The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-14 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the Education
Bill, the Savings Banks Bill, and the Registration of
As,iiranees Bill.

Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh,
in favour of the inspection of nunneries • also, a petition
from Paisley, in favour of the Scotch Universities Bill.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lord ELCHO moved the second reading of this bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS contended that the measure was
neither more nor less than one to dissolve a solemn con-
tract entered into between England and Scotland at the
time of the union. He denied the truth of the alle-
gation in the preamble that the present law was
unsuited to existing circumstances in Scotland, and said
lie could only attribute the bringing forward of the bill
to those who believed that whatever is is wrong ; be-
lieving that, if it passed, it would be hazardous to the
existence of the Established Church of Scotland, he
concluded by moving as an amendment that it be read
a second time this day six months.
Col. BLAIR seconded the amendment.

Lord ELCHO opposed the amendment, believing that
the bill was reasonable and just, and the opposition to
it unreasonable and unjust. He looked upon the main-
tenance of university tests as a snare and a danger, rather
than a bulwark to the Church—a snare because it would
induce ti.e Church to rely more upon legislative enact-
ments for its security than on its hold on the feelings
and affections of the people, and a danger because it
would embitter sectarian differences, and unite those
who were not in communion with the Church in oppo-
sition to it. He considered not only that the majority
of the people of Scotland, but also the majority of
Churchmen in that country, were in favour of the pro-
posed change. In his opinion, the bill was conceived in
the spirit of the age, for its object was to extend the
benefits of education, and to remove religious disqualifi-
cations. He felt quite confident that the measure
would receive the sanction of Parliament.
Mr. FORBES intimated that he and his friends would
not oppose the second reading, lest the Government
should in that case force the bill through the house in
its present shape and without any alteration. They did
not intend to vote at all ; but they would reserve to
themselves the right to propose certain amendments in
committee.

Viscount DRUMLANRIG supported the bill, the
principle of which he considered had long been recog-
nised by the house.

Sir A. CAMPBELL supported the amendment.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the bill, and expressed
his fear that it was intended to apply its provisions to
the universities of England. In Germany the same
system had been in operation which it was now pro-
posed to introduce into Scotland, of separating religious
from secular education, and it had proved a miserable
failure. If the bill passed the effect of it would be to
make Papists and infidels to hold the chairs of pro-
fessors in the Scotch Universities.

Sir G. GREY expressed his gratification that the
principle of the bill had received the general assent of
the representatives of Scotland, on both sides of the house,
and denounced the attempt of the hon. member to impute
to them an act, the effect of which would be to admit
Papists and infidels into the Scotch professorial chairs.
He considered that the bill would remove a reproach
which now rested on the Universities in Scotland, and he
hoped the house would now affirm its principle, and
settle once for all the question of tests.
Mr HENLEY said that as an English member he did
not feel himself at liberty to assent to a measure which
he had good grounds for believing was against the wishes
of some of the most eminent authorities in the Church of
Scotland. He could not conceal from himself that it
was a step towards separating religion altogether from
education.
Mr. LOCKHART supported the amendment.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l7
Against it... .......... 106
Majority **********************
—B9
The bill was then read a Second time.
The house adjourned shortly after half-past three until
six o'clock.
Tlie house resumed at six o'clock and was
[LEFT SITTING.]

