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

HE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVENISER 26, 1862.

poisoning in Xnne, my mistress made me an offer
while we were in the kiti,hen together. She 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 Milted
up something for me" would I take it and put it
into the flour-bin on tishop-hill, and she would not
mind giving me a 1;5-note if it proved effectual' I
answered h€ r 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 ; neitner 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 Lord Mayor then remanded the prisoner
until Monday l‘nloprndest n
nest,
i
ti, to give the police an opportu-
nvestigations. The prisoner
would be allowed to go out of custody on finding
two sureties for £lOO each.
We may add that the prisoner is young, very
ladylike and prepossessing in appearance, and is
rather below the common statures 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.

playing the best qualities of the Armstrong 12- i congregation, and where he has ample room to
9
pounder—the acknowledged best specims of the move about.) The only use he could imagine for
!breech-loading Armstrong gun. At the echolusion pulpits was to remind the people of their latter end
of the practice from the 12-pounders Major-Gen. by keeping before their eyes the whole time of the
St. George, Col. Bingham, Col. Warde. ('apt. Dyer, service a man half buried in a wooden box. He
and other officers, proceeded to Lump Fort, where thought they must have been invented for the benefit
three shots each were tired from two 110-pounder of some one whose legs were deformed. (Laughter.)
Armstrong guns, but the efficiency of the guns was He believed the power of oratery lay Very much in
in no other way tested as breech-loading ordnance. the legs, and he liked to see a man when preach-
The practice made throughout was good, but nu- ing walk about, as Harmes did, and roar out the
merous instances occurred where the shells burst truth like a lion. The last instance of miracle work-
half way to the target, and some close to the muzzle ing he would quote was that of George Muller, of
of the gun, while there were many illustrations of Bristol, who, from equally small beginnings, estab-
" stripping" of the zinc coating. There was also lished first the Orphan House at Bristol, and who
great difficulty experienced in getting the screws 1 since 1832 had built three orphan houses, at a cost
home against the back of the vent pieces towards of between £60,000 and £70,000, and in which
`he close of the firing, 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 ? These 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. Wm.
J. Haynes.

MR. SPURGEON ON MIRACLES.

Last night Mr. Spurgeon gave an entertainment
in the form of a lecture, illustrated by dissolving
views, and enlivened by the vocal efforts of a chorus
of 600 children, on the subject of the miracles of
faith in modern times. The special object was to
benefit the funds of the Band of Hope Union, and
the influence of that very numerous body, the
presence of the Earl of Shaftesbury, who was the
president of the evening, Mr. Layard, M.P., who
occupied a prominent positio❑ on the platform, the
opportunity of hearing Mr. Spurgeon, combined
with the various other attractions provided, proved
sufficient to fill the Tabernacle in every part; and
seeing that the charge for admission ranged from
6d. to 2s. 6d., must have added as materially to the
resources of the total abstinence principle, as did
the celebrated Gorilla lecture, which was given in
the same place and for the same object, in October
of last year.
After a short introductory prayer from the rev.

THE MORNING CHRONICLE" AND
THE FRENCH GOVE.R.NMENT.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,—Nov. 25.
GLOVER V. COUNT DE PERSIONY AND M. BILLAULT.
This case came before the Court on a question of
proceeding against foreigners by a British subjeet
in the English courts under the Common Law Pro-
cedure Act, 1854. Mr. Gray on Saturday obtained
a rule to set aside an order of 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, and
the Evening Journal, and for writing and
translating from the French, and printing
in the .Morning Chronicle certain articles,
and also in writing certain other articles to
be translated into the French language, for inser-

tion and publication in the Moniteur, Constitutionne
B.:c. The Count de Persigny had appeared to the
action, but M, Billault had not been served; and as
Personal 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 plaintiff, 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.
Air. 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. Jnstice 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, however, appeared by affidavits before Mr.
Justice Cr mpton.
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 partieulaars 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 Persigny came to this country to visit the Ex-
hibition after proceedings had commenced, and he
ghappear, or a similar applica-
n d h bettera
v
e
been
made by him. Mr. Jus-
ticeetha
toiuo\tv
o it
u t
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 :--
"Tout 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 Nleygret are foreigners, and resident
out of the jurisdiction of the Court."
Now his al gumeut 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 Lard Chief Justice asked what were the L
par-
ticulars of the demand.
Mr. Hodgson said the particulars of demand were

