PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Miss DUPLOCK.

     PETTY SESSIONS, TUESDAY.—Present Hon. J. J. Carnegie (chairman), J. H. Waddington, Geo.Forbes, and J. Waddington, Esqrs.

—   Four additional members of the Corps were sworn in.

—   The highway accounts for the several parishes within the division were verified and passed.

—   Two of the inspectors under the Lighting Act for the parish of Petersfeld appeared, and verified the accounts for the past year.

—    William Lewis was charged under the Criminal Justice Act with attempting to pick the pocket of Elizabeth Miller, on Tuesday, the 3rd inst. Francis Miller deposed: I live at Fratton, Portsea. On the 3rd of April I was at a steeple-chase near Waterloo, in the parish of Catherington, my wife Elizabeth was with me. We were in a booth about four o’clock in the afternoon, the booth was crowded with people; I saw the prisoner put his hand in my wife’s pocket, she was standing up at the time, prisoner stood rather before her, and I distinctly saw his hand in my wife’s pocket. Having ascertained that my wife had not lost anything I did not speak to him, but watched him as he moved along the booth among the people; when he got about half-way down I saw him take hold of a gentleman’s waistcoat pocket with his left hand, and make an attempt to take something from it with his right; I afterwards ascertained that the gentleman had a watch in this pocket; upon seeing this act of prisoner I immediately seized him by the neck-tie, and held him till I could give him into the custody of the police.—Elizabeth Miller corroborated as to feeling a tug at her pocket while in the booth, and that her husband spoke to her and left her at the same moment. She did not see the prisoner until her husband seized him, which was scarcely two minutes after she had felt the tug at her pocket.—Prisoner elected to be tried by the Bench, and pleaded guilty.—Six weeks’ imprisonment with hard Iabour.

—   Caroline Ward was charged with stealing at the Railway View beershop, Petersfield, on the 12th instant, two rummers and a work-box, the property of the land-lord, Stephen Lillywhite. It appeared from the evidence that, on the day in question prisoner went to the house of complainant, and had some beer in the tap-room, staying about three quarters of an hour. After she had left, a work-box was missed from a room adjoining that in which prisoner had been, and she was pursued by P.C. Smith to Horndean, where it was found she had sold the work-box and also two rummers, which, as well as the work-box, were identified as the property of complainant, and which were proved to have been on a shelf in the tap-room in the morning before prisoner called at the house, but which were not missed until brought hack by the policeman. Prisoner having elected to be tried by the Bench, and pleaded guilty, was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment with hard labour.

—   Frederick Hervey Freith, perpetual curate of the parish of Liss, and George Coryton and William Ayling, churchwardens of the same parish v. Rhoda Budd. This was an application under 4th and 5th Vic., c. 38, s.18, for a warrant to eject defendant from a cottage at Lower Common, in the said parish.—Mr. Williamson, of London, appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Fretson, of Sheffield, for defendant.—Mr. Williamson, in opening the case, stated that three or four years ago Mr. Freith was appointed perpetual curate of the parish of Liss. He found defendant in possession of the cottage in question as school-mistress. It appeared that a deed had been prepared vesting the cottage in the minister and churchwarden for the time being, but that deed had not been enrolled pursuant to the statute. Mr. Freith thereupon set to work and got another deed prepared, which had been duly en-rolled, and which he should produce. Defendant’s tenancy of the cottage terminated with her dismissal from the office of schoolmistress. He should prove that the minister for the time being had the management and control of the school. Mr. Freith, finding that defendant’s capabilities as schoolmistress were not equal to the requirements of these enlightened times, had thought it right to get rid of her, and had given her notice of dismissaI, and also notice to quit the cottage, which she refused to do, and hence the present proceedings. He called Mr. William Targett Holdaway, who deposed that on the 7th of this month he served defendant with a notice of the present application, and that he road it over to her and explained its purport.—Mr. Williamson next tendered himself as a witness, but Mr Fretson objected, and the chairman ruled that it was quite contrary to the practice of petty sessions for the same person to appear as advocate or witness; he might elect whichever he pleased, but he could not appear in both.—Mr. Williamson said he would not press the point, as he should be able to prove the facts to which he was about to speak aliunde. He next called the Rev. T. Floud, who deposed—I am a clergyman; I now live at Petersfield; was formerly curate of Liss. During part of that time I managed the school at Lower Common. Mrs. Rhoda Budd was the schoolmistress. I paid her salary. [A book was here handed to witness, in which he identified sundry entries in his handwriting of payments made by him on account of the school in the years 1842 and 1843.]—Cross-examined by Mr. Fretson: I entered upon the curacy in 1840. I found Mrs. Budd in the house, and acting as schoolmistress.—Rev. F. H. Freith deposed: I am perpetual curate of the parish of Liss; I became so on the 1st of March, 1858. I found Mrs. Budd in possession of the house on Lower Common. I paid her salary for 1858 and half of 1859. On the 30th of September last I gave her a written notice of dismissal, dated the 29th, with a demand for possession of the house. On the 29th I had offered to pay her all that was due to her up to that day. She refused to give up possession, and has ever since refused to do so.—Mr. Williamson said that was his case, where-upon Mr. Fretson remarked that if that was his friend’s case the business was at an end, as he had put in no trust deed, nor anything to show that the complainants had any authority whatever for taking the present proceedings.—Mr. Williamson produced the trust deed, but said he was not prepared with witnesses to prove its authenticity, as he had not supposed that this would have been required; and he appealed to Mr. Fretson to admit the document, but that gentleman declined to do so, remarking that if the omission had arisen from the churchwardens attempting to launch the case themselves without professional aid, he might have forgiven their ignorance, but under all the circumstances of the case, and considering that his client had been put to great expense, he should ask their worships to dismiss the case.—Mr. Williamson then applied for an adjournment, but Mr. Fretson also objected to this, on the ground that they had had ample time to get up their case.—Mr. Williamson: Then we must begin again; but how much better it would be for you to admit this document, and let the case proceed.—Mr. Fretson, shook his head, and so the matter ended.—Case dismissed.