Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-25 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TINES, FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 1859

examine both the bill and the resolution, and calmly con-
sider how- they could best extricate-themselves-- from their
actual embarrassment. Let them first establish what were
the actual grievances they had to remedy, and then to see
what remedy they could apply that would injure no existing
int:r:sts, and elevate, rather than depress, the various classes
of the country. The reform bill of 1832 had acted in this
spirit, and had adapted itself in every respect to the constitu-
tion-while dealing with its admitted defects. Ile enumerated
the grievances which had been then revived, simply by look-,
ing closely at their natiire' and applying; to them a-PractiCal.
remedy: But the present bill was in some parts too inge-
nious, and in' ethers;-unless revived, involved an entire
alteration and ultimate subversion of the constitution:
What. were the practical defects they had to remedy ? The
chief inconvenience was the exclusion from the franchise of
those who-had a right to exercise it. The second inconve-
nience was smaller than certain places deserving to be
represented. The third was a serious one —that the
most efficient means were not given to the voter for

recording his vote. With reference to the last, after
alluding to the ballot, of which he said he was not
afraid, 'he expressed his approbation of the principle of
voting papers, which he was sure was an honest proposal,
and believed it to be a good one. It carried the poll to
the'electors,instead of the electors to • the poll. It would
diminish expense, remove many difficulties and diminish
the chances of . riot and confusion. The character of the

elector would be raised, and their numbers increased: He
pointed out practical improvements in the proposals of the
bill respecting these papers, by which personification and
fraud would be obviated. The declarations in. respect of
these papers ought to be made before a public officer. As to
the representation of large towns not yet represented, he
considered 'that 'the plan -of' the 'government officers a
practical remedy to the inconvenience. He argued against
the disfranchisenient of the small boroughs, because the
greatness of a nation depended on its respect for prescrip-
tive rights. Let them beware of breaking, altogether 'with
the 'fast; which would jeopardise the constitution of the
country. He woald have any borough disfranchised where
a tendency to ,corruption could be proVed, but in every
other instance let them be preserved to retain the great
pcinciple of variety of representation. He, therefore, fully
approved of the plans of the Government in this respect,
and ,cleclared' that they .deserved the thanks of the.
country fOr not yielding to a theoretical cry.
_lie then came 'to the most important question of all
—the suffrage. There never was a time better adapted than
the present for 4.l6terinining the direction in which the
suf-
frage should go, and the Emits within which it should be
confined. There' was one Class of refOrmers who would give
influence to-numbers; there are others who would adopt the
principle of-1852 to the England 'of 1859. How were they
to find the proper balance between those two classes ? Per
sonal suffrage, manhood suffrage, household suffrage were
impossible. Upon this Subject, lie came to those propositions
of the Government which were, he considered, so objectiona-
ble, that, unless all the provisions of the bill were to be
considered as open, modification in coniniittee could not
givelt support. He-argued at length against identity of
suffrage, which would create vast discontent, 'would enable
political associations 'to manufacture votes, and create a
system which would altogether destroy theirifiuence of the
resident voters. There. was- only' one. system under which
the principle was defensible, and that was universal
suffrage. Further than this, he objectedto: the total alter-
ation which would thus be caused in the county and
borough constituency. The distinction between the two,
from the very nature of the population of each, was
right - and .pmpei.' Further, - the adoption of the
principle would introduce a mass of voters who
aid not contribute to direct taxation, and he be-
lieved would lead to electoral. districts. It was
idle to say' that the consequence was impossible. How
were they to Separate two franchises if :they reduced the
borough. franchise to £6? How would -they apply' it to
Ireland and Scotland ? Let them remember that if they
adopted this principle they could not retrace their steps.
For himself, he would not leave the franchise as it was : he
would admit all. voters that they were independent, and
'believed that with 'this view two resting places could he
foitnd -that in 'counties was a £2O occupancy, and • in
boroughs a £6 rating, which was equivalent to an £8
occupancy. For -these reasons he could not vote for the
second reading of -the bill, if he found 'that identity of
franchise was to be considered by the government as essential
to the bill. From what had been stated that night
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would seem that all
these questions were to be open in totnmittee. Let the
Government state this clearly and he would give the bill
his support ; if they did not, he could not 'blame the noble
Lord for enabling the 'House to make a declaration that it
did not consider identity of franchise essential to the bill.
They were told that the resignation of the ministry, or the
dissolution of the House, would follow the adoption of the
resolution ; he should regret if it did happen, but he did
not believe that it 'would happen. The present adminis-
tration had won their places fairly, and they had acted
well in them.. He should be a bold man who
should recommend the dissolution of Parliament
in the face of 'European complications in which
this country held the high position of arbitrator of
peace ; a position which could not be maintained unless the
Ministry Was supported by Parliament. Lastly, he was
told that the bill would be withdrawn. But -let them not,
allow the question to remain any longer unsettled. Great
would he their responsibility if they threw away the oppor-
tunity now within their -reach.