tlated from the 9th May, 1857, to the 23a October, was one arising within the jnrisdictiort of the Court. I then the work, and labour, a, nd services h. aving been
f
1858, and NON " for work am; labour, and mate- lee thought it must be taken that these men falsely \ rendered, and as t, here is no objection in point o
m Billaulee agents-
rials provided, and money fetid for the defendants professed themselves to be M. . .
,t law to such a contra ct, the co ntrect as made out is
against M. Billault, Not oni y was there a con-
at their request in and about the ptinting tied eon- The Lord Chief Justice—We cannot do the -,
ducting certain newspapers called the Morning Mr, Sustice Blackburn—Or, 'either, that for tei-if‘ tract 11'
within tie e
ade in this co, entry, but . also a cause of action
jurisdicth m of this Ct >urt. It all depends
Chronicle, and two other newspapers, the Morning purpose they truly professed to be so.
News and the Evening Journal, and in and about The Lord Chief Justice—That they professed to upon the eeidence to be adduced before a jury, it
the et ritieg and translating from the French lan, be so; for we have the statement of Mr. Sergeant being, for ti
bjtt ry to dates mine that question and not
its interposition in a summary mane
guage certain 06F:ilea in the said Alorning Chronicle' Glover that he learnt from M. Billault that their this Court, y
and two other newspapers, for and on behalf of the representations were true. M. Billault may be ner,in the way asked for on the part of M. Billault
Mr. T sti 'S Crompton. I think, therefore,
defendants, and at their request; and Itt and about prepared to contradict it. At present we cannot beforehie
the writing and translating from the French, and try that question. By so doing you are really ask- . wth theti ma.tei
a trial. M. Justice Cromp-
ials before us we cannot stop
this case from going to
printing and publishing certain other articles in ing us to try the ease,
the said Morning Chronicle and other two news- Mr. Hodgson said that he was trying to show ton. was. right on the ma terials that were laid before
papers, for and on behalf of the defendants, that the cause of action did not arise within the h
hmichin
wsaes made on other ,
tting aside M... Justice
for the purpose of their being translated into jurisdiction of the Court, and he would call their w .oncurre d.
affidavit. If the plaintiff The other learned judges G
the French language, and inserted and published attention to anottitz
in certain French newspapers called the founded his action on the re!ification of the agency Rule made absolute. Ifadavits.Mellor's order,
Moniteur, the Constitutionne/, the Pays, and at Paris by M. Billault, there we
the defendantr to plead.
certain other French newspapers, at value contract in this country, and it was esseetial to the _
but a partial M Hodgson asked what I. 'me would be allowed'
of £BOO per month—total £14,000. The plaintpiff maintenance of the action that it arose solely in this 1 Mr. M. Chambers said about a fortnight.
will seek to recover the amount in the declaration country.
on the account stated, and damages for loss sus- The Lard Chief Justice—The plaintiff does not -
tamed in the depreciated value of the above-men- rely on the ratification at Paris in that sense. He T
boned London newspapers in fulfilment of the COR- says certain persons came oer here armedmade one ,i
with
tract entered into between himself and the defen- authority to make a contract, and they
with him, and he refers to what took place in his a
dents." (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Wightman —Are these the particulars personal interview with M. Billault in Paris to f
l
referred to in the affidavit ? show that they were authorised agents.
Mr. Hodgson—For doing work comprised in those , ,Mr. Hodgson said he should ask their lordships ~
c
particulars of demand. to infer that whatever these persons professed to be, c
The Lord Chief Justice—And when you refer to they in reality were not authorised agents.
that you say that it is work done at the request of
dill er The Lord Chief Justice—We cannot make any o
the defendants ? difference between an English subject and a French-
l.
Mr. Hodgson said the plaintiff did not undertake man, however high the position of the latter may
to say that it was work undertaken for them, but be. In this case we have a sergeant-at-lave stating r
that he did it for them. The affidavits ought to one thing, and a minister of the French Empire I
