The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-31 00:00:00

I TAL Y.

The Alba of Florence has intelligence from Rome
up to the 21st. On the preceding day about 50 soldiers
went to Monte Cavallo, demanding the 49 eration of
General Zunboni with cries of "Down with the
Constituent ! Death to the Civic Guard !" They
were, however, dispersed by the dragoons and civic
guard, and 17 of them arrested in the first instance;
all the others were taken a few hours later in the
environs of Rome.

The Provisional Commission of Government at
Rome has published a decree, dated the 19th, in virtue
of which, considering that reactionary parties are
actively engaged in opposing the elections, and over-
turning the existing Government, a Military Com-
mission is instituted, composed of seven members, to
take cognizance of all attempts against the life and
property of citizens, or against the present order of
things.

The Corriere Mercantile of Genoa quotes a letter
from Florence of the 22d, announcing that, at three
P.m., the Cabinet presented to the Chambers a Bill
for sending immediately a number of Tuscan deputies
to the Italian Constituent Assembly at Rome. This
Bill was received with loud applause by the Cham-
bers ; it was immediately transmitted to the bureaux,
and the vote was expected to take place on the 23d.
The Bill contains six articles. Tuscany is to send 37
Deputies, elected by universal and direct suffrage;
every man turned of 21 is an elector, and eligible if
turned of 25. Every Deputy is to receive an indem-
nity. The form and time of the elections is not fixed
by the Bill.

NAVIGATION OF TILE RHINE.
It has been decided by a Commission, nominated
by the States interested in the navigation of the
Rhine, that the river shall be explored by agents of
Baden, Bavaria, France, Hesse, Nassau, Holland, and
Prussia. The operation is to commence in the spring,
as soon as the state of the river shall permit. In the
meantime all the documents and information that
may be required are to be collected. A sum of 4,200 f.
is to be placed at the disposal of the agents, 600 f.
being contributed by each State.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES.
EXAMINERS' COURTS ON STANDING ORDERS.
COMMITTEE Room, No. 23.

(Bcfure Mr. SMITH and assistants, Mears. PRIME

and DEW.)
After the necessary proofs on the part of the Par-
liamentary agents having charge of the various mea-
sures, the
STANDING ORDERS WERE DECLARED TO DE COMPLIED

WITH IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:—
Lancaster and Preston Junction Railway (Ants
amendment; power to alter tolls, and for appointment
of officers). _

Same (junction with the East Lancashire Railway in
Preston, and amendment of Acts).
Severn Navigation Improvement Commission.
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway and Edinburgh and
Glasgow Union Canal (amalgamation, or sale, or lease of
the Union Canal to the railway company).
Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society (incorpo.
rating and conferring powers).
Kirkcaldy Harbour, Docks, Ferry, and Customs.
Lanarkshiro (East and West Line), and Glasgow
and Shott's Turnpike Road (amendment of Acts).
ADJOURNED.—Windsor (Extension of the Windsor,
Staines, and South •Western, Richmond to Windsor
Railway), with power to the London and South-Western
Railway Company to subscribe.
COMMITTEE ROOM, NO. 22.
(Before Mr. MAY and assistants, Messrs. GUNNELL and

PALK.)

STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH.
Lancashire and Yorshiro Railway (Extension of
Ashton branch of Clifton, and abandonment of part of
Clifton branch extension, extension of time for purchase
of lands, regulation of capital, and amendment of Acts).
Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Rail-
way (Abandonment of part of line, extension to London
and North-Western, extension of time for purchase of
land, alteration of tolls, decrease of capital, and amend-
ment of Acts).
Same (power to sell or lease to the London and
North-Western, the Chester and Holyhead, or the
Shrewsbury and Chester Companies, or to amalgamate
therewith).
York, Newcastle, and Berwick (Barmouth and Aln
mouth new branches, extension of time for branches,
power to subscribe to Sunderland Docks).
Samean d(aNmeawigcansmtlaet-inopn).on- Tyne and Carlisle; Railway,
lease
Western Railway Companies
.Barbour, and Dock, and
Lancashire and Yorkshire
(TransferandLondofoninteanrdestNinerthth;
Preston and Wyre Railway:o
t f undertaking).
tysofanDaupbplilnic,stair 4;2:
for regulating managem
Dublin Improvement.— _
general improvement
c.leasuisieng,
and lighting proposing
drainage, sewerage! I
to appoint
levying rates not exceeding
Lls, ill the
the power of. "Thciis
to raise a sum of
pound for paving,
ound for sewerage not ex-
pound 6cl in the p .drainage, and
commis
isiigo
bn
te
irns:n
and
nad council
c lean 6 i
ng whop
and sha l 1
have
therewith. pay o another of 40,0001.
ceeding •
t o entaoble theffin
'of on-cOmpllalaCe, not
Proofs n of a materially seri-
° s deseription,also
were adduced, and,
uThe Court adjourned at four o'clock.
ocher objects
CI

