The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-17 00:00:00

EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1846

ATTORNEYS' CERTIFICATE DUTY.
Mr. BODGES presented a petition from four
solicitors, praying for the repeal of this duty.
An 1105. MEMBER presented a considerable num-
ber of petitions to the same effect, from solicitors in
Huddersfield, Market Drayton, Hereford, Gosport,
Ely, Durham, and other places.
THE POOR-LAWS.

Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from Poole
complaining of the operation of the poor-laws, and
praying that the poor might be maintained by a na-
tional rate.

opinion of this House upon that resolution of the
law.—(Hear, hear.) He held that her Majesty's
Government were justified for what they had done,
but it was necessary that some public record of that
opinion should be made.—(Hear.) Why had' not
this been done before ? He must say that her Ma-
jesty's Government had not acted, in his opinion, so
fairly or frankly to the House as he thought they
ought to have done.—(Hear, hear.) There had
been an evident desire upon their part to
avoid any debate upon the subject.— (Hear, hear.)
Upon the very first night of the session the Bight
Hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
made a sort of a rush down to the House for the
purpose of appointing a Committee to sit upon the
question instead of having a debate upon the subject.
But still this Committee, though appointed, would not
touch the point which he now brought before the
House. He felt it his duty, therefore, to bring for-
ward this subject with a view to its being properly
discussed and a deliberate opinion recorded upon it.
It was maintained by some Members of that
House that the Act of 1844 did not create
the difficulties that occurred last year. Well,
if that were so, what necessity was there for
relaxing its provisions in October ? Upon what
other ground could Government justify the policy
` they then pursued than that the Act had produced the
mischief ?—(llear, hear.) But there could- hardly
be a doubt that the Act brought into existence
the mercantile difficulties this country suffered,
under last year, and he would venture to tell the
House that had the relaxation of its provisions been
delayed one week longer, the commerce of London
would have been stopped. The reduced state
of the Bank securities had given rise to the
utmost alarm, and those who had money in their
possession were exceedingly cautious to whom they
advanced it, if, indeed, they would lend or part with
it at all. But it was said this state of things was
not necessarily the consequence of the Act of 1844,
but arose out of the mismanagement of the Bank.
Now he thought lie should be able to show that it
was no such thing, and that no skill or ability in the
part of the Bank directors could have averted the
crisis which happened last year. A simple relation of
the events that occurred in 1847 the Act gave rise to
to distinct panics at two distinct periods of the year.
In the early part of the. year the demands made upon
the Bank for the purposes of food gave rise to the
utrnosi alarm, and when the coffers of the Bank be-
came reduced to the lowest point tolerated
by the Act, a crisis arose that shook many
noble commercial houses in the country.— (Hvar.)
It had been said that great mismanagement had taken
place on the part of the Bank of • England ; he had
looked most carefully into the subject, and he
saw .no reason for saying that there was any
mismanagement on the • part of that establishment.
Added to this, he was convinced that the acts of the
Bank had not led- to the monetary crisis that took
place last year. He believed that the inherent vice
was in the Act itself, and, not in those entrusted with
carrying it out, and believing such to be the
case, he should move the suspension of that Act.
It was probably true that the issue of Bank notes
' had not conformed itself to the fluctuation of the
bullion. The real effects of the operation of the bul-
lion upon the issue was in direct opposi-
tion to the theory of the Bill. The
Hon. Member for Portsmouth had himself admitted
that although there was a considerable reduction in
the amount of Bullion in the coffers of the Bank,
still there was no corresponding diminution of the
issues of bank-notes.—(Hear, hear.) The rule was
that for every million of bullion discovered in the coffers
a corresponding restriction of one million in the cir-
culation should take place. Now the decrease in
the bullion at one period of last year was
about 9,000,0001., there ought therefore to
have been a corresponding reduction in the
circulation of 9,000,0004 What would have been
the effects of such a reduction in the circulation of
a country where it was assumed that 20,000,0001.
was a sufficient amount to meet all the
demands for the circulating medium of the country.
The operation lof the Act of 1844 prevented
; the Bank of England during the late pressure
from issuing a single note to 'relieve the pressure
of the crisis, although at that time 8,000,9001.
bullion was lying idle in the coffers of the Bank.—
"(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It had been said that the
Bank of England had acted in error in reducing
their rate of discount to so low a sum as 2} per cent.
, It might be that for the interests of the country they
had acted erroneously, but the directors were bound
to act in the best manner they could for the pro-
, motion of the interests of their constituents,—(Hear,
, hear.) The framers of the Act had no right to com-
es plain of this conduct. When the Act passed, there
were 16,000,0001. of bullion in the Bank of England
and although they charged a low rate of discount,
still up to the middle of 1845, not only hail no
diminution taken place in the quantity of bul-
ion, but it had actually run to the sum of
16,600 0001.—(Hear, hear)—a larger amount
than the Bank had ever possessed during the
whole period of its history.—(Hear, hear.) At the
same time there was no doubt that the Bank of Eng-
, land was in some measure responsible for the undue
expansion of commerce, which was consequent upon
the low rate of discount which they charged.—(Hear,)
The rate of 2} per cent. discount was, however,
continued when there was a sensible diminution in
the amount of bullion, caused no doubt by the failure
of one of the stable articles of food in this
country. The rate of discount then rose to three
and a half per cent. Again the bullion rose in
amount to the sum of 16,356,000/., and the discount
was again lowered to 3 per cent., which was conti-
nued from that period to the month of January, 1847.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

