The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-01 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco before Justices Blackburn, Mellor, and
Hia}•os.)
IN ILE lIAYNES-MADANIE RACHEL.

Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Hance, said—l
appear on behalf of Mr. Haynes, an attorney of this court
to show cause against a rule which was made re-
turnable peremptorily on Saturday, calling upon that
geneeman to show cause why he should not answer the
matters contained in an affidavit filed by a person
named Leverson, who was tried and convicted two or
three sessions agp at the Old Bailey of having obtained
large sums of money by false and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—Yon cannot show cause why you
should not show cause. The rule is that you must
answer.—Mr. Hawkins: The reason why 'I commenced
my statement -in that way is that I submit in the
first place that tho statements made in the affi-
davit by this woman, who has been for a
considerable Ohne trading under the name of
Madame Rachel are false, and that she is not to be be-
lieved upon her oath. lam able to show by the state-
ments contained in Mr. Haynes's affidavit that he has a
perfect answer to the unfounded charges that have been
made against him. Mr. Justice Blackburn : That may
be so. But by the practice of this court—the court hav-
ing thought fit to grant the rule—he must answer the
matters of the affidavit, and not show cause why he
should not answer them. This is not showing cause.
—Mr. Hawkins: The answer I give on behalf of
Mr. Haynes to Madame Rachel's affidavit is that it
is untrue. It le false upon the face of it ; and with
regard to the other parts which affect Mr. Haynes,
and which are within his knowledge, he has a perfect answer
to them, subject to any statement your lordship may be
pleased to make with reference to the lengthy accounts in-
volved in the matter.— Mr.Justiceßlackburn : The best way
will be to refer the matters to the Master of this court, with
the fullest powers to take evidence. He can have the
accounts laid before the Court of Chancery, and supple-
ment them with any evidence he might think it right to
call. Mr. Hawkins—l cheerfully assent to that on behalf
of Mr. Haynes. Referred to the Master accordingly.

CRIMLVAL COUR7—(This day).

The sessions commenced this morning.

The Recorder, in charging the grand jury, referred at
length to the Overend and Gurney indictment, and said
he was quite sure they would fully and calmly consider
the matter, in deciding whether there was a pinta facie
case made out against the defendants.

Berbert Mortimer p!eaded guilty to an indictment charg-
ing km with burglary.
'rho Recorder asked if anything was known relative to
the prisoner.
The Inspector sail the prisoner gave himself up for the
burglary, stating as his reason that he whited to be taken
out of the streets. lie had formerly been in prison, but
whilu he was undergoing,his sentence he Irtd to work on the
treadmill, when au accident caused the maell'ne by which
the prisoner was thrown down on it, and before he could
be rescued both his legs were broken. Ile was taken to
thu infirmary, and on his recovery ho was sent to Harwich
for about nine weeks, receiving also £5 as compensation
for the injury received. The money had been spent and
the burglary was committed.
The Recorder sentenced the prisoner to 18 months' im-
prisonment with hard labour.

Josiah Sharp, a " swell," pleaded guilty to a charge of
bigamy.
The counsel for the prosecution said the prisoner had
acted with greatest cruelty towards his fir:t wife. After
having squandered the money she brought him on their
marriage ho increased his ill-treatment, and ultimately
left her because she could neither play, sing, nor dance.
(Laughter.) Ho had not conducted himself well even to
his second wife, and the learned gentleman said ho had
letters from both wives describing the prisoner as a con-
summate scoundrel. (Laughter.)
The Recorder—lt appears that he was lhiug with the
first wife after he had married the second. It was a most
profligate case, and he therefore sentenced the prisoner to
18 mouths' imprisonment with hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGEIVCE—This Day.

COJIREBYONDENCE FROM PARIS.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

PARIS, SUNDAY, January 31.

Six chamberlains figured in M. Rouher's unhappy ma-
jority in the division on the interpellatiou respecting the
Interior. But for the aid of these functionaries, and the
absence of one or two of the Opposition, the Government
would have been absolutely defeated. I have every reason
to believe that this unfortunate affair is regarded by the
Emperor as M. Rouher's greatest blunder. The Minister
of State is something more than able man—he is, in his
way a man of genius, but the genius is not of the highest
order. He does not always estimate his own power at its
proper worth, and he is especially liable to the
fatal vice in a Minister of attempting too
much. He does not practise to a sufficient ex-
tent the invaluable art of allowing the Cpposition
to win in small matters, that the Government may always
come off triumphant in great ones. In this case there was
not the slightest ground for his interference. Every inter-
pellation must be submitted to one of the standing com-
mittees or bureaux, of which four must approve the
" question" or it cannot be put. Now, in this case three
bureaux decided in favour of the iuterpellation, four
against it, and in two the votes were equally divided.
How were the divided committees to be ranked, for or
against the interpellation? No distinct provision
is made for these cases, but, as I have before said, the pre-
sumption is very greatly in favour of the view that the
two divided committees ought to have decided in favour
of acceptance. Estimating the question on the most
liberal basis, and taking a divided vote as equivalent to
half a confirmatory one, it is clear that two divided com-
mittees are equal to one committee in favour of the
interpellation. This is a very mathematical way of
determining the difficulty, but there is really none
other. The Opposition have quite as much right
to claim a divided bureau as the Government.
In any event, there was nothing to justify M. Rouher's
violent opposition or his forced interpretation of the law.
His assertion that the interpellation must be confirmed by
the majority, and that equal voting is therefore a mino-
rity, cuts both ways.
Divorce cases in high life are very common in France
just now. M. Pinard, the late Minister of the Interior,
is about to plead in a suit brought by the Baronne Duport
against her husband. Baron Duport is an Italian
gentleman, and his wife, a handsome lady, belongs
to one of the richest families in France. After twelve
years of domestic happiness, some Mephistopheles has
contrived to raise a scandal which has destroyed the peace
of both, and which will end in a mournful drama of private
life being unfolded in the Divorce Court. The French
often rail at English newspaper reports ; but it does not
seem to me that they have any ground forboasting; rather
the reverse.

An Overend, Gurney, and Co. case on a small scale—
very small compared with your stupendous trial, has been
decided in the Imperial Coart. Three shareholders, hold-
ing stock to the amount of from £1,200 to £2,300, brought
an action against the directors of th Madrid and Sara-
gossa Railway, with the view of having their shares de-
clared null and void. Their fundamental plea was that they
bad been induced to take the shares by the false repre-
sentations made in the annual repoq of the board, and
by the payment of a fictitious dividend, which for
several years amounted to as much as 9 per cent, on
the price of issue. The consequence of this flagitious
but by no means uncommon proceeding was, that the
shares of the company rose during the golden period to a
price nearly double that at which they were issued. The usual
result followed : the directors of the company availed
themselves of this high price to sell out all their
own shares before inevitable exposure came. The fact
that they had so sold out became known, and the
collapse came at once. The quotations fell to
less than one-tenth of the figure to which they
had been fraudulently puffed up, and the shares became
wholly unsaleable. The defendants urged, iu the first
place, that a French court could not try the case, as the
scat of the company was at Madrid—though the
directors were half of them Frenchmen. But the
Imperial Court determined that it could be tried in
France, before the Tribunal of Commerce. It was
next pleaded that the indictment was laid against
only five directors, whereas the board consisted of twenty,
but this point also was given in favour of the prosecution.
The actual trial will commence in a few days. A racy
story, involving matters of less magnitude, but not less
curious than your great trial, may be expected.

THE WEATHER TABLE.-THIS DAY.

_-.____

BILTLOL 01.0 Cie). L PT TORTS.