The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-08 00:00:00

TEM SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 8, 1F65.

in carrying out their project, and it is a significant
fact that the companies, in consequence of the steps
recently taken by the Corporation, have announced
that they will reduce the price of their gas at
Christmas, and again in the Spring. The truth
is that they havOied the patience of their custo-
merstoo far by nponly charging them an exorbitant
price, but supplying them with an inferior article.
The gas supply of such a City as London ought not
certainly to be an affair of private profit, and we
are not surprised that the adoption of the report
should have been carried by a large majority. The
monopolists will share the ultimate fate of all
who seek their own interests at the expense of the
public, and we hope it will not be long before their
exclusive despotism will be finally and completely
broken up in all parts of the metropolis.

The large apt! continuous number of our street
accidents really call for something more than a mere
general expression of regret. In spite of all our
metropolitan railways, our new streets, and other
devices for relieving the overwhelming traffic of our
thronged and ever-growing City, these accidents
keep at their high rate, and really add considerably
in the course of the year to our tables of mortality.
Whether, when the various metropolitan improve-
ments are fully carried out, we shall find the
dangers of our highways and byeways decrease
may be uncertain, but there is reason to believe
that in the pursuit of the multifarious business
and occupations of such a place as London
there will always be a great liability to accident.
We cannot certainly expect that old persons and
children will cease to walk our streets, and it is not
desirable that they should be exposed to unneces-
sary risk, though the fault of the drivers is not of
course the same when the accident occurs to an in-
firm or incapable person. But out of three inquests
held yesterday on persons killed in the streets, two
were only middle-aged. In every case a verdict of
accidental death was returned, but that gives no
security that precisely similar accidents may not
occur to-morrow, and three more lives be sacrificed.
By far the best and most effectual method would
be to provide some means for foot passengers to
cross the dangerous highways. At the more im-
portant parts these passages might be made under
the road which could be very easily done, and which
would thus be permanent. Surely it is only rea-
sonable to take some precaution against this exces-
sive and continual loss of life, for we must remem-
ber, in addition to the fatal cases that figure in
the Registrar's Report or at the Coroners' Inquests,
that there are numerous accidents of a lesser degree
which involve much suffering and loss. We hope
that among the social reforms of the coming session
this useful and fully practicable measure will not be
overlooked.

Impostors and Dupes•

LA TEST INTELLIGENCE.

(REL7TER'S TELEGRAMS.)

BELGIUM.
THE KING OF THE BELGIANS.

BRUSSELS, DEC. 8.

The Moniteur Beige of this morning publishes
the following bulletin respecting the King's health:
"His Majesty remains to-day in the same con-
dition as yesterday.

(Signed,) " WIMMEn,

"DE ROUI3AIX.

" Palace of Laeken, Dec. 7."

SPAIN.

MADRID, DEC. 7.

The Correspondencia of this morning says it is
possible that the Court may return to Madrid on
the 13th or 15th inst.

It also denies the rumour that the Queen is in ill

health.

THE CHOLERA AT GUADALUPE.
ST. NAZAIRE, DEC. 8.

The mail steamer from rived here
brings confirmation of the news Icra havinc,
broken out in Guadalupe.

THE ITALIAN PARLIAMENT.
FLORENCE, DEC. 8.

In the election for President of the Chamber of
Deputies, Signor Mari obtained in the first voting
112, Mordini 82, and Rattazzi 79 votes. In the
second, the numbers were—Mari 116, Mordini 91,
and Rattazzi 76. At the final balloting, Signor
Mari obtained 141 and Mordini 132 votes.

Miss Longworth and the Saturday Review.

The case of Longworth or Yelverton v. Beresford
Hope and Cooke was resumed at Edinburgh on
Wednesday morning at ten o'clock, in the Justi-
ciary Court-room.

