The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-10 00:00:00

St. Katharine, 61

MIS CE
Berlin Water Works, Ei f L LANEOUS,
East India Irrigation and Canal, 6f
E glish and Australian Copper,
Joint stock Discount, 4
National Discount Company (lira.),
Scottish Australian Investment, lim., 1424

The Pays is included in the action for defamation
brought by the France agiinst the Constitutionnel. In
consequence, there will appear before the tribunals M.
Auguste Chevalier, responsible editor of the two united
journals, ant! liM. Vierno and Melvi!, the authnrs of the
articles a hich are prosecuted as calumnious.
" Wanted a Governess" was the title of a song
with which Mr. John Parry amused the public so
many years ago, writes a London Reviewer, that it is diffi-
cult to conceive that he is identical with the youthful
gentleman who now performs nightly at the gallery of
Illus'ration in Regent-street. The burden of that song
was • • only indirectly complimentary to the governess ; but,
directly, it was uncomplimentary to the governed and their
awwp
saha rtreeodnnswt ahahes
eahttnhoadedr
reigmtiotsitniuto:oalkst oehNnveoeof endrostfoh manyt
owhfthi a youthhgaornnsgh alphabet,
through
ri aocnukdgw expressed fic
ls'of"e dwwo
muchhur boe :t
to gain so little. It is to be hoped that the progress and
advancement which have attended most other callings since
that time have not turned aside from the paths of those
ladies who earn a livelihood by industry as honourable and
as useful as any to w hich woman could devote herself, and
that it is the rare exception, rather than the rule, for people
to require the services of a gentlewoman on the salary,
or
rather the wages, of a maid. of-all-work,

LAW INTELLIGENCE---This Day,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco at We4minster, before the Lord Chief
Justice, Mr. Justice Wightman, Mr. Justice Crompton,
and Mr. Justice Blackburn,)

THE EARL OF CARDIGAN V. LIEUT..COLONEL THE HON.
SOMERSET TALBOT CALTHORPE-THE LIGHT CAVALRY

CHARGE AT BALARLAVA.
Mr. Boviti having replied on behalf of the Earl of Car-
digan's application to make rule absolute.
Mr. Garth, at the sitting of the Court this morning,
followed on the same side, dealing at some length with the
three points raised yesterday by Mr. Sergeant Shee. He
contended that the manner in which Colonel Calthorpe
had met the allegations made against his work by Lord
ardigan were uncandid and ungenerous. He had said)
" I cheerfully declare myself satisfied that Lord Cardigan
entered the .Kussian battery," thus turning the noble lord
into a plaything without making him a single atom of
reparation,
and refusing him an apology. Considering
that the slanderer was an officer who held a low rank in
the army, while the slandered was Lieutenant-General the
Earl of Cardigan, who had received the thanks of Parlia-
ment and the acknowledgments of Lord Raglan and Lo. d
Lucan and of his country in many ways, he cinsidered that
Colonel Calthorpe's was the most unhandsome, the most un-
generous, the most uncandid, and the most unbecoming
style of retractation that could be imagined.
The Lord Chief Justice said he could entertain no doubt
that the passage in Colonel Calthorpe's work, upon which
the present application had been made for a criminal infor-
mation, contained a most serious libel upon the Earl of Car-
digan. He thought it was impossible to read that passage
without coming to the conclusion that that which it was
intended to convey was an imputation upon the Earl of
Cardigan of having been wanting in his duty at a time when
he was in command of a detachment of cavalry ordered to
attack the Russian battery, of having been wanting in
his duty from want of
personal courage. It was true
that, in the first edition cf this work, the absence of
Lord Cardigan as a general efflux was suggested when his
presence was necessary, and it as ascribed to an accident,
It was said that his horse became alarmed by the discharge
of a cannon close to his head, and that the horse swerved
and carried Lord Cardigan away, in spite of himself,
off the field. This was charly intended to imply,
that Lord Cardigan never reached the battery
which the detachment under his orders was directed to take,
but it ascribed his failure to reach that battery which others
reached, and through which they carried their attack, to an
accident. Lord Cardigan, feeling that be had reason to com-
plain of this statement, as of many others contained in that
work, made it the subject of complaint and remonstrance.
In the second edition a notice was prefixed to the work,
which in the third edition was incorporated in the shape of a
note, and in that notice in the second edition and the note in
the third, that which was given in the first edition as a cir-
cumstance accounting for Lord Cardigan's failure to reach
the battery, which the rest of the line under his command
did reach, was withdrawn in the shape of a compliment,—
a compliment ostensibly on the face of it, but which con-
veyed, in his judgment, the bitterest sarcasm—that it
was not the fault of Lord Cardigan's horse, but
his own fault, that he failed to reach the scene
of danger through which the others passed, It was
impossible, he thought, to doubt that that was intended to
convey that Lord Cardigan had been wanting in that per-
sonal courage necessary to the discharge of his duty. To
say that a soldier ordered to attack an enemy, much more a
general and a leader whose duty it was to lead others into
action, stopped short midway in the path which led to
danger, and perhaps to death, while others went in
without any obstacle or any cause to prevent them, must,
he was sure, convey to the mind of any military man, and
to the mind of any man conversant with such matters,
an imputation of personal cowardice, disgrace, and dis-
honour. It was impossible, therefore, not to feel that this
was a matter of a most libellous character. Heaven forbid
that the time should ever come when the honour and repu-
tation of the soldiers and sailors engaged in the service of
this country should ever be unjustifiably assailed without
redress being opened to them. There could be n:) doubt, it this
were a true view, as he (the learned judge) thought it was,
that looking to the position of the parties, looking to the
importance of the service to which this passage had refer•