) orfight, M.P.,
EAST INDIA PROPRIETORS. Mr. II has
mthe number of
obtained a return (printed on Tuesda
cthhoae-infeejounonef edliarsetc.;
proprietors of East India stock on the
of the number entitled to vote in
mthoere vote ;
tors ; of the number entitled to
and of the number who actually voted at the elec-
tion of the ten last elected directors. The a
also contains an account of the ballots or document
which have taken place in the Court of Proprietors
divisions
since April,
.1834, and of the annual allotment ofthege
a
patron ,
civil and military, of the Court of Directors
since the same period. It appears that on the 3d ult.
there were 1,785 proprietors of East India stock, of
whom 1,055 were men and 320 women. Of the number
1,055 men and 320 women were entitled to one vote,
235 men and 72 women entitled to two votes, 50 men
and 12 women entitled to three votes, and 34 men and 7
women entitled to four votes. It seems that, in 1844,
206 proprietors voted on the occasion of the election of
the last 10 elected directors, of whom 203 were men and
3 women. In 1845 108 voted-107 men and 1. woman.
In 1847 the number who voted were 1,594-1,256 men
and 338 women. In the same year 1,516 voted. In
1848 the number was 1,516 ; in ISSO 1,636, and on
another occasion in the same year 1,432 ; in 1851
1,563 '• in July, same year, 142 ; and on the 13th of
April last 1,612 voted —1,236 men and 376 women.
The remainder of the document has reference to the pro-
ceedings of the Court of Directors and the distribution
of their patronage, civil and Tmi itary.
REMARKABLE DISC '
FRY IN RUSSIA.—M. B. Larsky,
the engineer, lately, 01, E
reputation as a poet andde ensed, who had also acquired a
an archeologist, made a disco-
very of the greatest irnporta
dis-
covery brought to light when
his papers
after his decease. Being), occupied p were examined
in making a road in
at province he found it necessary
-th
waters of a lake into another lake to drain off the
in the course of the operation he discovered
level and
"tred
in ,
several feet below the surface of the soil K a forest,
in the antique Roman or Mexican style, with
paved
a stone bridge of a peculiar construction. In M. tracesarsk of
opinion 2,000 or 3,000 years must have elapsed before
Larsky's
the face of the country could have been transformed to
such an extent as he observed, and if this supposition
be well founded this district must have been inhabited
before the time of the Scythians by a more civilised na-
tion. M. Larsky's discovery will, doubtless, not pass
unnoticed, and may lead to important results.— Odema
Journal.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.--July 13,

(Before Mr. Seijeant Adams, Assistant Judge.)

Sarah Logan, a respectably-dressed middle-aged
woman, surrendered to take her trial on an indictment
in which she was charged with having stolen a piece of
cheese, weighing one pound and upwards, the property
of Edward Fitch.

Mr. Ribton appeared for the prisoner.
The question in this case was whether the prisoner
had stolen the cheese from the counter of a shop kept by
the prosecutor, or whether the prosecutor's shopman had
weighed it to her, and received the money for it. The
defence was, that she bought the cheese, and laid the
money on the counter.
The Jury retired to consider their verdict. In about
an hour afterwards it was communicated to the Court
that the jury were regaling themselves with beer, though
the officer in whose charge they were placed was sworn
to "keep them without meat, drink, lodging, or fire,
candlelight excepted ;" and, upon hearing this,
The Assistant-Judge immediately sent for the officer,
and demanded how the beer was supplied.
The officer said, he was stationed at the door of the
jury-room, and, when he heard that some of the jury
were drinking beer, he inquired as to how they got it,
and he found that they bad ordered it of the potman of
a neighbouring public-house, from one of the windows
looking into the street, through which the potman had
supplied it without his knowledge.
The Assistant-Judge directed an officer to order the
proprietor of the public-house and the potman to attend
the Court immediately, with an intimation that if they
did not their negligence would have to be explained at
the next general licensing day. He then directed the
jury to be brought in, and on that order being obeyed,
he warmly reprehended their conduct. He said he was
perfectly ashamed of them ; he should have them locked
up in a room where they could not get beer through the
window, and when their verdict was returned he would
consider what fine he should impose upon them.
The jury were then locked up in another room by the
officer, to whom the Assistant-Judge attached no blame
whatever.

While they were in court several of them said this had
been done by only two of their body, and against the
wish of the others.

In a short time the potman was brought into court,
with a pint of porter in his hand, amid a loud burst of
laughter, in which, however, he showed not the least
inclination to join. He looked amazed and bewildered,
and wished to know what they were about with him, as
he had done nothing.
The Assistant-Judge asked him how he came to sup-
ply the jury with beer.
The potman said the gentlemen called him to the win-
dow and told him to bring the beer, and, not knowing
that he was doing wrong, he took it and put it through
the window. He did not, he repeated, know that he
was doing wrong.
The Assistant-Judge ordered him into custody, and a
gaoler took possession of the pint of porter, and he was
placed in a cell below. After a time lie was brought
up.
The Assistant-Judge, after a few jocular remarks, or-
dered him to be discharged, and said he did not want
his employer to attend.
The Jury, after five hours' deliberation, found the
prisoner. Not Guilty.
Mr. Witham (the Assistant-Judge having then left)
told the jury they were discharged, but he was bound
to say that their conduct had been extremely bad.
They had got beer through the window of their room,
and, even after they had been reproved for that, he
found they had thrown up the window of the room they
were then sent to, and were holding conversation with
people outside, and sending messages to their friends.
If it had been necessary for them to do that, of course
the Court would have given them permission. They
could go about their business, and it was to be hoped
they would never be guilty of such misconduct again.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, JULY 12.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice Wightman.)
WIDDOWSON V. COOKE.

