The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESiJ I, EV E,NING, JULY 30, 1867.

SHARE LlST—This Day.

ORDINARY SHARES AND STOCKS.

Pall/ Closing
Business
dens.

73 tO
IC7 1(9
35 45

3 5
65 63
70 72

105 1(7
2' 26,
4 6

11l 112
IUJ 11

94 16
4(.11 41

21 27
27 29

125 1.7

u 51
15 17
8 12
110 112
74 23
43 131
IJB 119

6 107
80 85

111 114;

82 81

27 fa

British Columbia, B per
cent., De 0.31, 1572....
iCan.Gov.6 p.c.Ja.tJuly

1877-81
-
110. 6 p. o. Feb. & Aug
I Du. 5 p. o. Mar. & Sept
Do. 5 p. e. Jan. & July
Do. 5 p. c. Inscribed sk
Cape tir.Hope, 6 p. 0.1873
Do.Apl.& 004, 180-1900
Do. do 1880-9 u
Do. Jan.&July, 1890-91
Do. 5 per cent. 15 April
anu 15 Oct., WOO
Ceylon, Nov. 1868, 6 p.(
Do. 1878, do
Inauritius, 6 p. c, 1873,
Jan. and July

Do. 1878
1)0. 1882, Mayls, N0v.15
Do. 1895, Feb. dc Aug
Natal goy. 6 per cent
N.B.Gov.6p.c.Ja.&July
S. S. W. Gov. 5 p'c.,1866,
Do. 5 p.c. 1871 to 1876

Do. 5 p.c. 1838 to 18951
.New Zealand, 6 p. eentl

Do. 5 per cent.:..
Nova Soitia Gov. 6 p. o
sterling*, 1575
Queensland Gov. 6 p. c
5. Aus.Gov. 6 p,c 1808-ti
Do. 1878 & up wards
Vlo,(iov. 6 p.c. Ja &July
Do. do. April Oct

JJi ITISIi Y

100
100
100
11,0
100
100

95 97
98 100,
98 L.o'
81 83
81 B 3
102 104
105 107
105 107
1(4 105

9° ?4
10/ 104
108 11J

102 104
104 [CO
105 107
107 tl9
98 100
98 28
91 95

89 90
104 106
93 94

401 I

5099;

IC9I 10 91

90 }

93i 411

110 i i I

WI 10'I

1081 i }

MRS. YELVERTON'S CASE—This Day.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

APPEALS -JUDGMENT - LONGWORTII (OR YELVE R-
TON), PAUPER, APPELLANT, AND YELVERTON AND

ANOTHER RESPONDENT.

In this well-known case, lately argued before their
lordships, judgment was delivered this morning, and
a large number of persons crowded the approaches
to the House anxious to obtain admission. Only a
few comparatively could be accommodated.
Neither Mrs. Yelverton nor any of her friends
attended.

The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the wool-
sack at a quarter before eleven o'clock, and there
were also present Lord Cranworth, Lord Westbury,
and Lord Colonsay. Lord Catnlys took a seat in
the body of the house apart from the law lords.

The Lord Chancellor stated the circumstances
under which the appeal was brought in an interlo-
cutory judgment from the Court of Session in
Scotland, and explained the nature of the previous
appeal to the House of Lords. After that appeal
the present appellant alleged that Major Yel-
verton had, in the presence of his brother,
the Hon. Frederick Yelverton, and iu the
presence of a nurse, named Marsh, who was since
dead, stated that he had been married to the appel-
lant, Maria Theresa Long worth. This person
meant was alleged to have mentioned the fact to
the Rev. Edward George Campbell, the chaplain
of the Courthouse at Leeds, who, in his turn, in-
formed the appellant. Then arose the question
whether Major Yelverton might not be put upon
oath in the matter. It had been held by the Court
of Session that the admission to oath was incom-
petent after the judgment had been extracted, but
he held that the reference to oath was competent at
the time when the minute was taken. But then
again it was held that it was incompetent in a de-
clarator of marriage, and where other persons were
concerned. He was of opinion that since the Acts
11 George IV. and 1 William IV., transferring con-
sistorial matters to the Court of Session, which had
been referred to such reference to oath, was not ad-
missible ; that it could not be admissible in the
description of evidence involved in this case. Ile
held, too, that the reference could not be made
when the interests of third parties were involved.
It was before them that Major Yelverton was mar-
ried to Mrs. Forbes, and if the first marriage was
legal the second marriage was clearly illegal. Then,
again, he held that a reference to oath in this case ne-
cessarily involved an admission of criminality. lle
must confess that ho had been guilty of bigamy, and
no one was compelled to declare in suam turpitu-
dinem. If, on the other hand, he refused, Mrs.
Forbes would bo deprived of all her rights. He
considered the Court of Session was right in the
exercise of a sound judicial discretion in refusing
the reference, and in his opinion the appeal must
be dismissed.

