The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, ' LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER' 24, 1860.

was carried by acclamation, with only two dis-
sentients.
Thanks were voted to the Chairman and the
meeting dispersed.

RIPON.
A vacancy has been occasioned in t'le represen-
tation of this city by the death or Mr. J. A.
Warre. No candidate has yet ent:n ed the field,
but several names are spoken of, among the most
prominent being Mr. Reginald Vyner, second son
of Mr. H. Vyner, of Newby-hall, near Ripon, and
Mr. W. E. Forster, of Burley-grange, near Otley,
the unsuccessful candidate at the last election for
the borough of Leeds. Both these gentlemen are
Liberals. There is some talk of a Conservative
candidate, but such a one would have a poor chance
against the De Grey and Ripon interest, although
until within the last few years Ripon always re-
turned two Conservative members. Mr. R. Vyner
is half-cousin to Earl de Grey and Ripon.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Nov. 23.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

THE QUEEN V. HOWSE-THE QUEEN V. HOPICINS

ln this case the Court had granted writs of habeas
corpus directed to John Howse and Rachael Hop-
kins to bring up the body of Charlotte Barford, a
young lady aged 15 years, in order to her being de-
livered up to her father, who obtained the writs.
After some delay, and an apparent attempt on the
part of several parties to evade the jurisdiction of
the Court, the young lady was this day produced,
and the question was then raised as to whether she
was of an age to exercise a discretion as to whether
she would return home to her father, or whether
the father had not an absolute right to have his
child delivered up to him by the order of the Court.
Mr. Sleigh, on the part of the father, moved that
the young lady now in Court should be delivered
up to her father, and read a long affidavit in which
the father stated all the circumstances under which
his daughter had been withdrawn from his roof,
and taken to London by Howse, and sent about to
various places after the writ of habeas corpus was
granted. The affidavit concluded with a statement
that the applicant had always treated his daughter
with the greatest kindness, and that his object was
to save his daughter from the improper hands and
society into which she had fallen.
Mr. Seymour said he had had an opportunity of
answering the affidavit ' • and as to the motion
made that the girl should be delivered up, he sub-
mitted she was quite of age to speak for herself.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn then directed that
the girl should be taken into his private room, and
said the counsel on both sides might accompany
her if they wished.
The parties then all withdrew, and were absent
fro* the court for some time. Upon their Lord-
ships' return,
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said he wished to
hear counsel upon the question of the law, whether
the father was entitled to have the child delivered
up to him.
Mr. Sleigh then referred to the repealed statute,
4th and sth of Phillip and Mary, cap. 8, which
enacted that

