The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-29 00:00:00

ed
be
ou
ed

law Mr. Frith struggling to get possession of the stall.
Mr. Frith had his hand on the collar of Mr. De Grey's I
Coat. Mr. Frith told Mr. De Grey he would either pull
him out or turn him out. In a few minutes Mr. De Grey
left the stall, and witness found him another seat.
Cro-s-examined.—Told Mr. De Grey that Mr. Frith
was a subscriber; but as he spoke in a very low tone it
was possible that Mr. De Grey did not hear him. Wit-
Siege was fetshed into the theatre by Mr. Frith. Witness
had once before during that evening been applied to by
Mr. Frith to interfere to get possession of his stall.
Re-examined—Did not make use of the word sub-
scriber to Mr. De Grey. Had said that Mr. Frith had
the bones for that stall. If that stall had bean parted
with to some one by the owner of the ivory, the person
who had got this permission would produce the ivory.
Mr. Bodkin—l want the public to understand how
these matters are managed. You tell me that if the
subscriber lent or sold his ticket, that the ivory would
be produced by the party accommodated ; but here is a
case in which a card is produced without the ivory, and
the party is shown into the stall.
Mr. Hardwick—l believe the usual mode is, when a
subscriber leaves his bone with a bookseller for sale,
that the bookseller keeps the bone and issues a card.
Witness—We do not ask a subscriber to shew his bone
when we know he is a subscriber.
Mr. Hardwick said, Mr. Frith appeared to be a sub
scriber for the stall 170, and not for the stall 171.
It was explained that Mr. Frith had a joint interest
with the subscriber for the 170 stall, in both stalls.
Mr. Bramwell, in a warm speech, contended that his
silent ought to be the complainant, and that instead of
his client having acted improperly, all the impropriety
was on the side of Mr. De Grey. The Learned Counsel
went on to apply some hard terms to Mr. De Grey,
and to charge him with having come forward to state a
falsity.
Mr. Hardwick here interposed. He could not allow
such language. There was nothing in the evidence to
warrant the Learned Gentleman in using it.
Mr. Bramwell was always unwilling to impute delibe-
rate falsehood to any man, but certainly he must say
that the box-keeper's evidence established the fact that
Mr. De Grey had not stated that which was correct. He
was not about to deny that hands had been laid on Mr.
De Grey; on the contrary, he admitted that an attempt
had been made to turn Mr. De Grey out, and he main-
tained that Mr. Frith had a perfect right to do so. Mr.
Frith had the same right to turn him out of his house
if he intruded into it. Mr. De Grey had been rightly
served; and, as a lawyer, he asserted that Mr. Frith was
perfectly justified in acting as he had acted. The
Learned Counsel went on with a good deal of the same
sort of comment, and then concluded by declaring again,
that in point of law Mr. Frith was justified in turning
Mr. De Grey out of his own stall. If a conviction for an
assault must take place the very smallest fine would
satisfy the ends of justice.
Mr. Hardwick—l am decidedly of opinion that a most
unjustifiable assault has been committed. The cora-
plainant, Mr. De Grey, goes to the opera with a proper
admission, signed by a proper authority, and he takes
lawful possession of a certain stall. Shortly after this
proceeding the defendant comes into the theatre, pro-
duces a bone, and states that he is entitled to this par-
ticular stall. The complainant is in lawful possession,
under a lawful authority, and he justly disputes the
right of the defendant to displace him from the stall.
Applying the legal maxim of "in cequali jure potier est
conditio possidcntis," the complainant, tor all that was
known, might have a better title than the defendant.
The defendant might have got possession of the
bone of a subscriber, therefore there was just a
probability that the complainant's title to the stall
was really better than the defendant's. Then it appears
that a dispute arises, and an assault is committed. The
complainant was in lawful possession of the stall, and on
that ground he stood and asserted his right to occupy it.
With regard to the use of personal violence, the de-
fendant had no excuse whatever for resorting to it. If
the defendant found that his stall had been sold or let,
or so disposed of that he was wrongfully deprived of its
use, he had his remedy against the management.