This was an action for breach of promise of marriage,
to which the defendant pleaded a denial of the promise,
that a reasonable time had not elapsed for its fulfilment,
and that the plaintiff had absolved him from it.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins and Mr. Price appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Bliss, Q.C., and Mr. Tomlinson for
the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, in opening the case, stated
that the plaintiffe' and the defendant were first cousins.
The plaintiff lived in York with her mother and an
uncle, who was retired from business ; and the de-
fendant, at the time of the promise alleged in the
declaration, carried on business as a tinner and brazier,
along with his brother, Mr. Robt. Cooke, in Collier-
gate, York, but the brothers had now retired from busi-
ness and resided at Scarborough, living on their pro-
perty. The plaintiff was in the continual habit of
meeting the defendant in the intercourse of the families,
and early in 1852 an attachment sprang up between
them, which led the defendant to make proposals of
marriage to the plaintiff, which were accepted, with the
assent of the plaintiff's mother and uncle, and it was
arranged that when married they should reside at
Scarborough. Owing, it was said, to the interference
of an old servant of the two brothers, named Rachel,
who for some cause was opposed to the defendant's mar-
riage. the defendant's brother was set against it, and
ultimately, in September, 1852, the defendant broke his
engagement. This led to letters between the parties,
which the learned serjeant read, and which will appear
in the evidence. The defendant's conduct had seriously
impaired the plaintiff's health, and she had since been
subjected to attacks of delirium and great nervous de-
rangement. The facts will fully appear in the following
evidence :

Mrs. Widdowson, the mother of the plaintiff, ex-
amined—She resided with her brother. In January,
1848, she left her brother's and returned home to York.
The defendant, James Cooke, visited at her house from
time to time after he took his father's business. About
four years ago the defendant said to her, " Oh ! aunt, I
do love Eliza." Witness replied, " Oh, very well," or
something to that effect. He continued to visit at wit-
ness's house till January last year. They went to a
weddinc, in that month, and defendent then said to her,
" I wish Eliza was mine ;" and witness said, " You
must wait a little while," on account of some property
that had been settled. On the 9th of May, on a Sun-
day, her son and daughter, her brother, and her two
nephews, were present at her house, and on that occa-
sion the defendant said to her brother, " Uncle, I wish
to secure your consent ; are you willing that Eliza and
I should be married ?" Her brother said, "I have no
objection." Robert, defendant's brother, said, " No-
thing shall be wanting on my part to make matters com-
fortable." The day after, the defendant came up to her
and said, " Oh, aunt, I have forgotten to ask your con-
sent ;" and witnessed answered, " You have had my
consent long ago." After that she went to Scarborough
with her daughter, to make arrangements. Defendant
had taken a house at Scarborough. About the 27th of
June they returned to York. (The witness here got
much confused as to whether she had returned to
York at this time or was at Scarborough.) His lord-
ship wished to know whether she was at York or at
Scarborough after the 10th of May. Witness said, in
answer to the learned counsel's questions, " You have
got us too soon to Scarborough." (Laughter.) On the
27th of June the defendant and his brother Robert called
at her house in York, and Robert then said, he was go-
ing to take a country walk, and before he went out he
would tell her a bit of his mind. He was going to re•
engage Rachel—a discharged servant. Witness said,
"Are you master ?" He said, "Yes, I am." She
looked at the defendant, but he never spoke. She and
her daughter determined to leave the house if Rachel
was engaged, but the defendant persuaded them not.
Defendant said "Rachel shall never enter these doors.
If you leave the house I shall come to some untimely
end." A week after Robert apologised fir his conduct,
and in about three weeks they went to Scarborough,
and all was again pleasant. On the 25th of August her
daughter received the following letter :-
- -

