The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-08 00:00:00

OTAHEITE.

The following memorial to the King of the French, on
the subject of Otaheite, has been numerously signed :--

"TO HIS MAJESTY LOUIS PHILIPPE, KING OF THE
FRENCH.

" The Memorial of the undersigned Members of the
Baptist Church and Congregation assembling for
Divine Worship in South Parade, in Leeds, in the
county of York,

" Showetii—That your memorialists desire to ap-
proach your Majesty with the respect that is due to the
beloved monarch of a great and powerful nation. They
have heard with deep regret of the naval and military
proceedings of your Majesty's ships and soldiers in Ota-
heite, by which the Queen has been compelled to fly for
safety from her usual residence, many of the inhabitants
have been driven from their homes to the mountains and
fastnesses of the island, and the lives of multitudes of the
Otaheiteans and of your own subjects have been sacrl-
ficed in battle. The woes of the past cannot be recalled,
but the woes anticipated in future, to a great extent,
may be prevented by your Majesty's prompt and ener-
getic interference. That interference will be highly
honourable to your Majesty, but the extermination of
the Otaheiteans would leave an indelible stain on the
history of your reign.
"Your memorialists beg leave to submit to 3 our Ma-
jesty's attention

"First—That your Majesty has no right of dominion
in the island of Otaheite, because, supposing the treaty
on which your claim is founded to have been signed by
the Queen of Otaheite voluntarily without force or fear,
her Majesty has no right or authority to transfer her
sovereign power over the people to another, without
their ful' and free consent. Secondly—The establish
meat of distant colonies, attuning to the practice of
European nations, by force, both in past and present
times, has been a frightful source of bloodshed, misery,
and crime, and is manifestly in opposition to the pre-
cepts and principles of Christianity, as taught in the
New Testament.

"Your memorialists desire to explain that they do not
appeal to your Majesty through the ministers of our gra
cious Sovereign, because your protectorate of Otaheite
has been acknowledged by the government of this coun-
try, the validity of which we, as individuals, deny ; be-
cause our beloved country retains the sovereignty over
colonies which (like Otaheite) have been obtained by
force of arms, and which we consider one of our great
national sins; and, because diplomatists rarely appeal to
the principles of right as revealed in the Word of God,
but often to the physical force by which their appeals can
be enforced.

--‘:irO;;;;Temorialists, from the highest authority, know
that, whether men believe it or not, the Lord executeth
righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed;'
and, therefore, they entreat your Majesty to bring the
proceedings of your commanders, by sea and by land, in
Otaheite, under your own calm examination, on Chris.
tian principles, and to adopt such measures towards the
Queen and inhabitants of Otaheite (many of the latter
widows and orphans), as the g►eat principle of doing t.)
others as we would that they should do to us, mani
featly points out for your Majk-sty's guidance.
"Your memorialists cordially wish your
.Majesty a
loag, happy, and prosperous reign, that your throne
may be established 4Fighteousness, and that when God
shall call you to resign your eartbry crownit may be ex-
changed for an enduring crown of righteousnei-ii in the
mansions of eternal glory."—Leeds Mercury.