LA `V INTELLIGENCE,
COURT OF COMMON PL EA S, Feb.

(Sittings in London, after Term, before Lord Chief
Justice WILDE and Special Julies.)

RICHARDS V. LONDON AND BRIGHTON AND SOUTII-

COAST RAILWAY CoMPANY.

Mr. Ser;.-fcant Bytes and Mr. Phipson appeared for
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Swann for
the defi,ndant%

Mr. l'ittrs N opened the pleadings. The first count
of the declaration stated that the defendants wire the
owners of the London and Brighton and South ('•asst
Railway, and were also the owners of certain carriages
on the railway, and were common carriers ; and that on
the 10th of November, 1846, Charlotte Susannah
It'ehards, the wife of the plaiutiff, was a passenger from
Woodgate station, near Bognor, to London, and that
atnongit other luggage she had a dressing-case, con-
taining jewellery and articles of great value, and by
reason of the want of care and wgligenco of
the defendants the dressing case was lost. The
second count stated the defendants to be com-
mon carriers from Woodgate to the hackney ca;!cii-
stand at London-bridge station, where it was their duty
to deliver the dressing-case to the plaintiff; but by
reaton of the defendants' negligence the dressing case
was lost. The third count stated the defendants' duty,
as common carriers, to deliver the dressing-case by the
hackney coach at the plaintiff's residence. To this
declaration :the defendants pleaded, 1, not guilty; 2,
a denial that they were owners of the railway or of the
carriages; 3, a denial that they were common carriers ;
4, a denial that the plaintiff's wife was a passenger with
her luggage ; 5, that the dressing-case contained ar-
ticles of jewellery of above the value of IN., and that
the directors had posted a notice at the station that they
would not be answerable for the loss of such luggage,
unless an increased rate of charge was paid; that the
value of the dressing-case was not declared, nor any
increased rate of charge paid ; 6, a denial that the
dressing case was ever delivered to the defendants to
be carried. To these pleas the plaintiff replied that
the defendants were guilty of the negligence charged
against them without the causes in their special pleas
mentioned.