" Nobody shall take away any maid or woman child iin•
married, being within the age of 16 years, nut or from the
possession, custody, or governance, and against the will of
the father of such maid or woman child, or of such persons
to whom the father of such maid or woman child by his
last will and testament, or by any other act in his lifetime,
bath or shall appoint, assign, bequeath, give, or grant
.the
order, keeping, education, and governance of such maul cr
woman child."
That statute was repealed, but it was in substance
re•enacted by the 20th section of the 9th George
IV., cap. 31, now in force, which enacted that,
" If any person shall unlawfully take, or cause to be
taken, any unmarried girl, being under the are of 16, out
of the possession, and against the will of the father or
mother, or of any other person having the lawful care or
I charge of her, every such offender shall be guilty of a mis-
demeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to
suffer such punishment, by fine or imprisonment, or both,
as the com t shall award."
The learned counsel contended that this statute
assumed and recognised the right of the father to
have the custody of his daughter up to 16 years of
age ; hut he went further, and contended that,
under the 12th Charles 11., cap. 24, the father had
the right to the custody of his children until they I
were of the full age of 21 years. The words of the
statute were :
" That where any person bath or shall have any child or
children under the age of 21 years, and not married at the
time of his death, it shall and may be lawful to and for the
father of such child, or children, whether born at the time'
of the decease of the father or at that time ' en ventre de sa
mere,' or whether such father be within the age of 21 years
or of full age, by his deed executed in his lifetime, or by his
last will and testament in writing, in the presence of two
or more credible witnesses, to dispose of the custody and
tuition of such child or children for and during such time
as he or they shall respectively remain under the age of 21
years, or any lesser time, to any person or persons in pos-
session, or remainder, other than Popish recusants, &c."
He also referred to the case of " R. v. Greenhill"
(4 A. E., 624),
Lora (Auer Justice Cockburn said the difficulty
was in his fixing an age at which the child was
too young to exercise a choice.
Mr. Justice Hill said the law iras now settled
that, though the girl was a consenting party, and
left her father of her own free will, she had no
mind or will of her own that could infringe on her
father's paternal right. His lordship referred to
the case of " Regina v. Mantkelow."
Lord Chief Cockburn said the Court had exa-
mined the person herself, and she had had every
opportunity of explaining ; but the result of the
examination was that she could not suggest any
misconduct on the part of her father which would
justify her in leaving his house.
Mr. Justice Hill said the question was whether,
if the girl chose to set her father's authority at de-
.fiance, she could do so ?
Mr. Seymour said he appeared for Howse, and
also for Miss Hopkins, and that, if he had the
opportunity, he thought he could answer the
father's affidavit, and show that his was not the
proper custody.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said that ought to
have been done on the return to the writ, and he
should be very reluctant to give an opportunity of
stating in an affidavit charges which 'ihe girl her-
self when examined had not preferred..
Mr. Seymour referred to the authorities, and
contended that the girl was old enough to exercise
her choice, and that the Court would not control
her.

Mr. Justice Blackburn referred to Rateliffe's
case (3 Co., 39 a) and Fraser's note t hereon.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn also :referred to the
recent case of "Regina v. Timmins," and, after
consulting with the other judges, said no case had
been made out on the part of those who resisted the
application to the Court that the eh ild should be
delivered up to her father. It w.m. for them to
show that, though entitled in point .of law to the
custody of the child, the father ought not, in regard
to the interests of the child, to have that custody.
The question was, therefore, a simple question of
law, whether the father was entitle( I to the custody
of the child, she being fifteen yew rs of age, when
that daughter, without just cause, I lesired to with-
draw herself from his control. It liras an unhappy
fact that this girl, influenced by e counsels and
evil examples, was desirous, with out adequate
motive, to withdraw herself from. -the care and
affectionate control of her father, an d cast herself
on those who were likely to lead I her to her
ruin, and if the Court could save her from
what her folly would lead her into, they would
rejoice. It had been shown thalc, though the
father was entitled to the custody oq the child up
to 21 years of age, the Courts would not interfere
summarily, by writ of habeas cm:ls'lw, to withdraw
the child from the custody in whict L she happened
to be if the child had arrived at thE age of discre-
tion at which she could exercise !a choice. The
question was, what was the age at -which the child
attained that discretion ? He (Lc it d Chief Justice
Cockburn) wholly repudiated th( doctrine that
mental precocity would give it tb right, if it had
not arrived at the age of discretic m which the law
recognised, for that very precocity might lead a
young girl into misery and dan .ger. The Court
must lay down a general rule as to the age when
the minor might be left to freedon t of choice. The
Legislature had thrown light on this subject, by
which therourt might be safely g ti.ided. The age
of 16 had been pointed out as the ; age to which the
consent of the child should not j *stify her with-
drawal from the father's roof Ns ithout it being
considered a misdemeanour. Up • to that period nb
encouragement was afforded by t.l le law, any more
than by public opinion, to induce a young woman
to withdraw herself from' the par.e3 atal control... In
would.
the prese t
case there was nothn ig to justify that
withdrawn
order, and the result was that the Court
persons who hcc)aordnisdoht
father. His that the girl be delivered up to her
ip
George IV
their would b
ealso t
3a
bdadi
ethat
the ife x tehe
tions of this
statute (9th of been inc tic under the
doubt that they Would call. no one could
have liable to be
I convicted of the offerme
would ben
to
;emaiowl ti tent could the
I Court allow the girl
that t custody ?
The order, therefo-„,
as she shouldn
eb
de
restored. to her father; but his Lot
to take care for the fu
p artier tt ire, lest the
briv'g themselves withi th a law. Hisy
Lord ;hi. concluded. by obse.rvinl. th at the Court
sthhoeui. 3
had not come to this conclusion wither at great con-
siden iti,on, nor without consulting wit h the judges
of th B other courts, all of whom were unanimous
orderedhild wax
M r. Sleigh said that, as the c
rto
in op union with the judges of this court
ious aw
be given up, the fatter WO anx
his application for. the attadNient of th e parties.