Verdi has nearly concluded his new opera, 'founded
upon Lord Byron's beautiful poem of " The Corsair."
It is composed expressly for her Majesty's Theatre, and
report speaks of the fragments which have bt come
known as the master-pieces of this most popular of
modern composers.
ALARMING !—VERY !—On Sunday evening last, as
the congregation of St. Peter's Chapel, Leeds, were de-
voutly engaged in religious exercises, they were all at
once frightened from their propriety by a dull rumbling
noise, followed by the crash of a heavy falling body. In-
stantly a cry arose of " The chapel's falling," and out
rushed men, women, and children, in the direst confu-
sion-, and dismay. Vain were the expostulations of par-
son and-prececitor.- "?':o. I first, and religion after," was
the order of the night. One beloved brother, more
courageous than his fellows, stayed behind with the
preacher ; and, inspired by the awful perils of the night,
enticed the wandering sheep once more within the fold,
by joining the worthy preacher in a duet—" Praise God
from whom all blessings flow." The worthy and
courageous worshippers had been thus unceremoniously
driven from the house of prayer, by—a slip of snow !
WHO LS TRH AUTHOR OF CIESAR BORGIA. ?"—The
curiosity evinced to ascertain who was the author of
Whitefriars" has considerably increased since the pro-
-11 Borgia."p
pro-
duction of his new work " Caesar On the hb-
ition of " Whitefriars," the Athenee um attributed the
authorship to Mr. Ainsworth, who immediately dis-
claime dit . It was then erroneously bestowed upon the
a uci
utehnotrlyoton"
LoShardksiptemarei and His Friends," and subse-
she paternity of this "agh.
The same desire of fixing
y ttoe editor of the Britannia, who
very lately repeatedbliterary offspring appears to have been
assigns the authorship
very insufficient grounds, as since been clearly esta-
Mr. Charles Whitehead—on
blished ; and, lastly, the
gazine is equally positive that then the New
MonthlyMa-
are authorised, however, to state hat
tter is a lady I We
no female pen, but we should recommenth; work
is
from
in the cause to put in an appearance, the real
11", 4 he wishes patorty
.
cure a right to his own property.

--;

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 7.

ALLEY V. GAIN.

Mr. Chambers (with whom sas Mr. Pall) appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Crowder appeared for the de-
fendant.

Mr. CHAMBERS stated that this action arose out of
that great mania for speculation in railways which took
place in the year 1845, and in which the defendant was
extensively engaged. The plaintiff is a surveyor. The
defendant was a butcher, residing at Kennington. In
the course of the railway mania a scheme entitled the
Lincolnshire and Eastern Counties Junction Railway
was formed, and on the 9th of October, 1845, the
defendant wrote to the parties engaged in the
project to have his name inserted in the list
of the provisional committee, which was accord-
ingly done. In the late decisions upon this
class of cases, in the:Court of Exchequer, it had been
held that the mere fact of any man's name appearing on
the provisional committee would not entitle any parties
to bring an action against him, but that the jury might
take into consideration the important fact, of whether it
should appear upon the prospectus that the provisional
committee had employed parties to make surveys, or had
in their prospectus in any manner made themselves
liable or responsible. In the prospectus which had been
set forth in this case the provisional committee de-
scribed the various facilities offered by the line, stating
that persons had been employed to make the necessary
surveys, and on the face of it it must appear to the jury
that the plaintiff was in this case clearly entitled to re-
cover according to the view taken by the Court of Ex-
chequer. The amount sought to be recovered was
203/. 19s. 6d., the balance of an account, for part of the
money had been handed over.
The Learned Counsel then read the prospectus, and
called
Mr. White, the secretary to the company, who proved
the insertion of the defendant's name upon the prospec•
tus, of which 3,000 copies were printed and issued.
Mr. CRowDER objected that, although the defendant
wrote to request that he should be placed upon the pro-
visional committee, he had not authorised their publish-
ing his name to the world.
The Learned JUDGE reserved the point.
Mr. LEWIS, the engineer to the proposed railway corn-
, pany, proved the moderate nature of the plaintiffs
charges. He stated that he employed surveyors to do
work for the company; but he should not have done so
had it not been for the list of responsible persons whose
names appeared as provisional committeemen. All the
work was done by him on the reponsibility of the
company.
Mr. Furlong, a surveyor, also proved that the plain-
tiff's charges were fair and reasonable. The company
had not yet been dissolved. Mr. Brace, the solicitor to
the coirpany, employed witness to arrange the sections:
By Mr. CROWDER—Considered that Mr. Brace em-
ployed him on the responsibility of the company, as set
forth.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CROWDER rent wed his former objection, and con-
tended that the prospectus could not be received in evi-
dence, as there was nothing in the defendant's letter to
warrant the parties in publishing his name to the world
with any responsibility attached to it. This letter merely
said 6- insert my name as a provisional committeeman;"
but did not- say; " publish 'my name as a provisional
committeeman." Had the prospectus been sent to him,
and he had offered no objection to it, it would be another
thing, but nothing of the kind was proved.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion that the ob-
Lion of Mr. Crowder was a good one, and the question
should abide the decision of the jury.
Mr. CHAMBERS said that it would be a pity that the
cause should have to come to trial again, and be would
therefore offer a little additional evidence. He then
called

