The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-12 00:00:00

TnE SUN, LONDON; WEDNESDAY EVENING, IIA.ROII 12, 1862.

LAW Tll TELLIG.ENCE.—(This Day.)

LORDS JUSTICES' COURT.
(Bef,re Sir J. Knight Bruce and Sir J. Turner.).
THE CASE OF MR. SCOTT ICUSSELL-BANKRUPTCY-jUDG-

AIENT.

This case came before the Court this morning for judg-
ment. It was the petitien against the adjudication of
bankruptcy of Mr. John Scott Russell, of 20, Great George-
street, WeAtuinster, and of Millwall, shipbuilder, pro-
nounced by Mr. Commissioner Goulburn on the 22d of
February. That decision was disputed on two grounds,
namely, that there had been no act of bankruptcy, and
secondly, that there was no valid petitioning creditor's debt.
Mr. Scott Russell was under contract to build the Great
Eastern steamship,and hemade a sub-contract with Mr. Le-
ster (the petitioning creditor) for the performance of works to
the upper deck for £5,500, and time was to be an important
ingredient iu the contract. The sub-contract was not per-
formed in time, but all the money excel t £5OO was paid.
There were other cross demands between Mr. Scott Russell
and Mr. Lester for materials, labour, &c. After the acci-
dent to the Great Eastern disputes arose between the com-
pany and Mr. Scott Russell, and an action was brought by
the latter, and finally the matter was referred to arbitration,
in which an award was made in favour of Mr. Scott Rus-
sell for £18,000; but that sum was given after striking out
all items relating to the works Mr. Lester had undertaken to
perform, amounting to £2,000. Mr. Scott Russell was obliged
to appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench to enforce the award,
and he proceeded for the £lB,OOO. Mr. Lester pressed
Mr. Scott Russell for the payment of the balance due to
him, and on the latter demurring to pay more while there
was the claim unsettled between the company and their
contrator, an action was brought by Mr. Lester, and that
action was itself a subject of arbitration, which arbitration
was at present proceeding. The Lords Justices required
that the question should be argued, and it lasted several
' days.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said he must assume, for the
sake of arguing the other question, that there was a peti-
tioning creditor's debt. He was of opinion, after hearing
the evidence which had been adduced before them, that
there was no act of bankruptcy committed by Mr. Russell. If,
however, he had had only the evid once before him which was
taken by the Commissioner in Bankruptcy, it was probable
that he might have come to the same conclusion as that
gentleman. The adjudication of bankruptcy would be an-
nulled, and the petition dismissed. He must express his
opinion that petitions in bankruptcy ought not to be pre-
sented in the case of balances of disputed and complicated
accounts.
Lord Justice Turner concurred.

The case was proceeding when we went to press.

The adjudication in bankruptcy against Mr. Scott Rus-
sell was therefore annulled and the petition dismissed.

THE WINDHAM CASE.-THE COSTS.

The arguments were resumed this morning by Mr.
Bacon, on the part of General Windham.
The learned gentleman was addressing the Court when
we went to press.

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BURROUGHS V. BURROUGHS AND SILCOOK.
The proceedings in this petition were resumed this morn-