SALE OF TIIE STOWS
yesterid,ahye LIERARY.—This sale was
proceeded with
, and again attracted a very
numerous company.
only lots worthy especial
notice were the following:—" Missale in usum Eeclesise
Audegavensis " with two large and two smaller minia-
tures, and di the capitals beautifully illuminated, or
rubricated ; this ritual, which is printed in black letter,
upon vellum, and bears date, Anjou, 1489, was compoesd
for the church of Anjou, and is of extreme rarity. I;
does not appear to be mentioned by any bibliographer,
except Brunet, who, in his last edition, refers to this
copy in Sir Mark M. Sykes's sale. The King of France's
library is rich in missals of every provincial department
of France, but no copy of this is mentioned in Mr. Van
Praet's enumeration of that extensive collection. This
missal formerly belonged to the Jesuits' library at Brus-
sels. Its disposal excited an active competition, and it
was at length secured by Mr. Lilly for 631. "John Mil-
ton's Poetical Works, with the Life of the Author," by
William Hayley, with portraits and plates, after Westall;
brilliant proofs before letters, in ,3 vole., 1794. This
copy was selected for Miss Mary Nicol. It was pur-
chased yesterday by the Rev. Mr. Sweet, for 91. 10s.
Montfaucon's " L'Antiquicee Expliqu63 et Represent be
en Figures, avec to Supplement et Monumens de la
Monarchic Francoise," 20 vols., 1722, with upwards of
1,800 ;fine plates. This fine work was bought by Mr.
Bain, of the Haymarket, for 191. The amount ,realised
by the day's sale was 3791.75. 6d.
GRAY's INN, JAN. 30.—Frederick James Funiivall,
Esq., of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, 8.A., was this day
called to the degree of Barrister-at-Law, by flat Honour.
Ole Society of Gray's lane

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 30.
3IAGGIONI V. DELAFIELD.
It will be remembered that a few days since, perhaps
ten, a,report of this case appeared in our colums under
the head of " Sheriffs' Court." The action was brought
to recover the sum of 103/. for salary alleged to be. due,
and for money due for work and labour to the plantiff,
in the capacity of foreign correspondent and
inter-
preter in respect to the claim for salary,.and e
capacity of translator, adapter, and
al
o_f the
libretti of operas produced at the Royal Italian Opera,
Covent-garden, of which the defendant became the lessee
n the month of August, 1847, as the work and labour.
The defendant allowed judgment to go by default. It
was proved upon inquiry, that when the negotiations
were progressing between the defendant and Signori
Persiani and Galetti, and Tilr. Beale, that the latter
placed before him several engagements which had been
made with the different artistes and others, and amongst
them was that of the present plaintiff. The defendant
undertook to stand in the shoes, as it were, of the then
lessees, and to take all the contracts they had entered
into upon his own shoulders. The plaintiff was to have
801. per annum to conduct the foreign correspondence,
and to act, if necessary, as an interpreter, and was also
to be paid Si. for each libretto to be translated, or adapted,
or might write, for the establishment. The action
was brought for one year's salary, whilst the remainder
of:the claim was for work and labour. The jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, 1951.
Mr. Kennedy, some days since, obtained a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
a new inquiry be had, or the damages reduced by a de-
duction of the 801. awarded for salary, on the ground
that there had not been any evidence of the existence of
a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and
for a misdirection of the Under-Sheriff who had presided

at the inquiry.
Mr. E. JAMES now appeared to show cause, and con-
tended that a written contract, seeing that the engage-
ment had only been by the season and not by the year,
was not requisite, and that the fact of the defendant
having had no specific engagement with the plain-
tiff read over and explained to him, and then his
having taken it upon his own shoulders was abundant
proof of the contract.
Mr. KENNEDY was about to offer arguments in sup-

port of the rule, but
Mr. Baron ROLFE said it was unnecessary to trouble
the Learned Gentleman, for he was quite clear that there
must be proof, under the statute of frauds, of a written
agreement. The rule would, therefore, be made abso-
lute, unless the parties could agree upon terms.
Rule absolute..

