The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-08 00:00:00

THE GREAT SOCIAL EVIL.

lAA evening the third annual meeting of the
Loudon Preventive and Reformatory Institution No. 200,
Euston.road—one of the most prominent societies in the
promotion of the midnight meeting movement fur the
rescue of fallen women—was held at the Music Hall, Store-
street, Bedford-square. Colonel Goodwyn occupied the
chair, supported by a large number of influential clergymen
and gentlemen. After prayers, Mr. K. W. Thomsen. the
/secretary, read the report. In raerenee to the proceedings
of last year, it appeared that during the year 11459 there
were =3 eases admitted. Of these Si bad neither parents
living, 40 were motherless, 42 were Whiffles,. and ISO
had both parents living. 120 had been domestic ser-
vants, 46 needlewomen and artificial Sower make - the

Agora, ..
remainder were of no particular imploymewl. Since
January 1 up to May 31 last 118 bad been ad-
mitted. That large number was owing to the midnight
meetings, from the fast of which 17 young women ware
admitted to the institution, and the others had been very
saccessful ; and the number of applicants increased so that
arichticaal accommodation was required. A gentleman offered

the committee two houses, and two ladies had collected 100/.
to furnish them. To show the extent to which the open-
Hoag of the Institution bail been increased, it was stated
that they could only accommodate 25 at the first meeting,
at the second 45, end now they oould accommodate 80 in the
three houses. From September, 1857, to December, 1860,
there had been 189 cams disposed of as follows :-95 to
service, 54 to friends, 3 emigrated, 2 married, 4i dismissed,
and 29 had left at their own request. With regard to the
financial condition of the society, it was to be regretted that
much more aid was required. The receipts (without the
previous balance) were 1,323/. 19e. 9d., and the expenditure
bad been 1,485/. 14s. 4.1., leaving the small balance of
41. 12e. 7d. Therefore increased support was solicited, as it
was estimated that at least 2,0001. would be wanted for the
current year. The Rev. Hugh Allen proposed the Ant
resolution, adopting the report, and acknowledging with
great gratitude the success of the midnight meeting move•
meat. Mr. James Maxwell seconded the motion, which
was warmly supported by the Rev. Mr. Dale, and carried
with acclamation. The Rev. J. H. Titoomb proposed the
next resolution, which recognised the importance of aiding
those who hail not erred, but were in dangerof falling,
which is one of the olifects embraced by this institution.
The motion was seconded by the i.e. W. Landels, and
supported by the Rev. H. Wads* and also carried. Thanks
to the gallant chairman closed Ibis prommiloge.

FOILZION AND COLONIAL MARA --Sorramtrrow,
JUNI 7. —The Sultan lea here to-day with the Peninsular
mail. The Wen was to leave Alexandria Kay 30, if the
A eataallen nell wee net telirreelied bellese that period,
and may be =peeled bum with the Bombay veil only on
the 12th inst. The Tagus, with the homeward Peumsular
mail. is due here ea the 11th inst. The Adriatic may be
expected here on Tuesday neat, with dates teem New York
up to the and inst.

EQUITY COURTS.—Jurts 7.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir John Stuart)
MOTTIDGI r. PIDICE.—THZ ACIATIXONI.
This canse was resumed to-day, being the fourth day of the
hearing. The court was crowded d the whole day.
It will be remembered that Mr. Malice , Q.C., and Mr.
Wigram, had addressed the court on behalf of the plaintiff,
that Mr. Bacon, Q.C., keB eoncinded his speech for the de.
Indent yesterday, aid that Mr. Swale commenced his
address on the same aide.
Mr. Swale now continnad his speech for the defense--He
submitted that in a owe rush ea the present it was his dut
to draw the attention of the court to the frame of the bill,
and to oastraat it with the issues raised by the evidence.
The Allegan in din bRI were confined to • few facts, all of
*hick occurred in May, 1848, while the probate were am.
piffled into a history of the life of the defendant
ad of Miss Nottidge, and of various witnesses, extend-
ing over many years, and some years antecedent to
that time; thus introducing most improperlyinto this Owlish
warts that practice which prevailed in Franco, and which
he hoped would not be introduced, of neglecting the real
Wise of making a cause referring to ems transaction the
• forisLi_nnuiry sad expeditious into • whole

