The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-28 00:00:00

and in less than half an hoer afterwards the whole
edifice was in a blaze from the basement to the roof.
The firemen arrived to extinguish the con l- g ration.
They were received by the mob with let:d cheers,
but were not permitted to throw water o.i the flames.
The fire spread rapidly until eight co i nous houses
were enveloped in one common destruction. The
crowd assisted the terrified inmates to escape, but
otherwise manifested a stern resolution to suffer no
interference with their vengeance. Their next
business was to tear up the iron of the street rail-
ways, to prevent the passage of cars with troops or
police to the rescue, and to provide themselves with
weapons. This done, they cut the telegraphie wives
in all directions, and broke up into several separate
mobs, each bent on its own purpose, or going
wherever chance conducted it. Of course, such a
riot became the holiday of all the rowdies, black-
guards, and thieves of this city, who, scenting
plunder as the crow scents carrion, turned out in
large numbers to swell the volume and disgrace the
character of the crowd. Hitherto no blood had
been shed. A detachment of the Provost Guard
that had been hastily sent from the Park Barracks,
re-
store to prevent further destruction, if they could n
order, arrived at Forty-first-street, in the very
heart and focus of the riot, and found their further
progress impeded by a dense mass of people,
esup-
posed to amount to 5,000 or 6x,eoeorea,tiwh,oanrd pelted
them with shouts and yells of nn
d
egmtmo rend it
no
pieces, they fired a deadly aanndd birnickdbaantgse.r. Tefh uhseihn
at hn
ed
m s wu
ri tr
ho
u stones
n d e d ,
and about 20 people fell
nidnlyrtvalollyle i
wy
nnutnodetdh.e
No one
tudni..
knowsh
et
or w he
r whetherthe fatal receivedornodtisethheayrgewash
orders
ps tom efire,
d
tatedre and unauthorised act of their own fear; but
the consequence, as might have been expected, was
only to add to the fury of the multitude. The
Provost Guard no sooner fired than it retreated, pur-
sued by the crowd. The men threw away their fire-
arms:to facilitate their escape, and these being picked
up by their pursuers seemed to suggest to the mob
that in a future conflict with the troops it would be
necessary they should have muskets and rifles. Seve•
ral soldiers and policemen—it is not yet known how
many—were killed, and the crowd, growing larger
and more furious as it rolled, invaded an armoury on
the Second-avenue, belonging to Mr. Opdyke, the
Mayor of New York, where a large store of armsand
ammunition for which this gentleman and his
brother had contracted to supply the Government
was known to exist. It was defended for a short time
by the servants and workpeople of Mr. Opdyke.
But all resistance was vain. The people overflowed
into the building like an advancing sea, and in a few
minutes the musketry and ammunition, were seized
and distributed among the insurgents. Whatever
was not of a nature to be made available as a weapon
was destroyed. This done the torch was applied
to every corner of the edifice, which in a short time
was in such a blaze as would have defied all the
efforts of all the firemen of New York to extinguish.
While this scene was being enacted another body of
rioters, who had chased an obnoxious soldier or po-
liceman into a large stone house at the corner of
Lexington-avenue, surrounded the building, and
demanded that he should be given up. The cry
was raised that the house belonged to a " shoddy
contractor," who had made a fortune out of the war.
The allegation, true or false, was fatal to the house.
The mob burst into it, tore down the pictures from
the walls, cut them to pieces with their knives, or
dug holes in them with railroad iron, demo-
lished a large and costly pianoforte, threw the
fragments out of the windows, took the books
from the library and set fire to them in the street,
broke open pantry and. larder, wine cellar, and
plate chest, closet and wardrobe, and carried
off every portable article of value and the wearing
apparel of the male and female members of
the household as trophies of their achievement.
Finally they set fire to the building ; and, watching
the progress of the flames until they were quite
assured that the work of destruction would be
complete, marched off to commit new outrages.
The next place that received a visit was the
splendid house of Mr. Opdyke, the Mayor, in the
Fifth-avenue. a gentleman, particularly noted for
the fervour of his war sentiments, the richness of
his contracts, and the vehemence of his Black Re-
publicanism, or philanthropic love for the negroes.
Cries were raised to gut and fire the house, and in
one moment more the thing would have been done
had it not been for the opportune presence and
judicious speech of one of the city judges, Mr.
Barnard, who endeavoured to calm the fury of the
mob. Having obtained a hearing, from a doorstep,
he bade them remember that Mr. Opdyke was the
legally elected chief magistrate of the city, and as
such entitled to their respect and obedience. He
entreated them not to sully their just cause by acts
of violence. He declared that, in his opinion, as a
lawyer and a judge, the Conscription Act was ille-
gal and unconstitutional, and added that, if any
citizen, taken from his home in pursuance of that
act, applied by his counsel for a writ of habeas corpus
before him, he would grant the writ, and bring the
question to a test in the state and city of New York.
This restored the crowd to good humour, and with
three cheers for the judge they proceeded on their
way, leaving Mr. Opdyke's mansion unmolested.
But, although opposition to the draught was the
main motive that impelled the people to these law-
less deeds, another passion took possession of them
as the day wore on. In their hatred of the war and

