The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-11 00:00:00

THE REFORM BILL-THE BALLOT.

We are glad that Mr. Wyld has given notice,
that when Lord John Russell brings forward his
amendment on the second reading of the Reform
Bill, he will move as an addition, that no measure
will be satisfactory that does not include the ballot.
We regard this notice of Mr. Wyld's as more im-
portant than that of Lord John's, inasmuch as we
have always considered the question of the ballot
the most important of all representative reforms.
We trust that Mr. Wyld will listen to no solicita-
tions that may be addressed to him to withdraw the
notice. With the fear of their constituents before
their eyes, we are not without hope that the hon.
gentleman will carry his motion. At all events,
he is certain of a larger minority than ever before
voted for the ballot. And he must be greatly en-
couraged in the performance of the duty which he
has undertaken to discharge, when he finds that at
the meeting of Irish Liberal members, held yester-
day, it was unanimously resolved to oppose any
reform bill which did not include the right of
voting by ballot.-111orning Advertiser.

REMARKABLE BIRTH.-,-A Sussex-bred cow, be-
longing to Mr. Thomas Marchant, of Mayfield, gave birth
last week to three heifer calves, all of which are alive and
thriving.—Sussex Express.

THE CASE OF TiIE REV. MR. HAMPTON.—Some
weeks ago we gave a brief account of the proceedings of a
commission issued by the Bishop of London to inquire into
certain charges against the Rev. Henry Hampton, of Hollo-
way, at that gentleman's request. The bishop has commu-
nicated to Mr. Hampton his decision, after a very patient
and careful investigation of the charges, and an interview
with the reverend gentlemen who formed the commission.
The result of this decision is that his lordship cannot with
propriety
sanction Mr. Hampton's officiating in the tem-
porary church of St. John's, Holloway, but, under cer-
tain conditions, the judgment of the referees enables his
lordship to grant a licence for his officiating in any other
part of the diocese. In reference to Mr. Hampton's long-
continued disobedience to episcopal authority, by officiating,
first without any licence,. and subsequently against a moni-
tion issued from the Consistorial Court, his lordship expresses
his willingness to condone, on condition of the rev. gentle-
man's at once submitting, and desisting from further offici-
ating at the temporary church. The report of the commis-
sioners (Archdeacon Hale, Rev. Canon Dale, and the Rev.
Michael Gibbs) to the Bishop of London thus concludes :--
,6 We certify to your lordship that, after maturely consider-
ing- all the evidence which has been adduced in support of
the several charges alleged against Mr. Hampton, we have
come to the conclusion that his embarrassments were mainly
attributable to the misconduct of others; that he had no
intention of permanently abstracting any 'portion of the
moneys collected on account of the Church Building Fund,
nor of wilfully misappropriating the sacramental funds; and
'that, though living apart from his wife, and under circum-
stances which tempted him to misrepresent her real and
actual condition, his life, except as stated in this report, ham
been without just cause of censure or reproach: In respect,
therefore, of the charges submitted to our inquiry, we can-
not consider him as moral 4 disqualified for officiating in
this diocese,"

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly,

GREATHED V. GREATHED.

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
MASSIF V. MASSIE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)

IN RE WILLCOCK.
This bankrupt was described as of Lucan-place, Hoxton,
builder, and to-day came up to pass his last examination on
accounts prepared by Messrs. Hart Brothers, showing—
Dr.: To creditors unsecured £383 ; to ditto holding security,
£9,090 17s. ; profits, £634; surplus in January, 1857,
£1,696 10s. Assets : Good debts, £52 17s. ; property held
by creditors, £8,500 ; expenses, £7ll 4s. ; house expenses,
£212 ; losses, £322.

Mr. Lucas appeared for the assignees, and Mr. C. C.
Lewis for the bankrupt, and an adjournment took place for
the bankrupt to furnish a detailed account of expenses.

IN RE MASON.

This bankrupt was described as of the Regent's-canal,
wholesale stationer, and to-day was appointed for his last
examination.

