The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 24, 1863.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
THIS ATTORNEY • GENERAL V. SILLEM AND OTHERS - TILE

CASE OF THE ALEXANDRA.

Sir Hugh Cairns continued his speech for the defence
this morning. Yesterday he adverted to the fact that
since the Foreign Enlistment Act had been passed in 1819
no case had been presented until the present one,
when. he said, the Attorney-General put his obsolete Act
in force for the purpose of appeasing the hostile feelings of
the Federais towards the Confederates. This morning the
learned counsel quoted several decisions in some respects
bearing on the case, especially one come to in the Federal
States, in reference to the ship Alfred, which it had been
alleged was being built as a privateer to aid the French in
hostilities against England. The decision was that it was
not unlawful to fit out a privateer. It must be proved that
the vessel was required for the illegal purpose alleged. There
was also an opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General in
reference to the Alabama, in which he said that she might
have been legitimately built for a foreign Government,
and though a ship et war might have formed a legiti-
mate article of merchandise, even if meant for the Con-
federate States, but it would be an infringement of
the Foreign Enlistment Act if it could be proved that
the parties who built the vessel knew that it
was intended to be used by the Confederate Government
for purposes of war against the Federal Government, with
whom we were at peace. The learned counsel then com-
mented on the evidence for the prosecution, which, he said,
had been given by five discharged workmen, one crimp, and
two informers or spies. The question the jury had to con-
sider was, not what might be done with the vessel, or what
she could be converted into, as one of the witnesses had
been articular in surmising, but what she actually was at
the time of the seizure. There were many things in the
construction of the ship similar to the method of construct-
ing a vessel of war, but she might have been intended for a
yacht, and there was no arrangement for fixing guns, nor
was there any evidence to prove that she was intended for
warlike purposes. After commenting upon the evidence of
the less conspicuous witnesses, he adverted to that of
Mr, Clarence R. Young, whose history be briefly
reviewed and which was by no means ,credi-
table. This witness was evidently the witness
put forward by Mr. Adams, and not by the Crown, and the
learned counsel sympathised with the Solicitor-General in
being obliged to examine such a disgraceful witness. The
learned council concluded his address by calling on the jury
to give a jury for his clients, and thus preserve that strict
neutrality in reference to the American war, which this
country had hithertu pursued, and not upon the meagre
evidence adduced, pander to the exigencies of a foreign
state.

No witness being called, this concluded the case for the
defence.

The Attorney General then rose to reply on behalf of
the Crown, on the whole case. He remarked that the jury
had the evidence of the Crown on one side, and the learned
speech of Sir Hugh Cairns on the other. It was significant
that no evidence had been produced for the defence. Had
the defence been able to contradict the statement made by
Mr. De Costa that Mr. Miller, senior, had told him that the
vessel was intended for the Confederate Government, why
was not Mr, Miller called to contradict it. The Crown had
refrained from indicting any persons engaged in practices
made illegal by the Foreign Enlistment Act, but has
adopted the more lenient course of asking that the vessel
should be declared forfeited.

His Lordship, in the course of these remarks, asked the
Attorney-General if he admitted it to be lawful to build a
vessel fit for war, and afterwards to sell it to either of the
belligerent Powers, that is, could a shipbuilder so specu-
late without acting illegally.
At the conclusion of the learned gentleman's address,i
The Lord Chief Baron summed up tha case, and
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the defen-
dants,

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
DICKSON V. LORD COMBERIvIEKE AND OTHERS,

' The trial of this action was resumed this morning, for the
sixth day.
Viscount Hardinge examined by Mr. Dowdeswell—ln
1858 he was Parliamentary Under Secretary at War, and
recollected the letter of Lord Combermere of the 4th of
June, and the minute of the 9th was in his handwriting.
He had acted on his own responsibility, as he saw at once
that further information was required. The letter of the
14th of May merely contained the charges, without Colonel
Dickson's replies ; that was superseded by another letter of
the 9th of June from Lord. Combermere, containing the
charges, with Col. Dickson's answers, On the 24th June,
the whole of these documents were considered by himself and
Sir Henry Storks. He formed his opinion thereon, entirely
concurred with Sir H. Storks, and wrote a memorandum for
the information of Gen. Peel. He believed that he received
additional charges from Earl Wilton against Colonel Dick-
son, which he returned to him, stating that they must come
in the usual official manner from the Lord Lieutenant.
After these proceedings, the documents, with•the minutes,
were submitted to Gen. Peel, who directed that, as the
charges were of a military character, the matter ought to
be transferred to the military advisers, General Douglas
and Sir Henry Storks. He recollected that Col. Dickson
sent a letter demanding a court-martial, and he directed
that the opinion of the Judge Advocate should be taken,
which was done, and it was found it could not be granted,
more than six months having elapsed since.the regiment was
disembodied.

