The Sun.
London, England, 1867-12-12 00:00:00

FOUNDLINGS IV PADDING7ON.

At the weekly meeting of the guardians of Pad-
dington held, yesterday (Wednesday), a singular
case of child desertion was brought to the notice of
the board by Mr. Cormack, master of the work-
house. He said that a male child was found wrapped
up on a door step in Chester-place, Hyde-park,
and brought to the workhouse by a policeman. A
letter was found attached to the child's clothing, of
which the following are extracts :—" Horace Stracey,
born Nov. 17. Pray take pity on my poor little
one ; don't think I am an unkind mother to thus
cast him off, but I cannot bear to see him want.
There are homes and institutions supported by the
benevolent where he can be well cared for, I know,
but I have not the power to get him in. You can, good
friends, do something for him, and God will reward
you ; but oh, don't send him to the union." "Be
sure it is hard for me to do this, but who would
see her babe want? God has blessed so many with
plenty. May I beg of you again to do something
for him, and God will bless you. I cannot tell you
how it will gladden the heart of a fellow-creature."
The writer asks a further favour of the finder, "to
ease the mind of an anxious and broken-hearted
mother" by advertising in one of the London daily
papers " on the 21th instant--first, to let me know
if my little one is safe, as to hear that would make
a happy Christmas for me." The letter is signed,
" One who•will be ever thankful "_ _.Lisa singulir
circumstance that a child was found a short time
since in the same neighbourhood, to which was also
attached a letter couched in similar terms to the
above. On a recent occasion a child was found
(also in Paddington) with a sovereign and a letter
fastened to its clothes. The note informed the
finder that the sovereign was for the purpose of pay-
ing for the burial, " in case the child should be dead
when found," which was actually the case. The
child first referred to is alive and well.

THE JUDGES.--•It is not true that two of the
learned judges are about to vacate their seats on the bench
owing to bad health. The learned persons at whom
rumour points are remarkably well, and likely to continue
on the bench for some time to come.

THE MANCHESTER EXECUTION AND THE REFORM
LEAGUE.-At a meeting of the Council of the Reform
League held last evening, Mr. Beales in the chair, Mr. W.
J. Mote moved a resolution stigmatising the barging of
Allen, Larkin, and Gould, "as a judicial murder, for poli-
tical reasons only, by her Majesty's Government." In sup-
port of it he made several allegations to show that the exe-
cution was a deliberate, premeditated murder on the part
of the Government, carried out entirely apart from any
consideration of the ostensible charge against the men.
The motion was seco .ded, and a discussion ensued ; but,
in deference to the strongly expressed opinion of the
chairman, it was withdrawn.
CHICKENS ARE NOT LIVE STOCK.—If the ques-
tion whether fleas were lobsters had conic up for
decision before a court of law, instead of before Sir
Joseph Banks, we should hardly have had a terser deci-
sion than Sir Joseph is reported by Peter Pindar to have
given, but we might have the reasons for the decision
more fully, if not more satisfactorily set forth. Nor
must we say that a court would have refused to pass
upon such a question, taking refuge in the
maxim, "de ntinimis non curat lex." We do not in-
deed remember of any case in which an exactly
similar question has come before the court, although
it is not long since an English court was called
upon to pass upon the question whether certain sea-side
lodgings were rendered untenantable by the presence of
certain other vermin as red as a lobster and nearly as agile
as a flea ; but that was rather a question of fact for a
jury than of construction by a court. In our own courts
it is not long since the question whether cockroaches
were a peril of the sea was discusscd, and an important
question it wag, not only in the principle, but in the
amount of dollars as well as cockroaches involved.
Our law columns this morning furnish a decision
of a question relating to a higher class of animals, but
of a similar nature, viz., whether chickens are live stock
or not. The question was ono of the legacies of the
rebellion. In 1863, while it was at its height, the Sec-
retary of War, finding that the rebels were drawing
supplies of horses and mules, &c., from the North, by
way 'of Nassau and other similar places, issued an order
by which, in order to preserve the "military resources of
the country," ho prohibited the exportation of " horses,
mules, and live stock." The Secretary of the Treasury, in
aid of that order, issued a circular to the collectors,
directing them to refuse clearances to any vessels with
" horses, mules, and live stock" on board, and to stop any
such articles which were being exportel. Some months
after this a man in this city, wanting to send a consign-
ment of chickens to Havana, shipped them on an English
vessel here, and got an advance on the bills of Ming from
the agent of the consignees. After the vessel had cleared
and was ready to sail, the Custom-house officers, seeing the
chickens on board, came to the conclusion that they came
within the Secretary's order as being live stock, and they
therefore refused to let the vessel go, but compelled her to
discharge the chickens, which were given back to the
shipper, on his cancelling the ship's bill of lading. There-
upon the consignee libelled the ves3el on the bills of lad-
ing which ho hell, and the ship set up the action of the
Custom-house authorities as a defence. Judge Nelson, in
the United States Circuit Court, holds that the ship is
liable, because chickens are not live stock, and the action
of the officers was unwarranted. He seems to content
himself, like Sir. Joseph Banks, with a simple an-
nouncement of his derision, referring only to the fact
that the Secretary of the Treasury, when his atten-
tion was called a few months afterwards to the con-
struction which had been
_put upon his order, in-
formed the collector that he did not consider that " live
stock" embraced chickens. This decision by the present
Chief Justice furnishes authority enough on this point, if
guy were needed. We doubt not that other authority
could have been found. It is not likely that the question
will ever come up again, yet similar questions may arise
among the Live Stock Insurance Companies. If they
should, this case will prove to be a leading one upon the
subject. —New York Times, Nov. 21.