The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-15 00:00:00

ABOLITION OF COMPULSORY

MARRIAGES IN PRUSSIAN POMERANIA.

A correspondent of the National, of Berlin, from
Greifswald, in Pomerania, evidently a jurist by pro-
fession, gives a minute account of a remarkable legal
process still possible in th•st province, which has re-
quired the intervention of the Supreme Tribunal of
Berlin to cancel, on the grounds of common law and
common sense. Compulsory baptisms are pos-
sible in all parts of the Monarchy, but in New
or Swedish Pomerania a man may be married
against his consent and protest, by the judge of
the district court, if it has " sentenced" the party to
matrimony ! The form of procedure is thus de-
scribed; if, after a verbal promise or " engagement,"
certain consequences result which generally render ,a
marriage very necessary, and the man refuses that
satisfaction, the court of law cau not only, at the in-
stance of the woman, sentence him to marriage, brit
in case of disobedience execute the sentence
whether he will or not. The decision having
been published, the parties are summoned be-
fore the court, which has a clergyman in at-
tendance. If the condemned man refuse to say
" yes" to the usual question of the marriage service,
the judge merely says " yes" instead of him, and he
is duly and legally married, any protest to the con-
trary notwithstanding. Some time ago a case actually
occurred. A man was sued for breach of promise,
and sentence of marriage pronounced against him, to
be performed within six weeks. The summons to
the Zwangstrauung or compulsory wedding, had been
thrice issued, and the day fixed for the legal execu-
tion of the sentence, when suddenly an order from
the Supreme Tribunal of Berlin quashed the
report frvomhiehthiel
o demanded a
the
authority on
had issued such an impracticable decision. The
Courtproceedings
of Greifswald and
a s t
report of the local authority was that the proceedings
were based on the consistorial instructions of Charles
XII., issued in 1705, revised in 1775, and still con-
sidered the rule of practice in the province, though no-
thing similar is known to the general law of
Prussia. To section 3, cap. 2, paragraph 4,
of these instructions the Supreme Court was referred
for all the details of procedure, which, it
is added, have never fallen into disuse. The
Supreme Court was also informed that in the pro-
vincial code the question of common law, whether
a compulsory marriage is permissible or not, had
been answered in the affirmative, and the mode of
putting the law into execution was decided by prac-
tice and precedent. The Supreme Tribunal, not
convinced of the wisdom of precedents in this case,
or of that of the instructions of Charles XII., has
thought it advisable to issue the following edict
According to the report of the Court of Appeal of
Grt ifswald, the,sentence pronoun ced in the case of
against -' would, according' to the practice of the
District Court, have to be carried into execution by a
compulsory marriage. But such a measure is wholly
t the essence ofthe
repugnant .9 • watrimental contrach

which requires a free consent, the execution of the sen-
tence therefore cannot he justified by any law. The
86th paragragh of the decree of the 21st of July, 1840,
which treats of the execution of legal decisions, can-
not be extended to this extreme point ; and the more
customary practice of the Court, which can authorise
anything so unheard-of, cannot be regarded as having
any legal validity. The District Court is therefore
hereby expressly forbidden to proceed any further with
the compulsory marriage service, in which the affirming
word of the defendant before the clergyman performing
it must be spoken by the judge.
"Royal Supreme Tribunal,
(Signed) " MUHLER.
"Berlin, Oct. 8, 1851."

The sensation caused in the legal circles of the pro-
vince rejoicing in this relic of Swedish legislation is
described as tremendous. The " revolution from
above" is sweeping away the most sacred institutions,
the District Court of Greifswald is forbidden to con-
tinue its venerable " usual practice," and the end of
all things is at hand. The reporter of the case, how-
ever, thinks that the Supreme Tribunal of Berlin has
done well in prohibiting a legal process of so extra-
ordinary a kind. It is astonishing it should have en-
dured so long, and that up to the Bth of October last
it was possible in any part of the enlightened Monarchy
of Prussia for a man (after being baptized perhaps
against the will of his parents), to be married con-
trary to his own.

