The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-20 00:00:00

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, WEDNESDAY MORNING.
THE UNIVERSITY ELECTION. '
Mr. Whiteside's farewell address to his Ennis-
killen constituents is published this morning. The
Rev. Professor Lloyd, one of the Senior Fellows of
the University, in a complimentary note to the
Attorney-General, says that by his (Mr. Whiteside)
consenting to stand for the college his election
" would not only confer on the thiiversity a repre-
sentative altogether worthy of her, but also deliver
her from the agitation and unseemly turmoil which
too often attend contested elections"—(Trinity Col-
'ewe more especially). Mr. Whiteside, of course,
yields a willing assent, and Dr. Gayer being also
in the yielding mood, waves his claims for the
present, and so ends the whole affair.
THE IRISH LANDLORD DEMONSTRATION.
The following is a copy of the characteristic
reply of Mr. Bernal Osborne to the invitation to
join the landlord congress on the 27th inst., a
passage from which was published in The Sun of
yesterday :
" Newtown Anner, Clonmel, County Tipperary'',
January 17.
" Sir,—l have received this day a printed circu-
lar' dated January 12th, inviting my attendance in
Dublin on the 27th inst., to a Meeting of the
nobility, gentry, and others interested in the peace
and prosperity of Ireland,' together with an enclo-
sure containing ten resolutions, or propositions,
to be submitted by the provisional committee for
the consideration of the meeting.' In the absence
of any information as to the construction of this
committee, the names of the two honorary secre-
taries being alone attached to the circular, it is ma-
terial the public should be informed whether any
noblemen or gentlemen connected with the south or
west of Ireland has been consulted as to the correct-
ness of the facts assumed in these extraordinary
propositions ? How far is it true that the ' Riband
system' has been 'recently revived,' and is the law
really inefficient foi the protection of life and pro-
perty ?' A resident in the south of Ireland, I ven-
ture to question the grounds on which such views
are entertained, while altogether denying that the
law as at present administred needs any amend-
ment, so as to render it more effective for the
security of landlords who wish to improve their
estates,' &c.
" Whatever may be the state of the counties of
Down and Donegal, there is no sufficient evidence
of the revival of Riband societies' in this country
is general. No one acquainted with Ireland will
confound the Republican aspirations of the so-called
Phoenix Clubs with the revival of Riband socie-
ties and agrarian outrage.' Unfortunately for the
credit of the provisional committee, there neverwas
a period when the county of Tipperary was so free
from the illegal combinations' :mentioned in reso-
lution No. 1. Mr. Sergeant Howley, who, from
his ability and long experience of 23 years as
assistant-barrister and chairman of this county, is
looked up to and respected by men of all sects and
parties, lately congratulated the grand jury at
Cashel ' on the very tranquil and orderly state of
the country ;' he added, I quote his own words—
' It is most satisfactory to find there is a growing
disposition to show obedience to the laws, and re-
frain from acts of violence. In past times, year
after year, when the calendar was laid before the
Court, there were between 300 and 400 indict-
ments at a single session ; at present there are
only 2,5 cases for triat—a very extraordinary dif-
ference ; there is not a single symptom of any one'
being misled, or any person entering into illegal
combinations !' Nor is this freedom from crime
confined to the county Tipperary ; the adjoining
counties of Waterford and Cork enjoy the '
sonic advantages. The provisional committee, how-
ever, not content with suggesting. measures alike
unnecessary and unconstitutional to the Govern-
ment, propose to submit a resolution, No. 2. thereby
offering a gratuitous affront to the middle-class
population of the towns. In No. 2 it is seriously
proposed altogether to set aside the present lists
fro:n which jurors are drawn, and to enact a 'higher
standard of jurors' qualification,' as if the small
shopkeepers, publicans, and others were not equally
interested in the peace and prosperity of Ireland'
with the ' nobility, gentry, and others' who are
solicited to assemble in Dublin. Before submitting
No. 2 for consideration it would be well if the
committee were to name precise oases where a jury
has refused to convict a criminal in the teeth of
conclusive evidence. It will be time enough to dis-
cuss the suggestions contained in Nos. 6,7, and .8,
when they are adopted by the Government. One
word as to the resolution No. 9. The necessity of
improving the social condition and habits of the
humbler classes' is a subject on which all are agreed,
bat improvement of the dwellings of the labour-
ing population' is more likely to be advanced by
individual action on the part of the landed pro-
prietors in their respective counties than by moving
vague .resolutions in the metropolis. In this mixing
up suggestions of coercive restrictions with nostrums
of social improvement, landed proprietors will
themselves counteract every effort towards ame-
lioration.' For these reasons, and because I am
strongly impressed with the conviction that an
exclusive meeting of the nobility and gentry, &c.,
will not conduce to the peace and prosperity of
Ireland,' I must most respectfully decline to attend
the meeting in the Rotunda of Dublin on the 27th
inst.—l have the honour to be, sir, your most obe-
dient servant, " B. OSBORNE.
" J. Overend, Esq."
_ THE DEAN-STREET TRAGEDY.

Black, the murderer of his wife, is said to be in a
vary precarious state of health since his committal
to prison. At times he raves fearfully-, and his
recovery is regarded as problematical. It is pretty
generally reported that jealousy laid the foundation
of the fearful crime which has jeopardied his life.
The unhappy wife, unfortunately for herself, was
remarkably handsome, and in his drunken savage-
ness the husband frequently taxed her—unjustly,
it is believed,—with levity of conduct.

AUSTRIAN ITALY.