Mr. Ambrose Moore, one of the provisional committee-
men of the railway, and chairman of the committee of
management, who proved that the name of the de-
fendant was on the 14th of October read from the pro-
spectus at a meeting of the committee at which the de-
fendant was present. He made no objection to it, nor
was any objection made to its insertion.
By Mr. CROWDER—Does not know that this action is
sanctioned by the company. Nor does he remember that
any resolution to the effect that actions should be brought
against any person or persons whose names should be
mentioned was passed.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that after this evi-
dence the prospectus could be received.
Mr. CROWDER then submitted that the case was not
supported on the evidence, which did not in any way fix
Mr. Gain.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the view he had
always taken of these cases was, that when a man said
he would become a provisional committeemen, and
authorised the company to issue his name in a pro-
spectus, in any character whatever, he must mean some-
thing by it. If he wished to be a committeeman it was
strong evidence that he authorised the company to
publish his name through the world in that character.
He could take no judicial notice of the word provisional
committeeman, but it had a meaning in the world, and
the jury, looking at all the facts of the case, must form
their judgment as to whether the defendant had ren-
dered himself liable to the plaintiff or to the public.
Mr. CROWDER then contended that as there was an
acting committee on and after the 14th of October,
therefore, they were liable, and not the members of
the provisional committee.
The LouD C13112F Jusvtcn said that it was for the
jury to decide.

before him. and from them there WAS tiothirg for them
find. It was a simple ;question of law, and in
his opinion the plaintiff ought at once to be nonsuited ;
or, if a verdict should be returned for the plaintiff, it
should be with leave to enter the verdict for the de-
fendant.

Mr. CROWDER the addressed the jury, and contended
that as the plaintiff commenced work on the 30th of
September, and the defendant did not join the provisional
committee until the 14th of October, the plaintiff must
have had some agreement stated or implied with other
parties, and with which the defendant could have nothing
to do. If the verdict were given against him in the pre-
sent case, Mr. Gain would be liable not only to the extent
of 2034, but to the extent of 28,0001., the whole liabili-
ties of the company. He knew that Mr. Beckett, one of
the managing men of the company, had struck out Mr.
Gain's name, as he did not wish any tradesmen's names
to be seen on the committee. When the committee was
registered Mr. Gain's name was struck out, and notice of
the erasure was given to him. He hoped that the jury
would not sanction the injustice of compelling the defen-
dant to be liable to this ruinous extent.

Mr. UDALL (who was with Mr. Crowder) then called
Charles Russell, who stated that in the month of Oc-
tober, 1845, he was engaged as a copying clerk by Mr.
Beckett. The defendant requested that his name should
be put on the list of the provisional committee. Witness
placed it on the list. It was not the act of the com
pany. Afterwards saw Mr. Beckett strike out the
defendant's name from the printed list, and inquire who
he was. The name was struck out between the 13th and
the Isth; believes it was the 14th.