THE LONDON GAZETTE, Nov. 14.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex.

Royal Westminster Regiment of Middlesex Militia—
Ebenezer David Silver, M.D., to be Surgeon, vice Wil-
liam Raifs, deceased, Nov. 10.

Commissions by the Lord-Lieutenant of Warwickshire.
Yeomanry Cavalry—Cornet John Skipwith Parker to
be Lieutenant, vice Wise, resigned; Cornet Robert Reid
to be Lieutenant, vice Hoskyns, resigned; Cornet
Arthur Whieldon to be Lieutenant, vice Okeover, re-
signed; Edward Allesley Boughton Ward Boughton
Leigh, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Whieldon, promoted,
Nov. 3.

£28,682,605

Dated the 13th day of Noventbel

BANKING D]
Z.
Proprieior s'c apital 14,553,000
Rest . ••.• • • • • 8,07,913
Public deposits (in-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Sav-
ings-banks, and Di-

vidend accoano).. 6,086,141
Other deposits ...... 9,549,304
Eleven day and other
1,229,758

£34,595,116

Dated the 13th day of NoTeml

His Lordship then himself left the court.

SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER, 161 lB5l.

Peter M'Ewan, Tilliconitry, near Alloa, clothier, Nov.
20, and Dec. 11, at two, at Stark's Crown Hotel, Alloa.
William Bell, Edinburgh, miller, Nov. 17, and Dec.
8, at two, at Dowell's Rooms, Edinburgh.
Antony M'Clymont, New Cumnock, writer, Nov. 17,
and Dec. 12, at two, at the Crown Inn, New Cumnock.
William Bissett, Glasgow, merchant, Nov. 17, and
Dec. 8, at one, at the Globe Hotel, Glasgow.
William Trotter Waddell, Pollockshaws, Renfrewshire,
grocer, Nov. 19, and Dec. 9, at half-past eleven, at the
Maxwell Arms Inn, Pollockshaws.
PRICE OF SUGAR.

The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from returns made in the week ending Nov. 11,
1851, exclusive of Customs Duties paid or payable thereon
on the importation thereof into Great Britain :
From the British possessions in America 21s. 9d. per cwt
From the Mauritius ... ... No return. „
From the East Indies ... ... 15s. 2id. „
Average price of the two foregoing de-
scriptions of sugar, jointly, computed as
above, and exclusive of duty ... . 19s. 74d. ~
By authority of Parliament,
HENRI!' BTCKN ELL, Clerk of the Grocers' Company.
Grocers'-hall, Nov. 14.

BANK OF ENGLAND.
(From last night's Gazette.)
An Account, pursuant to the Act 7th and Bth oi Victorla.cap . 32 fo r
the Week ending on Saturday, the sth day of November, 1851.
18801 DEPARTMENT.
Z.
Notes i55ued........ 28,682,605

Government debt .. 11,015,100
Other securities •. . • 2,984,900
Gold coin and bullion 14,649,230
Silver bullion ...... 33,375

28,682,605
►f. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.
r, 1851.
EPAILTMEN T.

'Government secnri-

ties (including Dead
Weight Annuity) .. 13,241,768
Other securities •. • . 12,215,287
Notes •.••••• . • • • • • . 8,561,265
Gold and silver coin.. 576,796

X34,..95,116
if. MARSHALL, Chief Cashier.
1851.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 14.

Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, in Michaelmas
Term, before Mr. Baron MARTIN and Common
Juries.)

COMMITTAL7OF A PLAINTIFF FOR PERJURY.
ASPLIN V. BLACKMAN.

This was an action to recover the sum of 271. 10s. 6d.
for work and labour, and on an account stated.

The defendant paid 111. 23. into court, and pleaded
,hat beyond that sum he was not indebted.