Mr. Bramwell—lt was a bookseller who sold Mr. De
Grey the ticket.
Mr. Hardwick—That does not alter the case ; for the
servants at the theatre acknowledge the authority of the
bookseller to dispose of the stall by admitting the party
who bought it. Every one who frequents the Opera
knows there is an understanding between the manage-
naent and the bookseller with respect to Opera boxes
and stalls. The complainant bought his right from the
bookseller, and having paid for his ticket, he justly con-
ceived he had a right to the stall for that evening. The
ticket is recognised by the servants of the theatre, who,
as a matter of course, admit the ticket, and show Mr.
De Grey into the stall indicated by that ticket; whether,
therefore, the management itself or the bookseller gave
the ticket, the ticket was a proper authority.
Mr. Bodkin here called the stall keeper, and proved
that the ticket presented by Mr. De Grey was signed by
Mr. Nugent, the secretary of the Opera House.
Mr. Hardwick—Then it is clear the plaintiff was
armed with proper authority, and this authority having
been recognised by the stall keeper, Mr. De Grey was
entitled to the stalls for the evening, and any other per-
son coming with a bone or a ticket to claim the stall was
not entitled to be attended to. It was no affair of Mr..
De Grey's, and the party claiming the stall must be left
to settle the matter with the management. Certainly
Mr. Frith had no pretence whatever to warrant him in
turning Mr. De Grey out of the stall. There might be
a mistake somewhere, but it was not for Mr. De Grey to
set it right, or to give up the stall, for which he had
bought and paid for a ticket. Mr. De Grey being, then,
perfectly in the right with respect to this stall, the dc-
fendent was not in a situation to ask him to go out. The
bone he produced was the bone of a gentleman named
Vile, and it was impossible fur Mr. De Grey to know
but what the bone had been disposed to some of the
booksellers. The defendant, if he could not get
proper accommodation, owing to some mistake,
or for some other cause, had his remedy
against the author of the wrong, but he
could have no pretence whatever to use violence to en-
force what he might conceive to be his rights. For the
defendant to use rude and insulting language in a place
of public amusement, to lay hands on a gentleman in the
way described and sworn, is an affront of a character
which no gentleman could refrain from resenting, and
Me, De Grey is, therefore, quite justified in bringing this
case forward and asking for redress. It is not the
amount of physical force to which Mr. De Grey has
been subjected, but the disgrace of having been treated
as an offender, and haling hands laid on him in a
public assembly. Mr. 1)e Grey is perfectly right in
seeking for redress by the laws of his country. In every
Way Mr. Frith's conduct has been most unbecoming. He
not only interrupts the performance and disturbs the
audience; but he affixes a gross personal affront on a
gentleman by laying hands on him in public, and treat-
ing him as an offender. For this assault I fine Mr.
Frith 51., or one month's imprisonment. The fine was
immediately paid.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
TATTERSALL'S—MONDAY.
In the course of the afternoon a considerable number
Of horses were backed for the events of the current year,
but not half a dozen for sums of sufficient magnitude to
entitle them to special notice. We may select Stultz,
Varopyre, Milliner, and Plover, for the Goodwood
Stakes ; and the Hero and Dulcet for the Cup. The
transactions on the July Stakes and St. Leger were
trifling in amount and importance. Of the favoured few
We have mentioned, Stultz and Plover figured most con-
spicuously in the betting on the Stakes,—the first at
9 to 1, and the latter at various prices, starting at 1,000
to 30, and finishing at 15 to 1. Dulcet was also a great
pet, and the odds quotedere afterwards agst
st the
currently offered.
Hero were taken to
about 5001. ; they w
Mendicant was scratched between one and two o'clock.
The last prices were as under :
JULY STAKES (TUESDAT NEXT.)
2 to 1. agst Colonel Peel's Teetotum.
4 to 1 agst Colonel Peel's lodine
1C to 1 agst Mr. Etwall's Sister to JEgis.
GOODWOOD STAKES.
