The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 11, 1849.

stated that Bs. 4d. per ton is charged on certain articles
from Lincoln to Manchester, a distance of 90 miles,
whilst the rate from Sheffield to Manchester, a dis-
tance of 41 miles, for the same article, is 10s. per
ton.; the charge for the former distance being at the
rate of lid. per mile, and for the latter 3d per ton per
mile.

YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND.
A meeting of shareholders in this company was
held at Manchester on Friday, Mr. R. J. Jones in the
chair, to consider the resolution of the directors with
reference to the Hull and Selby purchase shares.
It appeared that the directors, in conjunction with
a committee of shareholders appointed to consider the
matter, had determined that the guaranteed dividend
at the rate of 6/. per cent. on the 10/. already called
up in respect of the Hull and Selby purchase shares
shall cease from the Ist of July, 1850 ; and, for the
future, that amount of capital shall be entitled, in
perpetuity, to a preference dividend at the rate of 4i
per cent. per annum ; that the sum of 15/. per share
remaining to be called up on those shares shall be en-
titled, in perpetuity, to a preference dividend at the
rate of five per cent. per annum from the respective
times of calling the same up; that future calls shall
be made only for the purpose of completing the pur-
chase of the Hull and Selby Railway, when resolved
upon, or for paying off the debentures of the com-
pany. The holders of the preference shares shall be
entitled to the benefit of any dividend above the
several guaranteed rates of dividend which the
holders of the general stock of the company may
receive.
After some conversation, a resolution was passed to
the effect that the meeting recommend that the Hull
and Selby purchase should be completed, and that the
directors should take the necessary steps for effecting
that object; that the meeting learned with surprise
and regret the proposal for the conversion of the Hull
and Selby preference shares into capital ; that such
proposal was unreasonable, and ought to receive the
most decided opposition. A committee was appointed,
consisting of Messrs. Ashton, Jones, Joynson, and
Hampson, to take such steps as may be deemed expo.
dient to oppose the proposed measure.

DIRECT LONDON AND EXETER.
On Saturday a prolonged argument took place be-
fore the Master in Chancery (Brougham), with refe-
rence to the alleged liability of the directors who had
the management of this concern, and the charges of
fraud preferred against them by the official manager
in his report of investigation.
A number of counsel appeared for the parties
arraigned.
Mr. SELWYN, who appeared for Captain Pope, one
of the directors, :contended that if fraud existed, the
directors were not liable to be charged as a body in
equity, but per se at common law by the contributors.
Mr. H. CLARK, on behalf of Sir Bruce Chichester,
argued that
,the official manager was going beyond
his province and his functions as defined by the Act,
which declared his duties to be simply the repopting
the liabilities and /assets, and making out the list of
the contributories.
Mr. HETHERINGTON, who appeared for Dr. Philli-
more and Mr. Chambers, said that the former, as
Chancellor of the diocese of Salisbury, and the latter
us Recorder of the same city, had connected them-
selves with the company with the view of benefiting
it locally, and had disbursed the assets in their hands
as members of the Committee of Finance, in accord-
ance with the expressed views of the shareholders,
and had not meddled with these moneys until after a
meeting of the company had been held to wind up its
affairs under Lord Dalhousie's Dissolution Bill. The
official manager had no right to dictate what the law
was upon these questions. His report in all probability
would give rise to further proceedings on the subject,
and this system if pursued would render the operation
of the Joint-stock Winding-up Act a curse, instead
of a blessing to the country.
The MASTER observed that if the official manager
I should not be the proper party to conduct the case
against the alleged mismanaging directors then he
took it to be in the power of any contributory to
do so. _ _

After much further argument it was agreed to
adjourn the consideration of the question until Friday,
when other parties, with Mr. Daniel for the official
manager, will be heard in reply.

MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINCOLNSHIRE.
During the past week this company have success-
fully launched broadside, and deposited at the end of
their pier in the Humber, opposite Hull, the great
pontoon of iron plates, 400 feet long, forming a
landing-place, by means of descending platforms
from the pier, on to which out of the railway car-
riages alongside passengers will embark in the steam-
boats that are to ferry them in a few minutes across
with the least possible detention. The fabric is fifty
I feet wide, eight deep, weighs 700 tons, and was towed
to its destination by six steamers.

