The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-09 00:00:00

THE FXPRESS, SA.TURDA k EVENING, FEBRUARY 9, 1861.

"OM LAIiT NIGHTS GAZETTE.

BANIREIII4.
Jung DMITON, WILLIAX DMITO2. and JOHN MORON. tub.. Dart-
trowith park, Poev-S balliers, to surrender Pe . and
llareh Aat 11, at itasinstialistreet. Sots., Fleas alai
'foyer, 41.1 Jear) vionabars . oil. /wig, Cannati, Lbuilognall-
eireet.
FRANet. 117, NSTANTIN Northann.lon,
Yeb. March ii, at I at Isseinichallatreet. Wds., Hen i•
son aud Lewis, obi Jeanie. aisi Northampton :
anis. Manslcid. ilasinghsWareel.
J ref storcLltr. ftegent•street. Feb. Mgt 11.3".1
March t'o, at I, at Ltimisighaitstreet. Sod,.. Recce and Cu.. st.
swi.hine Lom . .41. sole.. Graham, C.lleman•etrect.
'! .11ENT ,etr, tisrmood U unistemlned, builder. Frk
tt and Si ark It, at It, at tesslnchalbetrect. Nob., Wiki and
Barber. trounourrn Agar . off. swig., Pennell, Huildhalb
chambers
4.*11111.1,71n. ntran.l, 41,31.1' In American goods, at 1.
sad %larch 25 at 12., at Ilashirlialbetreet. Sok., Allen an I
ClicsryeJe . off. sags., Fennell, linililluill.chanibers.
'amass 11/41.11e1T. !Moto°. shropehire. tinder mer-
chant, Fob 22 sso March I% at 11, at Birmingissru Coml.
sofa.. II a1..1 Allen, Birmingham, and Gmslon
sad Warren, Market Drayton oil. amis., Kinnalr,
~am.
HI Bran Jun, 11,y. Wow setershirc, grocer. Feb. 21 card
Mach 14, at 11, at litnainshani Conn. sots., Juror, a.;.1
Knight, ltirtultial-itu, an I Woe!, Dudley : off. assig., Kin-
war. Birmiaithan.
wig IS • .211. Priors Ge, near Shifinal. shropshire. maltater.
Feb 21 a. 14 Alarch IC at 11. at Birmingham Court. sok .
I loterbill An. Wolverhampton, and 11,K1nn..0 taut
41Irn, isinclaghan, red. yule., Willtlitore.
.V ittsan Drys. oarelein, stanowlshlro, grocer, Fel.. t 2 rm.!
"larch 1."., at 11, at I:trtniNtnalli CoOrt.:e,ds., Litchtteld. New-
watievinki-Lyme and Jalergi and Knight, Birmingham el.
latmote. Birmingham.
.'Wean CoLnactilUlT and HLAWASS Bose, Nottingham.
wh01e...11, stationers. Pe:'. 21 and March H. at 111, at Bic-
Coort held at Noitinvihre. wl., Skilton, Notting-
ham .41 swig.. Harris. Naltingharn.
WILLIS'S rUP/1A?. DA% Cstaliff. Glanmeganshire, slate and
Marl& nuireheof II ant March 19, at It. at
heisted fount soL, Iftlecaughan. Bristol ; off, amts., Miller,
Briansi.
iLtNait ALIWI.R7II. IReklagehl. Cheshire, machine broker. ?eh.
!JINNI Mardi lg. at It. at Manchester Court. Sots, Darn•
ton an I firearm Ashloo-under.Lyne, and Sale and Cu., Mum
Anger off. maw. Vr.ewr. Manrhester.
J.. 11% BRAS. Blackbun., Lancashire, imnfounder, Feb. Bland
March It at 11, at Man.:Lester Court. bad .• Paulthiust, Man-
et.enter . net. sari.. Poet, Manchester.
rINIJ.IIII9 CALYI2.T. Blackburn. Inneashire, draper,
Feb. .2) and March It at 12. at :Manchester Court. feds.,
sale and Co , Illancinister gni" , Prawn Manchester.
111 NT, MtcocLpnt t, Che.birr, cotton manufacturer. Feb. 27
ask March 2.1, at IT!, at Manchester Court. Mon., Earle and
Manchester nt! ilernernan. Manchester.
IMBOLVIINT PKTITIDNERS, AT POILTUGALATILKET.
goon RL eniar comusinorn SAW.
Feb, W. 11. Tme.ock. Drumnssulterrace, Berniondeey,
awl Preeechnolalseet. Iforwlydown. liahterman-0. C. Taylor.
islwar4 terrace, islinst.v.. plumber.
Feb. 2.a R. Lomas, Al*.ert•terniee. Knightsbridge, lientenant
in bar alsJulty's 10th 'limners—W. 11. Johnson, Ilmolitra-
plans, Kimpland, and Hitilbstrwe Union Old•town, publicans'
and waterers* cabinet maker—P. B. Gmlfrey, Mortlake. Suffry,
publican—J. Hewitt, North W hartroad, Paddington, alehouse-
tucker. - -