9 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Staloff —taken
n
11 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Vampyre--take
15 to 1 agst Mr. Isaac Day's Milliner
15 to 1 agst Mr. Watt's Plover en
taken
25 to 1 agst Mr. Whaley's Burgundy-
-25 to 1 agst Col. Anson's Martext
25 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Flitch
30 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Hydrangea
33 to 1 agst Mr. Scholefield's Tommy Moore—taken
53 to 1 agst Mr. Elwes's Miss Elis—taken
100,) to 20 agst Mr. Robiuson's Morpeth—taken
40 to 1 agst Mr. Lilly's Glory—taken
(No price was named agst the Questionable, and the
only offer was to take 25 to 1.)
GOODWOOD CUP.
2 to 1 agst Mr. J. Day's The Hero
9 to 1 agst Lord Eglinton's Eryx—taken
10 to 1 agst Lord E. Russell's Dulcet—taken
11 to 1 agst Mr. Aumont's Fitz- Emilius
13 to 1 apt Mr. G. 1-1. Moore's Welfdog—no friends
18 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Halo—t. and aft. offd.
ST. LEGER.
sto 2 agst Mr. Pedley's Cossack-3 to 1 taken
6 to 1 agst Lord Eglinton's Van Tromp
12 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Red llart—taken
12 to 1 agst Mr. Pedley's Foreclosure—taken
12 to 1 agst Mr. Mostyn's Mr. Martin—taken
16 to 1 agst Mr. J. Day's Farmer's Daughter—taken and
afterwards offered
20 to 1 agst Mr. Stephenson's Black Dwarf—taken and
afterwards offered.
DERBY.
25 to 1 agst Mr. B. Green's Flatcatcher—taken
3000 to 90 agst Mr. Mostyn's Surplice—taken
1000 to 30 agst Col. Peel's Sesostris—taken
1000 to 25 agst Col. Anson's Corsican—taken
2000 to 50 agst Mr. B. Green's Beverlac—taken
2500 to 50 agst Mr. John Scott's The Stinger—taken
2000 to 35 agst Mr. Sandford's The Sheriff—taken
10,000 to 100 agst Captain Price's The Fowler, Bro to
Woodpecker.

---
We read in the Constitutionnel :—" A person
named C—, a gilder on copper, residing in Paris, lost
his son not long since, and had him buried at Belleville.
The death of the boy caused him the greatest affliction,
and he often went to visit the tomb. Two days back
his wife received a letter from the husband, declaring
that he was tired of life, and that his body would be
found oil the tomb. The wife hastened to the cemetery,
and, finding it shut, supplicated the keeper to admit
her. The man refused, declaring that he had taken his
round and had seen nothing. She then went to the
commissary, and, on showing the letter, got an order of
admittance. The keeper still refused, and it was only
the next day that she could enter the cemetery. The
husband was found stretched on the tomb, expiring. lie
had stabbed himself in various places with a poniard. fie
breathed his last shortly after."
The failure of Alessrs. Sewell and Co. is under-
stood to amount to about 50,0001., and the assets are
not expected to yield a very favourable result. The
late rapid decline in sugar, of which the firm were
large holders, appears to have been the cause of the
stoppage.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 28.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several
Bills, which were read a first time.
CLERGY OFFENCES BILL.
This Bill went through Committee pro formd, to enable
the Bishop of London to introduce several amended
clauses.
PRIVATE BILLS AND BUSINERS OF THE
HOUSE.
Lord BROUGHAM, in rising to bring before the
House the motion of which he had given notice, said he
felt that he was not premature in introducing the subject
to this House. It was well known to their Lordships
that latterly the private business of the House had
increased to an enormous amount, and in order to
facilitate the progress of that business it was indispensa-
bly necessary that some change should be made in the
mode of conducting it. After referring to those who
held the office of receivers and " friars," and to the
alterations which had been made in their duties from
time to time, he proceeded to say that although these
offices had become almost obsolete from being delegated
to others, persons had been appointed to fill
them even at the commencement of the present
session. Twenty years ago he introduced a measure
into the other 1-louse of Parliament for the purpose of
simplifying the private business of that House,
and great good arose from it; but as the
prism..? business of their Lordships had now in-
creased to an almost incredible extent, he thought
their Lordships would agree with him, that some
further alterations were now necessary. In the courts of
law the proceedings were not taken without chart and
compass, and the chances of misdecision and corruption
were more guarded against than:in the decisions of the
House of Parliament. The amounts recovered in them
did not generally relate to large sums of money, but to
exceedingly small sums. For instance, when he attended
the Spring Assizes of Lancaster in 1827, he found that
out of two hundred cases tried there in fourteen days
the average amounts recovered did not exceed 131. 15s.
