The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 11, 1347.

--
habitants of Rochdale, which stated that the manufac-
turers of cotton were suffering severe distress, and that
the greatest relief would be afforded to them by the ex-
tension of the trade with China, and they prayed the
House to make a reduction in the duty on tea.
FORESTALLERS—IRISH POOR-LAW.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
unemployed operatives of Bury, praying the enforce-
ment of the laws against forestallers, and all persons
who kept up the price in the markets. They also prayed
that a complete poor-law might be passed for Ireland.

payable in every case where the probate duty was
claimed in this country. From that time up till 1845 the
first lawyers in the c.untry concurred in this decision.
In the case of Arnold v. Arnold, which, however, had
no bearing at all on the present case, Lord Cottenham
decided that the parties were not liable to pay the le-
gacy duty in England, as they had done so in India. In
the case of the Attorney-General v. Thompson. it was
decided that legacy duty was payable, and Mr. Thomp-
son accordingly paid it.
Dr. BOWRING said Mr. Thompson denied that he
had paid it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that
the decision was appealed against, but Lord
Campbell, Lord Brougham, and Lord Lynd-
hurst decided that the payment of the legacy
duty was governed by "domicile." If this case
had occurred before 1845, the duty would not have been
payable ; but if the principle of the Hon. Gentleman was
to be adoptei, every shilling levied since 1798
would have been an illegal act. It was a prin-
ciple in law, that all money paid through
the decision of juries, or by mistake, was not
recoverable.—(Cries of " Ob, oh," and laughter.) He
repeated, that was a principle in law. On these grounds
he felt it his duty to oppose the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT said that it appeared that Mr. Douglas
had paid a legacy duty upon certain moneys to
the amount of 9,2001., the Attorney-General had
stated that the case was one perfectly similar
to that which might happen between private parties,
inasmuch as the money had been paid with the belief
that the first interpretation of the law required it.
Now he took the strongest exceptions to the arguments
of his Learned Friend, for the law had not been decided,
and at the very moment when the Crown demandud the
money the Crown were aware that the law was contested
in the case of Thompson v. the Attorney-General.---
(Hear.) Now, if the case was similar to that of private
parties, he ventured to say that any man would
blast his character for ever as a man of honour, if he
refused to pay the money, and what was more, he would
affirm that there was not a mercantile house in the
whole of the city of London that would act
in the manner the Crown had acted in this case.
He believed that domicile, instead of governing the law
of legacy duty for only the last two years, had been the
rule tor the last twenty years. The Government, there-
fore, in calling upon the administrators to pay 9,2841. at
that time, were acting against the principle of the law
as then existing, and as acted upon by the judges. The
Hon. Member then referred to precedents in support of
this position, and concluded by expressing his determi-
nation to support the motion of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bolton.

Sir F. THESIGER said, that after the very clear
statement of his Hon. friend, the Attorney-General,
there remained very little to state on this subject. The
only question the House had to consider was, whether
it would grant a select committee, which would be con-
sidered to be equivalent ordering the money to be re-
funded. It seemed strange to him, that persons
who had saved money under the law as it
then stood, should afterwards, on a change taking
place in the law call upon the Government to refund that
money. He would certainly vote against the proposition
of his Hon. Friend.

Mr. BERNAL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had last spoken, had omitted one important point in
his view of this question. He (Mr. Bernal) maintained, if
the facts contained in the petition were correct, the money
had been paid under a protest, and that at once took
the case out of the narrow circle in which the Right Hon.
Gentleman had placed it. It was a question of vast im-
portance, and i 1 was very necessary that points involving
considerations like the present should be permanently
set at rest. The money was paid according to the then
construction of the law, and not under the law itself,
and the motion could not therefore be objected to on
that ground.
Dr. BOWRING replied, and asked leave to withdraw
his motion, promising at the same time, at a future
period to bring the subject forward in another shape.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. HUME postponed his motion for a return of the
number of persons flogged in the British navy till after
the other or(!ers of the day.
Lord G. BENTINCK moved fcr a comparative return
of the number of deaths which have occurred in each
parish of Ireland in each of the three last periods of six
months, commencing the Ist day of September, and
ending the Ist day of March respectively with a summary
for each period. It was important that they should
know whether the proper course had been taken, in
order to save Luman life. There had • been two
systems in operation. o,le, the last year, which
provided food and maintenance for the people ; and this
year a syst m of political economy in which all the
previous precautions were treated as of no use. It was
for this purpose that he moved for these returns.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE could assure the Noble Lord
and the House that whatever difficulty there might
exist in meeting the present motion he bad no
wish but to furnish the fullest information
of the destruction of human life which had taken place.
Ile regretted it as much as any man could do, and he
believed it was going on, and would continue to do so to
a fearful extent.

