The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-29 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

A HEBREW BREACH OF PROMISE CASE.—The case of
" Barnett v. Abrahams " was tried in the Court of
Common Pleas, before kr. Justice Wines and a Middle-
' sex common jury. The parties are Jews, living in the
East-end of London, and the action arose on an alleged
breach of. promise of marriage. The plaintiff, Julia
Barnett, is a young woman about twenty-four years of
age ; and the defendant, Adolphe Abrahams, is a
few years older. The case of the plaintiff was
that about Passover time, 1868, the defendant commenced
to pay his addresses to the plaintiff, and was accepted by
her family as her suitor. In April 1869 he seduced her.
The plaintiff, her father, mother, brother, and sister were
examined with a view of substantiating the case, and
their evidence revealed the surprising fact that although
the whole family knew of the plaintiff's condition, they
took no trouble to ascertain the defendant's immediate
intentions, until the confinement took place, when plain-
tiff's brother brought him to the house to see plaintiff,
when he exclaimed, " Lor,' what a fine baby." The
jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
ACTION AGAINST A SHERIFF.—The ease of " Allen v.
Carter," came before the Court of Common Pleas for
their decision on a special case submitted. A
writ was issued against a debtor named Lamb,
and entrusted for execution to the defendant,
whose officers arrested him. The debtor then produced
his certificate in bankruptcy, and the bailiffs then set him
at liberty. The question for the opinion of the court was
whether the defendant was justified in releasing the
debtor. The Courts of Queen's Bench and Exchequer
had decided similar cases against the officer, whose duty
it was held, was to execute the writ entrusted to him.
The Court now held that the certificate was not a docu-
ment upon which the sheriff could act, having had notice
of the circumstances of the case. The sheriff was there-
fore held to be liable.
THE CHARGE AGAINST A GOLD-MINING COMPANY.—
The case of " Villesboinet v. the Ovens Gold-Mining
Company " came again before Mr. Justice Willes, sitting
in nisiprius in the Court of Common Pleas. His lordship
now stated the points which he intended to reserve for the
opinion of the full court. They were :—Whether there
was any evidence of fraud to go to the jury ; and if not,
whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover on any other
ground but that of fraud. All the other issues were
properly left to the jury, and had been decided by them.
The plaintiff had commenced another action against the
Hon. Mr. Tobin and others, the directors of the company,
for fraudulent misrepresentation, in issuing a prospectus
containing false statements concerning the number of
shares applied for ; but it was decided to postpone the
hearing of the case until after the points reserved shall
have been disposed of by the full court.
ACTION FOR SLANDER.—An action for slander has en
gaged the attention of the Court of Queen's Bench for.
two days. The plaintiff, a young woman named Dixon,
alleged that she had lost her situation as schoolmistress
owing to a slander against her on the part of the defen-
dant, Mrs. Parnham. The defence .was that her dis-
missal had been resolved upon prior to the slander for other
reasons. Mr. Justice Lush said in that casehe had no alter-
native but to nonsuit the plaintiff, as she had received no
special damage in the way of pecuniary loss. It was dis-
covered, however, that as the plaintiff had been dismissed
from her situation three weeks before the end of the
quarter, she had lost the school-pence, and this was held
sufficient to bring the case under the law. Ultimately the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, giving ,C5O
damages ; but the judge reserved leave to the defendants
to move for a reduction of this sum.