CONSISTORY COURT, Jan. 30.
RILES V. CHILTON, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF MILES.
This was a suit of nullity of marriage by reason of
bigamy, brought by Captain George F. W. Miles against
Lavinia Jane Mason Chilton, otherwise Miles. The
libel, which has been admitted, pleaded that a marriage
took place between the party proceeded against and Mr.
Harrison Chilton in December, 1844; that on the sth of
April, 1847, she contracted a, de facto marriage with
Captain Miles, Mr. Chilton, her husband, being then
still living. In response to the libel, the party proceeded
against brought in an allegation, which now stood for
admission, and likewise offered an allegation of faculties,
in order to obtain an allotment of alimony pendinc, the
suit. The admission of the former allegation and the re-
ception of the latter were opposed. To make the grounds
of opposition intelligible, it is necessary to state the
leading facts pleaded, although the averments are en-
tirely ex parte. The responsive allegation set forth that
in January, 1845, being then a minor, she was residing
with her husband at Liverpool, when she was induced
by the earnest entreaties of Captain Miles, an officer
of the 2d Hussars, to leave her husband, and on the
sth of February she went to live with him, he being
then quartered at the barracks at Coventry ; that in the
end of 1845, or beginning of 1846, Captain Miles pro-
posed that she should be legally divorced from Mr. Chil-
ton, and married to him, and, by intervention of a
common friend of Mr. Chilton and Captain Miles, steps
were taken for that purpose, the latter providing. funds,
and a suit was commenced by Mr. Chilton against his
wife in this court, at the expense of Captain Miles, to
obtain a divorce on the ground of her adultery, the cita-
tion in that suit being served upon the wife in February,
1846, whilst she was residing with Captain Miles ; but
this suit was dismissed for want of prosecution ; but
she was informed by Captain Mlles that a sentence of
divorce had been obtained, and she was free to marry
again ; that Captain Miles, in January, 1847, endea-
voured to obtain a license for their marriage in England;
but finding an impediment in the terms of the affidavit,
carried her in his yacht to Jersey, where by virtue of
a license obtained trom the Dean of Jersey, they were
married on the 5,1 of April, 1847, she fully believ-
ing that she was then legally and effectually divorced
from Mr. Chilton, and able to marry again, and they
lived and cohabited together as man and wife until July,
1847. _ .