Lord Cranworth said the Lord Chancellor had
been kind enough to show him his judgment, and
as he fully concurred in it, it was not necessary for
him to offer many observations. No doubt refer-
ence to oath had been permitted in some matrimonial
cases. But if there had been no marriage with Mrs.
Forbes, he doubted whether there would have been
any reference to oath in this case, because, in a
declaration of marriage, there must necessarily be,
under all circumstances, the interests of third parties
involved. On general principles ho thought that
such reference ',should be excluded in all cases
of this sort.

Lord Westbury said it was not his intention to
pronounce any formal judgment in this case. He
had attended on the first day of the hearing, but
had been unable to be present on the subsequent
days, in consequence of a very severe domestic
affliction. Reference had been made to his ab-
sence, and he had felt bound, therefore, to advert
to it. At the same time he felt bound to say that
what ho heard on the first day showed him very
clearly that the apellaut had no ground on which to
rely. He felt bound to off.:r these few remarks in
explanation.
Lord Colonsay said that after the exps ession of
opinion by the noble and learned lords Ivlso had pre-
ceded bins the case was practically decided, but in a
case of this sort he felt it most desirable that the law
of Scotland should be made clear upon the point.
When the matter first came under his consideration

in an earlier stage, he came to the conclusion that
the reference could not be maintained. Since that
he had considered the case more fully, and saw no
ground for altering his view. Having explained
very minutely the law of Scotland as it bore upon
the point, the noble lord said he had come to the
conclusion that there was no ground in the case for
maintaining the reference, and that the judgment of
the court belo kV ought to be affirmed.
The Lord Chancollor then put the motion that the
judgment of the Court of Session be affirmed, and
it was carried nem. dis.
The Appellant (Nirs.Yelverton) has therefore been
defeated in another stage of her case.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
BOVILL V. COWAN.

It case the plaintiff applied for an injunction
to restrain the defendant from using an apparatus
applicable to mill purposes, for which he had ob-
tained a patent. The defendant denied that such
apparatus was any novelty, or that ho had used it
at his mill.

His Lordship, in delivering judgment to-day,
said that he was clearly of opinion that the patent
had been infringed, notwithstanding, as was usual
in cases where there was a desire to evade the law,
some alterations had been made in the apparatus by
the defendant. The plaintiff might have availed
himself of some of the existing inventions which
he combined with his own to produce results not
previously realised, and according to such combina-
tion was considered a novelty, and had a right to
be protected. He would accordingly grant the
injunction.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGII-STREET.

SINGULAR CASE OF PAUPERS. —Henry Young, Benjamin
Murray, and Alfred Love, three able-bodied inmates of St.
Martin's Workhouse, wore charged before Mr. Tyrwbitt
with refusing to work when requested to do so.
William Dack, gate porter at St. Martin's Workhouse
said that the three prisoners were inmates, and had been
for years, of St. Martin's Workhouse, on and off. Last
Saturday a sick woman had to be sent for to be
brougLt into the workhouse, and he asked the prisoners to
assist iu carrying the cot. Ile first asked Love, who was
smoking a pipe, if he would assist in fetching a sick
woman from York-place, and he refused ; he then asked
Murray, who was lying down, if he would assist, and
he refused ; and ho then asked You-ng if ho would
go, and ho replied, "I'm mubh obliged to you, but I am
not going to do any work out of the house." The pri-
soners' conduct was represented to the board of guardians
yesterd ty, and their decision was that the prisoners should
be brought before his worship.
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he could not make the prisoners go
out of the house to work. They were cunning birds, and
no doubt knew that it was a shabby thing on.their part,
and showed what a set of ill-conditioned persons they
must be—three gawky fellows refusing to do what they
were asked, and living in idleness on the ratepayers of the
parish. Ile considered it a case neyor contemplated by
the Act, and that the workhouse was intended for work to
bo done in it. As to sending them out to do anything, ho
did not think that- was intended. He considered the pri-
soners idle fellows not to fetch a poor sick person in when
requested to do so, and they ought to be turned out of the
house and made to work, the more especially so as any one
of them appeared able to have done what was asked. The
prisoners would be discharged.
Young was formerly in the Metropolitan police, but dis-
missed for drunkenness. Subsequently he became an in-
mate of St. Martin's workhouse, and with a number of
others, under the direction of the guardians, emigrated ;
but when he got to Liverpool ho was the cause of a mutiny
on board the ship, and sent ashore and locked up. Ulti-
mately he returned to St. Martin's workhouse, where with
his wife he has spent the greater part of his life. Murray
has been a pauper nearly all his lifetime. Love's wife re-
fuses to live with him, and his three children have been
long supported by the parish.