The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-12 00:00:00

swear.

Mr. Chambers, Q.C., for the petitioner—l object to the
witness being examined on the point. It is a piece of
legerdemain to trick the witness. The letter is not in
evidence.

The Judge Ordinary—l think the witness can be asked
whether the letter was written by him or not. (To witness)
When you have thoroughly lOoked at the letter, tell the
jury, upon your oath, whether it is in your handwriting or
not. _ _

Witness—l swear I did not write that letter, and know
nothing Of it.
Mr. Huddlestonc—l now propcse to put the letter and
the paper, en which the witness has written the two words,
into the hands of the jury. . .

Mr. Chambers objected—The letter was not at present
evidence, and it was merely a clever trick on the part of
the learned counsel to attack the witness's credibility.

A long discussion then followed, during which the word
Wednesday was then marked in the letter and witness was
asked whether he wrote it positively denied it.
The learned Judge here, after reading the letter, thought
It very material to the case that the fact mentioned in the
letter should be fully investigated, and with that view he
thought the witness could be asked whether he wrote it or
no.
Mr. Huddlestone—Now, after cautioning you, I ask you
deliberately whether you did not write that letter?
Witness—l did not,

The learned counsel again wished the letter to be placed
before the jury, but the learned judge thought it better be
deferred till all the matters connected with it were before
the court.

Mary Ann Wild, a domestic servant, at Mr. Williams's
15, Victoria-street, deposed to the visits of a gentleman to
Mrs. Lidstone, whilst she was residing there.
Mrs. Higgins said she resided at Ross, in Hereford. She
recollected two persons coming to lodge at her house some
weeks. He had since seen both Mr. Edmunds and Mrs.
Lidstone, and was positive they were both the parties.
Mr. Randal, a solicitor, residing at Devonport. said the
two preceding witnesses had seen Mr. Edmunds, while pro-
fessedly engaged in the County-court, at Devonport, and
identified him as the gentleman who visited Mrs. Lidstone.
Evidence was called for the respondent to show that
Lidstone had invariably treated his wife with the greatest
coldness aid neglect.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. CommissiOner Kerr.)

A NEW POINT IN THE LAW OF MASTER AND SERVANT.

.-GARNHAIL V. BOSS.

This was an action to recover a sum of money actually
earned as wages, and wages in lieu of notice. Plaintiff is
a journeyman umbrella maker, and he had worked for de-
fendant. He found that he could better himself by going
to another place, and in accordance with the rules of the
trade give a week's notice. Upon this the defendant said
he could go at once, but plaintiff worked until some period in
the day, when he received peremptory orders to quit.
His Honour—How do you say that you are entitled to a
week's notice.

Plaintiffi—Bythe rules of the trade.
Defendant's son— We make a special bargain in our
house. When the men enter our service we point out that
upon leaving theymust give us a week's notice, but we may
discharge them at a moment.

His Houour—That appears to be a very one-sided bar-
gain, but if the men chose to agree to it, of course 1 can say
nothing. _ _

Plaintiff—But surely you know the mcn are entitled to
the same consideration as the master. If a man leaves
their service at a moment's notice they enforce the week,
and the men ought to be able to do the same.
Defendant—The rule is well understood in our house,
and we consider that we are quite at liberty to make rules
for our own protection.

His Honotir—Oh I certainly, but it does not seem to
work very Well so far as I can see. It appears that the
moment a man gives the customary notice the master can
turn him out forthwith and deprive him of the week's
money. The bargain is a legal one, but it is also a hard
one. If, however, the men choose to agree to it, they
cannot depart from it now. There is money paid into
court, in addition to which plaintiff is entitled to recover
for the time he actually worked (25.), and for that sum he
will have a verdict.

Verdict for plaintiff, only for the actual money earned.

SHIPPING—This Day.

LONDON, Dec. 12.—Wind this day at noon—South-
West ; light breeze, and fine weather.
LtvnnrooL, Dec, 12.—Wind S.W.—Arrived—Palermo,
screw steamer, from Scilly—Ellen Catherine, from Huelva
—Lucy, from Riohibucto.
PORTSMOu LA, Dec. 11.—Wino C.W..:—Arrived—Lady
Milton, from Otago, N.Z.
KINGEOAD, Dec, 11.—Wind W.—Arrived—Red Coat,
from the West Coast of Africa.
CLYDE, Dec. 11.—Wind S.W.—Arrived—Acme, Cuth-
berts, and Empire, trom Quebec—Perseverance, from
Montreal.

RAMSGATE, Dec. 11.—Wind S.W.—Arrived—Kate
Evelyn, from Hartlepool for Garrucha—assisted in with
loss of stanchions, &c.
DOVER, Dec. 11.—Wind W.—Arrived—Murillo, screw
steamer, from London from Santander.
CARDIFF, Dec. 11.—Wind W.—Arrived—Millo, from
Marsala.

PLYMOUTH, Deo. 11.—Wind N.W.—Arrived—Premier,
from Newfoundland.

(BY MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.)
GRAVESEND, Saturday Morning.
Arrived—William Walker, from Archangel.
DEAL, Saturday Morning.

Passed—Asia, screw steamer, from Sunderland, for Cal-
cutta—Cid, screw steamer, for Bilboa, and Tivy, schoontr,
for Falmouth, both from London—Scotland, ship, from the
North, for the West.

LORD STAMFORD'S SALE,.—Mr., Naylor, as the
last bona fide bidder, has claimed the yearling filly,
Sloth, by Idle Boy out of Lena, which was knocked down
to Mr. Ten Broeck, for 250 gs; and we euabrace this oppor-
tunity of explaining that there is not the slightest truth in
the statements which have appeared in our contemporaties,
as to Captain White having acted for Mr. Naylor at the
sale. Captain White did not bid for a single lot for Mr.
Naylor, nor did the latter bid, directly or indirectly, for
either Cambuscan or Archimedes, as represented,Sport-
iny oa:ette.

61JICIDE BY A GREENWICII PENSIONER.--
-
Mr. C.
J. Carttar, coroner for West Kent, yesterday held an in-
quest at the Admiral Hardy Tavern, Greenwich, into the
circumstances attending the death of William Day, a pen
sioner of Greenwich Hospital. The evidence proved that
the deceased had been drinking for several days, and wee
apparently suffering from the cffocts of intemperance. He
was admitted to the infirmary of the hospital, where he
committed suicide by cutting his threat with a sharp knife
in a most determined manner. The jury returned a verdict
of temporary insanity, which Was induced by habits of in-
temperance.