Kato intelligence.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY

(DUNC'LL -Fu. 8.

(PresentArehldebop of York Lord Cranworth, hord
Chelmsford, Lord Kinpdown, Sir Edward Ryan, and Sir
John Coi •ridge.)
Till: REV. At rael porn", P. THE BISHOP OP LONDON.—

7.1 E 2,7. CAI:NADAS CHURCH CASE.
This was an appeal by the Rev. Alfred Poole, formerly
dilly licensed curate in the church of St. liamabas, in the
district chspelry of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, in the diocese
of London. against the Right Rev. Archibald Campbell,
Bishop of London.
Dr. Phillimure and Mr. Coleridge were counsel for the
appellant ; the Queen's Advocate, Mr. Montagu Smith,
Q.C., mud Dr. Swabey represented the Bishop of Louden.
Thin spend arose out of an inquiry instituted by the
Bishop of Locelon on charges preferred against the Rev.
Alfred Poole, the stipendiary assistant curate of St. Bar-
rabies, Knightsbridge, that he had encouraged the practice
of confession by won.en. and put certain improper questions
to them. On the 2:ith of May, Isls, the bishop, acting
under the 1 and 2 Vic., c. 108,, and all other authority
vested in him. beard Mr. Poole in his defence, and revoked
his license. Mr. Poole then appealed to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, who conceived he had complied with the
requisitions of the statute by requiring the ap-
pellant to state his case in writing, and his
grace confirmed the revocation of the Bishop
of London. An application was then made by
Mr. Poole to the Court of Queen's Bench for •
rule calling on the archbishop to show emu'. why
a writ of macilamus should cot issue, commanding him to
make inquire into the appeal of Mr. Poole according to the
provisions of the Ist and 2nd Victoria, and to hear that ap-
peal. Hid decide it on the merits. This rule having, after
argument, hues made absolute, the archbishop with his
assessor, Dr. Lnshington, did, on the 19th of Feb., 1•59, at
Lambeth Palace, hear counsel both on behalf of Mr. Poole
and the Bishop of London, and held that the Bishop of
Loudon had just sod reasonable cause for revoking the
license of Mr. Poole, which revocation he con-
firmed. An appeal was then made to her Ma-
jesty in Council, which was referred to the
Judicial Committee. Their lordship, admitted the
appeal, reserving all question an to its competency
and all right on the part of the Bishop of London to pro.
test against the tame—the bishop having entered a protest
that the revocation was not done under any ecclesiastical
court or judge, but was a revocation by his lordship in per-
son, by virtue of the 1 and 2 Vic., c. 106, and from that
an appeal lay to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who could
annul or confirm the same, and that the appeal was made
in fact and law. made and determined by virtue of the
statute. The bishop having thus protested against the
jurisdiction of the committee, two points were submitted by
the appellant, first, the competence of the bishop to ap-
pear under protest to the jurisdiction of the court,
land, secondly, the sufficiency of the reasons alleged in the
protest against the jurisdiction of this court, as a court of
appeal, from the sentence of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The appellant prayed their lordships to overrule the protest
of the Bishop of London, to proceed to hear the principal
cause, and to reverse the sentence pronounced by the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury.
The Queen's Advocate said he appeared before their
lordsLipa as counsel for the Bishop of London, who
had been cited before their lordship, under circum-
stances which, as far as he was aware, were un-
precedented. This was the first time in which a
bishop bad been cited before that tribunal for any
matter connected with the revoking of a license.
The appellant's license having been revoked, and he having
appealed to their lordships, they had directed that notices
should be Nerved on the Archbishop of Canterbury and the
Bishop of London, in order that if either of those prelates
wished he might be heard, and if not, the committee would
ree'l without their assistance. A letter was written by
Rireves on behalf of the committee to the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the Bishop of London informing them
that, if they thought fit, they might instruct counsel to
watch the case in their behalf. His client, the Bishop of
London, bad answered that letter before he had consulted
him ; but he had advised the bishop to withdraw his answer
and to wait to see whether he was cited. and if so, to re-
spectfully dispute their lordships' jurisdiction. The question
raised was, lard the crown any authority over such a decision
as bad been pronounced by the Archbishop of Canterbury ?
Lard Chelmsford had, when the case was recently before
their lordships, said, " We will admit the appeal ; but the
question as to the right to appeal is of such general impor-
tance that we shall reserve all questions as to its compe-
-1 , and all right to protest against the same." This being
the of their lordnhips,he could not but feel surprised
at the objection which was about to be taken by the appel-
lant as to the competency of the bishop now to appear under
protest. His answer to that was, that the bishop had
been called upon to appear under protest, "reserving
all questions as to the competency of the appeal,
and all right to protest against the same." He would con-
tend that under the ecclesiastical law to appear before a
tribunal, except under protest, would be to admit the juris-
diction of such tribunal, . . .