The lower part of the town towards Wall-street and
the Exchange was but little affected ; but up beyond
Grace Church and Union square the whole region
lying between those points and the Central Park
thatwas ahtyt
eheemme emr ceya
no the
ef t
hep
people
r le crowd.b a
dlt
managed was asserted
ob-
tain
all t
hpeo sesme shs
ho
an
eo
af severaland ear e
plyingpiece s ofp aßr
rt
ei lal
de rwya;y t
ahnadt
the railroad avenues were seized as soon as they
came within the lines of the insurgents, and that
the
the
cheer
rrei
ea
eg e sw i
mperreeconverted s
edfer
the ina
et
tov
ibaaerrei
fc aadtetsi
1, l
eatnd
y.
But the statement does not appear to have been
true. The mob, however, had abundance of small
bd ae t su,p and for
arms,
seleafincidenwchyeonf bthluosdegewonesr,e cwluabnst,inbgricmka-
fragments of iron rail. The rioters still entertain-
ing a feeling of vengeance against Mayor Opdyke, a
gentleman who has made himself conspicuous, not
alone for his uncompromising and unconditional sup-
port of the Emancipation policy of the Government,
but also for his assertion that war has its " noble
side," betook themselves about 11 in the morning to
his mansion, in Fifth-avenue, and manifested a dis-
position to devote it to the fate which it yesterday
escaped at the intercession of Judge Barnard. To-
day the neighbours formed themselves into a guard
for its protection, and were sufficiently powerful to
ewemwdamnyiodtf s
York,
rtkma t
trappings.iAo ti .
reboysflames,mr
kaTen d young
soimtafeevt nlehaewxi
pteh
oro fromewishedthe
ree t otc
ofarcNroo
wea hit
ho
wu a
as eel
less fortunate, and, after having been plundered of
its contents, was burnt to the ground. The houses
of scores of other persons who by their action in
the war and their support of the Government had
rendered themselves obnoxious to the working-
classee have shared a similar fate. The offices of
the tribune newspaper have been barricaded
during the day with piles of wet printing paper;
and all the banks in Wall-street and the neigh-
bourhood have been closely guarded. The lead-
ing citizens have enrolled themselves into a special
constabulary to assist in the restoration of order;
but as yet the crowd is all but undisputed mas-
ter of the situation, and no one knows what the
night may bring forth. Governor Seymour, having
been summoned by telegraph from Long Branch, a
watering-place on the coast of New Jersey, whither
he had gone last week for health and recreation, ar-
rived in the forenoon, and after a hasty consulta-
tion with the civic authorities at the City-hall
appeared at the balcony and addressed a crowd of
about 12,000 persons. His speech was temperate
and judicious. He denounced the rioters, but at the
same time declared his belief that the State authori-
rities were able to preserve or restore order without
the aid of the Federal Government, and added that
he had sent a special messenger to the President on
Saturday last to urge upon him the expediency of
countermanding the draught, at least until time had
been allowed to bring authoritatively before the
Courts the constitutionality of the Act of Con-
gress upon which it was founded, and by which
alone it was justified. To this message he had re-
ceived no reply. Great confidence seems to be
generally entertained in the wisdom of Governor.
Seymour in bringing this unhappy business to a safe
issue, though he is greatly hampered by some inju-
dicious and timid fools in high station in the city,
who clamour for the establishment of martial law
as the only possible means of preventing anarchy.
Martial law in New York is what the Federal Go-
vernment desires above all things. If such a State
cannot preserve order within its own boundaries
without the aid of Federal troops, the abrogation of
public liberty and the substitution:of the law of the
drumhead and the Dragoon officer for that of the or-
dinary courts of justice, liberty in America is as dead
as the Union, and will not be again restored until
this generation shall have gone through a probation
of tears and blood such as shall make it alike sadder
and wiser and more worthy of freedom in the future
than it has ever been in the past.
Those who oppose the draught on the ground of
its unconstitutionality—among the most conspicu-
ous of whom is Governor Seymour—make out a
strong case. The 15th and 16th sections of the
Federal Canstitution, which alone apply to the sub-
ject, declare that the Federal Government " may
call out the militia to execute the laws of the Union,
suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," and
that it may " provide for organising, arming, and
disciplining the militia, and for governing such of
them as may be employed in the service of the
United States—reserving to the States respectively
the appointment of the officers and the authority of
training the militia according to the discipline pre-
scribed by Congress," It follows from this that Mr.
Lincoln may call upon the Governors of the States
for the aid of miiitia, to be raised in accordance
with State laws, and officered by men appointed by
the State Governors. It does not follow that he can
raise an army by conscription, and appoint its offi-,
cers himself. Those who contend that he can base
their argument upon the express act of Congress
passed in March last for this especial purpose ; but,
as Congress itself is bound by the Constitution, and
can pass no law which that document does not ex-
pressly sanction, all other rights of the States except
those mentioned in that instrument having been
solemnly reserved,the question for the SupremeCour t
as the interpreter of the Constitution, to decide is that
very question which is at issue between the work-
ing men and the State of New York on the one side,
and President Lincoln, his Administration, and his
Congress on the other. The probability, however, is
that Mr. Lincoln will be advised to yield, and allow
the Conscription Act to become a dead letter.
But under such circumstances what becomes of the
war ? Nay, what becomes of it under any cir-
cumstances ? Without a new army he cannot pro-
tract the struggle ; and a new army, it appears, ho
cannot raise, either by means of a conscription or
without it.