In all the discussions which the late Continental
crisis has provoked it is taken for granted that the
Austrian provinces are on the point of revolt, and
that this magazine of Italian discontent may be
expected at any moment to explode. Both the
French Emperor and the King of Sardinia have
presumed the world to be convinced of this great
fact. Victor Emmanuel, speaking,' under the censor-
ship of Napoleon, is not insensible to the " anguish
of Italy," and the warlike journals of Paris and
Tulin are full of the defiance which the people of
Milan are hurling at their oppressors. But observers
on the spot, and notably- the correspondent whose
able letter we print to-day, can see no signs of this
approaching outbreak. the Milanese in 1859 are
pre. tty 'much what they have been any time during
the last ten years —very full of murmurs and sneers
against the Austrian rule, very skilful in putting
petty slights on the Austrian authorities, and not
careful to confine the war to the sterner sex, great
in deserting opera boxes when an archduke happens
to be present, or affecting to be engaged earnestly
in conversation when an Austrian lady might claim
a recognition of her presence. They know he* to
wear a hat seditiously, show aspirations for liberty
by the tie of a cravat, or express their views of an
Italian by puffing only Piedmontese cigars. But
this is all, and it is nothing more than they did last
year, and will probably do for many a year longer.
Any appearance of a meditated rebellion does not
exit t. A placard may be posted up during the night
by a man who runs off immediately, or a patriotic
cry may be uttered when there are only Italians to
hear it; but that there has been any braving of the
Austrian power, any menace of popular rising, any
refusal of obedience to the police or the taxgatherer,
is the grossest misrepresentation. Whether volun-
tarily or not, the French and.
but how the Sardinian
their ally have imposed
on the credulity of Europe'
monarch, who must remember the events of 1848,
can believe in a popular insurrection in Lombardy,
pasf es conception. The people are no better or braver
than ten years since,and theyare more completelyheld
down by the Austrian army. Since the campaign
of Novara the Austrian army has been vastly im-
proved, a more rigid discipline has been introduced,
a gland system of fortifications completed. and the
chief cities placed at the mercy of strong citadels
or military posts. Then, railways have extended
themselves from the heart of the monarchy to
Milan, so that, as we have seen, enormous reinforce-
men is can be thrown into Italy within a fe* days.
Austria, intrenched in positions long since chosen
and strengthened, could bid defiance t) a far
superior invading force of regular troops, while it
is most certain that a popular rising would be put
down in 48 hours. All this we cannot doubt that
the Sardinians, from their constant intercourse with
the Austrian provinces, feel more keenly than the
French ; and it is not surprising to find that they
have always looked on a French intervention as
the first step in any effective movement. While
loudly proclaiming the imminence of a rebellion,
the Turin papers have always avoided counselling
a war unsupported by a foreign Power. Although
it is possible that France was a believer in the
Milanese rising, we must acquit Sardinia of any
such delusion. . _

The strong pressure put on the French Govern-
men t has accordingly removed all danger of a dis-
turl Leave the Sardinians and Lombards
llone,
lone, and there is not likely to be a breach of the.
pestee. Like Lord Chatham and Sir Richard
Strachan at Walcheren, they will stand with sabres
drawn waiting for each other. The Sardinians
will cross the frontier when the Lombards rise,
and the Lombards will rise when they behold the
Sardinian bayonets on their soil. We do not blame

either party ; men are not bound to rush into a
conflict where overthrow and ruin are certain, and
the Sardinians, at least, have given sufficient proof
that they are worthy enemies on a field of battle.
But we trust that this fall of vaulting ambition will
have its effect both at Paris and Tuna, and that the
Italian subjects of Austria will no longer be excited
by false hopes spread abroad by rulers who have
now learnt that the world will not allow its peace
to be trifled with. The Emperor of the French
has still the power to effect some good in Italy.
What every thinking man might have seen from
the beginning has indeed come to
pass—a jealousy
has been created which will make all the efforts of
the French Government suspected for some time to
come. It may be that Italy has been thrown back
ten years by this disastrous blunder. But wemust
hope for the best, and counsel France, as she claims
to be an Italian Power, to unite cordially with
Austria to carry' out such changes as the Peninsula
may require. Austria has of late given sufficient
proofs of her anxiety to conciliate these provinces
and, indeed,, it can hardly be supposed that a neces-
sitous State can desire to keep up permanent armies
for the oppression of its own subjects. The late
danger will make the Court of Vienna anxious to
render its rule more tolerable ; and anv frank con-
cert between the two Empires to resettle Italy and
give contentment to the people will be seen with
pleasure by a public which has already visited with
its reprobation the planners of an European war.
-Imes.

-7)

THE LAW OF BANKRUPTCY AND
IMSOLVENCY.

(From the Times.)
A Reform of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insol-
vency is one of the measures projected for discussion
during the ensuings‘nsion. We rather hope for a
n it. We cannot forget
settlement than believe _4
how often this subject hag been brought forward,
how often it has been remitte,:l for inquiry, how
often the inquiry has proved barr;9l of result. We
now have in presence mainly two sy:qtems—the one
is Lord Chelmsford's, the other that cme. which is
based on the 'recommendations of variousi:lPortant
commercial bodies—in fact, the legal aL'd the
commercial schemes. The general impres:, 'Ol3
appears to be that Lord Chelmsford's voluminous
propositions on the subject will scarcely bear dis-
cussion. We need, above all things, simplicity,
and here is complication; clearness, and here is
obscurity. On the other hand, it is much to be
apprehended that if the question were deeided
according to the wishes of commercial men the
Bankruptcy Code would virtually. cease to exist.
What they ask for seems to be in the main the
sanction of a competent Court to private arrange-
ments. What they chiefly appear to dread is
publicity. But it may be said, why, since the
Bankruptcy Laws are principally devised for the
protection of traders, should not their desires
be accepted as conclusive on the subject ? Have
they an interest 'in this matter which is rldverse to
the general interest of the community ? The
answer to this question certainly is that, as a class,
commercial men are more vitally and more deeply
interested than other persons in a due administra-
tion of the Bankrupt Laws; but yet, so great is
their horror of publicity, they would sooner put up
with losses. They had rather leave fraud to run
its course unchecked than submit to the exposure
of their own mistakes. Their argument is, that if
they choose to manage their own concerns in their
own Way—to:write off a loss rather than communi-
cate the fact to the public—it is their own business
and concerns nobody but themselves. A merchant
in the course of his business enters into some un-
fortunate speculation, undertakes some enterprise
which results in a dead loss, but, while still remain-
ing solvent, he has a perfect right to keep the story
of his reverse to himself. Why should he injure
his own credit ? By parity of reasoning, if in an
unguarded moment he have given trust to an ad-
venturer, and thereby suffered damage, is he bound
to come forward and proclaim the fact to the world ?
Are we to leave no middle course open to him be-
tween submitting to the entire loss of his debt and
full 'exposure of the circumstances in the public
journals ? It may well be that if notice be given
of the loss he has incurred his own creditors may
be inclined to run him hard. He may not find the
same facilities for discount and the same ample
credit as before, because it will be believed that he
is embarrassed by the loss. There is something
plausible in this at first sight, but the reasoning
breaks down in face of the great argument, that a
policy which actually endourages dishonest trading, ,
which gives a false appearance of solvency where
insolvency is complete, which enables men who by
their own imprudence have been defrauded to slip
their own necks out of the collar at the expense of
others, cannot in the long run be advantageous to
the community at large. Which is best,—that
trade should rest upon a sure or upon a rotten
foundation ?