-I.l7.l(3ra;s7o;ti—lf we have no jurisliction why is any
protest necessary ,
The Queeo's Advocate—lt is under the ecclesiastical law.
Lord Chelmsford— Their lordships never iota:sled to
bring the bishop before them sod then catch him in his
own toils. (Laughter.)
The Queen's Advocate—No ; but my learned friend (Dr.
Phillimore) did.

Dr. PhiElmore—lf any one caught the bishop in his own
toils it was my learned friend when he advised bun not
to appoint counsel to watch the caw.
The Queen's Advocate said he would take the responsi.
bility of that. He would contend there had never been
such en appeal as this from the time of Henry VIII.
Iced Cranworth—Yon say that although there is no such
appeal, yet, by the ecclesiastical law, if the party appeals,
axon* under protest, that would give us jurisdiction.
The Queen s Advocate—Yes. The Bishop of London
had, from first to last, only done his solemn duty as ordi-
nary ;he had sever prosecuted Mr. Poole ex officio. Large
meetings bad been held in London in reference to the matter,
and the bishop had been set in motion with great clamour ;
in feet, it was rather insinuated he had been
remiss, and he bad revoked Mr. Poole's license with great
pain. The bishop was then cited to appear as judge in quo
before his metropolitan, at Lambeth Palace. and after a full
hearing the revocation was confirmed. The bishop was
then cited to appear before their lordship, and he now ap-
peared before them under protest. This revocation of the
archbishop was called a sentence, but in fact it was a hear.
lag by the archbishop in person, and not by any judge. All
the tests applicable to a sentence by a judicial court were
wanting, arid therefore. by what authority did Mr.
Poole appeal to the Queen ? If he had any right to appeal
he must show that he had the right somewhere.
He must possess that right by statute, or common law, or
by ecclesiastical law, or by the ancient ecclesiastical
common law of the church, as distinguished from the
written law of the church. Hooker had laid it down in his
" Ecclesiastical Polity," that whatever power the King had
be had by the law,iand his powers were known. " Rex
alba potent nisi quod de jure." Henry VIII. had taken all
ecclesiastical power from Home, and had said that he and
his archbishop should alone possess it. The learned
counsel was contending that under the Judicial
Committee Act, 3 and 4-William IV., e. 41, their lord-
ships had no power to hear appeals, except from the order
of some court, or judge, or judicial offioer, except such as
were referred to them by her Majesty, and that the pre.
sent ease did not come within either category, when the
arguments were adjourned.
THE REV. DUNBAR MODORE HEATH, APPELLANT—THE

SNIIOP OP WINCHESTPS, ILESPONDEPT. - ALLEGILD
SESSIST.-JUDGPICN.

