The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-20 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

THE ROBBERY OF MAIL BAGS.—The three men who
were charged with stealing letters from the Derby and
Leicester mail bags have been committed for trial. One
of them is a letter stamper in the General Post-office.

A TURF STORY. —A messenger at the Registry of De-
signs Office, Whitehall, has been committed for trial for
embezzling £33125. He pleaded guilty, and explained
that having received the money too late to bank it, he
put it in his pocket and went to the West Drayton races.
He lost some of it by betting, and in trying to recover it
lost the rest. He gave himself up.
A CHEMIST AND VACCINATION--At the Rochdale
Police-court, Mr. James H., Lothwell, chemist, Drake-
street, was summoned by Mr. Thomas Spencer, registrar,
for refusing to vaccinate his child. Mr. T. B. Ashworth
said that Mr. Rothwell was not unacquainted with, the
law, but he had seen so many evils attending vaccination
that he did not feel disposed to have his child vaccinated.

Defendant was fined P£l and costs.
IMPRISONMENT FOR SENDING BAD MEAT TO MARKET.
—A butcher named Fisher, living in Somersetshire, was
charged at the Guildhall with sending a quantity of un-
wholesome meat to the new meat market, London. The
animal died of disease, and the meat was most unwhole-
some. The county police stated that the defendant had
the reputation of buying low-class meat for the London
market, and Mr. Alderman Gibbons, observing that it
was a bad case, sentenced Fisher to two months' imrison-
ment, without the option of a fine.

NOT EXACTLY MARRIED.—At the Greenwich Police-
court, Dennis Fogarty was summened to shew cause why
an order should not be made upon him to contribute
towards the maintenance of his wife. The defendant
objected to support his wife because she had left
him twenty-three years since, and he thought she
was dead. Besides this he had a family of six children
to support, the eldest being fourteen years. Mr. Maude
asked how it was, if he and his wife had been separated
twenty-three years, his eldest child was only fourteen
years of age ? The defendant replied that he thought he
was justified in living with another woman. Mr Maude :
And whom you have married and committed bigamy ?
The defendant : No, we are not exactly what you call
married. Mr. Maude made an order upon him for pay-
ment of 3s. weekly.
SCENE AT A FlRE.—Eleven inhabitants of the village
of Wanborough, near Swindon, were brought before the
Swindon magistrates, charged with stealing a quantity of
wine and spirits. On Whit Monday a destructive fire
broke out on a farm at Wanborough, and the prisoners,
with others, went to assist in putting out the flames.
While engaged in removing the goods, they came across
two jars of gin and brandy, which they at once
began drinking, and soon become intoxicated. They grew
so wild that some of them ran through the flames to the
cellar to fetch wine and were with difficulty saved. The
loss of property in the meanwhile was very great, the
dwelling-house, barns, granary, together with a large
quantity of live stock, including two horses and nine
pigs, being destroyed. The magistrates decided upo n
convicting the defendants of the offence of drunkenness
only, and they were fined ss. each and us. 6d. costs, the
chairman (Mr. Archer) stigmatising their conduct as dis-
gusting, and regretting that •the law did not allow the
magistrate to punish them more severely.

ACTION FOR REFUSING TO EXECUTE A MORTGAGE.—The
case of Foster v. Wilkinson came before Lord Chief
Justice Bovill and a special jury in the Court of Common
Pleas. It was by a builder, to recover from a director of
an hotel company a balance of nearly £12,000, incurred in
the erection of the Cavendish Hotel, at Eastbourne.
After the works had progressed for some time, the plaintiff
pressed for pryinent, and a loan was negotiated to prevent
him taking possession. A sum of £15,000 was advanced
on mortgage, part of which went to pay off another loan
for which the defendant had rendered himself liable, and
part to enable the plaintiff to carry on the works. At the end
of a year, a loan of £20,000 was negotiated with a land
Security Society, for the purpose of paying off the pre-
vious mortgage, and settling with plaintiff ; but when
the mortgage for that amount had been prepared, the
defendant refused to execute it, and the consoquence was
that the original mortagees foreclosed, and plantiff was
unable to obtain his money. He, therefore, sought to
recover it from Mr. Wilkinson, who was a,party to the
arrangement for the mortgage, by which he had aban-
doned his position as holding the building. His lordship
pointed out, however, that the agreement did not bind
the defendant to execute a further mortgage ; and on his
suggestion the parties agreed to state a special case for the
opinion of the full court upon all the documents, the deci-
sion of the court to be final.

