The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-19 00:00:00

DUBLIN", WEDNESDAY MORNING.
Dr. Cullen's organ :(the Morning News) contains
the following announcement. It was really high
time for Government interposition towards checking
a species of gambling which had become nearly as
contagious as the epidemic which raged when the
old lottery system bloomed in full vigour, aided by
the sanction and encouragement of the State:—
" Au announcement in our advertisement columns
informs the public that the committee of St. Sa-
viour's Church, having received a:warning from the
Crown solicitor, have given up the idea of holding
the lottery, and those who have purchased tickets
will have the money returned. We 'regret that
Government should have thought it right to inter-
fere in the matter, especially as their doing.so in
the presentinstance, after allowing so many similar
ones to pass, must we fear be injurious to the funds
of St. Saviour's. We trust, however, that public
liberality will make up for any loss that may be
sustained from this sudden resolution of the autho-
rities to stand upon the letter of the law. We will
not suppose that the zeal of the powers that be'
has been stimulated by the attack on St. Saviour's
Church which have appeared in the Evening Mail
and other Protestant organs, but it is not a little
remarkable that St. Saviour's appears to have
created great jealousy among the enemies of Catho-
licism. Our readers will recollect the pert letter
of Lord Palmerston, refusing to subscribe to the
building of the church, on the ground that he was
' too good a friend of religious liberty' to support
any of the religious orders."
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
The Limerick. Reporter of yesterday has a piteous
tale of the eviction of a tenant by a heartless land-
lord. The victim in this instance is no frieze-coated
occupier of a cabin and patch, but a gentleman
named Synan, who was a candidate for the repre-
sentation of the county at the last general election.
The lord of the soil is the newly-created Lord
Leconfield, better known in the south of Ireland as
Colonel Wyndham, a most indulgent and liberal
landlord to his tenants. Here is the Reporter's
narrative :
" The cruel evictions with which Irish tenantry
have been so long painfully familiar have just been
followed by the eviction of Mr. E. J. Synan, late can-
didate for the county of Limerick, from his beautiful
farm at Fedamore, on which he had expended vast
sums of money, and built a residence fully equal
to the requirements of a country gentleman ;
the residence is one of the best in the county,
and the offices are first class. Mr. Synan, being
a tenant without lease, incurred the displeasure
of Lord Leconfield, the newly-created Tory peer,
not because he did not pay up his rent to the
last farthing, but for some other cause, of which
the public, as connected with the late election, can
form an opinion • and yesterday Mr. Synan re-
moved from Fedamore-house. Whether he has
got compensation to any extent we have not heard."

SADLEIRISM.

