The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 26, lB6l

congregation, ana where he has ample room to
move about.) The only use he could imagine for
pulpits was to remind the people of their latter end
by keeping before their eyes the whole time of the
service a man half buried in a wooden box. He
thought they must have been invented for the benefit
of some one whose legs were deformed. (Laughter.)
He believed the power of oratory lay very much in
the legs, and he liked to see a man when preach-
ing walk about, as Harmes did, and roar out the
truth like a lion. The last instanceof miracle work-
ing he would quote was that of George Muller, of
Bristol, who, from equally small beginnings, estab-
lished first the Orphan House at Bristol, and who
since 1832 had built three orphan houses, at a cost
of between £60,000 and £70,000, and in which
were maintained 1,150 orphans, at an annual ex-
penditure of £B,OOO. Besides this be supported,
more or less, 100 missionaries, at the annual cost of
£5,273, and had received since 1832 more than
£200,000 in voluntary subscriptions, sent to him
from all parts of the earth. When they saw these
orphan children going through the streets of Bris-
tol they might ask the infidel what he made of it,
when they saw the orphan houses they might ask
the sceptic what he thought of it. The only test of
anything was to put it to the proof, and if you asked
of God in prayer, and he answered that prayer,
what greater proof could they have that there was
a God? Tbese miracles he had called their atten-
tion to proved that God was not a mere empty
abstraction above the stars, but a very God, able
and willing to bless the services of man, and
always ready to make good his promise to man.

After the lecture, the dissolving views, illustrat-
ing the persons and scenes the lecturer had de-
scribed, were exhibited, and the proceedings termi-
nated by a vote of thanks to the chairman, moved
by Mr. Layard, M.P., and seconded by Mr. W.
J. Haynes.

poisoning in June, my mistress made me an offer
while we were in the kitchen together. ghe began
by saying that she was very much annoyed at the
way in which her father-in-law's family behaved to
her, and added that she wanted to do something]
would I assist her in accomplishing it. I asked her
what it was, and she replied that "if she mixed
up something for me" would I take it and put it
into the flour-bin on Bishop-hill, and she would not
mind giving me a £5-note if it proved effectual. I
answered her that I would not do it for the world.
Mrs. Cooke then said if I would not assist her she
would not think any more about it ; neither was I
to say anything about it. After the poisoning in
June last Mrs. Cooke came down to me in the kit-
chen, and said it was a good job she had nothing to
do with it ; and she also added at that time that
Mr. Cooke's family were not well liked, and they
had a deal of enemies.
After this evidence had been heard, the magis-
trate's clerk asked—Have you anything to say ?
Prisoner—l am perfectly innocent, sir.
The Lnrd Mayor then remanded the prisoner
until Moi,day next, to give the police an opportu-
nity to pursue their investigations. The prisoner
would be allowed to go out of custody on finding
two sureties for £lOO each.

_ • _
14'e may add that the prisoner is young, very
ladylike and prepossessing in appearance, and is
rather below the common stature. During the
examination she did not seem much impressed with
the serious position in which she was placed,
although her behaviour was perfectly quiet and
modest. She answered all questions put to her
firmly and unhesitatingly. The utmost excitement
has been created in York by the event, and the
court was crowded to excess.

THE « MORNING CHRoNICLE" AND
THE _FRENCH GOVERNMENT.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—Nov. 25.
GLOVER V. CCUNT DE PERSIGNY AND M. BILLAULT

This case came before the Court on a questio❑ of
proceeding against foreigners by a British subjeet
in the Eng lish courts under the Common Law Pro-

cedure Act, 1854. Mr. Gray on Saturday obtained
- -

a rule to set aside an order ut Mr. Justice Crompton,
so as to restore an order made by Mr. Justice Mel

lor, to allow the plaintiff to proceed in the action.
It appeared that the plaintiff, Mr. Sergeant Glover,
was lately proprietor of the Morning Chronicle, and
he brought an action against the eminent French
statesmen, Count de Persigny and M. Billault, to
recover the sum of £14,000 for work done and