Mr. Bright said that, with the exception of the members
of the Ministry, who might be regarded as professional
witnesses, no or ventured to express themselves directly
in favour of the bill. With regard to the two
principles especially brought before them by the resolu-
tions, what he asked was the meaning of real reform.
It was to give to the country the extension of the franchise,
and to create larger; freer, and more independent consti-
taencies. If the bill did not meet theSe cases t was not a
reform bill, and does not deserve even these considerations.
He explained the provisions, contending that it made the
existing voters more dependent, and altered the boundaries
of boroughs, so as to take away the influence of the boroughs
or counties. He quoted several instances to prove this
point. The whole effect of the bill was in one direction, to
augment the territorial influence, which was so mischievously
used in that house, as well successive Ministries could testify.
The bill itself was framed to satisfy the scruples and fears of
the hundred and fifty gentlemen who represented
the influence :of the land in Parliament. The "small
boroughs were defended as refuges for the destitute.
He could only hope that those whom they then relieved
were deserving objects. He gave several instances
of the abuses and corruptions of those boroughs, which
would be indefinitely increased by the combined action of
the 40s. freehold, and the system of voting papers. By
this last system small constituencies might suddenly find
themselves returning members with whom they had no sym-
pathy, and of whom perhaps the residents had :never heard.
He vindicated warmly the claims of the working classes who
had no right to be considered unworthy of trust. He repeated
that there was not a uniform bill at all, it was what would
be called, in election phrase, a case of personification. He
detiied strongly that the population was lukewarm in the
cause of Reform, that population had conquered everything
it yet attempted, and it would conquer a larger share in the
representation of the people. The great employers of
labour were not afraid of trusting the working classes, who,
if they were once satisfied by the franchise, would be
nobler, more orderly, and more elevated then ever.
On the motion of Sir S. Northcote, the debate was
adjourned.
The Rouse adjourned at ten minutes to one.

THE LIVERPOOL
NEW EXCHANGE COMPANY.

FROM OUR OWN REPORTER,

HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY.
The select committee of the House of Lords on the Liver-
pool New Exchange Bill sat to-day, the Earl of Lucan in
the chair. The other members of the committee were
Viscount Effingham, Viscount Dungannon, Lord Dunferm-
line, and Lord Churston.

Mr. Calvert and Mr. Denson appeared on behalf of the
promoters of the bill. Petitions against the bill were pre-
sented by the Corporation of Liverpool, the proprietors of
the Liverpool Exchange Buildings, the members of the
Liverpool Stock Exchange, and the Electric Telegraph
Company. Mr. Sergeant Bellasis, Mr. Hope Scott, Q.C.,
and Mr. Burke appeared on behalf of the proprietors of the
Liverpool Exchange Buildings. None of the other peti-
tioners against the bill were represented by counsel.
Mr. Calvert, Q.C., said the bill which he had the honour
of opening to their lordships was one relating to a proposed
company of proprietors of a Liverpool new Exchange, to
incorporate within it the existing Liverpool Exchange, and
for other purposes. The general character of the measure
was this. For many years there had been an Exchange in
Liverpool, but for some time it had been found inconvenient,
inadequate for mercantile purposes, and not in any respect
large enough for the 'purposes required. Under these cir-
cumstances, a bill was passed last year for increasing the
size of the Exchange, but it was provided that the company
were not to proceed with the enlargement until the August
of the present year, in order that time might be given for
submitting to Parliament a more comprehensive scheme.
In order to accomplish this, a new company had been
formed, and he (the learned counsel) thought their lordships
would say that the scheme which he was about to
explain to them was one that was the best adapted
for the purposes of an Exchange at Liverpool. The
learned counsel detailed the circumstances under which, the
existing Exchange Company was formed, and having shown
that is wls altogether inadequate 'for the increased me

