The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-13 00:00:00

GERMAN Y.

A letter from Berlin, Bth, says—" The Minister
of Finance has formally declared that he has re-
nounced the idea of giving in his resignation. We
learn that our Government is the only one which still
admits any rights to the Duke d'Augustenbourgh,
but if he will not accept an equitable indemnity, the
Prussian Cabinet will not be disposed to struggle any
longer for the secondary rights of the house of Au-
gustenbourg. The Government has just addressed to
the different states of the Zollverein an invitation to
send a plenipotentiary to the Customs' Congress,
which is to assemble here next year. The invitation
is accompanied by some propositions, on which the
Prussian Government wishes to have the opinion of
the different states before the meeting of the Con-
gress. The letter will be shortly published."

THE TYROL.
FEARFUL INUNDATIONS.

Intelligence from Innspruck of the 4th states that
the battalion of infantry and the staff were delayed
36 hours by a heavy fall of snow and the accumu-
lated mass of snow on the road. The accounts of the
inundations caused by the overflowing of the rivers
from all parts of the Crown lands are very distress-
ing. In many parts dreadful devastations have been
caused.
In Murburg the largest bridges haTe been carried
away. The rushing masses of water as they passed
through Dlurburg carried with them gigantic trees,
which were torn up by the roots, fragments of houses,
mills, carriages, timber, utensils, boats, and numerous
animals.

The inundation which caused these fearful disasters
appears to have been caused by the bursting of a
water-spout in Carinthia. Many places in Carinthia
are quite destroyed, churches and hospitals were
broken down by the fury of the water, and were
speedily reduced to a mass of ruins. Many corpses
have been found in the Tyrol—whole districts have
been swept away—the telegraphic lines have been
destroyed, partly by the water and partly by the fall
of immense masses of snow. The mails have been
stopped from nearly all parts of the country. The
accounts from Agram are of the same melancholy
character. The rise of the waters nine and ten feet
above the ordinary water-mark, combined with heavy
falls of snow and the accumulated masses of water
rushing impetuously from the mountains, have caused
incalculable damage.

NEWSPAPER SUBSCIBERS IN AMERICA.
COLLECTING THE ACCOUNTS.

The following amusing account of the sort of pa-
tronage of which the newspaper press in America can
boast, appears in a number of a " far West" journal
which has just reached us. It is no wonder after
reading the report which follows of the progress made
in collecting the subscriptions, that our American
contemporaries should eulogise to the third heavens,
as the noblest being in creation, the " man who pays
for his paper." The collector, it will be observed,
reports progress to the unfortunate newspaper pro-
prietor : _ .