Now, we are not defending the Bankrupt Laws
as they stood, nor as they stand. We can well
understand that traders should have shrunk from
bringing their claims before a tribunal where such
frightful complieations existed. There used also to
be the great aroument on the score of expense. The
assets under the good old arrangements used to be
swallowed up in costs. Why should a man undergo
all this" discomfort, and loss of time, and exaspera-
tion of prosecuting a claim before a Court which in
the end either could not or would not afford him
relief in the only form which he appreciated—a
substantial dividend? This argument, however,
has lost much of its force in our own day. We do
not believe that the Bankruktcy Law, as adminis-.
tered by the present Commissioners and Official
Assignees, is fairly obnoxious to the reproach of
being an expensive system. The concerns of a bank-
rupt's estate will be as fairly and economically
wound up in Basinghall-street as under any system
of private arrangement which could be devised.
But then there is the publicity ! It is difficult to
see how this can be avoided with fairness to all
parties and to the public, who are not parties at all
to the transactions between the bankrupt and his
creditors. What certainty is there that there shall
be no undue preference—that there shall be punish-
ment inflicted for positive offence against the cri-
minal law, unless the bankrupt be examined and
evidence received in open court ? Surely it will
not be contended, if a bankrupt has not surrendered,
has not discovered all his estate, has not delivered
up his books, has destroyed or falsified them,
has concealed available property, has obtained
goods under false pretences when he was hope-
lessly insolvent, or has given false testimony in
the course of the investigation into his affairs,
that he ought not to be punished ? If this be
so we may as well give up our criminal law
altogether, for it would then be assumed that
punishment does not operate to deter from crime.
Should it be left to the discretion of his creditors
whether he should be punished or not ? Scarcely
so, for in that case every rogue who was entering
upon a career of fraud would buoy himself up with
the expectation that his creditors would avoid the
trouble and expense of a prosecution. The only
way in which justice can be administered is by a
competent and impartial Coiirt. How far com-
mercial firms of the highest standing and of the
most unimpeached character can go in the conceal-
ment of crime when such a course appears calcu-
lated to promote their own interests we know by
lamentable proof. It was but the other day that
such an instance occurred ; the City of London has
not yet recovered from the shame.
To-day we have selected this subject for remark,
because the time is at hand when Parliament will
re-assemble for the despatch of business, and there
is no concern of merely domestic import which
should receive a keener or more anxious atten-
tion from the Legislature than this one of the
Bankrupt Law. We have, however, a more special
reason for bringing the subject to-day under the
onoticefth% of
Bankruptcyour
readers. Commissioners,
Mr . Commissioner
has
'forwardedF an Pane, one
in
to us his views upon'the proposed reform the
Laws of Bankruptcy and Insolvency.
portion of
His observa-
jtions will be . found in anotherviewsour
ournal this day. We do not endorse these
in all particulars ; but, proceeding as they do from
oafgtehnetlseumb
jaenctw
on
no hashe
ha dhsel
treats,
a extensivets, the
r ieena c et
worthy of attention. Mr. Commissionery a
Fanae
per-
haps, pushes to extreme the judicial view. fi
s is
for complete publicity in all instances ; but it can
scarcely be doubted that, if he admitted no excep-
tions to his rule, he would oftentimes defeat his own
object. The keystone of his proposition is, that
where private arrangements are proposed the mi-
nority of the creditors should not be bound by the
majority; nay, that the voice of one dissentient
creditor should be sufficient to enforce publicity.
Commissioner Fane's theory it is best, perhaps, to
state in his own words,—" There is, nothing so
agreeable to an insolvent and his creditors as so-
crecy—nothing so disagreeable as publicity. The
debtor is only too often a knave, the creditors are
almost all victims of their own readiness to give
credit without inquiry. The debtor hates to have
his knavery, the creditor hates to have his folly ex-
poSed. They are in a conspiracy against honest
men, and their engine is secrecy." This view will,
no doubt, 132 distasteful enough in the City. It is
greatly to be feared that, until the public opinion
of commercial men runs to an overwhelming de-
gree on the side of fair trading, anything like a
sound system of Bankruptcy Law will be an im-
possibility. -Where all parties are determined to
evade the law or set it at defiance success will gene-
rally, crown their endeavours. Were the public
opinion of the country sound upon commercial
fraud there would be no great difficulty in framing
a law to repress it.

LA JV INTELLIGENCE. Jan. 19.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
i(Before Vice• Chancellor Sir W. P. Wood.)
B 1 LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH-COAST RAIL-
WAY COMPANY V. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-
ICEsTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND THE PORTS-

MOUTH RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Rolt, Mr. Willcock, and Mr. J. H. Taylor
moved on behalf of the plaintiffs for an in junction
to restrain the defendants from using the joint sta-
tion at landport, Portsea, of the plaintiffs and the
South- Western Railway Company, for the booking
or the transit of passengers or goods destined for
or coming from the Portsmouth Railway, or any
part thereof, except only so far as relates to the
transmission, upon the lines of railway laid down
in the station, of traffic conveyed on the public ser-
vice to or from the line belonging to the Crown
leading to the dockyard or other naval or military
establishments at Portsea or Portsmouth.