" Colliergate, Aug. 25, 1852.
"Dear Eliza,—l got your note this morning, and feel
surprised at your saying that you told us iyou were going
to Mrs. Siddall's, which you did nothing of the kind, and
am sorry you have left Scarborough to conduct yourself in
the manr er you are doing, and for what cause I am at a
loss to know. I wrote to my aunt last night, saying that
I intended leaving for Scarborough on Thursday, but now
I find it impossible to do so, on account of Robert's cold
being so bad. The work I have to do allmyself, and have
done so since I left Scarborough. I was at chapel twice
on Sunday, fully expecting to see you there. It is impos-
sible for me to leave home in the state Robert is in. With
kind remembrances, your distressed cousin,
" JAMES."
In answer to this letter the plaintiff sent the following
to the defendant :

Scarborough, Aug. 30, 1852.
" Dear James,—Mrs. Siddall kindly forwarded your
note to me, and I take the earliest opportunity to reply.
I was entirely unconscious of any letter you had sent to
uncle until our return to Scarborough, and you rightly
Judge of the cause of my not calling again in Colliergate.
I haver never for one moment disguised my real motives,
nohave I ever broken one promise which I at any time
made
you. You most unjustly accuse me of know-
ing your arrangements. In your calmer moments
more just to
me. I have faithfully loved you
and done dwoinn be
eall that I could to cheer you in your sadder hours.'
By your mother's deathbed,ffln or any where I could be of use,
wtoalsovlonmoteatlruwatyys willing
you
mug
tA
bn
ed nsao wu
ntgheanto yourous haasv et coe atsread-
duce me. You say in your note of the 25th that you are
sorry I left Scarborough to conduct myself in the manner
I have. I wish my conduct to be strictly looked into.
After leaving my box at Mr. Stanfie came direct into
Colliergate. .From what you havetn,ot(l
could take break-
me yourself you
could not for one moment suppose h
fast. When I left you I saw Mr. Spetch and
s(n, and then went to Miss Siddall's, and the only vi." SiniPsi"-
which she had were Mr. and Mrs. Milne and Mr. Spencer,
the clergyman. I then went to church at Acomb onS
day, and I never went out or paid a visit after. Id hladfenea:
severe attack of English cholera, and took a wineglass of
brandy, without any effect ; and since my return to Scar-
bcrough I have had a still more severe attack, and
very weak and poorly. Thus, as far as I can, I have ex-
plained my conduct. I might, after all you have promised
me, ask you to explain yours. In happier hours you re-
posed your confidence in me, and you remember I
have often told you that if I s tw you happy I would
be content. Before I left your house this morning I went
alone into every room, and to our God, who seeth in secret,
I offered up a prayer for you, and begged for you that
peace and happiness which you have so rashly taken from
me. My poor mother's trial this morning was a severe one.
She took Robert's hand, and told him she had done her
best for you both. To use an expression of your own, it
.
`cruel work.' In a few weeks, when business is over,l
sincerely hope your health will improve ; and, with
brighter
Butnierdays, do not let remembrance of me cross that plea-
suWhen.if ever the prospects are blighted with grief,
the sigh yields no balm, and the tear no relief, then

think of me—yes, think of me, who never wronged you
even in thought, whose greatest pleasure was, and still will
be, to see you, and who, with unchanged love, remains,
" Your affectionate cousin,
" ELIZA WIDDOVirSON."