I have just returned from a tour through this state,
and proceed to furnish you with an account of my
labours and their success. I have been gone for
three months, and assure you, in all sincerity, that I
am fully satisfied. You furnished me a list of one
hundred and seventeen owing subscribers, as you will
recollect. I have called upon one hundred and four
of them, and have the honour of paying over to your
order three dollars and twelve and one halt cents.,
being the amount to which your are entitled. I re-
turn you the list, numbered from one to a hundred
and seventeen, and now give you the reply of each :
No. I.—ls a minister. He says in the first place,
he never got one half of the numbers (a lie accord-
ing to the account of the postmaster), and in the next
place, your joker'. column was too scurrilous. He
can't think of aiding to sustain a paper that adver•
tires horse race and gander pulling. Besides, he
knows from the tone of your editorials that you drink
and paying you would only be the means of your
ending your days in the kennel. He wonders at your
impudence in sending him this bill, after publishing
the great prize fight between Left-handed Smoke and
Battering Bill. He wants nothing to do with you—
never wants to hear from you again.
No. 2.—ls in gaol for debt. He has not seen a
half-dollar for a year. Says he would pay with the
utmost cheerfulness if he only had the money, but
had to borrow a shirt to put on last Sunday. Admires
your paper wonderfully, and hopes you will con-
tinue sending it to him. He wishes you to take a
bold stand in favour of the abolition of imprisonment
for debt, as he think it would be a very popular move
with gentlemen in his situation. If you send him
any more papers, he hopes that you will see that the
postage is paid, as otherwise he will be unable to en-
joy your lucubrations. Sends his best respects.
No. 3.—lt is a young doctor. Says your paper is
beneath the notice of a gentleman. Would'nt give a
for a cartload. Says you inserted an article
reflecting on the profession. Only wishes he could
catch you here. Is going to persuade everybody
that takes your paper to stop it. Cursed your bill,
and says you may collect it in the best way you can.
No. 4.—ls an old maid. Says you are always
taking a ,fling at single ladies of an uncertain age.
Wouldn't pay you if she was rolling in wealth, and
you hadn't cash enough to buy a crust of bread.
Sent all the papers she had back a month ago, and
says now that she sent them back, she don't owe you
anything. Says she is even with you, and intends to
keep so until the day of :judgment. Asked me not
to forget to tell you that you are no gentleman, or
you wouldn't undertake to slander a large and re-
spectable class of the female population of the
country.
No. s.—ls a gambler—a sporting gentleman—says
he_ got completely cleaned out last week at the races.
Couldn't accommodate his grandmother with half a
cent,ifshe was starving. Likes your paper tolerably
would like it better if you publish more races, and
would occasionally give an account of a cock-fight.
Liked the description of the prize fight amazingly—it
redeemednot think hard of
a
multitude of your faults. Hopes you
will
bimfsoorointothapvaiynging
someyou now
but has got a prospect of
change, as he is after a rich
Fayo u young greenhornyour
rt
bi
lbill
outan anything
thfwhont
he
arrived here last week. Will
pluckings.
No. G.—ls an old drunkard. h
and never expects to have. Gathered upgo all the peg-,
pers that he had, and sold them for half apint of rum
to the doggery keeper to wrap groceries in. Wishes
you would send him a pile, as they cost him no post-
age, his brother-in-law being postmaster, and per-
mitting him to take out letters for nothing. Winked
at me when I presented your bill, and inquired if I
wasn't a distant relation of „the man that butted the
bull off the bridge.
No. 7—ls a magistrate. S wore he never owed you
a cent, and told me I was a low rascal for trying to
swindle him in such a barefaced manner. Advised
me to make tracks in a little less than no time, or he
would make out a warrant against me as a common
cheat, and have me sent to prison. Took his advice.
-,1!,. by all (odds, the meanest man kbave:seen yet.
wV.,oneBver go near him again.
topublish Is a politician. Says, although you profess
a neutral paper, it is not so. Thinks be
has seen
neen, ° considerable squinting towards the side to
, was
.onoaed. Meant to have told YOU a

year ago to stop the paper, but forgot it. Tells you
to do so now, and thinks you are getting off very
cheaply in not losing any more by him. Believes you
to be a rascal, and is too honourable to have anything
to do with you, as it might compromise; him and in-
jure his prospects.
No. 9—Paid up like a man. The only one. Likes
your paper first rate, and means to take and pay for
it as long as you publish it or he lives. Asked me
to dinner and treated me like a king. An oasis in the
desert ! A man fit for heaven.

No. 10.—Is a merchant, expects to break shortly.
Must save all his small change. Offered me a pair
of breeches and a cotton handkerchief for the debt.
Rejected them with scorn. Had a long jaw. Threa-
tened to break my head. Dared him to it. Threw
a hatchet at me. I dodged it and put out.
Nos. 11 to 117.—Mean as rot. Had no money—
wouldn't pay—didn't owe. I swore I'd sue. They
said I might sue and be hanged. Cursed all the
little ones and hurried from the big. Never got the
first red cent from one of them.

The foregoing is a true extract from my note book.
I have not succeeded a whit better with the patrons
of the other publications for which I am agent, as it is
impossible to collect from those who are determined
not to pay. I have said I have been away three
months. I have expended in that period two hundred
and ten dollars travelling, and my entire commissions
amount to eighty-two dollars and forty-five cents. I
am willing to do my share towards the propagation of
news, but more than that no reasonable man could
ask. This business don't exactly suit me—l can't
stand it.