By the Brighton and Chichester (Portsmouth
Extension) and London and South-Western Rail-
ways Act, 1857, it was enacted that the Brighton
and Chichester Companymight sell, and the South
Western Company and the London, Brighton, and
South Coast Company might purchase, such part
as should be agreed upon of the Portsmouth exten-
sion of the Brighton and Chichester Railway Com-
pany as was westward of the junction near Havant.
This portion was to form and be worked as a joint
line by the London and South-Western and the
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Com-
panies, subject to the control of a joint committee of
the two companies, it being enacted (section 13)
that subject to such control and management and
the provisions of any and every Act of Parliament
for the time being relating to thejoint line or to the
two companies, each of the two companies might at
all times thereafter use the joint line for the pur-
-1 poses of conveying passengers, animals, and things
upon the same, and for all such purposes as
should be necessary for the traffic or business
thereon of the same respective companies.
Articles of contract, in pursuance of the Act
of 1847, were made on the 9th of October,
1848, between the three companies, for the purpose
of arranging the terms upon which the joint line
was to be worked, and effecting the conveyance to
the South-Western and Brighton and South Coast
Companies. Further terms of agreement between
'tw two companies were arranged in August, 1852.
the Portsmouth Railway Act, 1853, the Ports-
Y
Railway Company was incorporated, with
power rxiiie a line from Havant to Godalming,
to which
Railway from
inlsee a branch of the South-Western
Guildford extended, the line of the
Portsmouth Corai:lll37' when completed, joining the
South Coast line at .9, short distance from Havant
and the "joint line." _ln January, 1858, another
agreement was entered int..' between the Brighton
and South Coast and the Souti,.''"Western Companies
as supplemental to the existing h ene ment s of
Amend-
andlB4B 1852. By the Portsmouth ItL'4-`wa3si
allth
ment Act, 1858, sec. 35, that company .111.
it Railway
companies lawfully using the Poi tsmout— •
.o other
were authorised to pass over and use the
jo
and that portion of the Brighton and South Coast
situated between its junction with the Portsmoiln.u,,
and its junction with the " joint line." Such powei,
of passage and of user to be exercised on such terms
and conditions as failing an agreement between the
companies should be settled in certain specified
modes, with a proviso that, except as thereinafter
provided, nothing in the act should confer on the
company, or on any such other company or person,
any powers of user of the joint station at Landport
(Portsea) for any purpose other than the transmis-
sion upon -the lines laid down in the station of
traffic conveyed on the public service. It was also
provided (sec. 36) that the company and owners
for the time being at the joint station at Landp®rt
might agree for the use by the Portsmouth Rail-
way Company, or such other company, &c., of this
joint station for the general traffic of the company,
&c., on such t erms as might be mutually agreed
upon between hem, provided that if no such agree-
ment should be come to, then the Portsmouth
Company should, before a year from passing the
act, purchase so much of the lands authorised to be
purchased at Portsea as should be necessary for the
construction of an independent station, and con-
struct such station, &e., as might be required for
the accommodation of the traffic. _

1.40.•••••••...••JY•V
The Portsmouth Railway Company had required
the plaintiffs (the Brighton and South Coast Com-
pany) to come to an arrangement for the use by
them of the South Coast line between the two
points of junction, and of the plaintiffs' station at
Havant. The companies not having been able to
agree upon the terms of user, the matter had been
referred under the powers of the Act to arbitration.
The bill proceeded to allege that the South Western
Railway Company had entered into some agree-
ment with the Portsmouth Railway Company for
working their line, and for the conveyance of the
traffic thereon, but that such agreement had been
entered into without the concurrence or sanction of
the plaintiffs. In December last the plaintiffs re-
ceived notice of the arrangements proposed by the
South Western Railway Company for working the
traffic of the Portsmouth Railway, and using the
plaintiffs' line between the two points of junction.
The plaintiffs thereupon objected to the use of the
joint station at Landport for the Portsmouth Rail-
way traffic. Upon the South Western Company
insisting upon their right, in virtue of their joint
ownership of the joint line and station, to use them
for all purposes of their company, not excepting
the accommodation of traffic which might have
passed from, or which might be about to pass to,
the Portsmouth Railway, the plaintiffs had filed
their bill and now moved for an injunction in the
terms above stated.
In support of the motion it was contended that
the South Western Company was acting illegally,
and in violation of section 13 of the Act of 1847,
which must be confined strictly to the two com-
panies, and could not enable the traffic of a
third company to be introduced over the joint
line, whether such traffic had originally travelled
over the South Western line proper, •or was
merely traffic of the Portsmouth Railway. The
South Western Company, by working the Ports-
mouth Railway, must be taken as representing
that company, which was expressly prohibited by
the act of 1858 from using the joint station at
Landport, except by agreement.
Sir R. Bethell, Mr. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Bag-
gallay, for the South-Western Railway Company,
contended that there was nothing in the acts to
prohibit them from using the joint station for all
purposes, including the working by them of the
Portsmouth Railway, and the conveyance of traffic
over that line, whether between Portsmouth and

London, or between Portsmouth and Godalming
only. It was impossible to prevent passengers from
taking the direct line now open by way of Godal-
ming (saving some 25 miles) instead of the circuit
by Basingstoke, and so long as passengers or traffic
were conTeyed over any portion of the South-
Western line, the joint line being clearly a portion
of their line, the traffic became South-Western
traffic, and as such entitled to the use of the joint
station, sec. 13 of the act of 1847 containing no
restriction as to any source from which the traffic
might be derived.
Mr. C. T. Simpson for the Portsmouth Railway
Company.
Mr. Willcock replied.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the question in this
case depended entirely upon the construction of the
act of 1847, by which the South-Western and the
Brighton and South Coast Companies were autho-
rised to purchase, and a third company was autho-
rised to sell, a portion of line for the purpose of
being jointly used by the two companies as a joint
line. This act was in no way modified by the Ports-
mouth Railway Amendment Act of 1858. What,
then, was the effect of the act of 1847 as to the uses
of the joint station by the two companies P The
act was remarkable, and differed from the usual
form adopted in such cases. It was enacted (sec. 14)
that all proceedings, &c., with respect to loss, &c.,
on the joint line should be brought azainst the two
companies jointly ; that the joint and. several funds
of the two companies should be liable in payment
and satisfaction of all liabilities incurred by the
joint committee, whose appointment was directed by
the act for the management of the joint line. Some
of the provisions as to the joint committee might,
in case ofqa, dispute between the companies, be very
difficult to carry out, but it was observable that
either of the two companies might appoint its own
booking clerks, who were not to be removable by
the joint committee. Section 13 (already set out
in the statement of the case) enabled each of the
two companies to use the joint line. It had appeared
to him from the first that there was considerable
difficulty in the plaintiffs' case as to bona fide traffic
booked )ay the South-Western Company at Ports-
mouth, to proceed first by the joint line to Havant,
then over the Portsmouth Railway to Godalming,
and again by the South-Western line from God-
aiming to Waterloo. This would be clearly traffic
and business of the South-Western Railway. Pas-
sengers were not bound to go round by the circui-
tous route of Basingstoke, when they might take
the more direct line by Godalming and Petersfield.
There was nothing, therefore, to lead him to the
conclusion that bona fide traffic travelling over the
South-Western line from London to Godalming, or
rice versa, and ultimately over the joint line from
Havant, was not South-Western traffic. Thcre
might be a difficulty as to traffic starting from
Petersfield, or any point on the Portsmouth Rail-
way, as it could not be said to have ever been on
any part of the•South-Western line proper. It was
said by the South-Western Company that they
were joint tenants of the joint line, and that it was
not the less a portion of their line proper because
they had the joint use of it with the plaintiffs. He