This was a suit instituted in February, 1880, in the
Court of Arches, under the 13 Elizabeth, cap. 12. by
the Bishop of Winchester, against the appellant, the Rev.
Dunbar locators Heath, Vicar of Banding, in the Isle of Wight,
foe advisedly maintaining doctrines directly contrary to
the doctrines of the church of England. The Dean of
Arches admitted some amended proofs, with leave to the
appellant to appeal to the Judicial Committee. He did so,
praying that the articles should be further reformed, so as to
contain an exact statement of those portions of the Thirty-
aim Articles which it was alleged the peerages from the
appellant's sermons contravened, and also a specification of
the unsound doctrines or heresy which the appellant had,
a ed, maintained. Their lordships had in July last
decreeda
that the order appealed from should be reversed, and
that reformed articles should be brought in.
Dr. R. Phillimore and Mr. H. Buller now contended on
the part of the appellant that the articles last brought in
were insufficient, and in some respects more objectionable
than the last, and they prayed for further reformation,
which was opposed by Dr. Twice and Dr. Swabey on be-
half of the bishop.
Lord Cranworth delivered the judgment of their lord-
ships, that according to the 'precedent in Dr. Stone's case,
some fifty years ago, and acting on the rule which guided
all criminal proceedings, the party accused was entitled to
have the specific charges brought to his knowledge. So
they directed the articles to be reformed within a month,
with oasts of the application to the appellaat.
Judgment accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Fia. 8.
Sitting at Nisi Prins in Middlessz.—(&toto Lord Mid
Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
ZACK= AND WIFE r. THE GREAT NONTRIERN RAD,w‘T
CONPANT.---THI 111:co'n-C108.9 ACCIDINT.

-•
This was an action to recover damages for injuries sus-
tabled by the female pkintiff in the accident which
happened at the King's•cruse station on the 30th May last,
when a train came with such force into the station that the
engine dashed through ioto the public road. The company
paid 1001. into court, and pleaded that this was sufficient to
compensate the plaintiffs.
Yr. Berjeant Shea and Mr. Worledge •ppeaced for the
= sad Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Poll-ock for the de•
The wale plaintiff was a labourer in the Animal at Wool-
wich, his wife lend here a laundress. and their earnings
were from Ito. to if. a week each. Mrs. Hacker was taken
soon after the sccident to the Victoria Hotel, where she
remained until the Ztrd June, when her beiad fetched
her borne in a cab. Mho hail spit blood several times since
the accident, and one or two of her ribs bed been broken.
At the time of the amplest her age was about 40, and she
had been a strong healthy woman ; but sine the accident

she had had several convulsive 6ts, she had had constant
pains in her head, and she had not been able to work, or
even to make her bed. She had been attended by a medi-
cal man, Mr. Allanson, down to October, and he had seen
her once or twice since then. He had recommended the
continued use of stimulants, which had been given by the
railway doctor.
The plaintiff, in her evidence, said that since the acci-
dent her memory had been bad, and since then a little
drink overcame her. They told her that since the accident
she had been in the habit of frequenting public houses and
dancing and singing there, but she did not recollect it. She
might have been turned out of the Queen's Arms as drunk,
but she did not recollect it. Her husband told her that
she had been dancing for hours in front of the bar of the
Armstrong Gun last Saturday whilst a man played the cor-
nopean, but she did not recollect it. She recollected going
into the house. She was not the drunken or abusive woman
thgy told her she was now before the accident. She was
that she bad taken her gown off her back in the street,
and sold it to a woman for half-a-crown.
Her husband stated that before the accident he had
never known his wife drunk but once but since he had fre-
quently found her drunk at public houses, and her manner
was very much altered.

Other evidence of a similar kind was given, and the me.
dial men expressed their opinion that there was an injury
to the spine, and it was probable that she would never be
able to do hard work again.
For the defendants the evidence was that she had been
in the habit of getting drunk and behaving in an offensive
manner in the front of pnblic•house bars both before as well
as since the accident, and that her own course of conduct
bad probably very much increased the injury which she
sustained in the accident. It was believed that there was
no injury to the spine, or any permanent injury at all.
The jury found that the amount paid into court was suf-
ficient ; and at their request the company undertook to pay
the doctor's hill, which was not claimed in the declaration,
and not to ask for costa against the plaintiff.
Verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
FEB. 8.
(Before the Judge OnUnary.)