THE FORGERIES ON LORD DUDLEY.—In the Court of
Queen's Bench, Mr. Murray, of the Law Society, shewed
cause against a rule obtained by Mr. Prentice, Q.C. to
restore Frederick Augustus Farrar to the roll of attor-
neys. It will be remembered that Mr. Farrar was
arrested, in September 1868, for forgery in conjunction
with a Mr. Hullett, a bill discounter, living in great style
down in Hampshire. Hullett had forged the acceptance
of Lord Dudley for £BOO, and that of Mr. Eversfield
Horsham for £350, and these were . given to Mr.
Farrar to utter, with the proposal that the latter
should receive 10 per cent., the borrower paying 30 per
cent. Farrar and Hullett were both convicted, and sen-
tenced to ten years' penal servitude. Shortly afterwards
Farrar was struck off the rolls, He received a free pardon
from her Majesty in January, 1869, on the representation
to the Home Office that he had been the dupe of Hullet.
The Court considered that there was nothing to show a
guilty knowledge on Farrar's part, and made the
rule absolute to restore him to the roll of the Court.
THE GODRICH CASE.—The woman Williams, found
guilty of perjury in the Godrich divorce case, upon whom
sentence was to have been passed on the sixth day of the
present term, has failed to appear, An application in the
Court of Queen's Bench, by Mr. Serjeant Parry, that
sentence should be passed in her absence, was postponed
until it could be heard before the full court.
A BILL OF LADING.—An action has been brought by
the endorsees of a bill of lading of 161 bales of cotton
shipped at New "York for Liverpool. The cotton was
shipped in the steamship Idaho, of which the defennants,
the Liverpool and Great Western Steamship Company
(Limited) were owners, by a person named Mann. The
plaintiffs, Messrs. Finlry and others, contended that
when the bill of lading was endorsed to them they became
owners of the property. The case has come before the
Court of Exchequer upon demurrer to two of the pleas.
The first stated that it had been decided by a competent
court in New York, that the shippor was not the
real owner of the goods. The Court was of
opinion the this plea was bad, as the exception
in the bill " the restraint of princes and rulers,'
went the act of a Government, and not the decision of ez
court of Justice. The other plea, that the shipper had
no right to the goods, having obtained them by fraud,
their lordships held it was a good answer to the action, as
a bill of lading was different to a bill of exchange, and
the endorsee of the former could have no better right than
the original shipper.
THE VICISSITUDES OF A GENIUS.—A native of the
Shetland Islands, named Alison, who had evidently seen
better days, was brought before the Leamington bench,
charged with sending upwards of forty begging letters to
persons in various parts of the town. When called upon
for his defence, he admitted his fault, but pleaded his
necessities in excuse, and concluded with requesting the
magistrates to read some of his poetry. The letters,
which were produced, were of an extraordinary character,
and contained evident marks of originality.

AN EARTHQUAKE IN ONANDAGA.—The ivractese
Journal says that a remarkable phenomenon lately oc-
curred at Marcellus. A tract of land containing about
three acres was upheaved during the night by some sub,
terranean force, the surface being piled into hillocks as
high and as large as a house, and huge cracks and cre-
vasses were opened, which extend irregularly all over it.
The earthquake is supposed to have taken place at mid-
night, but no noise was heard in the vicinity, although
some inexplicable sounds were reported as being heard at
Marcellus. A strong smell of sulphur is noticed in the
vicinity of this remarkable occurrence, but nothing
further to indicate the cause of the upheaval.

FINAL DECISION ON LEGAL-TENDER.