It appeared that the plaintiff is a coachmaker at Ken-
sington, and the defendant a horsebreaker at Padding-
ton. The former had been employed by the latter, in
the month of March last, to do some repairs to a
" break," and in the July following to a phaeton. The
question which arose upon the present occasion was
simply whether there had been an undertaking by the
plaintiff to perform such repairs for a stipulated sum.
The plaintiff and defendant, with other witnesses, were
examined. The statements of the two former were in
direct contradiction.

Mr. Baron MARTIN, in summing up the case, said the
jury would have a very painful task to perform in arri-
ving at their verdict, for it was impossible for them to
reach that result without declaring that one or other of
the parties—either the plaintiff or the defendant—had
committed deliberate and wilful perjury. The one had
distinctly sworn that there had been no contract made
to perform the repairs of the " break," and therefore
that he had seat in his bill, amounting to 121. Bs. 6d.;
while the defendant as distinctly and positively had
sworn that the plaintiff had contracted to do the repairs
for a stipulation sum—namely, 81. Then it appeared
that the " break" had been a second time sent for re-
pairs, and on account of these repairs the defendant bad
paid 41. In the month of July a conversation took
place between the parties as to the expenses of doing
certain repairs to a phaeton, and here, too, the
plaintiff had denied that there had been any fixed
charge agreed upon between them; but the jury
would remember, when he came to read over
the evidence of the defendant, that he bad,
on the other hand, sworn most clearly that the plaintiff
bad undertaken to do what had been pointed out by
the defendant as being required to be done for the
sum of 161. The plaintiff, however, supposing the
statement of the defendant to be true, had, in the face
of that agreement, sent in a bill for 271. 161. 6d., for
which amount he now sued. He next came to the evi-
dence of the defendant, who had sworn that at the in-
terview in March upon the subject of repairs to the
" break," the plaintiff had said he would do them for
101., when the defendant said, no, but that be would
give Si. To this the plaintiff did not at first assent,
but offered to " split the difference." The defendant,
however, declined to " split," and eventually they
agreed that the repairs should be performed for 81. Now,
it was impossible to :avoid seeing at once that this
statement must either be false or true ; it must be
either false out and out, or it was the truth. It was a
painful alternative that the present case had thrown
upon the jury to arrive at ; for they must, by their
verdict, declare one of these parties to have been guilty
of perjury. Then there was the question as to
what sum, or whether any stipulated sum had
been agreed upon for the repairs of the phaeton ?
The plaintiff denied that there had been any
arrangement upon the subject, but the defendant
had as confidently sworn that the plaintiff had
agreed to do all that was wanted for 16/. In all these
cases, under the operation of the new Act, juries would
have a vast amount of difficulty to wade through. It
might happen that one of the parties was a rogue of cool,
calm, and deliberate temperament, and by the possession
of those characteristics was enabled to give his evidence
in such a manner that, if it were utterly untrue, yet that
it might have all the semblance to a jury of being the
most perfect truth. On the other hand, a man of a
nervous temperament, although strictly adhering to the
truth, might, by the nervous and confused manner in
which he gave his testimony, lead a jury to the beliet
that his story was not the correct version of the trans-
action. With these remarks he would leave the case to
the jury. _ _ _

The jury retired after some minutes' consultation.

Mr. Baron MARTIN then ordered that the plaintiff and
defendant should not leave the court until the verdict
had been returned.

The jury, after an absence of about half an hour, re-
turned into court and said that their verdict was for the
defendant in respect of the repairs done to the phaeton,
and the first repairs done to the " break," and that
they found for the plaintiff for 21. 10s. in addition to the
sum of 11/. 2s. paid into court for the second repairs
done to the " break."

