The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-30 00:00:00

IFIE SUN„ LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 30, 1862.

than any President of recent time ; that the Seces-
sionists in Knoxville had entered his house three
times in search of arms and got two guns and a
pistol, but that being a D.D. he was not largely
provided, and had the balance under his clothes ;
that when they asked him to take the oath of alle-
giance he rose up several feet in his hoots, and
swore that, preacher though he was, he would see
them down in the infernal regions before he would
join them, and that if he owed the Devil twelve of
the most revolting and degraded wretches the world
ever saw, he would make his Satanic Majesty a
tender of twelve Northern sympathisers with seces-
sion. All the fashion of New York were present to
hear the speech from which I have culled these
flowers of rhetoric, and the flutter of white hand-
kerchiefs when anything particularly racy or em-
phatic was uttered was unprecedented since the
days when Jenny Lind excited the sensibilities of
the fair wearers by gentler and more humanising
influences. Commodore Wilkes himself was not a
greater favourite for the moment that this fire-eating
parson. Doubtless he will soon blow over, and be
forgotten. In the meantime all the world desires
his autograph and his carte de visite ; and the sue•
cess of his entertainment was such as will enable
him to carry away from New York as much money
as will re-establish his newspaper on its ancient
footing, as soon as Knoxville is once again a safe
place for so vigorous a parson to abide in.

The desperate character of the two conflicts pend-
ing at Richmond and Corinth, and the uncertainty
of the issues in both, have acted for the last three
days as dampers on the speculative ardour of the
Stock Exchange, but there has been as yet no
marked decline in Government or other securities.

tain the conditlon of the heart and lungs before the
administration of chloroform.

The Coroner EvlKed if the medical man was pre.
sent who administered the chloroform, when Mr.
Perry, the summoning officer, answered in the ne-
gative.
The Coroner then-gave instructions to the con•
stable to summon the three medical men who had
the case under their joint charge, and adjourned the
investigation for their attendance.

LATV INTELLIGENCE.—May 29.

LOLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
TFIORNTON V. FIONVE.

This suit raised the question whether a gift of an
estate for the purpose of propagating " the sacred
writings of the late Joanna Southcote" was void, on
the ground that they were of a blasphemous and
immoral character ; and if not void on that ground,
whether it was not void under the Statute of Mort-
main. The suit was instituted by Eliza Thornton,
of New Hampton, the niece of the donor, Ann
Essam, formerly of Hampton, now deceased, for the
purpose of administering her estate. After leaving
some legacies to herfriends, the testatrix bequeathed
all the remainder of the estate, both real and per-
sona:, that she might be possessed of after the pay-
ment of her debts, funeral and testamentary ex-
penses, to nenjtimin Howe, of Old-street, St. Luke's,
his heirs and assigns for ever, upon trust to apply
all the produce of her real and personal estate in
the printing, publishing, and propagation of the
sacred writings of the late Joanna Southcote. The
plaintiff charged that the trust was void at law, and
that the heir or heiress, or co-heiress-at-law to the
testatrix, became at her death beneficially entitled
to her real estate, subject to the trust for payment
of her debts. The defendant, on the other hand,
contended that the trust was legal, but that if not
he was beneficially entitled to the estate.
Mr. Fooks was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Selwyn and Mr. Speed for the defendant.
The case was argued some weeks ago, when judg-
ment was reserved.

His Honour, in delivering judgment to-day, said
that he had investigated the writings of Joanna
Southcote, and had found in them nothing likely
to corrupt the morals of her followers, or to make
her readers irreligious. She wan, in hignpirian, a
foolish, ignorant woman, of an enthusiastic turn
of mind, who imagined that the Almighty had
selected her as a special instrument to promote
some good on the earth. Every person who had
attained such a pitch of self-confidence seriously
believed himself to be an organ of communication
with mankind, specially selected for that purpose
by the Creator. The Court therefore must declare
that the gift was not invalid by reason of any im-
moral tendency in the writings of Joanna South-
cote, But there remained the more serious objec-
tion, whether the gift was not invalidated by the
statute of Elizabeth with regard to gifts for chari-
table purr oses. He was of opinion that if a bequest
were made for printing works of a religious tend-
ency or for the extension of the Christian religion,
the Court, on proper application, would sanction
and settle a scheme for those purposes. In fact, he
had recently, in chambers, settled a scheme of that
description; and in that respect he was of opinion
that the Court of Chancery made no distinction be-
tween one sort of religion and another—that they
were equally bequests included in the general terms
"charitable bequests." Neither did the Court make
any distinction between one sect and another. The
testatrix was a decided believer in Joanna South-
cote. Joanna Southcote, it was obvious from her
writings, was a very sincere Christian. She laboured
under the delusion, at an advanced period of her life,
that she was made the medium of a miraculous birth
of a child, and that thereby an advancement of the
Christian religion would le produced. Her writings,
he believed, were intended by her to extend the in-
fluence of the Christian religion ; and he could not
say that a bequest for the publication of works for
the support of the Christian religion was not a
charitable bequest. If a testator were to leave a
fund for the purpose of publishing, at a reduced
price, religious works, twat, in the opinion of the
Court, would be a charitable bequest. But this tes-
tatrix had bequeathed not only personal but landed
property for the purposes of the trust in question.
Under the Statute of Mortmain the gift of landed
property for these purposes was void, and there
must be a declaration to that effect.

jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
£25.