The learned counsel applied that the father might
have his costs.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said the court had
no power to give costs.
The young lady, who showed a manifest disin-
clination to be given up to her father, then left the
court in his custody.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary, Mr. Justice Wight-
man, and Mr. Justice Williams.)
SHEDDEN AND SHEDDEN Y. PATRICK AND PATRICK
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
The hearing of this petition for a declaration of
legitimacy was resumed.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., Mr. Couch, and Mr. Phear ap-
peared for the petitioners ; Mr. Rolt, Q.C., Mr.
Bovill, Q.C., Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Powell for
i the respondents ; and Mr. Bourke for the Attorney-

General.
Some correspondence which passed between the
petitioner and William Patrick in 1823, 1824, 1839,
and 1841, was put in evidence for the purpose of
explaining and corroborating the petitioner's state-
ment with respect to the documents said to have
been delivered to him by William Patrick in 1823.
A deposition was also read, made by an old man
named Robert Stevenson, who said that he remem-
bered the arrival in Ayrshire of the boy William
Shedden from America, and that one of the servants
spoke of him as " the young laird of Roughwood."
Mr. Collier tendered Lloyd's List for the purpose
of showing what vessels had arrived at Greenock
from New York in the beginning of 1799, in order
to controvert the account given by Mr. Patrick as
to the transmission of the letter of the 12th Nov.,
1798, and of its duplicate and triplicate.
A clerk from Lloyd's proved that the list pur-
ported to contain the names of all vessels arriving
at different ports in Great Britain. It was made
up from letters received from agents at the ports
announcing the arrivals. The agent would in every
case keep a book of entries. The letters of 1798
were among the documents destroyed when the
Royal Exchange was burnt down.
Their lordships rejected the evidence.
This being the close of the evidence in support of
the petition,
Mr. Rolt proceeded to open the respondents' case.
He said that the lady who had opened the peti-
tioners' case with such remarkable skill had com-
plained of the difficulty she was under in conducting
it without professional assistance, but the petitioner
bad deliberately chosen to conduct it in the way in
which it had been conducted.
The Judge-Ordinary—You need not enter into
that question.
Mr. Rolt said he would give the Court a simple
statement of facts which would admit of no doubt
or dispute upon the evidence in any reasonable
mind. After recapitulating the relationship of the
different members of the Patrick and Shedden
families who were in America between 1790 and
1798, he admitted that the law of marriage in New
York was, as stated by the petitioner's witnesses—
namely, that no official or ecclesiastical ceremony
was necessary to create a marriage, but that the
fact of a marriage which might be proved by habit
and repute was sufficient. The case to which the
petitioners pledged themselves was this gen-
tleman of character and position equal to that of
Mr. Shedden lived near New York, and had a
daughter, who in 1790 was about 16 years of age.
NTT.. Shedden paid his addresses to her in the way
of honourable courtship, and the only objection
that could be raised to the match was that of her
youth. Time and reflection removed the difficulty,
the lady and her father consented, and the
marriage took place. Could any human being be-
lieve that in 1798 all evidence of the fact of such
a marriage, openly contracted iu 1790, had com-
pletely disappeared, the lady herself, her father,
and, of course, most of their acquaintance being
then alive? This was not represented as the case
of an illicit amour gradually ripening into a fixed
cohabitation, but as a contract openly entered into,
with no attempt at concealment. The deathbed
marriage was quite irreeoncileable with this case,
It could not have been thought necessary for the
purpose of preserving the testimony of a marriage
which had been contracted only a few years earlier.
The respondents' case was, that iu 1789 a woman
named Ann Wilson was living in New York, in a
house of her own ; that she received the visits of
illiam Shedden in the first place at that ;anise ;
that they gradually became more and more ac-
quainted; that she occasionally visited at his house,.
and, at last during the latter part of his lite took
up her residence there altogether; that there was
no pretence for saying there was any marriage
previous to the death-bed marriage, and that the
evidence of habit and repute was utterly opposed
to the idea of such a marriage. A respectable
merchant in New York would prove that, in 1794,
when he was 20 years old, he was intimately ac-
quainted with society in New York, and knew
William Shedden, and that he was an unmarried
man. Another witness who was in the house when
William Shedden died, and had known him for