By Mr. CHANBERS—CannOt speak precisely to
the day.
Mr. Pritchard stated that he is one of the clerks to
the register of the joint-stock company, He has the
book containing the list of the provisional committee of
the Lincolnshire and Eastern Counties Junction Rtilway
Company. The registry was made on the 15th of Oc-
tober. There was a previous registry of the 22d of
September. Mr. Gain's name is not in that registry.
In the registry of the 15th of October Mr. Gain's name
is printed, but is struck through with a pen. The con-
sents of all the other persons on the list to be provi-
sionally registered as committeemen are appended, but
there is no consent of Mr.-Gain's to be on the provisions
committee.•

Mr. Beckett was then sworn—He stated that he was
one of the solicitors to the company. He had to get up
the lists of the provisional committee. Has in his
possession the written consent of all the members of
the provisional committee. Mr. Gain's name was put on
the list by mistake, and was afterwards struck out.
Witness never considered him to be on the committee.
and has informed. the parties that the present action
could not succ' ed.

By Mr. CHAMBERS—Witness and his brother were
the projectors of the scheme. The list was registered
on the 22d of September, and in consequence of many
additional names being entered it was again registered.
Witness has brought an action for a bill for 3,0001.
against Mr. Fisher, the owner of the Caxton Press, and
one of, the principal tradesmen in the city of London.
Witness has given an indemnity for 10,0001. to several
gentlemen for using their names.
Mr. CROWDER objected la this examination.
Mr.: CHAMBERS said that as his friend argued that
the provisional committeemen only gave their names to
sanction the undertaking, and were not liable, he (Mr.
Chambers) had a right to show that something more
than a mere undertaking to sanction the line was consi-
dered necessary. He then addressed the jury in reply,
and contended that when the insertion of Mr. Gain's
name was sanctioned by the committee, Mr. Beckett had
no authority to erase it, and that Mr. Gain was, to all
intents and purposes, a committeeman.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, regretted,
that if there were any solve%t persons connected with
the company, that they had not been singled out, in-
stead of the defendant, who had been sued, as it ap-
peared to him, upon very slight grounds. The question
for their consideration was whether the defendant had
in any way rendered himself liable by causing himself to
become
one of the provisional committee. The de-
fendant had written to be placed upon the committee,
and the question was, how far—taking all the circum-
stances of the case into consideration—he had so rendered
himself liable.

The jury, after a short consideration, returned a verdict
for the defendant.

Mr. MARTIN could not consent to the latter proposi-
tion ; he did not intend to call any witnesses. There
was no case whatever to go to the jury.
The LORD CHIEF BARON thought it was very clear
from the Act that the promoter of a railway company
could not sue any member of the provisional committee.
It was lawful for the promoters to act as provisional com-
mitteemen ; and it was also lawful for the promoters to
allot shares, and receive deposits, and pay the expense
of the formation of the company. There was, however,
no authority by which they could sue any member of the
provisional committee for these expenses.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL—AII person whose names are
registered are taken as promoters. The Court has
lately decided that the members of a provisional com-
mittee are not to be considered as partners in the
concern.

The LORD CHIVE BARON did not think that in the
present case there was anything at all to go to the jury.
In his opinion the case was perfectly clear.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
Leave was then given to the Attorney-General to
move to enter the verdict for the plaintiff, if the Court
should be of opinion there was any evidence to go to the
jury.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 7.

WILSON V. LORD CURZON AND ANOTRER.-LIABILITY OE

PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN.

This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to re-
cover the sum of 125 i for half a year's salary due to him
as secretary to the Canterbury and Herne Bay Railway,
from the defendants, members of the provisional com-
mittee.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Hoggins appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Martin and another gentleman for the
defendant.
From the opening statements of the Attorney-Ge-
neral it appeared that the plaintiff was a civil engineer,
and the projector of the company. He obtained the
names of a number of influential individuals, among
whom were Lord Curzon and Mr. Stuart, who was also a
member of the provisional committee of the Thames
Navigation Embankment Company. A provisional,
committee was 'subsequently appointed, and one of their
first acts was to appoint the present plaintiffthe secretary
to the company at a salary of 250/. per annum ; and he
was ordered to receive applications for shares in the
company. Both of the defendants were present at the!
appointment of' the plaintiff, and at a subsequent
meeting to consider the claims upon the company, they
admitted the claims of the plaintiff for the sum of 125/.
'rhe above facts having been proved by witnesses
caned' on the part of the plaintiff.
there LORD CHIEF BARON said that in his opinion,
was no evidence to go to the jury except the. facts

. •

TIIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER, 8, 1846.