A FEMALE TICKET-OF-LEAVE CONVICT.—Mary Ann
Bennett, aged 34 years, who has been a thief from infancy,
was brought before Mr. Lushington at the Thames Police-
court on remand charged with violating the conditions of
a ticket-of-leave. It appeared from the evidence of Police-
constable Mackay that the prisoner was convicted of
a robbery from the person in 1865 and sentenced to five
years' penal servitude. On that occasion a previous con-
viction for felony, and a sentence of seven years' transpor-
tation, was proved against her. Her sentence did not ex-
pire until the 6th October, 1870, and she received a com-
mutation of her sentence on the 26th of August,
1869, and she became an inmate of the Eagle
House Reformatory, where she remained some time.
After her discharge the lady superintendent of the refor-
matory sent her the Government gratuity to which she
was entitled. The prisoner had been leading a most dis-
solute life ever since she left the reformatory, and was the
constant associate of thieves and loose women. A few
weeks since she was committed for trial, but by a lucky

•
chance acquitted, since which she had been in a continua
state of drunkenness. The prisoner had neglected to re-
port herself every month as required by her ticket-of-
leave, or even to furnish the police with her address. She
was committed for two months, and told by the magis-
trate that the Home Secretary would most likely revoke
her licence.

EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—A very singular case has been
brought before the Court of Queen's Bench. The plaintiff,
Sir Charles Nightingale, Bart., brought an action against
Major Mercer, an officer in the Indian army, to recover a
sum of £750 for board, lodging, and necessaries supplied
to the defendant's wife, Sir Charles's daughter. The
defendant pleaded never mdebted. It appeared from the
evidence that Major and Mrs. Mercer were married in
1857, and there was a difference of some twenty years be-
tween their ages. Miss Nightingale was then living
at Tenby with her mother, who lived there accord-
ing to an amicable arrangement with her hus-
band, by which he allows her £BO a year. There was
a difficulty about Mrs. Mercer's going to India with her
husband, and there was an understanding that she should
remain with her mother for some time. She visited
Ireland with Major Mercer after her marriage, and then
accompanied him to Cork, from whence he sailed for
India, the mutiny having broken out,' . Major Mercer
undertook to give his wife £l2O per annum, increasing it
to £250. However, the lady greatly exceeded her allow-
ance, and an angry correspondence ensued which ended
in the allowance being reduced to £5 per
month. In 1860 the defendant returned to England,
and a series of differences and difficulties occurrtd.
From Mrs. Mercer's statement it appeared that her hus-
band, on returning from India, took her to live with him
in an extremely dirty place in one of the streets of the
Strand, and that her mother, indignant at such treatment,
took her daughter to live with her in Burton-crescent,
bringing this action only after Major Mercer
had refused to maintain his wife. The- defence was
that Major Mercer had made vain efforts to be reconciled to
his wife, and that she had positively refused to live with
him in India. Major Mercer was not present in court,
but his wife was examined, and pointed to his absence as
proof of misconduct. She accused a Mr. Winkworth, a
great friend of her husband's, of having instigated him to
his cruel treatment of her, and Mr. Winkworth, in his
turn, represented Mrs. Mercer in anything but favourable
colours. The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, charac-
terised the defendant's conduct as " unmanly and disre-
putable." The jury gave a verdict for the full amount
claimed.
LADY OSWALD AND HER HOUSEMAID.—At the Edin-
burgh Small Debt Court, Euphemia Jardine, sued Lady
Lady Mary Oswald, Manor House, Inveresk, for the sum
of £l7 2s.—restricted to £l2—being wages and board
wages for six months from the 4th inst. Mr. Wilson
stated for the defence that the girl, a domestic servant,
had not been engaged for six months, and that the
defendant was willing to pay her wages and board wages
for one month. On sth May the defendant wrote to
the girl —" I will be glad to engage you as
housemaid, provided you are willing to conform in your
conduct, and do all I wish, such as never to go out at
nights, and not wearing your dress coming on
the ground, but up clear off the ground at all times.
The wages I give is £l6, including everything."
A subsequent letter, dated 23rd ult., addressed by
defender to the pursuer, contained the following
passage : " I shall be happy to engage you on the
terms mentioned in my letter of the sth instant, and
wish you so go to my house on 4th of June, in the after-
noon." The pursuer went to Manor House on Satur-
day, the 4th inst., but as she had not brought her trunk
with her, defender said she might come on Monday,
6th inst., with her boxes. On the 6th instant the pur-
suer received a letter from the defender as follows :
—" On further consideration I think it better you
should 'not come to my service at all, and look out
for another -situation.' The Sheriff said that the
defender's letter of sth May mentioned so much a
year, and it contained no reference to a monthly
engagement. Monthly engagements were common
now, but they were not not the only engagements in
the land between master and servant, so that the girl was
entitled to conclude that her wage was £l6 a year, and
that she was engaged for the half-year. Lady Oswald
must pay wages and board wages for the time she was
engaged. The girl got early notice, and though she had
done nothing since, she might soon
_get a place, which
must be taken into consideration. However, as she was
entitled to £172 which, to save expense, was limited to
£l2, he could give her no less ; there must, therefore, be
a decree for £l2, without expenses,