APPREHENSION OF CART
ROBBERS.

Robberies of carts leaving Manchester for the country,
after dusk, have of late been numerous; information of
a dozen or more, to the amount altogether of upwards
of 501. in value, having reached the police since the
16th of January last. Most probably, they hare just re-
ceived a check in the apprehension of four men, who,
there is little reason to doubt, have been for some time
engaged in this mode of plunder. Some time since,
Superintendent Taylor received information which lid him
to believe that these robberies were conimitt( d by men
named James Hackett, John Dowd, and James Ryan, and
that a man named Thomas Cain, living in Little Ireland,
was in the habit of carrying their stolen goods for them
with a horse and cart. In consequence of this informa-
tion, a watch has been kept on the entrance into Little
Ireland ; and on Friday night, Frederick Hollis, one of
the constables of the D division, who was in plain
clothes, saw Cain, between seven and eight o'clock, with
his horse and cart, proceed along Oxford-road, through
Princess-street, Saint Ann's-square, by the Collegiate
Church, through Strangeways, and along the Bury
New-road. The officer kept the cart in sight, and
discovered that there were two men lying at the bot-
tom of it, who occasionally raised their heads, as if to
reconnoitre. Baying proceeded to about 300 yards past
the Grove Inn, on the Bury New-road, the cart stopped,
and one of them (who proves to be Hackett) jumped out
of the cart, but after looking round, said, •' Go on a bit
further." They went on till they got opposite to the site
of the Zoological Gardens, when they stopped again.
At this spot the officer passed them. It was dark, and
he could not observe their features very distinctly, but
he saw four persons about the tart, and saw them lift
into it what appeared to be a square chest, but where
they got it he did not see. The cart was immediately
turned round, and driven back towards Manchester.
The officer followed, and as the cart stopped for two or
three minutes at the Grove Inn, he saw what appeared
to be a tea chest in it. When it arrived opposite the
Collegiate Church, Hackett jumped out of the cart, and
immediately afterwards. something having intercepted
the officer's view for a moment, the latter saw
Ryan and Dowd, in company with Hackett, in the
street, who followed the cart to Little Ireland,
and lifting the chest out, took it into the house
of Dowd's mother, at No. 25, Anvil-street. The officer
then went and reported what he had seen to Superin-
tendent Taylor, who immediately proceeded to the place
with another officer, and finding the door fastened,
forced it open. They found Hackett and a man
named Gill (a lodger, it appears) sitting by the fire,
and in a back room a great quantity of tea,
emptied upon a bed cover and table cloth, and a door
placed upon it. Hackett said he knew nothing about
it. Gill immediately said he would not get himself into
trouble for that; Hackett, Ryan, and Dowd had brought
the tea there. On searching further, a grocer's axe,
use&for opening casks, &c., was found on the premises.
Gilf laid that Hackett had carried the chest out of the
house. Gill, Hackett, and Dowd's mother were then
takkilinto custody. Cain was shortly afterwards appre-
hended; he said lie had net been on the Bury-road that
night. Dowd was apprehended about one o'clock, in
Rigby-street, Salford, and Ryan about an hour after, at
the house of his father, in Hayes- street. They were taken
before Mr. Trafford, at tht New Bailey, on Saturday, and
remanded till Monday. In the meantime information
had been received that two chests of tea, of the
value of 61, had been stolen from a cart belonging to Mr.
John Howarth, carrier between Manchester and Bury,
on the night wheu the above occurred. It appears
that the tea was sent from the house of Messrs. Labrey,
New Brown•street, and delivered to Mr. Howarth,
at the Wheat Sheaf, Fennel-street. A carter mamed
Walker Gregory was dispatched about half-past six
with the tea to Bury. He called at the machine in
Strangeways, and the tea was then safe in the cart.
By the time he had got to Prestwich, Mr. Howarth
overtook him, and, looking into the cart, immediately
missed the chests of tea. It appears that the carter
is very diminutive in stature, and was. compelled to lead
his horse all the way, circumstances which no doubt
greatly favoured the operations of the parties by whom
the tea was abstracted. The weight of the tea was
found to correspond exactly with that of the quantity
stolen from the cart, and the empty chests were disco-
vered by the police in the river Medlock, on Saturday
morning, about one hundred yards from the house where
the tea was found. On Monday mcrning, when the
case came on again before Mr. Trafford, the man Gill
was admitted as evidence against the others; and after
the above facts had been stated, the four male prisoners
were committed fur trial at the sessions, and the woman
was discharged.—Manchester Guardian.

REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS
DURING THE WEEK ENDING MARCH 6.
I Deaths registered in the week. Births registered in the week.
Males ... ... ... 526 Males ... ... ... 714
Females ... ... 482 Females ... ... 676

Total ... 1,008

Total ... 1,390

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, March 10.
(Sittings in Lincoln's Inn.)

TILE HUNGERFOAD 31:111E ET COMPANY V. THE CHARING-

CROSS BRIDGE COMPANY.

This important case, the facts of which have from time
to time appeared in The Sun, came before the Lord
Chancellor this morning, on an appeal from the decision of
the Vice-Chancellor, who directed that the differences be-
tween the two companies should be submitted to a jury.
Mr BETHEL ( who, with Mr. Gifford, appeared for the
Market Company) proceeded to address his Lordship in
support of the appeal. He said he had hoped that
some arrangement would have been come to between the
parties, which would have put an end to legal proceedings,
but unfortunately the conduct of the Bridge Company had
prevented any amicable understanding being come to be-
tween them, as the proposal which they had made, and
from which they refused to depart, was of the most
objectionable kind. What they proposed was, that each Ns-
senger disembarking at the float shoula be under the obliga-
tion to receive from the collector of the Bridge Company a
ticket to entitle him to go over the bridge to the market; so
that the bunireda who thus disembarked—and some-
times three hundred disembarked at the same time—
would only be permitted to have egress by producing this
ticket at the iron gates on the Middlesex side, so that, in
fact, but one person could pass out at once. Now, this was
a mode of egress which was open to the greatest
objection, as, on long days, half an hour or
three-quarters of an hour might not untrequently elapse from
the time of a passenger leaving the steam-boat to the time of
his obtaining egress at the gates. Fortunately the Market
Company had the means of showing the utter futility of
such a plan by the affidavit of Mr. Hawes, the Deputy
Chairman of the Bridge Company. He stated that the
railing off of six feet would be attended with most serious
consequences to the great crowds continually embarking and
disembarking at the float, . particularly on Sundays, when
several thousards passed, to and fro, and as the number was
increasing, greater inconvenience could not fail to be the
result. In short, he stated that it would be quite impossible
that such an immense number of passengers could pass on
and off by a passage only six feet wide. It was clear, how-
ever, that the market company had no right to demand:more
space, and therefore they must be content with it.
The Loa) CHANCELLOR inquired the nature of the pro-
vision which gave the Market Company the right they
claimed.

