The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-18 00:00:00

THE BRIGHTON RITUAL CASE

The case of Hebbert (heretofore Elphinstone) against
the Rev. J. Purchas, for offending against the
law and constitution by ritualistic practices, was
resumed yesterday before the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council. Mr. Stephens, in continuing
his argument on the part of the appellant,
contended that the use of the vestments in question was
contrary to the laws of the Church of England,
resting his arguments on their abolition, as
being sacrificial vestments, by the Act of Uniformity.
He submitted that immediately after the passing of that
Act all sacrificial vestments were destroyed, including the
chasuble, the tunicle, and the alb, while the non-sacrificial
vestments, the plain cope, the surplice, and the hood,
were revived from the Prayer-book of Edward VI., havin
been altogether, with the sacrificial vestments, excluded
from the second book by the passing of the Act of Uni-
formity. Under the first book the cope, surplice, and
hood oould be worn, but not the chasuble, tunicle, and
alb ; and that was the distinction he proceeded
to establish by quoting a number of ancient authorities.
Mr. Stephens then submitted that under the Act of
Uniformity it was illegal to teach the doctrine of the
sacrifice of the Mass orally. How, then, he asked, would
it be lawful to teach the doctrine symbolically by the use
of sacrificial vestments ?
The learned counsel's address not being completed at
four o'clock, the hearing was adjourned.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF LIBEL
AGAINST A LADY.
In the Queen's Bench (present : Mr. Justice Mellor,
Mr. Justice Lush, and Mr. Justice Hannen), Mr. Powell,
Q.C., (with him was Mr. Jeff), applied for a rule nisi for
a criminal information against a lady named Waters, the
wife of a medical practitioner resident in Worcestershire.
The application was at the instance of Lord Sandys, Lady
Sandys, his mother, and the Hon. Cecil Sandys his sister,
and was on account of certain libels alleged to have been
published by Mrs. Waters in relation to Miss Saudys.
The libels charged the young lady with having recently
given birth to a stillborn child. From the affidavits it
appeared that Dr. Waters practised in the neighbourhood
of Omberley Park, Lord Sandys' residence, and was the
ordinary medical attendant of the household. In the
course of last July Lady Saudys and Miss Sandys arrived
on a visit at the park, and some time in August
the young lady became unwell. It was considered
that Dr. Waters was not sufficiently experienced to
attend the case, and thereupon a Dr. Bowden, from
Droitwich, was called in. This appears to have greatly
incensed Mrs. Waters, as admitted by Dr. Waters him-
self to Lord Sandys. On the 20th of August a letter
reached Lady Sandys stated to have been picked up on
a road in the neighbourhood. This letter was the first
of the libels complained of, and it purported
to have been written by a maid-servant in
London to another servant in the neighbourhood of
Omberley Park. The writer referred to the recent pre-
mature confinement of Miss Sandys, and made comments
on the event. In the next place, on the 10th of Septem-
ber, the following announcement appeared in Aris's Bir-
mingham Gazette under the heading Births :"
"At Omberley Park, the Hon. Cecil Sandys (prema-
turely) of a son, stillborn."
Explanations were at once demanded from the proprietor
and editor of the Gazette. In reply a letter was produced,
purporting to have reached the office from the
Hon. Marcus Sandys, Lord Sandys brother, requesting
that the premature confinement of his wife, the Hon.
Mrs. Cecil Sandys, should be announced in the terms in-
serted. At the same time the fullest apologies were
offered for the mistake, and assurances made that every
assistance would be given to discover the libeller.
The letter authorizing the insertion of the ad-
vertisement having been given up to the family,
the conclusion was come to that the handwriting was
that of Mrs. Waters, although it was very. much dis-
guised. A similar conclusion was formed in respect of
the letter of the 20th of August. Counsel said he was
prepared with very strong affidavits to establish the
identity of the handwriting in the letters with that of Mrs.
Waters.
Mr. Justice Mellor : It is only necessary to establish a
prinza facie case to entitle you to a rule.
A rule nisi accordingly was granted.

SERIOUS EXPLOSION AT BIRMINGHAAL—Another
explosion occurred a,4-, Messrs. Kynoch and Comp6.ny's
cartridge and percussion cap manufactory, Wilton, near
Birmingham. The firm for some time past have, it is

stated, had large orders for cartridges on hand. In one of
the sheds used for the manufacture of these articles, twenty
five persons were engaged yesterday ; and eitherby acciden
or by the clumsiness of one of the boys, a cartridge
burst, causing an explosion of others, which blew the roof
off the shed, and injured all the persons engaged in it.
They were taken to the General Hospital at Birmingham,
where they now lie, many of them being seriously hurt.
Several are not expected to recover.
Mr. HARVEY LEwis, M.P., AND THE CHANCERY COUR'
—ln the Rolls Court Mr. Jessel, Q.C., made an applica-
tion on behalf of the official liquidator in the matter 0:
Charles Lafitte and Co. for an order of the court to
compel Mr. Harvey Lewis to attend before a special
examiner and give evidence with respect to certain move-
, tart' transactions between the National Bank, of which he
was a director, and the company now being wound up.
An order had been made by the Chief Clerk in Chambers,
which Mr. Lewis had, it was alleged, disregarded. Mr.
Jessel now stated that previously Mr. Lewis, acting upon
bad advice, had refused to give evidence, but he now with-
drew his refusal, and was willing to accede to the notice,
and pay the costs of the motion,