state that the work was dove at the request of the another, but here was i:
defendants, either expressly or implied; but the Mr. Hodgson said—Certainly not;
plaintiff only says that he did the work comprised the distinct denial of a gentleman holding the high ,
in the particulars of demand. position of the Minister of the Interior of France.
i
The Lord Chief Justice—At the instance of the The Lord Chief ustice—And we ave
Mr. also
Ser- the 1
defendant ? distinct affirmation,J on the other sideh, of
e
Mr. Justice Wightman said the only question was geant Glover.
whether the learned judge at chambers was satisfied Mr. Hodgson submitted that the statement of one i
1
that the affidavit and particulars of demand were was not so distinct and emphatic as the otieer.
t
sufficient. Mr. Justice Blackburn—We must treat M. Bil- a
Mr. Hodgson said they ought to show the cause lault as we would treat Lord Palmerston or any
7,
of action ,which they embraced. These, however, other British subject.
showed none. They only showed that certain work Th e Lord Chief Justice—You have repeated, I
comprised in the particulars of demand was done. think, six times in the course of this motion that M.
The Lord Chief Justice—The affidavits states that Billault is the Minister of the Interior of Preece,
the action is brought for the work done—that is but Ido not know for what purpose.
specified in the particulars of demand. Mr. Hodgson said he only mentioned it to show Li
Mr. Hodgson submitted that it was not so. It that a gentleman holding that high position was
stated that the work was done; but not that the not likely to deny on oath what was true. t
action was brought for work and labour done at the The Lord Chief Justice—And I hope no English
request of the defendants. sergeant-at-law would do so. Why assume that
u
I
The Lord Chief Justice—ls that not necessarily one side is more likely to do so more than the
e
implied ? other ? h
Mr. Hodgson said the plaintiff carefully guarded Mr. Hodgson said that the persons said to be
himself against that. The act required that the agents having acted without authority, the plaintiff I
whole cause of action should arise in this country, must proceed on the ratification. With regard to
t
but from the affidavits it appeared that only a por- that there might be two answers. n
tion of it arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Lord Chief Justice—But he does not put it
,
Mr. Justice Wightman—ls it not a question that on the ratification. a
the judge at chambers has to satisfy himself about? Mr. Hodgson said he would call their lordships' a
The Lord Chief Justice—lt is a proceeding that attention to an affidavit made by M. Billault, dated
does not require an affidavit to be drawn like a piece 27th" November, 1862, which was as follows :
of pleading. If the judge is satisfied on the whole "That I have read the affidavit of the above- .
that is sufficient. named plaintiff sworn the 24th of July, 1862.
Mr. Hodgson still contended that the affidavit e That I did not employ or authorise any person
showed no cause of action. The answer to the plain- in the 3 ears 1856 and 1857, or at any time to agree
i
C
tiff's affiaavit was that the defendant, M. Billault, in my behalf as mentioned in the first paragraph of Q.
altogether and entirely denied ever having made, the plaintiff's said affidavit. Li
either verbally or in writing, or having authorised "That I never heard from the plaintiff or any 1
9
either of the other defendants to make, such a con- other person that the said persons referred to in the
tract for him. The learned counsel then read the first paragraph of the plaintiff's agreement had
following affidavit made by M. Billault, dated the made the agreement mentioned in the declaration
a
7th July, 1862 : and particulars of demand in this action, as
" I altogether and entirely deny ever having stated in the second paragraph of the plaintiff's
I
made, either verbally or in writing, or ever having affidavit ; that I have no idea who the said persons a
authorised the other defendants, or either of them, are, and that, if any such alleged agreement had ,
or any other person, to make on my behalf any con- been mentioned to me I should energetically have li
tract or agreement to the purport or effect alleged disavowed it.
in the declaration, or the particulars of demand, or e That it is possible, that Ido not recollect it,
i
i
