The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, Tilt' ESDAY, MAY 19, 1870.

LAW AND POLICE►

DIFFICULTIES. OF A THEAtRICAL MANAGER.-At the
Wrexham County Court, before Mr. It. Vaughan Wil-
liams, Miss Laura Selwyn and Miss May Mayfield,
actresses, brought an action against Mr. Philip
Hannan, manager of the Wrexham Theatre Royal,
to recover £l2 2s. Bd. for services rendered.
Miss Selwyn conducted the case on behalf of
herself and her sister. She said : The action is brought
to recover a balance due for the joint services
of myself and this lady (Miss Mayfield), at the rate of
355. per week, and also another claim for thirty-three
morning performances. I charge for the thirty-three
extra morning performances at half salary price, 2s. 6d. a
time (24 2s. 6d.), as is customary in the profession. I also
claim a week's in lieu of a week's notice, as we were
summarily dismissed.—Mr. Hannan : The ladies were
engaged by the week, and if they consent to act as extra
performances, I have a right, as manager, to have their
services. I have played in Scotland on New Year's Day
three or four times, and have never received a farthing
extra. His Honour : Would not Mrs. Charles Kean be
rather surprised if she were called upon to give an extra
performance without additional remuneration ?—Mr.
Hannan : The cases are different. We did not have full
performances. Subsequently Mr. Hannan admitted that
£3 2s. 2d. was owing to the plaintiff, and his Honour
thought that the ladies ought to have something for their
extra work, and he gave judgment in their favour for £6.
Miss Selwyn then applied for her expenses incoming from
Birmingham to attend the case, which were granted.

THE WARRANTY OF A HORSE.—An action between two
horse dealers has been brought in the Lourt of Common
Pleas. The plaintiff imported a black horse from Hanover,
Which the defendant agreed to buy, provided it passed
the Veterinary College, which it did. A few days
after it had been taken to the defendant's stables its leg
swelled, but nothing serious was apprehended. A week
later the plaintiff and defendant agreed to an exchange of
horses, and the plaintiff asked if the horse was all right.
The defendant Said it was, and this was the warranty
sued on, for the horse grew worse, and had to be
destroyed. The defence was that his disease was of old
standing, and he was substantially in the same state when
exchanged as when originally purchased. Verdict for
the plaintiff—damages £B5.

A SECRETARY OF A NEWSPAPER IN THE BANKRUFTCY
COURT.—Mr. Charles Fowler, late secretary of the
Oxford Times Newspaper Company, came before Mr.
Registrar Roche, at the Court of Bankruptcy, on an
application for order of discharge. He ascribes his failure
to his having taken a farm at Bicester, which resulted in
a loss of upwards of £3,000, and to the Oxford Toilet
Company having turned out a failure ; also to his being
and involved in two Chancery suits. He owed to unse-
cured creditort £2,030, besides liabilities of £10,965, of
which £10,154 are in respect of Chancery suits. The asset
are merely nominal. The bankrupt had been required to
file additional accounts and some vovchers, but, as the
latter had not been produced in time, an adjournment of
the sitting was ordered.
FALLING OVER A PLANK. —A case has been tried in the
Court of Queen's Bench to recover damages for injuries
sustained through the alleged negligence of the defendant's
servants. The plaintiff, a shopkeeper in Bayswater, was
running along the road, when he fell over a plank which
the defendant's servants had laid across the pavement to
carry sacks of flour into a baker's shop. The plaintiff was
seriously injured, but the defendants contended that it
was usual for millers to lay down planks. Mr.
Justice Hannen would not deny their right to
use the pavement in that way, but they were
bound to take reasonable precautions. Verdict for the
plaintiff. Damages £2O.
IMPORTANT DECISION ON PARTNERSHIP.—The judges of
the Court of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas decided an
appeal—" Kendall v. Wood "—from the Court of Exche-
quer, which has an important bearing on partnership
relations. The parties were Manchester merchants
and the plaintiff sought to recover £l,OOO from the defen-
dants, that amount having been paid in excess to the
defendants by his partner without his knowledge.
The co-partner had paid, the partnership moneys
in discharge of his own debt, and the defendants
gave him a receipt on the partnership account, but they
afterwards transferred it to his own debt. The question
was whether the plaintiff could recover the £l,OOO paid
by his partner. The court held that plaintiff was entitled
to recover, and entered the judgment accordingly.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY
The Speaker took the chair at twenty minutes past
twelve o'clock.

MALLOW ELECTION.
Mr. WATERS took the oath and his seat for Mallow.

MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS (MBTROPOLIS) BILL.
Mr. C. BUXTON moved the second reading of this bill.
He remarked that there was no self-government for
London. The only attempt in that direction was
the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of
works, but the functions of that body being limited it
could not be regarded as a municipal system of self-
government. His plan was that the City Corporation
should be extended to the whole of the metropolis, and
that it should carry with it all its present functions, pro-
perty, and prestige. London, he contended, suffered
from the want of some powerful system of self-govern-
ment. The hon. member described what he called the state
of anarchy in London, and pointed out the evils attendant
upon the complicated and anomalous form of government
at present existing in the metropolis. He said that the
system was a wasteful one in every respect, both in regard
to time and money. The necessity for a central and
powerful intelligent body was obvious and imperative.
He proposed to take the existing divisions of
London for Parliamentary boroughs, and that
each Parliamentary borough should be endowed
with a complete municipal institution, which would
unable it to deal with all the petty affairs which
Would not come under the cognizance of the Central
Government, as not interesting the whole of the metro-
polis. The extraordinary defect-of which he spoke was
distinctly recognised on all hands, and it was almost uni-
versally admitted that the time had come to amend it.