Mr. Baron MARTIN then called for the plaintiff and
defendant, and, addressing the former, said he was ex-
tremely sorry that it had devolved upon him to exercise
a painful duty. He had consulted the four other judges
of that Court upon the subject. It was now his painful
duty to call upon the plaintiff to enter into his recogni-
vances in the sum of 2001. to appear at the next session
at the Central Criminal Court to answer an indictment
for perjury. The plaintiff must also find two sureties
in the sum of SOL each. It was not his wish to place the
plaintiff in custody until he surrendered for trial, and
therefore he had called upon him to enter into recog-
nizances. He should also call upon the defendant to
enter into a recognizance of 501., and also the witnesses
Crouch, Holmes, and the plaintiff's son in the same
sum, to appear and give evidence upon the trial. For
the information of the attorneys for the parties, he would
state that he had taken this proceeding under the 14th
and 15th of Victoria, c. 100, s. 19.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 14.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GonLßuiaN.)
IN RE CRAWFORD.

The bankrupt was the proprietor of the Primrose
Tavern, Chalk-farm. His accounts from January, 1846,
show, capital, 20014 debts, 9031.; assets, 251. The
profits were 2,7401; expenses, 3,0561.; losses, 8541.,
which included 80/. by the breaking up of the Metro-
politan Conveyance Company from Paddington and
Camden-town to and from Hungerford-market, the
bankrupt having purchased shares therein at a cost of
801,, there was also a loss of 2001. by the opposition of
the Camden-town Conveyance Association to his (the
bankrupt's) omnibuses to Hungerford-market; there
was also a loss of 501. by the erection of a refreshment
booth at the " Grand National Fair" held at Bayswater,
and which proved a failure.
This was the certificate meeting. There was no op-
position.
The COMMISSIONER said the case appeared to be an
unfavourable one. There were debts to the amount of
1,0001., and no assets. What right had the bankrupt to
permit certain creditors to get possession of everything,
and then come to this court without anything for the
others? Moses had obtained possession of everything
at Primrose Tavern under a bill of sale executed so re-
cently as June last. The bankrupt said he had given
that 'security for an advance of 901. to enable him to
carry out his projects with a view to realising a consi-
derable sum during the Great Exhibition.
His HONOUR said, that being completely insolvent
the bankrupt had not been justified in thus acting. The
case was a very bad one, and the certificate (third class)
would be suspended one year. Protection would be
given from three months to three months.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. Isaac Boyd, a silk manufacturer, of Spital-square,
was brought up before Sir R. W. Carden for further
examination, upon the charge of having, within three
months of his bankruptcy, on the 25th of June last,
obtained on credit, on the 17th of the previous April, a
quantity of raw silk to the value of 1491., tho property,
of Messrs. Bevis and Tatlock, silk brokers of Basing-
hall-street, under the pretence of requiring it in the
ordinary course of business, when, in fact, he wanted it
only to pawn.
Mr. Ballantine attended for the prosecution, and Mr.
Kersey appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Daniel Bevis said—l know the prisoner very
well. I sold to him in his own warehouse in Spital-
square, on the 15th of April, a quantity of silk goods.
I called upon him in the ordinary way of business and
showed him samples. He contracted to buy 991 b. 20a.
of "Italian thrown silk," value 1421. 195., which was
to have been paid in five months from that time, accord-
ing to the statement in our invoices and the custom of
the trade. I called on him again on the 16th or 17th of
April, and received an order for 2391 b. 4cz. of bilk
value 3441.55. 9d., upon the same terms. I did not su-
perintend the `delivery, because that is the duty of the
porter. I caw them weighed. I do not think that I

could identify the silk, as there are so many different
kinds, and all so very similar. I have sold goods to him
since, and about two days after his bankruptcy I called
upon him, and said, in allusion to his becoming a bank-
rupt, " This is a very bad affair, Mr. Boyd. I have
been told that nearly all your goods aro pawned." Ho
replied, " It is no such thing; I admit that a small por-
tion is."

