The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

THE FEOFFEES OF TRUST ANT) GOVEILNORS OF HERIOT'S

HOSPITAL V. ROSS.
The arguments in this part-heard appeal were resumed
and concluded to-day. The question is this case was as to
the right of the appellants to reject the respondent's applica-
.tion to be admitted into Harlot's Hospital. The Court of
Session decided in favour of the respondent. and from that
jud:;''weat the gove. ours n
Their Lordships, at the conclusi,n it aNtirt,
judgment, reversing the decision of the Court below

~ t4ave

• COURT OF ,CH ANCERY, March 19.
ARCHER V. HUDSON.
The arguments in this part-heard appeal from the decision
of the Master of the Rolls were resumed and concluded to.
day. The bill was filed by Thomas Archer and Frances, his
wife, formerly Miss Kendrew, against G. Hudson and Wm.
cawinethe registered officers of the York Union Bank, and
Christopher Daniel, the uncle of the plaiatiff, Mrs. Archer, to
restrain proceediugs at law on the part of the bank, on a pro-
missory note for 500/. in which Mrs. Archer bef'ere her mar-
riage had joined as surety with her uncle,Chris;opher
in giving to the bank as a security for his balance with the
bank. Miss Ken: drew had lost her father at there years of
age, and her mother at nine, and being entitled to certain real
and personal estate; which was in the 'hands of trustier, she
was put to school, and there continued until the age of 17
years, pansing her holidays with her uncle and aunt Daniel.
"After that period she altogethee resided with her uncle until
her marriage in Is4l, having attained the age of 21 years
November, 1837, and her unc.e I;as paid for hor 'malateenece
out of the income of her prop :sty. Mr. Daniel, some time
in December, 1837, had overdrawn his recount with the
bank, of which one Mr, Hanswell was the manager, to the
amount of 701, Daniel and Hanxwell and their families were
on intimate terms, and-Daniel applied to llauxwell to allow
him to overdraw his account to the extent. of 5001. Haile.-
w3ll required security, and Daniel proposed that his niece,
Miss Kwndrew, should join with him in givin:e a promissory
note to that amount. Daniel afterwards toll Hauxwall
that his niece was willing to join in the note, which Was
drawn up by Hanswell, and in the first week of January,
1838, taken by him to the haus° of Daniel, where he ante
his niece sigeed it. The bank, sonic time in the reloath el
Deearaher, nfl, shortly after the marriage of Tars, Archer,
without any communication with i;er, plazed the amount of
the note to the credit of Dartial,who in 1843 took the benefit
of the Insolvent Oct. 1:pou the evidence which was given
in slip port of these eircuthatanees, the Master of the Rolls,
who I,ear4 tl,p Coilser decided, that as against the plaintiff,
Mrs. Archer, tits note of 5001. was void, ab jaitio, having
been obtained by the undus influence of a party standing in
loco parentis towards her ; ama Gete on another -round the
transaction could net lee eapported as sought. bylAlte bank.
The note heel been given by Daniel and his niece az hie surety,
by way or' a guarantee for any floating bat nee to be due from
lime to time by Daniel; the laXli!e teas nut justified, without
his niece's consent. in VAciag the amount of the note to the
credit of Daniell and that snob an act was a violation of the
origiael eoatraet ; and the Master of the Rolls restrained the
bank by perpetual Injunction, from cuing the plaintiffs on Ova
note. It was from the whole of this decree that the de-
fendants, who represented the 'kg* appealed.
The LORD CHANCAI4IOI4 postponed his judgment,
BAOGETV V. DIEDX.
The arguments in this part-he-;
Maste case, also an appeal
from the decision of the
of the Rolls, were concluded
to-day, and
The Tsf7o ClTAitecm.e.on gave judgment, dismissing the
I ;Wel with costs.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT, Lewes, March 17.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Justice DENS AN.)
Thomas Denyer, gamekeeper, who had beer admitted
to bail, surrendered to answer an indictment, charging
ii!in with the manslaughter of Benjamin Remnant.
After hearing the evidence for the prosecution,
Mr. CLARKSON submitted that there was no evidence
to go to the jury in support of the -charge of man-
slaughter. The evidence appeared to him to make out
a case of excusable homicide.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE expressed an opinion that
the case ought to go to a jury.
The Learned Counsel having, accordingly, addressed
them, and the Lord Chief Justice having briefly summed
up, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Sarah Wathen, 23, single woman, was indicted for
the wilful murder of her fcmvle illegitimate child, by
cutting its throat, on the 16th of August last, at the
parish of Brighton.
_