the draught which had grown out of it, they re•
membered that Mr. Lincoln by his Proclamation o
Emancipation had so embittered the South as to
render a restoration of the Union impossible.
Hatred of the war, and hatred of the negro, whom
they supposed to be the cause of it, were equally
strong in their minds. No negro could venture
into the crowd without insult or danger. One un-
fortunate man of, colour, neing hooted and pelted
with brickbats and brought to bay by a furious gang
of assailants, drew a revolver from his breast and
shot the foremost man dead. He was immediately
pursued by a mob of hundreds of excited ruffians,
seized, thrown to the ground, beaten on the head
with clubs and pieces of iron, stamped and spat
upon, and next, after every shred of clothing had
been stripped from his back, hung stark naked from
a lamp-post, and pelted with stones and mud by an
assemblage of juvenile ruffians, from the age of 12
upwards. After dangling for a few minutes all the
available combustible rubbish of the neighbourhood
was piled under his feet and set fire to, the maniac
crowd dancing around in a frenzy of blood and hor-
ror. In another part of the city a second negro met a
similar fate; and towards 6in the evening a body of
several thousand persons, breathing vengeance
against that unhappy race—most of whom this day
in New York would have been glad to exchange the
peril of liberty in the North for the security of
Southern slavery and protection—marched up to a
large building, called the " Coloured Orphan
Rome," an institution, as its name implies, devoted
to the maintenance and education of orphan negro
children. Giving the inmates an hour to escape,
they declared their intention to set fire to the build-
ing, which intention they ruthlessly carried into exe-
cution at the appointed time. One life only appears
to have been lost—that of a poor negro child, who
was accidentally trampled to death in the rush or
the inmates to escape destruction. Amid scenes like
these, the local authorities being almost if not en-
tirelygents, the night
have Iv)aese n
powerless to resist the progress of the insnr-
much 1
ht darkened down upon a. city that
had
combustion. g' doomed to destruction if the mob
wouldit
eaande hadeor s hsh ai
as
waneafdership as it had ferocity. But
nor directed. .
actionsT h The vas
weret mass
neitherwas ipnl
as
np
no
en d-
had been,
in the city, andlf providing prevent it from
100,000 men, Fort.ll there was nothing to
g every arsenal and armoury
arms and ammunition for
et fh me 8 iisdtYt o
unat 1 the local authority had
msuoffistciveunitnperraesbelnecoef
aich troops to the
inri different
o'clock at night,
lit up by
dense
et
hotll
tmist,the
luarsi
lurid
hot l
aalmost
hauesdboakz yve 1
la :fie._ rnu_re
,iedr, e
se: °bre et:
u. rh,i
oslc v
ih , chief. fe
d.
the town, and 40,000 or 50,000 parts oz'
disturbed possession of the streets.ters Were in un-
knowing what might have ha There' There is no
break it it had not been for the sudden downfall day-
a drenching rain-storm that cleared ownfall ot
the thorough_
fares in a few minutes. The rain continued -1-
several hours,—a better conservator of the
pabiir,
peace then ten thousand soldiers might have proved
in fine weather.
This morning the riots were resumed at daybreak.

JULY 15.

The night passed over more quietly than was
anticipated. An announcement made in the even-
ing, as if by authority, that the Federal Govern-
ment had consented to forego the draught through-
out the whole State of New York tended to allay
the agitation. It did not, however, completely
satisfy the mob. Too many thieves and assassins
had mingled themselves in its proceedings to
accept any promise on the part of the Govern-
ment as a warrant for their laying down their
arms, and these persons kept the city in terror
until daybreak. It is this morning announced
that 5,000 troops are in position to quell all
further disturbance, and that the Militia regi-
ments ordered to the relief of Pennsylvania at the
first alarm in that State, consequent upon the late
Confederate invasion, are on their way home and
expected during the day. The principal merchants,
bankers, and other householders have formed them-
selves into an armed special constabulary, and guard
all the principal posts of danger. Business is al•
most wholly suspended, but there is a general im-
pression that the worst is over, and that New York
will be saved the primary disgrace of further mob
law, as well as the secondary disgrace of being in-
debted to the Federal Government for the restora-
tion of order. It seems to be conceded on all hands
that the draught must be abandoned. The con-
tagion of opposition has communicated itself to
other towns and cities in the North. There have
been riots in Hartford, in Connecticut, and even
sober Boston, where negrophilism reigns trium-
phant and supreme, has seen in its streets since
yesterday a mob of upwards of a thousand people,
declaring against the draught, pronouncing it to
be unconstitutional and oppressive, and expressing
their determination to resist it. A few fanatics of
the press in this city persist in urging the Govern-
ment to maintain the conscription. if the Govern-
ment be unwise enough to follow their counsel, the
indications are that it will speedily have a new civil
war on its hands, in addition to what it technically
calls the "rebellion" of the South.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Sudden Changes.—Changes of temperature constantly
occurring during the autumn are prone to produce rheu-
matism, neuralgia, and other painful disorders of the nerves
and muscles. For upwards of 20 years Holloway's Pills
have been particularly celebrated for curing this class of
complaints; the parts, previously fomented in warm water,
have only to be well rubbed twice a day with this soothing
Ointment to be relieved from all pain. By still persevering
with the fomentation and rubbing, the swelling is reduced
and freedom of motion perfectly restored, when the lately
Vle,,etod parts cease to trouble. Holloway's remedies relieve
87
nw.iasaeirgout, glandular obstructions and enlargements,
swellinguse.eti°us, weakness of the limbs, and scroffulous

LAW INTELLIGENCE,--July 27.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
(Before Mr. Francis Bayley.)
THE HON. CAROLINE NORTON V. SIBLEY.