any part thereof. That the claim made by the plain- that in 1857, M. Albert Bouard, mentioned in the l
tiff is, as far as lam concerned, altogether without third paragraph, may have officiously given to the
any foundation whatever. plaintiff, as to the gentlemen of other foreign news-
e I have never been in England, and I say that papers, some indications for his newspaper, which
1,
the cause of action, if any, in this case did not arise the plaintiff was incessantly and gratuitously plat- e
within the jurisdiction of the Court." ing at the disposal of the French Government of ,t
The plaintiff made another affidavit, dated the 24th which I was a member, but neither I nor the said a
July, 1862, and as follows : Albert Bouard ever heard of any agreement, as al- j
"1 ,William Glover, of 29 Great Coram-street, in leged by the plaintiff. 1
the county of Middlesex, gentleman, the above- " That I have no knowledge that any persons
named plaintiff, make oath and say as follows :—ln have written or forwarded to the plaintiff numerous v
,E
the year 1856 and 1857 persons representing them- letters and communications for the purpose of car- i;
selves to me as the friends and employes of the said rying out the agreement hereinbefore mentioned,
M. Biliault, then Minister of the Interior of the and of aiding and abetting and assisting the ob-
i
French Government, and who I verily believe were jects and views of me, the said deponent, as stated i'
the employes of the said M. Billault, and were act- in the fourth paragraph of the plaintiff's affidavit, e
ing with his knowledge and sanction, and by his and I have never authorised or sanctioned the same
instruction, as his agents, in such negotiations, had being done." t
divers interviews with me in London, and they, as Their lordships would see that M. Billault gave an i
acting on behalf of the said defendant, and lon my emphatic denial to Mr. Glover's statement, and it t
behalf, did mutually agree that the newspapers was for their lordships to say if this was a cause of
called respectively the Morning Chronicle, the action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court. a
Morning .News, and Evening Journal, should be The Lord Chief Justice—To have a cause of ac-
employed as the organs of the said defendant, as tion it must be within the jurisdiction of the Court, 1
such minister of the Interior of the French Govern- and the parties who were here armed with M. Bil- •
ment in England. lault's authority were within the jurisdiction of the r
Court.
" That at divers times in the years 1856 and 1857 e
I proceeded to Paris and had divers interviews in a
Mr. Hodgson again suggested that if there was 3.1
the year 1857 with the said M. Billault, who did any jurisdiction it was within the Court of Paris.
then acknowledge and recognise the authority and The Lord Chief Justice—No, not ratified. He
employment of the persons referred to in the first recognised them as his agents. L
paragraph of thie affidavit in making the agree- Mr. Hodgson still submitted that it amounted to )
meat mentioned in the declaration and particulars LE
a ratification. Suppose they were not agents.
of demand in this action. Mr. Justice Blackburn—He has thought proper 3.
"M. Albert Buoard, who was then the private to recognise them, and it is an essential part of the
secretary of the said M, Billault, frequently in th© cause of action. 0
e
Mr. Justice Mellor—The interview at Paris is
year 1857, at the request and by the directions and
a,
with the authority, as I verily believe, and in the used as an adoption of the original contract in Erg-
name of the said defendant, gave instructions land.
to me verbally and in writing for the purpose The Lord Chief Justice—And then it became a e
of having leading articles written, inserted, and contract in England, and the cause of action the Lc
published in the Morning Chronicle newspaper on fulfilment of the contract.
behalf of and in the interest of and to further the Mr. Hodgson still urged there was no cause of
views and objects of the said defendant, M. Billault• action, and after some further remarks
and of the French Government, of which the defen-
The Lord Chief Justice, without calling on the
dant was then as before mentioned Minister of the other side, said—The rule must be made absolute,
a
Interior.
We are really asked by the learned counsel for .
"That the persons hereinbefore referred to, with defendant to try this cause, and not to say whether