The newspaper was put in, and admitted ; and the
following witnesses examined as to the character of the
plaintiff, and the identity of the plaintiff with the Dr.
H- of the article:

Richard Freeman. general medical practitioner at
Plymouth. He knew the Royal Westera Yacht Club,
and had belonged to it. He also knew the plaintiff;
he was married, and had eight children. He believed he
was a physician. He recollected the publication of the
Plymouth Journal of the 12th of February last. He
knew no one in Plymouth to whom the initial H could
apply but Dr. floldsworth. Witness sent the paper to
plaintiff, as he was sure it meant him alone. It was
directed, to the best of witness's belief, against that gen-
tleman. _

Cross-examined—He was not aware that Dr. Holds-
worth bad ever practised. He only knew that he gave
himself out as Dr. Holdsworth. He was not aware he
had only put the name " Dr. Holdsworth" on the door-
plate since the publication of the alleged libel.
Harry Snell, a chemist and druggist, Plymouth, de-
posed that he had made up prescriptions for Dr. Holds-
worth. He had received correct Latin prescriptions
from Dr. Holdsworth before the date of the newspaper.
Cross-examined—He might have dispensed thirty or
forty prescriptions for Dr. Holdsworth b 4 fore February
last. He could not, however, say how many.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. COCKBURN then opened the case for the defence.
He Said it would be his duty to justify the course taken
the defendants in this case. They had heard it stated
-that the plaintiff was a respectable man, but how could
they come to that conclusion when it was known that
a highly respectable and honourable club had unani-
mously expelled him after an anxious inquiry ; and
when he (Mr. Cockburn) would prove, as prove he should,
plaintiff given himself out as a
physician,
was a confirmed gambler, t
prat-
risinghat no
ht
is only
abrutts hadtnha
o ttt the
n ly
in Plymouth but elsewhere.
It was said the defendants had written to gratify a
morbid feeling in the public mind for strong articles,
but this he denied. There was not the least evidence to
show that any malice or ill-feeling had been displayed
by the defendants in the article in question. As public
journalists, knowing the facts alleged to be true ;
knowing that the highly respectable club had igno-
miniously expelledthe plaintiff, was it not the duty of
them, as honest journalists, to warn the public against
parties of such dangerous and disreputable character?
It was said the plaintiff was a member of a profession
which they all respected, and they had heard something
of his correct Latin prescriptions ; but OR that he would
be prepared to show that he had not, at least, supported
himself by that honourable profession. In order to do that
he would have to trace the plaintiff's career since the
year 1839. He would show that in 1839 he lived at
Wilsden near Leicester, from which place he left deeply
in debt, which debts had not been paid to the present
hour; that he left Wilsden for Tours in France, where
he associated with a person named M`Donald ; and that
while there the plaintiff, M'Donald, and a person named
Connolty were continually together at the
gaming-table, working with each other, and
mixed up with most disgraceful proceedings.
The Learned Gentleman here gave the facts, which
he intended to prove iu evidence. It was to the effect
that Connolty had been convicted of marking and
cheating at cards, and that, on the occasion, the plaintiff
and M'Donald were acting with him in the matter.
This Connolty was convicted for the same at Tours, and
the sentence was confirmed by an appeal to a superior
court, though, strange to say, he had the plaintiff and
M'Donald to speak to his character. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to trace the plaintiff to
Guernsey, where he got connected with a club,
when again he was rejoined by M'Donald.
Here again they got deeply engaged in
gaming affairs, and were mixed with similar dis-
graceful proceedings to those at Tours, inveigling
members of the club to play at ecarti at the plaintiff's
and M'Donald's private lodgings, and there, by practised
gamblers' tricks, cheating the parties out of their money.
While at Guernsey these two gentlemen had no visible
means of subsistence, but seemed to live by victimizing
all that came within their reach. They continued at
Guernsey from the autumn of 1843 to 1844, when they
went on a continental tour. They went to Baden,
and again in a short time they returned to
Guernsey, and wanted to get into the club,
but Mr. M`Donald, who first claimed, admission,
was blackballed by an immense majority. This arose
from the discoveries made respecting these gentlemen at
play. The Learned Gentleman having amplified on
these points, went on to trace their proceedings till they
arrived at Plymouth some time after, giving in the pro-
gressalist of the victims that had been made, whom he

