The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-09 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.

(Before thelords Jus ices KNIGHT BRUCE and TURNER.)
HUTTON V. BEETON AND M'MURRAY—BEETON V. WMUH.

RAY AND HUTTON.

This was an appeal from a deoision of the Vice Chancel-
lor Stuart.

The substantial question in the case related to the proprie
torship of the newspapers called the Sporting Life, the
Eclipse, and the Sporting Telegraph. Of these newspapers
the plaintiff Beeton was conceded to be the owner of a
woiety, and he' claimed by his bill specific performance of
an agreement on the part of Hutton and M‘Murray to sell
to him the other moiety, Hutton's bill asked fora dissolu-
tion of the partnership alleged to exist between him and
Beeton, and for a receiver to carry on the partnership busi-
ness and receive the outstanding assets. His Honour dis-
missed Hutton's bill with costs, and granted to Beeton a
decree for specific performance. Against this decision the
appeal was made.
The Attorney-General, Mr Bacon, Q.C., and T. H.
Terrell appeared for Hutton ; Sir H. Cairns and Mr Swan-
ston for M'Murray,; and Mr Malins, Q.C., and Mr Kars-
lake for Beeton.

Their Lordships reversed the decision of the Vice Chan-
cellor and directed a decree to be drawn up in pursuance of
the prayer,of Huttoh's bill.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURTS, JULY 7.
(Before Vice• Chancellor WOOD.)
BOUCICAULT V, DELAFIELD.
Mr Graham Hastings moved that the plaintiff might pay
to the defendant defendant's costs of suit incurred subse-
quent to defendant's bankruptcy, by analogy to the cases at
law, where, if a plaintiff lost the verdict after his bank-
ruptcy, the costs were not provable, and were not barred.
Mr Dickinson opposed the application.
The Vice-Chancellor said that as the case in equity in
favour of the application had been cited, he should refuse
to make a precedent, and refused the motion.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Special Jury.)
SALT V. SALE.

The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks were for the
plaintiff—Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Dr. Wambey for the next
of kin.

The plaintiff propounded the will of her late husband,
William Salt, of the firm of Salt, Stevensou, and Salt,
bankers, in Lombard-street. The testator died Dec. 6 of
last year, leaving behind him a testamentary paper, the sub-
ject of this suit, dated that day. He had been taken ill that
morning, which was Sunday, in church; and on being put
to bed he called for pen and paper and dictated to his wife,
" All my property to my wife." He signed it in the pre-
sence of two witnesses, servants, and desired them to sign
before him. They, however, were ministering to his wants,
and omitted to do so. In less than a quarter of an hour the
doctor came, found the testator dead, and the paper un-
signed. On his learning the facts he suggested that they
should sign then, and they did so in the room where the
body was.

Dr. W alsb, the physician, was called, and stated that he
had found the testator dead.

It should be remarked that, under a former will, made
directly after the marriage in 1857, the plaintiff took an
annuity of £BOO, and was left residuary legatee, which was
worth at that time £lO,OOO more; whereas at present,
owing to the testator having invested money in land, the
residue amounted to nothing.

The Court directed the jury that the signatures of the
witnesses were informal, and that, however they might
sympathise with the rare disinterestedness of the plaintiff,
they must find for the defendant,
The jury found accordingly, and the Court pronounced
against the will, costs to come out of the estate.
(Before the Judge-Ordinary and a Common Jury.)
YOUNG V. YOUNG AND HEATHCOTE.

Dr. Swabey and Mr Inderwick for the petitioner.
The co-respondent is dead. The parties were married in
June, 1855, at. Trinity Church, Marylcbone. The peti-
tioner was an officer in the army—the respondent, then
Jane Jackson, occupied an inferior position. He sold out
in 1856. At the end of 1861 ha went to Brussels, leaving
his wife in England, and he next heard of her from
Algiers. On her return, in the following year, he made
her an allowance of Light guineas a month, and this pay-
ment continued till March of last year. The petitioner at
that time, from information he received, stopped it, and
instituted this suit.

A policeman alleged that he had !L'ten seen the peti-
tioner at "Kate Hamilton's" anti similar places) and that
her associates were of a low description ; and further evi-
dence was given that in Belem) v. Reathcote, in the Ex.
chequer, she had confessed to living with the co-respondent
in the country.
After the Court hP-‘
summed up, the jury, thinking the
evidence wise,..
oractoz7, found for the respondent,
JULY 8.
(Before the :I\oo Ordinary and a Special Jury,)
'GIBSON AND ANOTHER Y. PEGLER.
Irft Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr Spinks appeared for the
plaintiffs; Mr Edward James, Q.C., and Dr Swabey for
defendant.