This was an application for a new trial by the Hon. Mrs.
Norton, of 3, Chesterfield-street, Mayfair, in the ease
wherein she was sued by Miss Mary Sibley, of 54, Doughty-
street, for the education of the applicants' two grandchildren.
Mr. Macdonald appeared for the Hon. Mrs. Norton, and
Mr. Francis opposed the application.
On the case being called on,
Mr. Francis said that in the case of Sibley v. Norton,
which was tried on the 14th inst., an application was about
to be made for a new trial, and he submitted f hat his friend
Mr. Macdonald, who appeared for the Hon, Mrs. Horton,
had no locus stencil, because the rule of practice requires
that seven clear days' notice should be given to the registrar,
which had not been done; and the service was only made
at the office on Monday last, which put the plaintiff com-
pletely our, of court.
Mr. Macdonald had heard that the notice was served on
Saturday week.
Mr. Francis thought it could bo found out by the endorse-
ment at the office. A copy being produced, the ju•.lge ob-
served that it had been served on the Monday.

Mr. Macdonald repeated that he had been told that it was
served on Saturday week, and if necessary he would send
for the party who personally served it,
Mr. Farrow, the seni,n- usher of the court, stated that the
service was on Monday morning,

Mr. Macdonald, looking at the paper, said it was inevi-
tably consistent with what had been stated as to the service
of the notice ; however, they were willing to put up with
the consequences, but he would ask his learned friend if he
intended to take advantage of that which was a mere slip.
Mr. Francis thought it his duty to take every advantage
in a case when a lady like the Hon. Mrs. Norton had
thought proper to send letters to the newspapers, and throw
a slur upon a lady's character, as she has done upon Miss
Sibley's.
Mr. Mac donald—Well, will you name the objection?
Mr. Francis—Certainly not,
_ _

_ .
Mr. Macdonald suggested that the Court had the power
to put the defendant in such a position that she should not
snffer by the mere slip of not having served the notice in
the prescribed time.
The Judge—l have the power, I believe, to listen to the
application for a new trial.
Mr. Macdonald—Will you say Wednesday ?
The Judge— Well, we must have some grounds for giv-

ing leave.
Mr. Francis—Let us see what they are.
Mr. Macdonald asked if his friends would allow Mr.
Wilkinson, the solicitor for Mrs. Norton, the favour of
bringing down the person who served the notice, to ascertain
from him why it was not delivered within the proper time,
The Judge—Here is the order, and that seems conclusive.
You can't get out of that.
Another discussion hero arose between the two learned
counsel, and at length Mr. Francis said he would waive the
objection, as it was the wish of his client.
Mr. Macdonald, then addressing the Bench, said that
when he came into court in the morning he found that Mr,
Wilkinson, who had the management of the ease, had come
there without some important papers, and he, Mr. Mac-
donald, had applied to Mr. Francis to permit him to go in a
cab and fetch them. Mr. Wilkinson had not yet returned,
so that be wished to apply for a:short postponement of the
application.
Mr. Francis objected, on the ground that it was unfair to
his client, who had been brought there unnecessarily at ten
o'clock, whereas the hearing of the application was not fixed
until eleven, and they now asked for another half-hour.
The application was at length proceeded with.
Mr. Macdonald said that he moved for a new trial in the
case of " Sibley v. the Hon. Mrs. Norton," upon the follow-
ing grounds :-Ist. That the judge misdirected the jury in
telling them if their minds were in doubt they must find for
the plaintiff. He, thelearned counsel, had not had the honour
of appearing before his Honour when the case was tried ;
but he had no doubt that what had appeared in the different
newspapers was a very correct report of the proceedings.
The plaintiff was then represented by a solicitor (her own
father), and Mr. Francis was the counsel. The jury, after
they had heard the case, found the following verdict :—" The
jury say they find a verdict for the plaintiff for her salary and
expenses, but there seems to be so much doubt respecting
the payment of £l5, that they think Mrs. Norton is en-
titled to the benefit of the doubt, and they therefore find a
verdict upon that part in her favour." Miss Sibley, the
plaintiff, was examined in chief by Mr. Francis, and she had
been cross-examined, and when the jury gave their verdict,
she was recalled and examined afresh, and Mr. Francis said
that it was for Mrs Norton to make out the payment of the
£l5 if the jury had any doubt, This was said rather to the
Court, and no doubt for the purpose of let sing the jury hear
it, and with that knowledge the jury again consulted, and
they returned the same verdict still, namely, " that Miss
Sibley is entitled to her salary and expenses, but we think
that Mrs. Norton is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to
the £15." His Honour then stated that if the minds of the
jury were so much in doubt they must find for the
plaintiff. Now, he apprehended that, after the intimation
thrown out by his learned friend as to the payment of
this sum, the jury were fully alive as to what was
specifically going on between the judge and jury, and
notwithstanding that, they found the verdict the same, and,
when they had so found, there was misdirection.
The learned Judge—That is not according to my recol-
lection of what took place. I said more than that. If they
had so much doubt that they could not satisfy their minds
either way, then they must give a verdict for the plaintiff, &c.
Mr. Macdonald—And the jury then said they must find a
verdict for the plaintiff, because they were so far doubtful
that they could not say whether the money was paid or not.
The second ground was " that the terms of the finding of
the verdict, though nominally for the plaintiff, amounted
in point of law, to a verdict for the defendant, and should
have been so recorded." Supposing that the finding of the
verdict had been in these words—" We find a verdict for the
plaintiff for her salary and expenses, and £l5 we find also
for the defendant," that is, "we find a verdict for plaintiff's
salary and expenses, less the £15," would there have been
any objection, in point of law, to such a finding ? Again,
the jury were not bound to give their reasons for their find-
ing, and if a verdict be coupled, if he might so speak, with
an argumentative mode of giving that verdict, it would be
no part of the duty of the Court to inquire upon what
grounds they arrived at a conclusion so long as the verdict
was recorded by the jury in substance. If that were correct,
and applied to the present finding, it might be read thus—
that the jury retired, and on returning they found a verdict
for salary and expenses less the £l5, which they find fdr
Mrs. Norton.

