The Sun.
London, England, 1870-12-27 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.
THE RELIGION OF MINORS.—A case of considerable in-
terest has come before the Irish Court of Chancery, being

a question as to the religion in which certiin minors were'
to be brought up. The children in question are the
daughters of Mr. Robert Warren Meade, a gentleman of
high standing as a solicitor, and the son of a Protestant
clergyman, having also two brothers clergymen
of the Protestant Church. Mr. Butt, Q.C., stated
the case, which was briefly that Mr. Meade
had, in 1859, married Miss Alice Ronayne, of
Ardsalla, in the county of Cork, a lady of the
Catholic faith. Previous to this marriage it appeared
from the petition that Miss Mary Catherine Rohayne,
the sister of the bride elect, had a cerrespondence with
Mr. Meade, in the course of which she asserted that he,
being desirous of obtaining her influence with her
sister, promised that the female issue should be
brought up Catholics. These letters were not
now forthcoming, and proof of the fact rested
upon the sworn testimony alone ; but in the pre-
sent aspect of the case, whether the promise was
made or not was a matter of not much importance. The
marriage was celebrated in London, first at the chapel of
the Spanish Embassy by a Catholic priest, and after-
wards in a Protestant church by the father of the bride-
groom, who thus gave his full assent to the union of his
son with a Catholic lady. The first child, Alice Mary,
was born on the 24th of June, 1860, at the residence of
her mother's brother, Mr. Ronayne ; and the second,
Anne Warren, was born on the 11th of July, 1861.
at the same place. Both were baptised by Catholic clergy-
men. The petition stated that from the date of the
marriage the two families lived on terms of the greatest
intimacy, and a considerable portion of each summer
was spent. by Mrs. Meade and her children at her
brother's residence, and at that of her sister,
Mrs. David Nagle, in the county of Cork, while
Miss Ronayne lived very much with Mr. and Mrs.
Meade at their residence in Baggot-street, Dublin.

Up to the period of Mrs. Meade's death the two minor
children were brought up in strict conformity with the
doctrine of the Catholic Church. On October 3, 1867, a

third little girl was born, who would not be affected by
this proceeding, as she• was only three years old, and it
was quite open to her father to educate her in any re-
ligion he pleased. Within 12 days of the birth the mother
died, and between the date of her death and the
funeral Mr. Meade requested Miss Ronayne to remain

with him, and take charge of the children. It appeared
that she continued to do so until Mr. Meade became en-

--- —_
gaged to Miss Jamieson, a Protestant lady, after which
he announced his intention of having the children educated
in the Protestant religion. The learned counsel stated
the whole case, which is not yet concluded, at consider-
able length.

DAMAGES FOR INJURIES ON A RAILWAY.-At the
Sheriff's Court the case of Tear v. The Brighton and
South Coast Railway was heard. This was an action in
the Queen's Bench for personal injuries. The plaintiff
laid his damages at £1,500, and the company had allowed
judgment to go by default. The only question before a
special jury was what injury the plaintiff had sustained.
The Hon. Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Petherham were for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Lopes, Q.C., and Mr. R ose represented
the company. The case was before the Court on
Thursday, when it occupied the attention of
the learned Under-Sheriff and the jury till past
five o'clock, and on Saturday it lasted several hours.
The plaintiff, a builder at Croydon, was riding in a
train on the company's line, and near Sydenham an acci-
dent occurred by a Crystal Palace train, and the plaintiff
alleged that he was ruptured by the collision that
occurred, being thrown from his seat. He did not feel
the injury until after he had gone home and had had
medical attendance, and in August went to Ramsgate.
The accident occurred on the Bth of July, and the pre-
sent was the only action brought ; the others having been
settled. The guard of the train had thrown himself off
and had died, it being stated by Mr. Lopes that had he
remained at his duty his life would have been saved. The
plaintiff had delivered " particulars," and put £35 for
his stay at Ramsgate, but it was proved that he had not
stayed the time he mentioned in the particulars. The
question raised was whether the claim was not only exag-
gerated, but unfounded. Witnesses were nailed on both
sides- The plaintiff, a very stout man, declared that he had
been thrown from one side of the railway carriage to the
other, and was ruptured by the accident, and not before.
He had been prevented from attending to his business in
the usual manner. The medical evidence was that he was
ruptured, and the appearance showed it was recent. On
the part of the company the medical evidence was to the
effect that the rupture was not a recent one. It was
also @hewn that the plaintiff had been only a few days at
Ramsagte. He had been a bankrupt, and, it was alleged,
had not been truthful in his account of the accident. A
person who was in the same carriage with him when the
accident occurred denied that he was thrown from
one side of the carriage to the other. He (the
witness) was not hurt, but only a little shaken. Mr.
Lopes, in summing up the evidence, declared that it
was only a case for nominal damages. He urged that an
attempt had been made to defraud the company by an
unfounded claim, and that it was the duty of the railway
company to resist the claim that had been made. Mr.
Thesiger put the case to the jury as one which called
upon them to give substantial damages. The question
simply was, whether the present claim was a con-
spiracy, supported by perjury. He denied that there were
any grounds for such an allegation. The plaintiff had been
ruptured by the collision, and though there were some
errors in the particulars, he felt assured that the jury
would consider it a case for substantial damages.--Mr.
Under-Sheriff Burchell told the jury that the only ques-
tion for them was one of amount. Was the rupture in
consequence of an old or a recent occurrence? If they
considered that the case had been trumped up, then the
lowest possible damages would be sufficient, and he hoped
that if they entertained such an opinion, they would have
the moral courage to give expression to it by their verdict.
But if, on the contrary, they thought the plaintiff had
been injured in his person by the collision, and that the
injury resulted in a loss to his property, then it was their
duty to give fair and reasonable damages. The jury re-
tired, and after a brief consultation returned into court
and assessed the damages at £1.50.