Something might start up in which a magistrate would
have the opportunity of exercising his authority offi-
cially.
The circular, it is proper to say, re,ernhien very
strongly a notice preparcd by the notorious Richard
Coster, whom Sir Peter Laurie contrived, by remark
able perseverance and sagn,city4 to transport to New
South Wales from the Mansion lious6.

REMARKABLE TRIAL AT
COLOGNE.
The Criminal Court of Cologne sat, on the 2Sth nit
to try M. Oppenheim upon an indictment for stealing a
box from the Baroness de Meyendorff while at tht
Hotel de Mayence, at Cologne, on her wa) from A:x
la-Chapelle to Paris. The Baroness arrived at Cologne
in the afternoon of August 21st ; and a few hours after
her, alighted two gentlemen, who gave as their name.
Kronecker, a merchant of Breslau, and Ullmann, a met
chant of Berlin. Kronecker, immediately on his arrl"a
made minute inquiries about the Baroness, particular
as to the baggage she had brought with her, and also a:
to the stay she meant to make. This stay was VIA \
short, as she intended to embark the next morning it tr,
steam-boat going down the Rhine. At six in the mot It
ing of the 22d all her packages were brought from het
apartment into the passage, and left there wh
her valet went into her with the bill of the land
lord. When he returned with the money to pay it he a
once missed from the heap of packages a small casks,
which he knew to be of great value to his mistress. l
immediately proclaimed the loss, and the people of tilt
house of once recollected that the two travellers, Kro
necker and Ullmann, had just taken their departure 4r
a hackney-coach, and conceived that they might, lit
mistake, have carried away the casket with their oa
luggage. Esser, a man in the employ of the Baronet::
ran after the coach, but met it coming back empty. Thu
coachman informed him that one of the gentlemen h,..
got out on the way, but that the other had alighted a:
the railroad station. Esser followed the latter, at,,,
found him in one of the carriages. On being esker.
whether he had by mistake taken with him a caske
that did not belong to him, he assured them that he had
nothing with him but the paletot on his arm. AL,
however, he was pale, and seemed agifatest
Esser's suspicions were excited, and taking will,
him a police officer, he went on by the saut
train to Bonn. On arriving there, the baggage of tht
traveller was found to consist of a small trunk, and ta
sacs de nuit, which were seized ; but the traveller, wl
had assumed the name of Ullmann, effected his escart
On examining the contents of the trunk in the presenet
of an officer, the casket was found in it intact, an,'
among other things several innkeeper's bills, made ot,t
in the name of Dr. Mendlesohn, a distinguished Prussia'
advocate. In one of the bags was a portfolio cotainii4
letters and other papers, addressed to and bearing tilt
name of M. Oppenheim, assessor of the Royal Court
Berlin. In the beginning of October and November wi
had several articles giving the details of this transaction
from which it appeared that the travellers, under tilt
names of Kronecker and Ullmann, were Dr. Mendlesoby