The learned Judge—That is not the whole of what the
jury said; either the foreman or some of the jury said they
thought that there must have been a mistake on the part
of Miss Sibley. It was stated that she had paid for vario;is
things, but she could not have paid for them unless site
had received the £l5, for she admitted she had only £1 of
her own, and it was with the view of clearing up that £l5
that she was recalled.

Mr. Macdonald then submitted the third reason for grant-
ing a new trial, namely, that the verdict was against the
weight of evidence, inasmuch as the plaintiff stated in her
evidence that from the 13th Sept. to the 6th Nov. she had
received nothing, and produced a book containing the en-
tries of sums received and also entries of disbursements,
and it appeared from that book that on the 12th September
plaintiff received £25, and a few days later one £5 for another
distinct purpose, whilst on the 11th October it was clear
that Miss Sibley had expended about £l3, which showed
that she had actually expended a few shillings more than
the two sums received, the £25 on the 12th September, and
the £5 later in the month, and the plaintiff swore that from
the 12th Sept. to the 6th November she did not receive one
farthing.
Miss Sibley—Ne, no, that is not right.
The Judge—Except the £5 on the 28th.
Mr. Macdonald—ln her own handwriting and by her own
book it appeared that, on the 11th October, there had been
a few shillings more spent than those two sums; and on
the 6th November there had been expended by her £l3 12s
over and above the two sums of £25 and £5, in September.
An obvious question arose here : it, from September to
November, she did not, to use her own words, receive a
farthing ; and if, according to her own written document,
it would seem that in October the disbursements were more
than she received money for, and that from the 6th Nov.
the disbursements were also in excess to the amount of Xl3
125., he thought the Court would agree with him in adopt-
ing the expression, that it was an error, and that the defen-
dant ought not to bo prejudiced by it, and that the defen-
dant was upon this ground entitled to a new trial—unless it
could be shown that this sum of £l3 12s. had been accounted
for by the plaintiff. Mrs. Norton stated upon oath that from
the 23th September to the 6th Nov. she was not asked for
a farthing. Next, there was the fourth ground of surprise.
The hon. Mrs. Norton said that the plaintiff kept the book
in which were entered the sums of money. They left in
December at Edinburgh, when Mrs. Norton asked Miss
Sibley to let her have the book, which the latter declined
to do until three weeks had elapsed, and then the plaintiff
sent the book, and consequently Mrs. Norton says she was
taken by surprise, for although there is an entry of £l5,
which she swears was paid on 14th Oct„ and admitted to
have been received in the plaintiff's writing, the
plaintiff on
being recalled by Mr. Francis, gave in explanation that she
intended the entry of £l5, which was next the date of the
14th Oct., to have been put down under the date of Nov.
6. Under these circumstances Mrs. Norton might well be
taken by surprise when the plaintiff stated that she did not
,
receive that £l5, when it was proved that she had ; and
when it was further considered that the plaintiff and Mrs.
Norton had had some angry words in December last, it
might be regarded with importance the circumstance of her
keeping the book three weeks before she returned it, for it
was but reasonable to suppose, knowing the position in
which they left each other, that every possible care had
been taken not to make a mistake in the account, and not •
withstanding that the book was returned with this entry,
so that Mrs. Norton was taken by surprise in the plaintiff
not admitting what was regarded as an error. The Hon
Mrs. Norton had made an affidavit in which she stated that
in the statement that she had not received from her the £l5
she was utterly taken by surprise by the plaintiffpersisting
on the 14th Oct., on which day the plaintiff had been sup.
plied with the money,
consisting of a £5 Bank of England

THE RUSSIAN NAVY.

ST. PETERSBURG, July 20.
The following is a statement of the existing naval
forces of Russia, It should be understood that this
list includes only those vessels which are seaworthy
and fit for active service.
The Russian fleet comprises six divisions, as fol-
lows :-1, the Baltic fleet ; 2, the Black Sea fleet ;
3, the naval force stationed in the Amour; 4, the
fleet in the White Sea ; 5, the fleet in the Caspian
Sea; 6, the naval force on the Lake of Aral. This
last force is, of course, the smallest of all, and con-
sists, indeed, of only two small steamers of respec-
tively 40 and 12 horsepower; the fleet in the White
Sea is somewhat more powerful, since it includes
two war steamers carrying eight guns each and
fitted with engines of 240 horse power, and three
smaller steamers. The next most important fleet is
that in the Caspian, comprising ten steamers of 850
horse power, and 10 steam transports, four of which
latter are armed with eight guns, and the other six
with six guns each. The naval force in the Amour
River is at the present time rather large. It is
composed of six corvettes, mounting 11 guns each ;
seven schooners, six of six guns each, the other car-
rying four guns; and 11 steam transports, three of
them screwe, and carrying collectively 37 guns.
The fleet of the Black Sea, is, of course, much more
powerful than those just mentioned. The Black
Sea is composed of 42 war steamers, six of which
carry 11 guns each ; three nine guns each ; and the
remainder two or four guns. The Baltic fleet in-
cludes no less than nine ships of the line, of 135,
131, 111, 84, three of 83, 78, and 68 guns ; 14 fri.
gates, one of which mounts 70 guns, and four others
carrying from 45 to 60; six corvettes, armed with
11 to 17 guns each ; two gun- boats, of three guns
each ; nine steamers of vArious sizes, carrying toge.
geth 68 guns; 19 small steamers and five transports,
making a total of 64 sail.
The greater number of these vessels were built in
England, and fitted with English engines, between
the years 1851 and 1861. Tnis list does not include
the recently-built ironclads.

