The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-24 00:00:00

securing the necessary annuities. The sub-commit
tee add that the claims upon them are -
" So numerous that they cannot form an accurate
estimate of the total sum likely to be expended. It
is evident that a large number of cases still remain
to be considered. Officers generally appear to shrink
from applying for aid, and yet the sub-committee,
knowing that the destruction of property and the
loss of staff allowances occuring contemporaneously
with events that have occasioned many unusual
and unexpected expenses must have placed many of
them in circumstances of great embarrassment, have
all along been willing and prepared to afford liberal
assistance. It has already been stated that all the
grants of the sub-committee are confidential, and
that no names will be published. To officers and to
all others who are really sufferers the sub-committee
offer their succour, and they believe that they have
justly represented the public feeling in their endea-
vour hitherto to make their aid in every instance,
substantial and effectual. If in any cases they have
granted more than was sufficient, the error has arisen
from the desire so to administer their trust that no
real want should be-unrelieved, and that the afflic-
tions of these eventful times should not be aggra-
vated by a narrow and jealous spirit in the distri-
bution of the Relief Fund. In many cases the sub-
committee well know that their grants have afforded
timely and necessary aid to those who ,had seen all
their property destroyed, and their earthly pro-
spects blighted, and their dearest relatives taken
from them by a stroke ; and they fail to estimate
the extent of suffering to which hundreds must
have been exposed had no such fund existed."
The aggregate number of persons relieved by the
fund up to the date of this report is not given, but
it is incidentally stated that up to the 3d February
assistance had been afforded in nearly 2,000 cases.
One of the tabular statements accompanying the
report shows the various classes of persons (includ-
ing men, women, and children) to whom relief has
been given. The total number included in this
table is 777, of whom 6 were officers, 101 officers'
wives and cbildren,,7o in the railway and public
works' departments, 91 in the inicovenanted and
patrol service, 116 indigo planters and agents, 29
clerks in public offices, IQI traders, 18 missionaries
(Protestant and Roman Catholic), with 23 women
and 54 children, 78 non-commissioned officers, &c.,
and 90 widows and orphans. The appendix also
contains the correspondence which has taken place
on the subject of the fund between officials in India
and the late Lord Mayor of London (Mr. Alderman
Finnis), the late Mayor of Liverpool, and other
gentlemen who took an active part in promoting
the subscription on behalf of the sufferers by the
mutiny in this country. Portions of this corre-
spondence have already been published, and the re-
mainder, from the lapse of time since it took place,
has ceased to possess any interest for the general
reader.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 22.

COURT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF
CROWN CASES RESERVED.
(Present, Lord Campbell and Justices Crowder and
Wiles, and Barons Martin and Watson.)
THE QUEEN V. BERRY.
The prisoner was indicted for perjury, committed
before a magistrate upon a matter of affiliation of
an illegitimate child. It was proved that the
mother of the child had laid an information, not
in writing or upon oath, upon which a summons
against the prisoner was issued. The prisoner and his
attorney attended before the stipendiary magistrate,
the merits of the case were gone into, the mother
swore that the prisoner had visited her several
times at a particular house, and was the father of
the child, and she also swore that he had paid her
money for the maintenance of the child within 12
months of its birth. The prisoner then was sworn,
and he stated that he had never visited the mother
at that particular house, and that he had not paid
the mother money within 12 months of the birth of
the child. Upon this the prisoner was indicted for
perjury. It was objected that the magistrate had
no jurisdiction, as the information ought to have
been in writing and upon oath ; and further, that
the payment of the money was not material, so as
to justify the proceedings for perjury ; and it was
also urged that the prisoner could not have waived
the objection, although he permitted. the case to be
gone into upon the merits without objection.
The prisoner was convicted, but these points were
reserved.
Mr. Sergeant Atkinson (with whom was Dr.
Wheeler), was heard in support of the objections on
behalf of the prisoner ; and Mr. Cross argued in
support of the conviction.
The Court took time to consider its judgment.
THE QUEEN V. RICE.
The prisoners were convicted for stealing 8501 b
weight of lead affixed to a wharf. They were alsi
charged with a simple larceny of stealing lead. The
points left were whether lead affixed to a wharf
could be considered as affixed to a building, so as to
bring it within the statute, and whether it could
be a larceny, as no other lead was stolen but that
affixed to the wharf.
Mr. Laxton appeared for the prisoners. The lead
formed the gutters of a shed. There was no vari-
ance between the indictment and the proof—one
charging that the lead was affixed to a wharf, the
other that it was affixed to a building.
The Court said it was too clear—the wharf con-
sisted of timber brick, and tiles, and it was a build-
ing to which the lead was affixed.—Conviction con-
firmed.