Please accept my resignation, and strike my name
from your list of agents. I admire your paper very
much myself, but it would be a queer-looking sort of
a concern that would come fully up to the require-
ments of everybody. One wants independence in an
editor—another don't want any. One wants all
slang—another wouldn't touch a journal that con-
tained an irreverent line with a ten-foot pole. One
sentimental, lackadaisical miss in pantalettes wanted
nothing but love poetry—another never read any-
thing but the marriages.
All kinds of abuse I have to bear, too. I wouldn't
mind it so much if they only cursed you and your
paper, but they curse me too ! Swindler, rascal,
villain, bloodsucker ; these are some of the names
they think proper to bestow npon me. I tried fight-
ing for a while, and thrashed several of your patrons,
but occasionally I get licked like thunder myself.
Once I was put in gaol for an assault and battery, and
only escaped by breaking out.
Send me a receipt for the three dollars twelve and
a half cents., and believe me yours in despair,

.AARON SWEAT WELL.

THE WEST MOOR COLLIERY EXPLOSION.—NEW-
CASTLE, WIDNISDAY.—The inquest upon the bodies of the
sufferers by the explosion in this colliery terminated yester-
day evening, after three days' sitting. Monday was occupied
principally in taking the evidence of men who had wrought in
the pit, who were brought forward by Mr. Brewis, at the in-
stance of the Miners' Association, to show that the pit, more
especially in the district under examination, was in an un-
safe condition previous to and at the time of the explosion.
The eviC.ence, however, failed to show that the men at any
time had complained to the viewer or under-viewer, but
proved that the overmen had kept a strict watch over the
workings, and had furnished the men with lamps who de-
sired to make use of them. The regulations regarding work-
ing with lamps were proved in cress-examination to be very
strict. There was a lengthened controversy regarding the
comparative merits of the Geerdy Lamp, invented by the
late George Stephenson, and the Davy. The men were de-
cidedly in favour of the Geordy. It seems thisl amp extin-
guishes itself upon the presence of gas, and that the
gauze of the Davy turns red hot. The Davy has been
known to explode in a brisk current of air; but in the dis-
trict where the explosion took place the air was sluggish.
The other witnesses examined were unable to speak with
certainty as to the exact cause of the explosion. The jury,
atter being charged by the coroner, returned a verdict of
" Accidental death."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 12.
(Before the LORD CHANCELLOR.)
SCOTT U. SPASHETT.