years, would prove than Ann Wilson was
openly and notoriously a woman of very iignt cha-
racter, that she insinuated herself into his house
and resided there as his mistress, but that he never
introduced her as his wife into decent society. The
whole of the documentary evidence supported this
view of the case, and proved that the death-bed
marriage was merely contracted for the purpose
of legitimatizing the children and making an
honest woman of Ann Wilson. The will, which was
executed on the 7th of November, 1798, the same
day when the deathbed marriage was contracted,
was, in some respects, remarkable. This wealthy
merchant, as he was represented, left only 400 dols.,
£BO or £9O a year, to the virtuous and excellent
woman to whom he had been married for years, and
the only one of the children, the girl, who was left
under her care, was to remain under it only as long
as.the executors thought proper, and as long as she
followed their advice as to its education. The
letters of John Patrick and of the two other mem-
bers of the family in America, William Shedden
of Virginia, and Robert Patrick of New York, con-
tnined declaration upon declaration that there was
no marriage previous to the deathbed marriage.
But the most important declaration, and one which,
in his opinion, put an end to the case, was that of
William Shedden himself, contained in his letter to
Mr. Patrick, of the 12th of November, the day before
his death; the original of this letter was written
and signed by him, and he also made two copies, all
of which were sent to this country. Had it not been
for the wicked conduct of the male petitioner that
original would have been produced, for it was either
in the petitioner's possession or had been destroyed
by him. But fortunately a duplicate and triplicate
had been made, and had been produced. His answer
to the suggestions which had been offered as to the
improbability of this duplicate and triplicate having
been transmitted in the manner stated by Mr.
Patrick was, that the original had been sent by
one ship, and that the duplicate and triplicate
had both been sent by another ship soon after-
wards. The learned counsel read extracts from
the letters of the members of the family in America
to the different members of the family in Eng-
land and Scotland from 1798 down to June, 1799,
all of them assuming that the persons to whom
they were written were ignorant that William
Shedden had ever been married. If he had been
openly married for eight years, how was it that none
of the family in this country bad ever heard
of it ? He placed great stress upon Mrs. Vincent's
letter to William Patrick of the 3d of Sept., 1799,
as proving both that Mrs. Vincent had no idea that
there had ever been more than one marriage, and
that the letter of the 12th of Nov. had been written
and sent by William Shedden. (Both these letters
have already been published in our report of this
trial.) As to the affidavits which she sent home
from a needlewoman and a nurse in the family, he
submitted that they were evidence against a prior
marriage, because, if there had been such a mar-
riage, she would have been able to adduce much
more satisfactory proof of it. They also proved that
she
on
eaugrt rr et ade kp documentarys tor,
ern
ivfaitgdhwaseeen.
ca eTe t.
ahhteehnTp.
bhedeteedi
They
erlheonatuedt srs e
accr
used
aline
ddss teeatdnhb
dtel
the
eseeahtvphii oagnredtm raai rldl-
connected with them, of forgery and perjury, spolia-
tion, and fabrication and destruction of documents,
and even the unfortunate deaths of two distant re-
lations had been represented as visitations of a mys
terious Providence. The only motive suggested for
all these crimes was that Robert Patrick might ob-
tain possession of the Ayrshire property. What
possible interest could William Patrick of Virginia
and the Sheddens of London, have in taking part
in such a conspiracy ? The correspondence of 1800
between the American executors and William
Patrick proved that William Patrick was anxious
to discharge his duty to the 'boy, because he gave
the executors notice that he could not attend to his
interests in opposition to those of his brother
Robert, and asked them to appoint some one to re-
present him in Scotland, accompanying this request
by a clear and candid statement of his brother's
case, of the state of the law, and of the boy's chance
of success. His advice was, that a suit should be in-
stituted to try the question of law between Robert
and the boy, so as to decide the question of the title to
the lands at once, the expense to be borne by the win-
ning party. The learned counsel called their lordships
attention to the endorsement on the duplicate,tripli-
cate of the letter of. Nov. 12—" original per ship
Fanny, Capt. Brain ;" to an entry in one of Mr.
Patrick's books, under the date of Jan. 8, 1799—
:Asa,. Gm .e :',lio2ssme,ison, letters from New York ; and
to
.a further endorsement upon the duplicate and tri-
plicate, " Received at Edinburgh the 15th of
January, 1799"
--both
entries
showing' the receipt of the bills of exchange