money expended by him in conducting the Morn-
ing Chronicle, the Morning News, end
the Evening Journal, and for writing and
translating from the French, and printing
in the J, orning Chronicle certain articles,
and also in writing certain other articles to
be translated into the French language, for inser-

tion and publication in the Illoniteur, Constitutionnel,
&c. The Count de Persigny had appeared to the
action, but M. Billault had not been served ; and as
Fersonal service could not be effected upon him the
plaintiff had made an application before Mr. Justice
Mellor at chambers for leave to proceed as if such
service had been effected. The application was

made on an affidavit by the plaintiff that the work
had been done and the moneys expended laid out

in England, and that the cause of action arose in
this country ; that both the defendants resided out

of the jurisdiction, in Paris; and that the co-
defendant, Billault, could not be personally served,
but had knowledge of the proceedings. There was
no dispute as to the knowledge of the proceedings,
but it arose on the question whether the cause
of action arose within the jurisdiction of this

court. The learned judge made an order for the
continuance of the proceedings as if service had
been effected upon the co-defendant. M. Billault
then caused an application to be made to Mr. Jus-
tice Crompton at chambers to set aside that order,

on M. Billault's affidavit that he never owed the

alleged debt, and that he had never, verbally or in
writing, made or authorised the piaintiff, or any

one, to make on his behalf any contract for the claim
set up in the declaration, and that the claim was
wholly without foundation ; that he had never been
in England, and that the cause of action, if any, did
not arise within the jurisdiction. Upon that the
learned judge set aside Mr. Justice Mellor's order.

Mr. Gray, when he moved on Saturday, did so on an

affidavit made by Mr. Sergeant Glover that the claim
was for articles inserted in the Morning Chronicle
and other papers on the order and authority of the
defendants through their agents in this country,
and afterwards confirmed and recognised by M.

Billault in an interview in Paris with the plaintiff.
The whole matter was transacted in this country
by agents, and the facts showed that the cause of
action arose in this country,
The rule came on to-day for argument. Mr.
Hodgson showed cause against the rule; Mr. M.
Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Gray supported it.
Mr. Hodgson said this Was a rule calling on M.
Billault, the eminent French statesman, and a mem-
ber of the government, to show cause why an order
made by Mr. Justice Crompton, on the 10th of July
last, should not be set aside, The order was one
rescinding a prior one made by Mr. Justice Mellor,
which gave leave .to the plaintiff to proceed against
the defendant, who was a foreigner residing out of
the country.
Mr. Justice Mellor reminded the learned counsel
that the application before him was ex parte. All
parties, nowever, appeared by affidavits before Mr.
Justice Cr. rnpton.

Mr. Hodgson said that was so.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said Mr. Justice Cromp-
ton's order was made on certain particulars before
him and without prejudice to its being again
brought on on fresh particulars, That was mate-
rial, because he understood this application was
made on materials and particulars not before Mr.
Justice Crompton.
Mr. Hodgson said—Yes; and with the permission
of the Court he would state what had been done in
the case up to that point. It appeared that Count
de Parsigny came to this country to visit the Ex-
hibition after proceedings had commenced, and ho
thought it better to appear, or a similar applica-
cation would have been made by him. Mr. Jus-
tice Mellor's order required the plaintiff to serve
M. Billault with a copy of the order, requiring
him to plead to the declaration within sixteen
days. The order was accordingly left at M.
Billault's residence in Paris, on the 17th June,
and as that was after the last day of term
it was impossible for the defendant then
to come before the Court. Consequently a sum-
mons was taken out, and all parties went before a
learned judge at chambers. Having detailed what
took place there, the learned counsel said their lord-
ships had to consider what right or authority the
plaintiff had for proceeding against the defendant,
who was a foreigner, and without the jurisdiction of
the court. By the 19th section of the Common Law
Procedure Act it was not necessary to serve a copy
of the writ, but a plaintiff was called upon to serve
the particulars of demand in such a case on the de-
fendant, and afterwards to go before a judge at
Chambers or to the Court and satisfy him or them
whichever application was made, that there was a
cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the
Court. The defendant complained that the plain-
tiff in his affidavit used before Mr. Justice Mellor
did not disclose the cause of action, or that it arose
within the jurisdiction of the Court.
The affidavit was dated the 10th of June, 1862,
and was as follows
That the work done, and materials provided,
and money paid, an account of which is comprised
in the particulars of demand in this case, were se-
verally done, provided, and paid for the defendant
in England, and within the jurisdiction of this
honourable Court.
"'That the cause of action in this case arose in
England and wholly within the jurisdiction of the
Court.