Mr. Bynum said a covenant in the lease gave the Market
Company "free and uninterrupted access " over the bridge
to the float. The Bridge Company reserved to themselves
the right of railing off a compartment of six feet for this
purpose.
Mr. Rots, who appeared for the Bridge Company, denied
that the Market Company were to have an " nninterruptee
right of way.
Mr. BETHEL went on to urge, on the faith of this affidavit,
that it would be quite impossible for the whole of the steam-
boat passengers to pass to and fro in this way, owing to the
obstructions. Not only would the greatest confusion be
created by the toll-gates, as the parties would have to pass
out and in one at a time, but a continual series of squabbles
would be the natural result of the confusion which they
would engender, and in addition would destroy the value of
the accommodation which the bridge itself professed to afford.
Mr. Hawes stated, that frequently during the summer
Sundays, 10,000 persons passed over the bridge in a few
hours, and that a gate which was kept closed during the
week, was obliged to be kept open on those days. They
should, in fact, state that the bridge itself, wit bout the
addition of the steam-boat passengers, was insufficient for
their own passengers. He went on to state that the width
of the bridge between the chains was only 13 feet, and that
for some parts it was only 12 feet 2 inches; or that if 6 feet
were taken, little more than 6 feet 2 inches would be left
for the ordinary passage of the bridge ; and that a
person might say he was going to the steam-
boats, and be allowed to pass, but there was nothing to pre-
vent him from going to the float, getting a ticket there, and
so being enabled to cheat the bridge.
The LORD CHANCELLOR wished to know how persons
simply passing across the bridge to the other side were to be
dealt with.

Mr. RoLT said they would have to pay at the Lambeth
side, and vice versa.

Mr. BETHEL contended that even that plan would be
most inconvenient, and would enable persons to use the
bridge, and to incommode the steam-boat passengers,
without paying the toll, and, consequently, without
having any right on the bridge at all. The Learned
Gentleman then read a list of various objections,
which had been made to the offers of the Bridge Co.npany.
It was simply set forth that the mode of access by turnstiles
was not such an one as the Market Company was entitled to,
that the bridge passengers would be pressed upon
the steam-boat passengers, and that great inconve-
nience would be the result, and an evasion of
the toll rendered extremely easy, so much so, that thou-
sands would adopt it, and that therefore thel interests
of both companies would be injured; besides, a con-
tinual squabble would be going on as to whether the
pedestrians had or had not landed from the steam-
boats ; the place would obtain an unenviable notoriety
and offered an excellent field for pickpockets. The advan-
tage of this bridge consisted not only in its chearness, but in
the saving of time ; but if these turnstiles were placed as
proposed, loss of time to passengers would be the re-
sult, and the advantage of the bridge materially
deteriorated, as to many the lora of five or six minutes was
often of serious consequence. It had been proved that
2,000,000 had landed at the float in one yetir, four-
fifths of whom landed in the summer months alone ; but
what delay would take place if they were compelled to pass off
in “single tile." When the cause came first before his Lordship
the Bridge Company contended that the obligation of distin-
guishing the steam .boat passengers from the public rested
with the Market Company, who stated in reply that every ob-
struction had been offered to prevent the free ingress and
egrese of the passengers. They contended further that they
were not entitled to the full benefit of the covenant, in con-
sequence of not having devised any proper plan by which the
passengers might be distinguished, wheress the Market Com-
pany contended that the covenant did not impose any such
obligation upon them. The Vice-Chancellor having decided
in the way mentioned, they now came before the Court in
the same condition as on the former occasion, with the ex-
ception of the affidavit of Mr. Hawes, and that the company
