The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 4, 1863,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL,
Mr. J. Locke, of the Parliamentary bar, Mr. W. H.
Cooke, Mr. John Gray, and Mr. J. J. Powell, all of the
Oxford Circuit, appeared in court, and were called within
the bar, and took their seats on being appointed Queen's
Counsel,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
THE ALEXANDRA.

The Attorney-General, this morning, said he had con-
sidered this question as it stood, and he was of opinion that
the Court had the power, under the provisions of 22 and 23 of
Victoria. They could be so interpreted as to give effect in
cases such as the present. The learned gentleman then re-
ferred to the 26th section, which gave the Court certain
power to apply the provisions and the rules of the Common
Law Procedure Act under certain circumstances.
The Court thought they had the right, but they would
consider the matter, and if they should be of opinion that
the Common Law Procedure Act gave the power they would
to-morrow morning announce their decision. In the event
of it being favourable to the learned gentleman, it would be
perhaps the best course if the bill of exceptions were aban-
doned, and a new trial moved for, which would raise all the
points.

COURT OF PROBATE.
(Before Sir J. Wilde, Judge Ordinary.)
HAWLEY AND OTHERS V. STOKES.

This was a suit instituted by the plaintiffs, as executors of
the will of Joseph Stokes, deceased, to prove the will of the
testator in solemn form. Probate was opposed by the evi -
dence on the ground that it was not duly executed, that it
was not the will of the testator, and that it had been
obtained under undue influence and fraud. The plea al-
leging fraud was withdrawn by the defendant's counsel.
The testator, it appeared, at the time of his death, which
took place on the 31st of January, 1863, was only 31 years
of age, and had been mulled to the respondent not quite
two years, and resided at Sheffield, and had been in the
employ of Messrs. Pawley and Stokes, butchers at Sheffield,
but owing to his intemperate habits he was compelled to
leave their service. Atter that the testator and respondent
lived very unhappily, and on the 30th day of January the
testator, who had been suffering from delirium tremens, was
attacked with pneumonia and bronchitis. He was attended
by Dr. Kemp and Dr. Elam of Sheffield, who, from the
dangerous state of the testator, advised his friends to inform
him that if he had any disposition of his property to make
there was no time to be lost. He was perfectly sensible,
although in a dying state. Mr. Pawley, one of the execu-
tors, and Mr, Stokes, his brother,visited him at his request.
Mr. Stokes took his instructions for the will, had it drawn
and executed. by which he gave all his property to his twin
sister, Mary Stokes, an idiot, for her life, and after her
death to be divided between his three married sisters, Sarah,
Priscilla, and Elizabeth, making no provision for his wife.
After the will was read and explained in the presence of his
mother, he having previously stated to his brother that, as he
thought there was no chance of recovery, he was desirous of
making his will, and leaving all he had to his sister and his
mother, and nothing to his wife, as she had treated him un-
kindly, his brother advised him not to mention his mother
in the will, and it was accordingly drawn out, leaving all
the property to his sister Mary, and naming Mr. George
Elehaw, the husband of one of his sisters, and Mr. Pawley
as his executors. The will was executed in the presence of
Mr. Huby, a solicitor's clerk.
The witnesses in support of the will deposed that at the
time the instrument was executed the testator was in a
perfectly sensible condition, although in a dying state. He
died the morning after the will was signed.
At the conclusion of the examination of the witnesses in
support of the will, the learned judge asked the counsel for
the respondent if they thought they could resist such evi-
dence.

A consultation then took place, when Dr. Deane said he
did not think he could straggle against it, and as the peti-
tioners did not ask for costs, he would at once withdraw
from the cause.

Probate of the will was then granted, the learned judge
remarking that had costs been asked for he should certainly
have given them, as there was no pretence for the plea put
on the record.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Commissioner Holroyd,)

PRIVILEGES 07 M.P.•S.

Mr. Chidley appeared in the case of a judgment sum-
mons issued against a defendant, who is stated to be a
member of Parliament.

The plaintiff's solicitor contended that Mr. Chidley could
not be heard unless the defendant himself appeared in pur-
suance of the summons.

Mr, Chidley said he was there to show that the summons
ought not to have been issued at all, as the defendant being
a member of Parliament could not be taken in execution,
and that no capias could be legally issued against him.
His Honour held that Mr. Chidley was entitled to be
heard on the point.
Mr. Chidley quoted the case of Cassaday v. Stewart, in
which a capias had been issued, and Mr. Justice Wight-
man set aside the capias as having been improperly issued.
He (Mr. Chidley) had argued in several cases to that effect.
His Honour said that the plaintiff could not take out a
capias or execution, and therefore was not entitled to call
upon the defendant to appear here—the summons would
therefore be dismissed with costs.