RAILWAY RATING.
An appeal, on the part of the London and North-
Western Company, was heard on Tuesday, before
the special session at Manchester, against a rate de-
manded by the overseers of Barton-on-Irwell, on a
portion of the old Liverpool and Manchester line.
The case was decided against the railway company, on
the ground that they did not apply in a reasonable
time after the rate was made. It appeared that the
total area of the parish was 10,530 acres, and the
total assessment upon it, including the railway, was
43,8271. The amount assessed on the railway, which
only occupies 42 acres of bog land, is 8,9091., or
one•fifth of the entire rate levied upon the whole
township for the 1-250th part of it occupied by the
railway. It was stated that the land in question was
purchased by the railway company at 401. per acre,
and that the directors had consented, for a period of
19 years, up to the time of making the appeal, to
pay nearly as much annually for the rate as the pur-
chase of the land cost them originally; the former
being at the rate of 341. per acre per annum.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 10.
(Before Sir L. SIADWELL.)

THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES.

---
Mr. STUAUT, with Mr. ByRT, moved to commit
the defendant Dimes for the breach of an injunction
of this Court, which restrained him from impeding
the navigation of the canal. Since the last applica-
tion the defendant had cut a trench across the towing
path, and fixed a chain across the canal. These acts
were not denied.
Mr. DANIEL, with whom was Mr. SMYTHIES, ad-
mitted the acts in question. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to argue, that the order on the appeal
was void, on the ground that the Lord Chancellor,
who had confirmed his Honour's order, was inter-
ested in the company, as being the owner of certain
shares in the canal, and was, therefore, disqualified
from sitting in judgment on the case. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to contend that the original
order was void, and had been obtained by a surprise.
The facts were, " that the Lord Chancellor, by his
agents"—
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, interrupting, said—l think
that as this is a very grave case it would be better to
avoid any expression that might be mistaken by those
who are unacquainted with the circumstances of the
case. To say that " the Lord Chancellor by his
agents interfered," is calculated to convey a very
erroneous impression of the truth. It would be more
just to say, " the company, of whom the Lord Chan-
cellor is one
Mr. STUART—My Learned Friend will pardon me
if I remind him that we are here coram populo ; that
any unguarded expressions are liable to be miscon-
strued by those who are either unwilling or indis-
posed to arrive at a just conclusion in the case.
Mr. DANIEL disclaimed the slightest desire of im-
puting to the Lord Chancellor anything unbecoming
the most upright judge that ever sat on the bench.
He could not, however, from motives of delicacy,
abandon the interests of his client. The Learned

Counsel then continued, and recapitulated the facts
that have been frequently before the public, and read
the judgment of Lord Langdale, to whom the Lord
Chancellor referred the matter. Lord Langdale, it
appeared, having gone into the question much in
detail, gave it as his opinion that any order that
could be pronounced must be taken, in construction
of law, to be the order of the Lord Chancellor him-
self. Lord Langdale thought that if the Lord Chan-
cellor could not legally entertain the appeal that there
would be a failure in the administration of justice,
one effect of which would be that the defendant
could not appeal to the House of Lords, and that on
the whole the appeal ought to be dismissed with
costs.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Busk appeared for the other
side, without hearing whom,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said the case stood thus :-

The order for the injunction was pronounced on the
18th June, 1838, and on the 16th December, 1838,
the Lord Chancellor affirmed the proceedings, and
the injunction was dated on the 6th July, 1839. On
the 16th November, 1846, a decree was made in this
branch of the court, which was affirmed by the Lord
Chancellor in January, 1848. Then those proceed-
ings were taken which raised a question whether
what Lord Cottenham had done was not void by
reason of interest? He (the Vice-Chancellor) was
still of the opinion that he had expressed at the time,
that by the very terms of the statute creating the
office of Vice-Chancellor, enacting that no authority
given by that statute shall enable the Vice-Chancel-
lor " to discharge, revoke, or alter any order, decree,
Scc., of the Lord Chancellor," he thought that he was
bound by the order of the Lord Chancellor, and
had no power to enter into the question
of its validity. But, even supposing the case
doubtful, it wag clear that the effect of
the doubt would be that the original order
would be now in force, and would he
as valid now as it was eleven years ago. He
trusted, considering the nature of the question, that
should the report of the proceedings be published,
that the clear, deliberate, well-weighed judgment of
Lord Langdale would not be omitted. Then with
regard to the principle of the thing, he thought that
from what had taken place the Court must act in the
ordinary way. Mr. Dimes, in his affidavit, which
entitled him to the merit of sincerity and candour,
stated that with the view of accelerating the decision
of the question he had taken the law into his own
hands. It appeared that he had cut a trench across
the towing-path and fixed a chain across the canal.
He had attempted by his mode of dealing to destroy
the very thing which formed the subject of the dispute
—viz., the canal ; and he thought that, this being so,
the Court must deal with him in the strongest manner
possible—namely, by committing him for contempt.