AN UNINTENTIONAL GHOST !--Care apparently
should be taken in the exhibition of Professor
pepper's ghost, if it is wished to preserve a proper respect
for the supernatural. It is awkward when the wrong sub-
ject is reflected, as was the case at a theatre the other even-
ing, when, in one of the scenes, instead of the haunted man
appearing before the eyes of the audience, the figure of a
carpenter in his shirt sleeves, drinking a pint of ale, was
but too faithfully shadowed forth. The utter unconscious-
ness of the man, who was below the stage, as to what was
passing, made the scene excessively ludicrous.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—AvoId medicines: they always aggra-
vate chronic complaints, but Du Barry's Delicious Health
Restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, which saves fifty times
its cost in other remedies, invariably cures them, restoring
perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, healthy liver,
pure blood, refreshing sleep, functional regularity, and energy
to the most disordered or enfeebled. We extract a few out
of 60,000 Cures :—Cure No. 68,216 of the Marchioness de
Brehan, Paris, of a liver complaint, wasting away for seven
years, debility, with a nervous palpitation all over, bad
digestion, constant sleeplessness, the most intolerable nervous
agitation, and dreadfully low spirited.—Cure No. 1,771. Lord
Stuart de Decies, Lord Lieut. of Waterford, of many years'
dyspepsia.—No. 49,8.32. "Fifty years' indescribable agony
from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation,
flatulency, spasms, sickness, and vomiting.—Maria Jolly."
—Cure No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Frimley, Surrey, of
thirty years' diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derange.
ment, and partial deafness.—Cure No. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth
Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings, low
spirits, and nervous fancies.—Cure No. 54,816. The Rev. Jas.
T. Campbell, Fakenham, Norfolk, "of indigestion and torpi-
dity or the liver, which had resisted all medical treatment.'
In tins, 1 lb., 2s. 9d. ; 21b., 4s. 6d ; 51b., lls. ; 121 b., 225. ; 2418•
405.—Barry Au Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, London ;
also Fortnum and Mason ; and all Grocers and Chemists in
every town of the United Kingdom,

note, and no. 1'
nonent further stated that she had a pri- SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.
1..
de by her on 14th Oct., in
vato pocket book of entries n.. 2.
4;ff on that day,
which appeared the £l5 supplied to plain._
After some further statements as to the accoun the
learned counsel continued that he had sent for the'—docu-
ments and memoranda papers to inform the Court of the
bona fides of Mrs. Norton's position, and under these cir-
cumstances ho believed she had a really good and tenable
case for a new' trial. Some of this was objected to as evi-
deuce, but a memorandum made by the defendant, even on
the very ground of refreshing the memory of the witness,
made it valuable evidence. He would now ask the Court
to say whether or not he had made out a strong case for the
application being granted ?
Mr. Francis, in opposing the application of the Court,
would recollect that, although Mrs. Norton conducted her
own case, she had all the advantage of learned counsel ap-
pearing, for she made her statements and proceeded as she
pleased in cross-examining the plaintiff; and although the
Court did all it could to stop her, she would go on, and that
being the case, he (Mr. Francis) submitted it would be a
cruel injustice to the plaintiff to grant a new trial. It was a
case of wrongful dismissal, and he had opened it as a case in
which plaintiff was entitled to the full claim for salary and
expenses, unless the defendant could show that she (the
plaintiff) had disobeyed the lawful commands of her mis-
tress. They had succeeded in getting the verdict of the
jury, and he thought the verdict of the jury could not now
be disturbed. It the defendant really wanted to try the case
again, a fresh plaint could b issued and the case tried as to
the £l5. Now, the jury had found that Miss Sibley was
wrongfully dismissed by Mrs. Norton, and that she was en-
titled to her salary and expenses. This verdict was conclu-
sive; but, independently of that, there was a perfect answer
to all the objections raised. And as to the first and second
grounds for granting a new trial, they appeared to him to be
one and the same thing, because if his Honour were wrong in
directing the jury that if they had a doubt on their minds,
they must find for the plaintiff.
- The learned Judge—l have no doubt of that. It was not
a conclusive finding ; it was accompanied by a doubt at the
time.
Mr. Francis said at the trial he had ventured to raise the
objection that the defence as to the £l5 could not be gone
into, for it was a matter of set-off, which had not been
pleaded. He confessed that he had considered the subject
since, and had arrived at the same conclusion, with all
deference to the Court. It could not be said well that the
verdict was against evidence, inasmuch as the two ladies
were in court and gave their evidence before the jury; and
touching the evidence as to the book, he did not suppose
his Honour would aktnrh the verdict of the jury unless it
could be shown that the evidence really preponderated one
way or the other. The learned judges in the superior
courts did not do so unless from some special reason, such
as he had already mentioned —the balance of testimony.
Lastly, came the question of surprise.
The learned Judge thought that if there had been sur-
prise on either side, there had been surprise on both sides.
Mr. Francis certainly thought there had been on the plain-
tiff's side, for at the time of the dismissal in December his
client marked dewn £5 in the account, when Mrs. Norton
requested her to put down £l5, and it was on that the diffe-
rence took place between them, which was not contradicted
by the Hon. Mrs. Norton ; and she had made some mistakes
in dates which did not agree in the affidavit she now sent
forth with her evidence at the trial. Between Sept. 28th
and Nov. 6th all the papers were shown to the jury, and the
explanation given by this young lady was that she did not
get that amount till Nov. 6th, when she entered it as part
of the running account she had commenced from the last
balance.
The Judge thought the only thing in the case was whe-
ther the vouchers were made before Nov. 6th.
Mr. Francis—The Hon. Mrs. Norton had herself said that
she did not dispute any item charged against her was paid.
Although he did not mean to contend that the accounts had
been kept as they would have been by an accountant, yet it
was certainly the account that any young lady would be ex-
pected to keep. Then as to surprise, they would recollect
that Mrs. Norton would not let him (the learned counsel)
have the book for a long while—she kept it back, and all of
a sudden she threw it down. She was rather clever, and
would not even let him look at it, although in a moment
she thrust it in plaintiff's bands, and said, " Don't you see
it here ?" The affidavit, however, shows that Mrs. Norton
was not very careful—certainly not so careful as she might
be, for she swears positively to the 14th for the 15th Oct.
And if a new trial were granted, the Court would have to
allow the question of wrongful dismissal to be gone into
again, no defence at all having been made as to that.
Mr. Macdonald begged to be allowed to go on with the
application, and produce the papers for the guidance of the
Court, and showing the bonafides of Mrs. Norton's position.
After some discussion the Court refused, and, in giving
judgment, his Honour said that he did not feel justified in
this case in granting a new trial. There were four grounds
for it advanced—the first was misdirection, and on that
point he considered that the direction was right, and the
jury delivered a conclusive verdict. The vouchers and books
were put in the hands of the jury, and then they found a
verdict for the plaintiff, upon the ground that the matter
was in so much doubt that they were unable to satisfy their
minds as to the payment of the £l5; and that being so,
and the onus of proof being on the defendant, it was proper
to enter a verdict for the plaintiff. As to the two last points,
there was nothing in the point of surprise, because the de-
fendant came to that court to prove her case; and the verdict
could not be said to be against evidence, because the chief
testimony in the case was simply the evidence of the de-
fendant against the evidence of the plaintiff; and as the
onus was upon the defendant, his Honour thought the jury
had done right in returning the verdict they did, for he
would have done the same himself had he been in the jury's
place. It was very unsatisfactory the way in which the de-
fendant had brought the matter forward, and it was exceed-
ingly difficult for a judge to deal with such a case where the
party conducted it herself in the manner that this case was.
Application refused, with the usual costs.

