The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-25 00:00:00

AFFIRMATIONS.

Sir J. TRELAWNY moved for leave to bring in a bill
to allow certain persons to make affirmations in all cases
where an oath was required. _ _ _

Mr. M‘MAHON opposed the bill, which, in his opinion,
was contrary to an established principle of English law.
After some discussion, the motion was adopted on a divi-
sion by 88 votes to 59.
in a committee of the whole houso Mr. DILLWYN
obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law respect-
ing endowed schools. The hon. gentleman stated, however,
that ho did not mean to proceed further with the measure
during the Resent session.
The house then went into committee on the Drainage
(Ireland) Bill, and several clauses were agreed to.
On the order for the second reading of the Roman Catholic
Prisoners Bill,
Sir G. GREY expressed a hope that the house would
not proceed at that hour of the morning (half-past one).
Mr. NEWDEGATE, who had attempted to address the
house amidst some impatience, moved that the order be
discharged.
Sir G. C. LEWIS suggested that they should proceed
to a division without discussion.
Mr. WHALLEY supported Mr. Newdegate's motion.
Mr. EsTc OURT appealed to the hon. member for War-
wickshire to withdraw his motion, but he having refused to
do ko the house divided, when the amendment was rejected
by 66 to 26.
The bill was then postponed to the 9th of July.
The other orders of the day having been disposed of, the
house adjourned at 2 o'clock.

LATV INTELLIGENCE.—June 24.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

',Sittings at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, before Lord
Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
IDDIOLS V. WEBB.-PATAL ACCIDENT.

The plaintiff in this case sued as administratrix of
her mother to recover damages in consequence of
the old lady having been run over and killed.
Mr. Best and Mr. Butler Rigby appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr
Needham for the defendant_.

The plaintiff was a milliner and straw-bonnet
maker in High-street, St. Giles's, but having had
the misfortune to be paralysed her mother was of
great assistance to her, in fact doing all the hard
work; for although she was 69 years old she was
in good health and strong. On the 16th December
last the mother went out for some beer, and had
crossed the road so far that she was about stepping
on the kerb when a cart with bundles of wood in
it, and belonging the defendant, a timber merchant
at Deptford, came along at such a furious pace,
that although she saw it three houses off she was
unable to get out of the way and was knocked
down, run over, and so seriously hurt that she died.
The driver of the cart was a man named Davis, and
he was tried at the Old Bailey, found guilty of
manslaughter, and sentenced to three months' im-
prisonment. Since the death of her mother the
plaintiff had been obliged to employ her sister, and
to get other assistance at a cost of about lbs. a
week. The business had belonged to the plaintiff
and her mother jointly', and now the plaintiff had
the business to herself.
Mr. Sergeant Shee submitted that under these
circumstances there was no pecuniary loss for which
alone the plaintiff could recover under Lord Camp-
bell's Act, and that therefore there must be a non-
suit.
The Lord Chief Justice said that he should re-
serve the point ; but the ground of claim under the
statute, which was a very beneficial one in some re-
spects, was so very indefinite that it was extremely
desirable that those engaged in legislation should
turn their attention to it.
Some evidence was given for the defendant with
the view of showing that there was no negligence on
the part of his servant, or that deceased might have
avoided the accident if she had been more careful.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.
DREWETT AND WIFE V. THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.-THE CLAYTON TUNNEL ACCIDENT.

The first-named plaintiff was a working man, em-
ployed by the Hove Gas Company, and he, with his
Wife, and two of her daughters, was a passenger

upon the occasion of the accident in the Clayton
tunnel; and damages were now claimed ascompen-
sation for injuries sustained by the wife. The de-
fendant pleaded payment of £lO in satisfaction of
the cause of accident.

The plaintiff's case was, that soon after the acci-
dent a medical man attended him on the part of the
company, and that three or four days afterwards
this gentleman compromised their claim by paying
£lO and taking a receipt for it. At this time, how-
ever, the male plaintiff believed from what the medi-
cal man told him that his wife was not hurt. So
far from this, however, being the case, it appeared
that she had received a severe shock, and she had
been getting worse and worse, until now she had
gone out of her mind. The witness having stated
these circumstances, he was cross-examined to show
that the action was brought at the instance of some
one else and without his knowledge.
The Lord Chief Justice made a suggestion to the
counsel in the course of the evidence, which resulted
in his asking the jury whether they believed upon
the plaintiff's evidence that the company paid £lO
in satisfaction of the claim of the wife as well as of
the others.

The jury replied that they did ; and a verdict was
lereupon entered for the defendants.

NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA.

The following illustration in a mercantile form of
the :points at issue between the Northern and
Southern States of America presents a very clear
idea of the nature of the cause for which the pre-
sent unexampled waste of blood and treasure is
being carried on, to the horror of the civilised
world and the scandal of the 19th century:—
" A commercial firm engages in business, they
provide for alterations in their articles of copartner-
ship, but, either from accident, expectation that the
firm will last the life of the partners, or that when
interest or difference of opinion make a dissolution
necessary or expedient, it will naturally take place,
they omit any limit of time, or any provision for
dissolution.

" The firm is prosperous, lasts many years, and
individual partners amass a capital equal, or nearly
equal, to the original capital of the firm. Differ-
ences of opinion also arise, till at length three of the
partners are satisfied that they cannot longer remain
in the firm without a sacrifice of feeling and interest.

" The question is how they are to get out ; the
five other partners, they know, will not consent, and
there seems to be nothing in the articles to enable
the minority to get clear of their associates, but to
be released they are determined at all hazards.
They proceed to the bankers and, by the powers of
signature they possess, they secure about what they
consider their portion of capital. They then an-
nounce to their five associates their determination
to dissolve ; they propose to constitute two firms,
and desire to continue on friendly terms, and if their
proposal is accepted they are ready to come back
with the money they have drawn, and have an
amicable settlement of funds, paying back in case:it
should prove they had drawn more than their share.
" The five partners are taken by surprise. They
point to the articles of copartnership to show that
the three have no warrant there for what they have
been doing, and, above all, inveigh against their
proceedings at the bankers'.
" The three claim that there being no provision
made for dissolution proves that the intention was
to leave any partner to go out when he conceived
it for his interest to do so, but they mean to go, at
any rate. _ _

Two courses are open to the five aggrieved part-
ners—to file a bill in Chancery to compel a return
of the three, in which process, if they spend half
their own capital, they will have the, satisfaction of
destroying the whole of that of the three, the result,
if successful, being to bring them back, with the
capital of the whole wofully diminished, and the
most bitter feeling engendered.
" The other comae seems:to be to accept the fact,
though, perhaps, refusing to acknowledge the right,
make the best bargain they can, each firm go on in
its own way, agreeing, in case of need, to support
each other in case of any attack from outside, and
be as good friends as they can be under existing
circumstances, the five trusting, not unreasonably,
to their superiority in capital and numbers to sur-
pass the three and perhaps make them eventually
beg for readmission.
" The above seems very much the condition of the
partnership of States in America, where 11 partners
out of 30 determine to get out."