ing.
The depo-ition of Jane Gibbons, which stated that im-
proper familiarities had taken place between Miss Sarah
West and the petitioner, having been read,
Miss Sarah West was then called and examined by Sir
F. Slade—l am 24 years of age, and I reside at Stalham
with my parents. I know the family of Mr. Burroughs,
and ho occasionally visited our house. Mr. Burroughs
never took any improper familiarities with me. I don't
remember ever having sat on his knee. Nothing of an
improper nature everpassed between me and Mr. Burroughs
in the dining or drawing-room: I recollect going to the sea-
side, and taking tea at Jane Gibbons' mother's, at Wake&
On that occasion Mr. Burroughs never took any improper
liberties with me. He never put his hand down my bosom ;
he never dared take that liberty. Mr. Clowes was our
medical attendant. He did not attend at our house at
Christmas, 1860. There was no cause to require the at-
tendance of any medical man at that time.laVt nnlostdeeer irtat. I
have certainly
I did not have a miscarriage at that
time.d
r.
fa
Burroughs's knee
h T
ingnnd
ea
rsshta
that
aret
withe int r
hfßna ttuhrenr roe'
Burroughs
geghra
sr deaennn with ase
ee,
There is a river in Stalham. I have walked by
its side with Miss Hayes, but never alone with
Mr. Burroughs. I never, in the summer of 1861,
laid on the grass near that river with Mr. Burroughs. I
went down the river once last summer with Miss Rust, and
my father and mother. On that occasion I never got out
of the boat. IN hen Mr. Burroughs used to come on a visit
he used to leave about eleven; he never stayed till the
morning. I recollect the Stalham volunteers being out,
and my father and brother going to see them, mother and
myself being left at home. Mr. Burroughs came to our
place about nine in the evening, and left between twelve
and one. We played at whist, and with the exception of
about five minutes to order supper my mother never left
the room.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Cross-examined by Dr. Phillimore—l have known Mr
Burroughs about two years. We called on them when they ar.
rived at Stalham as newcomers. rheyreturned the call. About
three or four months after this Mr. Burroughs first visited
our house. He came once or twice a week. I recollect Mr.
Walter Coleman staying with Mr. Burroughs. He had
visited as often as once or twice a week at that time. He
came about five, but never stayed till morning. I some-
tim-s retired to rest before he left. I have been up at twelve
o'clock when he left. I should say I was more frequently
up than in bed when he left. Mrs. Burroughs used fre-
quently to accompany him. She used to come with him,
and persuade him to stop while she went somewhere else.
I recollect one afternoon when she came Walter Coleman
had then left. No one was staying at Mr. Burroughs'. It
was just before his wife left in 1860. When Mrs. Burroughs
used to call with Mr. Burroughs she used to tell him to wait
for her until she returned. She never called at 12 o'clock
at night. I suppose she forgot to call as she promised. I
recollect her calling twice in a pony carriage. I have drank
tea with Mrs. Burroughs, but never dined at her house.
The first time was when she and I went to see the rifle
corps drill, It was in the summer. I drank tea twice with
her that time. I never visited Mrs. Burroughs while her
mother was with her, because she had written a letter to
my father. I did not know at that time that Mr. Burroughs's
visits to me gave great pain to Mrs. Burroughs. I should
not think it was so, or she would never have invited me to
her house. On my oath, I was not aware that she
objected to his visiting our house. I saw the letter my
father had received from Mrs. Burroughs's mother. I don't
think she was pained at Mr. Burroughs seeing me. Mrs.
Burroughs came the next day and apologised for the letter,
saying that her mother had written it without her know-
ledge. I never spoke to Mrs. Coleman about the. letter. I
never in fact spoke to her at all. Mrs. Burroughs used to
call on me, nearly up to the time she left, to go out with her.
I cannot say how often she used to call. We had music
when Mr. Burroughs called on us. I recollect singing once
when Mrs. Burroughs was present. It was about five
o'clock. lam on friendly terms with Mr. Burroughs. He
has kissed me, but in the presence of my father and mother.
I won't swear he has not kissed me in presence of his wife,
as I can't recollect. I don't remember ever sitting on
Mr. Burroughs' knee. I don't think I ever did. Mr. Bur.
roughs has continued his visits to ourhouse the same as usual
since Mrs, Burroughs has been away. He is my father's soli-
tor, and business I suppose used to call him to our place about
twice a-week. I don't think he came frequently when he
had no professional business. My father is a professor of
music. I know the business Mr. Burroughs used to come
upon to my father. In January, 1861, he visited as fre-
quently as usual. I don't refuse to tell when his visits
became less rare, and would tell you if I recollected. I first
became aware that Mrs. Burroughs had taken proceedings
against her husband from hearing my father speak about
it. I cannot recollect how long it is ago. I cannot recol-
lect any of the conversation ; never paid particular attention
to it. I have never talked to Mr. Burroughs about any
suit in this court between him and his wife, excepting when
I heard that I should be obliged to come up. Then I asked
him some questions about it. Our house is about half a mile
f....0m Mr. Burroughs's. I know Smith, the gardener ;he
works for us. I know Louisa, his daughter. I have
never written to Smith, the father, about this cause. I have
never written to him about Louisa giving evidence in this
case. lam sure of that. I have never sent her "my love"
since the case commenced.
A letter was here put in in the witness's hand, which she
acknowledged to have written. It was one she had sent
from London to the Smiths. The letter referred to making
his daughter as comfortable as she could when she arrived
in London.
Oh yes, I had forgotten rmg oa tktienngt
hishat letter.
daughter
about bribing.
byto see her about giving
Cross-examined—Oh
tnecder—tainly it was not to bribe her.
eriCdreonsese- e;
don'teDe "comfortable."
know
fperktaiihulemexia,
rc exactly what wid
saidhd tn
eltnothingw meantan t
Witness—You must have thought so, or you would not
have asked me about the letter,
A discussion arose respecting the letter; ultimately it
was made evidence, and the letter in question was handed
over to Mr. Burroughs's counsel for perusal.
Cross-examination continued—While Jane Gibbons was
in our service I slept with her once or twice. I have asked
her what she has said about me. It was before we came to
London the last time. I don't know what sort of a character
my mother gave Jane Gibbons when she kit our service.
I h
after she came to live with us that I slept with her.
Re-examined
edby
Dr. Jane
pi ns
When I saw Jane Gibbons
ev-eexam neverin given
sGinbkbso_ any money. It was soon
I merely asked her what she had been saying about me.
Mrs. Burroughs always appeared to be on friendly terms
with me. I went out with her, but a short time before she
left.
Mr. John West, father of the last witness, said—l am a
teacher of music. I became acquainted with Mr. Bur-
roughs soon after he arrived in Stalhatxt. He acted forme
a smyo
houselic itr
I belong
Hehas otfoten spent the evening at our
the corps. Mr. Burroughs
er with my daughter alone. It might have I
averaged two, but never
nights a week. recollect going to the Vo-
lunteerreview.
was at my house that evening. I returned
homeat half-
past
solicitor.
five in the morning. Mr. Burroughs was not
there then. My daughter and her mother were

