MISCELLANEOUS.

The Roman Army.—The Roman army now under the command of General Lamoriciere amounts to 20,000 men. These troops the French General drills and exercises incessantly. He is now with the centre of the army, exami* ning the.field works and inspecting the numerous corps he has posted echellonen along thd frontier of Tusdany and the Romagoa. He recently'had a long interview with a foreign general, supposed to be in the service of Austria ; but of the object of the conference nothing has transpired. Lamoriciere scarcely gives, breathing time to his men; he marches and countermarches them for the double purpose of exercising the troops and deceiving the Italians as to their exact number. He orders earthworks and batteries to be constructedj then suddenly demolishes them to throw up others elsewhere. He thus keeps the officers of the artillery and engineers continually in motion. He sees all and directs all himself. r

Shocking Bad Roads.—ln the Kiama District Court the case of ihe Kiama and Sheiharbor Roads v. American Buggy was tried. This was an action for defamation for having maliciously published that the roads ' were shocking bad roads, and the worst in. the colony.' The defendant. pleaded Non est faeium. Plaintiff's1 attorney objected to the plea as' inapplicable to to the form of action. In support of his plea defendant's counsel contended that the plea was well pleaded, on the authority of Sergeant Stephen, wbosegreat work on 'Pleading' he , was then studying; the author discoursed lucidly . Of what is known ai the' 'negative pregnant:' and such was the pesent pita, which meant, first, ♦it is not a fait;' and, secondly, • the road was never made.' The Judge ruled that the plea might stand, observing that it was not emm.'fw Misitiet Qourt pleading * The ■««%:'

chiefly-tuAd on tfie, latter branch of\ the* plea. For the plaintiff, evidence was given to 'show that the Commissioner for roads adopted the homeopathic principles aud practice, and required all his subordinates to do the same—to heap mud on mad, and so make and mend the roads; and it was contended', that, though the roads in question were not under that officer's control, the plaintiff's were justiiied in following so cmi : nent au example. The Court observed" that it was a fallacy to call that the hommepathic principle, which held that ' like oures like,' not that the ' same cures the same.' No one ever pretended that continued drunkenness would cure drunkenness. Besides, it was a principle of homoeopathy that the very remedies given in large quantities would produce the disease itself, and in this case the quantity of mud applied by way of cure was sufficient to produce the disease of bad roads. Plaintiff's advocate then called several skilled witnesses from the Great Southern Road, but none of them answered: one of them had been for tbree mouths and upwards lookiug at Macarthur's Flat, beyond Camdeu, and did not know whence to procure more mud to put on them; another had been, and still was, similarly engaged at the Hanging Rock, and his services could not be spared; a third could not travel through his own dirt; and so on with the rest. Plaiotiffsadvocatey therefore, moved to postpone the further hearing of the cause, to enable him to prove that his clients' roads were not " the worst in the colony," as the defendant had maliciously,stated. At length it was agreed that the Judge's opinion should.be accepted as evidence, he having recently travelled along the Southern Road. His Honor stated that the two parts of the Southern Road already mentioned, and several others on the same line, were very much worse than those now in question. Upon this the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with one farthing damages.— Sydney Mail.