This appeal from the late Vice-Chancellor of
England was argued in February last. The matter
came before the Court on petition, and the principal
question was, whether the petitioner ought not to
have proceeded by bill. The petitioner, Mary Ann
Spashett, a married woman, was entitled under the
will of John Upton to one-tenth of the residuary es-
tate in conjunction with her husband, and she was
also entitled to a sum of 3461. for her separate use,
on the death of a person for whom it was invested, to
secure an annuity. The husband received the tenth
of the residuary estate, and before the death of the
annuitant they joined in a sale of the reversionary
interest in the 3461. to one Hardinge, who subse-
quently assigned it to the Reversionary Society. The
husband afterwards became insolvent, and his property
vested in the usual manner in the assignee of the
Court. After the death of the annuitant the wife pe-
titioned for a settlement of the fund to her separate
use. The Vice-Chancellor, in February 1850, dis-
missed that petition, on the ground that in such a
case the proceeding must b by bill, and the matter
was re-argued on appeal.
The LORD CHANCELLOR now gave judgment; and
having stated the circumstances of the assignments to
Hardinge and to the Reversionary Society, he ob-
served that Mrs. Spashett and her four children now
claimed by a petition to have the fund secured for
their separate use. The Vice-Chancellor of England,
before whom the petition came, held that the pro-
ceedings must be by bill, and dismissed the petition
of Mrs. Spashett, with costs. His Lordship was of
opinion that the petition ought not to have been dis-
missed ; and that, both on principle and authority,
the matter at issue could be decided without the
formality of proceeding by bill. His Lordship could
see no reason for the petitioner being put to the de-
lay and expense of a suit in equity to obtain a de-
cision on her claim. There was no question raised
by the petition which could not be discussed and de-
cided with as much ease and as satisfactorily as if
the matter was involved in the delay and great ex-
penditure of a suit. There were no questions raised
between the petitioner and the other claimants to
participate in the residue, and they could not be
affected by the decision on the petition, nor was there
any reason to believe that justice would not be done
by taking the opinion of the court in their absence.
His Lordship had been unable to find any case
in which it WPS held that the Court
could not so decide on petition, or any
authority for a proceeding by bill. ha a case of
Greedy v. Lavender, reported in the 19th number of
the Law Journal, 496, the late Master of the Rolls
made an order of a somewhat similar nature on peti-
tion. If it was argued that the respondents in the
proceedings by petition were not before the Court, it
might be observed that the parties so complaining
had themselves brought the matter before the Court
for its decision. By obtaining the stop order they
had availed themselves of the machinery of the Court
for the protection of the fund, and having done so,
what was there to restrain the Court from coming to
a decision on the conflicting rights of the parties
claiming the fund, unless there were matters in dis-
pute which could not be determined without a suit ?
Being of that opinion with respect to the form of the
proceeding, his Lordship felt himself called on to make
one or two observations on the general equity involved
in the claim of the petitioner, and on that point also
he entertained no doubt. In Salisbury v. Newton, 1
Eden, 370, a wife was held to be entitled to a provi-
sion against the particular assignee of the husband
for valuable consideration of the whole of her equi-
table interest. So, also, in Macauley v. Phillips, 4th
Vesey, 19, the assignment for valuable consideration
of the wife's equitable interest by the husband did
not bar her equity. In the case of Wright
v. Morley, 11th Vesey, 16, Sir William Grant,
said—" If the husband has but the right of
reducing the wife's interest into possession,
how can he for valuable consideration or otherwise
convey more than he has ? If he does not reduce it
into possession, it clearly survives." Again, in the
case of Elliott v. Cordell, sth Maddock, Sir John
Leach (at p. 156) says—" Where an absolute equit-
able interest is given to the wife, the Court will not
permit the husband to possess it without making
a provision for the wife, or her express consent ; and
all who claim under the husband must take his inte-
rest subject to the same equity. In Brett v. Green-
well, 3 Younge and Collyer, 230, Baron Alderson,
sitting in the Exchequer in Equity, held that the
money in Court was to be applied for the benefit of a
married woman, her husband being insolvent. So
also Gardner v. Marshall, 14 Simon, 587, the Vice-
Chancellor, in directing the application of the fund as
a settlement on a wife, remarked on the fact of a hus-
band, prior to the question arising, having received or
had the benefit of a large portion of his wife's fortune,
as making a difference when the Court came to dis-
pose of the remainder. Being of opinion in the pre-
sent case on authority, that the wife was entitled to
have the fund settled on herself and her children, ac-
cording to the prayer of her petition, and looking at
the fact that the husband had already received a large
sum out of the estate of John Upton in right of his
wife, his Lordship had no hesitation in allowing the
appeal and in directing a reference to the Master to
approve of a proper settlement of the fund in Court
accruing by the death of the annuitant.
Order accordingly.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Ncv. 12.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE LONDON DOCK COM*
FANY.---ALLEGED FRAUDS ON THE REVENUE.
At the sittings of the Court to•day Mr. Wild
moved for a writ of delivery directed to the Commis-
sioners of her Majesty's Customs, authoring them to
give up to the defendants all the goods mentioned in
the indentures of appraisement, and which had been
seized on the company's premises in order that they
might be entered in the books of the company, and
the duty paid upon them.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Does your motion apply
to all the cams is

Mr. WILDE said that his application referred to all
the cases against the London Dock Company, but not
to those of the St. Katharine Dock Company.
Mr. GROVE, on the part of the Dock Company con-
sented, and the application was granted.
The Court rose at half-past one o'clock for the no-
mination of Sheriffs by the Privy Council.
(Sittings in London at Nisi Prius in Michaelmas
Term, before Mr. Baron MARTIN, and Common
Juries.)
This was the " first sittings" for Michaelmas Term
at Nisi Prius.