Mr. M. Chambers, on the part of the defendant,
now moved for a new trial, on the ground that the
verdict was against the weight of evidence. He
stated that no evidence was given for the defence,
but one of the plaintiff's witnesses, the engineer
who accompanied the engine, said that the accident
arose from the plaintiff disregarding the approach
of the engine and driving right across it, notwith-
standing the loud calls which were made to warn
him. Under these circumstances the learned coun-
sel concluded that the accident was either inevitable
or that the plaintiff so far contributed to it as to
deprive him of any cause of action.
Mr. Baron Martin read over some portion of the
evidence from his notes, and said he was not dissa-
tisfied with the finding of the jury for the plaintiff,
who had sustained very serious injuries.
The Lord Chief Baron—The Court think that the
verdict should not be disturbed,
Rule refused.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)

STEWART V. STEWART AND HARDY,-CURIOUS NO
TION RESPECTING TIIE MARRIAGE LAW.

This was a suit instituted by Donald Stewart, a
mariner, for a divorce on the ground of his wife's
adultery with the co-respondent, who was also a
mariner, The parties were cited, but there was no
appearance.
Dr. Spinks was counsel for the Petitioner.
It appeared that the petitioner and respondent
were married at the Roman Catholic chapel, North
Shields, in 1851, and cohabited in that town until
1856. In that year the petitioner, who was gene-
rally engaged in the coasting trade, went on a
voyage to the Mediterranean, and was absent from
home longer than usual. On his return he discovered
that his wife had married the co-respondent, and
they were both living at his (petitioner's) house.
She expressed much surprise that he should have
objected to her marrying another man during his
life-time, and said that he was at liberty to do the
same. (Laughter.)
The Court granted the decree nisi with costs.
BAILEY V. BAILEY AND SHENTON.

This was the petition of Mr. James Philip
Bailey, described in the marriage register as a gen-
tleman, praying for a dissolution of marriage on
the ground of his wite's adultery with the co-re-
spondent, who was also in a respectable station of
life.

Neither the respondent nor co-respondent en•
tered an appearance.
Mr. Hume Williams was counsel for the peti
tioner.

From the evidence it appeared that the marriage
was solemnised at the parish clrArch of St. Giles,
Camberwell, on the 23d of April, 1840. Some time
subsequent to the marriage Mrs. Bailey contracted
habits of intemperance, which necessitated their
occasional separation, but with these exceptions
they lived together until 1859, when the parties
went to reside at Wandsworth, and here they be-
came acquainted with the co-respondent. They
afterwards removed to Deptford, and here they were
visited by the co-respondent who was living at a
cottage in East Wickham, where he invited them
to see him. Shortly afterwards Mrs. Bailey dis-
appeared, taking £5 with her, and she was traced
to the cottage of the co-respondent. She said that
she derived much benefit from the change of air,
and requested to be allowed to remain at the co-
respondent's house for some time longer in com-
pany with his daughter, who was 25 years old.
The petitioner then made arrangements for her
remaining, and allowed a sum for her maintenance.
She returned home at the end of six weeks. It was
discovered that afterwards she spent three nights
living in a coffee-house with the co-respondent.
Amongst the witnesses examined was a young
man, the eldest son, issue of the unfortunate mar-
riage, and the e-iidence was of a most conclusive
character.

The Court pronounced a decree nisi, and con.
demned the co-respondent in costs.

LANG V. LANG.

This was a petition of the wife for a dissolution of
marriage on the pound of her husband's cruelty
and adultery, to which there was no appearance.
Mr. Gibbons was counsel for the petitioner.

The parties were married at Knightsbridge, in
1856, and they lived together until 1860. The re-
spondent was a commercial traveller, and according
to the evidence of the petitioner, he commenced
ill-
treatment three months after marriage, and ulti-
mately his conduct became so violent that she had
frequently black eyes and bruises, the result of his
blows. He was in the habit of leaving the petitioner
frequently, and in 1860 he deserted her finally. It
Ns as also proved that he had been cohabiting with
another female since 1861.

The Court pronounced a decree nisi with costs:
ALLBUT V. ALLBUT.

This also was an undefended suit by the wife for
a divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Turner were counsel
for tho potitionor.

The parties are in bumble Me, and were married at
Redditch, Worcestershire, in Jan., 1844, and after
16 years of cohabitation the respondent deserted his
wife. Both allegations of the petitioner were made
ont to the satisfaction of the Court.
Decree nisi with costs.