had consented to remove the hoard they had erected. No
object would be gained by raising the question before a jury,
as the facts were not in dispute between the parties, the
right of the Market Company being admitted. It mast be
looked at simply as a question of construction ; besides, the
delay of an action would be a clear obstruction of justice,
because the Market Company had the undoubted right or
free access over the bridge to the pier without obstruction.
There was no reason why the toll-gates and turnstiles should
not be removed to the first pier, so that the passenger traffic
would not interfere with the bridge traffic, and, what was
most important, would not be impeded. He trusted his
Lordship would decide against the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor, and order the removal of everything preventing
the free ingress and egress of the steam-boat passengers.
Mr. GIFIARD followed briefly on the same side.
Mr. Ruiz then proceeded to address his Lordship on
behalf of . the Bridge Company. He contended, if his
Lordship acceded to the injunction prayed for, that
the toll-gates and turnstiles would, in contravention of
the Act, have to be removed to the pier next the Mid-
dlesex side, and that part of the bridge thrown open to
the whole world, or else the bridge would have to be shorn of
half its dimensions, to the great injury of its legitimate pur-
pose, for a great portion of its length. But the Bridge Com-
pany had always been, and were most willing to listen
to any suggestion from the Market Company, by which their
own objects might be promoted without injury to the inte-
rests of the Bridge Company. To throw open the bridge to
the first pier would be utterly destructive of its interests;
hut, to all the propositions of the Bridge Company, they
had received this reply: " You can't do that—we claim a
free way of 6 feet,or some other free access to the float ; but we
shall accept no other terms than these." The Acts of both com-
panies simply gave them power to enter into contracts with
each other. This was evident from the fact that they were
not to be permitted to take merchandise over the bridge to
the float without the permission in writing of the Bridge
Company. The Market Company had no power over the
bridge; it could do nothing in connexion with it without the
sanction of the proprietors. By the lease it was expressly
stipulated that the Bridge Company were to be empowered
to build their toll-houses on the Middlesex side, "south of
the tavern," and they had done so in pursuance of that right.
The Bridge Company were also to have an uninterrupted right
of way through the market to the bridge; but to say that
the Market Company were to have " uninterrupted and un-
restricted" way was incorrect, as the toll-houses so erected
could not but be considered to some extent obstructions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it clearly appeared by the
lease that a space of six feet was to be appropriated to the
Market Company, and to be railed off.
Mr. ROLT repeated that the company were willing to make
all consistent and suitable provision for the accommodation
of the Market Company. For instance, they might have
an abutment of three feet on each side of the bridge; but if
the bridge were opened in the way proposed it would be
almost impossible to distinguish the steam-boat passengers
from the others. Certainly the Bridge Company had never
impugned the right of way without paying toll; but they were
not compelled to remove the hoarding at the stairs until the
Market Company had discontinued the pier now used by them.
They proposed to have three turnstiles, so that the fullest
accommodation might be given the steam-boat passengers,
and if they were dissatisfied with their servants they might
appoint servants of their own. The turnstiles would not let
a person come back without producing an authority to pass,
so that they could not well use, in that case, the bridge
without paying. The question, lie thought, was one which
came within the province of a jury. However, he
trusted his Lordship would not grant the injunction prayed
for, but leave the company to adopt one of the many plans
that had been proposed for the protection of their mutual
interests.

