The Press.
London, England, 1856-02-02 00:00:00

61utizn 4nttlligtur.

CAIIBRIDGE.—The Hon. Spencer Walpole, in reply
to certain questions respecting Maynooth and the
observance of the Sabbath, has, in a letter to Mr.
loch fort Clarke, expressed himself in the following
terms:—

I am opposed to the opening of the British Museum on
Sunday, and have always voted against it : I am also op-
posed to any change in the law by which the Crystal
Palace and similar places, now closed, might be opened on
that day; and I am also opposed to Sir Benjamin Hall's
bands in Kensington•gardens.
I have always considered the grant to Maynooth altogc•
ther wrong, and have never done anything to support it;
and you know, I believe, that I advocated in office Mr.
Spooner's motion for inquiry. If I could see my way to
such a result, I would gladly get rid of it ; but I confess
that I am so far embarrassed by the complications caused
by the act which made it perpetual, that I cannot say
beforehand, and I do not think that I ought to say before•
hand, how I should deal with any specific measures.
NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE.—SiT Montagu Cholmeley is
named as the probable successor of Mr. Christopher
Hamilton, in the representation of North Lincoln-
shire.

NORTH ESSEX.—Sir John Tyrrell has issued an
address to the electors, announcing that his failing
health will compel him to retire from the represents
Lion at the next general election.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.—Mr. Blackett has issued
a farewell address, informing the electors that con-
tinued ill-health renders him incapable of longe
performing his parliamentary duties. Mr. Ridley,
who contested South Northumberland at the las
general election, has issued au address to the elec-
tors, stating his liberal political opinions, expressing
himself in favour of Aministrative Reform, and a
vigorous prosecution of the war in preference to any
but an honourable peace.
EDINBURGH.—An unopposed return of Mr. Black
does not appear certain. The names of the Hon.
Mr. Bruce, and of Mr. Douglas, a magistrate ( f
Edinburgh, are mentioned as not unlikely to l
brought forward. Mr. Black's views upon the Mk-
nooth question and the Scotch Publichouse Act, are
unpopular with a large body of the electors. Mr.
Douglas, as a Liberal-Conservative, has already issued
an address, expressing his opposition to the May-
nooth endowment, and to any interference with the
Forbes Mackenzie Act.

FEBRUARY 2, 1836.

,Into Rub Volitt.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER has
been declared legal by the Court of Session in Scot-
land, in the great case of Livingstone v. Livingstone,
which has been pending for several years. The
Lord Ordinary, in giving judgment, declared
that he would willingly defer to the authority of the
Scotch Confession of Faith it he could, but, sitting
Ks a civil judge, he was obliged to decide that
Marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not inces-
tuous by the law of Scotland, and that the issue are
legitimate."
THE BANKRUPTCY OF WILLIAM PALMIER, in an
appeal against the fiat, was inquired into on Mon-
day, berme Mr. Commissioner Balguy, at the Bir-
mingham District Court of Bankruptcy. The
petition of bankruptcy, presented early in January
by Mr. Spittle, ironinaster, for a debt of near
1,0001. on a bill of exchange drawn by Palmer and
accepted by his mother, was duly adjudicated on
witti the view of setting aside an anteriorly dated
bill of sale for 8,0001. held by a Mr. Wright,
solicitor, by which the whole of Palmer's property
had been swept off. Mr. Smith opposed the adjudi-
cation on the plea that Section 104 of the statute,
allowing the bankrupt from seven to fourteen days to
be heard against the adjudication, had in this instance
been over-ridden, the bankrupt having been arrested
at Padwick's suit on the 13th December last, and on
the 17th removed to Stafford Gaol by coroner's war•
rant on a charge of murder. Mr. Commissioner
Baiguy coincided with this view, and expressed his
opinion that the bankrupt, by Section 104, had a
clear right to dispute the adjudication. Mr. James
then withdrew the petition, but intimated that he
should at once prepare a second for the prosecution
of a new fiat.