Cross-examined—l have dealt with prisoner during
the years 1849, 1850, and 1851. I cannot tell how
much money I received from him during 1850. I never
had any dealings with him before 1847, when he was
first a bankrupt. It is the custom of the trade to go
round with samples to solicit orders. I have not in-
dicted the prisoner at the Old Bailey. I attended there
only as a witness. I never pawned any goods on my
own account. About 10 years ago I obtained an advance
of 500/. upon silk to the value of 7001. or 800/. from a
private firm; and I do not call that pawning.
Sir R. W. CARDEN—Certainly not. That is a thing
that is frequently done by many highly respectable
tradesmen.

Witness re-examined—l have never been a bankrupt.
I have lost by prisoner's bankruptcy about 1,230/.
William Suckton said—l am a porter in the employ
of Messrs. Bovis and Tatlock. On the 15th of April
last I packed up a quantity of Italian thrown silk, and
delivered it on the same day at the prisoner's warehouse.
The actual weight was s9lb. 30z., but it was invoiced at
an ounce less. I also weighed and packed the other
quantity mentioned by the last witness; but it was in-
voiced 4oz. less than the real weight. I delivered it at
prisoner's warehouse on the 17th of April.
Mr. Josiah Robinson said—l am a partner in the firm
of Messrs. Drakeford and Co., silkmen, in Great Win-
chester-street. Oa the 17th of April we received two
parcels of organzine silk, weighing gross 1471 b. 8.. z.,
and 881 b. 20z., and one parcel of Italian thrown silk,
weighing gross 721 b. I was not present when they were
received; but on the same day we advanced prisoner
5001. on those goods, and a current account that showed
a balance in prisoner's favour. They were not deposited
for any specified time. They are not in our possession
now. They were sold by us at various times between
the middle of September and the latter end of October.
I had a right of sale with them, although I did not buy
them of the prisoner. lam not in a position to trace
any of the goods. The price of silk has so depreciated
that I think when we make up the account we shall
have to prove on the estate. We have not rendered
any account yet to the official assignees. Our books
will tell the names of the parties to whom we sold
the silk.
(Jross•examined—l have been in the silk trade for
many years, and have received silk from other parties
in the same way, but I am not a pawnbroker. From
1849 to the present year there have been fluctuations in
the market; but chiefly tending downwards.
Re-examined—The advance was made by cheque,
which has since been returned to me, hut I have not got
it here. A book, which witness had occasion to send to
his office, for having arrived, he was examined upon its
contents.

Mr. Robert Dodgson said—l am a silk broker. On
or about the 14th of last May I saw the prisoner and
contracted with him for the sale of goods on Messrs.
Draper and Co.'s account, I being only the middleman
or agent. I sold him 2041 b. of foreign tram, value
2491. 18s., and on the same day one bale of Piedmont
organzine, weighing 1801 b., value 2171. 65,, on the usual
trade terms of five months' credit.

Mr. Josiah Robinson said—On the 16th of May I
received from the prisoner one bale of tram, weighing
2111 b. 60z., and one bale of Piedmont organzine, weigh-
ing 1701 b. 6oz. On the same day we advanced prisoner
2001., and on the 17th 1701. more. We had authority,
but not in writing, to sell at our own discretion. Unless
we accept a limit in making these loans, we are justified
in selling when we like; but when we do accept a limit
we cannot sell under it. These entries are in the hand-
writing of Mr. Wielding, our cashier, who is not present.
Mr. Thomas Hughes said—l am in the employ nt'
Messrs. Alepson aud Co. On the 27th of March last I
sold the prisoner some silk (Italian organzine),
ing 1661 b. Boz., value 2491. 165., and it was delivered by
our porter.
George Little said—l am porter to Messrs. Alepson
and Co. On the 27th of March I packed up the silk
mentioned by the last witness, and delivered it at pri-
soner's warehouse on the same day.
John Pawley said—l am foreman to Mr. Atten-
borough, the pawnbroker, of 31, Crown street, Finsbury.
I have no books present that will enable me to state on
what day we received goods from the prisoner.
Mr. Ballantine—Mr. Attenborough was summoned to
produce all his books relating to this case, and why is
he not here? Witness—l have the agreement book, and
I received instructions from Mr. Attenborough not to
produce any others at present.
Mr. Ballantino (to the Alderman)—Then I shall be
under the necessity of applying to you, Sir, for a war-
ant for Mr. Attenborough's apprehension as we cannot
get on without these books.
Sir R. W. CARDEN—I dare say Mr. Attenborough
will attend if a second summons is issued, and he is given
to understand that we require his presence here.
Witness—Mr. Attenborough instructed me to give
every information to the official assignees, but not to
produce the books mentioned in the summons, and
without them I cannot say whether we received goods
from the prisoner on the 19th of May or not.
. . .