The LORD CHANCELLOR. said the words in the covenant
were perfectly clear—the Market Company had an undoubted
right of way, free of toll, to the pier. He had heard nothing
to lead him to form an opposite conclusion. It was equally
clear that the Bridge Company had refused to comply with
the conditions of their lease. No doubt at the time it was made
the question of distinguishing the passengers did not enter
into their consideration, but that did not alter its mewling.
He felt it his duty, therefore, to grant the injunction as
prayed for,—namely, that the objectionable hoard should be
removed, and that free ingress and egress should be given
by the Bridge Company for the steam-boat pas-
sengers. The removal of the turnstiles was a
question not before him, and therefore he could give no
opinion upon it ; but it appeared to him that both parties
were injuring themselves by these proceedings. No doubt,
if the parties could frame a proper question for the decision
of a jury, no objection might arise as to the adoption of such
a course, but he could not recommend it.

TAXATION.—Once upon a time—in the senate-
house at Gotham—a motion was made to impose upon every-
body a tax, and put the whole produce of it into every-
body's pocket. Hear him ! hear him ! hear him ! was the
cry. The motion passed by general acclamation. Quere.—
Of the Gotham senate house. what was the distance from
St. Stephen's ?—Benthanzianss.
THE CITY GAUGE DUES.—The Officers and Clerk
Committee of the Corporation of London have resolved that
the City gauge dues of 4 pence per tf,sa of 210 gallons upon
wines imported into this port of London be discontinued, and
have given directions to the proper office at the Custom
House accordingly.
FlFE.—Last evening, about nine o'clock, a fire
which at first threatened serious consequences,owing to the
densely populated nature of the neighbourhood, was disco-
vered raging in a carpenter's shop at the back of the premises
of Mr. Dibdin, hair-dresser, A 2, New-court, Lambeth.
Owing to the prompt arrival of the engines from the West of
England and brigadestations in the Waterloo-road, it was
confined to the shop where it broke out, which was com-
pletely destroyed, with its contents.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

CIIARGE OF foßGicn;::Charle3l7;;;n, a plumber, in
very respectable business in the City, was brought before
the Lord Mayor, in the custody of Michael Haydon (City
policeman No. 274), charged with having forged a bill of
exchange for 228/. 15s.
Mr. Bush, the solicitor to the Committee of Bankers for
Protection against Forgeries and Frauds, appeared for the
prosecutor, and Mr. Hobler for the defence.
William Henry Williams, clerk at Glyn's banking-house,
stated that a bill for 2281. 155., dated the 2d November,
drawn by the prisoner, upon Messrs. Moses and Son, of Ald-
gate, and purporting to be accepted by him, and to be in-
dorsed by the prisoner to Mr. W. P. Gray, was received at
the banking-house, from Mr. Gray, who was a customer there.
Mr. Gray, lead merchant, Cammomile-street, stated that
he was in the habit of supplying lead to plumbers, and that
he had known the prisoner thirteen or fourteen years, and
had frequently had business transactions with him. Witness
received the bill produced from the prisoner to take up
another bill, which the prisoner intimated that he could not
honour, and which had been drawn by witness upon him.
Witness thought the prisoner said he had some difficulty in
settling with Messrs. Moses and Son, in consequence of their
refusal to mix their trade account with their building ac-
count. On the day the bill became due witness received a
letter from the prisoner, stating that it was a forgery, and
that another bill which would become due in a month was
also a forgery, hut that the estate c,.uln pay twenty shillings
in the pound, and that witness should not sustain any loss.
In his cross-examination' by Mr. Hobler, Mr. Gray said
lie knew the prisoner to be engaged for Mr. Mose-, and he
considered the bill to be in payment of part of the work done
for the latter.

Mr. Hobler—You have done a good deal of business with
him ? Mr. Gray—Yes • or. he would not owe me 6401.
Mr. Isaac Moses stated that his father having retired from
business, he carried it on at the premises at Aldgate and the
Mint ries alone. He bad known the prisoner many years,
and had paid him, for the last transaction they had had,
with a cheque upon Robarts and Co., as was, his custom;
and never on any occasion had given him a bill of exchange.
He believed the body of the bill to be in the prisoner's hand-
writing, and had the same opinion as to the letter directed
to Mr. Gray.
Mr. Bush having stated that another forgery would on
a future day be produced,
The LOAD MAYort remanded the prisoner till Wednesday.
next.

Francis Ji'Reilly was charged 'with having embezzled
considerable sums of money, the property of Mr. It. D. Rea,
of Upper Thames-street, merchant.
Mr. Child, of the firm of Wire and Child, attended for
the prosecution; and Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, and Mr.
J. Solomon, appeared for the prisoner.
William Sanderson, cheesemonger, of Hackney-road, said,
lam in the habit of dealing with Mr. Rea. I owed him on
the 17th March, 1845, 251. 14s. 6d., and on that day 1 paid
the prisoner that sum, and took his receipt, and on the Bth
July I paid him a further stun of 40/., and took his receipt.
Mr. Charles Lickfold, cheeseniongers, Islington, also a
customer of Mr. Rea, said, on the 28th of August, 1845, I
paid the prisoner 2001. on account of Mr. Rea, and the pri•
soner signed the acknowledgment I produce.
A clerk and book-keeper to Mr. Rea said the prisoner was
collector in the house, and it was his duty to account for
all sums of money he received every evening or the tollowing
morning to the cashier, to be entered in the cash-book, but
no such entries were made respecting the sums of 251 148.6 d.
and 40/. ; but on the t-,9th of August, 1845, credit was given
by the prisoner, in his handwriting for 115/.
It was proved that the prisoner had not at all accounted
for the 251. 14s. 6d. or the 40/., or the difference between the
115/. and the 2001. received by Mr. Lickfold.
William Rea, in his cross-examination by Mr. Clarkson,
said the prisoner left my employment at the end of 1845. I
believed he was a defaulter when he left me. I repeatedly
pressed him for his private account, not for these deficiencies.
In June last I received 121., but not directly from him ; other
circumstances induced me to take these steps, and if it had
not been for these circumstances, I should not have acted.
The sum for which he has been a defaulter is 292/. 9s. 7d.
Mr. Clarkson—Have not these defalcations been placed to
his debt? Mr. Rea—They have been mixed together by my
clerk, not by me.