A letter was received from the defendant, stating
that Robert and Rachel were coming to Scarborough
to take possession of the house, and, in consequence,
she and her daughter and her brother left the defen-
dant's house, and took lodgings in Scarborough. A few
days after she came to York, and went to defendant's
house, in Colliergate. She said to the defendant,
" James, I am very much surprised at your conduct to
Eliza." He said, "You had no occasion to leave the
house at Scarborough." I said, "Oh, James, do you
suppose we should remain in the house after what you
said Rachel would do to my daughter ?" He said, on a
former occasion, "Eliza, if Rachel sees you, she will
give it you." (Laughter.) They left the house, fearing
Rachel would insult them. He then said, " Oh, Rachel
has promised to be so good." Defendant then said, "I
am going to write to Eliza to-night." He laid the blame
on his brother for having Rachel back. She called again
in Colliergate, and asked if he had written to Eliza. He
said he had not had time, but he was going over to see
her next day. Witness returned that day to Scarborough.
The defendant never called again. On Friday, the 17th
of September, she was walking with her daughter, in
Scarborough, when they met the defendant. Her
daughter said, " Oh, James." He said, " I have done
with you for ever ; I never wish to hear from you or to
see you again." She thought she should never have got
her daughter removed from the place ; she fainted re-
peatedly. A few days after she returned to York. Her
daughter was very unwell, and had been attended by a
medical man ever since.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bliss—She was not present
when the defendant took the house at Scarborough. De-
fendant never told her it was his brother's house. She
then believed it to be the defendant's house. Defendant
was not dependent •n his brother. Defendant was a
tinman and brazier. His place of business at York was
rented at 221. She did not know the business in Col-
liergate was a failing one. It was on the ith or Bth of
Julie when defendant said he should come to an un-
timely end. No other person was paying attention to
her daughter at that time. The defendant and her
daughter were first cousins. She never heard her
daughter express an opinion that the marriage of first
cousins was objectionable. She did not know that the
defendant was in feeble health. She first employed an
attorney on the 26th of January in the present year.
She never heard her brother say defendant had not what
would keep a wife—never, never. (Laughter.)
Re-examined—The defendant had retired from trade,
and was living now independently at Scarborough.
That was the business in which her brother and her
father too had made their fortunes.

Mr. James Cooke, sen., formerly a tinner and brazier,
in Colliergate, for 50 years, examined—He retired from
business in January, 1838, and had since been living on
his property. When he retired he gave up his business
to the defendant and his brother. It was then a flou-
rishing business. The defendant and his brother re-
mained there 15 years, and then gave up their business.
In May, 1852, the defendant and his brother took a
house at Scarborough. He had observed the defendant
pay attention at that time to the plaintiff. On the 9th
of May defendant said to him at tea, "Uncle, I hope
you will give me your consent that I may marry Eliza."
Witness said, "You have my full and free consent, and
I wish you every happiness ; and whatever property I
am possessed of shall be hers." It was arranged that
witness should go to Scarborough and reside there, as
they would be all more together. Witness repeated the
evidence of last witness about the servant Rachel. The
defendant was much depressed at his brother's conduct,
and cried. Witness said to him, "James, never mind ;
as long as my doors are open you are heartily welcome."
Next morning the plaintiff saw the defendant in his
presence and said to him, "James, I am wholly yours,
and I will wait for you." Defendant said, "If you
leave me, I shall come to an untimely end." Defendant
said, he considered it a solemn engagement. After that
matters went on agreeably for some time in fitting up
and arranging the house at Scarborough, till they re-
ceived the note stating that defendant's brother Robert
and Rachel were coming to take possession of the house.
The witness then detailed the state in which the plaintiff
was thrown by meeting the defendant in Scarborough,
and that the defendant had told him he had 7501., and a
share of the value of the business in Colliergate.
Cross-examined—The brothers worked at the business
themselves. He had never said that the defendant had
not enough to keep a wife upon. His niece (the plain-
tiff) was about 32 years of age ; the defendant between
30 and 40.

Mrs. Charlotte Siddall examined—Lives at Acomb,
near York. The plaintiff is a great friend of hers, and
used to visit her at her house, and stay with her. The
defendant used to escort her home. The defendant on
one occasion said, "We are going to be married," re-
ferring to Miss Widdowson, to which she (plaintiff) as-
sented.

Mr. Allan, a surgeon, of York, stated that he was
called in to attend the plaintiff, in November, last year.
He found her suffering from great nervous excitement,
delirious, and very feverish. He had continued to attend
her, more or less, up to the present time. She was still
at times delirious. Her health had received a very se-
vere shock, and it would be a long time before she was
restored. He attributed this state of her health to
mental grief and anguish. He was sent for by the
plaintiff last week professionally, and the defendant then
told him he was coming to York to take his trial, and he
was not going to deny the engagement.
Cross-examined—Defendant expressed a wish to see
the plaintiff, and said that he had been persecuted a good
deal by family differences. _ _