Serious Consequences of Neglecting to Kegister a Birth.—The correspondent of the Ballarat Stir relates a striking example of the danger of neglecting to register the birth of a child, as narrated to him recently, by the Melbourne Deputy Registrar, Dr. Tierney. It is one, which, whether true or false, places the danger of not attending to this important duty very clearly before the public. Not long ago (says the writer) a woman, with a child about two years old, went into the registration office here (Melbourne), wanting to register the birth of the child. This could not be done, as the Act provides that a child must be registered within sixty days after its birth. The woman's tale was peculiar. Her husband died in Melbourne; six weeks after which eventshe was delivered of a posthumous child-r-"the one in question. Being left alone in the colony she bad not been long recovered from hef "illness before she sailed for England. Shortly after arriving there she learned the important fact of her husband having fallen heir to a considerable amount of property. She put forward the claim of her child, a son, and natural heir to his father. Now arose the difficulty. It must be first proved that the deceased had a son, and then it mu3t be proved that this identical child was the son in question. The child was not registered, and therefore there was no proof, of paternity beyond the assertion of.its mother. . She applied for advice to those most likely to give it, and was recommended to apply to the Registrar-General of England. She did so, and he told her that unless the child could be registered where it was born, and an attested copy of the register put in as evidence, the paternity of the child could be successfully disputed. As a last resource she returned to Melbourne—to find, alas! that nearly two years' absence had broken up the circle of her acquaintance, and bad destroyed ail trace of the doctor who had professionally attended her. All attempts to find him, or any one she formally knew in the colony, failed, and thus situated she called upon the Melbourne Registrar, to find, of course, that he was powerles to help her. So it came to pass that the paternity of the child was not established,—the expenses of a return to the colony wa3 lost,—the property to which his father was heir was lost to the son, and the mother had the gratification of knowing that she had robbed her child of, it may be, an independence for life, and of herself living in the equivocal position of having a child without being able to prove who was its father.

Dr. Cullen on Donnybrook Fair.—Dr. Cullen has just issued a bull to the clergy of his docese, requesting them to caution the nocks committed to their charge <( against the dangers to which they would expose their eternal salvation, and the scandal they would give, were they to listen to the seductions of others, and be present at the disgraceful scenes of which Donnybrook is attempted to be made the theatre." He concludes this warning in the following terms:— "We are living in times of great danger, when the phials of God's anger are poured on the earth; all Europe is standing on the brink of a volcano, a prey to, or menaced with, bloody war and fatal convulsions. Let us not, by our sins and iniquities, bring the scourges of Divine justice on our own country, which has already suffered so much. In fine, continue to pray for peace and for the welfare of our Holy Father the Pope, who is violently assailed by all the enemies of civil society and religion. Would it be meet for children to indulge in disgraceful amusements and shameful dissipation while their common Father is afflicted and persecuted.

Denmark and Sweden.—The recent, interview of the Kings of Denmark and Sweden has given rise to a report that the two Scandinavian kingdoms intended to form an alliance against Germany. The Swedish press, however, combats the idea of any aggressive policy ; and the Swedish people are represented to be decidedly opposed to anything of the kind. The coronation of the King and Queen of Norway took place on the sth instant, in the Cutbedral at Dronthiem.

An Inhuman Schoolmistress.-—A case was heard a short time ago before Mr. Burcham at the Southwark police-court which in point of atrocity is quite equal to the achievements of Mrs. Brownrigg, of infamous notoriety in.former days. Here is the story:—A little girl named Caroline Lefevre, aged eight years, the daughter of a porter named Edward Lefevre, in the employ of Mesßrs. Barclay and Perkins, was entrusted to the oare of a certain Mary Allen, a schoolmistress, who lived near St. Saviour's, Southwark, The child was a day-scholar for about 12 months; at the end of that time the father, who was a .widower, married again, and, at the earnest request of the shoolmistress, allowed the child to remain with her in a more permanent way. Mary Allen said to Edward Lefevre, "lam so fond of your little girl; let me keep her altogether. I'll clothe her and eduoate her," The result may be told in the words of some of the witnesses or persons engaged on the hearing of the case, Mr. Edwin,