Mr.
Mr. Clarkson—lf he had offered you the money since 1846,
would you not have taken it? Mr. Rea—l would.
In his re-examination, Mr. Rea said he had mode the pri-
soner advances to supply his necessaries, and sued him for
those advancer.

Mr. Clarkson submitted that there was no ground for de-
taining the prisoner in custody. He admitted that the pri-
soner had received the several sums, but how had Mr. Rea,
upon the knowledge that the prisoner had so received the
money, acted? Why, he had allowed the accused to go at
large, and treated the deficiency as a mere debt. It would
be idle to send such a case to a jury. It would never be en-
dured that a person should say to his servant, "There, go,
and pay me when you can, but if you don't pay me in 15 or
16 mouths, I'll prosecute you as a felon." The case was evi-
dently got up to operate as a screw, to compel the payment
of what was, upon the showing of the complainant himself;
debt upon the part of the prisoner.
Mr. Child argued that the prisoner, who had been treated
with the utmost liberality by his client, had committed the
acts imputed to him, and that the credit givent. o hint by his
indulgatit master had no reference to the defalcations of which
he had been guilty.
The Loan MAYOR said he could not help viewing the
charges against the prisoner as arising from an experiment
such as Mr. Clarkson had alluded to, and was of opinion that
the case would not stand for a moment before a jury. It was
quite obvious Mr. Rea knew that the prisoner had corn•
mitted himself, and might long ago have made him respon-
sible. At the same time that the prisoner must be discharged
it was proper to inform him, that if the charges had been
bronght fifteen or sixteen months ago, the position in which
he would stand would be essentially different from that in
which he at that moment appeared.

