The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, MARCH 24, 1882. *.

roded slightly, but still the black coating of mud
and oxide with 'which it was covered so closely re-
sembled tar that it see Ned at the first glans 'sl im-
possible to believe that the wire had been down
more than a few months. The Gabari then con-
tinued to underrun the line till within a mile and a
half of Jubal Island, and the accounts state that it
is difficult to imagine anything more beautiful than
the mass of zoophytes, of every tint and coloui,
which had cased round the whole cable to the
thickness of several inches. These being mostly of
a soft tenacious nature would tend most materially
to preserve the outside iron wires from decay. On
the 26th the Gabari underran the shore end of the
cable to Cosseir, in order to remove it and lay it to
Jubal Island. Though this portion of the line had
only been down some 14 months, yet it was found
on raising to be completely encased in a protecting
sheath of coral and zoophytes. The station on Jubal
Island may now therefore be expected to open from
day to day, and as the Peninsular and Oriental
steamers, both outward and homeward, will call,
news can be transmitted in anticipation of the over-
land mail by at least 12 or 13 days, and the same
time saved on messages to India. Mr. Clark and
his staff are now at Aden to meet the Sir James
Duke, the vessel which has taken out the cable to
repair or replace the Indian Ocean section as may
found necessary. Though the season for the navi-
gation of these seas will be far advanced, it is yet
hoped that much may be accomplished in the way
of effecting through communication with India
even this summer.

established in this service seven years ago. In the
second year of its operation 56 candidates were
examined for 20 appointments, it 1861 the ap-
pointments had risen to 80, and the candidates
to 171. One of the qualifications most desirable
in competitors was a knowledge of Sanskrit, but
that qualification at first was very rare. Out of
an aggregate of 295 candidates examined in the
first four years of the system, only six so much
as professed any acquaintance with the language
in question. Last year, however, as many as 36,
out of the 171, offered themselves for examination
in this subject; and the Commissioners record with
satisfaction this marked improvement in special
preparation. But there is another point of inte-
rest which should be mentioned. The successful
candidates for these particular appointments are
required, after approval, to devote a year to special
studies connected with their future duties, and then
to present themselves to the Examiners again.
Now, so strictly is this supplementary examination
conducted that last year a considaable percentage
of those who had passed the first ordeal failed in the
second, and were refused certificates. The Exami-
ners profess their due appreciation of general in-
struction, but they insist upon preparation for
official duty as a sine qua non. We notice this
fact for the warning and advantage of all con-
cerned, but it shows clearly enough that the Com-
petitive System can secure special qualifications as
easily as general ability.—Times.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,—March 22.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
WALL V. WALL AND WYATT.
This was a suit instituted by the husband for a
divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, a solicitor, to which the respon-
dent pleaded, denying the adultery, recriminated
the charge, and also alleged cruelty on the part of
her husband. The co-respondent did not appear.
Dr. Spicks, Mr. Joyce, and Mr. Serle were coun-
sel for the petitioner; and Dr. Phillimore, Q.U.,
represented the respondent.
From the • statement of counsel it appeared that
the petitioner was the son of a clergyman of the
Church of England, and that the respondent was
in an inferior station of life. The parties became
acquainted while the petitioner was " walking the
hospital," and were married in London in June,
1857, the petitioner at the time being under age.
They cohabited in lodgings in University-street
until November, 1856, when they separated in con-
sequence of the misconduct of the wife. The peti-
tioner allowed the respondent £2 a week until the
commencement of the present proceedings, and the
Court had awarded the same amount pendente lite.
She was frequently visited at Bow by the co-
respondent, who ultimately took up his residence
in the same house.
These facts were deposed to in evidence.
Dr. Phillimore said that after the testimony of
the witnesses called Le could not deny the adultery
charged against his client, but he should be able to
establish a case of adultery against the petitioner,
who had been seen to go home with a woman whom
he met at a casino in Oxford-street.
Mrs. Lofts, who said that she was a dressmaker,
was examined, and said that•she had been employed
by Mrs. Wall to make her wedding dress, but this
was not until fter the marriage had been solemnised.
(Laughter.) She had been asked by Mrs. Wall to
look after her husband, and she had seen him dancing
with some ladies at a casino. She witnessed no im-
propriety on his part, and she did not see him leave
the casino in company with any female.