ence, the matter was one that would, probably, be the sub
ject of a criminal information, unless some special cause
could be shown why a rule for a criminal information should

not be made absolute. Now, these reasons had been put

forward why the Court should not make the rule absolute
in this case. First, that the substance of the passage com-
plained of was true, or that at all events that the affidavits
that had been produced on the part of the defendant so
conflicted with those of the complainant, that the Court
could not take upon itself to try the matters on affidas it.
Secondly, it was said that at all events whether the state-
ments were well or ill founded, it was written in reference
to a matter of public importance and public inte-
rest, a matter of history, that it was a privi-
leged matter, and not the subject matter of a
criminal information. Thirdly, that the conduct
of the parties had been such that what had taken
place subsequently to the publication of the work had pre-
cluded the prosecutor from applying to the court success-
fully. He would deal briefly with these points in the order
in which they had been stated. In the first place it was
stated that substantially the statement contained in the
passage upon which this application was founded was true.
He must say he could not understand weat was meant by
any argument founded on that assertion. It turned indeed
upon what was the true construction of the libel in
question. If, as was contended yesterday, all which that
passage cony. yed was that Lord Cardigan, from some cause
or other, was absent when his presence was desired, it might
ba sad that, to a certain extent, it had been made out
that that was true. But that, in his judgment, was not the
true character or meaning of this libellous passage. He
thought it was not the gist of the statement complained of
that Lord Cardigan was absent when his pi esence as general
was much to be desired. The gist and sting of the libel was
this, that L d Cardigan was absent, not from defect of
judgment, or from any accidental cause, but because he had
not the courage to face the danger, which the brave men
whom he led, did face, and nobly contend against. So that
it was incorrect to say that the substance of this charge was
true; and Col. Calthorpe had been, through his counsel,
constrained to say, that if that was the view, he was satis-
fied by the affidavits which had been filed, that his view Was
incorrect, and that his statements were ill-founded. Then
with regard to the affidavits which bad been adduced. It
was said that there was a conflict upon those affidavits, and
that the court could not try the question. There was no
conflict of any substantial character between the affidavits
of the prosecution and the detendant, but the defendant
seemed to give the go-by to the real question at issue. The
libel was that Lord Cardigan failed to reach the battery be-
cause he turned short halt-way in the path that
led to it. Colonel Calthorpi had admitted that
that was an erroneous and ill-founded statement.
He was constrained to admit that Lord Cardigan
did reach the battery, and that he passed through it, and
he meets the charge by saying that, admitting all, he
took the ground upon the statement that Lord Cardigan
came out of the battery sooner than he ought to have done.
But that was a totally different charge from that to which
the affidavits of the prosecutor were addressed. So that he
thought there was no conflict when the real nature of the
charge came to be considered. He should be sorry to lay
down any rule on this point as of universal application, or
to state what the Court would do in any cise because there
were conflicting affidavits. It was true generally that the
Court would not try questions upon affidavits but would
leave parties to their remedy; that however was not a rule
of universal application, and he saw no reason. why in this case
the Court should not make the rule absolute, if, looking to other
circumstances it was thought a fit one for a criminal infor-
mation. But it was said that whether the imputation was
true or not this was a case in which the defendant, writing
as an historian of the events of that campaign, had a right
to make such comments as he pleased upon Lord Cardigan,
who had borne so conspicious a part in it ; but this again
must be taken with certain limitations. It was true that
the events in question were of the deepest public character
and importance. It was true that the conduct of the men
who were engaged in thosetransactions was fairly and legi-
timately matter of public. Ie adverted to what had passed
between Col. Calthorpe and one of the friends authorised
by Lord Cardigan to negotiate on the matter, and which
altogether took away the fouvelatien on which this rule
was absolutely granted. Connected with this subject
was the destruction of I,COO copes of the last edition,
a fact which was not known to the Court when the
application for a rule nisi was made; otherwise it might
have made a difference in the decision of the Court.
The learned Judge, having passed a high eulogium on the
military career of Lord Cardigan, said the rule must be dis-
missed, but without costs.
The other judges concurred.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulbuin.)