DAILY NEWS.—It is to be feared that, notwith-
standing the eight days spent by Mr. Baron Chan-

ilhelmslord, more time and more money must
nen ai— the many cases arising out of the
the, ex-M.P. for Lambeth
nhdefofOr4ee.ries
to perceive how any
sduced in future
more cfb raeanus eaen sat e
satisfactoryt tle d .
fficult to ...`1"
hheaasrbde.enAptrotdnuncseadmientitmhee citasies
dwileice has .i:81
been
any fault with the jury for hesiteavtlidnenegte submittedo form any
conclusion on the extraordinary
to them. It is clear that without the confession of
William Roupell his family would have found it
hopeless to prove thathanyhis
of the suspected deeds
were forged, or to oust innocent victims from the
years ago this man would have
property which they had purchbaeseend.Only incompetent. afew
o
appear in a witness box, and the persons whosefort-
tunes are now endangered would have been safe a
least from his attacks. It is impossible to doubt that
the change of the law by which William Roupell
has been admitted as a witness id an improvement.
The only true principle in such matters is that no
witness or evidence ought to be excluded. The jury
or the judge should have everything before them.
The value to be attached to any particular evidence
should be to their discretion. Bur, on the other
hand, in such a case as this, when a man court's
boldly forward to ploclaim his own iniquities, to
,!xplain the manner in which he cheated, not oni.
his relations but a number of innocent persons, and
to tender evidence, the necessary result of which
must be to get back for his own family the property
out of which he has swindled them, it is absolutely
essential that the confessed forger should be con-
firmed in every particular. The practical result
which followed from the situation occupied by Win'.
Roupell was singular enough. During a whole week
this man waited anxiously in court, and eagerly
watched the trial in dread lest the jury should come
to the conclusion that he had been innocent of the
frauds of which he had confessed himself guilty.
The result of the trial which has just been
closed is so peculiar, and has so important abearing
upon the case arising out of the same transactions,
that it may be interesting shortly to allude to it.
It was not until half-past 10 o'clock on Friday
night that the jury were discharged, although they
had been in deliberation since half-past 2 o'clock in
the afternoon, and although the judge had done all
he could to bring them to an agreement on the sub-
ject. It will be remembered that Richard Roupell
was the plaintiff in an action of ejectment against
Messrs. Freeman, who had lent £12,000 on two
farms in Warley, the action having been brought
in order to recover this property. It was established
beyond doubt that old Roupell, the father of Rich-
ard and of William, died in receipt of the rent of
this estate, and that Richard Roupell was his heir-
at-law. Now it is a maxim of English law that
the heir-at-law is entitled to succeed to all the real
estate of which his ancestor dies seised or possessed
unless the deceased person has disposed of it either
by a will or by a valid deed executed during hie
life. In this case it was said by Messrs. Freeman
that the old man had disposed of it by a certain
deed, dated the 9th of January, 1856. But this fact
Messrs. Freeman were bound to prove. They were
required to show affirmatively that the deed of gift
in question had been signed, sealed, and delivered
by old Roupell. The Judge, therefore, put this
question to them—" Was the deed of the 9th of
January, 1856, executed at all by the testator,
Richard Palmer Roupell ?" Upon this, however,
the jury could not agree ; but the view which they
adopted, curiously enough, seems to have differed
from that of both parties in the cause. Richard
Roupell, the plaintiff, insisted that the deed was a
simple forgery, and William Roupell gave a de-
tailed and elaborate explanation of the manner in
which his father's signature had been forged. On
the other hand, the counsel for Messrs. Freeman
insisted that the signature was a genuine signa-
ture, and that, as the old man had often expressed
pheisrtiy in question,
of leaving his son William the pro-
question, there was nothing extraordinary
in his having executed a deed of gift by which his
long expressed intentions were carried into effect, In
answer to the confessed forger and his brother, Rich-
ard, it did undoubtedly appear that the signature of
the old man was exceedingly like his genuine signa-
ture—indeed so like theta banker's clerk declared he
would have paid a cheque signed in the same way.
was doubtful, therefore, whether there was in
fact any forgery. And in answer to the views of
Messrs. Freeman, it was said that no one had ever
heard of the execution of the deed of gift, and that
the two attesting witnesses had never seen the old
man sign his name upon any occasion, It was doubt-
ful, therefore, whetber any such deed could have
been executed by old Roupell. Under these circum-
stances the jury adopted an ingenious and perhaps
true conclusion. They said, " Here is a deed which
bears a signature so extremely like that of the per-
son by whom it purports to be signed, namely, old
Roupell, that we believe the old man did write the