which the letters enclosed. Passing to the year
1823, when the petitioner became acquainted with
his position, the learned counsel referred to a list

of documents, dated Oct. 7, made out by William
Patrick, and purporting to be a catalogue of the
papers sent by him to the petitioner for his perusal,
one of them being the letter of Nov. 12. These
papers were returned in a few days, and on Dec. 3i,
at the petitioner's request, Mr. Patrick again sent
him the letter of Nov. 12, and an obituary ; and
he acknow'leged their receipt. He read extracts
from Mr. Shedden's letters from Oct., 1823, to Jan.,
1824, in which he said that he knew there had been
a suit between himself and the Patricks before he
left school ; that he was aware that Dr. Hosack was
then living ; and that in October he had seen his
father's will " and some of the papers accompany-
ing it." These letters were of great length, one of
them extending over no less than 31 pages. The
letter of Jan. 3, 1824, acknowledging the receipt
of the obituary and of a letter containing " perhaps
the last signature of his father," showed that the pe-
titioner had obtained possession of what lie regarded
as a valuable relic, and to account for its son-pro-
duction he told the incredible tale that he had ex-
changed it for some unimportant letter of 1783.
The correspondence of 1841 proved that the
petitioner's explanation was idle and un-
true, and that the original letter of No-
vember, 1798, had been traced to his posses-
sion. This evidence entirely acquitted Mr. Patrick, a
most honourable man, of the shocking charge of
having fabricated a letter. just as unfounded were
the charges brought against the other members of
the family of having fabricated accounts and de-
stroyed papers with the view of getting rid of their
liabilities to the estate of Wm. Shedden. It was clear
that at the time of his death he was deeply indebted,
and his estate was hardly solvent. In addition to
the evidence he had already stated as to habit and
repute, he should prove that in June, 1797, a con-
veyance was executed of certain parcels of land near
New York t o Ann Wilson, that this land was set-
tled to her separate use upon her marriage with
Vincent, in January, 1799, and that she conveyed
it away in 1801. The learned counsel then proceeded
to comment upon the evidence given at New York
in support of the petition.
The Court adjourned before the observations
upon this part of the case were concluded.

to ask for the committal of all the persons charged

in this matter.