COURT OF QUEEIV'S BENCH, Dec. 10.
COUELCII v. WAILLEY.
This was au action brought by Charles Quelch, a
bootmaker, in forma pauperis, torecover damages from
the defendant, Mr. Thomas Wakley, son of Mr. Wak-
ley, M.P., and one of the surgeons of the Royal
Free Hospital, for neglecting his daughter whilst
placed under his care in that institution.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins appeared for the plaintiff,
and the Attorney-General, Mr. Martin, and Mr.
Brammill for the defendant.
The case seemed to excite much interest, as the
court was much crowded. Mr. Wakley, M.P., sat
under the Attorney-General.
Sergeant WILKINS having opened the case, called
evidence to substantiate it.
Charles Quelch, the father of the child, was the
first witness. He said his child was now thirteen
years of age. On the 29th of March last his daughter,
Emma Quelch, fell down stairs and fractured her
thigh. He had her immediately removed to the
Royal Free Hospital in Gray's Inn-road, where she
was placed under the care of the defendant. The
limb was set. Afterwards she was much neglected.
On the Bth of April a woman afflicted with the small-
pox, named O'Connor, was brought into the same
ward with his daughter, and two days after his
daughter showed symptoms of labouring under the
same malady. Shortly after he found that the child
was also labouring under syphilis, in consequence of
having had bandages applied to her which had been
used by women afflicted with that loathsome com•
plaint. Sores showed themselves on her body, and
she suffered much from them. His child was also
so much neglected that the bandages and splinter gave
way, and the leg could be moved about. The fracture
had not been reduced. He determined to remove her
from the hospital, and intimated to the defendant that
he should do so in consequence of the disgraceful
conduct pursued towards her. The defendant asked
him to call upon him at his private residence, which
be did. In the course of a conversation which he
had with him, he told him his child had the venereal
disease. He said, "How the devil can you know
that ? " He told him of the proofs. He added, "It
is beyond human power to save her, and when
she dies all evidence of that will die with her."
lie said further that he would rather give him 1,0001.
than that he should remove the child, as he was in
great expectation of obtaining a professorship at the
University Hospital. He (witness) said his prospects
were nothing to him; in consequence of the way in
which he had treated his child he should remove her
—that he had obtained the interest of some influential
gentlemen connected with a public institution, and
that he should certainly remove the child. The de-
fendant said he would turn the nurses who had
neglected his child out of the ward, and have the
place fitted up fit for a princess, and in the event of
his child becoming a cripple she should be provided
for for life by the interest of his father. He had no
doubt he could give her the place of a lodge-keeper at
his country house. He also promised to aid him
in his business. He begged him to allow her to re-
main, and asked him to call and see him the next
morning (Sunday). He produced a sheet of note
paper, and asked him to sign it, which he (witness)
declined to do, as it would have exonerated the de-
fendanta fthattar
thhee
dshould
ihaveo
nin
head e h sande hexpressed
osithtieonptroevhioimus,
day to take his child away. He consented, at the
request of the defendant, to meet him and his father
at the Lancet office the following Monday. After
some consideration Mr. Wakley, sen., putting his
hand into his pocket said, " The man is an intelli-
gent man, but poor, and it is nothing but right that
he should be remunerated for his trouble."
He (the witness) said he did not come
there to listen to any proposal of the kind, and
said, if they had nothing more to say, that he would
take his leave. He told them that he should lay the
matter before the committee of the hospital on the
succeeding Wednesday, and Hr. Wakley, M.P., said
in reply to a question, that he should be there if possible.
In the course of this interview, on the 21st of May,
Mr. Wakley, sen., exclaimed—" Why, To, what
have you been doing with the limb all this time ?"
He replied, "He threw that aside altogether ;" to
which Mr. Wakley, M.P., replied " That's a d—d
pretty thing." Young Mr. Wakley, on his leaving,
said, "When you are before the committee, don't say
anything about me, and I will rise up and be your
staunch friend." On the 22d May, 1848, he
took the child to St. Bartholomew's. She was
there seventeen weeks, but the fracture had never
been reduced, and his child's leg was inches
shorter than the other the bones lapped
over each other. Her condition was very filthy when
he removed her; her leg was loose, and moved about
like a thresher's tail. He had frequently been
obliged to remove her excrement and water in order
to relieve her pain. She was always a healthy child
before she went to the hospital,
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Mr. Peacock was the physician to the hospital, and
the defendant was one of the surgeons. The wards
were divided into partitions, with curtains before
them. Mr. Jackson performed the operation of setting
the leg, with some other person whom he did not
• know. The small-pox patient came in on the ‘.5 lb,

and was placed three beds off on the same side of
the ward. There was but one partition between the

patient and his daughter. There were three sores on
the child, one of which was on the bottom of her back
and another on the instep. Dr. Peacock attended the
child on the 12th, and wrote prescriptions in con-

unction with the defendant. Could iiot swear that

he saw the defendant write any prescriptions after the
12th of April. Mr. Jackson saw the child every day
in common with the other patients. Saw the

defendant three or four times after the 12th, but

could not say that he had attended his daughter.
He had admitted that his child had con-

need. the

venereal disease in . consequence

of using bandages and sponges used by persons so
afflicted. Knew the child had the disease because

she smelt of copaiba. He gathered from the expres
sions of the defendant, with respect to the traces of

the disease dying with her, that it was intended to
bury the child. lie had published a pamphlet upon
the matter, but did not send a man with placards