THAMES.

inmate.

up, but my daughter had been to bed during my
absence. Ihe witness was then asked about the excursion
to Walcot, and said he was certain his daughter and Bur-
roughs were never left alone for any length of time.
By Dr. Phillimore—Mr. Burroughs never stayed fre-
quently when he visited our house till 12 o'clock. Ho was
not in the habit of staying longer than about an hour. When
he came to supper, which might be about once a week, he
stayed till eleven. He has stayed till one, and then I've
walked home with him. That was before and after Mrs. Cole-
man came. We had snusicafter supper. Mr. Burroughs was
never there on those occasions. I received a letter from Mrs.
Coleman, and I had a conversation with my wife and daugh-
ter about it. Mr. Burroughs did not visit ns much after
his wife's mother came to his house. There was a marked
difference in his attendance. After she left he resumed his
frequent calls. Mr. and Mrs. Burroughs came down to
apologise for a letter which had been written. I know she
has called several times while her mother was staying with
her. My pupils are all within two or three miles round
Stilham. I used to go out at 10 and return about one. I
used to receive pupils at my own house. I went, I think,
the day following that Mrs. Burroughs left her home, to
Mr. Burroughs's house alone. Mr. Burroughs has continued
his visits ,ince his wife left, but he never stopped as late.
Mr. Burroughs and my daughter walked home by them-
selves from Walcot, but we got sight of them about two
fields before they arrived. I used to go out quarterly with
my wife to collect some rents she owned. While we were
absent of course my daughter would be left at home.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
GEACTI V. FULLER -LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS IN

MINES-IMPORTANT QUESTION.
This was an action to recover £4 9s. for goods supplied
to a mine ha which defendant is a shareholder, and £6 58.
for law costs arising out of a former action.
Mr. Whitehurst, for the plaintiff, called Captain Sey. .
mour, who said he ordered the goods in question. He was
captain of the mine in July, 1860, when the goods were
ordered.

