The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-08 00:00:00

THE SITN. LONDON; TVESDAY EVENINJ, APRIL• B, 1532._

to the word), `shall we give Engleud what she de-
serves ?" The house came down with thunders of
applause of assent. As it subsided, "No 1" said
he, "we will do no such thing. That would not
be right ; that would not be Christian. Do not nail
his ears to the pump," it would not be Christian.
But is it Christian in this Boanerges of the Taber-
nacle to lash up the popular mind to a frenzy of
hatred in this manner ? Ther3 are many here who
think not, and I am of the number.
Naw York is beginning to wake up a little on the
subject of the Tax Bill, which does not improve in
popular favour as its details become known. The
impression gains ground that it will ultimately be
superseded by a new measure which Mr. Chase has
already framed, simpler in its details and more pro-
ductive
in the comparatively few
articleswhich
t o
are 'treasury
to
b
be brought under its opera-
tion.
The war, even under the most favourable
aspects, is likely to retard for a whole generation
the progress of the country, but if the Tax Bill in
its present shape were to be passed by Congress and
I maintained without revision or repeal the whole
trade, manufactures, and industry of the Union
7,-onld be stunted for half a century, and it would
lose far more by its unwise fiscal legislation than it
gained by the strategy of its generals or the con-
ciliatory home policy of its statesmen.
The leading merchants of this city do not yet
consider it quite Rafe from the Merrimac, or any
other marine monster of the same kind, that might
feel disposed to pay it a flying and snorting visit
from Norfolk or elsewhere. The Chamber of Com-
merce has had several meetings on the subject, and
has, it is alleged, resolved to appeal to the public to
raise by voluntary subscription the sum of 500,000
dols. to put the harbour in a proper state of defence,
by means of iron-clad boats and batteries. The
Board of Aldermen, at a meeting held on Mon-
day evening last, accepted and adopted the re-
port of a special committee, recommending the im-
mediate issue by the city of New York of the same
sum in Harbour Defence Bonds. Boston and Phila-
delphia are also stirring with a similar object.
These cities ' have not considered the subject a
moment too soon. The South is believed to have
at least a dozen Merrimacs ready to steam up their
harbours, and their means of defence against such
unwelcome visitors are confined to the Monitor and
the Stevens battery—the one very effective in esse,
the other in posse, but neither of them übiquitous,
and the latter labouring under the serious disad-
vantage of not being completed.
The new Secretary at War, whose vigour offers a
remarkable contrast to the dilatoriness of his prede-
cessor, has created quite a sensation by suspending
no less than three newspapers—one in Boston and
two in New York—for the publication of news pro-
hibited by the War Department, as being of a nature
to give dangerous hints to the enemy. One of the
offending papers is the New York Journal of Com-
merce, a great authority on all monetary and com-
mercial affairs, but with Confederate " proclivities"
a little too decided to be agreeable to the Govern-
ment. Not only have the three papers been sus-
pended, but the three editors have been summoned
to Washington to be tried by court-martial for vio-
lating the 57th article of war. It is not likely,
however, that they will be severely dealt with, the
temporary suppression of their newspapers being
punishment enough to act as a warning to other
editors, and to show that the Government is in
earnest.

On Monday, in Wall-street, 3,000,000 dole. of the
7.30 per Cent. 'treasury Bonds were offered for sale
by the United States' Sub-Treasurer, by telegraphic
order from Washington. They found ready pur-
chasers at par, with accumulated interest, and the
whole operation was accomplished in less than a
quarter of an hour—a fact which shows in a striking
manner the reviving confidence of commerical men,
consequent upon the late successes of the Federal
forces.

LAW INTELLIGEVCE.—Apra 7.

COURT O 1 BAZKRUPTCY.
(Befor? Regitrar Roche.)
IN BE GEORGE STIFF.