.caiitile

operations in Liverpool, hi adverted to the several meeting,
which had been held in Liverpool for the purpose of incrcas-
ng the present accommodation, which had resulted in the
foanation of the new company. He pointed out that the
extensions which the existing company were empowered to
make under their bill of last session, would not, meet the
present requirements,- and having detailed the history of all
the recent proceedings on the part of the mercantile body in
Liverpool, with the object of securing the increased accom-
modation required, he said that the present scheme was the
'only practicnl one for effecting the. object in view. He
referred to the rapidity with which the shares had been
taken up, and dwelt upon the important fact that if
the present opportunity for securing the site on which
the sessions house now stood were not availed of, the proba-
bility was that the opportunity would not occur again, and
that the chance of obtaining the site would be lost
.for
ever. Having explained the main features of the plan, he
briefly alluded to the petition against the bill, which had
been presented by the proprietors of the existing EXchange,
and said it .was intended to give them adequate compensa-
tion, but it was strongly felt that the proprietary of an
Exchange like 'Liverpool ought to be mainly in the hands
of the subscribers, the ownership and management at present
being vested in persons who have no business connection
with Liverpool, and in many cases in the trustees of orphans
and others interested; whose trust rendered them incapable,
however anxious they might be, to meet the requirements
of the increasing commercial interests of Liverpool.
Mr. Charles Stuart Parker, examined by Mr. Danson : I
am chairman of the Liverpool New Exchange Company.
Have resided in Liverpool for thirty-nine years. lam the
strut:l,r partner in the house of Saudbach, Tinne, and Co.
Our offices are on Vie present exchange buildings; they are
• very inconvenient and dark, so much so that at- mid-day
they are obliged to be lighted up with gas. The newsroom
'is also very inconvenient; it is badly ventilated, and there
is not even room to write a letter ; the extension in the
newsroom propesediast year would be very slight and not
by any means meet what was required ; tho space around
it being occupied by,streets,.would render the enlargement
wanted impossible ; all that could be effected by the pro-
posed extension would be lengthening the TOOM., and
making it between three and four times as
broad, and we should be exposed to the noise and inconve-
nience arising from cares in Tithebarn-street. According to
the plans of our own proposed company, there would be no
noise. The room would also be well lighted and ventilated.
lam a magistrate of the borough. In consequence of the
new buildings now erecting in Liverpool for magisterial
purposes, the existing sessions-house will soon be on sale,
and I think it highly desirable to secure the site for the pur-
poses of an Exchange. .I consider the plans of the proposed
company exceedingly well adapted for the purposes of the
mercantile community. We propose to have spacious rooms
in the buildings for the accommodation of the Chamber of
Commerce, the Stock Exchange, the Electric Telegraph
Company, and other bodies.

long as

.Eiamined by .Mr. Hope Scott : Our !present plan has
never been exhibited in Liverpool. We propose to take
possession of the whole of the property of the existing
company. Originally we proposed to take only part of the
property of the old company. We propose to take three
years for the completion of the compulsory powers over the
old company which we.seck by the . present bill. I cannot
say that that course is likely to depreekte the shares of the
old company. I believe they have oscillated -since the
formation of the new company.
Mr. Hope Scott: g.
Mr. Parker : Yes, -I may say so

believe you are a wealthy-company

Mr. Hope Scott : Then- why not take possession of the
property of the old company in one year ? Why expose the
value of their property to fluctuate and depreciate for three

yetrs ?

Mr. Parker : When the scheme was started last year we
were recovering frQrn a severe depression, and did not
conceive ourselves in a position to take the property at
once.

Mr. Hope Scott: 'But trade is nourishing in Liverpool
aciw, is it not ?

Mr. Parkei: I beg your pardon. It is a little better ; but
the state of uncertainty of things at home and abroad does
not give much encouragement. At least that is niy indi-
vidual opinion.

Mr. Hope -Scott i suppose you .would have no objection
extinguish the old company at .once, if the Reform Bill
should be carried within a short time. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)

-Mr. Parker : I suppose the Liverpool merchants
would not. (Renewed laughter.)
By the Committee: The price of -shares by the old com-
par►y has varied very much during late years, In 1854 the
maximum price was £307, and the minimum £270. In
1855, £2BO and £270 ;in 1856, £272 and £246; in. 1857,
£3OO and £253 ; and last year, £275 and £260.
At the close of Mr. Parker's examination, Mr. Calvert
stated that he had several witnesses in attendance connected
with the Chamber of,Comlnerce andt the other public bodies,
to speak to the necessity of what was provided by the bill,
but unless the committee wished it, he did not propose to
call them.