■who,conducted tho prosecution, said, " I shall be able to sTJoyr "that the prisoner was not content with cutting the poor child with a stick, and a cave, and with a poker and shovel, but that she actually made her eat human excrement." George Hillmore, a lad, saw the prisoner; on the previous Sunday beating the child with the hook part of a cane on her, head and arms till blood came. The blood came from the stripes as fast as she struck the child. Anne Rose saw her beating the child on the head till the blood came. The child herself was put iuto the witness-bos, and examined by Mr. Burcham himself. She told the magistrate thac she had been beaten moss unmercifully with a stick by the prisoner. Fragments of the stick, smeared with blood, were produced in court. The child said, " That was what she struck me with ; s!ie broke it over my arms and back." The child also told the magistrate that upon two occasions the sohool mistress had beaten her with the poker and shovel, and burnt her with a red-hot iron. It is difficult to tell the end of the story in terms which are fit to meet the eyes of our readers. The schoolmistress positively compelled the child to swallow some human excrement, saying, "if you don't swallow it, I'll poke it down with the stick." There was another child present when this was done, and this child was produced in Southwark police-court, and testified to the fact. The medical wituess, Dr. Thomas Evans, who was called to see the child at the policestation, stated that when he saw her first her head was bandaged up,-and she could scarcely stand. Her face was a mass of bruises, so that he could scarcely distinguish her features. Her eyes were so closed that she could scarcely see. She had three scalp wounds. Her shoulders, her back, her arms, her legs, were all bruised and livid. It may be added that the poor child's head and the upper part of her person were uncovered in court, and the spectacle was so dreadful as to excite horror in tho breast of every person present. The poor child was but eight years old. Mary Allen was committed by Mr. Burcham for trial. [She was tried at the Central Criminal Court on August 15. The truth of the facts above detailed was fully coroborated. When called upon for her defence, the abominable woman admitted the facts charged, but endeavored to excuse herself on the ground that she had only treated the child in such a manner in order to correct her of various faults and propensities. The jury instantly found her " Guilty " of the whole charge. Mr. Justice Williams, who presided at the trial said " that in all his experience he did not remember any case where one human being appeared to have aoted with so much cruelty to another as she appeared to have acted towards this poor child." He sentenced her accordingly to the highest penalty of which the law would admit—three years' imprisonment, with hard labor.]

A Worcester Breach oe Promise Case. —In an action for breach of promise, tried at the Worcester assizes, it was stated for the defendant that the plaintiff is now twenty-two years of age, was engaged for the month of July, 1856, to be married to a Mr. Skinner, a tanner, residing at Worcester. The match, however, was broken off, and the young lady was very attractive, was prepared to receive the attentions of any other enterprising and suitable young gentleman who might present himself. In the month of July, 1856, she was at Worcester races with her mother, when the defendant, who is seven years her senior, being smitten by her charms, made up to her, and politely asked if be might be allowed to make her a small present. The request not being ill-taken, he presented her with an embossed card, on which wasengraved" perpetual constancy." (Laughter). A constant correspondence took place between them. Commencing his first epistle, "my dear Fanny," he speedily warmed with his subject, and by the time he got to his third he had coined for the plaintiff as a pet name of his own —" My own Lilly." He in that letter expressed his pleasure that she had safely returned from. Worcester, averred that no other place in the world had.so many charms for him as her side, and signed himself " Yours ever, Tom." (Laughter). Another letter, dated the sth of September, 1856,." Think of me sometimes as I thinkofyou. Meet me at the corner. With thoughts ever of tbee, Yours ever, Tom." (Laughter). Another letter spoke of the plaintiff as his "dear, dear Fanny," said she must not think sbe was forgotten, and gave as a reason that she was always in the memory of her own " dear Tom." Another epistle concluded, " I am, dearest Lilly, ever and for ever thine'" One, written in January, 1857, commenced thus: ' My dearest, dearest Lilly, it seems, dear girl, a very long, long time since I saw you, and but for the belief that I know you love me well and truly it would be very insupportable." After a few more enthusiastic phrases, with all the adjectives doubled, this letter concluded like the rest, with the unpoetical monosyllable " Tom." On the 14th April, 1857, he calls her his "own sweet life," his " own dear Lilly," and a few other choice names, and then informs her that she is estimatad by him as nothing earthly, and that neither riches, fame, fortune, nor position could by any possibility compensate for the loss of her, if such a shocking event were to come to pass. After expressing his concern at seeing her paler than usual at their last meting and stating that he must have the rose to predominate over the lily in her sweet face' he falls into a dolorous soliloquy on the pains, pleasures, sorrows, and joys of love, but gathers hope from the fact that' though there be, amidst the emotions of unbounded love, many a pain, many an unwelcome thought, many an anxiety, and many darker moments, yet she (the plaintiff) can make all bright with a smile. In the course of this letter there is a sort of equivocal hope that she won't die, doubtless inserted in order that the following Hue might be devetailed in without much apparent clumsiness, "Wert thou to perish so, beloved, I would not weep but die." Having been absent for a longer time than usual, he writes in the month of May to say he wishes himself by her side " a hundred times a minute." He concludes with one thousand kisses and a frantic perroation. A short time afterwards the plantiff'6aw i her "constant Tom" with somebody else, and sent to him a " strong letter." This he took offence at, and. formally broke off the engagement. The plaintiff, it appeared, had a short time previously accepted a sum of £54 to quash threatened proceedings in another action, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