The following letter was read:—
" London, Oct. 29. 1860.
"Dear Sir,—l wrote to my housekeeper, Mrs. Cave, to-
day, and told her to try and get Woodford to your office, so
that ycu may make a handling of him. Mrs. Cave will do
her best to get hold of him, and in the event of her doing
so, and that you are satisfied with him, you may give him
the enelosed, or rather destroy it in his presence. But mind,
please to note in every way, in the shape of evidence, as to

the existence of this ciecwitent. Take notice of it for reasons

that I will make known to you when I next see you. Have
you proceeded any further in Cooke's matter or Admitt's ?
Had you not better write to Cooke upon the subject of his
action, and feel his purse? You can address to me, under
cover, to Mr. F. W. Ventris, New North-road, Islington,
London.—Yours truly, L. It. POOLE.
" What do you think of BillinghamPg testimony ? Will
it do ?"

Mr. Van Sandau said he presumed that the follow-
ing was the " enclosed" which was to be given to
Woodford or destroyed in his presence : _ _

" £lB lls.
" Northampton, Aug. 9, 1860.
" I hereby acknowledge being indebted to Mr. W. F.
Johnson, of Northampton, in the sum of eighteen pounds
eleven shillings for value received.
" Witness L. R. Poole. (Signed) "J. WOODFORD."

Mr. Van Sandau said, having read this letter,
which be characterised as one written by Poole,
inciting Mr. Dawson to tamper with the witnesses
for the purpose of robbing the creditors of the
bankrupts of their property., he would recall the
witnesses Beard and Woodford to afford the coun-