was not upon the present occasion bound to say
more than that it was a point for discussion which
might have to be decided hereafter. There might
be a question-as to whether the joint line was not
to be taken as independent of either of the two
companies, and as belonging rather to a third
species of company created as to this joint portion
by the Act of 1847. It was a difficulty in the
way of the contest of the plaintiffs that they
were compelled to admit that anything which
had traversed any part of the South-Western
proper became part of their traffic. Then,
again, the case had been suggested by Mr.
Baggallay, of the Portsmouth. Railway joining the
South-Western shortly before the junction with the
South Coast line. There appeared to be some
balance of doubt as to what was intended, but not
sufficient to induce the Court to interfere by injunc-
tion. He could not conceive any reason for calling
upon the Legislature to restrict the user of the joint
line. Each company would endeavour to get as
much traffic as possible upon it for their joint
benefit. Care, no doubt would be taken as much as
possible as to the user of the joint station, and to
prevent any competing line from coming direct from
London. Section 35 of the Act of 1858 appeared
to have no bearing whatever on the rights of the
two companies as between themselves. It in no
way affected or restricted their rights to the entire
user of the joint station. No third company was to
have the right of entering that station. Section 36
provided, rather singularly, that unless the Ports-
mouth company came to an arrangement with the
two companies for the use of the joint station they
must within one year buy land and make an inde-
pendent station. The South-Western Company did
not admit that the Portsmouth Railway Company
were using the joint station, for that would be a
direct contravention of the Act of 1858 ; but they
said, " We are using our own station on our own
line, as we are fully entitled to do under the Act
of 1847." He could not tell how far it might appear
afterwards that the course taken by the South-
Western Company was in reality that of the
Portsmouth Company. At all events, it could not
be taken as now established against them; nor did
the bill allege more than that some agreement had
been come to. Upon the question of costs it was to
he observed that the question was reduced to a dry
point of law. The plaintiffs stood upon their strict
legal right, and the Court had said that it would
always assist companies in such a contest to assert
their rights. No order would be made upon the
present motion, and the costs would be costs in the
cause.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Campbell, and
Justices Wightman, Crompton, and Hill.)
THE QUEEN (ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE EARL

OF DERBY) V. GEE.
This case came before the Court upon the return
to a mandamus, and raised a question as to whether
the Earl of Derby or the authorities of the town-
ship of Bootle, near Liverpool, should remove a
nuisance existing at the mouth of a sewer running
into the Mersey.
Mr. Mellish having been heard on the part of
the Earl of Derby, and Mr. Atherton on the other
side,
The Court thought the return was bad, as it did
not show that the mandamus had been obeyed, nor
give any excuse for not obeying it, but intimated
that the defendant should have leave to amend on
payment of costs.
THE QUEEN V. STEEL.-LIBEL.
Mr. Knowles said he was instructed to move for
be
a rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not
filed against Mr. Robert Steel and
Mr. James Ste" the proprietors and publishers of
the Carlisle Jour. al, for a libel inserted in. that
newspaper on Mr.
ames and Mr. Fawcett, two
magistrates. Mr. Jamt:3 had
been a magistrate of
the county of Cumberlana:
for forty years ; he had
represented the city of Carlie in Parliament for
two or three sessions, and had also been member for
the eastern division of Cumberland. Mr. Fawcett
was not a magistrate for the county, i;:ot he was a
barrister resident in Carlisle and a magistrate for
that city. In November last the site of the tom -har
on the road leading from Carlisle to Penrith VV.2.8
changed off this road. Mr. James and Mr. Fawcett
were trustees, in common with 200 or 300 people.
Formerly the bar was at a place about nine miles
from Carlisle, and the fund for repairing the road
was derived from the tolls taken at it. It was found
that it took as much to repair the half mile of the
road which led to the Newcastle Railway station as
was sufficient to repair the whole of the other eight
miles and a half; and at a meeting. of the trustees
on the 28th of October it was unanimously resolved
that the bar should be removed nearer Carlisle.
A new bar was accordingly put up, and the tolls
paid for some time, but an organisation was got up
on the part of the town against it, and during
the night ;of the 7th of September the bar was
forcibly broken down. On the 9th the two gen-
tlemen in whose behalf he now applied signed an
order directing that two police-constables should be
stationed at the gate for tio preservation of peace.
Shortly afterwards there appoared an article in the
paper in question, headed
'illegal toll-bar—
County versus City," containing the.following pas-
sage :—" The motives that have actua
L.A. the two
trustees who have thus prostituted the office of
magistrate to give vent to their irritation and
spleen, if not to serve their own ends or crotchet>
are of the paltriest kind." In another part of the
tahs further asserted
we rtehiantvte hsetyedhatdo
article Mr. James and Mr. Fawcett were mentioned
used which
b y
serve their own ends, regardless of property and
the public interests.
Lord Campbell—That is the whole of the alleged
libel ?
Mr. Knowles—Yes.

Lord Campbell—We
cannot possibly interfere in
these cases unless on the ground of an imputation
of personal corruption. There is a great deal here
about the removal of the turnpike and the employ-
ment of the police, If those subjects had been
treated fairly we never should have interfered, but
we find in this article a charge of corruption against
Mr. James and Mr. Fawcett in the discharge of
their duties as magistrate.
Mr. Knowles—A solicitor's letter was sent to the
Messrs. Steel, calling upon them for an unqualified
denial and retraction of what they had stated, and
they afterwards inserted in their newspaper an
article in which, in fact, they reiterated the impu-
tation that the two magistrates had acted from
personal and corrupt motives. They said they
were not conscious of having made such a charge,
and that if Mr. James and Mr. Fawcett thought
they had made it they had no hesitation in expli-
citly disclaiming any intention to impute corruption
to them. The article concluded in these words
"We very reasonably supposed, as, indeed, we seo
no reason as yet to disbelieve, that personal feeling
had betrayed them into taking an extraordinary
and altogether unjustifiable step."
Lord Campbell—lf it had turned out that Mr.
James and Mr. Fawcett had appealed to the public
through the newspapers, or that the defendants had
published a reasonable apology, we should not have
interfered. We do not consider that a reasonable
apology, and you may therefore take a rule.
Rule granted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, fan. 19.