In cross examination by Mr. Charles Robertson. for de-
fendant, witness said he had great experience in mining
matters, and could say that a captain was justified in giving
orders without consulting the purser. Witness sent plain•
tiff's bill to the defendant, who promised to send a cheque
for it. Witness would swear that a captain in a mine is
authorised to contract debts without consulting the purser.

In reference to the costs, it was stated by Mr. White-
hurst that a person named Kennedy, a shareholder, had
been sued for this very debt, judgment recovered, and then
plaintiff was defeated by a bill of sale in bankruptcy.
James Bligh, clerk to Mr. Whitehurst, said defendant
instructed him to sue Kennedy. and promised if Kennedy
did not pay, he (defendant) would pay debt and costs, hav-
ing done so on previous occasions.
In cross-examination, witness admitted that he had been
to defendant's office, at defendant's request, to examine the
books of the mine. N over on any occasion went under
pretence of seeing books and then served defendant with a
copy of a writ.
Mr. Robertson then urged that it was laid down by
Collier on Mines that no one had authority to order goods
for a mine but the purser, and he had no right to do so
without orders from the committee.

Captain Seymour said he had an authority from defendant
to order the present goods, but it was in writing, and wit-
ness did not produce it.

The Judge ruled that plaintiff had made out his case, and
overruling Mr. Robertson's objections as to the costs,
found for the plaintiff for the full amount.

POLICE IN.I.E'LLIGENCE.—( This Day.)

EXTENSIVE EMBEZZLEMENT.—Joseph Tomalin, clerk,
was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt with embezzling several
sums of money, in all about £l5O, received on account of
his employers, Messrs. Maull and Polyblank, photo-
graphers, of 187, Piccadilly.
_ _

Mr. Henry Maull said the prisoner was in the employ of
himself and partner as a clerk, and it was his duty to ac-
count for all moneys he received. The Prisoner was dis-
charged on Saturday week, and since then they had disco-
vered that he had received several sums of money and never
accounted for them. At present he was only enabled to
prove one case.

Sarah Jane Hill, niece of Mrs. Henderson, of 129, Picca-
dilly, proved paying the prisoner £1 2s. 6d. for Messrs
Maull and Polyblank, for her aunt.

Sergeant Joy, 9 C, asked for a remand, which was
granted.

THE BRAZILIAN GIRL.—A letter has been received by
the magistrate, Mr. Tyrwhitt, as follows, the writer sign-
ing E. S. R. :—" I am desired to enclose ss. for Camilla
Rosa, the Brazilian girl, by two young ladies, who have a
sister in Brazil, and who express a hope that his Excel-
lency the Brazilian Minister may even yet send the poor
girl to har own country and home, and, it may be hoped, to
better ways."

ATTEMPTED SUICIDE IN THE POLICE CELLS.—ROB-
BERY AND ASSAULT. —Catherine Larken, an inmate of
St. James's Workhouse, was charged with stealing a pair
of boots from the shop of Mrs. Emma Moon, of 4, Berwick-
street, assaulting Thorn 636, and with attempting to com-
mit suicide in the police cells.

Mr. Eliza Yarnold, shopwoman to Mrs. Moon, said the
prisoner on the previous afternoon came into the shop, deli-
bera'ely undid a pair of boots, and walked off with them.
At the time the prisoner was tidily attired (she was now a
miserable object).
Prisoner said she did not know what she did.

Inspector Webb said the prisoner nearly tore herself to
pieces, and made two or three attempts to commit suicide.
Thorn said the prisoner struck him, and bit him, and it
took three constables to take her to the station.