and M. Oppenheim; that their object was only to recover
from the Baroness a rent charge for her life of 25,0001
a year, granted by the Count de Hatzfeld, secured upot
his estates, the consideration for which was state/
to be 250,000 f., and could only be fictitious, as thl
Baroness was devoid of all means of advancing an'
such sum. M. Oppenheim surrendered himself to jus
Lice, and has now taken his trial. Dr. Mendlesohn ha•
however, still remained at liberty, though, as our readers.
will recollect, it was at one time thought that he wa:
caught at Hebersthel, a small Prussian town on the
frontier of Belgium ; but the captive turned out to bi
Felix Mendelsohn, the celebrated Doctor of Music, but
no Doctor of Laws. M. Oppenheim was arraigned not
only for stealing the casket, but also for having wilful')
torn, during his previous examination, four document:
laid as evidence before the examining magistrate. Thew
consisted of drafts of letters, which were, he maintained
of a private nature, having no connexion with the
matter in question. M. Oppeuheim, on being inter
rogated by the President of the Court, avowed that he
bad taken away the casket, but denied that it could be iva.
puted to him as a crime, as he merely meant to get posses
sion of an illegal deed of rent-charge, executed by Of
Count de Hatzfeld, the husband of his client, the Coun-
tess de Hatzfeld, upon a fictitious consideration, to the
great injury of her and her children ; and at the same
time to avoid the scandal of a suit at law between hus
band and wife. The President observed to M. Oppen-
heim that it appeared from his letters that one of his
objects was to obtain some proofs of adultery against th'
Count de Hatzfeld. The prisoner also admitted this, but
declared that it was only a secondary consideration with
him and the other advisers of the Countess. On tht
second charge of tearing the documents before the exa-
mining magistrate, he maintained that he was not guilt)
of any breach of the law, as they did not in any wise re.
late to the matter in question. The Court then proceeded
to the examination of witnesses. The first called war
the Baroness de Meyendorff, but she did not appear. The
rest of the witnesses were the valet and femme dc
chambre of the Baroness, and the officers who arrested M
Oppenheim, whose testimony went merely to the facts o!
the taking away and recovery of the casket, and the ar-
rest of the prisoner, as before stated. M. Windschert.
the registrar of mortgages at Dusseldorf, after pro-
testing against giving evidence of mortgages intrusted
to his charge officially, objections that were overruled
by the Court, was proceeding to give evidence, when
the Procureur-General interposed, and admitted that in
June last the Baroness de Meyendorff had contracted at
Parii, by a notoriate act, to advance to the Count de
Hatzfeld 250,000 fr. in purchase of a rent charge upon
his estates, of 25,0b0fr. a year for her life, but that this
contract had since been annulled. He then addressed the
Court in support of the prosecution, and demanded a
verdict of guilty on both counts.—The counsel for
M. Oppenheim replied. In defence of the attempt