Opposite Mr. Wakley's door in Bedford-square. He
had heard that a man he had employed to walk about

with one had gone there, but not t with his instruc-
tions. He did not think the man knew where he
lived. The placard was headed " Caution to Parents
—History of a Child experimentalised upon in the
Royal Free Hospital, by Mr. Thomas Wakley, jun."
Knew Mr. Healey, of the Medical Times. lie sent
. _ _ _

Or him to come forward with his child as a witness in

a case in the Exchequer. He saw him in 1848,
whereas the pamphlet was not published until 1849
Had seen Dr. Worthington, Dr. Cronin, and a person
connected with the newspapers. They did not
counsel him as to publishing this pamphlet. Did not
say, when he took the child away, with an oath,
"that he would have some of Wakley's shiners."
Never made improper overtures to two women in the
hospital, named Agnes Williams and Mrs. Weston
He had lived five years at 10, James-street, Clerken .
well, and was a shoemaker. He had taken the child

to several eminent surgeons.
Mrs. Quelch, the mother of the child, deposed that
the name of the surgeon over her daughter's bed was
that of the defendant. On the 7th of April the
defendant said to her (Mrs. Quelch) we have just
been re-setting your daughter's limb, to which she
replied she was very glad of it, for you made a sorry
job of it last time. The position of the splinters was
altered on the 12th. During the time she was in the
hospital she was frequently obliged to clean the child
herself. . . .