BOW-STREET.--A fine-looking young woman,
of rather a showy style of dress, who stated that
she was a married woman, but was living apart
from her husband, applied for advice under the
following circumstances :
Applicant stated that she had for a long time
resided with another woman, now in attendance,
but had quitted her for about three months. About
a year and a half ago, applicant had a child (a girl)
by the brother of this woman, who had nursed it
after the first three months, while applicant worked
at the army tailoring. Applicant considered that
she was entitled to remove her own child, which,
being illegitimate, Was not under the control of the
father ; still less under that of his sister. The latter
claimed payment of half a crown a week for 15
months' maintenance of the child. Applicant re-
sisted this as an unreasonable demand, for during
the time that they all lived together her earnings
contributed towards the support of the child and of
the nurse. But she was willing to pay for the last
three months, as for that period she had been away,
and the child had really been a charge to its aunt.
The nurse, who evidently possessed the affections
of the child. which she carried in her arms, here
came forward and said she considered she had a
good claim for the 15 months' and meant to assert
it. Her object was to keep the child away from
the mother, who was a very bad character. She
had become attached to the child from nursing it,
and her brother had the feelings of a father, though
he knew he had no legal right to the control of the
child.

The Magistrate expressed his opinion that the
mother was entitled to the custody of her own child,
notwithstanding any claim for its sustenance, which
could only be decided by a civil action. At the
same time he had no power to order the child to be'
given up, which could only be effected by proceed-
ings in another court. The mother had better con-
sult an attorney.
As the parties were leaving the court, the mother
suddenly seized upon the child, forcibly dragged it
away from the nurse, and escaped with it, before
the usher, impeded by her companions, could inter-
fere. Subsequently, however, he called at her
lodgings in Duke-street, Drury-lane, and remon-
strated with her on the impropriety of taking the
law in her own hands. She then returned to the

court and gave the child. up to the nurse, but said
she would apply to another tribunal.

LAMBETH.---LovE, LAW, AND PHYsld.----Dr.
Daniel Shannon, a medical man, practising at No.
1, Bridge-road, Lambeth, appeared before the lion.
G. C. Norton, to answer to a summons charging
him with assaulting Mr. Louis Hangers, his late
assistant.
The complainant said that on the 12th inst. he
was passing the house of Dr. Shannon, and that
gentleman being at the door at the time, asked him
if he had not been out with his servant. Ile replied
he had not, and went into the cigar shop of Mr.
Martin, next door. Ile was followed by a man
against whom he had a summons, but who was not
in attendance, and Dr. Shannon, and the latter
shaking a stick at him, told the former he would
give him a sovereign to knock him down. The
man on the instant grasped him by the throat, tore
away his stock, and struck him repeatedly. Dr.
Shannon all the time was present, and kept abus-
ing him in the most Violent language, called him a
German scamp, and even worse names.
Mr. Norton—Are you sure he offered the man a
sovereign to strike you ?
Witness—Quite sure, sir.
Mr. Edward Martin, who described himself as a
cigar merchant, said that on the night in question
the complainant entered his shop, followed by Dr.
Shannon, and the man whose name had been men-
tioned. The man came right into the shop, while
Dr. Shannon was at the door,- and the latter said
the complainant deserved a good thrashing. He
(witness) would not go the length of saying that
Dr. Shannon had offered the man a sovereign to
thrash the complainant. His manner, however,
was encouraging to the man.
Mr. Norton—Did you notice a stick in Dr.
Shannon's hand?
Witness—No, sir, I did not. I should rather say
he had not a stick than he had. The othor man
assaulted the complainant, but Dr. Shannon did
not that I saw.
Dr. Shannon, in reply to the charge, said the fact
was that the complainant had formed an acquaint-
ance with a young woman in his service, and'on
the evening in question she was out with him. A
young man who was paying his addresses to her
happened to see them together, got jealous of the
young German, as he called him, and his jealousy
having been aroused he assaulted him as he bad
described, but not from any interference of his.
Dr. Shannon then called his present assistant, and
after his evidence had been given,
Mr. Norton observed he did not think the com-
plaint was supported by the evidence, and there-
fore dismissed the summons. .

On the application of the complainant, a warrant
was granted against the rival lover.

SOUTHWARK.—QtfAefit:4G AN ORDER UNDER
THE DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT.—
On the 4th of the present month a middle-aged
female, who stated her name to be Charlotte
Antrim, applied to Mr. Burcham, and obtained an
order under the Matrimonial Causes Act for the
protection of her property from her husband, a
shopkeeper at Town Mailing. She then said that
her husband had deserted her many years, and that
she had lately become possessed of considerable pro-
perty. A few days ago a solicitor attended this court
on behalf of the husband, in order to request to hear
evidence on the part of the latter, as the whole of the
statement of Mrs. Antrim was untrue. She
had actually applied to Sir C. Cresswell, the
Judge Ordinary, to make an order, on the 4th of
December, and after hearing her statement the
learned judge refused to grant an order for the
protection of her property. She had not mentioned
that circumstance to his worship. Had she, he
(the solicitor) was sure he would not have granted
her the order.

Mr. Burcham declined to discharge the order on
an ex parte statement, but he granted a summons
for Mrs. Antrim to appear and show cause why it
should not be quashed. _ . .

Yesterday afternoon she was accordingly in at-
tendance with her solicitor, and Mr. Sleigh, the
barrister who was instructed to appear on her
behalf.
Mr. Burcham asked whether it was true that
Mrg. Antrim applied to the Judge Ordinary on the
4th of December for protection of her property,
and was refused
Mr. Sleigh replied that such was the case.
Mr. Burcham thought that the conduct of her
legal adviser was rather disgraceful, as be never
mentioned those circumstances to him. Had he
done so, and stated the grounds, most likely he
should have refused the order. The worthy
magistrate called Mrs. Antrim, when she was ex-
amined by Mr.
On being sworn she said—l married John Antrim
in 1828, and lived with him only six years. I had
two children by him, and I went out to work.
During the time I lived with him he very much ill-
treated me, and ho frequently kept me without
food. He also caused me to have a certain illness
for nine months, and through his general bad con-
duct I was compelled to leave him, and he has not
since contributed anything towards my support. I
have lately had sonic property left me, and I wish
that protected from him and his creditors. I have
not been guilty of any improper conduct towards
him. I left him at Lews, in Kent. _

Mr. Sleigh—Have you not lately seen him and
qsked him for money for your support P
M:rs. Antrim—Yes. About a fortnight ago I
.
saw hi2n in his shop at Town Mailing, in Kent, and
asked him'.for money. He was living with another
',gm. he said he was married, and he
woman, to Wt.
7.3 anything. I was, however, not
refused to give 1,
in actual want. Sleigh—Have you the
Mr: Mr. Burcham to M
tion before the Judge
brief relating to the applie2
Ordinary ? •
can examine
Mr. Sleigh—l have. Your worsh.
it; I did
but I hope, sir, you will bear in minu that
not know the. particulars of Mrs. Antrim's ak7ilea-
tion to you, sir.
Mr. Burcham, after perusing the brief, said—
Mrs. Antrim, where do you live ?
Mrs. Antrim—At Webber-row.
Mr. Bureham—What name do you go by there ?
Mrs. Antrim—Mrs. Wall.
Mr. Burcham—Now don't you live with Mr.
Wall as man and wife ?