hark; bernb—sTeLiffroni • lunatic whim ao file 111-11141
hiny-, 1348, immediately rejoined the defendant, under
shortly afterwards, at his persuasion, transferred the fene
in question into his name, and that rah transfer wak ride
in consequence of trarepresientation and deception upon the
part of the defendant practised upon Miss Nottidge, when
she had been Only recently released (rota a lunatic rylets,
and when she was nosier the influence of • grata dairies
inculcated and encouraged by himself for his own purport,
and the prayer of the hill wan entirely founded upon these
Alegre, and prayed for a declaration that the treader
had been obtained by such fraudulent ntiarepresentatior
ant undue influence to and over Mini Nottidge. Thine words
he contended maned the plaintiff to evidence as to what
occurred on the 15th of May, end effectually excluded
ail right, on the plaintiff's part, to introduce any of the
'matters of difference between Mr. and Mrs. Thome, and
all the history of the proceedings of the parties anterior
and subsequent to that date. He submitted that to en.
title • plaintiff to introduce such irrelevant matter the
whole of it ought to have been alleged in the bill, so as to
give the defendant an opportunity of denying it or explitimiz
it, if he so chose. Thin was an old rule, and was thus
down in " Gordon v. Gordon," reported in 3 Swartim, 472,
that evidence of facts not alleged in the pleadingscould
not he admitted. It had also been laid down, winch some
7by the House of Lords, in " Austin v. Chatabsrs"
(I.=and Pinnelly,2), and in the yet more important ape
of " Attwood v. Small," in the some volume (p. 232).
After the very lengthened argument, he would not detain
the court by reading the evidence, but only shortly refer to
the question which it raised. The plaintiff said that Miss
Nottidge had been influenced by Mr. Prince, and that that
was her sole motive in making the transfer of the stock
to him. But the defendant alleged another reason,
which the facts, as they appeared from the evidence,
supported. She was smarting under the deepest injury,
indicted by her soother, her brother, and brother-in-law, to
which any human being could be subjected. She had been
obliged to associate with maniacs—a position infinitely
worse than • gaol or a workhouse ' • and that produced in
natural consequence, as expressed by the Commissioner in
Lunacy, who reported that she had no 'faction for bar
mother and sister at Rose-hill ; that they had caused her to
be sent to the asylum, which was very cruel in them ; sod
that she had now no affection for them. She believed that
her money had been the inducement for her ceninerent ;
her find intention, therefore, with tepid to her money wan,
that her relatives at Rose-hill should have no portioh of it,
end that they should not be induced by it spin to
place her in confinement ; and that her mother sad sister
the latter of whom, according to Mr. Prince's evidence, had
said that her mother was determined that she (Miss Louisa
Jane Nottidge) should die in the rylum, would not
trouble themselves about her if they knew that
she bad deprived herself of her money. Thus
actuated, it was • secondary consideration who bad
her moody ; but as she knew that Prince had been
instrumental in procuring her release, end also that he was
at the head of the establishment which she had chosen for
her future residence, and where she had two sisters living
happily, she gave the money to ntm. nut was there
the misrepresentation and deception by Mr. Prince which
the bill alleged ? In other words, did he obtain the money
by his fraud ?—for that was the case set up by the bill. The
Lill professed the inability of the plaintiff to prove his case,
and was in this respect a "fishing bill," as it alleged that
the defendant ought to discover and set forth the misrepre-
sentation and deception complained of. The defendant not
only answered this allegation himself, but three of the Miss
Nottidge's brothers-in-law and two of her sisters, besides
six or seven other witnesses, concurred in stating that the
defendant Prince did use no misrepresentation or deception,
and most of them proved that Mr. Prince took no part
directly or indirectly in the transfer ; and, moreover, the
dates and circumstances showed it to be impossible for Mr.
Prince to have caused the determination in Miss Nottidge's
mind. According to the evidence Miss Nottidge must be taken
to have definitively determined to make the transfer on the
15th of May, 1348, and although she did not actually execute
the power to transfer until the 291 h of May, et that delay
was beside her determination, which had been already
taken, and it was caused by the time necerary to procure
from Mr. Ripley, her 66.4 hr-in-law, that information
which would enable the broker to make the transfer. That
information of her intention to transfer so given to the
brother-in-law was most important, because it formed a sir-
curnstance in the cage, the absence of which was one of the
grounds in "Huguenin r. Baseley," 14 Vesey 29, upon which
the gift in that oar was held to be void ; and in that case
the judge referred to the fact that " the attorney did not
state thin improvident act to the brother of this lady."
Mceeover, it was clear that an attorney, Mr. Rouse, who, it
was true, resided in the Agapemoue, was her legal adviser
In the transaction. This appeared not upon the evidence of
Mr. Rouse, who was one of the plaintiff's witnesses, and
who kept back that fact, but upon an affidavit -of Mr.
Thomas, which in this respect was unoontradicted. But it
was said on behalf of the plaintiff that if Mr. Prince did
not himself influence this lady, yet that Mr. Thomas did. It
was enough to any that this was not so alleged by the
bill ; but in addition the defendant might well urge
that such agency was not to be surmised against positive
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The defendant,
therefore, confidently submitted that the ordinary case of
personal and direct influence sod fraud entirely failed.
Then remained the question, was the influence of the public
ministry of the defendant enough to vitiate the gift? So to
determine, would be most dangerous, since it would be Code-
termine that an influence, legitimate, and fair, and free from
all fraud, was to be placed upon the same footing an fraudu-
lent personal influence. He did not feel himself at liberty,
after the way in which the doctrines professed by the sect
had been discussed, to enter further into them, except to say
that those doctrines were the doctrines of the Church of
England with certain peculiarities in addition ; and that the
sect, in fact, prayed to Almighty God, and reverenced the
Holy Scriptures, which it had been alleged they did
not do ; and, moreover, that the evidence, covering so large
portion of the lives of persons as it did, contained no
single suggestion of any immorality in life or practice.
With regard to the answer, he thought it due to the de.
fondant to state that be was expressly interrogated as to
his religions opinions, and thst the defendant had been ad-
vised that a shorter exposition of his doctrines would have
been a sufficient answer ' • hut the defendant had felt him-
self bound in conscience to declare the whole of his opinions
generally, as being of much more importance to Unwell
than any question of money in the cause, and this strict
regard for what was right ought not to prejudice him on
this occasion. The only imputation against Mr. Prince
wee an over-sad in preaching out of his parish—a practice
now sanctioned when theatre and other unconsecrated