Wedding Mishap.—A few days ago a loving young couple went, accompanied by friends, to a church not far from this city, to enter into the bonds of holy matrimony. The wedding service had commenced, and had progressed to the point where the ring is produced, when a singular hitch, took place. No ring was.' forthcoming. Not that the bridegroom had, in the bustle aud nervousness of preparation for the

important ceremony, forgotten to put the; ring in his pocket on leaving the room, but he was, ignorant that the little golden .hoop was required in the marriage ceremony. Here, was a difficulty! The good-natured clerk said he would try to find one which he would lend for the ceremony, but the officiating minister objected, and refused to 'go further in;"forging bonds where so important an elemeut in the manufacture was''wanting; In this difficulty the man who was thus placed in so neutral a position between the single and married state, was about to run in- despair to this city to purchase a ring, when a second couple who had also come to the church with the like object of matrimony, touched with a fellow feeling, and perhaps by tears of the disappointed bride, lont him their vehicle for the journey. He contrived to get back with the ring in time for the marriage to be concluded within the lawful hours, the scrupulous minister having kindly awaited liis return; and the pair went away in high spirits, all the happier for their previous disappointment,— Worcester Chronicle.

A Ladies-maid at Law.—ln June, 1854, a young woman, named Rosanna Fray, was engaged a3 head ladies-maid in the service of Lady Zetland. About two months afterwards !she was discharged from her situation; and since that time she appears to have beeu constantly engaged in law-suits against one person or another. Her first action was against Mrs. Potter, the Earl of Zetland's housekeeper ; her second against the Earl of Zetland himself;her third against her own solicitor, Mr. Voules; her fourth against the solicitor whom she eraployed against that solicitor: her -fifth, a sort of repetition of her third, against her original solicitor, Mr. Voules; aud she threatens somebody else with a sixth. With the fifth case Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a jury were recently occupied at Guilford. Miss Fray charged Mr. Voules with haviDg negligently conducted her action against Lord Zetland and with having assented to a compromise without her consent. The evidence extended to a great length and wasfullofthe scandalofhigh-life-below-stairs. The verdict was for the defendant. The following scrap from the story of the plaintiff is worth quoting. Being asked a question by tbejury as to the circumstances of her discharge from Lady Zetland's service, Miss Fray said:—-She wished to leave Lord Zetland's service the moment she entered it, because she did not like the proceedings that were going on. From the scullerymaid up to Lady, Zetland they were aH gamblers. (A laugh). Spirit rapping was also constantly being practised by Lady Zetland, and she employed Mrs. Potter [the housekeeper] as the medium, and rooms were kept specially for the purpose, and when Lady Zetland wanted to know whether one of her husband's horses would win a race, or anything else, she used to ask the spirit for the information. (A laugh). Lady Zeitland wished her to be the spirit instead of Mrs. Potter, but she refused.