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

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco before justices Blackburn, Mellor, and
Hayes.)
IN RE HAYNES-MADAME RACHEL.

11r. 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
gcnt'ernan to show cause why he should not answer the
matters contained in an affidavit fil•,d by a person
named Leverson, who was tried and convicted two or
three sessions ago at the Old Bailey of having obtained
large sums of money by false and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—You 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 the statements made in the affi-
davit by this woman, who has been for a
considerable time trading under the name of
Madame Rachel are false, and that she is not to bo 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 is false upon the face of it; and with
regard to the other parts which affect Mr. Haynes,
and which aro within his knowledge, he has a perfect ans wer
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 ho might think it right to
call. Mr. Hawkins—l cheerfully assent to that on behalf
of Mr. Haynes. Referred to the Master accordingly.

CORRESPORDEVCE FROM PARIS.

FROli OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

PARIS, SUNDAY, January 31.
Six chamberlains figured in M. Rouher's unhappy ma-
jority in the division on the interpellation respectir g 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 snore 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 eApecially 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 Opposition
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 coin-
mittees or bureaux, of which four must approve the
" question" or it cannot be put. Ncw, in this case three
bureaux decided in favour of the interpellation, 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 cages in high life are very common in Prance
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 3 Madrid and Sara-
gossa Railway, with the view of having their shares de-
clared null and void. Their fundamental plea was that they
had been induced to take the shares by the false repre-
sentations made in the annual report 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 n early double that at which tirey were issued. The usual
result followed : the dirt ctors 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, in the first
place, that a French court could not try the case, as the
seat 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.