FURIOUS DRIVING.-A case of furious driving was
brought before Sir Sydney Waterlow at Guildhall'the
other day. A carman, who was drunk, had driven right
into a waggonette in High-street, Aldgate. There were
three persons in it, who fortunately sustained no
serious injury, but they were placed in great
danger from the excited state of the horse as
the dashboard fell upon him. It turned out
upon inquiry that the prisoner was drunk, and Sir
Sydney Waterlow fined him 10s., or in default seven
days' hard labour. He was unable to pay the fine,
and it was urged on his behalf that he had
a wife and six children dependant on him for support.
Sir Sydney Waterlow, however, refused to alter his de-
cision, remarking, very justly that the lives of the public
should be protected, and he would do his utmost to pro-
tect them, so far as the law empowered him to do so.
THE SALE OF RIFLES.-At the Northern Assizes, at
Liverpool, the case of Jones v. Manning was heard. Mr.
C. Russell and Mr. T. H. James were for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Aspinall, Q.C., and Mr. Gully for the defendant.
This was an action by the plaintiff, a gunmaker carrying
on business in Liverpool, against the defendant, a hard-
ware merchant in the same town, for damages resulting
from the breach of an agreement on the part of the de-
fendant to deliver to the plaintiff 1,900 rifles and bayonets,
according to sample, at 13s. 9d. each, within 14 days from
the 15th of October last. At the time of the agreement of
sale the defendant was informed by the plaintiff that he
intended to re-sell them, and the former stated that
he believed that they were in London at the time. Im-
mediately after the sale the plaintiff re-sold them at the
price of 21s. each, less 2i per cent, commission to the
broker, through whom the sale was effected. Three
or four days afterwards the defendant informed
the plaintiff that the rifles were in Hamburg,
and that the authorities of that port refused to
allow them to be exported without a certificate as to their
destination : he could not, therefore, deliver them unless
the plaintiff supplied the necessary certificate. This the
latter declined to do, and accordingly the rifles
were not delivered at the expiration of the fourteen
days. It was proved that, owing to the present European
war, the demand for rifles was very great, and that the
market price steadily increased up to the time of the
negotiations for the proposed armistice, several witnesses,
' stating that the rifles in question could have been sold at
308. each. even upon the day on which the sale was effected
by the defendant, and that it had rather increased at the
end of the 14 days. When the plaintiff learnt that the de-
fendant could not deliver the rifles to him he cancelled his
sub-contract, but paid the commission in respect of it to the
broker. For the defendant it was contended that the mar-
ket price had not really advanced, and that the certificate
as to the destination of the rifles might and ought to have
been supplied by the plaintiff, as the sub-purchaser re-
' quired them for the African trade, and not for the use of
the belligerents. The agreements, however, did not pro-
vide for this, and the judge directed the jury that the
only question for them was the amount of damages to
which the plaintiff was entitled, and they awarded him
£5OO.