Cross- examined—The nurses never told her the,
the child soiled the bed because she never told them
when she wanted the bed-pan.
Re-examined—The child was of clean habits, and
was sorely grieved at the dirty state she was kept in.
Mary Collins, formerly a nurse at St. Bartholo-
mew's, said the child was so dirty that not only soap
but soda were required to clean her. There were
five wounds upon her, Her health was good, but she
required much nourishment. She unproved in the
course of a week or two. She was placed on a water-
bed for thirteen weeks. She was not a child of dirty
habits.
Mary Steer, another nurse, corroborated the above
evidence.
By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The child screamed
very much, nevertheless they washed her.
Mr. Edward Strller, one of the surgeons at St.
Bartholomew's Hospital, was next examined—He said
that from the 29th of March to the 7th of April there
would have been more than ordinary difficulty in re-
ducing the fracture. That difficulty was insur-
mountable under the circumstances stated. The fever
and weakness from which she had suffered rendered
it indispensable to remove the bandage and splints.
When not suffering from either fever or exhaustion,
there would be more than the ordinary difficulty in
consequence of the unusual position of the
fracture, which was situated in the upper
third of the thigh-bone. Such a fracture was
most difficult to deal with in an adult—most unusual
in a young person, and most difficult to deal with in
consequence of the motion of the muscles of that part.
It was a case requiring much attention. He doubted
whether with the utmost skill the difficulty he spoke
of could be surmounted. He would not say it was
insurmountable. He did not find the child in a filthy
state, as she had been in the hands of the nurses.
Though the ulcers were large, they were not un-
healthy ; there was nothing that denoted neglect.
By the ATTORNEY- GENERAL—It was of paramount
importance to attend to the health of a patient. Such
was the state of exhaustion of the child, that it was
useless to examine the limb ; but he judged that the
bones were in process of union, and afterwards he
found the union complete. Scarlet fever would pro-
duce such sores as those on the child. The cure was
as good as the circumstances of the case would admit
of. In the adult as in the youth a shortening of the
limb was a common result. his attention had been
most directed to the case, in consequence of intending
to write about it. Could not say there was any de-
fect in the surgical treatment.
Re-examined—Under the circumstances it was
correct to re-set the thigh on the 12th. The muscular
resistance was greater in the child than man.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE inquired if the lapping
over of the bones of the limb was, according to his
view, a proper setting of the bones ?
Mr. Stanley replied that setting of the limb con-
sisted in placing it in the best position. The best was
done under the circumstances.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL then addressed the jury
on behalf of the defendant. He contended that the
prosecution was one of the mast cruel that could be
brought into a court of justice. It was evidently set
on foot by parties who wished through the son to
aim a blow at the father. The defendant was a young
man of much intelligence, and was rapidly rising in
his profession, and he begged them to consider that
the investigation was one of character and not of da-
mages. The defendant attended the hospital without
fee or reward, and his days of attendance were Wed-
nesdays and Saturdays, but he came almost every
other day to the hospital to tender his services. He
gave his best attention to the case, under the direction
of the house-surgeon, who, being a paid servant,
should have been selected as the defendant. Every
attention was paid to the child, as he should prove ;
and, in conclusion, he implored them to consider that
in their hands depended the very existence of a young
professional man. He then proceeded to call the fol-
lowing witnesses:—
Thomas Jackson was then examined—ln 1848 I
was house surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital. I
attended the child. The defendant attended officially
twice a week, but came every other day. I saw the
child as soon as it was brought in. I directed her to
be washed, and measured her for a splint. She was
in a very dirty state. She had a fracture of the
upper thigh bone. It was an oblique fracture. I
set the limb on the afternoon of the same day. I.
used new bandages. A fracture in that part is diffi-
cult to reduce. The defendant saw her an hour after.
A woman was afterwards admitted to the ward, but
it was not known that she had the scarlet fever. She
had a sore throat. That was on the 7th of April.
The child had gone on well till that time, and de-
fendant had seen her regularly. I used to see her
twice a day. When she was attacked with scarlet
fever, I prescribed for her, and Dr. Peacock's atten-
tion was called to her. Dr. Peacock prescribed for
her during the time she had fever. When fever came
on, we found it necessary to treat the limb differently.
On the 12th the original splints were removed, and
Liston's splint was applied. Her powers of life
became very much depressed, so that it was deemed
advisable to make the treatment of the frac-
ture a secondary consideration till they should
become renovated. The defendant's judgment was a
correct judgment. The sores • she had were bad
sores. They are common in a low condition of the
body. The first splint put on hurt her ankle. There
was an excoriation caused by the band. Such exco-
riations are common in such cases, especially in chile
dren. There was nothing particular in this excoria-
tion. I applied zinc lotion and oiled silk. The de-
fendant ordered bladders filled with air to be used to
prevent.pressure on the sore places. We do not order
water beds for fractures, but hard mattresses. The
defendant gave his best attention to these sores. She
was not so ill of the fever as of the subsequent symp-
toms. She was delirious during the early part of the
fever. The child was frequently washed and supplied
with clean linen. I have known her to have clean
sheets six times a day. It was my duty to attend to
the conduct of the nurses, I never saw any want of
attention. The nurses are appointed by me. Quelch
came every clay. He never complained to me of in-
attention to the child. He made no complaint of any
kind. I heard nothing of the venereal disease till he
had removed the child. No copaiba was used in the
ward. Nitrate of silver might have been used, but not
for this child. Quelch expoessed himself dissatisfied
with the progress of the case about a fortnight before
she was removed. Her skin came off after the fever
in dark brown scales. I have seen the child since,
who does not walk very lame. 'When she left the
bone was united to a certain extent. 1 saw no want
of attention.
Cross examined—The defendant and I are still
connected with the hospital. The nurses did not
dance in my presence. One nurse was named Web-
ster. Parsons was the night nurse. I gave Webster
a good character to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where
she now is. Parsons got married to a Mr. Lord.
There was no patient named Catherine Connor
brought into that ward on the 7th with scarlet fever.
A patient named Bellingham was brought in on the
22d of March. Three or four days after I found she
had had scarlet fever. She had sore throat, which
continues after the fever. A child died on the 28th
in;that ward, or on tl.o 29th If the defendant had
directed a patient to be removed she would have been
removed. I never said this child brought the scarlet
fever into the ward. Mr. George, the other surgeon,
saw the child with the defendant. I thought the child
would die, from the symptoms. The fever subsided
on the 12th.
Re-examined by the ATTORNET..GENBRAI,•••-There