Mr. Burke said he thought he might perhaps save the
time of the committee. Those whom he represented (the
old • Exchange Company) did not come there to oppose the
bill before the committee. All they wished for was that
their property should be fairly dealt with. They desired
that the proposed company should not take a part, but the
whole of the property, and take it at once.
The Chairman asked Mr. Calvert if the promoters could
not take possession of the property in twelve months ?
Mr. Sergeant Bcllasis said that as the Liverpool people
were so notoriously rich, they might pay for the property

in one year.
Mr. Calvert said, they had no objection to let the transfer
of the property commence in twelve months, and pay in-
terest upon it for three years. War, or any such cause,
might prevent them going on with the works, or completing
them in less than three years. . .
Mr. Sergeant Bellasis replied that, war or no war, it was
ridiculous to talk of postponing the payment of such a
comparatively paltry sum for three years. If the com-
pulsory power of purchase were held over the existing com-
pany for three years, it might depreciate the value of the
property. •
The Chairman : Suppose you say that the amount of
compensation shall be settled in twelve months, and pay
a portion of the money on taking possession.
Mr. Sergeant Bellasis said their lordships would see that
this was the case of one joint-stock company seeking to
take possession of the property of another, without proposing
to pay for it at once—a principle most unheard of.
The Chairman : But you wish them to take possession of
it at once, and they say they cannot do so.
Mr. Sergeant Bellasis : There can be no objection to their
taking possession at once.
The Chairman : I think you are very unreasonable. You
first insist on an immediate arrangement, and then on an
immediate payment. .I think you must consent either to
receive a portion of the money, or to have the arrangement
carried out in between two and three years.
Mr. Sergeant Bellasis : I think it a most unreasonable
thing for them to call upon us to give our property away
without paying for it at once. It is useless to say that we
shall have a lien upon it, and they commence their repairs.
It would be in a delapidated condition, and useless to us
Mr. Calvert : •Will this suit you ? We will pay for it
whenever we ask possession. Will that do ?
Mr. Sergeant Bellasis : Yes, provided that it be carried
out within three years, and that you pay the money before
you take possession.
Mr. Calvert : Yes, we will pay the money before we take
possession.
Mr. Sergeant Bellasis having had a few moments conver-
sation with those who instructed him, said that before
giving a final answer to the proposal, perhaps they would
allow him to have a short consultation with his clients. He
then retired along with Mr. John Stewart and Mr. Carson,
and on returning, he said—What we say is this. Of course
it is quite plain we cannot give up our property until
we have the money. But considering the great desire there is
in Liverpool for these works being carried out, my clients
say that they cannot consent to let them stand •over for
more than a year and a half. And the reason is this, that
should they not go on with them, it will prevent us from
making the alterations. Our bill has already been suspended
for a year and a half. If our property is not to be given
away until we are paid the money, we consent to a year and
a half.
Mr. Calvert said he could not help thinking that, as three
years, was the common period for taking possession of
property under such circumstances, the objection urged was
exceedingly unreasonable. The old company were receiving
their dividend of thirteen guineas, and he could not see,
therefore, how they could be injured. If the committee
would give the promoters the latitude of three years, they
would complete the works as soon as possible.
The Chairman (to Mr. Sergeant Bellasis) : Then I un-
derstand you to insist on one year and a-half, and they say
they will not undertake to take possession in less than three
years.
Mr. Sergeant Bellasis : I really believe that when these
gentlemen get back to Liverpool they will be blamed by
their constituents for standing out on such a paltry sum..
Why do they stand out for three years ? It is obvious that
there must be something.
Lord Dungannon: It is very ebvious that they are
anxious to complete the works.
Mr. Sergeant Bellasis : Thenwhy do they stand out ?
Mr. Calvert : Because we well know that we cannot con-
trol future events.
The room was thou cleared, and ou the re-admission of
the partiet,
two T hyee
aCrhs
ai Tr an
they sahi do
—p
in the Commons.
day for preamble
to-morrow (this,
e T
thathe committeei
t will ple sheanyte anyagr eoepdptho s igt ijovne
rethavincboinse
iodfetrhatejobnillofwthase
ctlhaeunsesd.eclared proved, and
the. committee adjourned to eleven o'clock