Although eight years have elapsed since the ter-
rible tragedy on Hampstead-heath, the name of the
hero of it is still fresh in the daily records of the
Irish law court. Yesterday some fresh complica-
tions turned up in the Landed Estate Court, before
Judge Hargreave, in the matter of the late Lord
Glengall, relative to conflicting claims to a sum of
£lB,OOO, the amount due for principal and interest
on the foot of a mortgage bearing date Sept. 29,
1849, on the estates of the Earl of Glengall sold in
the court above named. The facts are these :
" On©' claim was Made by Mr. Norris, in whose
name the mortgage was executed originally, and
the case set np on his behalf was, that he had been
engaged in making advances upon securities in
Ireland, and that the late John Sadleir was his
agent ; that there had been considerable money
dealings between them, and that at the time of
Baclleir's death he was indebted to the claimant to
a large amount. The mortgage recited a judgment
for £6,000, which was obtained by Mr. Norris
against Lord Glengall, and an advance to his lord-
ship of £4,500, being altogether £10,500. Mr.
• Norris relied, in support of his claim, on a docu-
ment by which John Sadleir allowed him to hold
the mortgage as security. The document in ques-
tion was executed the day before the death of John
Sadleir. The official manager of the Tipperary Bank
made the case, that the advances made to Lord Glen-
gall were the moneys of that bank ; that Mr. Norris
had only allowed his name to be used in the deed of
mortgage as a trustee for the bank, and was not en-
titled to make use of the deed as a security for him-
self. Previous to the death of John Sadleir there
had been legal proceedings between the parties on the
subject of these securities. In a final schedule
made out subsequent to the sale of the estate Mr.
Norris was returned as a creditor on foot of the
mortgage in question for the amount mentioned,
and it was on an objection to that claim, filed by
the official manager, that the case now came be fore
the court."
Several witnesses were examined yesterday ;
among them a person named Hickey, who had been
in the employment of John Sadleir. The cross-
examination of this person was quite a curiosity:—
" Mr. Sullivan—Mere you not concerned with
the late John Sadleir in forging the bank deed of
the Tipperary Bank P—l was an innocent party in
the matter.
" Did you with your own hand forge the deed ?
—I did not. I made some alterations by his direc-
tions.
" After that bank deed was executedP l
be-
lieve so.
" Yours was the hand that altered it P—l en-
grossed it first.
" After it was executed as a deed did you forge
a passage in it ?—I altered a passage in it by the
direction of John Sadleir; under the circumstances
I did not look upon it as an improper transaction.
I altered the deed increasin the salary of J
Sadleir prior to his marriage. John Sadleir directed
me to meet him in Kilkenny, and there, in the
Court-house, or in the house of a ntlema, the
alterations were made. John Sadleir had a printed
document, which he said was a
form_ of a new deed,
and that the first deed was tobe cancelled alto-
gether. He directed me to make the alteration
with the view of puttting it in the new deed. lie
said, are,gaonintgt o get a new deed according
to this, and. I
the alterations made.' I
was perfectly satisfieodtgweith this explanation or I
wouta not have madnem?e. alteration.
" Mr. Sullivan— m the letter of the 7th of
November, 1855, fro
r
othhuS referencea dl e Sadleir,
requiring an explanation .fromlckheiYmtowli
to this transaction.
" Mr. Sullivan read the letter, in which
Rickey stated that John Sadleir couldnotfoltri
that he (Hickey) had been made the innocent fa,rlirei-
cator, for the purpose of making a bank std long
after it had been executed by the she.reholdera, and
without their knowledge or consort ; and asked the
witn'ess if it was true.
" Witness—Yes, it is true in substance.
"The learned counsel read the remainder of the
letter, which stated that the writer might take an
erroneous view of the transactions, but that in case
Sadleir fai.led to give a satisfactory explanation he
should explain to the shareholders and the public
the part he was induced innocently to take in what
appeared to him to be a gross fraud perpetrated
upon them. (To witness)—Did you ever tell the
shareholders of the fraud you perpetrated ?
" Witness—l did not.
" Mr. Sullivan -read the words of the letter :—' In
case I do net hear from you in a week, I will send
a andpy qf this letter to each of the shareholders,'
;diked the witness did he hear from Sadleir
'Within the week ?
" Witness—l did not.
"Did you send a copy of the letter to each of the
shareholders ?—I did not; I was advised by counsel
that in such a transaction I ought not to volunteer.
" To Sergeant Fitzgibbon—When I altered that
deed, under the direction of John Sadleir, I believed
that he was about to get a new deed, to which the
shareholders were to be parties, and that the altera-
tions were merely to substitute the new deed for the
old. I did not know at that time that Sadleir was
acting so for fraudulent purposes • if I did I would
not hav e made the alteration. I do not know
tion in the
whether Morrogh and Kennedy knew of the altera-
the alteration eud.l did not know of the effect of
after it was executed. I should
"Judge H
say I knew it ventil
as ' for the benefit of James Sadleir.
fraudulent ? a.rgreave--You did not know it was
" Witness—l did not, re?roLl7.rd, particularly as I
knew that the deed was
substitutedt by the
new one. They told me thaet
ashareholders
had consented to the) increase of the seea,l
arnyd of James
.
Sadleir; that was afterwards
eluded in the new deed which was prepared
" Mr. Sullivan—Do you swear that ?
" Witness—l do..
" Where is the I ICIV deed ?—I saw the two iu the
official manager's possession.
" You thought t here was no harm in doing what
you did ? I thought there was no harm, I became
uneasy afterwards.
"Were you pros sing John Sadleir in November,
1855, for a settlers lent of account, when you wrote
that letter ?—I be lieve so.
"Did you thieLk it was a fraud when you wrote
that letter to him .?•—Yes, in the meantime I began
o suspect it.
" Did you fin(', out the true Ague of it in No•