MILLER V. HATCH.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 851.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Jones were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Petersdorff appeared for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff in this cases, it appeared, was foreman
and brother-in-law to Mr. Bennett, of Hart-street,
Bloomsbury, pencil-brush manufacturer ; while the
defendant was a wholesale furrier in Friday-street. It
seemed that from the statement of the Learned
Counsel who appeared for the plaintiff, that in the
month of September, 1848, Mr. Bennett was indebted
to the plaintiff to the extent of 85/. for wages, and it
was represented that Mr. Bennett bad an interview
with the defendant, and had arranged that be (the
plaintiff) should draw a bill, which should be ac-
cepted by Bennett and endorsed by the defendant,
and that the proceeds of the acceptance, after
it had been discounted, were to be handed over
to the plaintiff. The bill was accordingly
drawn, accepted, and endorsed, as stated, on thu 4th
of September, 1848, and it was then delivered to the
defendant to get it discounted ; it appeared, however,
at the same time, that various mercantile transac-
tions were existing between Mr. Bennett and the
defendant, to whom, it was alleged, he owed a con-
siderable sum of money. The plaintiff never received
any part of the proceeds of the bill. In the course
of October, 1848, Mr. Bennett got into difficulties,
and the plaintiff never heard of the bill until he re-
ceived an application for its payment at the expira-
tion of twelvemonths,
.the date at which the accep-
tance was drawn.

Mr. Bennett and the plaintiff were called, who
stated in substance, that the bill was drawn with the
express understanding that the money should be
handed to the defendant, Band that it was totally ir-
respective of any business transactions which might
have existed between Mr. Bennett and plaintiff.

Mr. PETEitspourr contended that the defendant
neither contemplated nor intended to benefit the plain-
tiff, but to get the best security he could for goods
which he had caused through his introduction to be
supplied to Bennett.
The defendant was called, and stated that Bennett
was indebted to him to the amount of 6001. in the
month of October, 1848, and that the bill in question
was given to secure the payment for the goods which
he had caused to be supplied.
Mr. Baron MARTIN summed up, and in the course
of his observations said the jury would have a very
painful duty to perform, as the statement of the
plaintiff and his witness was totally at variance
with the evidence of the defendant. The jury would,
however, weigh the probalities of the case, and, after
giving it their best attention, deliver their verdict
accordingly.
The jury, after a long consultation, and having ex-
pressed a wish to be released from delivering a ver-
dict in so distressing a case, retired, and eventually
returned into court with a verdict for the pleintiff.—
Damages 851.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Messrs. Holladay and Clemitson, of Watling-street,
appeared before Alderman Sir Robert Walter Car-
den and Alderman Wilson, on an information, charg-
ing them NV ith making and selling an article of wear-
ing apparel, alleged to be a fraudulent imitation of a
design called a "Pella," registered by Messrs Phelps,
M'Morland and Co.

Mr. Ilindmarsh, instructed by Mr. Gray, con-
ducted the case for the complainants, and Mr. Web-
ster, instructed by Mr. Parker, appeared for the
defendants.

Mr. Hindmarsh said that Messrs. M'Morland and
Co. were the proprietors, of a registered design for a
shawl, to which was attached a hood in such a manner
that the combination of the two prticles made them
subservient to the purposes of either a cloak or a shawl.
The defendants bad brought out an article identically
the same, or so closely like, as to render it a fraudulent
imitation.

The registered article and the copy were then pro-
duced, and compared, when Sir R. W. CARDEN re-
marked that he could not perceive the slightest diffe-
rence between them.