The Lord Chief Justice said it was quite unnecessary to
go over this ground again : they had had all the minutes
before them. It was quite right to put Lord Harding() in
the box, that questions might be put by the other side.
Witness was then cross•examined briefly by Mr. Cole-
ridge, but the questions only related to unimportant points.
Lieutenant-General Peel was then called, and before
giving his evidence informed the Court that he had obtained
the consent of her Majesty to state matters that came before
him as Secretary of War. He then said he was Secretary of
War from January, 1858, to June, 1859. He could not
recollect any dates, but as they had been so repeatedly
mentioned he had no doubt they were correct. He recol-
lected Lord Combermere, Lord Wilton, and Colonel North
calling en him in relation to Colonel Dickson, Lord Com-
bermere said they had been to the Horse Guards for the
purpose of obtaining a court martial, and they had been
referred to the War-office. Finding that it was a militia
case, and having only been a short time in office, and
not much acquainted with the militia, he sent for Mr. Mar-
shall, the bead of the Militia Department, and he informed
Lord Combermere that the course to be pursued in relation
to the dismissal of a Militia officer was for the Lord
Lieutenant to send in a statement of the charges to the
Secretary of State, and that there could not be a court- I
martial, as the regiment had been disembodied. He had
read through all the documents in this case, and had formed
his judgment upon Colonel Dickson's own answers to the
charges made against him, freely admitting the explanation
of Colonel Dickson, and saying nothing affecting his honour.
Whatever doubt there might be as to the figures, there
could be no doubt as to the fact that the regiment, when it
was disembodied, was greatly in debt. It was the duty of
the commanding officer of a regiment to see that the ac-
counts of the regiment were not in arrear. Ho found that
there was a balance of £3l out of the monies received from
the Wellington College in relation to the accident, and with-
out at all questioning the manner in which Colonel Dick-
son had appropriated these monies, he found there was a
sum of £*2l lls owing to tradesmen (Messrs. Isaacs) for
clothing supplied to the regiment, and he found that there
were other bills for £35 15s and £3O 6s 10d, Without doubt-
ing Colonel Dickson's honour, he thought that to have
allowed the regimental accounts to get in such a state
showed that Colonel Dickson was an unfit person to have
the command of a regiment. He head nothing to do with
the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry, and never saw
their report or minutes of evidence. The board was in the
first instance intended by him to have been formed of
Militia officers, and he had intended that the Duke of Rich-
mond should be one, but it was found that the appointment
of Militia officers was impracticable, and ho then referred
the appointment to the Horse Guards, and requested his
Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chiet to appoint three
experienced officers. He considered Colonel Franklyn,
Lord Arthur Hay, and Colonel Hale. He signed the letter
of the 10th of June on. the minutes of Sir Henry Storks,
and also the letter of the 29th to Lord Combermere, direct-
ing him to call upon Col. Dickson to resign, and intima-
ting that in the event of his refusal he should feel it his
duty to recommend his dismissal ; and he also assumed
that General Douglas had seen the report.

. -
The cross-examination of General Peel having closed,
The Lord Chief Justice thought there was nothing in
the case to affect General Peel, and under such circum-
stances he ought to be relieved from the action.
After some conversation, Mr. Coleridge assented to this
couree, and the action then proceeded against the two n-
maining defendants.

-
The Earl of Wilton was then examined at length as to
the circumstances connected with this transaction, but only
confirmed the statements made by his counsel, Mr. Lush,
in his opening address.
The further hearing of the case was adjourned till Friday
next.

SHERIFFS' COURT.

THE MYSTERIES OF DRESSMAKING TOR 7A.SHIONABLE

WOMEN.-LEVY V. COLEMAN.

This was an action upon a dressmaker's bill, defendant
having paid £1 7s. into court, and pleading never indebted
as to 48.