Inspector Webb said he had to place a constable to watch
the prisoner all night for fear that she should destroy her-
self.

The prisoner, who, it was also said, had broken several
panes of glass at a tradesman's in Berwick.street, and has
been at the court on previous occasions, was remanded.

IMPORTANT TO RATE• PAYERS AND WATER CONSUMERS.
—Mr. George Kay, a licensed victualler, the landlord of the
George the Fourth public-house, Richard- street,Limehouse-
fields, applied to Mr. Woolrych for a summons against the
secretary of the East London Water Works Company, for
refusing to supply him with water at a fair equitable rate.
Mr. Kay said this was a question in which every inhabi-
tant of the metropolis was interested. He went into posses-
sion of the George the Fourth public-house in July, 1860,
and was charged £4 a year water rate. He paid two quar-
ters at that rate, and believing it to be very exorbitant, he
made inquiries, and ascertained that the original
water rate on the house was 50s. per annum only,
but that an additional rate was levied on his
predecessor, because he kept horses on his premises,
and an additional supply of water was required. He (Mr.
Kay) gave notice to the company that he kept no horses,
and that the inmates of the house were only four in num-
ber. The East London Water Works Company refused
to lower the rate, and upon his refusal to comply with the
exorbitant demand made upon him the supply of water was
cut off, and he was subjected to great inconvenience.
Mr. Woolrych said, as the rating had been increased
from 50s. to £4 per annum on account of the horses and the
extra demand for water, a reduction ought to have taken
place when horses were no longer kept, and the supply
of water decreased.

Mr. Kay—Only consider, sir ; the East London Water
Works Company charge £1 per annum for water for each

--------
Mr. Woolrych—At,what amount is your house rated in
the parish books ?

Mr. Kay—At £4O per annum.
Mr. Woolrych—Upon wLat principle do the Water•
works Company rate houses P _ _ .

Mr. Livingston, the chief usher, replied he believed the
rating was 6 per cent, on the annual value, and that would
be about 50s. per annum on Mr. Kay's house, which, if
rated at £4O in the parish books, would perhaps be worth
£5O per annum.

Mr. Kay said he reported to the company what he was
rated at, and the reply was that the company were not
bound by the parish rating, or the value of the premises,
and that they could send their own surveyor to value the
premises.

A ratepayer of Stepney said he paid a rental of £25 per
annum, was assessed in the parish books at £lB, and paid
the East London Waterworks Company 245. per annum
for water. There were 10 persons in his house, and he
was better off than Mr. Kay.

Mr. Woolrych said he would grant a summons if it was
in his power to do so, and asked for the act of Parliament.
Mr. Boweller, the second clerk, said the East London
Waterworks Act was a private one, not comprised in the
public general acts. It was not in the court.
Mr, Woolrych said there must be some limit to the rating
power of the water company, but until he saw their act of
Parliament he could not tell how to proceed. He advised
Mr. Kay to obtain the East London Waterworks Act, and
apply to him again.
Mr. Kay said he would do so, and that if he could not
obtain redress from the judicial authorities he should call a
public meeting of ratepayers on the subject.

AFFAIR OF HONOUR.—An affair of honour has
arisen out of the court-martial on Captain Robertson. In
consequence of some remarks made by Colonel Dickson in
his evidence, Captain Henry wrote to him next day in-
quiring whether the report in the newspapers was correct.
Colonel Dickson replied that it was correct except in one
particular. Instead of saying, " Captain Henry and his
friends," he had said, " Captain Henry or his friends."
Captain Henry then asked him to name a friend, and chal-
lenged him to fight a duel. Colonel Dickson stated, in
reply, that he was going to London that night, and that he
would be there to answer any further communication on
the subject. Captain Henry, regarding this as an evasion.
went immediately to Brussels, and wrote thence to Colonel
Dickson, stating that he was there awaiting his arrival to
give him satisfaction. The Colonel, instead of appearing
on the ground, sent an apology ; Captain Henry returned
to England, and thus the affair terminated.