was a charge made against Webster, but I could not
prove it to be true. She was accused of letting some-
body into the hospital in the morning. There was an
empty ward on the other side of the hospital, but we
had no establishment to attend to it. That was for
want of funds.
Dr. Thomas Peacock examined—l am assistant
physician at St. Thomas's Hospital. I was four
years physician to the Free Hospital. I prescribed
for the child on the ath of April. I recommended
that the attention to the limb should be made subser-
vient. That recommendation was followed. I believe
she was properly attended to. I never saw any
neglect. I ordered wine, porter, and brandy for the
fever. I never heard any complaint till Quelch stated
them before the board.
John George examined—l am surgeon to the Royal
Free HoTital. The appointment is gratuitous. I
saw the plaintiff on two occasions. She appeared to
be properly attended to. I examined her limb. I
found the union was not perfect. I explained to
Quelch how it was the case was not so successful. I
saw placards before the hospital about this case.
Cross-examined—The appointment leads to practice
and great experience.
Sir Benjamin Brodie examined—l have heard the
evidence of Mr. Jackson and Dr. Peacock. In my
opinion up to the time when the child caught the
fever, the treatment was correct, as far as I under-
stand their evidence. It was correct to shift the
splints if they disagreed with the patient, or were in
any way uncomfortable to her. It was right to make
the fracture subordinate to the other disease, when the
patient got (as described) into a low typhoid state.
Upon the whole of the evidence, I see no reason to
doubt that the child was properly treated. Such a
fracture is very difficult to be treated, and it is very
seldom we can make the thigh as long as it was. It
is generally attended with shortening of the limb.
Cross-examined —I should keep a patient as far as
possible from the influence of fever.
Mr. Bransby Cooper examined—l have heard the
evidence in this case. The fracture is one of a diffi-
cult character to cure. I agree in tote, from begin-
ning to end, with Mr. Stanley's evidence. I examined
the child on Saturday. I think it was a good union,
and not more deformed than I have seen in more
favourable circumstances.
Mr. Guthrie was examined, and said that, from the
evidence, he thought the fracture had been properly
treated, but he should be better able to tell if he had
examined the child himself. (The child being in
court, it was arranged that the witness should retire
with her for that purpose. As the child walked across
the court she appeared to limp but slightly.) On his
return into court the witness said the bone was irre-
gularly united, but that could not be otherwise. He
should say it was a good cure.
Mr. lancocic, a surgeon, and Mr. Morgan, the
apothecary, were then called, but their evidence was
not very material.
Mrs. Ann Lord examined—My maiden name was
Parsons. I was a nurse at the Free Hospital, and
four years at St. George's. I saw the limb set.
The child was very dirty when she was brought in.
I washed her twice over. (The witness here gave
evidence of the dirty habits of the patient.) Quelch
was there often. He used to come into our room
when we were undressing. The sores were attended
to with bladders. She would not keep them under
her. I never saw dancing in the ward.
Mrs. Webster examined—l was day-nurse. (The
witness gave evidence similar to that of the last wit-
ness. She said the child was of very dirty habits,
and that she washed and changed her three or four
times a day.)
Cross-examined—l was discharged from St. Bar-
tholomew's Hospital. I answered the sister pert. A
child died in the Free Hospital of a burn. Catherine
Connor had typhus fever; she was at the bottom,
and plaintiff at the top of the ward. There were
syphilis patients in the ward, whom Mr. Marsden
attended. There was a sponge used for those patients.
Mrs. Morgan examined—l was matron of the es
tablishment, I knew the plaintiff had her linen often
changed. The number was unlimited. There were
constant applications. She has used 25 pairs of sheets
in a week. No complaint was made by the father or
by the mother.
Mrs. Jones examined—l was a patient when the
child was there. (This witness confirmed the evi-
dence of the last witnesses; as did Agnes Williams and
Mrs. -Weston, two other patients.)
Dr. Rice examined--I am the head master of
Christ's Hospital, and chairman of the weekly board
of the Free Hospital. Our funds were in a depressed
state at that time. We were 5,0001. in debt, in con-
sequence of which two wards were closed. I was in
the chair when the plaintiff's father made his com-
plaint fur three hours. Ile stated everything he
wished to say. I took down everything he said. I
only stopped him to write it down. We were
specially summoned the next night to consider the
matter. -The plaintiff's father said nothing of any
private communications with the defendant which
came out to-day. The statement which I took down
was signed by him, and he said that was all he wished

to say.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL proposed to put in the
paper, which was objected to, and rejected.
Witness—At that time we had only one female
ward. They could not have had her removed to
another.
This being the defendant's case,
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS replied, and after
Mr. Justice COLRRIDGE had summed up the evi-
dence,
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

The jury, in ten minutes afterwards, came into
court, when they gave a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
JUDGMENT.—TIIE SAINT ALBAN'S BANK.—IN RE J.

8. STORY.
His HONOUR to-day gave judgment upon the bank-
rupt's application for certificate. He said that includ-
ing the 1,5001. which rightly belonged to the repre-
sentatives of Mr. Lomax, there were assets sufficient
to pay Bi. in the pound. In looking into the case, he

was ;truck with the great amount of personal expen-
-.