Is THE ACTION OF JONES v. WELCH, tried on
Monday at Nisiirrius, the complainant, a homceopa-
tido doctor, sought to recover 581. for professional
attendance upon defendant's daughter. In the course
of cross-examination by Mr. James, Q.C., a prescrip-
tion of the plaintiff's was handed to Mr. Watkins, a
member of the College of Surgeons, one of the
plaintill's numerous witnesses, to prove that the
charge of a guinea per visit was not an inordinate
one. The prescription ran thus .—" aconite 40z.,
belladonna 40z., with a lotio ordinaris of silica.'
Mr. Watkins confessed that he could not understand
the prescription, that belladonna and aconite were
only used externally by regular practitioners, and the
"folio inaris " was beyond him altogether. The
plaintiff here explained :
The prescriptions of homoeopathists are totally different
f orn those of the old practitioners. They do not, as was
formerly the custom, pour down the throats of their
patients vast quantities of medicine. They have distinct
medicines for each particular disease. In each bottle of
the medicine prescribed for the defendant's daughter,
there was one millionth part of a grain of aconite, and the
same proportion of belladonna. The loth) ordinaris was a
tincture of prepared ground flint.
Mr. James, Q.C., suggested that the lotio ordi-
naris of silica was simply pump-water with a flint in
it, to which explanation the plaintiff agreed. The
jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defendant,
251. having been paid into court.
AN IMPORTANT CAB QUESTION was brought before
Mr. Arnold, at Westminster, on Monday. It will be
remembered, that the Act of Parliament 16 and 17
c. 33, in its Schedule A., declares "where two
or more persons shall be carried inside any hackney
carnage (-4nglid., cab) one sum of GI is to be paid
for the whole hiring, in addition to the fares fixed by
the act. Two children under ten. years of age to be
counted as one adult person." The interpretation of
this clause gave rise to so many disputes that the
metropolitan magistrates held a meeting, and decided,
after full deliberation, t. at a cabman, when carrying
one child under ten years of age, was not entitled to
compensation. Out of this decision the present case
arose, Mr. Side, of the Borough, summoning
Samuel Smith, a cabdriver, for refusing to carry a
child under ten years of age. The defendant, in
reply, said that he could only charge for two
children, and would not carry one. Upon this Mr.
Arnold observed that :

He could not charge for carrying boxes, unless there were
more than two persons in the cab, and if he were to refuse
to carry a child because he could not charge for it, lie
might refuse to carry boxes by the same rule.
The Cabman : I am bound to curry the boxes for
nothing, if I have only one or two persons in the cab, be.
cause the law says I am to do so, and if the child is put in
a box Pil carry it, by act of Parliament.
Mr. AusoLn : The Itith and 17th \'ic., cap. 33, sec. 17,
says," Every driver who shall refuse to admit and carry in
his carriage the number of persons painted and marked on
such carriage, or specified in the certificate granted by the
Commissioners of Police," shall he liable to a penalty.
How many are you certified to carry
Defendant : Five.

Mr. AR\;; Then, why refuse to carry this child as a
third person ?
Defendant : Because a child is not a person ; it is not
a person by your worship's own decision ; because, if it

THE PRESS.

is a person, a cabman has a right to charge for it as an
extra; and if be can't charge for it, why, then it can't be a
person.

Mr. ARNOLD: It is nonsense to assert that it has been
decide I a chill is not a person.
Defendant: It has been decided that two is a person,
and that one isn't. Under your decision, a child under ten
years of age don't constitute a person, and, therefore, as it
isn't a person. I refuse to carry it.
Mr. ARNOI.D: It was your tints to have taken the child,
and, if there had been a refusal to pay for it, to have
brought the matter before me.

Defendant : It has been decided by you that it was not
to be paid for, and I should, therefore, have carried the
child for nothing.
Mr. Arnold said that the magisterial decision was
that the driver was not entitled to charge for one,
not that he was not to carry one. He regarded the
question much in the same light as that of carrying
luggage. Mr. I'aynter, who was present, entirely
agreed with Mr. Aruoli, when, upon the defendant's
solicitation, the case was adjourned for a week far
legal opinion.

la
w
th
S
at
ti
le
di
P'
b,
1,
aI
w
bi
sc
hi
al
b,
bI
al
tl
re
B
01
cl
tl
sl
01
AI
tl
al
01
ti
rr
el
OI
b
1%
tl
11
p 1
f
ri
lr
tl
tl
SI
t.i
ri
3
1
0
f,
tl
tl
a
0
r
ti
c
a
li