Mr. Sergeant BYLE6, in opening the case for the plain-
tiff, said the plaintiff, Major Richards, was an officer in
her Majesty's service, and the action was brought to
recover the value of a dressing case, containing trinketa
of considerable worth, which was lost by the negligence
of the railway company, who were the defendants, on the
10th of November, 1846. In the autumn of 1846 the
plaintiff's wife was staying at Bognor for her health; she
was an invalid; and on the. 10th of November she re-
turned to London. She drove to the Woodgate station,
having, amongst other luggage, a dressing-case containing
articles of jewellery, the loss of some of which no money
could compensate. There was in it a gold cockle-shell
watch, made by Rundle and Bridge, and presented to the
plaintiff by the late Queen Caroline; also some valuable
earrings. a present from a gentleman high in office in
the Portuguese Government, and some valuable rings
and other articles belonging to Mrs. Richards. The
train left Woodgate station about two o'clock, and
arrived at London-bridge at half-past 5. The dressing-
case was put under Mrs. Richards's feet. Mrs. Richards
was so ill with a spinal complaint that she had to be
lifted in and out of her carriage. A lady's-maid was in
the carriage with her. On arriving at London-bridge,
the company's servants called a hackney coach, and
whilst the footman and lady's maid were attending to
Mrs. Richards, two of the company's porters said they
would look atter the luggage. The luggage was placed
in the coach, and Mts. Richards was driven to No. 2,
Cambridge-terrace, Hyde Park. Ore arriving there, the
dressing-case could nut be found. The Learned Counsel
then stated that, as common carriers, the defendants
would be answerable for the safe delivery of the laggage
at the plaintiff's house, and also that they were sespan-
:Tensible as bailees for the safety of the luggage be-
tween the railway and the hackney coaches at the
terminus. Inc facts put in issue by the pleas would be
proved, and it would be proved that there was no notice
posted at the Woodgate station requiring increased
carriage for articles of jewellery, Sse , and limiting the
liability of the company under the Carriers' Act; the
dsfendunts would nut, therefore, be entitled to the bene-
fit of that plea. The hackney-coachmen were the agents
of the company, as only certain people were admitted
into the yard, and they were the agents of the company
to complete their contract of safely delivering the pas-
sengers and their luggage. This had been decided in
the case of " Pickford v. The Grand Junction Railway
Company," reported in 12 Meesom and Welsby. If he
proved these facts, and th at there was a want of reason-
able care on the part of the company, the plaintiff would
bo entitled to the verdict of the jury. Then as to the

damages, he should call the lady's-maid to describe what
the dressing•ca:e contained, and a jeweller would speak
to the value of such articles being about 1301. or 1401.
The peculiar value attaching to mein could not well he
estimated.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, on the part of the efendants,
would give no trouble about th., value of the articles.
They might be taken to be worth 1501.
Ttie lady's-maid, Jane Soper, then proved the facts
opened by the Learned Counsel—that the dressing-case
was safe till the carriage arrived at the station at Lon-
don-bridge ; that when L:r mistress was lifted out of the
carriage two of the railway porters told her to look after
her mistress, and they would see that the luggage was
all put right. They then drove to Cambridge-terrace,
and the dressing-case could not be found. She had no
doubt of the dressing case being put under her mistress's
feet at Woodgate.
On cross-examination it appeared that she had written
by direction of her mistress to Woodgate to ascertain if
the dressiug-case was left there.
The driver of the coach at Bognor was called to prove
that the dressing-case was put into the carriage. The
footman proved that he never saw it after leaving Bog-
nor. The clerk of the plaintiff's attorney proved haring
gone to the Woodgate station to search for the carrier's
notice, and there was no such notice hung up there. A
demand of payment for the last dressing case was then
proved, which was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD objected that the plaintiff
had no case. The undertaking of the defendant.{ was to
receive Mrs. Richards and her lurgege. and the duty
imposed on them was to bring them safely to the end of
the journey; and that there was no further duty on:
them to carry the luggage either to the hackney coaches
or to the residence of the plaintiff. The defendants
were mere gratuitous bailees in carrying the luggage
froni the railway terminus to the hackney coaches, and
the luggage was safe at the termination of the journey.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES admitted the strength of the
objections as to the first count, but subaiitted that on
the other counts he was entitled to recover.