sel an opportunity of cross-examining them.
Mr. Ebsworth said, before proceeding further, he
wished to know on what specific charge Mr. Van
Sandau was going against Mr. Cooke. As none of
the evidence proposed to be adduced affected the
charge of perjury, and as none of the alleged acts of
that gentleman took place in London, this Court had
no jurisdiction against him upon the charge of con-
spiracy. It might be very convenient to Mr. Van
Sandau, but it was not fair to bring Mr. Cooke up
from Northampton day after day upon a charge
which was not gone into, merely for the purpose of
having been present in a matter beyond the juris-
diction of the Court, as far as Mr. Cooke was con-
cerned.
Mr. Van Sandau said it was sufficient for him to
show that any one of the accused committed an
overt act in London to give the Court jurisdiction
over the whole of the parties charged, and to in-
elude every overt act at Northampton and else-
where. In a charge of conspiracy the act of one
was the act of all. It was a continuous offence, and
the Court had ample jurisdiction...
The evidence taken on the former examinations
of Spittle, the detective officer ; Beard, the bank-
rupts' carman • Woodford, a carpenter, in the same
employ • and kr. Blink, clerk to Mr. Van Sandau,
having been read over, the whole of the witnesses
were ordered out of court, and
Beard was then recalled and further examined.
Henry Fossey said—l was packer in the employ
of the bankrupts for about 12 months. The peg
now produced is the bankrupts' property, and was
on the premises on the 13th of August when they
stopped work, for I used it that day. The letter-
bag also belongs to them. I saw the 26 trunks and
the hamper of goods seized at Kingsthorpe. The
whole of that property belonged to the bankrupts.
I was the only packer in Poole's employ during the
last 12 months. Trunks and hampers were always
packed by me, and none could have been sent out
of the warehouse in the ordinary course of business
without my knowledge, for whenever Mr. Poole,
or Mr. Bryan, or Mr. Balls, the foreman, assisted
in packing I always superintended it. Thew 26
trunks were not packed by me, neither were they
sent from the warehouse as early as July last, nor
could they have been sent out prior to the 13th of
August, when the bankrupts stopped business, and
closed the warehouse. In one of the trunks there
were five pairs of spring-side boots, which I re-
member leaving in the shoe-room on the 11th of
August last. I recognise them because they were
brought in by a workman named Skempton, and
were rejected by Mr. Poole because they were
not properly finished. They were not brought in
until the 11th of August, and they could not there-
fore have been sent out in July. I did not work
for the bankrupts after 8 o'clock on the morning of
the 13th of August.
Mr. George Freeman Newton said—l am a cur-
rier, in business at Northampton. lam the peti-
tioning creditor in the bankruptcy of Poole and
Bryan. lam a creditor to the amount of between
£5,000 and £6,000. Ventris came down to North-
ampton on the 15th or 16th August, and I received
a circular from Quilter, Ball, and Co. about the same
time announcing the failure of the bankrupts. I went
straight to London, to Poole's warehouse, and was
told he was not there, but that he had left a note
telling me that any information I wanted I could
get from Quilter, Ball, and Jay. I returned to
Northampton,.and met Poole and Ventris. Poole
introduced Ventris to me as Mr. Jay, and told me
I should see his books if I would call at 10 o'clock
on the following morning. I went at the time ap-
pointed, but they were not in, and the housekeeper
told me Mr. Jay would, give me the information I
wanted. I met Ventris in Mayfair in Northampton.
He told me I could not see the books, but if I
would point out anything particular that I wanted
he would endeavour to•give it to me. I asked for
the amount of the liabilities what amount was
likely to be paid, and some information of Graham,
Tobias, and Co., but I did. not get it. I had several
letters in reference to the removal of goods, and,
in consequence thereof I watched the bankrupts
premises. On Saturday night, the 18th of Aug., I
saw a van-load of goods brought out of the ware -
house in the Mayor Hold, and I followed it through
Bearwood-street, across the Market-square, when I
saw Ventris go up to the driver and say something
to him, upon which the van quickened its pace, and
I lost sight of it oustide the town. I afterwards met
Ventris, and asked him what he meant by assisting
the bankrupts in robbing the creditors in that way.
He asked Me what right I had to interfere, and
made use of many low threats. He said, perhaps I
should be on the eve of bankruptcy, and I had
better mind what I was about, or he would do some-
thing for me. On Monday, Aug. 20, I was called
upon by Police-sergeant Smith, who told me another
load had been taken early that morning, between 2
and 3 o'clock. On the 23d I made Poole and Bryan
bankrupts.
After some discussion, it was arranged that the
case should be adjourned until Monday next.
Sir R. W. Carden said he would accept the same
bail as before for Mr. Cook and Mr. Dawson, and
Billingham, but he must refuse.the application on
behalf of Ventris to take one surety instead of two.
It was here stated that the assignees had no ob-
jection to bail being taken for Poole.
Sir R. W. Carden said if Mr. Van Sandau for the
prosecution, and all the assignees and the counsel
and friends of the bankrupt Poole, supported his
application for bail, he should feel it his duty to re-
fuse it.

The sister of an hon. baronet who has but re-
cently succeeded to the title which his ancestors have so
long and so honourably held, the other day eloped from
Dresden with the German tutor who had been engaged by
the family. The young lady has a large fortune, and is
most prepossessing in appearance. It was stated that she
was betrothed, at the time o her flight, to a gentleman of
position in the county of Cumberland—Cumberland .Paquet.