TALBOT AND OTIIER4 P. TRANZANZ AND OTHEBB.--NPICIAL

JURY.
Sir H. Cairns, Mr. Macaulay, Dr. Spinks, and Mr.
appeared for the tiffs ; Sir F. Kelly, Dr.
It. Gurney,
Tristram, Mr. Kerslake, and . Daley for the defendants.
This wee a testamenta snit relating to the will of the
Rev. John Montgomery late of t;oedriglao,
Gla-
morgaoshire ; and in his very lengthened opening speech
Sir H. Cairns stated the following particulars relating to the
deceased sod the litigant parties :—Thc plaintiffs wore Mr.
Christopher Rice Menzel Talbot, M.P. fur Glamorganshire,
and lord lieutenant of the county, a brother-in-law of
the deceased ; Major John Popkui Traherne, his first
cousin ; and Mn. Charlotte Louisa Traherne, his widow.
The defeudants were Mr. George Montgomery Traherne,
of St. Hilary, near Cowbridge, • magistrate for Glamor-
ganshire, and a son of the half-brother of the deceased,
and Miss Louisa Frances Traherne, sister and heiress-at-
law of the deceased. Miss Frances Traherne and Mr.
Llewellyn Edmond Traherne were also cited to see pro-
ceedings. The real parties to the suit, however, were Mrs.
Traherne and Mr. G. M. Traherne, who, though he bene-
fited largely under the present will, had • yet larger
interest under a former testament. He alleged that the
deceased was not of testamentary capacity, and that the
will was not the will of the deceased. The Rev. J. M
Traherue died on the 6th of February, 1860, at the age of
71. He was the bead of an old family, the Trahernew of
Castella. His father had been twice married. By his
first wife, Miss Edmond', he had the testator and three
daughters. By his second, Miss Manning, he bad another
son, the Rev. George Traherne, who was the father of the
defendant. At the age of 19 the testator entered at Oriel
College, under the tutorial care of the late Dr. Copleetone,
who afterwards became head of the college, and, later
still, Bishop of Llandaff. A very ardent friendship had
subsisted between the deceased and the right rev. prelate,
whom he used to hold up as • model bishop, and between
whom and other prelates he was in the habit of making
comparisons very much to their disadvantage.
Sir C. Creaswell—Living bishops?
Sir H. Cairns—Living bishops ; but he would not men-
tion their names. The deceased was never a very strong
man, and though at the desire of his father he had taken
holy orders, he was never physically able to do any clerical
duty,
duty, and he never had any preferment in the church.
Before long, however, he was in a position which rendered
that of no importance, for he inherited property to • cond.
derable amount from his parents. He was very much de-
Total to literary pursuits, and especially to antiquarian-
ism and to Gothic architecture, to both of which he was
greatly attached. In 1830 he married Miss Talbot, the
sister of the first plaintiff, and from that time to the end of
his life he lived with her on terms of the greatest happi-
ness. By this marriage he became connected with the lead-
ing families in Glamorganshire, and he was soon after made
a county magistrate. Dr. Copleetone also appointed him
chancellor of the diocese, an office involving no great exer-
tion, but which be declined to hold after the death of his
right rev. friend. He had published several works, includ-
ing " The Stradling Correspondence." He was • Fellow of
the Royal Society, and a member of the Archreologi-
cal, the Antiquarian, the Geological, and the
Lrn-
na-an Societies. His religious principles were what
are usually known as high church, and he was
• zealous promoter of the restoration of churches.
In point of politics it would be inaccurate to call him by so
mild • name as a conservative ; for he was • specimen of
what was not altogether common in these days—an uncom-
promising tory. He was a person of very warm feelings.
He was, what Dr. Johnson so much approved of—both a
good liker and a good disliker. To those whom lie liked be
was an ardent and an unchanging friend ; but to those with
whom he did not agree he was not always so considerate.
He generally expressed what he felt ; and if he was contra-
dicted, he often became very warm. Except by strangers,
with whom he was always shy, he wasgenerally considered
to possess considerable conversational powers.. He had a
large fund of anecdote, and he had the power of making
his antiquarian research and his literary acquhements
available for the amusement of his friends. His society was
therefore highly prized. He was in the habit, however, of
priming very rapidly from one subject to another, and per-
sons who did not know him well were often unable to see
the connexion between the two. Moreover, he was near-
sighted, which seems to have given him the habit of not
looking the person with whom he was conversing in the
face. His real property consisted of two estates, which
were about ten niiles apart. The Coedriglan estate, in
which was the testator's house, was worth about 2,0001. •
year. That he had derived from his father. It came to
him as tenant in tail, but having barred the entail, it bad
become his absolute property. The other estate, which
was called St. Hilary. and on which there was also • manor
house, came from his mother's family to Edmonds, and
it was worth 600/. or 7001. a year. He also possessed about
10,000 f. in the funds, and other personal property worth
about 5,0001. more. His habits, with respect to money,
were well described in • letter which he wrote in the year
1856, to the Rev. Lewis Thomas, the clergyman of St.
Hilary's. He said that people, no doubt, thought be was
made of money, but, in point of fact, his expenditure gene-
rally exceeded his income. He explained, however, that
being the last of a family which was very ancient, and what
was much better, very distinguished for its ability and loyalty
in dark and troubled times like those in which we seemed
entering, he had never felt any repugnance to assist in
carrying out any useful object. The only near rela-
tives he had were his sister, Miss Louisa Traherne,
who was born in 1744, and who was living at the manor
house of St. Hilary. His half brother, Mr. George Tn.
hem, was dead, but he had left • widow, who lived in a
cottage at St. Hilary, and who had besides the plaintiff •
younger son, named Llewellyn. A more distant relative
was Major Traherne, a half-cousin ; more distant still was
Col. Morse, and more distant still Mr. Llewellyn Sanderson.
Of his mother's family there was living Mr. C. G. Edmonds,
the residuary legatee under the will. The testator had
made a former will in 1849, and two codicils in 1855 and
1859. By this will his wife took his furniture, carriages, and
things of that sort, absolutely, soda life interest in all the rest
of his property. Then, after giving certain legacies, he be-
queathed the Coedriglan estate, on the death of his widow, to
his brother, the Rev. G. Traherne. The St. Hilary estate,
after the death of the testator's widow, was to go to his
sisters, Charlotte and Louisa, and after their death to Mr.
G. Y. Traherne, then to his sons in tail, and afterwards to
other relatives and their descendants in tail. The first
caffieil, executed after the death of his half-brother, of his
sister Charlotte, and of Mr. Morgan Popkin TmLerne, one
of his trustees, and the father of Major Traherne, put Mr.
G. M. Traherne in the place of his father, appointed Major
Traherne • trustee, and gave Miss Louisa Traherne the
share of her deceased sister. The second codicil merely
related to the next presentation of a living in the posses-
sion of the deceased. There afterwards arose • little ir-
ritation between the testator and his brother George a
There had been • slight dispute about • bishop's lease ; and
Mr. G. Y. Traherne had rather displeased his uncle,
by becoming master of the county bound*. In 1858, the
deceased went to Tenby. Before this he hail restored two
churches on his Coedriglan estate, and he had contemplated
a similar step with regard to the church at St. Hilary. In
a letter which he wrote in 1856 he stated, that as the lords
of the manor used in old time to build the churches, it was
still • moral duty to undertake the task of their suatenta-
tion upon them when no legal rate could be laid, or when
the burden would be too heavy for the pockets of the parish-
ioners. He added, that it was a subject of great pride to
him to have been the first to employ Scott (Mr. B. S. Scott,
the eminent architect) in Glamorgaushire but his friend,
Lord Cawdor, had had him nine years before in Pembroke-
shire. The restoration, owing to Mr. ricotta numerous en.
gagements, seemed to have remained in abeyance till just
before the visit to Tenby, when he had taken active steps
in the matter. On the 17th of September, a sermon on
behalf of the Capetown mission was preached by Dr. Grey,
who was Bishop of Capetowo, and who was a son of the tee-
tater'. oldfriend the Bishop of Bristol. The seat day there was
a public meeting at Tenl,y on behalf of the mine object, at
which speeches were made by Dr. Grey and the Bishop of
London. The testator took • great interest in the matter,
and agreed to subscribe Mt per annum for five rears. After-
wards, on talking the matter over with Mrs. traheroe, he
determined first to increase his yearly subscripton to 1001.,
and afterwards to pay the 5001. down. The result ought
to be • warning to persons against being unusually liberal
at a watering place. There immediately arose a rumour
that he was insane. (A laugh.) It having afterwards come
to the testators eats that has nephew, the &deadest, had
taken part in spreading them rumours, he was aatarally very