DIVINITY and PHYSIC in FRANCE.
One of the most singular cases ever submitted to a
court of justice was recently brought before the tribunal
of Correctional Police of Draguigan (Var). M. Gar-
r, vicaire of the parish of Callas, was accused of
having administered to three persons substances of a
nature injurious to their health, an offence specially
punished by the third paragraph of the 317th article of
the Penal Code. A deceased Peer of France had, it ap-
peared, left a sum of 2,000 f. per annum to the parish z,f
Callas, part of which was destined for the cute, and
part to the maintenance of public worship. This revenue,
added to the incomings of the parish priest, rendered his
situation a very enviable one. M. Gamier, vicaire of
the parish, became smitten with an irresistable de-
sire to exchange his own subordinate situation for that of
cure. Ile accordingly determined if possible,so to disgust
his ecclesiastical superior with the living, as to induce
him to resign. To accomplish this object he hit upon a
singular plan :—He had established in the village a sort
Of pharmacy, and he transferred it to the kitchen of the
worthy cure. The- pharmacy was particularly well
stocked with ialap, senna, emetic-tartar, and other
nauseous drugs ; and by some strange fatality it so hap-
pened that not a single dish, not a basin of soup, not a
cup of coffee,'was served up to the cure's table without
being dosed with . senna, jalap, or tartar. The
consequence was that .the poor cures stomach became
awfully out of order ; the jalap and tartar kept the
good man in a state of perpetual motion ;
when engaged in his sacred duties, be frequently
had to hurry away with most unseemly haste ; his
cheeks lost their rosy flush ; and from, as the Rev. Sidney
Smith would say : " a fat and oily man of God," he
became as lean as Shakspeare's apothecary. At last
the worthy man resolved on trying to recover his health
by a visit to his birth-place ; and no sooner was he out
of reach of the jalap, senna, and emetic-tartar of his
vicaire, than his stomach became perfectly tranquil, his
digestive organs did their duty with their usual regu-
larity, the rosy flush of health returned to his cheeks,
and his whole frame began to re-assume that state of
of dignified fatness so becoming to churchmen. He then
returned to his parisfi, but alas ! immediately after he
had taken up his abode at the parsonage-house, the
senna, tartar, and jalap recommenced their attacks on
his poor stomach, keeping the holy man in an in
cessant state of the most harrassing excite-
ment. He was at last so worn out by the phy •
sicking to which he was subjected that he threw up his
living in despair. To the vicaire's great disappoint-
ment he was not nominated to the vacant place ; the
Bishop of the diocese sent a clergyman to take tem-
porary charge of the parish, but after a few weeks dosing
with the jalap, senna, and emetic tartar, the new func-
tionary was worn to a skeleton, and compelled to de-
mand of the prelate another sphere of duty. The Bishop
then sent another priest, but on bim, too, the indefatig-
able vicaire tried tartar, senna, and jalap, and they had
the effect of soon wearing out his patience. "On arriv-
ing at the parish," said he in his evidence to the Court,
" I went to the church and said mass. I was then in per-
fect health. I subsequently went to the parsonage-house
and took a cup of coffee ; shortly after I paid a visit to
the mayor, and whilst in conversation with him I was
seized with an attack in the bowels, which compelled me
to hurry all at once from his presence, leaving him
greatly astonished at my extraordinary sudden de-
parture." These strange circumstances having come to
the knowledge of the Bishop, lie caused an inquiry to
be instituted, which led to the discovery that the vicaire
had constantly mixed jalap, senna, tartar, and other
horrible concoctions, with the food f the cure and bis
two temporary successors, and that he had done so in
the hope of getting appointed to the livin It was
proved, too,that when the offender learned that the
Bishop bad become acquainted with his misconduct, he
endeavoured to induce a young girl, belonging to his
parish, to state in confession to another priest that it
was she who had deluged the food of the reverend men
with the emetic, the senna, and the jalap. On her re-
fusal to do this the curate deemed it prudent to decamp;
and since then he has not been heard of. But the legal
prosecution proceeded against him in his absence, and,
on his guilt being proved, the Court condemned him by
default to four years imprisonment and to a Sae of 25
'
francs.--Galignani.

OPINION OF MR. J. TIDD PRATT

RELATING TO BUILDING SOCIETIES.
At a meeting held on Monday evening of the St.
Luke's Equitable Building Society, at the Prince of
Wales, Banner-street, St. Luke's, Mr. Wise in the
chair, after the general business of the meeting had been
gone through, the chairman brought forward a question
which has for some time past interested the numerous
societies now established under the Building Societies
Acts, a doubt having arisen as to whether the society
could legally, under those Acts, advance or grant
moneys upon the security of property then existing and
in the possession of the borrower, it being considered
that the Act of Parliament contemplated, with a view
to the furtherance of a more complete sanatary condi-
tiox of the metropolis, the erection or purchase of build-
ings only. Owing to this doubt the chairman then read
a case which had been drawn up by the solicitor to the
above society embodying those doubts, and submitted it
to Mr. Tidd Pratt for his opinion. The following is a
copy of the queries put and Mr. Tidd Pratt's opinion:—
" Question I—That under the provisions of the 6th
and 7th William IV., the contemplation of building
only was considered, the creation or purchase of pro-
perty being the same. Is it not necessary that a party
who becomes entitled to the 2001. appropriation should
build or purchase ? Or can he assign property,
in his then immediate possession, as security uon
_
the term- contained in the rules for its repaymentPAnd
or any other moneys provided for such purpose
if so, whether any new rules would be necessary to