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

EQUITY COURT.-YESTERDAY,

BEFORE VICE-CHANCELLOR SIR R. T. KI.NDERSLEY

NEW BRUNSWICK AND CANADA RAILWAY AND LAND
COMPANY V. MUGOERIDGE. --- IMPORTANT TO SnAßE-
noLnEus..---TheVice-Chancellor delivered judgment in this
case. He said the bill was filed by a joint-stock company
against Mr. William Muggcridge, and it prayed for a
specific performance- of an alleged agreement to take
250 shares in the company. The company was formed in
July, 1856, for the 'purpose of taking a transfer of the
rights, privileges, and liabilities of the St. Andrew's
and Quebec Railway Company. The proposed capital
of .the company was £BOO,OOO, in £2O shares. accord-
ing to the articles of association, the applicants for
shares were required to pay . a dePOsit of £2 a share on
m.aking the application. Defendant applied for 300 shares,
ayplication being in the following terms : " Having
paid into the Bank of London the sum of £6OO, I request
you will allot me 100 shares of class A, and 200 shares of
class B, in 'the said undertaking ; and I hereby a,ree to

_
accept such shares, or any less number that may be allotted t
me, and to pay the future calls thereon." The share
time commanded a premium in the Stock Exchange, a]
more were. applied for than the total number to be
The nuMber allotted to the defendant was 50 of class A, an
200 of class B, and £lOO of the deposit money returne
to him. On the 14th of August following, the secretary
of the company sent to the defendant a copy of the me-
morandum of association, and requested . him to sign

and to return it, but hp neglected to do so. Ate
snbsequent meeting of the company, the seal of the
company, was attached to the register of sharehold
which Included the defendant's name for
dividend was declared, and the secretary

A
again sent the

250 shares

would sign and return them, and the diiidend warrants
would then be sent 'to him. Defendant, hOwever, did not
sign the articles. 'ln November; 1857, another call of £2
made. and s.s' Ain.qtreridoll did not nay*_ on ne-inn

wa.s taken for the plaintiff, subject to a special cas,

case was then argued before the full Court of Exchequer,
and the court decided that the defendant had not accepted
the shares, and consequently defendant was not liable.
Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present bill, piaying for a
specific performance of the agreement to accent shares, the
alleged agreement being the application for shares
above stated. By the Joint Stock Companies Act of
1856, it was provided that if there were no

articles of association of a company,
of regulation in schedule B of that

a certain form
act should stand

in their place. This regulation stated " that no person
shall be deemed to have accepted shares unless he has
signified the acceptance thereof by writing under his hand."
Nov the plea to this bill was that the defendant did not
testify
,his acceptance of shares of the company
by writing under his hand. He conceived that
that was no answer to the bill. The bill asked for specific

performance of an agreement, and the plea was that the
defendant had not performed it. The argument, however,
was not founded on the plea, but on the merits of the case
and beweitld therefore state his opinion on the merits. Ir

opinion, Mr.
ion for an allotment

by the terms of his applica-
v ao'reed to accept such shares.
_ _

distiliotl

The 'next question was—'-was this an agreement which that
court ought to specifically` perform. It was agreed that this
nartnership, and that the court would not

a case o

specific performance of an agreement to ,become a
partner, inasmuch as if there was no term fixing the
duration of the parnership, the defendant might the next
moment, put an end to it, and the decree would there-
fore be nugatory. This, however, was not the case
of an ordinary partnership. A shareholder in a joint-
stock company could not withdraw from the company in
the way that a partner in an ordinary partnership could
Withdraw from the partnership. All he could do was to
transfer his shares to some other person, and a decree for
a specific performance in this case, therefore, would not be
nugatory, but would confer a substantial benefit on the
company. He thought, therefore, that this was a case in
Which the court should decree specific performance. If
the value of the shares, Instead of falling in the market, had
risen, and the company had chosen to say to Mr. Muggeridge,
" You shall not have the shares w,; had allotted to you,"
there was no doubt that Mr. Mup.,eridge would have had
his remedy against them, and that %e could have enforced
the allotment. He had now, however, merely to decide on
the'sufficiency of the plea. It must be over-ruled and the
defendant must pay the costs, and if after the opinion he
had expressed, defendant chose to proceed with the suit, he
would know what the decision of the court would be, Mr.
Glasse : Your Honourwill allow us six weeks to put in an
answer ? The Vice-Chancellor Yes.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—MAncn 24