diture, which was at the rate of more than 2,600/.
a year, exclusive of the bank and professional x -
penses. This was a remarkable illustration of the

bad consequences of extravagant expenditure. Had
Mr. Story been content with expending 1,0001. or
1,5001. a year, there would have been enough to pay
everybody. Thus was seen the importance of care-
fully watching personal expenditure, for in this
case the failure was owing to it. Had the case
been unopposed, he should probably have allowed the
certificate, but of the third class. It was with pin
he had adverted to the charge which had been
brought and proved against this gentleman, that being
appointed to receive the tithes of Mr. Lomax, a very
aged gentleman, he did so for many years, and paid
them over with great regularity to the bankers, but
Mr. Lomax being infirm or imbecile, he had ceased
to do so. Mr. Story had introduced this feature in
the case, without which he would have been in a
much better position. Why should he constitute
himself a trustee for Mr. Lomax, and what was more,
charge 5 per cent. for doing so ? He ought at all
events have disposed of the money, so that it was
forthcoming when called for. Such was certainly
the duty of one who had taken upon himself the office
of hanker and solicitor. His excuses for non-payment
were extremely frivolous. First, that he had no au-
thority for paying the money into Messrs. Fuller's ;
why he had been paying it there all along,
and nothing had been done to alter the authority.
Then ho asked for an indemnity, and paid 1,0001.
without it. But this excuse was soon removed by the
legal authority of the executor, who had shown the
greatest forbearance and consideration in the matter.
His allegation then was, that the accounts were not
ready; and a worse feature in the transaction was, that
he had subsequently received 491., which ho did not
hand over—hiving no right to touch it. When Mr.
Merratt's patience was exhausted he had recourse to
law, and the bankrupt, instead of at once admitting
the claim, put in a plea that he did not owe the
money—a deliberate falsehood. And his excuse was,
that he did not wish any advantage to be had over his
other creditors by the representatives of Mr. Lomax.
In other words, that this 1,500/. of Mr. Lomax's
should go to swell the dividend under the estate. Such
was the conduct of this said to be respectable
solicitor of long standing, and of good
family. Upon remonstration, he had the cool-
ness to allege that the loss would only be
about 2001. to each cestui que trust, of whom there
was a large number. When the case came on for
trial, he came to the court, alleging that he had
thought himself all along solvent. He had clearly
brought himself within the operation of two of the
special clauses of the new Act, to which, however, a
retrospective operation would be given, unless high
authority decided otherwise. The bankrupt came
within the 3d and sth divisions of the 256th section,
having fraudulently obtained the forbearance of his
creditors, and vexatiously defended an action. His
responsibility was by far greater than an ordinary
trader, he being a banker and solicitor, who bad
obtained money in confidence, and violated that
confidence. He was a trustee, and had committed
a breach of trust—a steward, and had acted
unjustly. The consideration of the interest of the
public required that such an offence should he very
severely visited. his high character had been urged
in his behalf ; but how easy was it for a man
living in the country, at the rate of '2,000/. a year, to
obtain such a character ! As the good book told
us, " Only do good to thyself, and all men will
speak well of thee." The offence complained of was
conduct which had been pursued for a course of years,
and not an isolated act. The reputation of his life
was now gone, at the close of it he would have to
feel that his misdeeds had been brought to light, and
exposed in a court of justice. He trusted that when
the bankrupt came to reflect upon the judgment of
the Court he would alter his tone which he had
hitherto held, admit that he had done extremely
wrong, and do all he could, if ever it was in his
power, to repair the loss which he had caused. His
Honour would not go to the extreme point of refusing
the certificate altogether, the reason being, that there
was no other opposition; that, generally speaking,
there was no complaint against him (the bankrupt),
and he was willing to believe that this was one instance,
bad enough, but only one of gross misconduct. The
certificate could not be granted under a very consi-
derable period, so as to establish the principle, that
persons who accepted and violated trusts, were persons
not to be permitted to enter trade again, or at all
events, until after a very lengthened lapse of time,
and after they had undergone much pain and suffer-
ing, which it appeared to the Court, was deserved by
this description of offences. The judgment of the
Court was, that the certificate be supended for two
years, at the expiration of which time to be granted
as of the third class. The costs of the opposition
ought to be allowed out of the estate, considering
that it was very important to trade that transactions
of this description should be brought to light and
exposed, and it' brought to light not at the expense
of the individual creditor wronged, but of the general
body of creditors. In this case there was the more
reason for it, as the creditors would get the benefit of
Mr. Lomax's 1,500/., which would be divided amongst
them.

The solicitor for the bankrupt applied for proteetion.
Mr. Merratt, the opposing creditor, had no ob-
jection.
His HONOUR granted it, complimenting Mr. Merratt
on the kindness and forbearance which had marked
his conduct throughout the transaction.
Certificate suspended for two years accordingly.
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IN R J. ELLIS.

To-day was fixed for the meeting for proof of debts
and last examination in the matter of this bankrupt,
the proprietor of Cremorne Gardens. The accounts
have not, as yet, been filed, and the meeting was
adjourned.
Several debts were proved during the day, upon
which no discussion, involving any point of public
importance, took place.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Dec. 10.