the sanction and by the authority, as I believe, of under the act of parliament a British subject may 1
the defendants, and especially of the defendant Bil- proceed against a French subject, where it has been Ii
Lt
lault, wrote and forwarded numerous letters and shown to our satisfaction that the contract was
n
communications to me at my then residence in made in this country, and that the cause of anti.
Cavendish-square and at the office of the said arose here. ' Upon the service of the process of the e
Morning Chronicle newspaper in the Strand, both ti
places being in the county of Middlesex and within Court upon a foreigner residing out of the country
the legislature has thought proper to pass an eny-
the jurisdiction of the Court, for the purpose of car-il
actment, the propriety or non-propriety of which it 5
',O
rying out the agreement hereinbefore mentioned) is not for us to question. All that we have to de-
and of aiding, abetting, and assisting the objects tide is whether, on the affidavits, there was suffi-
and views of the said M. Billault, &c." cient to show the learned judge who heard the case
The learned counsel proceeded to urge that this at chambers that the cause of action arose in this •
affidavit was insufficient. He contended that the country. On the affidavits some technical objet- 61
plaintiff should have stated the names of the per- tions have been made, but on the whole it appears •
sons described as M. Billault's agents. to me that he was right in holding that a sufficient
The Lord Chief Justice—The plaintiff swears prima facie case had been made to show that b
positively that when in Paris he saw M. Billault, the cause of action arose in this country. The de- re
and that he recognised these parties as his agents. fendant, on being served with the notice, has a
right a
The Court cannot try that question.
to come here and show, if he can, that the pro- ii
Mr. Hodgson said that he asked the Court to ceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court, and *,
assume that the persons whom the plaintiff repre- that there is no pretence for saying there is any
sented to be M. Billault's agents, especially as he cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the
did not name them, were not so, on the denial of the Court, and that the proceedings, being vexatious, D
Minister of the Interior of the French Empire that ought to be set aside. If it had appeared on the
he never did employ any one for the purposes alleged affidavits that there was no conflicting testimony t
by the plaintiff. That Mr. Glover was mistaken we should have given effect to the defendant's re- Ll
in saying that these persons, whoever they were, presentations, and we should have considered that 'NI
I
were M. Billault's agents, 1
the first learned judge acted rightly. He so acted
The Lord Chief Justice—That implies that the on the materials that were before him ; but these
plaintiff states what is untrue, in saying that M. other affidavits have since been produced, stating
Billault recognised them as his agents.i
I
that certain persons come to this country and en-
Mr. Justice Blackburn—l should have been dis- tered into a contract with the plaintiff in the name ti
posed to go along with you, except that by doing of M. Billault, for certain services to berg ndered in
I
so we should be saying we should convict M. Bil- this country by him as the propriet of certain 1
lault of perjury relative to what took place at that portions of the public press ; and he states that
although at first he assumed the fact of their being 1(
personal interview.
viewM .
with
gentleman agents, that a
hf tee rw
acknowledgedards, in an inter- ;,
r
The Lord Chief Justice—Or Mr. Sergeant Glover.
parties had been clothed with authority in this r.
Mr. Hodgson said that Mr. Glover only went sot
far in his affidavit as to state that he " verily be-
lieves." and no doubt upon the matter as his agents. lie
v however,iew
a jury deniesmiat; Lt
take on the question of fact between the parties tl
The Lord Chief J ustice—We must not deal withb
the matter by lines and paragraphs, but we must
o f the
these case
pws
ri
tl
il
es depend.w were
re the
-
take the whole of the affidavits together into our e;ler.ntGulaolvlyer, thise
thatdriegchistion
consideration.
Mr. Hodgson said it was necessary for the plain- agents of M. Billault, and that he afterwards ad-
tiff to establish that, besides a cause of action, it mitted and acknowledged that they were his agents,

