The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-14 00:00:00

Foreign Mail Packet List.

Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton Juno 18
Ditto, via Marseilles June 12.
Brazil and Cape nerds. by British pat). et July 4.
Ditto, by French packet June 22.
Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St Helena June 22.
China, Penang, and Singapore, via Sou hampton...Tune 18.
Ditto, via Marseilles June 12.
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar, via SouthaMpton
India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton—June 18.
Ditto, via Marseilles
India (Bombay), via Southampton. June 25
Ditto, via Marseilles .. June 19.
Mauritius, via Southampton July:ll.
Ditto, via Mandl e 3 July 6.
Newfoundland June 21.
Portugal
Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon
United States and British North America, by Bri-
tish packet . .. ...June 15
Ditto. by United States packet, via Southamp-
ton
Ditto, via C..,rk
Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry.. June 16.
West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Tineriffe July 12.
West Indies and Pacific (except Bahadias, Cuba,
and Mexico ............. ........... ........... June 13.
Bahamas, via New York. June 23
Bermuda, ditto July 5.
Cuba and Mexico June .8

BANCROFT V. HAMER.—FALSE REGISTRATION OF
BIRTH.-Mr. Samuel Hamer surrendered at the Manchester
police-court yesterday, before Mr. Fowler, the stipendiary
magistrate, upon a warrant charging him with felony,
under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, clause 41,
cap. 86, 6th and 7th William IV., in having caused to be
falsely registered in the superintendent's register of births
for the Manchester district the birth of a certain child
, named Margaret, the father's name being entered as Samuel
Hamer, and the mother's name as Margaret Hamer
(formerly Lenyon), such child not being the daughter of
the said Margaret Hamer. The alleged offence was com-
mitted on the 19th September, 1850. Mr. Bancroft, it will
be recollected, has had two suits instituted against his wife,
in the Divorce Court, for adultery, which failed. The short
history of this case is that Mr. Bancroft, a few years ago
married the mother of the child referred to above. He did
not learn till after his marriage that his wife had had a
child some 12 or 13 years before, which child, it appears,
I was adopted by its uncle and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Hamer,
and registered as their child, the object being as far as
possible to cover and conceal the disgrace of its mother
then an unmarried woman. Mr. Torr, barrister, prosecuted,
and Mr. Leresche, barrister, defended. Before the case was
gone into Mr. Leresche took an objection. He said the
Marriage Registration Act, 6th and 7th Wm. IV., c. 85,
and the Births, &c., Registration Act, 6th. and 7th Wm.
IV., c. 86, received the royal assent on the same day. A
clause of the former act (23d) incorporated the two acts,
and clause 41 provided that no prosecution under the act
should be commenced unless brought within three years
after the offence was committed. Mr. Torr contended that
there being no clause in the Births, &c., Registration Act
limiting the time for prosecutions the .objection did not
apply. Though a clause of the Marriage Act incorporated
the two acts, it could not have been intended the limita-
tion clause of that act should apply to the other. Mr.
Leresche contended that every section of the one act ap-
plied to the other, as if they were the same act. The words
of the 44th section were that this act shall be taken to be
part of the same act, as if fully incorporated therewith.
No words hardly could be stronger. Mr. Fowler said ho
could not put any interpretation on this act but that re-
lied on by Mr. Leresche, and the warrant must be dis-
missed. If the other side chose to take the matter to a
higher court, they might take a case. Mr. Torr said he
would take time to consider.