Mrs. Antrim—Yes, sir.
Mr. Burcham—Then you may go about your
business. I discharge the order at once.
Mr. Sleigh—l hope, sir, it will not go forth that I
knew that the application was refused by the Judge
Ordinary. Had I done so, I would not have at-
tended to-day. I consider these proceedings inde-
cent and insulting towards the learned judge and
magistrate.
This was the first order that has been quashed
under the new Divorce Act.

WESTMINSTER.—LAMENTABLE AFFAIR.—
John Howell, a very respectable-looking man, up-
wards of 50 years of age, was charged with steal-
ing a quantity of silver plate and other articles,
from the house of Mrs. Maria Waldo Sibthorp,
relict of the late Colonel Sibthorp, M.P.; 57, Ches-
ter-square. •

The circumstances of the case are very lament-
able. The prisoner, who is a married man with
seven children, the eldest of whom is moving in a
very creditable position in life, was employed, early
in November last, upon a job at the house of Mrg.
Sibthorp, when, in consequence of the high recom-
mendation he received from one of the ministers of
the district, the lady was induced to take him fully
into her establishment under far more advantageous
circumstances than a person at his time of life could
possibly expect; and it is deeply to be deplored
thdt he made so ungrateful a return for the benefits
conferred. On Tuesday afternoon the accused, who
had charge of the plate in every day use, inquired of
the housemaid whether she knew what had become
of a tablespoon which was missing, to which she
replied that she did not. This circumstance coming
to the knowledge of Mr. H. W. Sibthorp, the lady's
son, he began to entertain some suspicion that all
was not right, and upon his return home from a
party at night he determined to look over the plate
in the pantry and ascertain whether there was any
of it missing. On going to the pantry-door he
found it locked, but as, on applying his eye to the
keyhole, he found there was no key in the door
inside, he came to the conclusion that prisoner was
out, although it was his duty at that late hour'of the
night to have been in the house. After waiting some
time for the prisoner, and finding he did not return,
Mr. Sibthorp awoke one of the other servants, and
having gone to the police-station, where he received
every attention, returned with a constable. In the
meantime the key of the pantry had been found
under the matting in the store-room, and upon
examining the plate, four tea spoons, two dessert
ditto, two table spoons, and two forks, were missing,
and in a drawer in the pantry, three pawnbrokers'
tickets, relating to part of the property, were dis-
covered. Prisoner came quietly into the house at
two in the morning, when, upon being questioned
respecting the missing plate, he admitted he had
pawned it, and gave his master four other dupli-
cates. - .

An assistant to Mr. Smith, pawnbroker, Victoria-
road, produced the plate, pawned at four different
times by the prisoner, and also a blanket.
In reply to questions from the magistrate, the
assistant said that he had known the prisoner for
five years as a respectable man, and therefore did
not hesitate to take in the pledge from him, which
he represented. to be the property of a Mr. Smith,
in Ebury-street. The blanket, he said, was his olyn.
Mr. Punter asked whether he had looked at the
Directory, to see whether any person of the name

described lived at the address given, 64, Ebury-
street ?

Witness_ admitted that he had not, nor did his
further answers prove that he had much knowledge
of the prisoner or his mode of gettting a living.
W. C. Yerrell, assistant to Mr. Chapman, Queen's-
row, Pimlico, produced two sheets which had also
been stolen from Mrs. Sibthorp's, and pawned by
the prisoner.
The accused, who admitted his guilt, and threw
himself upon-Mr. Sibthorp's mercy, was committed
for trial,

Mr, Paynter expressing his opinion that the
pawnbroker's assistant who took in the plate had
not exercised becoming caution.

GREENWICIL—CoNVICTION OV THE TREA-
SURER TO A RAILWAY FRIENDLY SOCIETY.--Wm.
Mills, of 3, Harvey's Cottages, Cooper's-road, Old
Kent-road, appeared to a summons before Mr.
Traill, charged with unlawfully withholding the
sum of £62 6s. 11d., belonging to the Locomotive
Steam Engineers' and Firemen's Society, entrusted
to him in his capacity as treasurer.
Mr. Burg on, solicitor, attended in support of the
summons, and stated that the proceedings had
been taken under the Friendly Societies Act, 18
and 19 Vic., c, 23.

The defendant said he admitted the receiving and
withholding the money, which he was then unable'
to repay, owing to distress and sickness in his family.
Mr. Traill said nothing of the kind should have
induced him to part with the money of the society,
which was an act of embezzlement.
Mr. Burgon: remarked that the defendant had
since agreed to repay the money by weekly instal-
ments of £l, which the society was willing to accede
to, subject to his worship's decision in the matter.
Mr. Trail said he should make an order upon the
defendant to pay the amount claimed ; and, in ad-
dition thereto, a fine of £5, including 20s. costs ;
and, in default of payment of the latter sum, to be
imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three months.
This sentence, however, would be respited until the
society asked for it to be put in force, in the event
of his (defendant) not satisfying the claim made
upon him.
The defendant then left the court.