This bankrupt was a De va?aper proprietor of 331,
Strand. This was a meeting for proof of debts and
choice of assignees.
Subjcined is an abstract if the preliminary ac-
counts given by the bankupt :—Dr—Unsecured
creditors, £31,652 2s 5d ; acured, £20,600 ; total,
£52,252 2s sd. Cr.—Lonlon Journal, £52,000 ;
Guide, £5,000 ; Weekly Times, 4-sth share,
£lO,OOO ; buildings, £5,50► ; ditto, £2,000 ; ditto,
£2,500 ; machinery, £3,501; book debts, £4,000 ;
total, £84,500,
Mr. Linklater appeared hr Mr. M'Murray ; Mr.
Lawrance end Mr. Pock or other creditors ; and
Mr. C. E. Lewis for the baikrnpt.
The bankrupt was examned at some length by
Mr. Lawrance, with a vied to show that his pro-
perty had been sacrificed by Mr. M'Murray. It
appeared from his statement that the London Jour-
nal had been sold in 1857 o Mr. Ingram and Mr.
M'Murray for £31,500, andth at it was re-purchased
by the bankrupt in 1859 far £33,000. Mr. M(Mur- .
ray was a secured creditcr for from £14,000 to
£17,000. Mr. M'Murray held a mortgage of the
copyrights of the .Thurna, the (ittide, and the
Weekly Times. On the tth of Marco, 1862, he
took possession under his nortgage, and, as he (the
bankrupt) had been inforned, Mr. M.Murray sold
the property within a wear from the seizure for
£lB,OOO. He (the bankrupt) estimated the value
of the property thus sold Et over £50,000, the pro-
fits being £17,000 a-year, and three years' purchase
was a fair price for such property.
Further examined, the bankrupt stated that no
publicity was given by Mr. M'Murray to his inten-
tion to sell, and he (the barkrupt) did not know that
I Mr. M'Murray was negctiating a sale until it was
completed. And this sale (which was a sale to Mr.
John Son, of St. Martin's-lane) was completed
within a week from Mr. M'Murray's seizure, and
the price paid was only £lB,OOO, scarcely mere
than one year's profit of the property. Mr. Wrigley
had offered 'on the Wednesday after the seizure to
pay Mr. M'Murray the amount of his mortgage.
.The day after he (the bankrupt) was informed that
the property had been sold, without consultation
for £14,000. It was in his opinion worth £60,000,
and if fairly realised would have left him in posses-
sion of a surplus of £20,000.
Re-examined by Mr. Linklater—He had not said
that the London Journal had produced a profit of
1:10,000 a year, but he would pledge his oath that
the net profit therefrom during the last three years
had been from £6,000 to £7,000, or upwards of
£2,000 a year. He had similarly made a profit of
£6,000 during the same period from the Weekly
Times. He owed Mr. M'Murray from ;£14,000 to
£17,000 on the secured account. He had never said
he owed him £22,000 on that account. According
to Mr. M'Murray, the amount was £28,000 on the
secured and unsecured accounts, but he (bankrupt)
denied that statement altogether.
Further examined by Mr. Lewis, the bankrupt
said Mr. Ingram and Mr. M'Murray agreed to give
£30,00 for the London Journal. Since the repeal
of the paper duty had taken full effect he had de-
rived therefrom an advantage of £7,000 a year. The
London Journal and the Guide required 800 reams
of paper per week. Each ream weighed 331 b, and
the difference in price was Id. per lb.
A calculation was here made by Mr. Pook that
the advantage thus gained amounted to about
£8,580.
Mr. Spencer Johnson, examined by Mr. Law-
ranee, said he was a printer in St. Martin's-lane, and
claimed an interest in the London Journal, the
Guide, and the Weekly Times. He purchased the
whole of them on the 12th of March from Mr.
M'Murray, who came to him and named the price
for which he would sell the property (Z 18,000).
Prior to this he (Mr. Johnson) had heard all sorts
of reports to the value of the publications, as much
as £30,000 being mentioned. He thought the
sum of £lB,OOO a fair price, and did not .;see
Mr. Stiff at all on the matter. The day he made
the purchase the publications were transferred
to his name at Stationers-hall. He was satis-
fied that Mr. Stiff's estimate of the profits
was a perfect fallacy. He made the purchase on
Mr. M'Murray's statement only, and without exa-
mining the books. He calculated that the London
Journal had a circulation of 300,000 odd, and he
made the estimates of expenses incidental to the
publication himself. Mr. M'Murray told him that
he had bought the London Journal in 1857 for
£30,000, which included stock and block, and that
he had afterwards resold the same to Mr. Stiff for
£33,000. He (Mr. Johnson) purchased the copy-
right of the three publications for £lB,OOO, which
he thought a fair price. The copyrights of the
Weekly 2imes and the Guide were valued at no-
thing, and were put in as a makeweight. He
thaught the Guide might be worth £5OO a year.
He (Mr. Johnson) had bought the copyright of the
illustrated News from Mr. Ingram, and knew the
value of copyrights. He thought three years' pur-
chase a fair value for the bankrupt's publications.
He considered the London Journalwas worth £6,000
a year. He paid money and bills for the purchase
—£lo,ooo in cash, the remainder in bills. He was
not prepared to say he would relinquish the pro-
perty on repayment of the £lB,OOO. He had re-
fused an offer of £25,000 for it from the bankrupt.