Mr. Webster readily admitted that when in wear
they were to all appearances precisely similar, only
that the alleged copy was an improvement upon the
other, in consequence of the hood being removed at
the pleasure of the wearer. That, however, was not
the ground of the defence.
Mr. Hindmarsh said he had received some intima-
tio❑ that the defence intended to be set up was, that it
was not new or original, as the idea of a shawl or a
hood separately was as old as the hills. He, however,
assured his Learned Friend that Lord Campbell de-
cided, in the Court of Queen's Bench, on Saturday
last, in a case where a registered " button" was
sought to be protected—his Lordship said, that
though the Queen's arms and the garter, or
scroll, with a motto, were each of them in-
dividually old, yet the combination of those sub-
jects might be so arranged as to form a pretty
and original design, and therefore would have a fair
claim to protection. That case was precisely the
same as the one in dispute ; though the component
parts of the article were old in themselves, the novelty
consisted in the combination.
It was then shown by witnesses that if the shape
and configuration of the shawl or hood were altered
by the complainants in their manufacture, no matter
how materially, so long as they still remained a shawl
or a hood, it would not prejudice the registration,
provided that the combination wes retained.
Mr. Webster then stated the two Acts of Parlia-
ment under which these proceedings were taken quite
put the complainant out of court. The first was the
" Ornamental" Act, and the other was the " Non-
ornamental, or Utility" Act. He contended, there-
fore, that the article registered by the complainant
was not an article for registration, but ought to have
been patented. For as the shape and configuration
might be altered without affecting the registration,
it was then simply a combination of material parts
that ought to have been made the subject of a patent.
Alderman WILSON asked Mr. Webster if he
thought the complainants would have had a stronger
right under a patent ?—Mr. Webster said undoubt-
edly they would. They ought never to have regis-
tered it, since they have not done so for its shape or
configuration.
Alderman Winsost wished to know what was meant
by the word "configuration," as two of the chief jus-
tices had differed upon that point ?—Mr.Webster said
he could not give a better illustration than that of the
"button" his friend quoted, wherein it was decided
that the combination formed a pretty pattern that
might be termed a "new and ornamental shape or con-
figuration."
Sir R. W. CARDEN inquired if Mr. Webster meant
to contend that complainants could not claim any
protection under the registration certificate ? Mr.
Webster said he certainly did, and if the complain-
ants had had any discretion they would never have
registered an article of that description.
Sir R. W. CARDEN said he thought he could not
adjudicate in this case, unless it was proved that the
the defendants resided at the premises in Watling
street, as in the event of a conviction he could not
enforce the order.
Mr. Hindmarsh said he was not in a position to
prove that, and he would, therefore, leave it to the
aldermen whether they would adjourn the summons
or dismiss it.
The summons was then dismissed without costs.
John Tcbbitt, the man who was stated to be con-
nected with a gang of horse chaunters, and who has
been remanded from time to time, in consequence of
his being unable to leave the hospital from injuries
he received on being thrown from a horse he was
charged with stealing, was committed to Newgate for
trial.
Neil Mac Shane, who was charged with assaulting
Margaret Bosphar, by striking her on the head with
an immense kitchen poker, and thereby endangering
her life, was also brought up and committed for trial.
_ _

BOW-STREET.
John Mansell Schmidt, a young man who had lost
his right arm, and was described as a Chelsea pen-
sioner, was brought before Mr. Henry, charged with
embezzling small sums of money, amounting to 401.,
which he had received on behalf of Baron de Tremb-
lay, an exhibitor of China wares in the French de-
partment of the Great Exhibition.
The prisoner had been employed to deliver articles
purchased of the prosecutor, and to receive the
amounts charged for them. Four cases only were se-
lected from a great number for prosecution.
Mr. E. G. Smith, of Wilton-crescent, proved the
payment of 31. 16s. to the prisoner in behalf of Cap-
tain Archibald Robertson for articles purchased of the
Baron at the Great Exhibition.
The butler of the Hon. Mrs. Bathurst, of Gros-
venor•square, deposed to having made a similar pay-
ment to the prisoner for his mistress.
Evidence was also given of similar payments on
behalf of Mr. J. Morant, of Park-lane, and Mr. T,
Campbell, sculptor, of Marlborough-street.
Alexis de Tremblay, the prosecutor, deposed that
the prisoner did not account to him for any of these
payments, although furnished with the articles to
which they related for delivery to the purchasers.
The prisoner, who said he should reserve his defence
for a jury, was committed for trial.
CLERKENWELL.
Mr. Thorp Davis, Vernon-place, Baguigge