letters of which it is composed." This was the
opinion of some at least of the jury. In other words,
the signature is genuine. But, on the other hand,
they said, and said unanimously, that the old man
never intended to execute any such deed ; in other
words, that his signature had been obtained by
fraud. Whether his theory be true or false, it un-
doubtedly reconciles the apparent contradictions of
the ease. There are ways in which William Rou-
pell might have managed to obtain his father's sig-
nature to a document as to the contents of which he
may have known nothing ; or, it is just possible that
his father may have signed a blank parchment.
This being granted, the difficulty as to the marvel-
lous similarity between the signature of the deed of
gift and the ordinary signature of the old man
vanishes. And the difficulty of accounting for the
existence of the deed of gift at all vanishes also.
But if the jury were unanimously of opinion that
the old man never did intend to execute any deed
of gift, and if even those of the jury who maintain
the genuineness of the signature are of opinion that
it was obtained by fraud, they affirm that substan-
tially the deed of gift is not the deed of the old
man, and that therefore the plaintiff and heir-ac-
law is entitled to a verdict. This is a point which
may probably give rise to future discussion. Ac-
ct
ioarldl
yin
gg
vt oe Nalvr .e
rSdeiragt Se Shea
the
p ltahi
ne
tji
ff'; ad:ado
rsduibnsgt an
to-
his
twn which
rcaihivna
tlth,nMe
y compelr .yßeorvei
the
Ihe,
entitled
tenlyer
dyd ittdoo nddortra.aww
fhnr eno
mjudtghee conclusiont rfiaecdt
found that they old man never intended to execute
any deed of the sort, but he failed in his attempt ;
for the jury, boldly declared that if he were to have
them locked up until Domesday they never could
come to an agreement.
PoST.—A question reappeared on Friday evening
in the House of Commons which, although its dis-
cussion led to no immediate results, is destined, if
we mistake not, to force itself, in one shape or
another, before long, upon the attention of the Le-
gislature. It is seldom that we are fortunate enough
to find ourselves in accord with the opinions of the
member for Finsbury, and still less often that we
are able to approve of the tone and manner in which
they are advocated. Mr. Cox's speech in the debate
to which we allude was, however, an exception to
the general rule. In calling attention to the sub-
ject of infanticide in England and Wales, he struck
a chord that will vibrate to the touch in the heart
of every lover of his country. The tables of infant
mortality, in the abstract, form the most delicate
gauge which is accessible to us of the state of the
public health. The mephitic exhalations, the
poisonous miasma, or the low type of vitality which
crowd our hospitals and workhouses with the adult
poor, can be detected instantly in the returns of the
infantile death-rate. If the natural ratio of this be
high, we may be quite sure that influences pernici-
ous to the public health are unnecessarily rite.
Where no disturbing causes, such as the employ-
ment of young mothers in the manufacturing dis-
tricts as mill hands, and their consequent separation
from their babies, are at work, a more infallible test
of the health of any particular locality can hardly
be applied than the average number of deaths re-
gistered among that part of the population between
their birth and the age of two years. Latterly,
however, it has been shrewdly suspected that, espe-
cially in certain localities, there have been influences
at work which tend materially to diminish the value
of such data. It is roundly asserted that the number
of untimely deaths among children of tender years is
enormously augmented by the effects of violence, or
of a wilful neglect, which answers the purpose quite
as effectually. In other words, it is stated that a
large proportion of. the infant mortality through-
out the country can only be properly classed under
the ugly heading of murder. Mr. Cox has moved
for a return, extending over 18 months, of the
number of verdicts in the case of infantile deaths
brought in by coroners' juries. The results thus
elicited are sufficiently startling. In that compara-
tively short space of time upwards of 5,500 children
under the age of two years met with untimely
deaths. Of these, 224 are returned as the victims
of wilful murder ; 697 were found dead, a mere
euphemism for murder, to which juries would appear
to be partial, while in 956 casts the helpless little
creatures had been suffocated. At the head of this
ill-omened list stands unfortunately the metropolis,
iu which close upon 300 children have had their
short space of existence suddenly abridged under
circumstances which leave but little doubt as to the
causes which have been at work. Now, it may rea-
sonably perhaps be doubted whether the increased
prominence which this particular crime has of late
undoubtedly obtained be not due, as Sir Geo• Grey
suggested, to the greater vigilance of the police, and
not to ary augmentation in the frequency of the
crime itself. Many cases may now be subjected to
scrutiny which formerly escaped the light, so that,
especially when the enormons increase of our popu.