By Mr. Linklater—He should think that the dif-
ference between £lB,OOO and £30,000 would be
made up by stock, machinery, &c. He relied entirely
on Mr. M'Murray's statement, which, having regard
to his position, he believed he might rely upon as
correct; otherwise he should not have bought the
pig in the pock. (A laugh.)
Re-examined by Mr. Pook—He paid the £lO,OOO
by a check on the London and Westminster Bank.
It was nothing. to him who found the money.
Neither Mr. Levy nor Mr. M'Murray found the
money.
By Mr. Lewis—Before the repeal of the paper
duty the London Journal was worth £5,000 a year.
The repeal in question made a difference of £5,000
a year extra. At three years' purchase this would
make a difference of £15,000 in the increased value
of the London Journal. Full 48 hours intervened
between the sale and the registration at Stationers'-
hall ; he thought about six days. He never offered
Mr. M'M array less for the property than the £lB,OOO
asked. He relied upon his statement alone. It was
not in one check that he had paid the £lO,OOO, but
he thought by a check for £5,000 and other checks.
His banker's pass-book was at their service, and
would show how this was. He would swear that
the checks would show an amount of £lO,OOO then
paid, within a few shillings. Mr. M'Murray had
not found any part of the money. It was abonafide
transaction. The bills given in purchase were four
or five months' bills, and were the bills of himself
and partner (Mr. Wilson), who had paid him £7,000
for a third share in the business. The sale of the
London Journal was now 313.000, and it had varied
between 200,000 and 400,000. With a circulation
of 313,000 and a profit of £6,000 or £7,000 a-year
he considered it a first-class paper for sale.
Mr. Lawrance commented upon the very remark-
able manner in which the bankrupt's property had
been transferred to Mr. Johnson. It was impossible
the case could end where it was. It was a case that
could not be too fully investigated, and it was de-
sirable that the name of Mr. Ward should be added
as assignee to those of Mr. M'Murray, Mr. Hodge,
and Mr. Edward Hart (Messrs. Hart and Hayles).

Mr. Lewis and Mr. Pook took the same view.

Mr. Linkiater said his clients represented three-
fourths in value of the creditors. They were of
opinion that too many cooks spoilt the broth, and
that Mr. Hodge (Spalding and Hodge) would see
that justice was done to all parties. Messrs. Spal-
ding and Hodge were the largest creditors (LlO,OOO
odd). It had been stated that the bankrupt realised
£lO,OOO a-year by the London Journal. It now
turned out that the sum was £2,000 a•year. The
value of a thing was very different when subjected
to the test of the cold climate of a public market.

- Mr. H d o ge- and 1 r.Hart were then chosen
. _.
1/1---
assignees.
After some reference to a claim on the machinery
of the Morning Chronicle, of which the bankrupt
was also proprietor,
Mr. Linklater said the assignees proposed to n
allowance of X 5 per week to the bankrupt.
Mr, Lewis concurred.
grant a...

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—March 7.