ZHE ;;URGLARY IN DI3A‘BYSHIRE.
ky

CHAPLT. -EN-LE-FRIT'i ti, TuEspal.
Yesterday (Monday) Matthew Depledge 108
brought before Capt. Nield ay. Mr.
with being concerned in the burglit, "y on the pre'
mises of Mr. Norman, of Whale brig'.. ge•
4. alr.
Mrs. Norman, in reply to vestion, 3 pub by .
n. was aboll
Fox, the chief constable, said the prison,
Slack, charged
the size of the man who stood by the vcr,
he wore a velveteen coat. The „ion, my ? prO;
duced was like the one used by the man who,. scot%
'ndow, , eg`
in the room; it had something on the end, L u:"., the
could not say it was a ring. She did not think ,v/
prisoner Matthew Depledge was the man she s, i
in the room. He was not so tall. He resemble,
one of the men witness saw outside of the windo',
who had on a velveteen coat. Witnes was in the
habit of having a fire hi het. bedrooms , and there
was a fire in it on the night 0; the burglary. It
had gone out, however, at the tin.e. Witness heard
the noise downstairs. Left her infant in bed with
her husband, first having placed a Om
tine•
against the
bed, to keep the child safe. Should twit.' awakened
her husband if she had thought anyone wi.l.s itt t"
house. It was her general rule to take pisiels dowd"
stairs with her in the night when she had occasion
to get up or felt alarmed. The revolver was alwaj°
loaded, also two double-barrelled pistols as well#
From the time she heard the noise in the
house she had to partly dress herself a,
lay her child safe, which occupied about'
five minutes. The Yuan in the room held a candle
in his left hand, and it went out when witness fired
but she could then see eve;ything by the moonlight:
Saw the jemmy in his hann,
standing outside the window, by the !ight of tu
and also the two ta;
theirs'
candle, as it was burning only on e yard ffem
11, hen the robbers left the window witness r an t°,ls
to see what direction they took, which was' toWdr;
Whaley. She then ran upstairs and told bet 13,,biley
band. Scarcely a minute elapsed from tile time ' to
drew the man through the window till she went a
o"'
look after them. Knew the man who was beWee_
the other two to be the man who was in the ro
by the handkerchief he wore, but could not ea,-
whether or not he was walking by
ported by the other two. Did not hear any eg:
versation between the men as they went off. l'ie-;
himself or ea'
ness and her husband came downstairs toa°t""e
after the men had gone. When witness fired ti:lit
pistol she was holding the door open with her It
arm and the side of her left foot. The first time
tli:
cap missed fire ; the second time, in order to sec,urit
a steady aim, she rested the revolver on her ie a
wrist, and fired. The ball might have Pass,,eo
through the window from the place she fired at. 'I;
Tuesdq evening, before the burglary, at 5 o'cl°;
she saw a man come up to the window and loolg 1,..;
He looked downwards. Witness could not tell 1)1';
again. When the servant maid went to close til,
shutters the same .?vening, she told witness ther,'
was something which prevented them propeat
closing. 'Witness said, -4' Never mind ; we ousr
haveward
wards
hfeomu repairedfound
in
the
socketto-morirno wt
thew
„Ft
d stonesotwh.eiriaic;wao
sftiti
le: rgirj;;
the shutters bolted, and this preventea.
Henry Hilton, detective inspector, sal'- that!' rr te
information received on the 21st of Nov hose ja
proceeded to Macclesfield, and went to a houl- .er
Windmill-row, where he found the prism-
_.
Matthew Depledge, and asked him when he svaslaP
at Whaley. He replied, " I have not been to Whall
since a week last Sunday." Witness then told hir .
he must consider himself his prisoner, as answew;
ing to the description of the man who, with t.d
others, broke into Mr. Norman's house. He th sal '
"I don't know a Mr. Norman." Witnessea
searched the house and found the jemmy, Witil„),o
ring at the end, now produced. On comparing tat,
marks made on the shutter and the cupboard Nvicrl'e
the jemmy, he found that they corresponded. ',O
took the prisoner on the following morning `".
Macclesfield lock-up. When conveyibg the prisoeeirl
to Whaley, he said, " Me and Jem Stanny and ti,
Cope slept in Whaley on Sunday night, and thaws.el'
losving morning we left for Macclesfield. The th
day we all three went to Allmock-moors for hettibe
for making brooms, and we stayed there until te
following Thursday, when Cope left us to Poet
Manchester, and we went to Macclesfield." Fri;o3,
told the detective that he would find Cope at here
chester selling bt'Poins ; he did not know wPiiito
Stanny was, as there was a warrant out against
for poaching.
Superintendent Shaw stu.:.l
being brought to the lock-up, ,had told him lit ore'
was in Whaley on the Monday night and the ,sdei
day night, but not on the Tuesday or Weun"
night. that the prisoner,6os:
The prisoner was then remanded.

COUNTRY MA

1' -- ---

LIVERP 0 OL—TUESDAY• '1 IldallOe'1;0°
At our market to-day there was a good at. e wbeitt .00
a fair amount of business transacted. Winte: Iftd 034
in good demand, and prices firm. Flour quiet, Tore
same as on Friday. Indian corn and Odessa oms
lower.