THE QUEEN V. ROBINSON.
The prisoner was convicted of obtaining two dogs
by false pretences, and was sentenced by the Re-
corder of Liverpool to seven years' penal servitude.
The point reserved was whether a dog was a chattel
so as to come within the statute.
Mr. Littler, for the prisoner, contended that a dog
was not a chattel.
Mr. Brett said it was not a chattel at common
law, and it was not so, because in the books it was
stated that it was not thought right that a man
should die for so inferior an animal ; but as to a
horse, that was stated to be good for food, and.
therefore, stealing a horse was made a capital
offence. The punishment for stealing a swan was,
that it should be tied up by the beak, and the of-
fender should pile up wheat until it was covered.
Mr. Baron Martin said that did not bear much
proportion to seven years' penal servitude.
Lord Campbell said it was clear that stealing a
dog was not larceny ; that being so, and there being
a specific punishment of a milder nature for stealing
a dog, it would not be right to say that obtaining
a dog by false pretences should subject the offender
to seven years' penal servitude..
Conviction quashed.
(Before all the Judges, with the exception of Mr.
Justice Erle.)
THE QUEEN V. SKEENE AND FREEMAN.

The indictment alleged that the prisoners having
been intrusted with a bill of lading they had frau-
dulently disposed of it for their own benefit, and
the question arose on sth and 6th Vic., cap. 39,
which contained a proviso that no agent should be
liable to be convicted if he should, before indicted,
have disclosed the facts before any commissioner of
bankruptcy. The prisoner pleaded not guilty before
the Lord Chief Baron. At the close of the evi-
dence the prisoners' counsel tendered a disclosure
which the prisoners had made before the Court of
Bankruptcy. The counsel for the Crown objected
that udder the plea of not guilty the disclosures
were not admissible. The Chief Baron admitted
the evidence, and he now asked this Court whether
the written examinations were admissible, and
whether the examination was a disclosure within
the statute. .
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine appeared on the part of
Skeen., and he had to support the objection made
upon the trial and to contend that they were not
properly convicted. The main question to be raised
was, whether a disclosure in the Court of Bank-
ruptcy, which was a disclosure of the facts, did or
did not render the prisoner liable to be con-
victed. As to the first question, whether they were
admissible—
Lord Campbell said if they amounted to a defence
they were admissible.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said it was conceded
that a disclosure had been made which was sub-
stantially a disclosure of the facts, and a deposition
had been taken before a magistrate which was sub-
stantially the same. Assuming the examina-
tion in the Bankruptcy Court to be a dis-
closure, it could not be destroyed by something
that took place elsewhere. It was a good disclo-
sure under the statute, unless something had taken
place before to destroy the effect of it.
The Chief Baron said there was nothing left for
them to disclose ; it was fully known before.
Lord Campbell—After one disclosure could there
be another ? The depositions and disclosures were
precisely the same.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said the evidence before
the magistrate might be very imperfect; all that
was wanted there was a prima facie case to commit.
The words of this statute were very clear ; it was
to disclose before indictment. Until the bill was
found by the grand jury it was no indictment.
Chief Justice Cockburn—lt must not be a spon-
taneous disclosure, because a case was known where
such an attempt had been made. The Crown said
the facts were already known before the magistrate.
There could be no subsequent disclosures.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said the prisoner had
I been bound to make this disclosure.

Chief Justice Cockburn said the act did not apply
where the facts had been already known to the
world.
Lord Campbell—Supposing the depositions had
been read, and the prisoner had bald, it is all
true," would that be a disclosure ?
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said it would, if made