Robert Francis Fairlie, a gentlemanly-looking
4
man, apparently between 40 and 50 years of age,
surrendered to take his trial for misdemeanour, in
having 'wilfully and corruptly made a certain false
statement at the office of the Vicar-General of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Doctors'-commons, with
a view to procure a marriage licence.
Mr. Giffaril and Mr. Poland conducted the prose-
cution,-' Sergeant Ballantine was specially retained
with Mr. F. H. Lewis on behalf of the defendant.'
Mr. Giffard, in opening the case to the jury, said
that the present charge was framed under an act of
Parliament that was passed in the reign of his late
Majesty George IV., and the object of which was
the protection of families, and to prevent marriages
taking place between young persons without the
consent of their parents. The offence imputed to the
defendant was, that on the 4th of January he ob-
tained a licence at Doctors'-commons for his mar-
:riage with a young lady named Eliza England,
Who was only 18 years of age, and that he made
an affidavit upon that occasion that the father of
the young lady had consented to the union, which
was not true, and it was for making this false
statement that the present charge was pre-
ferred against him. In order that the jury

might better nridcestend the nature of the case, he
thought it right to inform them that the prosecu-
tor, Mr. a England, was the father of the young
ledy, and he was a gentleman filling a very t e7,7-•••:91'
able position in society, and had several other chi`"
deco. • The defendant paid attentions to the young
lady, and in the course of last year a conversation
took place between him and the persecutor upon
the subject of the intimacy that existed between
them, and the prosecutor objected to his continuing
his attentions to the young lady, on account of the
disparity of their ages and other circumstances ;
but he promised that if he would refrain from preen-
ing his suit upon her for two years, at the end of
that time he would permit him to pay his addresses
to her. The defendant promised solemnly to do as
he was requested; but on Jan. 4, upon the occasion
of the young lady going to the Crystal Palace, the
defendant met her and took her away, and nothing
more was seen of her until some time afterwards
when it was discovered that they were married. It
was under these circumstances that the present
charge was preferred against the defendant, the
allegation on the part of the prosecution being that
this marriage had been procured by means of the
defendant making the false statement that the father
of the young lady had given his consent to the mar-
riage.
Formal proof was then given of the procurement
of the license by the defendant, and that the mar-
riage took place at Lambeth Church on the sth of
January, undet that license. One of the witnesses
stated, in cross-examination, that the defendant Was
a person of respectability and good position.
Mr. G. England, the father of the young lady,
was then examined. He said—My danghter was
18 years old last July. It ie not true that I ever
consented to her marriage with the defendant, as he
has alleged in his affidavit. He used to 'visit at my
house, and paid attention to my daughter, and in
January last year I had a conversation with him on
the subject, and wrote down in my diary what took
place between us. The witness read the entry he
referred to, which -vsas to the following effect :
" Friday, Jan. 25, 1861. Mr. Fairlie.—Had a
long conversation respecting Lizzie. I told him that
if ho takes no steps in that direction for two years
from this day, I will give him the same powers as
Dixon (this referred to a gentleman who was court-
ing another daughter), to use his powers to win the
affections of my daughter, but on no accoant to
make attempts to pave the way before that time."
I showed the defendant what I had written, and he
promised solemnly that he would fulfil the agree-
ment, on the honour of a man and a Freemason.
Upon the faith of this promise I permitted him to
continue to visit at my house, but I observed that
he was not keeping faith with me, and that he was
still paying attentions to my daughter, and I spoke
to him upon the subject, and observed that he was
not fulfilling the conditions he had promised, and
begged him to cease to continue his attentions, and
told him that if he did not I should request him to
cease to visit at my house. This conversation took
place in September last, and after that time the
defendant did not come to the house. My daughter
went to the Crystal Palace on the 4th of January,
accompanied by her sister and Mr. Dixon, and I did
not see her again, but I heard afterwards that she
was married to the defendant, and that she had
gone away with him from the Crystal Palace. In
January I thought the defendant was is Spain.
The witness was cross-examined at considerable
length by Sergeant Ballantine.—He said that of
course his object in the present proceeding was to
convict his son-in-law of perjury, and he considered
that, under the circumstances, he was justified in
appealing to the law for protection. He said that
he was aware that after the marriage the defen-
dant and his daughter went to Spain, and during
their absence he prepared the present bill of
indictment against the defendant, and he said he
did so by the advice of Mr. Norton, the magistrate.
His daughter had no property in her own right,
and he said he would take care that she should
never have a farthing of his money after what had
occurred. The defendant was perfectly well aware
that his daughter had no property in her own right
and that all her expectations were from him. The
defendant gave him a bracelet last year for his
daughter, and witness gave it to her, bat did not
tell her who had sent it to her. That bracelet was
now in his own possession, and he would take good
care that she would never have it. His daughter
left the bracelet behind when she eloped, and this
was how he became possessed of it, and he meant
to keep it. The defendant did not give his daughter
a valuable watch and chain, but he remembered
he told him that he intended to make his daughter
a present of a watch on her 18th birthday, which
was his custom with all his children, and the defen-
dant told him he had a very good watch and chain,
and he gave him £2l for them, and afterwards
made a present of them to hie daughter. He was
on very friendly terms with the defendant, who
used to call him "Father Tom." This was in allu-
sion to the piece of the " Colleen Bawn." The de-
fendant used to be called " Miles," and he called his
daughter " Lily," and witness was " Father Tom."
(A laugh.) In answer to further questions that
were put by Sergeant Ballantine, the witness said
that he had run away with his present wife, who
was the mother of the young lady in question, and
that he had a wife living at the time. He added
that he lived with this lady for several years, but
could not marry her until his wife died. The
moment, however, that event occurred he married
her.