The Lord Advocate said that before Lord Jervis-
woode charged the jury he wished to refer to a mat-
ter he had entirely forgot in his address, because he
did not attach the slightest importance to it ; but as
he understood it had been founded upon by the
other side, perhaps it would not be out of order to
make a single remark with regard to what was called
a charge of forgery, which he certainly did not find
in the record, which he did not find in the libel, and
which was not the subject of examination of the
pursuer when she was in the court. All he would
say was—" Here is the letter" (holding it in his
hand). If there was any alteration in it, the pur-
suer new nothing earthly about it, and there was
not a vestige of truth in the statement that she did
know anything about it. It was not founded on in
the court below, before the Lord Ordinary, or in the
House of Lords, for this simple reason, that nobody
who could read could doubt what the word was—
namely, possibilamente. He thought it did not make
the matter much better to make a second accusation
against the pursuer of forgery ; but that accusation,
like the others, was utterly without foundation.
The Solicitor-General said that the proprietors of
the Saturday Review, the writer of the article, and
those who were their counsel in the case, had no
knowledge of any of the facts connected with this
matter except what appeared from the published
proceedings, and accordingly to the published pro-
ceedings alone he referred in the whole course of
his observatimis, explaining that he did not consider
that it would be legitimate to refer to anything else;
and with respect to these letters he confined his re-
ferences to the opinions of the learned judges, quot-
ing especially the opinion of Lord Ardmillan in this
court, and the opinions of Lord Wensleydale and
Lord Chelmsford in the House of Lords. He had no
knowledge of the subject except what appeared there.
He thought it was quite fair to assent to the motion
of Mr. Smith, that the letter should be exhibited ;
but when the Lord Advocate said that nobody could
doubt that possibilamente was the word which was
in the letter as it stood, he must ask his lordship to
' refer to the marginal note on the print of letters :
" Major Yelverton's agents considered the words
here marked ' illegible' to be wholly illegible, while
Miss Longworth's agents say, ' Petting, sposa bella
mia.' "

The Lord Advocate said he understood there was
a direct accusation of forgery against the pursuer;
but he was glad to find it was never intended to in-
sinuate that.
The Solicitor-General—l intended to insinuate
only what had been said by the judges.
The Lord Advocate—The judges never said any-
thing of the kind.
Lord Jerviswoode then charged the jury. He said
that the original case commenced in this court under
two actions—one the action of putting to silence by
Major Yelverton against the present pursuer, and
a declarator of marriage by the present pursuer
against Major Yelverton. The result was a judg-
ment in favour of the pursuer of the present action
by a majority. In the House of Lords the judgment
was reversed by a majority of the noble and learned
lords. Then this action was brought into court at
the instance of the pursuer against Messrs. Hope
and Cooke, as proprietors of the newspaper called
the Saturday Review. The issue which had been
adjusted was, he presumed, in the hands of the jury;
and appended to the issue were passages in an article
which appeared in the Saturday Review. Now, he
need not tell the jury, and there was no dispute about
it, that a newspaper was entitled to report the
proceedings in a court of justice in the ordinary
case where the court was open ; and they all
knew that that was done every day. But while a
newspaper and the publishers of a newspaper were
entitled to report the proceedings of a court, if they
went beyond the mere report of these proceedings,
and if they made comments on the report of the
proceedings of the court of justice, then he had to
state in law that they had no special privilege inthat
matter. If they made comments on the conduct of
the parties, and if any individual conceived he was
injured by these comments, then it was a question
for the jury to determine whether these were fair
and right comments, and whether the publishers
were justified in making them. That was the ques-
tion for the jury, and the publishers had no privilege
as regarded that particular matter. He had no doubt
that the jury would be of opinion that the articles
set forth in this schedule as taken from the news-
paper as an article which prima facie—that was to
say, at the first blush of reading it-:--detracted from
the pursuer's character. He need not read the article
fully, but there were statements in it which would
probably strike them as in some degree detracting
from the pursuer's character. There might be some-
thing in this article against Major Yelverton as well
as against Miss Longworth ; but with that neither
he nor the jury had anything to do. The case had
reference to Miss Longworth alone. Now, the first
part of the article was as much directed against the
Lord Chancellor as towards the case of Miss Long-
worth. His lordship then quoted several passages in
the proceedings in the former case and from the
correspondence bearing on the point as to whether or
not the newspaper was correct in saying that there
was no word of promise. Whether these letters and
statements referred to a promise of marriage or not,
it might be difficult to say ; but they certainly did
infer that there was a promise of some kind.
In the article there were some very strong expres-
sions; where it was said that to " right-thinking
persons there is much in the terrible letters that is
simply loathsome." Now, the defence made on the
part of a newspaper on this subject was that this
was a legitimate comment on the proceedings in
this case, and these proceedings were so far before
the jury for the purpose of this action. His lordship
proceeded to quote various passages from the cor-
respondence which had taken place between the
parties, and the opinions of the judges upon them,
both in the Court of Session and the House of
Lords. He concluded by saying—Gentlemen, it is
for you to say, with reference to the whole of these
letters, whether you think the newspaper was war-
ranted in using these expressions as to the " interests
of morality," and so forth. I think it would be wrong
in me, after the very long and able addresses you
have heard, to detain you by going through all the
documentary evidence which has been submitted to
you at great length. The question which you have
to consider is whether the comments made by this
newspaper are fair, looking to the whole circum-
stances of the case, the position of the parties, and
the public discussion of the case within the courts
of justice, or are they the reverse ? Are they unfair
comments—such comments as you think the pub-
lisher or conductors of this paper ought not to have
made ? If you think them fair, you will give effect
to that view. If you, on the other hand, think the
newspaper has gone beyond that line, and has pub-
lished remarks on the pursuer's character which are
not warranted in the circumstances, then it will be
your duty to return a verdict for the pursuer. I
have no doubt whatever you will give the case full
and careful consideration, and will return such a
verdict as will be satisfactory to the country and to
all who are interested in the matter.
The jury retired at half-past eleven. Their pro-
' tracted absence sufficiently indicated the fact that
they were divided, as well also as the messages sent
from the jury to the court as to the manner of re-
ceiving a divided verdict. By recent statute, the
judge is authorised to receive, after the lapse of three
hours, a verdict for either party in which nine or
more of the 12 jurymen shall concur, bat there is no
provision for receiving a verdict by a smaller majo-
rity than nine; and should nine or more of the jury
not concur in the verdict by the- lapse of six hours
from enclosure, the judge is directed to discharge
the jury.
At half-past two the jury (having been three
hours absent) came into court. Their names were
called over by the clerk of the court, and the
judge put the usual question—Gentlemen of the
jury, are you agreed on your verdict ?
Mr. Robert Chambers, jun., chancellor of the jury
—We are agreed in a certain sense.
Lord Jerviswoode—What is it ?
Mr. Chambers—We are equally divided, my lord;