His LORDSHIP was of opinion that the contract was
to deliver luggage to the passenger at the station, and
not at any particular part of the station, and the com-
pany were not discharged from their duty till the lug-
gage was delivered safely at that part of it which the
passenger should select with their concurrence. He,
however, reserved leave to move to the defendants if he
was wrong. _ _ _ _ _

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD then addressed the jury for
the defendants. He could not help sympathising with
the plaintiff fur the loss he had sustained. The only
question, however, was whether the railway company
was responsible for it ? The railway company had no
notice given to them of the responsibility they were
contracting. The dressing-case was lost at a time when
it had ceased to be under the dominion or control of the
defendants. It leol been brought safely to the terminus.
He contended that the testimony of the lady's-nlaid
could not be depended on. It was unlikely that, knowing
the value of the dressing-case, she should not take it
with her, or aik for it to take to the hackney-coach ;
and so uncertain was her recollection about it, that the
witness had written about it. to Woodgate station. W hilst
in the witness- box she was certain about its being put
under her mistress's tact. The hackney-coach was left
at the door long enough for such a parcel to be taken
away and stolen then. It might have been put outside
and lost in the transit. It was not made out, the Learned
Counsel contended, that the case was lost whilst under
the control of the defendants.

A number of witnesses were called for the defence,
servants of the company, to prove that they had seen no
dressing-case, nor had it been left at the station. On
cross• examination, it appeared that one of the pprters on
that occasion, a carriage-cleaner, named Baptiste, who
assisted in removing the luggage, had left the nom-
pan's service, and was not. to be found, and that both
seats of the railway carriage had not been looked under,
though the porters examined were confident that no
dressing-case was left in the carriage. There was no
notice about jewellery stuck up on the platform or in
the hooking-office, through which passengers went,
limiting the company's liability. The hackney-coach
had been left at the plaintiff's door without any one
attending it whilst the driver assisted the footman to
carry Mrs. Richards up stairs.

Tiiis was the defendant's case.
The jury intimated that they were agreed on their
verdict, without troubling Mr. Sergeant.Byles to reply.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1501., with leave
to move to enter the verdict for the defendants.

POLICE IN TELL/13 EN CE.
LAMBETH.

William Ebbs, a youth of nineteen years of age, was
cbar'ed before Mr. Elliott with stealing a horse, cart,
and harness, of the value of 151., the property of Mr.
Charles Taylor, a core-dealer at Kennington-cross. On
Monday week the prisoner called on a person nan.ed
Stamford, in St. George's•market, who is in the habit
of dealing in such property, and told him his master
had a horse, cart, and harness for sale, to pay up some
arrears it: a loan society, and Stamford said he had no
objection to purchase them, provided there was not any-
thing hanging to it. On the following morning, at an
early hour, the prisoner forced the luck off the prose-
cutor's stable door, and called to a man named Page to
assist him in getting out the cart and placing in it the
horse. Ile then drove on to St: George's-market, and
sold the lot to Stamford for 51., though the prosecutor
deposed they were worth more than 151. In the course
of the same day Mr. Taylor traced out his property, and
Stamford at once gave it up.
Mr. ELLIOTT remarked upon the gross impropriety of
Stamford in purchasing the property under such circum-
stances, for one-third of its real value, and said he richly
deserved the toss of the 5/. he I ad paid, and committed
the prisoner for trial.
SOUTHWARK.