Sergeant Ballantine submitted that after the fact
that had just been stated there was an end of the
case. The prosecutor was not the lawful father or
guardian of the young lady, and the defendant could
not, therefore, be said to have falsely stated that he
had the consent of such parent or guardian. He
would have been perfectly justified in declaring that
there was no person connected with her who had
the power to give or withhold his consent to the
marriage, and he contended that his statement that
ho had the consent of the father was perfectly im-
material.

Mr. Giffard argued at some length that the Act
of Parliament was intended to apply to every per•
son who stood in the relation of natural guardian to
the person whe was married under such circum-
stances.

The Recorder left the court to confer with the
Common Sergeant upon the point, and when he re-
turned he said that as a general rule he was always
unwilling to stop any case upon a point of law, but
in the present instance, where he had no doubt
whatever upon the question that had been raised
by the learned sergeant—and he might say that the
Common Sergeant entirely concurred with him—
he thought that he ought to do so. In his opinion
the charge had not been established; in fact, the
allegation in the indictment that the prosecutor was
the natural and lawful father of the younc, lady had
been negatived, and he should therefore direct the
jury to acquit the defendant.
A verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly recorded.
There was a slight attempt at applause in the
court when the verdict was delivered, but it was
repressed by the officers.
Anthony Dutlein, 31, pleaded Guilty to a charge
of embezzling the several sums of £ll and
the moneys of Mr. Alderman Wilsen, his employer,
and likewise feloniously forging and uttering a re-
ceipt fur £3 with intent to defraud Mr. Charles
Turner.

Mr. Kemp, who appeared for the prosecution,
briefly stated that the prisoner was in the employ-
' merit of Mr. Alderman Wilson, at head-quarters in
Finsbury, and in that capacity he forged a receipt
for rent, and after receiving some sums of money
to the amount of £l6 he left the country and was
ultimately apprehended in Germany.
He was sentenced to three years' penal servitude.
Herbert Brown, 17, clerk, was charged with hav-
ing embezzled several sums of money belonging to
his masters, Messrs. Carliles, Pittman, and Co.,
warehousemen, Bow-lane, City.
Mr. Orridge prosecuted; the prisoner was unde-
fended.
It appeared that the prisoner was in the service
of tha prosecutors as cashier, and it was his duty to
receive the money from the warehousemen for cash
parcels, and enter the amount so received in his
petty cashbook, and account to Mr. Carliles at the
end of each day. The custom was that he should
take a check, with the amount marked on it, from
each warehouseman ; but it appeared that he had,
instead of so doing, taken the money himself, had
entered the goods in the rough journal, and marked
" cash" against them, but had not carried the
amounts received into the cashbook. It was proved
that three separate sums of £1 Os. 11d., £l,lBs. 2d.,
and 13s. 7d. were paid to him by different cus-
tomers, who produced receipts for those sums in
the prisoner's handwriting, but he had not ac-
counted for them in the cashbook, although they
appeared in the rough journal.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and recom-
mended him to mercy on account of his youth.
Mr. Pittman said the three amounts alluded to
were not the only ones. There were about 29
others, amounting ill all to about £3O.
The Recorder, in passing sentence, said that in
such cases as the present it was usual to pass a sen-
tence of penal servitude,
but as the jury had recom-
mended the prisoner to mercy he should only sen-
tence him to 18 months' imprisonment with hard
labour.