six for the pursuer, and six for the defenders.
(Great laughter.)
Lord Jerviswoode—Well, gentlemen, I• am very
sorry you must retire again, but I cannot receive
a verdict in that way. (A laugh.)
Mr. Chambers—lf it is your lordship's pleasure,
we will retire again, but so far as I see there is no
possibility of our coming to any other result.

Lord Jerviswoode—l am afraid it is not a mat-
ter of pleasure with me. It is not my pleasure,
but my duty. You are entitled, after three hours,
to return a verdict by nine to three ; and as you
are equally divided at present, you must just re-
tire again, and endeavour to come to a verdict by
that majority, which you are entitled to do at any
time up to the end of six hours. (Laughter.)
Mr. Chambers—l beg leave respectfully to state
to the court that we have had no refreshments
yet. (Loud laughter, followed, by a burst of
cheering in court and renewed laughter, in which
the judge and counsel also joined.)

Lord Jerviswoode—l am afraid I cannot hold out
that as an inducement to you to come to an earlier
verdict. (Laughter) I fear you must submit ;
there is no help for it.
The Lord Advocate—lf your lordship sees no ob-
jection, we have no objection to the jury getting
refreshments before they return their verdict.
Lord Jervisw oode—Without the consent of parties
I cannot do that.

The Solicitor-General--I suppose the jury quite
understand that at the end of three hours more they
will be discharged whether they agree or not. If
they can agree within three hours so much the
better ; but there will be no more imprisonment.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Chambers—Oh, we quite understand that.
We also understand as to the majority of 9 to 3.
Lord Jerviswoode—Well, we will order refresh-
ments for you, gentlemen, and you will again retire.
Mr. Chambers—We are much obliged to the
Court. (Great Laughter.)
The jury were then reinclosed.
On the jury returning to the court at a quarter
past five,

Lord Jerviswoode said—l beg your pardon,
gentlemen, for doubting that you were entitled to
refreshments, for I have since seen, what escaped
my attention at the time, that there is an act of
Parliament passed allowing refreshments to be given
to juries while considering their verdicts.

After an interval of about five minutes,
The Clerk of Court said—Gentlemen, have you
agreed on your verdict?

The Chancellor—We have.
' The Clerk—Then state it to his lordship.
The Chancellor—We find by a majority a verdict
for the defenders. (Hisses and applause.).
Lord Jerviswoode—What is the majority, gentle-
men ?

The Chancellor—lt is 9to 3. (Loud hisses.)
His lordship then thanked the jurymen for their
attention to the case, and the Court rose.
It is stated that a new trial will be moved for, on
the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and
evidence.