Dz. Phillimore said he was instructed that the
witness would be able to carry the case much fur-
ther, and under the circumstances he would leave
it in the hands of the Court.
The jury immediately found a verdict for the
petitioner, and the Court made a decree nisi, with
costs against the co-respondent.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, March 22.
- Creel, COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.:
CLOTHIER V. WEBSTER.
This was an action by a baker, at Woolwich
against a contractor, under the Metropolitan Board
of Works, for injury caused to the plaintiff's oven,
through the negligence of the defendant in excut-
ing certain works for the Board.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Prentice, and Mr. Lucius
Kelly, were for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers,
Q.C., Mr. J. Brown, and Mr. Crawfurd were for
the defendant.
The defendant had, in making a sewer, made an
excavation under the oven, which had afterwards
sunk, so as to require it to be rebuilt, by reason of
which the plaintiff was put to expense, and for some
weeks disturbed his business, for whichl he claimed
between £3O and £4O.
The case for the plaintiff was, that this 'was
caused by,the mode of making the excavation, which
was denied on the part of the defendant. The
evidence on that point of course was contradictory,
and witnesses were called on the part of the defen•
dant to show that every:proper precaution had been
taken.
Mr. M. Chambers, on behalf of the defendant,
submitted that the works had been done in execu-
tion of the powers of the Act, and that, therefore,
the only remedy of the plaintiff was by a proceed-
ing for compensation under the Act.
The Lord Chief Justice—That is so, no doubt,
except so far as concerned any negligence in the
manner of doing the work, for which the contractor
would be responsible.
The excavation was made beneath the oven to
effect a communication with the main sewer at some
distance below. The contract provided for concrete
when required by the engineer of the Board, and
(in the usual way) specified that all works should
be well done, &c., and concrete had been put in so
far as required by him, and (as he said) so far as
necessary. There was concrete, however, only so
far as the crown of the sewer below, and the space
above it, up to the oven, was filled up with chalk
and clay, the oven being supported upon it by
wooden " struts" or beams,
There was strong evidence for the plaintiff that
the ground had not been filled in tightly and closely
under the oven, and had given way, so as to cause
it to sink and crack.
The clerk of the works was called on the part of
the defendant, and stated that, in his judgment, all
that was necessary had been done in the way of
precaution or care. When pressed as to the cause
of the sinking of the oven, he said he could not
deny that it might not have sunk by reason of the
works, but that no possible means would secure it
from sinking (except perhaps a solid stone wall),
that even concrete would not have been a perfect
security, and that chalk, well rammed in, was as
good as concrete.
The jury asked if chalk was as good as concrete.
The witness said he considered that it was if well
rammed.
The jury observed that it hardly could be under-
neath the oven, as the rammer could not be worked.
The engineer of the Board, who had charge of
the works, said he gave instructions from time to
time ,to the clerk:of the works as to what should
be done, and he considered that the precautions
taken were sufficient, and that all his orders were
carried out. He admitted, however, that it was
necessary, in order to prevent subsidence of the
soil, that the chalk should be very carefully rammed
down. When asked en cross-examination how the
oven could have sunk, supposing the chalk had been
well rammed down, he said it was difficult to
account for; it might have occurred from defect of
construction, or foundation, or partly from one cause
and partly from another ; but ho stated that, with
every precaution, it was impossible to prevent such
accidents. He admitted that if there had been any-
thing wrong in the construction of the oven it would
have been the duty of the workmen to call attention
to it, and that neither he nor the clerk of the works
had heard, at the time, that it was so. His opinion,
on the whole, was that the work had been done
carefully and skilfully.
Mr. Chambers, in summing up for defendant, con-
tended that as the contract required concrete only
under the orders of the clerk of the works or engi-
neers—who were employed by th© Board, and as
they were satisfied with what the defendant had
done, the maxim of law respondeat superior applied,
and that the board alone were liable.
The Lord Chief Justice said he should rule other-
wise, reserving the point.
Mr. Chambers then contended, on the evidence
for the defendant, that, even assuming that he might
in law be liable, he was not liable in fact, for that
every possible care had been taken, and the chalk
was rammed as closely as it could be.
