to suppose, was in the house, should be paid on the following Saturday night into the building society, in discharge of the sum against him in the books of the society, which had been caused by his having refused to pay any further, subscriptions on learning the state of his book, in order that the society might not lay claim to the property he had obtained through its medium. When the time came when be had proposed to pay the money, Mrs Robinson told her husband that she had seen Mr Trewhitt, and that be bad told her that the money need not be paid until the next Saturday night. Robinson thought this strange, but agreed to defer the payment for a week. During the week, he, a circuitious mode, obtained information that his wife had endeavoured to obtain the loan of five pounds from a loan society, and, to procure it, had used the name of his brother-in-law and without consent. He then made inquiries of his son, and found that he had pledged articles by his stepmother's direction, and that the house had been " stripped.' Next morning be informed his wife what ho had heard, and she replied that she was going to her father's, and would make it all right. He intimated to her that he would go with her, and that, if the statements were correct, it would probably lead to a separation, and requested her to meet him at a rendezvous in a few minutes, in order that he might accompany her. He went to the appointed place, but his wife was not there, and from that day to this he has not seen her. He subsequently ascertained that, unknown to him, he was £7 in arrear in one of Mr • Wayman's building societies, and that instead of there being £12 in the Post Office Savings' Bank, as his wife and the book led him to suppose, she having proposed to add other £8 and make the sum £20, there were only 2s. Robinson was fairly disheartened, and broke up his house and went to live with a sister. The woman remained about Sunderland for three months, and, it is said, endeavoured to renew the connection, but without success. On returning from a watch night meeting, on New Year's morning, '70, Robinson was agreeably surprised to find his youngest child in the house. It appears that Mrs Robinson had gone to an acquaintance of Robinson's in Johnson Street, and stating that she was going to post a letter, left the child and never returned. THE SUICIDE OF MR JUSTICE WILLES. THE INQUEST. Most of the London papers of yesterday refer in terms of deep regret to the suicide of Mr Justice Willes. The Telegraph says that during his career at the bar be had acquired the reputation of a most learned and profound lawyer, his application of his knowledge of the principles and practice of jurisprudence being at once exact and astute. He had no pretensions to the art of speaking, and, in fact, was seldom if ever called upon to exercise the functions of a lesding counsel. He was, however, gifted with a lucidity and precision and a deliberateness of utterance which told in the judgments which he had to deliver from the bench; while be possessed a gentle, quaint humour, which he sometimes used with effect in illustrating some of the anomalies of our law. On occasions he could rise to a point of stern indignation, and notably he was warm and something more in defending the appointment of Sir Robt. Collier to a judgeship in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, putting himself in direct antagonism to the opinion of the chief of his Court (Sir William Bovill), and holding that the appointment was legal and within the terms of the statute under which it was made. At the time that the Election Petitions Act was passed, by which the jurisdiction of the House of Commons in regard to petitions against returns at elections, was transferred to the Common Law Judges, Sir J. Willes was the Senior Puisne Judge of the Common Pleas, and wAS, therefore, appointed one of the first Election Judges. To him WAS committed the framing of the rules which were to guide the practice 'and procedure of tho Eleotion Judges, and this duty he performed to the entire satisfaction of bis colleagues on the Common Law Bench. The first election petition under the new system was tried by Mr Justice Willes, the case being that of the return for Windsor at the general election in 1868; the right of Mr Roger Ekyn being challenged by his opponent, Mr Richardson-Gardiner. In an elaborate judgment, Mr Justice Willes laid down with precision and with a judicial balancing of the evidence, definitions of what constituted bribery and treating; in the event dismissing the petition and establishing the seat of the sitting member. He also tried the petition of Mr Garth against the return of Mr Onalow for Guilford, whose seat was retained; and subsequently be presided at the hearing of the cases of Lichfield, Tamworth, Westbury, and Blackburn, all in the rear 1869. Nearly coincident with the appointment of Sir Robert Collier, the dignity of a Privy Councillor was conferred on Mr Justice Willes; and as he had over passed the period of actual service on the Bench, which would have entitled him to his retiring pension, it was thought that ere long he might leave the Common Pleas, and give advantage of his great judicial qualities and large experience to the Judicial Committee of |the Privy Council. However, he preferred to continue his labours as common law judge, and the last duty which he undertook voluntarily (for by seniority he was entitled to an early choice of circuits) was one of the most exhausting which could be performed by a judge--the Summer Northern Circuit. In the intercourse of private life, Mr Justice Willes was genial, amiable, and gentle. He will leave bebind him a reputation as a judicial magistrate second to none of those who have adorned the Bench for a generation. The following is the evidence taken at the coroner's inquest, which was held on Thursday afternoon, at a cottage adjoining the mansion, by Mr Brabant:Mr John James Barnes stated: I have been clerk to the deceased, the Right Hon. Sir James Shaw Willes, Knt., for nearly thirty-two years. The deceased was one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas. His age was 58. His health began to break about ten or eleven years ago, on the death of his favourite brother. He was then affected very much, and he told me at the funeral he never should forget it. The impression teemed to wear off in about a twelvemonth. About three years back, when on the Northern Circuit, he was attacked with the gout, and had to be carried into court. The disease affected his spirits, and he became very irritable. He had another attack last winter gaol delivery. He came home from the Northern Circuit, from Liverpool, on the 24th of August. He bad been on circuit several weeks. It WaS very heavy circuit-sheer bard work without any interval. The deceased told me, when he left Liverpool, that he should sleep for A fortnight or- three weeks, for he required rest. left him at Liverpool. I next saw him a week last Tuesday, when I came down to Otterspool, in cousequence of a letter of invitation I received from him. The deceased has usually invited me down every year he has lived at Otterspool, As soon as I saw bim he shook hands with me, but there wanted the usual friendly clutch, and his manner was different. I asked him how he was. He said, "I am tired and sleepycan't get rest." He had been at home then more than three weeks. He said, "I have had no sleep for nearly a fortnight." I said, "What have you been doing?" He replied, "Reading German.' I said, "God bless my soul, why don't you take rest?" He replied, "I thought that would be a rest and a change; I have been working too bard." The time of working on circuit each day was very long, and on one occasion, when he waited for a verdict, it was half-pest twelve before he left the court at Liverpool. I have seen him once or twice every day since I came down here. He did not spend so much time with me as usual, but rather secluded himself. Possibly I was with him an hour or two hours each day. I noticed a great change in him. There was peculiar glassiness in his eye. His memory also failed him. When he laid down his pen or his papers he could not find them again. There was 3 vacancy about him He would turn on his heel and walk suddenly away, which was not his usual custom. He used to talk freely on miscellaneous subjects, but lately he would merely make a single remark and drop the subject. On Monday he gave me a cheque for £250, and requested me to go to the Bank of England and get it cashed, all in £5 notes. I did so, and with one of the notes paid a bill of £1 12s. at a place in the Strand, as he directed me. When I came home I gave him the change and the other £5 notes. He had never given me a cheque for £250 before, nor required the money in £5 notes; he usually bad gold. He then asked me, What do I owe you?" I said, " I really don't know; perhaps £14 or £15, but it's impossible to say ; it's no tatter, let it stand until term time. I have not settled the circuit accounts with Mr Justice Brett's clerk, and cannot do so till term. I shall receive money from his clerk, but shall have to pay a wine merchant's bill -about £60, I expect.' He said, ' Never mind, I'll give you £10 on account." I said, * Ob, nonsense.' He gave me two £5 notes. That is the