The plaintiffs propounded the will of Walter Gabriel
Bassett Gunton, dated Sam 16 of the present year. The
defendant pleaded undue influence, incapacity, and fraud.
The testator had been a wholesale chemist in the Borough,
and on his retiring from that business he bought a house at
Southall, near Guildford, where he was living at the time
of his death, the 18th of January last. The property
amounts to £lO,OOO in real property, and £14,000 in personal
property. The defendant was living with Gunton, her
brother, at Bonchurch, in 1861. They disagreed, and in
that year she went away and did not return. Mrs Gill,
ono of the plaintiffs, in 1862, undertook the management
of the house at Southall, and did so up to testator's
death, and the other plaintiff, Gibson, was on intimate
terms. He was summoned by telegram to Guildford in
January last, and he immediately received instructions to
prepare a new will in the place of ono already made in
1858. The will was written out by him, and in it the
plaintiffs were left residuary legatees, whereas in the
former will the defendant chiefly benefited. The plaintiffs
take £12,000 under the will now propounded, and the de-
fendant £6,000. It was attested by Mr Sadler, a medical
man, and a tenant named Freebody.
Dr. Wilks, of Guy's Hospital, had been present at the
testator's last illness, and ho gave evidence of his full mental
capacity.

The Court, after hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and
the medical witness, asked if the defence could carry the
case any further, and the jur3 found for the plaintiffs.
Mr James addressed the Court on the subject of costs, but
the learned judge pronounced for the will with costs.

BOW-STREET.—DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT OF GEN-
TLEMZN.-Mr Litton Wilson, who said be was a barrister
at law, and Mr David Sutton, were charged before Mr
Flowers with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting
Mr Brett, proprietor of the Pamphilon Coffeehouse, Bridges-
street, Covent-garden.

It appeared from the statement of the complainant that on
the previous evening the two defendants went into the
coffeehouse and ordered some steak and kidneys, It was not
then observed that they were under the influence of liquor,
and the order was therefore executed. Before five minutes
had elapsed, however, and when the cooking was nearly
finished, they commenced making a disturbance, and said
they would not have the refreshments which they had
ordered. Mr Brett was called to them, and he demanded
payment for the order, at the same time closing the door to
prevent them leaving, and directing one of his servants to
call in a police constable. They then struck at the defen-
dant, and knocked him down in one of the partitions of the
coffeeroom. Complainant endeavoured to save himself by
seizing Wilson's coat, upon which the latter fell also, and
injured his eye by coming into forcible collision with a rail,
A general struggle took place, and the complainant was
considerably bruised, and even after the arrival of the police
officer Wilson aimed a blow at the complainant, which the
constable averted.

Mr Flowers, after commenting upon the disgraceful con-
duct of the defendants, fined Wilson 40s and Sutton 20s.
The fines were paid.

MARYLEBONE.-.-CRUELTY TO ANlMALS.—Frederick
Roy. a butler, was charged with cruelty to a cat.
It appeared that the defendant set his dog at the cat,
which was worried to death. He afterwards said that what
be had done did not bring him within the act, as it was only
a cat he had killed.

The Magistrate said the defendant must disabuse his
mind of that idea, for any cruelty imlicted upon cats ren-
dered the party or parties aiding and abetting that cruelty
to punishment under the act. The accused must pay a
penalty of 10s, or in default be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for 14 days.
The fine was paid.

CLERKENWELL.— FRACAS BETWEEN BETTING MEN
—Frederick Mattan, an auctioneer, was charged before Mr
D'Eyncourt with having assaulted Robert Griader, a car-
penter.

The complainant said—On Monday, the 27th of June, I
was al the Compasses public-house, Hornsey. Defendant
was there at the bar drinking. I asked him when he was
going to Mr Welsh's to settle ow account. I had made a
bet with him on the Derby, and he now owes me £l4. He
said when I paid his brother £2 786 d I held of his in the
sweep at Mr Welch's. I said I mould stake his brother's
money if he would stake mine, or I he would give me a bill
at three months. I said if you don't agree to that I shall
think you don't mean paying. HE made some remark, and
I said, "If you do mean paying lake an honest man why
don't you go and pay my brother-in-law's account at Ep-
som," He said, "I do not owe the money," I said " You
do." He then said, "If you say so again I shall punch
you." I said he did owe me the money, and he immediately
hit me two violent blows in the mouth and knocked me
against the counter. Blood flowed from my mouth, my
lip was badly cut inside, and I felt blood rush to my head.
I felt very ill after, and could no,'; sleep all night, I am
subject to fits, but have lately felt much better ; but
immediately alter the blow I felt a fit was coming on,
and in less than 24 hours after the assault I had a fit worse
than I ever had before. I was not able to work the follow-
ing day. A constable picked me up in the street whilst I
was under the fit.

This statement haring bean confirmed by two witnesses,
The defendant said he could not deny that he had struck
the complainant, or that he owed him some money arising
out of betting transactions. That money he was ready to
pay as soon as the complainant settled with his (defendant's)
brother.

The complainant—l only owe him £2, and you owe me
£l4.