stated he would produce in the witness-box, and the
whole of whom, he said, would completely and trium-
phantly justify the article for which the plaintiff now
sought to recover damages. The Learned Gentleman
then proceeded to call evidence.
The case was adjourned.

to gain possession of the grant of the rent charge.
he gave an animated representation of the cir-
cumstances under which the attempt was made,
and maintained that it could not be perverted
into a robbery. He stated that the Countess de Hatz-
feld, the daughter of a Sovereign Prince of Germany,
was married at the early age of sixteen to the Count—a
marriage that was only the commencement of a life of
misery. Even the birth of three children could not se-
cure her from the ill-treatment of her husband, and in
1833 she was obliged to separate herself from him, and
go to live at Berlin with her two younger children. The
Court instituted a suit for a divorce, but which she (the
Countess) had defended with success. To persecute her,
be had since deprived her of the society of her children ;
and, by the deed of annuity to the Baroness de Meyen-
dorff, had attempted to rob them of part of their inherit-
ance. He ceased to pay the •Countess her stipulated
almony, and put her daughter into a convent at Vienna,
where she had been incarcerated for nine years. In 1840
a reconciliation took place, and the Countess returned to
live with her husband. Differences soon again arose,
and the Gaunt withdrew from her to his château of
Schoeristein. She once more joined him, bat he imme-
diately after abandoned her and their children, and went
to reside at Dusseldorf, leaving orders that she should
be kept in the château as a prisoner. She was treated
with disrespect by his servant& In 1841 her family
interfered, and the Count was induced to sign a deed of
separation, binding himself to allow her a certain in-
come, which, however, he never paid in full. In 184
he announced to his wife that he would never be recon-
ciled to her, and declared to his youngest son that if
he remained with his mother he would lose for ever the
protection of his father. She went to Berlin, and there
learnt that the Count was living at Aix-la-Chapelle
with the Baroness de Meyendorff, and, at the same
time, gained information of the annuity deed, and a
letter from the Count to the Baroness fell into their
hands, containing the following passage:—" I believe I
love you so much, because I never before loved any
Woman. It is `a Misfortune to love so well, when one is
obliged to separate from the beloved object. I will make
every sacrifice to get rid of that horrible woman. and
'then your future happiness will be secure." Upon this the
Countess accompanied by a venerable priest, went to
Aix-la-Chapelle, and after some discussion the Count
promised to annul the annuity deed ; but on the follow-
mg day again repudiated his wife, and she returned from
Aix-la-Chapelle ; •and the recovery of the deed, sup-
posed-to be in the hands of the Baroness was resolved
upon. To prove that the consideration of 250,0001 r.
could not be real, the counsel affirmed that neither the
Baroness de Meyendorff nor her husband possessed any
fortune whatnver, nor could the Count de Hatzfeld, with
a revenue of 500,U00f. per annum, and enjoying an im-
mense credit, possibly want to borrow . any sum at the
enormous rate of ten per cent. The learned counsel
then entered upon the technical question of the robbery,
and insisted that under. no law, human or divine, could
the taking away the casket be considered as a crime.
The second count of the indictment was argued against
by another advocate, for M. Oppenheim. The usual
replies were made, and the Judge summed up the case
with great clearness arid impartiality, leaving the deci-
sion to the,Jury, who, after retiring for half an hour,
returned and pronounced a verdict of Not Guilty. M.
Oppenheim was immediately discharged out of custody.

-The absence
Ti OED lISHLEY.
e this Noble Lord
from the recent meetings inYorkshire and Lancashire,
to promote the ten houra factory agitation, has occa-
sioned some surprise in this part of the country, and
has not, we believe,
Lordship
been satisfactorily accounted for,
except that his Loer,.
is not willing to surrender his
d
own judgment to the dictation of much less cool-headed
men.—Leeds Mercury.
Our obituary this week contains the name of Mr.
jt p. Anderdon, of Farley-hill, near this town, a gen-
ieanwhose courtesy, urbanity, and open-handed
m
charity had for many years endeared him to the sur-
rnn ding neighbourhood. Mr. Anderdon had attained
the venerable age of 87 years, and the whole of his long
life bad been distinguished by the virtues which adorn
the gentleman and the Christian. His loss will be
severely felt by the poor of the neighbourhood, this
town included, his munificence being annually extended
to many of our local charities.—Berkshire,Chronicle.
A clever attempt was made on Saturday evening
by a well-dressed thief, to steal about 4001. worth of
plate, the property of Mr. Johnson, the late Lord Mayor
of London. One of Alderman Johnson's servants was
employed in loading a cab, at the private door of the
Mansion-house, with the goods of his master, and as soon
as a chest of plate was deposited on the driver's box a
man bustled into the vehicle suddenly and ordered the
driver to set off for the Brighton railroad as quickly as
possible. '1 he cabman, supposing that the person who
gave him the order was duly authorised, began to turn
his horse round, but, luckily, one of the attendants at
thcMansion-house, %ho was assisting in packing up the
goods, caught a glimpse of the cab, and called out to
the driver that there was something more for him to
carry. The thief inside immediately opened the door at
the far side, upon being asked what he had to do with
the property, and disappeared in a twinkling. Even the
most experienced officers of the police admitted that the
dexterity with which the experiment was made proved,
that the candidate for the plate was a fellow of first-rate
genius.