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

Foreign ]'lail Packet List.

Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton June :8
Ditto, via Marseilles June 12.
Brazil and Cape Verds, by British pac...et July 4.
Ditto, by French packet
Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and ;St lrma 22.
China, Penang,. and Singvare, via Sou'hampton June 13.
Ditto, via Marseilles June 12.
Falkland Islands ................ ..
Gibraltar, via Southarilptorl • " • . Jim°
India (d'alentta), and Coy fon; i'lja.4satli.indipton June 18
Ditto, via Marseilles .......
India (Bombay), via Southampton. June 25
Ditto, via 3darseines June 19.
liauritius, via Southampton
. July; 1.
Ditto, via Marseil:e 4 July 6.
Newfoundland .......................... June 21.
Portugal .....
.Ditto, by private ship•to ....
L....isb ..... .....July 4.
on.— •• •
Limed States and British North America, by Bri-
tish packet ........... .......... Ditto, by United State ........ ...June :5
States packet, via Southamp-
Diton • • ....... I•• • ........... •
tto, via Cork.., ..................
Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry.. June 16.
West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Teneriffe July 12
West Indies and Pacific (exceptßaharras, Cuba,
and Mexico ......... . ....... . ....... ... .. June 13.
Bahamas, via New ork.. ............ June 29
Bermuda, ditto ..................... ............. July 5
Cuba and Mexico) ............................ June .8

BANCROFT V. ITA.MER.--PA,iSE REGISTRATION OF
BIRTH.-Mr. Samuel 'lamer surrendered at the Manchester
police-court yesterday, before Mr. Powlari the stipendiary
magistrite, upon a warrant charging
him with felony,
under the Registration of Births d Deaths Act, clause 41,
in h
cap. 86, 6th and 7th William IV., gild
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
(formerly Lenyon), such child not as Margaret Hamer
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. he
history of this case is that Mr. Bancroft, a few years ago
The short
married the mother of the child referred to above. Ho did
not learn till after his marriage that his wife had had a
, Which child, it appears,
Mr. and Mrs. Hamer,
achild
ra
esdgoo
inps
tteee
rdle2db orya silt
their
uye
iner
ca
lr
ecs before
o artuehn
object being as far is
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 Wni. IV., c. 85,
and the Births, &c., Registration ActGth 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
as if they were the same act. The words
of
the t o
44 thhe
other,
section were that this act shall be taken to be
t
part of the same act, as if fully incorporated therewith.
No words hardly could be stronger. Mr. Fowler said he
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.