Mr D'Eynconrt said an assault had been committed,
and ordered defendant to pay a fine of £2 and costs, or in
default to be imprisoned for 21 days.
CHARGE Or ASSAULT.—Ann Bune, 18, a servant, was
charged with assaulting Francis John Eadia, a clerk, re-
siding at Stock Orchard-crescent, Holloway.
The complainant said he was a clerk to his father, a
leather salesman. On the previous day he was in the stable
when the defendant came in and demanded some money.
He told her that he had not got it, but that if she went
over to his father's house he would give it to her. She
then shut the stable door, rushed at him, ill-used him, and
he was afraid that she was going to kill him, as she had
threatened to shoot him.

In cross-examination the complainant said that the de•
fondant had been servant to his father. She had had a child,
which she said was his; and he had given her money
because he was afraid that his father would know. She
had lent him money, but it was not for the purpose of get-
ting a marriage license. She might say that he had pro-
mised her marriage, but he was not quite certain whether
he had or not.

Mr D'Eyncourt (to the defendant)—lf you have any
claims on the complainant you must not go to his house
and annoy him. Will you promise not to annoy him any
more ?
Defendant--I will.

away from him; you are now
irl:
discharged.EYacourt—Keep

Doubtful Despatches.

aods eitfi
The Opinion Nationale of this evening publishes,
under
Gueroult
the
of
ttraisFtircaanrcteiceitesl'
iAnnwglhe
it
ce
hrr
M.
stirs tinp Ogh h
" fatty degeneracy of public
opinion among his countrymen," and makes the
a another
Minister of the Interior and his subs turn pale at
his boldness. M. Gneroult's articles, aowever much
htehfl orc ‘
one may differ from then], always command atten-
tion. M. Gueroult takes the sham despatches of the
Poet for his text, and the remarkable change those
documents have effected in the dispositions and tone
of the semi-official press is duly notes by him. He
says:—
Even M. de la Guerronniere,s paper his undergone a
complete transformation. A. war, even a general war, has
no terrors for our contemporary. The only path in which
France cannot afford to follow England is empty threats
and barren protests. The France wants s cordial under-
atandingbetweeu the two Governments, plelging themselves
not to descend into the lists unless they man to fight it
out. We have nothing but unreserved commendation to
bestow upon that energetic
language. Heaven and the
Morning Post be praised for this happy and unexpected
conversion.
M. GuerMilt theta proceeds to read a lecture, to
t, mon and John Bull :---
The English alliance ia
~- admitted by all ihe world as the
knot of the "situation: tt remains,
however, to be ascer-
tained whether t ngland, enervated by the effeminacy
of a lucrative peace will resolutely force a struggle; the
burden of which, it is true, Will deVolte chiefly upon hers
but in !Which it could not be tolerated that her co-operation
should be exclusively confined to those points that concern
her own interests. Whilst iU Prance unanimity is ripen•
ing t nglan.ci appears to us still hesitating and diVided. -No
doubt the Whig Cabinet is deeply
humiliated by the failure
of the Conference, by the disasters of Denmark, which it
had supported and encotiraed
, I iand the contempt of Ger-
many Uselessly menaced. But the dispoeitiOns of the Op-
position appear not to be
ito more_ warlike. And what Oil etit.th
can we sa' of the Cotton.
ni!ht 7.eaP policy Mr Cobden finds
bolirage to advocate l' w
a Matt Who ix sincerely anxious
for the welfare of his country can possibly
recommend its
utter isolation, its disregard 9f
justice or injus-
tice, its abdication of all hohoni tifid dignity, iairl;
escapes our comprehension. Row can a man so cleat-
sighted fail to understand that, even in the interest of his
beloved Cotton piece-0068i It le necessary that Europe
should be pacific; that it cannot i-.
..3 pacified unless it be
free ; and that a state of things when one Power contem-
plates and carries out the extermination of another is neither
at
liberty not peace. The peaceany price doetrines, of
which Mr. Cobden has made himself the apostle, are not
only selfish and immoral, they an also profoundly absurd.
You declare you won't fight, and stick that declaration in
your hat by way of a cockade. See 'what happens. You
sign a treaty—it is torn up; you intercede on behalf of
Poland—it is exterminated ; You protect Denmark—it is
crushed ; your anger produces a smile ; your threats de-
rision; John Bull, mon anti, why do Yon, who are perfectly
at home with figures, keep up a fleet and an army if you
don't mean to use them I' The cost is heavy and brings in
nothing. If you adopt the policy of Mr. Cobden, at iear,'r
have the courage to follow it to the end. Suppress your
fleet and your army, honest John—your credit cannot pos-
sibly fall lower in Europe than it is now—and you will
have economised from seven to eight hundred millions.
With that comfortable sum you will be able to weave cotton
night-caps for all the long ears in the universe ; and if the
barbarians should attack you you can always put off their
attacks by paying tribute. That is the stun total of the
doctrines of Mr. Cobden."
__

M. Gueroult concludes by adjuring son ansi John
Bull to repudiate the doctrines of the Manch ester
school, to eschew selfishness, and arm as the c hem.
pion of right oppressed by might throughou t the
world. Advice which is no doubt °sullen t, but
which *Jr the present appears to have not I the re‘