IN RE MEIKLAM.

This bankrupt was described as of Bryanston. square and
Walliam-villas, Brompton, and this was a meeting for last
examination and dischat ge. The case had been pending for
a long time in consequence of legal proceedings in Scotland.
The bankrupt, who claims to be entitled to a large sum of
money under his father's will, had given bonds to the ex-
tent of £18,486, for which, he alleged, he had not received
consideration.

Mr. Chidley, complained of the delay, but said a further
adjournment was necessary to settle the proceedings in
Chancery and in Scotland.
A. further adjournment for six months was taken.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
RE SIR'A. J. D. TITCHBORN.

This bankrupt was described as of Arlesford Park, and
this was a meeting fcr last examination and discharge. The
meeting, however, was adjourned for a month, that an ar-
rangement might be completed for payment of the creditors
in full.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
A " THIEVES' KITCHEN" IN SEVEN-DlALS.—Nicholas
Magmasson, the keeper of a coffeehouse in Little White
Lion•street, Seven-dials, the resort of young thieves, was
charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with receiving a watch, well
knowing it to be stolen.
_ _

Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, de-
fended the prisoner, who is a foreigner.
William Gordon, 323 A, a plain clothes officer attached
to the C Division, said—At 9 o'clock last night I went to
the prisoner's coffeehouse in Little White Lion-street,
Seven-dials, known as a "thieves' kitchen." I saw the
prisoner lying on a sofa in the parlour. I asked him
for the watch he had purchased of a man named Jack
George, a clog-dancer. The prisoner said he knew nothing
of the watch. Ackrill, 48 F, then came in and I saw the
prisoner hide a waistcoat under the sofa. I then said,
" Come, I'll have no nonsense—l'll have the watch b 'fore
I leave." The prisoner then got np and said, "_My waiter
has got the watch," at the same time asking me to go
upstairs and see. I did not go up, but the prisoner went up
with Ackrill, and then came down saying the waiter could
not find it. I then told the prisoner that I would look for
it, and on looking under the sofa I found the waistcoat,
and in it a watch and chain. On asking the prisoner
where he got the watch, he said he bought it
of Jack George four months ago,
and he gave
him fifteen shillings for it, but that the chain was his
own property. The watch I know to be the property of a
young man named James Judge, who last night identified
it, but was unable to be present this morning.
Mr. Lewis, as the prisoner must necessarily be remanded
for the attendance of the prosecutor, I will reserve my right
of cross-examination till the next occasion. Will your
worship take bail for the prisoner 2
Mr. Tyrwhitt declined to do so, and remanded the pri-
soner.

THAMES.
MURDEROUS AND COWARDLY ASSAULT.--Datliel Sul-
livan and John King were brought before Mr. Wxdrycho
charged with violently assaulting Patrick Driscoll.
Mr. Joseph Smith defended the prisoners.
The prosecutor, who was in a very weakly condition, and
has received numerous contusions and bruises, is a lighter-
man, and dwelling at No. 15, London-street, Ratcliff. He
wont into the Marquis of Granby public-house, in Ratcliff,
on Sunday afternoon last. The Irisoners, two powerful
men, were there and the worse for liquor. He had no
words with them. He called for a pot of ale for himself and
a friend. Sullivan was seated on a table with his hand
leaning on a pot. Driscoll chilly asked Sullivan to
shift the pot and allow him to sit down. Sullivan ex-
claimed never mind the b- pot, and abused Driscoll, who
said, I will soon see whether you will shift the pot or not,
and altered the position of the table, to enable him and his
friend to sit down. Sullivan immediately struck him a
heavy blow on the forehead, just over the left eye, with a
quart pot, inflicting a deep and dangerous wound. King
then caught hold of him by the hair and struck him on the
head with a poker. He was soon covered with blood, and
called out murder. The prisoners and four other men at-
tacked him and beat him most cruelly, and pots, pokers,
and other dangerous weapons were used indis-
criminately on his person. He rolled under a table,
and his savage assailants escaped two at a time from the
room. Only two of them have been since captured. In
answer to questions by Mr. Woolrych the prosecutor said
he was struck three times on the head with a quart pot.
Thomas M'Nally, iron moulder, confirmed the statement
of Driscoll. After the prosecutor was down on the floor
King took up another quart pot, and battered him with it.
Sullivan fell on the prosecutor, while his hands were on his
breast, and pummelled him most unmercifully.
Other evidence was given of the savage character of the
outrage.