In re HENRY HOOMAN.—EXTENSIVE FAILURE OF A NEvr
Youx. MERCRANT.—This insolvent, who had been a mer-
chant to an extensive way of business at New York, applied
to be discharged on sureties till his adjourned hearing- in
three months' time before Mr. Commissioner Murphy. Mr.
Sargood appeared on the part of Messrs. Grinirod, and Mr.
Nicholas supported the application for bail. The case was
before the Court for hearing on Saturday, and on being
adjourned, the present application was made. The case
presented some remarkable features. The debts exceeded
£30,000, and the insolvent stated on his proceedings that he
has £B,OOO owing to him, but could give no account, having
made no assignment to creditors, and by the American law,
if heinterfered in getting an account, he should render the
deed "null and void:" He said his failure arose in cense-
.quence of the panic in America. He unfortunately
continued too long in business, and had to pay large
interest for money. The consignment was to, pay two
" preferential creditors," which was said to be a common
practice in Amcriea. The insolvent had been arrested on a
capias as about to leave England, and then petitioned
the court. He declared that he had no intenton to
leave the country, and was now a buyer for an American
house, and was anxious to get out on bail. On the part of
the creditor better accounts were required before the case
could be fully heard. Mr. Sargood examined the proposed
bail. They were nearly strangers to the insolvent, and
came forward to serve him. By permission of Mr. Com-
misslitner Murphy, hail in £250 was considered to be suffi-
cient. The learned Commissioner was satisfied with the

proposed bail, and the discharge was ordered till the ad-
journed hearing in three months.

THE IVEnniNo RING AND GLOVES.—The truth of the
old adage was fully verified in en amusing case of Peate v.
Povey, tried at the Wens County-court, on the 14th inst.
Isaac Peate; of Welshampton, sued Sarah Povey, of the
same place, for 17s 11d, the items being 12s 6d for a wed-
ding ring, 3s lld for a 'pair of gloves, and is 6d for pub-
lishing the banns, of marriage between the parties.
Defendant paid is 6fl into court, and denied further lia-

bility. It appeared, from
that he 'had wooed and won the rather
defendant, and had agreed to take her
" As a preliminary to that happy event

Iternent of plaintiff,
-looking

or " better or
n the 21st

of February the twain irent to Ellesthere; where, at the
shop of Mt Grosvenor, the plaintiff purchased a pure gold
wedding ring, and at another shop a capital pair of white
kid gloves, wherewith to clothe the hands of his " ladye
love." As he thought defendant a much better cus-
todian of these—to him—almost priceless gems, he
entrusted them with her to keep against the anxiously-
expected wedding-day. Besides the ring and gloves he
gave her
.1s 6d "to put the axings up " at Shrewsbury,
which she proniised faithfully to perform. Alas ! however,
for woman's frailty, she never did to. But further than
this, and worse by far—after all the arrangements had
been made, the wedding guests invited, the happy
morn arrived, and the fond bridegroom anxiously
awaited the appearance of the blushing bride she
came not. Great, of course, was the consternation at
her non-appearance, and dire was the revenge he threa-
tened to take. He vowed he would not only have the
is 6d., but likewise the ring and gloves, or else he'd see the
reason why. Accordingly he tried to obtain theta by fair
means ; but the girl was inexorable, and resource was had
to the court. In answer to the case, defendant, who was
accompanied by her mother, and who kept up a running
fire of abuse against plaintiff, admitted that she had agreed
to become plaintiff's wife, and had gone with him to buy the
ring and gloves, which he gave her to keep, not merely, she
assured his honour, for a "certain and particular occasion:
but as her own. A few days after the purchase she was in
chapel, and on feeling ill had gone out, when plaintiff
followed her, and enquired as to the safety of the ring. She
assured • him it was all right, but that as to having any-
thing more to do with him she declared she. would
not. She had heard of his being in bad company and
consequently would not have anything
.do. with. hin.iosoerd
the ring, and offered to return it.
..fhinking it might
induce her to change her mind—which she vowed she
would not -he requested her to keep the ring, and she did
so. Since then he had asked her for it, but
laughter.
in-
dignantly refused to give it. .As may be supposed
there was a good deal of elimination and recrimination,
itiloonnugt
during which the court was convulsed with
His ;Honour asked defendant if she was then
to give the ring and gloves, upon which she took them
of her pocket and declared with much emphasis, that she
would not "keep 'em or the likes of 'em from such a
feller," and threw them before his feet on the floor. This
proceeding only served to excite further_ merriment, amid
which the parties left the court, theplaintiffshowing the
colours of victory, and the defendant's mother strongly
deprecating the pusillanimous conduct of her daughter in
up, the " articles." Each party had to pay their own
•--Oswestry .ddcertiser.