The Sun.
London, England, 1869-05-06 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

T Inc LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY.—An
important decision was given on Wednesday, by Vice-
Chancellor Stuart, in the affairs of the London, Chatham,
and Dover Railway. An application had been made on behalf
of the creditors and shareholders requiring the directors
to pay into court the sum of £150,000 now in their
hands. The Arrangement Act of the company provided
that certain moneys should be applied to capital and
others to income, and it was alleged that the directors had
applied to capital money which ought to have been
reckoned as income. The Vice-Chancellor did not grant
the application, but issued an order restraining the
directors from applying the money to any purpose what-
ever until the judgment of the Court of Appeal had been
taken.

THE ELECTION OP MR. BIRLEY. In the Court of
Common Pleas, on Wednesday, an inquiry was held into
the legality of Mr. Birley's election for Manchester. It will
be remembered that the objection raised to his election
was based on the ground that he was a contractor with
the Government. Mr. Birley is a member of the firm of
Macintosh and Co., of Cannon-street, London, and
Cambridge-street, Manchester, patentees of the vulcanized
indiarubber. There had been dealings between this firm
and the Secretary of State for India and the Broadmoor
Asylum for Criminal Lunatics. The question was whether
these contracts were within the meaning of the statute,
and therefore whether they disqualified Mr. Birley as
member. Mr. Manisty, for the petitioners, said
that he should take the third contract only,
that with the Secretary of State for India,
as the strongest case. On the 13th of June, 1868,
the respondent's company was invited to tender for
the supply of certain goods ; on the 18th of July a tender
was sent in, and on the 17th of August the goods
were delivered. Mr. Mellish, for the defence,
said he should argue that the contract was not
within the statute. The money for the payment
was paid out of the revenues of India, and was not voted
by Parliament. As to the lunatic asylum case, he
should contend that the contract was made with
the secretary for the asylum, with no notice to the
respondent's firm that he was a Government agent,
and the contract must be knowingly made with an
agent of the Government. Mr. Manisty, in answer to
these arguments, submitted that the Indian Secretary
was a public officer under the Crown, who had made these
contracts with the respondent, and who was liable to be
influenced by the Crown through this medium. As for
the asylum contract, he argued that the fact of the
respondent's not knowing that it was within the provi-
sions of the statute made no difference. Mr. Mellish
contended that there was no Secretary of State
for India when the statute was framed, and
as the Council were independent cf the Crown,
the case was distinct from that of other Government
mean Government
Enaseicd,ostehnsrEot
iur.
departments. As to the asylum, the statute could never
t_alsdc.Ft brsevaht:ivcilLNivuas
the
et
Act.
nTthoe beco
uwritt with
took
judgment.pye
an
apprentice,
timSeTßt.
hisa
and Criminal
mistress,
by Court
a attacking
awcikt
na themattempting.was charged
to murder.
comuldth.ideennltgihfyt
with a poker. Neither master norynutiusetreesl
guilty,se having been
him, but there was no trace of an
there. The jury found the prisonerbut recom-
mended him to mercy. Sentence was deferred.

Dow WITH lll3t.—And here we must pause to
notice one of the amiable privileges which certain
palities arrogated in the days of old. It was this:inun'
ever their magistrates happened to displease tlemw,ien.
h
burghers were given to flinging them headlong froth tthee
windows of the Itathhaus, or Town I [all. So that th
"Down with So-and-so," vague as it is just nowe eN7'
tolerably intelligible in the Middle Ages. The cm: tom",
of course, had an origin ; but that' is a matter of
dispute. Be the origin, however, what it may,
he thing itsel( was sufficiently common. In this'
way the weavers of Louvain disposed of no less than
seventeen of their magistrates in 1382 ; thus, too, the
citizens of Breslau dealt with the whole body of their
town-councillors in 1420; and thus the good people of
Vienna got rid of their obnoxions burgomaster and syndics
in 1401. Traces of the same pleasant custom may be met
with in the record,: and in the civic architecture of
Nuremberg, Angsborg, Dantzie, and half a hundred
other places. lints it was at Prague that &fenestration,
as they called it, was practised in all its glory. And
n3t without sidiicieqA reason. No other medixval
was lia!f so well qualified to assert the
orivilege, or so a.ltnirably adapted to exercise it.
Prague was tenankd by various race 3 - conquering and
conquered. Tiwse, of course, hated one another devoutly,
and took the utmost pains to preserve intact their several
barbarous dialects and conflicting usages. And from the
days of Huss and Zisca downwards bitter religious
of the
ilefi ttstrou
sities were superadded to the other choice elements of dis-
of delighted in a riot.
cord. Besides, the city was always thronged by thousands
gitylerdlYulfleslel;es all
—who
ot,
ies the place was divided into three
different municipalities, each with its separate llathbaus.
The course of time had taught the magistrates of most
other old German towns to neutralise this custom vely
t:onsiderably, by providing secret outlets from the council-
chamber, specitnens of wliich way be noticed at Ratisbon
and otherplaccs to this vary " Wauetwein
Ina Sid Mg; if& Ute CorMig