Mr. Joseph Smith said Driscoll was the aggressor. He
called a witness named Joseph Hickey, who said he saw
Driscoll and Sullivan fighting, and they exchanged blows.
He swore that neither of the prisoners hit Driscoll with a
quart pot, He believed in the struggle Driscoll fell on the
fender.

Another witness, named Cornelius Sheen, was called,
who knew nothing of the transaction.
Driscoll was recalled, and said Hickey kicked him, and
bolted the door to prevent him pursuing his cowardly
assailants.

Mr. Woolrych said he would not take upon himself a
case of this serious nature. The prosecutor had been se-
verely wounded, and it was a wonder he was alive. He
committed the prisoners for trial for unlawfully wounding
the prosecutor.

The Hudson Correspondence.

On September the 10th, that is, about three
week after the whole affair had been discussed in
the English papers—Earl Russell addressed Sir
James Hudson, informing hire, amidst many com-
pliments, that he had, "at Sir James's own desire,"
sent him his letter of recall, Sir James's letter to
that effect, it will be perceived, not being published
at all. On October 4th the removed Minister in-
forms the Foreign Secretary that he had taken leave
of the King, that his Majesty had asked him why
he was going, and that he had explained how "he
felt himself hound by an engagement with Earl
Reesell to do so." In other words, Sir James told
his lordship with diplomatic discretion but unmis-
takeable distinctness, that the story about the recall
being " at his. own desire" had only an apparent
foundation. His correspondent did noc like this, so
six days after his lordship writes to Mr. Elliot,
ordering him to explain to the King that there was
no engagement. " I made no engagement with Sir
James Hudson, and never expected that he would
resign till it should suit his own convenience to do
so. When, therefore, in the spring of this year he
intimated to me his intention to resign his post, I
concluded that, after more than thirty years of pub-
lic service, he wished to retire from an anxious and
laborious post. I never supposed that Sir James
Hudson was bound to me by any engagement, nor
till very recently did I imagine that he conceived
himself to be so bound. Upon the face of this para-
graph, either Earl Russell or Sir James Hudson
would seem either to have invented, or to have mis-
understood the real reason for the resigna-
' Lion or recall, and the balance of evidence
is, on the whole, with Sir James. For,
if no engagement bound him to resign, why
did he do it when he did not wish, and that he did
not wish is now admitted by Earl Russell himself ?
But by a little reading between the lines, it is pos-
sible to reconcile the official statements without
examining who either blundered or fibbed.
An engagement pre-supposes two persons,
and only one did anything in the matter.
Earl Russell allows that in March, 1862, he did try
to kick Sir James upstairs, by offering an embassy
to a man who he knew well enough would not take
it. This offer was the last of more than one offer
directly or indirectly conveyed, and Sir James in
just annoyance wrote, as Lord Russell says, stating
that he wished to remain in Turin until, at all
events, his pension was due. This was not an
e engagement," for the Foreign Office did not reply,
and could not have held Sir James to it if he had
chosen to hold on ; but it was a promise, only to be
broken at the request of him to whom it was made,
and as such we do not doubt it was regarded.
Otherwise it is just a little odd that Mr. Elliot
should have been so pleasantly ready to drop into the
vacant post; and that Lord Russell valuing Sir
James so highly should have made him no request
to stay; and that Sir James, a clear-brained man
of the world, should have such a bitter sense of the
eagerness with which his honourable adherence to
the tacit undetstanding was at once seized upon for
recall. Ministers every month ask men to recon-
sider their resignations, and as for the excuse of
"long service'' and " arduous toil," the Foreign
Office knows quite well whether its men are healthy
or not. The service knows more about its own
members than any caste in the kingdom, more even
than the bar, and we will be bound that Earl
Russell could have discovered among his own staff
wan who knew the minutest tittle tattle about the
at Turin. The truth is, the post
diplomatic family
was wanted, and as the Foreign Office could not
turn Sir James out, they made him put himself out,
as Indian thieves do, by tickling him till he rolled
out of bed.
If the Foreign Secretary thinks the retirement
was voluntary, his course is sufficiently clear. Let
him offer the Minister his Post, with the grade
that tho post deserves, that of full Ambassador.
When that has been done, and the offer rejected,
the public will believe that Earl Russell is in the
right. Till then, it will, in spite of " all the
papers," continue to think that had Turin been a
deadly climate there would have been no vacancy.
—Spectator.