Miss Levy stated that the subject matter of dispute was
a certain silk dress. This dress had to be made in a very
fashionable manner, and plaintiff charged 12s. for making
and 2s. for machining.
I sent two young persons for plaintiff's
said her charge for making a silk dress was 10s.
Plaintiff—Ah, that was for a plain dress. This was made
in the new and prevailing mode.
His Honour—How was that ? prices, and she
Plaintiff—The new fashion is a white cord down each
seam. That is a long piece of work, It is quite absurd to
suppose that I can get my lining at Mrs. Coleman's price.
I have to support a widowed mother, and I was compelled
to give Mrs. Coleman three months' credit. She looked
over my bill and made no complaia, but because I would
not give her six months' credit she disputes my account.
Mrs. Coleman—l can assure you that my dress was noli a

very difficult one. She told ray young friends that her
charges were only 10s.
Plaintiff—Why I never said such a thing. It was a pipe
skirt, with a pipe cord, and the dress was 5± yards round.
His Honour—What did the silk cost ?
Mrs. Coleman—£3 15s.

The lady here walked into the space directly facing the
judge, and holding up her mantle said, " This is the dress."
His Honour—lt is a very handsome one.
Plaintiff—And it would take nearly one week to make.
His Honour—l cannot say that 14s. is too much for
making a dress of this kind. You women have disagreed,
and it would have been better to have paid all the money.
Verdict for plaintiff with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGII-STREET.

A NIGHT SCENE IN PICCADILLY.-Mr. Alfred May-
how, of Portland, Dorsetshire, wine merchant, was charged
before -Mr. Tyrwhitt with being drunk and disorderly in
Piccadilly, and assaulting Police Sergeant Fornett, 292 A,
Wm. Moore, 187 C, and 'Wm. Fish, 331 A., and Louisa
Franklin, a prostitute, of 7: Stanley-street, Brompton, was
also charged with striking Sergeant. Fornett on the head
with an umbrella.

Sergeant Fornett said—About a quarter to one this
morning I saw the male defendant outside the Royal Stan-
dard public -house, in Piccadilly, just at the top of the Hay-
market. He had been expelled from that house, and had
lost his hat. As he was screaming drunk, and creating a
great disturbance, I advised him to go away, but he refused
to do so. I then told him that if he did not discontinue
his noise I should be obliged to take him into custody, and
attempted to do so, when ho struck me twice in the face.
I then took hold of him, when he struggled, and we both
fell, and while on the ground he set to kicking as if he was
mad. His conduct here became so outrageous that it took
us 20 minutes to get him to the station in Vine-street.
There were not fewer than 1,000 persons assembled, and
there was a scene of the most riotcus description. While
on the way to the station the female (Franklin) same up
and said, " You brute, let him go,'' and she then etruck me
across the head with an umbrella. I had no hat on at the
time, having lost it in the melee.

Mr. Tyrwhitt—That shows what a useless thing the
police hat is in a row.
Sergeant Fornett—l then took Franklin to the station.
She had been drinking, hut was not drunk. While at the
station the male defendant struck the gaoler, and his con-
duct was so disgraceful that he was obliged to he removed
to a lower cell, as he disturbed the whole neighbourhood.
Fish, 331 A, said—On going to the spot I found the ser-
geant and the male defendant on the ground, and on at-
tempting to raise the defendant he struck me a violent blow
in the mouth, cutting my lip very badly. On asking the
defendant to go quietly, he said, " I'll not go for the
police. I will fight Tom Sayers or any other man in Eng-
land." The female on the way to Vine-street struck the
sergeant with her umbrella. She was with th 3 male
defendant outside the Royal Standard, but I don't know
whether she had been with him before.
Moore, 187 C, said—On attempting to assist in taking
the male defendant to the station ho struck and kicked me,
and made use of very violent language.
The defendant Mayow—l was struck by the police.
Sergeant Fornett—Yes, I struck you, but it was to pre-
vent you biting me in a most cowardly manner.
Mr. Tyrwhitt asked Mayow what he had to say to the
charge.

Mayow—l had been drinking, and was exasperated.
Franklin—l did not strike the sergeant, and only inter-
fered on behalf of the gentleman.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—These assaults on the police are without
defence. I shall fine Mayow 20s. or 14 days for each as-
sault, and Franklin ss. or seven days.

It was stated in court that such a turbulent scene has
not been witnessed in the neighbourhood of the Haymarket
for years.

ELECTION OF SHERIFFS.

SECOND EDITION.