IN RE W, P. WAUGH,

His Honour today gave judgment on the question as to
whether this bankrupt, Colonel Waugh, formerly one of
the directors of the London and Eastern Bank, should bo
allowed to surrender after having been outlawed. After a
long argument on Monday his honour, on the authority of
several cases qtioted on behalf of the bankrupt by Mr.
Roxburgh, decided that the Court had the power to inter-
pose and ace( pt the surrender. Mr. C. E. Lewis, on be
half of the ( fficial liquidators of the London and Eastern
Bank, proceeded to show that, although the Court might
have the power it was discretionary, and he opposed ; but
his honour held that Mr, Lewis had no locus standi, but
left the question open whether a bankrupt could be ad-
mitted to the privilege of surrendering, and by so doing
avoiding the penalties incident to outlawry in bankruptcy,
without bringing into Court all property he was possessed
of at the time of his bankruptcy. The bankrupt had ad-
mitted that when he left England he had £5OO which he
stated he had expended for the use of himself and family.
His Honour now referred to the main facts of the case,
and said it was one which showed to what extraordinary
lengths and to what awful depths a man might be led by
speculation, and the "making haste to get rich," without
his consiLering his duty to others. For years the bank-

rupt had held a very high station and position in society.
He had rank in the army, having served with great distinc-
tion, and to all appearance he was a man of fortune and
affluence. He embarked recklessly and improvidently in
the banking speculation. He was driven to quit the coun-
try, and now he appeared at the bar of the Court a pauper,
without health and without means, to petition for leave to
do that which he ought to have done years ago—disclose
the estate which he had. This certainly was a very melan-
choly position for a man of the bankrupt's antecedents. His
Honour concluded by saying he could not grant the prayer
of the petition unless the bankrupt brought the1..500, or the
assignees consented to waive that requirement.
Mr. Linklater said he would communicate with the as-
signees, and the case was adjourned fora week.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—This Day.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER.

Henry Short, shoemaker, was indicted for the man-
slaughter of James Sully. The jury found the prisoner
guilty, and the learned judge sentenced him to one month's
imprisonment.

Ann Doggett was indicted for the manslaughter of her
husband.

The deceased carried on the business of an ironmonger in
High-street, Shoreditch, and his death was occasioned, it
was alleged, by the neglect of his wife (the prisoner).
The Learned Judge was of opinion that the evidence
offered was not sufficient to establish the charge, and the
jury accordingly returned a verdict of not guilty.

NEW COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
THE ROBBERY AT LORD CHESHAWS.

Roderick O'Lochlin and Arthur Hewitt were indicted
for feloniously breaking and entering the house of Charles
Compton Cavendish, Baron Chesham, and stealing there-
from a large quantity of plate, jewellery, watches, and
other property valued at upwards of £l,lOO.
The prisoners were captured by the police as they were
getting over the garden wall of his lordship's house in Gros-
venor-square.

The jury found them both guilty. They were ticket-o.
Leave men.

The Recorder said as they had life-preservers upon their
poisons, it was evident they had providrd for any resis-
tance, and as they had both before been sentenced to penal
servitude for four years, he should on the present occasion
sentence O'Lochiin to 10 and Hewitt to 15 years penal ser-
vitude.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

ARTFUL MODE OF PICKING A SHOPKEEPER'S POCKET

—John Freeman, a fellow who refused his address, was
charged with picking the pocket of Mrs. Sarah Stevens, the
wife of Mr. Stevens, stationer, 14, Duke-street, Grosvenor-
square, of a purse containing £1 12s. Std. under the follow-
iug circumstances :

It appeared from the evidence that prisoner went into
Mr. Stevens' shop about nine o'clock the previous night
and asked to see a visite card. Mrs. Stevens took one from
the window, and the prisoner objected to the price, and
asked to see another. Mrs. Stevens took a second card
from the window, and while doing so prisoner said, " What
a fuss you are making." Mrs. Stevens then felt her dress
trod on, and directly after the prisoner bolted out of the
shop, when Mrs. Stevens missed her purse from her pocket,
containing the sum of £1 12s. Sid. She told her errand-
boy to pursue the prisoner, and he did so, Mr, Alfred
Murray, staymaker, of Duke-street, also joining in the
pursuit, and seen the prisoner throw the purse away in
his flight, Lazarus Howes, 95 C, then came up and took
the prisoner into custody, when the prisoner, with much
coolness, asked the constable " Whether anything was the
matter ?"

Inspector Charles Bowles asked for a remand that
inquiries might be made to see if prisoner was known.
The prisoner was committed for trial, but will be again
brought up.
COMMITTAL WITHOUT A FINE FOR A
,R,UFFIANLY
ASSAULT ON A FEMALE.—John M'Donald, a fellow who
gets his living by hawking books about the neighbourhood
of the Haymarket, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with
the following cowardly assault on a female named Oates,
residing in Rathbone-place :
The complainant, a young married woman, said she was
on her way to see an invalid female, and when crossing the
Lop of the Haymarket, having at the time a bottle of port
wine under her shawl, the prisoner asked her to buy a book
of him. She refused, and the prisoner then struck her a
violent blow on the chest with his fist, breaking her brooch,
smashing the bottle, and hurting her a good deal. A con-
stable then came up, to whom she gave the prisoner in
charge.
Sergeant Allen, 20 C, said that when he took the prisoner
into custody several gentlemen said the prisoner had vio-
lently struck the complainant.
Mr. Tyrwhitt having made some sevore remarks on the
prisoner's cowardly conduct, committed him for six weeks
with hard labour.