iriaces wereoccapieciiy the clergy .With regard to the
@Mimeo, it was important to marshal the witnesses an
each side. On the side of the plaintiff, Mrs. Thomas, who
had an interest equal with the plaintiff in the cause, and
also Mr. Ripley and Mrs. Bull, a sister of Miss Louie' Jame
Nottidge, had made affidavits on the plaintiff's behalf, and
not one of those witnesses had spoken of any fact '
really and properly at issue the cause. On
the other eide, for the defendant, there were five
witnemem, the brothers-in.law and sisters of the plaintiff,
each of whom bad an equal interest with the plaintiff that
he should succeed, and they deposed to facts which, if
true, moot sustain the defendant'ocase ; and, if untrue, make
them guilty of perjury against their own interests. In such
a state of things the court would surely not doubt on
' which side the truth lay. Mr. Starkey, another of the de-
fendant's witneesse, was a clergyman, who bad given up •
preferment of 600/. in the church, and another living,
which immediately afterwards fell vacant, and which had
been promised him, of the mine of 800 L, and surely such a
man was a person whose oath was to be believed. Upon
the whole case Mr. Smale submitted for the de•
fondant that no authority had been cited govern-
ing the present case, and that there had never
been • decision upon • we similar in its eircametances to
the case now before the court. That in the only two cases
which had been folly opened to the court as authorities em
the subject, namely, " Norton v. Reilly" (2 Eden, 246), and
" Huguenin v. Baseley" (14 Vireey, 273), personal direct
contnvance and influence had been proved, whilst is the
present case no such personal content was proved or had
even been suggested. The utmost to which those IMO
could extend was that they were instance. of spiritual
nsc,ndmicy corruptly used for the particular purpose of
obtaining the property front the subject of such spiritual