" That the above-named Count Fialin de Per-
signy, and Auguste Adolphe Marie Billault, and
Louis Collet Meygret aro foreigners, and resident
out of the jurisdiction of the Court."
Now his argument before Mr. Justice Crompton was
that it did not disclose a cause of action, because
the words " at the request of the defendant" were
omitted.
The Lord Chief Justice asked what were the par-
ticulars of the demand.
Mr. Hodgson said the particulars of demand were

dated from the 9th May, 1857, to the 23d October,
1858, and were " for work and labour, and mate-
rials provided, and money paid for the defendants
at their request in and about the 'hinting and con-
ducting certain newspaperki called the Morning
Chronicle, and two other newspapers, the Morning
News and the Evening Journal, and in and about
the writing and translating iron the French lan-
guage certain articles in the said Morning Chronicle
and two other newspapers, for and on behalf of the
defendants, and at their request ; and in and about
the writing and translating from the French, and
printing and publishing certain other articles in
the said Morning Chronicle and other two news-
papers, for and on behalf of the defendants,
for the purpose of their being translated into
the French language, and inserted and published
in certain French newspapers galled. the
Moniteur, the Constitutionnel, the Pays, and
certain other French newspapers, at the value
of £BOO per month—total £14,000. The plaintiff
will seek to recover the amount in the declaration
on the account stated, and damages for loss sus-
tained in the depreciated value of the above-men-
tioned London newspapers in fulfiiment of the con-
tract entered into between himself and the defen-
dants." (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Wightman —Are these the particulars
referred to in the affidavit ?
Mr. Hodgson—For doing A ork comprised in those
particulars of demand.
The Lord Chief Justice—And when you refer to
that you say that it is work done at the request of
the defendants ?
Mr. Hodgson said the plaintiff did not undertake
to say that it was work undertaken for them, but
that he did it for them. The affidavits ought to
state that the work was done at the request of the
defendants, either expressly or implied; but the
plaintiff only says that he did the work comprised
in the particulars of demand.
The Lord Chief Justice—At the instance of the
defendant ?