Mr. Hawkins, in reply on the part of the plaintiff,
contended that the ramming down had been badly
done, and that for this the contractor was respon-
sible. The oven had snnk, and that was the best
proof the work had not been suffigient. Of course,
the people who had done the wofle would say they
had done it well; but the result was the best test,
well filled in.
and as tile ground gave way, it could not ha
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the case
-ie been
to the jury, told them that if the contractor had
been wanting in clue care and skill, he and not the
Board would be responsible. The great question
was whether the excavation bad been well filled in.
And the point was very pertinent, how, if it was

•••••••••••••-••••••••••
so, the ground came to give way ? It was for the '
jury to say whether, upon the whole of the evidence
thee 'l3a, been a want of reasonable care OT
in the filling up of the excavation ? If so, the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict; if otherwise, he
was not.
The jury consulted for a few minutes, and re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £35
Upon hearing this verdict the plaintiff exclaimed
aloud, "Righteousness shall reign I"—au exclama-
tion which caused much laughter.
(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
LEWIS V. COLE AND ANOTHER.
This was an action against the bailiff of the
County Court of Tunbridge Wells and his officer,
for entering the premises of the plaintiff, a riding-
master at that place, and taking a horse, under an
execution from that court against a third party.
The plaintiff had taken the premises of the execu-
tion debtor, and his name was put upon the livery
stables; but the change was not known. When
the horse was taken the plaintiff claimed it, and
there had been an interpleader summons ; but as
plaintiff refused to pay the appraised value into
court (as he might have done tinder the County
Court Act) in order to liberate the horse, the bailiff
sold it under the execution, and paid the proceeds,
£l2, into court, to abide the event of the inter-
pleader summons, which was in favour of the
plaintiff, and the money remained in court, and
could be taken out by the plaintiff; but had nut
been taken out. The value of the horse, however,
was £29, and the bailiff had been in possession six
days ; and the plaintiff claimed to recover the value,
and also compensation for the injury caused by the
entry of the bailiff.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Butler Rigby
were for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr.
Honyman for the defendants.
Mr. Justice Wightman ruled that the plaintiff
could not recover in respect to the horse, since,under
the County Court Act (passed in protection of the
bailiffs), he could have liberated the horse by pay-
ing the value into court to abide the event of the
interpleader summons, and could now take the
amount of the proceeds out of court.
Mr. Chambers—That is, take out £l2 out in
satisfaction of a horse worth £29.
Mr. Justice Wightman said the law was so.
Mr. Chambers, in reply, contended that, at all
events, his client was entitled to recover compensa-
tion for the injury which must have been done to
him in his business by the presence of two bailiffs
on his premises for six days.
Mr. Sergeant Shee, on the part of the bailiffs,
urged that they had merely made a mistake.
The learned Judge, in summing up the case to the
jury, said the bailiff was placed in a position of dif-
ficulty ; for he was bound to execute the warrant,
and could not know whose the horses were ; and,
whether the premises were the plaintiff's or not, he
would be bound to take any property on the pre-
mises which belonged to the execution debtor. As,
however, the horse was not the debtor's the entry
into the stables could not strictly be justified ; and
the question was what damages the plaintiff had
sustained by reason of that entry.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—da-
mages, £lO.
The learned Judge gave the plaintiff leave to
move to increase the damages by the value of the
goods, less the sum paid into the court (the county
court) which the plaintiff was at liberty to take out
of court.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.--YORK, March 21
(Before Mr. Justice Willes.)
GARRETT V. CROWE.
Mr. S. Temple, Q.C.,and Mr. T. P. E. Thompson
were for the plaintiff; Mr: Overend, Q.C., and Mr.
C. Newton for the defendant.
This action, for the seduction of the plaintiff's
daughter, was commenced yesterday, when
Harriet Garrett stated that she was the daughter
of a farmer lately residing at Middleton-on- the-
Wolds, in the East Riding, was 24 years of age, and
the eldest of seven children ,of whom two were sisters,
whose ages were 17 and 7 respectively, and that she
had known the defendant all her life. Daring the
last 10 or 12 years letters and newspapers had
come for the defendant to her father's house, which
had brought him there three or four times a-week.
In 1855 the defendant promised her marriage, and
thereupon his visits became more frequent, though
their purpose was not communicated either to her
father or her mother until three years later, at
which time he was looked upon by them and re-
ceived as a suitor. In October, 1860, an inter-
course took place, which resulted in the witness
being delivered of a child on the 4th of July, 1861.