These courts, nevertheless, tried cases of the utmost im-
portance to the great mass of the people; they pre-
vented whole neighbourhoods from being de-
stroyed by the rapacity of powerful or tyrannical
individuals ; they prevented the poor from be-
ing wronged without an appeal to a jury
of their countrymen, and prevented an innocent man,
charged with crime, from being punished from motives
of revenge—in fact, the entrance of evil through any
chink or cranny was far more guarded against in the
courts of law than in the proceedings of their Lordships'
House. Why had their Lordships confidence in the judges
of the land? Why, because their Lordships knew that
they possessed great professional skill; because they
were far removed from the common affairs and strifes
of life, and even abstained from taking a part in the
political proceedings of the nation. Why, then, should
not their Lordships trust them with the power of adju-
dicating in certain matters connected with the private
business of their Lordships' House, and bearing directly
upon the sacred rights of private property?—(flear.)
It was a course which had long been recommended by
Committees of their Lordships' House, and be confessed
he could see no reason why such Bills as those which
relate to canals, railways, and roads, should not be re-
ferred to a tribunal of this sort. The very constitution
of the other House of Parliament precluded it from
always acting with the strict impartiality of judges; or
rather, he should say, its Committees from always
acting with the impartiality of judges, who had placed
between them and the suitors a brazen wall of incor-
ruptibility. The Members of the House of Commons
could not help being influenced by their constituents
upon questions relating to local Bills; and if it were
only upon that ground alone, private business ought to
be removed from their jurisdiction. Nothing could
by possibility prevent a member of a Private Committee
of the House seeing his constituency. He represented
them, and they had it in their power to give him advice
and information which might influence his decision upon
matters which ought to be dealt with according to the
evidence and testimony which might be brought before
him in the usual formal manner. Again, Members of
the other House of Parliament might bring about parti-
cular results by mutual arrangements. For instance,
the Member for Yorkshire might be appointed to consider
a Bill connected with Cornwall, and the Member for
Cornwall might, on the other hand, be selected to ad-
judicate on the Bill relating to Yorkshire. The two
Hon. Members, therefore, were those placed in a po-
sition to influence the decision of each other, and by
means of a mutual understanding between two, the
views and wishes of the circumstances of Yorkshire and
Cornwall were carried into effect. Referring, however,
these private Bills to judges, appointed by the
Crown for that especial purpose, would ob-
viate all these objections ; and what reason
was there why that course should not be
adopted. The few Members of the House of Commons
who formed the private Committees, had to adjudicate
upon the evidence of witnesses, and the statement of
counsel, without themselves being learned in the law.
The various counsel, therefore, who appeared before
them, often found no difficulty in misleading them upon
points of law ; and very often their decisions, if not
opposed to reason and common sense, were en-
tirely at variance with the justice and equity
of the case upon which they had to adjudicate.
All this required to be carefully and fully considered ;
he, however, did not then intend to propose any remedy.
The great proportion of Private Bills consisted of Rail-
way Bills. There ware 400 before them last year, and
nearly 300 during the present session, and as the country
had not yet " been covered with a net work of railways,'
they might look forward to a considerable number of new
Bills in the ensuing session; for instance, the existing
companies would seek powers to sketch out branches, to
connect them with other lines in all directions;
but he wished an improved supervision to be exer-
cised over all Private Bills, and not exclusively
over railway Bills, because the same imperfect system
was pursued with respect to all. What he complained
of was that a Railway Committee was not responsible for
its actions. Cases had occurred in which Bills had
been passed by Noble Lords or Hon. Members who,
although members of the Committee, had absented
themselves until the Committee came to the vote. He
did not wish, however, to exclude legal gentlemen from
blame in those proceedings, as many of them took
ten briefs in as many Committees (Hear,
hear)—so that it was quite impossible that one
barrister could discharge his duty properly even to
one company. Sir William Follett, for instance, fre-
quently received briefs when the parties knew that he
could not attend, and he was only retained because the
other side might not receive his services ; but where a
counsel received an enormous fee for the express purpose
of securing his attendance, and did not attend, such an
act met with his entire disapproval.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not believe that this was done when it
was stated to him, and he did not believe it now.