(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS and a Bench of Ma
gistratea.)
The Court sat today to hear appeals.
THE QUEEN V. GRANT.

This was an appeal against a conviction of Mr.
Jardine, one of the magistrates of the Bow street
Police Court, for an indecent assault. The defendant
having been convicted was sentenced to three months'
imprisonment.
Collyer was in support of the conviction, and
Mr. Parry was in support of the appeal.
It appeared that on the afternoon of Sunday, the
16th of September last, a lighterman of the name of
Wood, living in George•strect, Adelphi, observed the
appellant walking with two little girls, the one about
7, the other about 10 years of age, and then stopping
near an apple stall at the bottom of the same street.
Whilst they were standing by the stall he remarked
a peculiarity in the manner of the defendant which
induced him to watch his proceedings closely, but
presently perceiving, as he imagined, that the defendant
noticed that he was looking at him, he walked to-
wards an archway, through which there was a footpath
leading to some steps going up to Adelphi-terrace.
The defendant was accompanied by the two little
girls, whom he had treated with some walnuts at
the fruit stall. In order to attain the terrace, a pair
of folding doors had to be passed through. The de-
fendant and the children having gone through, the
witness placed himself in such a position as enabled
him to command a view of anything that might take
place. The witness then entered into a detail of the
offence, for which the magistrate pronounced the
conviction. As the matter was proceeding Wood
obtained the aid of some other persons, and when he
had gathered them they went through the folding
doors, and taking the defendant into custody, accused
him of having exposed his person. The defendant
indignantly denied the imputation, and said that he
laboured under a stricture, and had gone to that place
for the performance of a call of nature.
The girls were examined, and, to a certain extent,
corroborated the evidence of Wood, whilst another
witness stated that he had noticed the defendant beckon
the girls to follow him.
The witnesses were cross-examined by Mr. PARRY,
with a view chiefly of showing that the avenue was
a private passage and not a public thoroughfare, and
was used as a casual road to the penny steam boats.
It was said, however, that this was the road by which
the inhabitants of the Adelphi terrace passed down to
the pier, and that each of the residents had a key of
the gate which was at the bottom of the street, and
that that gate had been kept locked ever since the
alleged transaction ; and that when a surveyor had
gone to make a plan of the place for the purposes of the
appellant, he had been informed that he was commit-
ting a trespass, inasmuch as that it was a private
avenue and not open to the public.
Mr. PARRY, on behalf of the appellant, said that he
had to discharge a most painful duty in this
case. Were the Court to pronounce a decision
in favour of the conviction, and thereby confirm
that proceeding, the character of a gentleman, who
for a long series of years had borne the highest
reputation, would for ever be blasted. As a proof
that such had been his character, it would only be
necessary that he should mention that a host of his
friends were present to support it. The appellant
was a married man, residing in the vicinity of the

Adelphi, and a man who was devotedly attached to
his children. Oftentimes the appellant, for the pur-
pose of breathing the freshened air that was to be
obtains(' by walking upon the steam-boat piers, took
a stroll upon those erections of so much public ad-
vantage and convenience, and it seldom occurred,
being—as he had already stated—extremely fond of
children, that he did so, if any young people were
near, that he did not buy them some fruit from the
stall which was close by; and this had been the case
in the present instance. Now, he had a good, satis-
factory, and substantial answer on the merits to this
charge, for he was in a position to prove that the
reason which the appellant had given to Wood for
his being in the place in question was correct.
However, in the first instance he felt called upon to
take an objection which had offered itself to his
mind—namely, that the conviction having dis-
closed upon its face the charge, that
the alleged exposure had occurred in a
certain place of" public resort," he had to submit that
whatever might have transpired, supposing anything,
had not taken place in a "public place," seeing that
the spot described was a private avenue or passage,
not open to the public nor exposed to the public gaze.
Mr. COLLYER, on the other hand, contended that
the passage in question was a place of public resort,
and submitted that it fell within the meaning of the
statute.

Eventually, the Learned JUDGE said, it appeared to
him that the place in question came rather within
the description of a private staircase than anything
else, inasmuch as that the means of access were
not in common, the gate being locked or unlocked
at the discretion of the parties who were the pos-
sessors of its key. There was a doubt whether it
might in that way be made a thoroughfare by those
who were so situated, but it was clear that it was
neither a street nor a road, nor a thoroughfare, nor
a place of public resort within the meaning and
intent of the statute. That statute was a penal
statute,- and therefore he was bound to construe it
and act upon it strictly. Without, therefore, express-
ing any opinion as to whether the evidence bad sup•
ported the conviction, he must say that the objection
' which had been taken was fatal, and therefore that
the conviction must be quashed.—Conviction quashed
accordingly.