LEEDS—TUESDAY. . Fria°,if 08
the low rates
Trade has slof ighthatly t
day for roved
wheat were exc in tone :once
,j
es vier®
eed,e
barley commanded last week's rates. Other art"'
unchanged in price.
.1.
MARKET HARBOROUGII—TVESD— 36 tonel3 ot.
White wheat, 50s to 54s ; red, 46s to 5203 er_a
age to
Barley at 3.5 s to 38s per qr., grinding 290 to SL" ;s°'
Oats, 27s to 325; new, 21s to 24s per 24 st. ; be""4
48s per qr.
i Of
SHEFFIELD—TUESDAY. to ov
Red wheat, per load of 3 imperial bushels 20, Od • os no
White..22B 041, 'too OS3
~ ,
New red t l7O Od to 05 oli
.•
21s 00 1904
New white „ 17
Beans » 1,
Peas per qr sl66ss
06da tt 0° u 0.0;
.1
Grinding barley, per qr 305 od. rovo,
Malting ditto, „ go Od ''(/ 300
_,. Oats 2ooodt°
,
.he Flour, is 10d to 2s 2d per stone.
AC
NEWCASTLE-UPON -TYNE--Ttrusl3o villif
To-day at our market there was a free sale Veritt,
a t Saturday's decline. Flour in btter denialen; lei, De'°
t
ransactions in oats, but in large supply. 0"
and peas were firm.
(on ti
-- 't•.. 040
MELTON MOWBRAY—TITE6I7k iota -0;
The following were the currencies :—Old w_. 36 st°4 ;
52s Od to 56s Od ; old red, 46s Od to 620 Per a a'o
beans, 48s for old ; new sorts, 38s to 435 Per cif'
barley, 36s to 39s for malting, and 29s to 33s P
grinding; oats, 20s to 34s Od per 24 stone.
-i4O t°

LYNN—'
White
46s to 49s
RA • 42s to 54s
Beans .36s to 40s
New -8 to --S

,ETBSDIOI. 3l, kr, 41-,k
nariey•••••• *** :.300 rar
Grinding ******
Oats.. .....
New ..........

~.. 010
BIRTIiS.
DORMER.—On the 24th inst., at St. Leonard'S-011-""
Hon. Mrs. James C. Dormer, of a son. f Sae'
DISNEY.—On the 24th inst., at Southend, the 109 ° °
J. Disney, Esq., of a son.
,r.,dioilit
KENT.—On the 24th inst., at Dinham Hall, Pi"- tt
wife of the Rev. C. Kent, of a eon. rPtleo t'
Witirrirroutost.—On the 24th inst., at li re
e_ fo 0,,
Mayfair, the wife of Colonel Whittingllon' C.
5011.

MARRIAGES. 1'
BUTCHER—ALDER 4 rrel 'O'
barnacle, Mr. GeO7°enßtuhtech24ert,hoifnßstr.o,
aactwthai,"lvititaliol
ster, to Mary, second
Aldar, of Pimlico, daughter of the late v.
oaf
FENNEL TT 13ridg o
L--On—On the 20th inst., at ciol
Allan N. 8., Herbert Fennell, Esq., to Besialoote.
Major Lanoe Hawker, of Longparish liouse'
llifLill
DEATHS. Idr•IVI
BLEADEN.—On the 23d inst., at Caine, Wills, p,
Bleaden, aged 77. 013i'socle
BAwDEN.—On. the 23d inst.,"atDalston, Mr. 00 _,
aged 66. .
lace' 140 P
BORRETT.-0 the 24th inst., at 6, Montagu-I) d 61. 1.
n
tagu-square, Francis Turner Borrett, Esq.. -Green
GREEK.—On the 22d inst., at Dublin, IVlfi.Pl._ed 61. „,d,.4,
and J.P., of The Grange, county Tyrone! 7.,.. jeolo-
- the 22d inst., at Bottley-hill J•
to°'
Esq., aged 77. Se° • ef
Willialo • 0
NEWTON.--On the 24th inst., at Barrels, ,arvc
Esq., of Whately Hall, and Barrels-park,vy
aged 65. (3°lE4
liaise,
RoßsoN.---On the 24th inst., at Holtby ,
Yorkshire, Thomas Robson, Esq., aged 7D.

Lotinox : Printed and Published by JOHN 04Z:a ill!
of No. Strand, Printer, at THE Sox Once,
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, 10 the
Midcliesex.—Weduesdah November 26, 1862.