Mr. Ballantine—l will then take .ra
second summons,
and if Mr. Attenborough does not attend a warrant wili
issue.

Witness—Mr. Attenborough knows nothing of these
transactions, and I beg to remind Mr. Ballantine that I
do not stand here in the light of a pawnbroker.
Mr. Ballantine—But there is an Act that gives us
power to deal with you just the same.
Mr. R )bert Dodgson said—On the 7th of June I sold
prisoner, for Fordarty, Cox, and Co., one bale of French
organize, marked "Y. F., 168," value 3651. 16s. 9d., at
five months' credit.

Cross-examined—l called upon the prisoner, but he
was not anxious to buy, and declined at first. Much
conversation ensued between us relative to an article he
was then manufacturing, called " Moier-Antique." I
certainly did induce prisoner to purchaso by speaking
highly in favour of the goods. The price was 28s. 3d.
per lb. He did not tell me that he was going to become
a bankrupt in about ten days, or I should not have been
equally eloquent in persuading him to take the silk. I
have known prisoner for about thirty years to be a very
respectable man and to be unfortunate, but I never knew
he was a bankrupt in 1847.
James Bushell said—l am porter to Messrs. For-
darty, Cox, and Co. I delivered these goods in a bale
at the prisoner's warehouse, and a Mr. Lewis signed the
receipt book for them.
Mr. Josiah Robinson said—On the I 1 th of June we
received of the prisoner two parcels of silk, weighing
1541 b. 202., and 1021 b. Boz. I saw the silk brought in,
and on that day we advanced prisoner 240/. I believe
that is the last advance we made to him. These goods
are sold also.

Mr. Ballantine—Then the market appears to have
been up with you, Mr. Robinson? i!lr. Robinson—l
can't say. I may be a creditor, but cannot know until
the account is made up.
James Flowers said—l am in the employ of Mr. W.
Fisher, a silk broker. On the 15th of April last I sold
to the prisoner, for my employer, 1501 b. 15c a. of silk,
value 2151. I4A. 6d. I believe my loss by the prisoner's
bankruptcy will amount to about 6001.
Nathaniel Pound—l delivered 150ib. 15oz. of Piedmont
silk at prisoner's warehouse on the sth of April.
Mr. Ballantine then put in a bill of exchange accepted
by the prisoner for lOW., to show that on the very day
that it became due, the 7th of June, the bill was disho-
noured, and prisoner bought the goods that were deli-
vered to him by Messrs. Fordarty, Cox, and Co. The
Learned Gentleman then applied for a remand, and
summonses to be issued against Mr. Attenborough, the
pawnbroker, and his man, to insure their attendance at a
future day.

Mr. Kersey, on behalf of the prisoner, made an ap-
plication for the amount of bail, already fixed on a
farmer occasion, to be reduced, so that his client might
not be detained in prison during the preliminary pro-
ceedings.

Sir it W. CARDEN refused the application, upon the
ground that he considered the evidence of such a nature
that he thought ho might be under the necessity or
increasing the amount of bail instead of decreasing it.
The prisoner was then remanded upon the same bail.