much annoyed. Another source of annoyance was the con-
duct of Mrs. George Traherne, who made an offer to the
vestry to pay half the expense of building a wall round
the churchyard at St. Hilary. The offer was at once ac-
cepted by the vestry, and the contractor went to the
testator's gardener and under agent to ask whether he might
" rise " stone out of one of the testator's quarries for the work.
The gardener having communicated with the testator on the
subject, Mr. Traherne wrote back in great indignation to
the clergyman and churchwardens of St. Hilary, complain-
ing of such a step being taken pending the restoration of the
church and without consulting him ; telling them that
" fools and their money were soon parted " and threaten-
ing to discharge all his tenants who-had taken part in the
vestry meeting. The clergyman and vestry immediately
stopped the work, and made their peace with the testator ;
but no apology was offered by Mrs. George Traherne. Mr.
Traherne, the defendant, dirt, however, write to the testa-
tor disclaiming any part in the affair. These events seem to
have increased the testator's displeasure, and on his return
home he took steps for the alteratirn of his will. The in.
strument in dispute, after much consultation and
correspondence, was drawn up by Mr. Woodrough,
his solicitor. The alterations that were made by it were
simply these :—The reversion of the St. Hilary estate was
given to Mr. Llewellyn Sanderson ; a sum of 2,0001. was
bequeathed towards the restoration of St. David's Cathe-
dral, with a hope that the tower might be improved ; and
the residue of the personalty was left to his nephew, Mr.
C. G. Edwards. The destination of the Coedriglan estate
was left unaltered. The will was executed on the 27th of
January, 184i0, and Mr. Traherne died ten day. after-
wards, after an apopletic seizure of fourteen hours' dura.
tion. A very large number of the deceased's letters were
read, with a view to show his perfect capacity for business
to the very last. In November, while his will was being
inpee~aration, be attended the petty sessions. There was
a disputed affiliation case, and Mr. Traberne was of opinion
that the charge was proved. The other magistrate present,
however, thought at first that it was not, but after recon-
sideration he joined with Mr. Traherne io making the order,
and the defendant eventually confessed that he was the
father. Sir H. Cfiirtis having exculpated 'the defendant
from any imputation of having given currency to reports
which he did not at the time believe, concluded by observ-
ing that Mrs. Traberne bad no pecuniary concern in the
present proceedings, her life interest being the same under
both wills ; but she had felt it her duty to resist the charges
involved io the plea of the defendant, and to see that the
last wishes of her husband were carried into effect.