Mr. BENTINCK moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months. The hon. member called
attention to the various schemes which had been proposed
for the better government of the metropolis, and pointed
out that the present plan was toally different from any
of the schemes previously advocated. The scheme pro-
posed by the Select Committee of 1867 had been
received with very great favour. It was that
the Board of Works should be entirely recon-
structed as the central authority of London,
its constitution should be altered, its name changed, and
its pmer enlarged. It was proposed that the Board
should have control over the gas and water, and protect the
public interest, both as regarded the thoroughfares and rail-
ways, &c. Hehoped the three bills which the hon. member
had brought in would not, at this advanced period of the ses-
sion, be referred to a select committee. It was clear that
the matter could not be dealt with this year, and if the
subject were deferred the Government would have time
for Mature consideration.
Mr. MORRISON remarked that there was an advantage
in the preliminary inquiry by a select committee, because
it reduced the points in dispute to a minimum. So far
from having no authority to urge in favour of the scheme
of the hon. member for East Surrey, he could cite the
authority of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the
Corporation. The proposal of Mr. Buxton was more
statesmanlike than that of the Committee of 1867.

Lord JOHN MANNERS said no Government could hope
to cope successfully with the immense difficulties con-
tained in the proposal, unless they secured the co-opera-
tion of the great representative bodies such as existed at
present moment. He did not think any good would result
from referring the series of bills relating to the subject to
a select committee.

Mr. LOCKE was in favour of the proposal for one
central governing body, which should be the Corporation,
the whole of the metropolis being divided into wards.

Mr. W. H. SMITH said that a constitution for London
was undoubtedly necessary, but the question involved
such a great principle that it was unadvisable to refer it
to a select committee. He agreed with Mr. Locke as to
the desirableness of extending the corporation.
Mr. BRUCE thought so important a question should be
dealt with by Government, and at the same time he did
not think it was inconsistent to refer the subject to a
select committee. He was not sanguine enough to believe
that a select committee could conduct the inquiry to an
issue so as to enable the Government to deal with the
subject this session.

Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY said he was authorised by the
Corprration to say that they were anxious for a full
inquiry.
Sir WILLIAM TITE, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board
of Works, made a similar statement.
Alderman LAWBE'CE pointed out that no provssion had
been made for the extension of the boundaries of London.
Thirty years hence, he observed, the population might be
six millions.
After some further discussion the Rouse divided—
For the second reading ... ... 130
Against ... 66

Majority ... 64
The bill was read a second time and referred to a select
committee.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL,

Mr. RussELL GURNEY moved the second reading of this
bill. He said he had found a general feeling
that a change should take place in the state
of the law as it affected the husband , and wife.
He instanced tlie, evil effects which the law
had upon women, and he quoted from the
evidence of the triilbar for Sheffield, who stated
that he knew many cases of great hardship.
Upwards of 803 women in his employ were married
women, and earned good wages. In very many instances
the husbands were idle and dissipated, and spent the
earnings of their wives. The argument as to the exten-
sion of the law, of marriage settlements was
utterly inapplicable in the present case, whilst
the obtaining of a protection order from the
magiarate3 would be but a declaration of war between
the husband and wife, and would result in lamentable
consequences. The only remedy was the one he proposed,
namely, that a woman should not lose or forfeit her pro-
p3rty by the act of marriage. He noticed the objection
raised against the bill. One was that it would introduce
discord into a family, but he reminded the House
that the rich always took care to secure the property of
their daughters. The hon. and learned gentleman then
read a variety of authorities in favour of the change in
the law proposed by the bill, and also to prove that the
fears entertained by those who opposed the measure were
groundless. He hoped the House would assent to this bill,
which had been most carefully considered, but he im-
plored hon. gentlemen not to pass any half measure on
the subject. It was a matter of the most vital importance
to the working classes. They felt they were suffering a
grievous wrong, because they could not see why a poor
woman's mangle should not be just as much protected as
the rich lady's consols.
Mr. RAIKEB felt equally with the right hon. gentleman
that these was a great necessity for a change In the DAW'
with respect to the property of women, but he did not
think the proposals of the bill now under the considera-
tion of the House calculated to remedy the evil. He
could not help thinking that the passing of the present
bill would increase instead of diminishing the very objec-
tionable state of thinge that at present existed. He had
a bill on the paper on the subject, which arrived at the
same result by rather different arrangement; and there-
fore, whilst he did not adopt the course he took
last year, he thought the best way of ascer-
taining the respective merits of both bills would be
to read each a second time, and then refer them to a select
committee.

Mr. JESSEL said the hon. gentleman who had just sat
down had admitted that it would be advisable to protect
wives from brutal and fraudulent husbands, and
yet he objected to 'support a measure the
s,lc object of which was to arrive at the
much-desired result. The hon. member (Mr. Raikes) had
imputed latent motives to those who supported the pre-
sent measure : but he denied that such was the case.
They were actuated by but one desire, that was to give
protection to a woman, and thus enable her to defeat the
evil intentions of a man to whom she had unfortunately
linked herself for life. He hoped the House would read
the bill a second time, and not send it to a select com-
mittee.

Mr. CHARLEY objected to the bill, because if it passed
it would give a woman the right to vote in virtue of her
property.
Mr. STAVELEY HILL supported the bill, because it gave
the county court judge the power of protecting the
earnings of an industrious woman from being squandered
by a dissolute husband.

Mr. MUNDELLA hoped the House would allow the bill
to be read a second time, and mentioned cases in which
the proposed change in the law would operate most bone•
ficially.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL having in a brief speech sup.
. 4 the principle of the measure,
bilki9llo.4o IWO tinl%

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (NO. 2) BILL.
Mr. C. RAISES moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. JACOB BRIGHT moved, and Mr. HEADLAM seconded,
that the bill be read that day six months.
On a division, the amendment was carried by 208 to 46
votes.