Mr. Justice Wightman said the only question was
whether the learned judge at chambers was satisfied
that the affidavit and particulars of demand were
sufficient.
Mr. Hodgson said they ought to show the cause
of action which they embraced. These, however,
showed none. They only showed that certain work
comprised in the particulars of demand was done.
The Lord Chief Justice—The affidavits states that
the action is brought for the work done—that is
specified in the particulars of demand.
Mr. Hodgson submitted that it was not so. It
stated that the work was done; but not that the
action was brought for work and labour done at the
request of the defendants.
The Lord Chief Justice—ls that not necessarily
implied ?
Mr. Hodgson said the plaintiff carefully guarded
himself against that. The act required that the
whole cause of action should arise in this country,
but from the affidavits it appeared that only a por-
tion of it arose within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Mr. Justice Wightman—ls it not a question that
the judge at chambers has to satisfy himself about?
The Lord Chief Justice—lt is a proceeding that
does not require an affidavit to be drawn like a piece
of pleading. If the judge is satisfied on the whole
that is sufficient.
Mr. Hodgson still contended that the affidavit
showed no cause of action. The answer to the plain-
tiff's affidavit was that the defendant, M. Billault,
altogether and entirely denied ever having made,
either verbally or in writing, or having authorised
either of the other defendants to make, such con-
tract for him. The learned counsel then read the
following affidavit made by M. Billault, dated the
7th July, 1862 ;
" I altogether and entirely deny ever having
made, either verbally or in writing, or ever having
authorised the other defendants, or either of them,
or any other person, to make on my behalf any con-
tract or agreement to the purport or effect alleged
in the declaration, or the particulars of demand, or
any part thereof. That the claim made by the plain-
tiff is, as far as I am concerned, altogether without
any foundation whatever.
" I have never been in England, and I say that
the cause of action, if any, in this case did not arise
within the jurisdiction of the Court."
The plaintiff made another affidavit, dated the 24th
July, 1862, and as follows :
"I ,William Glover, of 29 Great Coram-street, in
the county of Middlesex, gentleman, the above-
named plaintiff, make oath and say as follows :—ln
the year 1856 and 1857 persons representing them
selves to me as the friends and employes of the said
M. Billault, then Minister of the Interior of the
French Government, and who I verily believe were
the employes of the said M. Billault, and were act-
ing with his knowledge and sanction, and by his
instruction, as his agents, in such negotiations, had
divers interviews with me in London, and they, as
acting on behalf of the said defendant, and I on my
behalf, did mutually agree that the newspapers
ca►led respectively the Morning Chronicle, the
Morning .News, and Evening Journal, should be
employed as the organs of the said defendant, as
such minister of the Interior of the French Govern-
ment in England.
" That at divers times in the years 1856 and 1857
I proceeded to Paris and had divers interviews in
the year 1857 with the said M. Billault, who did
then acknowledge and recognise the authority and
employment of the persons referred to in the first
paragraph of thie affidavit in making the agree-
ment mentioned in the declaration and particulars
of demand in this action.
"M. Albert Buoard, who was then the private
secretary of the said M. Billault, frequently in the
year 1857, at the request and by the directions and
with the authority, as I verily believe, and in the
name of the said defendant, gave instructions
to me verbally and in writing for the purpose
of having leading articles written, inserted, and
published in the Morning Chronicle newspaper on
behalf of and in the interest of and to further the
views and objects of the said defendant, M. Billault,
and of the French Government, of which the defen-
dant was then as before mentioned Minister of the
Interior.
" That the persons hereinbefore referred to, with
the sanction and by the authority, as I believe, of
the defendants, and especially of the defendant Bil-
lault, wrote and for warded numerous letters and
communications to me at my then residence in
Cavendish-square and at the office of the said
Morning Chronicle newspaper in the Strand, both
places being in the county of Middlesex and within
the jurisdiction of the Court, for the purpose of car-
rying out the agreement hereinbefore mentioned,
and of aiding, abetting, and assisting the objects
and views of the said M. Billault, &c."
The learned counsel proceeded to urge that this
affidavit was insufficient. He contended that the
Plaintiff should have stated the names of the per-
sons described as M. Billault's agents.
The Lord Chief Justice—The plaintiff swears
positively that when in Paris he saw M. Billault,
and that he recognised these parties as his agents.
The Court cannot try that question.
Mr. Hodgson said that he asked the Court to
assume that the persons whom the plaintiff repre-
sented to be M. Billault's agents, especially as he
did not name them, were not so, on the denial of the
Minister of the Interior of the French Empire that
he never did employ any one for the purposes elleged
by the plaintiff. That Mr. Glover was mistaken
in saying that these persons, whoever they were,
were M, Billault's agents.
'[he Lord Chief Justice—That implies that the
plaintiff states what is untrue, in saying that M.
Billault recognised them as his agents.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—l should have been dis-
posed to go along with you, except that by doing
so we should be saying we should convict M. Bil-
lault of perjury relative to what took place at that
personal interview.
The Lord Chief Justice—Or Mr. Sergeant Glover.
Mr. Hodgson said that Mr. Glover only went so
far in his affidavit as to state that he " verily be-

Heves."
The Lord Chief Justice—We must not deal with
the matter by lines and paragraphs, but we TOUSt
take the whole of the affidavits together into our
consideration.
Mr. Hodgson said it was necessary for the plain-
tiff to establish that, besides a cause of action, it