Mr. Woodrough and the Rev. Mr. Nichols, who attested
the will, were then examined, and they deposed in the most
positive manner to the perfect capacity of the deceased.
Mr. Priest Richards, his confidential solicitor, also produced
a number of his letters, and detailed conversations which he
bad bad with him. He considered him to be as well quali-
fied to manage hia affairs as any gentleman of his age could
be.
The case was not concluded when the court roes.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—FEB. 8.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Fyne.)

BRAND V. COLEMAN.-TIIE ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT.

This was an action to recover 14s. damages, alleged to
have been sustained through mustard not proving of the
quality agreed upon.
Mr. Buchanan (for plaintiff)—My client bought six casks
of mustard of defendant, but upon using the article his cut.
tomer' complained of it. Under those circumstances plain-
tiff resolved to submit a sample to Dr. Lethehy, and that
gentleman had given his certificate to the effect that the
mustard contained mustard meal, wheaten flour, and tur-
meric. Defendant upon seeing the document agreed to
take back the mastoid. Plaintiff now sought to recover
the expense of a porter, ss. his own loss of time, se.
Dr. Letheby's charge, and 2s. the value of the mustard de-
livered to the doctor. . . .

iiiiliOnoi;r7eierrid to the new act, and asked if the mix-
ture vie; hurtful . . . .

11r.110;1;;;tanLWe do not wy it was hurtful, but we my
it was not genuine.
Hie Honour—What do they use turmeric for
Mr. Baxter (for defendant)—Colouring. It Is quite
harmless.

Hu Honour—Then, as to wheaten dour' I think that is •
peat deal more harmless than mustard. Does Dr. Letheby
way this mustard is adulterated?
Mr. Buchanan—He says that the constituent parts are
hose common to mustard used in commerce, and not hurt•
ful to health. He adds that he cannot say the mustard is
adulterated in • commercial sense.

His Honour did not see how the act would apply.
Mr. Buchanan—lt is a very curious act. There was a
great deal of wrangling over one word, and then it was
pissed all in a hurry. Perhaps we can get on without it.
Mr. Baxter pointed out that plaintiff had purchased the
very lowest priced mustard. The best was 19d. per lb.
That bought by plaintiff was only Bd.
His Honour thought we were in a very lax state of com-
mercial morality, and plaintiff ought not to complain when
he buys for Bd. an article which in its best quality costa
19d. It was contended by defendant that commercially the
mixture of wheaten flour and turmeric was allowed, and
Dr. Letheby went as far in his certificate. The act was
very curiously drawn, and would not apply in the present
cue, therefore plaintiff would be nonsuited.