Then again persons intimately connected with railways
were, in all directions, seeking to get into Parliament,
as appeared from the number of advertisements which
appeared in the newspapers from gentlemen connected
with railways, and those railway men would, when they
got into Parliament, lose sight of the interests of the
public in their anxiety to promote their own interests,
their closely serried ranks would be invulnerable against
the voice of the public, the grossest jobs would continue
to be perpetrated, and in everything connected with
railways they would follow their leaders like sheep.
The conferences with the other House, the mode
of sending Bills to and receiving them from the other
House, and many other minor details of the business of
the House, required amendment. He had felt it his
duty to bring the subject before the House, and he
begged in conclusion, to move that a Select Committee
be appointed to inquire into the mode of conducting the
privateiirj suggesting
itEa
businessD remedy.Es 3Aolthe House, and for the purpose of
E did not object to the appoint•
ment of the Committee, but he considered that, at that
late period of the session, and from h
demand for the Noble Lord's time on other Committeest e great
no good could ari e from its appointment.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord was not correct in stating that om.
mittees in that or the other House of Parliament were
appointed by arrangements amongst the Members, as
they invariably consisted of M ambers who had no in-
terest in the Bills which they were called upon to
investigate. He feared, however. that the plan of
the Noble Lord would not remedy the present sys-
tem. He was ready, however, to admit that evils
had grown up in the mode of adjudicating
private Bills, but he considered that the best mode of
remedying them would be by revising the standing orders
of their Lordship's House.—(Hear.) The recommenda-
tions to the Committee appointed to consider the desira-
bility of suspending the further progress of railway Bills
this session advised that Committee to consider the ex-
pediency of revising these orders. He confessed that he
could not agree in all the decisions arrived at by that
Committee, but he doubted much whether a better
tribunal could be devised. It should not, he thought, go
forth to the public that they had no confidence in the
Committees of their Lordship's House.
The Duke of RICHMOND advised the Noble Lord
to withdraw his motion, as it could lead to no practical
result during this present session. At the same time,
he was prepared to admit that the standing orders were
defective in many respects, and ,that they required re-
modelling, which, he conceived, could be done early in
the ensuing session.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE agreed with the
suggestions of the Noble Duke and Noble Lord that the
Noble and Learned Lord should withdraw his motion.
Inconeniences had, no doubt, arisen in the mode of
legislating upon Railway Bills, and their attention should
be directed as to the best mode in which they could be
remedied. In saying this, however, he wished to pay a
deserved tribute to the ommittees of Selection, who
had performed their duties in the most satisfactory
manner. No doubt the review of the standing orders
referred to would remedy the defects in their legislation
with respect to private Bills, of which the Noble
and Learned Lord had complained, the new railway
board was, in his estimation, a great step in this direc-
tion. During the short time it had been established, no
less than 70 or 80 reports on the financial condition of the
companies had been presented to Parliament; and many
inspections of lines had taken place. The question of
whether a new tribunal (independent of Parliament,
whose decision should not be final), should be appointed
for the purpose of dealing with Railway Bills, would re-
ceive the attention of the Government, but by careful
watching, he apprehended that evils might be avoided.
Lord BROUGHAM said, after what had been said by
Noble Lords, he would withdraw his motion.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
LEITH HARBOUR, AND DOCKS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
IRISH CONSTABULARY.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented returns
on this subject.
BISHOPRIC
aciOaFthtlaA
tbli
2C
et I Ea
uSdTpEa
passed
e Bd IL L•.