nAMMEnSMITH.—PoLicE DISCREPANCIES.
—John Simpson, the keeper of a beer-shop in Jen-
nings-buildings, and also a lodging-house-keeper,
was summoned before Mr. Ingham for having his
house open at improper hours.
Mr. Martin appeared for the defendant, and
pleaded not guilty.
Sergeant Al' Qualter of the T division, deposed that
about a quarter past one o'clock on the morning of
Sunday, the 9th inst., he received information that
the defendant had hishouse open for the sale of beer.
He immediately obtained the assistance of three
constables and went to the place. There were seve-
ral persons outside, and as they approached they
called—" Look out, look out." Witness placed one
of the constables at the back-door and he, with the
other two, went to the front. He knocked at the door
when some person inside called out" Who's there ?"
and witness answered " The police." At that
time he heard footsteps rushing up stairs. He
waited two minutes and knocked again. A voice
called out, " Who's there P" and witness replied,
" The police." After waiting another minute the
door was opened by a young man with a moustache.
Witness first tried the door leading to the upstairs
part of the house, and he found that it was secured,
to prevent him from entering. He then turned into
the taproom, and found a prostitute sitting at the
table quite drunk, and a man sitting. close to her
smoking. There was another woman standing in
the taproom, and she:appeared intoxicated. There
were three women sitting in front of the bar, with
a pint pot containing malt liquor. There was a
man standing close to the women, and the landlord
was behind the bar. He then asked the defendant
how he accounted for having his house open for the
sale of beer, and he made no reply.
Mr. Martin cross-examined the witness, and he
denied that he saw an account-book in the hands of
the landlord. He also said that the prostitute did
not lodge at the beer-shop, but at Mr. Simpson's
lodging-house.
At the request of the magistrate, Ellen Donovan,
the woman in question was called, and she said that
she had lodged at the beer-shop for some time. She
further said that:she:returned home about a quarter-
past 12 o'clock and she saw no beer about.
Police-constable Bull was next examined and
said he accompanied the sergeant. He saw five
males and two females in the house. The prostitute
was sitting in front of the bar with the man, and
not in the taproom. He further said that the door
was opened by the defendant.
Police-constable Fennemore was present when
the door was opened by the man in moustache.
Mr. Ingham said there appeared some remark-
able discrepancies in the evidence of the police. It
was, however, not a case he should proceed with.
Summons dismissed.
A VIOLENT PAUPER.---GRACE BEFORE MEAT.—
Edwin Skey, an able-bodied pauper, in St. Mar-
garet's and St. John's Workhouse, Kensington, was
placed in the dock under the following circum-
stances :

Thomas Brotherston, the labour master, said at
12 o'clock that day the inmates went to dinner, and
the prisoner and another man commenced. before
grace was said. In consequence of that the master
turned them out of the hall, and would not allow
them to have their dinner with the rest of the in-
mates. At one o'clock, when labour was resumed,
he asked the prisoner to return to his work of stone-
breaking, but he refused, on account of his having
had no dinner. The master told him that if he
went to his work he should have his dinner. He
still refused, and the master ordered him to be
locked up in the cell. The prisoner resisted, and
he had to obtain the assistance of the schoolmaster
to remove him to the cell. He then made a great
noise, and commenced kicking violently at the door
and knocked out a piece of the wood. The master
then ordered witness to take off the prisoner's shoes
and while attempting to do so he kicked him vio-
lently in the leg. The prisoner also knocked out
the iron ventilator in the door, causing damage to
the amount of 2s. 6d.
The prisoner said the witness first kicked him,
and in return he kicked the witness.
)3rotherton denied kicking the prisoner.
The accused here bared his leg, and said the
mark was quite fresh.
Miller, the gaoler, looked at the bruise, and said
it appeared to have, been just done.
The officer said he did not kick him. The prisoner
might have got the bruise in his struggles.
The prisoner further said that when he went to
his dinner he put his hand to his mouth and took
out some tobacco which he had been chewing, and
placed it on the side of the plate. The master then
came up and ordered him out, and he had no dinner.
Mr. Ingham inquired if smoking was allowed in
the workhouse ?
The witness said it was not. Many of the in-
' mates chewed tobacco, but that was not allowed.
Mr. Ingham told the prisoner that it was his duty
to submit to the rules, and if not, he ought to submit
to be punished. It appeared he had not done
one or the other, and therefore he should commit
him for 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour.
THE BEGGING-LETTER, IMPOSTOE.—John Clark,
the young man with crutches, who was charged
last week with endeavouring to obtain money from
Lord Macaulay, by means of a fictitious petition,
was brought before Mr. Ingham for re-examination.
The prisoner, who has frequently been convicted
for practising frauds upon the public by begging
letters, was on this occasion given into custody by
Mr. W. Read, one of the Middlesex magistrates,
residing in the Addison-road, Kensington, for ob-
taining ss. from him after presenting a well-exe-
cuted petition, purporting to have been drawn up
and signed by Mr. R. Green, the clerk of the Ken-
sington vestry. The petition, which was apparently
signed by the Duchess of Inverness, Archdeacon
Sinclair, &c., recommended the prisoner for a sub-
scription to enable him to obtain an artificial leg,
as he had lost the use of his own, and also to obtain
sufficient money to apprentice him to the trade of a
tailor. Mr. Read believed the petition to be ficti-
tious, and while waiting the arrival of the police he
gave the prisoner the 55., as he said, to complete the
case. Lord Macaulay, of Holly Lodge, Kensington,
was waited upon under similar cirtumstauces, but
he refused to give any money until inquiries had
been made. Mr. Green attended on the last occa-
sion, and proved that the petition was fictitious.
He also informed the Court that a number of simi-
lar petitions had been flying about the parish for
some months.
Mr. Evan Hare, solicitor, , and vestry clerk of
Putney, said a petition, purporting to have been
signed by him, had been sent, with a letter of re-
commendation from the Rev. Mr. Robinson, the
incumbent of Putney, to Mrs. Chapman, of Bruns-
wick-square, Brighton. A cheque for £2 was sent
to the Rev. Mr. Robinson, and it was discovered
that the petition and letter were fictitious. Witness
had now possession of the cheque and petition.
A servant in the employ of Mr. Chapman, of R Oe•
hampton, proved that the prisoner called at their
house and requested to see Mrs. Chapman. As they
did not know when the family would return, the
address in Brighton was given to him.
The prisoner had nothing to say in answer to the
charge, and
Mr. Ingham told him that he appeared for a long
time past to have made a very handsome living by
means of the fictitious papers. He also said that
the prisoner was connected with an artful and
clever gang, and he must say there was some credit
due to the ingenious rascality of his friends, for he
never saw documents have more the appearance of
being genuine than those before him, He sentenced

the prisoner to three months' imprisonment ~ with
hard labour, and he promised that, if he wet re ever
brought before him again, he would send b .im for
trial as an incorrigible rogue.
The prisoner was then removed.

CO UNTR Y MAR KET ig.