On the Bth April the Hon. J. D. BECK, M.C.,
from Kentucky, moved in the U. S. Supreme Court
for the reeopeeing of the HEPBURN-GRISWOLD, the
great Legal-Tender case lately decided ; and coun-
sel proceeded to argue the subject, when he was
interrupted by the Chief Justice, who said the mo-
tion was not debateable. "No decided case," Mr.
CHASE observed, " will be re-opened under a deci-
sion of the Court this term unless it be requested
by one of the concurring Justices, and it therefore
depends upon such a contingency whether the case
will be re-opened." By telegraph the Times has
obtained the information that the Supreme Court
on Wednesday last confirmed what the Chief Jus-
tice had said. On that day LATHAM versus the
United States and DEMING versus the United States
were called for argument, but dismissed on the mo-
tion of the appellant's counsel. Attorney-General
HOAR opposed, urging that if the Court concluded
to dismiss these cases it should grant the motion
already made, to.rehear HEPBURN versus GRISWOLD.
Justices MILLER and BRADLEY, doubting the ap-
pellant's right to withdraw their appeals, the Court
retired for consultation, when the absolute right of
the parties was recognized unanimously by the
Judges, and the motion to dismiss assented to by
the Court. Nor was this all ; for a far more im-
portant discussion still was arrived at during this
consultation, for " the Court refused the motion of
the Attorney-General for re-hearing HEPBURN
versus GRISWOLD,' because none of the foot Judges
now on the bench, who had concurred iu the opi-
nion in that case, desired to have it re-heard ; and
by the rule of the Court, without the consent of
some one of the Judges who had coincided in the de-
cision of a case, it could not be re-heard. Judge
BRADLEY, one of the new Justices, announced that
he cheerfully concurred in this decision. The re-
sult is that the ruling in favour of gold as the only
Legal-Tender for debts incurred prior to the pass-
ing of the law makipg greenbacks Legal-Tender,.
stands. No other cases involving this question
aT e now on the docket." The decision to re-open
the Legal-Tender case had been received through-
out the Union with profound regret. There are
thoughtful Americans who regard the Supreme
Court as the Dutch regard their dykes—as the bul-
wark against a Democratic inundation ; as the single
barri r between them and the most obsolute tyranny
of a majority. No nation turns with more venera-
tion to law, and amidst the venality introduced into
some courts through the election of the Judges,
there has been an earuest desire to see the Supreme
Court of the United States maintain in the highest
degree the respect of the people, as a leg.l tribunal
second to none on earth, and as the great and last
•
appeal of Americans. It was then, with something
more than dread, that the nation witnessed the late
attempt to upset its well-considered decision, for
the ruling affected the interests of States and Cor-
porations, whose power nothing but the Supreme
Court could withstand. To see it yield was to see
the last dyke go before a dominant party, and in a
way calculated to arouse still more the suspicion of
impure motives. Two new Justices had been added
to the Court, and one of the vacancies had been
created by the passage of a Pension Law almost
purposely to induce Judge GRIER to retire, and it
was asserted that pending cases had been held back
till the change of Judges. Congress has the power
to increase the number, and if an unscrupulous ma-
jority are bent on carrying a party question, what
is to prevent their adding to the
-Bench a sufficient
number of Judges, whose opinions had previously
been carefully ascertained, to secure any desired
decision ? This was a positively appalling prospect
to many Americans, and a leading journal pre-
dicted that should success attend that move persons
now living would see the prediction accomplished.
The press gave earnest utterance to what is clearly
the national sentiment, exposing very forcibly the
fallacy of the Attorney-General's argument. He
reduced the finding of the Court to the Chief Jus-
tice, fixing the decision on him individually, and
in this manner proceeded :—The opinion of one
man, if the decision Wands, is to outweigh the
Executive, the Legislature, and the State tribu-
nals ; in a word, the whole nation. It is to limit
the power of the Government for all time, and to
shackle it when it most requires to be free, that is
in a great emergency. It is to affect the business
transactions of all the people, upsetting a statute
acquiesced in for eight years, upon which mil-
lions upon millions of contracts have been settled.
All, too, on the judicial opinion of a single man,
who had entertained a different opinion at another
period of his life, so that this gigantic question
turns upon the differing opinions of an indivi lual
at different periods. Although specious, the argu-
ment contained a d ingerous doctrine, and one cal-
culated to destroy all reverence for Cour s. It mat-
ters not what the majority was or how many composed
the Court —everything being summed up in the
one fact, that the ruling in dispute was the decision
of the Supreme Court. To question that, was to
launch the country. into a sea of disputation. If a
man objects to a majority of one he can easily ex-
tend his objection to two, to three, and by an easy
process take exception to the whole nine ; for what
are they but nine fallible lawyers, and if this be
applied to the Supreme Court, why not to all the
other Courts and to the Legislature as well ? . But
the fact wasnot as the Attorney-General stated. Six
earlier casesinvolved theLegal-Tender question, but
in a 11 it was avoided while the Judges held the subject
under advisement, though suitors were indignant'
and clamorous at the delay. The d., cision was arrived .
at early in November, when the Court was com-
posed of eight judges ; and as Justice GRIER held
with the majority, had it been made public at that
time there would have been five to three, the deci-
sion being given by the full Bench. In the first
place, then, Mr. Homes argument struck at the
root of all government and arbitration ; and in the
next place, his fact was not true. Then arises the
question, was the necessity so great as to induce
the Executive to take this grave step? It is argued
that the importance to Government of making irre-
deemable paper a legal tender is greatly exagge-•
rated. It is neither more nor less than legalised
cheating, and has invariably worked injury to that
Governmeut or nation which resorted to it. It is the
c aifidence of the world in a nation's credit which
gives real strength to a Government in the hour of
teed, not is ability to make anything it plehses the
means of paying deb's. Indeed, it cannot ; for the
v-due of the th:ng must, after all, hinge wholly, if.it
be in itself valueless, on the honesty of the Govern-
ment which issues it ; on the faith of the people
that it will one day be redeemed at par, which is
simply national credit. When the squall struck the
United States the credit of the Government was
not good ; hence the enormous losses entailed in
obtaining funds during the emergency ; but when
another tempest comes it is probable that capi-
talists will be ready enough to lend their money to
the nation. Even then the value of the privilege for
which the Attorney-General contended on the part
of the Executive, is called in question ; and there
is a singular unanimity in the American press that
whatever may belts value, whatever be the amount
of property involved, it is a mere bagatelle com-
pared with the importance of preserving high above
suspicion in the confidence of the people, the integ,
rity of the U, S. Supreme Court.
The question, then, has been settled as we anti-
cipated, and our readers will see that we have been
fully justified not only in so confidently predicting
this result, but in exposing the pernicious errors
contained in the leading article of the London
Times, when it was first known that the case was
to be reopened.--finglo-American Times.