Julia Hayne, a good-looking girl, 15 years of age, the
daughter of a coaiositor, was brought before Mr. Cut•
tingham, charged with attempting to purchase poison
for the purpose of destroyine. hevelf.
Inspector Carter, of the L'sdivilien, said that between
five and six o'clock on the preceding evening the pri-
soner was brought in custody to tho station•house in
Tower-street, by policeman 106 L, who stated that she
was given in charge to him at a chemist's shop, where
she went to purchase arsenic, which she afterwards con
fessed she intended to have taken to destroy herself.
The inspector added, that instead of locking the girl up,
under the peculiar circumstances of the case, lie sent
her to the workhouse, where she was kept all night;
and that her father and also the chemist from e hom she
wanted to purchase the poison were now in attendance—
the former to relate the particulars with regard to his
daughter, so young a girl, contemplating suicide, and
the latter to describe the circumstances that took place
when she entered his shop.
Mr. Jones was then ceded forward, and stated that he
was a chemist and druggist in Blackfriars•road. That
on the previous evening aboui, the time ahove mention( d
the prisoner, in a hurried wanner, entered his shop with-
out a bonnet, or any covering ou her head, and asked to
be served with a pennyworth of arsenic. Witness hap,
pened to be in an inner room at the time, and on hearing
what passed he went into the shop, and addressing the
prisoner asked her what she wanted wilt the arsenic.
lien reply at first was that it was wanted to kill rats, but
when he pressed her closely and inquired where she
came from, she burst into tears and acknowledged that
she wanted the arsenic to poison herself, owing to the
cruel treatment she experienced at the hands of her
mother. He then questioned her further ou the subject,
and in reply she told him that she became aware of the
nature of arsenic, and its deadly effect, by reading ac-
counts of different suicides in the newspapers, a-id added,
that her life was made so truly wretehed at home that
she had made up her dud to destroy.berself. Finding
the girl was in sue. ndition of mind, he considered
ot j
it his duty, instead o 'allowing her to depart, and pro-
bably succeed in her application for a deleterious drug
elsewhere, to call in a constable, to whom he related
some of the above facts, and gave her into his custody,
in order that her family might be apprised of what had
taken place.
The Magistrate, addressing the prisoner, who stood
sobbing bitterly, asked her if she heard what Mr. Jones
said, and whether it was true?
She replied in the affirmative. She said that her
mother was in the habit of drinking to great excess when
her father was engaged at his business. On those occa-
sions she ill-treated her, and in order to avoid such treat-
ment, she (the daughter) left home and got a situation,
where she was living in comparative comfort. Her
mother came there about three mouths before last
Christmas, drunk, abused her employer, and made her
leave her place. Since then her mother continued her
ill-treatment; was in the habit of tearing up her clothes;
and on the previous day, when she expressed her inten-
tion of leaving home and getting another situation, and
put on her bonnet and shawl for the purpose, her mother
flew at her, tore the bonnet to pieces, struck her, and
vowed vengeance against her; and it was owing entirely
to her mother's harshness of conduct towards her that
induced her to go the chemist's shop to purchase arsenic
to poison herself.
The accused's father next stood forward, and com-
plained of the dissipated habits of his wife, who for the
last five years had indulged in liquor to such an excess
as to make his home a perfect misery to them. The
present was not the first occasion on which she had
acted with cruelty towards the girl, for which she (the
mother) had been given into custody and Wien to a
Police-court, where she was held to bail, and in default
of tindir*g the required securities, was committed for
three months. While she lay iu gaol he paid 12s. a
week for her board, instead of permitting her.to live
upon the prison allowance; but he found when she was
liberated and returned to her home she broke out as bad
as ever—commenced drinking afresh, and treated his
daughter in the way represented.
Mr. COTTINGHLY, having pointed out to the girl the
sin and wickedness of such an attempt as that she was
about to make upon her own life, attributable in a great
measure to her mother's vile conduct towards her, then
addressed the father, and said, that if he had a spark of
affection for the children, he would not permit them to
remain an hour longer with a mother who set them such
a dreadful example; but if he thought proper to live
longer with such a wife that was no reason he should
suffer his children to bo where she was, and if ho pro-
mised to comply with the advice, his child, instead of
being sent to prison, should be forthwith discharged,
and given up to him.
The father intimated that he should certainly adopt
the magistrate's kind suggestions, and his daughter
was accordingly discharged, and they left the Court
together.

EUCLID OUTDONE.—The following proposition is
so immensely difficult that we offer a large reward—the
particulars of which will be duly announced—to any one
by whom the problem is solved. It is as followa:—Uiven,
a railway time-table—to find the periods fixed for the
starting of the trains.—Punch.
The whole of the notes of the St. Albans and Hefts
Bank in circulation at the time of the stoppage have been
paid in full.—Berkshire Chronicle.