Dr. ADDAMS and Dr. R. PIIILLIMORE contended, tha,
the responsive allegation was inadmissible, inasmuch as
the facts alleged therein, if proved, were no bar to a suit
to annul a marriage void under the statute As to the
averment that she was deceived and imposed upon, it
appeared that s.he signed her name at the second mar-
riage as " Lavinia Jane Mason Chilton, spinster,"
knowing that she was not a spinster. With regard to
the allegation of faculties, there had been no case of
nullity of marriage, in which, where the wife admitted
the bigamy, as she virtually did in this case, alimony had
been allotted.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE and Dr. HARDING, for the
de facto wife, argued that, where there was a fact of
marriage, it was a general rule that the wife was en-
titled to be alimented by the husband; the only excep-
tion to the rule being where the wife had a competent
income of her own. The responsive allegations could
not be rejected without allowing a man to take advan-
tage of his own wrong, which was contrary to every
principle of the law of contracts. Captain Miles had,
according to the wife's plea, seduced her from her hus-
band, and deceived her into a marriage with him, and,
under such circumstances, he was not entitled to appear
as a plaintiff, or to have the remedy he sought.
LUSHINGTON said, with regard to the allegation
of faculties, he had not the slightest doubt it ought to
be received, unless the facts pleaded in the responsive
allegation barred the other party from proceeding per-
sonali exceptione. The doctrine, however, that mar-
riage was a contract in which a party could not obtain
redress for a fraud of which he was cognizant had never
been recognised in these courts is matrimonial suits. If
he were to admit this allegation, he must in every case
open the door to an examination of the whole 'of the facts
and circumstances under which a second marriage took
place, and refuse a remedy to every party proceeding
bnaband or wife, who should be proved to have been
cognizant of the invalidity of that marriage at the time.
Suppose he were to admit this allegation and refuse
to pronounce this marriage null and void, and sup-
pose the wife should bring a suit for the restitution
of conjugal rights, could he refuse to entertain
that suit, or was he to compel the party now pro-
ceeding to live with a woman who was not his
wife? It would throw the whole marital relations into
complete confusion. Admitting the facts pleaded in the
responsive allegation to bear the construction put upon
them by counsel, he was clearly of opinion that they
could not affect the judgment he had to pronounce; and,
being of that opinion, he was bound in duty to reject that
allegation. With respect to the allegation of faculties,
the principle was, that where a fact of marriage was al-
leged or proved, alimony pendente lite followed as a
matter of course in all cases, except where the wife had
a provision of her own. He, therefore, rejected the al-
legation in the principal cause, and received the allega-
tion of faculties.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
xßefore the RECORDER.)
George Philco(
was indicted'ai fori
a young man of respectable appear-
ance,ilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Ballantine
was for the defence.Mr. Parry prosecuted; Mr. Pren-
dergastMr. BALLANTINE, in pning the case for the prose
cution, said, that theiiitment was preferred by a gen-
tleman named Edward Jones under these circumstances:
—ln the course of yearlaaptrosecutao person named William
Smith brought the a bill of exchange for
381 10s., endorsed by anotherr pained Henry
James Shaw, and he discounted the bill. When it ar-
rived at maturity it was not paid, and legal
ount proceedings
m . In
were taken against Shaw to recover the
the course of the proceedings the prosecutor
rhad reason
to believe that the defendant in the action intended to
leave the country, and he, in consequence, took the steps
directed by the law to prevent him from doingi
and made an affidavit before one of the learned
judges, detailing the facts upon which the supposition
was founded. Smith, who was the drawer of the bill,
also made au affidavit, and the result was that a
sepias issued and Shaw was taken into custody. Soon
after this had taken place the presentefendant,
Philcox, who was Shaw's brother-in-law, made
an affidavit in which among other matters, he stated
that Smith called upon him on the 14th of October and
on the 6th
of November, and on the first occasion he
said that Mr. on
if he would es authorised him to offer him a
swearsove-
reign that Shaw intended to go to
America, and
on the second he repeated the offer, and
increased the sumhefirst mentioned to 51., and, upon
this affidavit being
made, Shaw was ordered to be dis-
charged. It was upon
founded and the question in the
e statements that the allega-
tion of perjury was
case was, whether the defendant
,
had wilfully and cor-
ruptly made these statements or
Formal proof having been adduced:lt showing the ex- 1
istence of the original suit against Shaw,ustica Cresswell, and that the
defendant was duly sworn before hir
and that he made the statements in his affidavit which
formed the subject of the present inquiry,
William Smith, the drawer of the bill
iawlarl examined,
and he swore positively that he never e any such
offer as that represented by the defendant, and that he
did not even see him on the days to which he had
re-
ferred in his affidavit.
Mr. PRENDERGAST then cross-examined the witness,
who gave rather an extraordinary account of the trans-
action. He at first said that the bill was drawn by him-
self and accepted by his father to meet some demand;
upon Shaw, but he afterwards said that it was drawn to
raise money for himself and Shaw to carry on business
together, and Shaw, on that account, put his name to it
as endorser. He described himself as a carpenter, and
said that at this time he was in difficulties and the bill
was an accommodation bill. He also said that he saw
Shaw put his name to the bill, bet he denied that he
gave him half-a-crown for doing so. He took the bill to
Mr. Jones, and he discounted it for him, and when he
first took him the bill he gave him 151., and ho was also
to have a clock as part of the consideration. He was to
give 61. los. for th© clock, and that sum was deducted
from the amount of the bill, but he said he never had
the clock, which was still in Mr. Jones's possession, And
110 PM gillaw 64 20, 6d. oat of the 154. Who witness