It appeared that the prisoner, who is a very good.
looking young woman, entered the service of a gentle-
man named Hammond, who resides in Brunswick-
square, Brighton, in April, 184, as lady's maid, and
resided with the family in that capacity until the 10th
of August. For soma time previous the prisoner had
complained of toots-ache and other illness, but not the
slightest suspicion was entertainei of her being
io the family way. On that day, however, she
complained to a fell3w-servant, named Boreham,
that she was too ill to wait upon her
tress at her toilet. and requested her -to-do an .for
her, and she :then returned to: her own room, where
she was shortly afterwards heard to. groan most .pite,
ously, and this fact caused -a suspicion of her condition.
The prisoner soon afterwards came down into the kit=
chen, and -in consequence, of what- had, transpired•,..a.
search was made in her bed-room, where 'such -appear=
antes pr:sentett themselves as left no doubt that she
bad recently been delivered of a child ; and, on the
bed being xamincd, the dead body of an infant was
fetind between the mattress and the racking of time bed.
There were several slight cuts upon the body and arms
of the infant, but the mortal injury had been in-
flicted upon the neck of the child, which was
nearly severed from the body, and merely hung to the
trunk by a few of the integumenlv, :yid the injury ap-
peared to have been inflicted by a pen-knife which was
found in the room, and the blade of which was covered
with blood. There was no distinct proof of the unhappy
infant being born alive, the testimony of the medical
gentlemen who were examined merely going to the ex-
tent of expressing an opinion, from tests which they ap-
plied to the lungs of the deceased child, that it had
breathed, but they could not take upon themselves to
state the necessary facts to show that in law the infant
was born alive.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, when the eviaence had
been gone through, expressed an opinioa that the ca-
pital charge could not be sustained, and the only ques•
tion that remained for the jury would be whether there
was a concealment of the birth.

.Mr. CLARKSON said that upon this part of the case he
Belt he could not expect to obtain a favourable verdict,
and he al_ ould therefore decline to occupy the time of
the Court by addressing the jury.
The prisoner was then found guilty of misdemeanour,
and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON.)
RONINOTON V. WOOD.

This was nn action of tresp::ss of interest but to
the parties, but the following incident deserves to be re-
corded :

The first witness who was called, a female named
Abden, refused to b© .sworn.

Baron ALDERsON asked the witness on what grounds
she refused to take the cath ?—She replied that she had
a conscientious scruple to take an oath under any cir-
cumstances.

Baron ALDERSON inquired whether she belonged to
the sect of Quakers, Moravians, &c., who are spt cially
exempted by Act of Parliament from taking oaths ?
The witness replied that she did not belong to either of
the sects specified, but she objected to taking an oath
because our Saviour had forbidden it.
Baron ALDERSON said she had off?red no valid objec-
tions in law to her being sworn, and she was bound to
take the oath.
She still refused to do so.

Baron ALDERSON told her that by her refusal she not
only subjected herself to he committed for contempt of
Court, but also rendered herself liable for all damage
and loss that the plaintiff might sustaia through the
loss of her testimony.

The witness said :he was perfectly well aware of the
consequences of her refusal ; but she felt compelled to
persist in it.
The Learned JUDGE then left the Court for the pur-
pose, as it was understood, of conferring with the
Lord Chief Justice lion the subject, and•on his return,
he said that Lord Denman agreed with him, that only
one course remained open for the Court, which was to
commit the witness, upon the application of the counsel,
if she refused to be morn and give her evidence.
The counsel engaged in the cause, however, havirg
consulted together, consented, in order to avoid such au
unpleasant proceedh.g as the one alluded to, that the
matter in dispute should be referred to arbitration.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON remarked that as the
tare had released persons of particular religious pursua-
sions from raking au oath, where they objected to do so
conscientiously, he thought it would be a great advan •
tare if the privilege ware extended to all per.,ona who
conscientiourly objected to take an oath, without any
reference to their reliAioua belief.

IMPERIAL vARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS. March 19.
POST-OFFICE RETURNS.

Mr. HAWES wished tonik the Righthon. Gentle-

man the Secretary or the Treasury a question relative
to certain returns which he moved f'or a short time ago,
relating to the Post-office. Those returns had not yet
been laid upon the table of the House, and he wished to
adt the Right Hon. Gentleman when they might be ex-
pected? Since he had moved for these returns he had
seen a statement, copied from the French prints, which
it would appear contained some of the points of infor-
mation which Ile required. The statement was, how-
ever, erroneous, and ho wished to have it corrected as
soon as possible by the production of the papers.
Mr. CARDWELL said that the Hon. Member had
beep good enough to give him notice of his question,
and, he had made inquiry into this matter; and he could
assure the Hon. Member that the returns were in the
course of preparation, and they would be laid upon t.-.e
of the House the moment they were completed.
IRISH POOR-LAW.

Mr. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH wish. d to ask the

Right Hun. Baronet the Secretary fur the Home Depart-
ment a question, of which
.he had nr.t given notice.
Some time ago he put a question to the Right Hon.
Baronet relating to the conduct of the Poor-law Com-
missioner'', who had taken upon themselves the task of
dismissing the guardians of the-union of Castleblain, in
the county of Roscommon. Since then he had received
information from several magistr,..tes and rate-payers,
stating that there was not a particle of truth in the alle-
gations contained in the answer of the Right Hon.
Baronet. The stet t.ilent was entirely destitute of foun-
dation. He (Mr. F. French) wished to know if the
Right Hon. Baronet still adhered to the answer he had
given on the former occasion?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, as he had not notice of
the present question, hp had not been able to make any
further inquiry, and therefore he must adhere to the
answer he had given on the previous occasion.