On her informing the defendant of her condition,
so soon as she knew it, she was told he
could not before 18 months marry her in
consequence of not being in possession of his
property. In May the witness sent for him, he
having lately discontinued his visits, and she asked
him what she should do, and on his telling her they
could not be married, she threatened to affiliate her
child upon him. At his next visit an offer of £lO
a-year was made by him, and by witness and her
mother rejected. Subsequently the defendant and
his sister called and saw witness and her mother,
when the defendant denied the child was his.
The witness admitted on cross-examination that
she had never walked out with the defendant or
spoken to his brother or sister, or even in his pre-
sence to any one, in reference to their intended
marriage, and that at the interview, when the de-
fendant and his sister came, she " had not thought
to tell" of his having promised her marriage. She
further denied all familiarity with a number of
young men about whom she was questioned.
On re-examination, the witness stated it was the
defendant's wish to keep their engagement a secret
from his sister.
The father of the girl was called and stated, the
letters of the defendant received at his home related
to betting transactions, and the newspapers to
sporting matters, which the defendant was anxious
shoald not be known to his sister. It further ap-
peared in the evidence adduced in support of the
plaintiff's case that neither the father nor the
mother had ever spoken to the defendant on the
subject of the defendant's marriage with their
daughter.
Augusta Witty, the girl's cousin, stated she had
once seen the defendant with Harriett on his knee,
and regarded him as her cousin's suitor.
The defendant was this morning examined in
support of his case, when he stated that the letters
which ho went to see at the plaintiff's house had re-
lation to transactions in which he and the plaintiff
went halves, and that hehad never kept those trans-
actions a secret from his sister, that he had been an
overseer and was now churchwarden, and for the
last 14 years had been a parish officer. Had not
gone to the plaintiff's to see Harriet. Had never
courted the young woman, nor promised her mar-
riage. She had never sat on his knee, nor had he
had intimacy with her, or taken indecent liberties
with her ; that the subject of marriage had never
been discussed ; that his first intimation of the girl's
condition came from his sister on the 19th of June,
when he went to confront the girl and question her
respecting the report. The defendant's sister was
also examined as to her knowledge of the betting
transactions, and as to what took place at the inter-
view between her brother, herself, and the plaintiff's
wife and daughter, when the daughter declared
that if she should drop down dead the child
child was the defendant's, and Mrs. Garrett had
observed that Mr. Crowe had never acted as if he
were going to marry, and that she (Harriet) was a
fool. Some other witnesses were called, who de-
posed that the girl had represented that she had not
given way to Mr. Crowe before December last.
After addresses from the counsel, and a careful
summing-up by the learned judge, the jury, after
an absence of about an hour, found a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages £4OO.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—DERBY, March 22.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams,)
George Flint, a surgeon, pleaded not guilty to an
indictment charging him with shooting at Jane
Flint, his wife, on the 19th of September last, with
intent to kill and murder her, There were also
other counts, varying the charge.
Mr. Huish conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
F. Stephen the defence.

The prisoner had carried on a respectable practice
as a surgeon in Buxton for some years, but lived
very unhappily with his wife, and addicted himself
to drinking. On Sept. 19 he went to his brother's
house and borrowed a gun, which at first the brother
refused to let him have, as the prisoner seemed to
be in a state of very great excitement, whether from
drinking or not the witness could not say. The
prisoner said that he wanted it to shoot a cat, and
that he must have it. He loaded the gun with a
small charge of small shot, and took it with him.
On his way to borrow it he met a man named
Wheldon whom he told he was going to "shoot
Jane." He was afterwards seen standing opposite
his own door with the gun in his hand, and his wife
was running away from him. When she was turn-
ing the street corner, about 20 yards from him, he
pointed the gun at her and fired, wounding her very
slightly with some of the shots.
Thq only question raised by the learned counsel
for the defence was as to the prisoner's state of mind
at the time, which, it was contended, was such as
rendered him irresponsible for his acts, and incap-
able of the criminal intent charged against him.
The cross-examination elicited that his wife's mis—
conduct had caused him great unhappiness, that she
had used great violence towards him, and that over
since the act he had been shut up in a madhouse.
The facts that he had loaded only one barrel of the
gun, which was double-barrelled ; that he bad put
so small a charge into it ; and had fired it; not in