A letter was then put in evidence from the plaintiff's
attorneys, stating that they were instructed to com-
mence an action against the defendant for his breach of
promise, and to lay the damages at 5001.
This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Bliss, for the defendant, contended that, stripped
of the exaggerated statements of the learned serjeant
who had opened the case, and of that volume of voice
with which he contrived to speak of the most trivial cir-
cumstances, and stripped of the verbose and grand
epistle which had been read, this was as threadbare and
unimportant a case as could well be heard of. The cir-
cumstances showed that the defendant was but a work-
ing tinman, injuring his health by working with his
hands, and in but indifferent circumstances. There were
objections to such an union between first cousins, who
were sure to quarrel more like brother and sister than
man and wife, besides the physical objections of such a
relationship. Robert was evidently the one having most
authority, and he had a right to re-engage Rachel as an
old servant. Such a quarrel as the present, no doubt,
time would have healed ; but the plaintiff had immedi-
ately gone to her attorney to commence this action.
The learned counsel commented with much humour
on one of the letters put in, of which, it appeared,
the plaintiff had taken a copy, not for another occa-
sion, but for the present. That letter was so like
his learned friend's speech, that he could almost have
supposed him to be the author of both. (Laughter.)
Cupid was said, on one occasion, oppressed with the
receipt of billets-doux, to have sunk to sleep in an
attorney's office. He awoke in alarm on discovering
where he was, and in haste gathered up his papers, tak-
ing away by mistake some of the lawyer's, instead of
his own. Hence it was that writs were sometimes
served by Cupid, while attorneys drew up the love let-
ters. He would not further occupy their time with so
trumpery a case. _ _

Hie lordship having summed up the evidence,
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
3001.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. ,

BOW-STREET.--John Macarthy, a boy who has
been repeatedly convicted of picking pockets, although
only in his 14th year, was charged with stealing a silk
pocket handkerchief, the property of his Royal Highness
Frederick Christian Charles Auguste, Prince of Schles-
wig-Holstein, of Wilton-crescent.

His Royal Highness stated, that he was walking in
the neighbourhood of Drury-lane, when a man in plain
clothes, who said he was a detective constable, asked
him if he had lost his pocket handkerchief. Witness
found that it had been taken out of his pocket, and gave
the stranger his name and address, as requested ; but
afterwards he began to think that a trick had been
played upon him, and that possibly his handkerchief had
disappeared through the instrumentality of the person
who had spoken to him, and who had gone off, as he re-
presented, in pursuit of the thief. He mentioned this
circumstance because, on subsequent inquiry, be found
that the man in plain clothes was a real detective officer,
and he was much concerned to think that he had enter-
tained any suspicionupon the subject. The fact was that
he (the Prince) had just previously had some counterfeit
money passed upon him, respecting which he had spoken
to a constable in different costume ; and this circum-
stance, probably, had some influence on his mind. He
now wished to state that the detective officer showed
great activity and skill in the matter.
Mr. Henry said, that all the detective constables
were provided with warrants to show their authority,
and they ought to produce them for the satisfaction of
strangers.
The officer in question (F 37) stated that he had acci-
dentally left his warrant at home. He saw the prisoner
draw a silk handkerchief out of the prosecutor's pocket
and run away ; but witness knew him, and consequently
apprehended him three hours afterwards. The property
was not recovered.

Mr. Henry committed the boy to three months' hard
labour.

Shortly before the rising of the Court, Mr. E. Wilder,
of the Union Club, arrived in a Hansom cab, and applied
to Mr. Henry to settle the amount of a disputed fare,
the driver being present.
Mr. Wilder stated that he got into the defendant's
cab at the Horns at Kennington, rode to Glocester-
street, Piccadilly, and thence to the Union Club, Trafal-
gar-square. He offered the driver ls. 6d., which was
declined. Witness then ordered him to drive to Bow-
street, believing that he had not gone over three miles
of ground.

Mr, Henry thought it very probable that Mr. Wilder
was mistaken. The Commissioners of Police are em-
powered by the new act to print a book of fares, and
every cabdriver is bound to have a copy of it in his pos-
session, to be produced, whenever a dispute arises, on-
a penalty of 40s. All such questions as the present
must be determined by reference to this official book of
fares, which is to be admitted as conclusive evidence.
Unfortunately, these books had not yet been distributed,
and consequently the old system of measuring the dis-
tance must be resorted to. This could be done if the
applicant wished it, although he (Mr. Henry) was rather
inclined to think that the distance exceeded three miles.
Mr. Wilder said as there was some doubt apparently
about the distance, he should withdraw the complaint,
consenting very readily to pay the original demand, with