THE ORNAMENTATION OF WATCHES WITH FINE ART
DESIGNS.-" It is singular that our English manufac-
turers of watches have overlooked the importance of supe-
rior art-designs for their productions. The fact is, the
costliness of material and perfection of mechanism in the
smallest compass seem heretofore to have been looked upon
as the exclusive standards by which a watch could be
judged, the ornamentation being considered of no import-
ance. Significant signs of improvement are, however, in-
dicated by at least one manufacturer. As observers of pro-
gress in all departments of art and manufactures, we feel
much pleasure in adding our testimony to the fine taste
which has been displayed in the selection of artistic designs
for ornamenting watches by. Mr. J. W. Benson, of 33 and
34, Ludgate-hill, the manufacturer referred to. Mr. Ben-
son, as a long-established City manufacturer, has gained a
reputation for the quality of his preductions which stands
second to none in the City."--Sun.—Benson's Illustrated
Pamphlet, post free for two stamps, is descriptive of every
construction of watch now made. Watches safe by post to
all parts of the globe.
[AuvEnnsEMENT.]--Medicine always aggravates chronic
diseases, but Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica Food
invariably cures them in a very short time. We extract a
few out of • many thousands of gratitude from invalids.
Cure 36,418. Rev. Dr. Minster of cramps, spasms, and
daily vomitings. Cure 26,418. Dr. Harvey of diarrhoea
and debility. Cure 39,628. Dr. Wurtzer of consumption.
Cure 46,270. Mr James Roberts, timber-merchant, of Frim-
ley, of 30 years diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver de-
rangement, partial deafness. Cure No. 47,121. Miss Eliza-
beth Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion, gather-
ings, low spirits, and nervous fancies. Cure No. 48,314.
Miss Elizabeth Yeoman, Gateacre, near Liverpool,a cure of
10 years dyspepsia, and all thehorrors of nervous irritability.
Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and
perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment,
and expense may be avoided by using Du Barry's Food
which, at a few pence per day, saves 50 times its cost in
other remedies, removmg effectually, without purging,
constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and
liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate
No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure,
MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr.
Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu-
rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of
false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the
high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against
Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences
that Nevill has a patent for Arabica Food and that Du
Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly false.
No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry
and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, ontheseal and wrapper.
Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must
expect to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b.
2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. Ils. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The
121 b. and 241 b. canisters are sent carriage free on receipt
of Post-office' order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 779 lif?'
gent-street, London; Fortnum Mason, and Co.; Ab,sbi_c,:
60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, va.l
bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopsg
street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Co
tea-dealers ; Petty, Wood, and Co., King William-street
City; at 127, High Iolborn; and all grocers°

IMPERIAL GUARANTEES.

A return has been made up at the Treasury
showing the extent of our responsibility in the
shape of guarantees. At the head of them stands
the Russian-Dutch loan of 1815. The portion gua-
ranteed by this country amounted to £2,083,333
with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. ; and the
sums already paid under the guarantee for interest
and sinking fund (1 per cent.) actually amount to
mere than double the original debt. The sinking
fund has now reduced the principal of the debt to
£1,145,833, and consequently our payments for in-
terest are constantly decreasing, but we still pay
above £BO,OOO a year for interest and sinking-fund
together, and the period when we shall cease to pay
anything will not arrive until June, 1915—the cen-
tenary of the guarantee. Next comes the Greek
loan, which, perhaps, may drag on for as long; it
is now 12 years since the Greek Government made
us any remittance. The British Government have
paid £811,790 under their guarantee, and all that
has been repaid to them by the Greek Govern-
ment amounts to only £31,084. We are paying
above .£47,000 a year for interest and sinking-
fund, and it is calculated that this sinking--fund
will have purchased all the bonds guaravteed
by the British Government by MichaeliVas.
1871 ; but when the Greek Government wi.ll
have repaid us is another question. In May,
1859, a joint commission (English, French, and
Russian) reported that they considered £900,000
the minimum which Greece is in a condition to pay

annually, the payment to increase progressively,
but the present return adds rothing to the £31,084
which was repaid us by the Greek Government in
1847 and 1848. There are some other guarantees
subsisting under which the British Government
have not been called upon to pay anything—the
£5,000,000 4 per cent. loan raised by Turkey, the
interest of which is jointly guaranteed by England
and France, of which loan only £102,000 have as
yet been extinguished ; several colonial loans ; and
a small sum borrowed for the 'metropolis main
drainage, of which there is but £70,000 still out-
standing. The £2,000,000 loan to Sardinia was
not a guarantee, but a direct loan, and that country
repays the interest to Great Britain, with a small
annual sum for a sinking fund. Lastly, to three
telegraph companies—the Mediterranean Exten-
sion, the Channel Islands, and the Red Sea and
India Telegraph Company—the British Govern-
ment have made engagements in the nature of
guarantees of a minimum return, which at the
present take about £20,000 a-year from the public
purse.