The accounts, by Mr. H. G. Johnson, show a surplus on
the Ist January, 1859, of £419. Debtor to creditors, un-
secured, £2,949; to ditto holding security, £1,736; profits,
£311; assets, good debts, £260; property, £440; trade
expenses, £1,189 ; house expenses, £BOO ; losses, £1,153.
Mr. Buchanan appeared for the bankrupt, and consented
to an adjournment for an investigation of accounts.

IN RE GREENACRE AND ROBERTS.
These bankrupts were described as of Oxford-street,
drapers, and this was an examination meeting. The debts
and assets are inconsiderable. Greenacre passed without
opposition, and Roberts was opposed on the ground that he
had not given up a watch, but it was proved that it had
been pawned and his father held the duplicate. He was
then allowed to pass.

(Before Mr. Commissioner Fane.)
IN RE WINTER.-EXTENSIVE FAILURE OF A MILLOWNER.
This bankrupt was owner of extensive saw mills in New
North-street, and now applied for his certificate. The
balance-sheet, by Messrs. Clarke and Solly, Moorgate-
street, shows—Capital in July, 1858, £2,438 195.; profits
during 11. months, £2,438 19s. 11d. ; losses, £7,579 195.,
£6,500 of which arose on the sale of the mill plant and ma-
chinery. The debts were stated at £9,368 ; assets, £402 ;
creditors holding security, £9,552.
Mr. Lawrance appearance appeared for the assignees, and
said that the bankrupt asked for a first-class certificate.
The assignees would not consent to that, but would not
object to a certificate of the second class, as if the plant, &c.,
had realised a fair value, there would have been 20s. in the
pound for the creditors.

His Honour granted a certificate of the second class.

IN RE COOPER.
This was a meeting for the last examination of this bank-
rupt, a baker, in the Blackfriars-road and Gray's-inn-lane.
The accounts, by Messrs. Butler and Cannings, show—
Debtor to creditors, £895; to trustees under wife's marriage
settlement, £575, for which they hold property £4OO ; to
creditors holding lease, £617. An adjournment took place,
for the assignees to make inquiries.

CLERKENWELL COUNTY COURT.
THE LAW OF LOST BANK NOTES.-IMPORTANT CASE.
At this court, in the course of the week, was tried Bennet
v. Newman, a special case, bearing upon the law of los
bank notes.

Mr. Clarke, of Bedford-row, for the plaintiff, a tradesman,
of Holloway, stated that in January last plaintiff's wife lost
a £5 note, and knowing the party from whom he received
it, obtained thenumber, and gave notice to stop it at the Bank
of England. A few days afterwards the Bank authorities
notified to plaintiff that the note had been paid in by a
bank in the city. Plaintiff then traced the note down to
a publican in Gray's-inn-lane (the defendant) who in-
formed him that the note was received over the counter in
the ordinary way of business. A man and two women pre-
sented the note, and expending Is. in refreshment, re-
ceived LI 19s. change.
Defendant admitted that he did not take the names or
addresses of the parties, who were strangers to him.
Mr. Clarke asked Mr. Wakeling, who appeared for thy
defendant, if he would admit the facts, but that gentleman
said he would prefer having them proved. Some witnesses
proved the facts, and *Mr. Clarke supposed the defence
would be that a bank-note was a negotiable instrument, and
had been taken in the ordinary way of trade, and that
consequently defendant was not liable, but Mr. Clarke
cited several cases, bearing on the law of the case,
and submitted that plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
Mr. Wakeling contended that it would be very hard upon
tradesmen if they were to be liable for every bank note
taken over the counter. Probably the note was lost by
carelessness.

Mr. Sergeant Jones said the law was entirely with Mr
Clarke. He remembered a case in which Crockford, the
betting man, lost a £2OO note on a race course, and two
years afterwards sued a person in the superior court and re-
covered. If tradesmen would take the trouble to put the
names and addresses of parties on the notes taken in busi-
ness, and thus know from whom they received them, there
would be no hardship in the matter, but, if they would be
careless and not take the trouble, they must accept the risk
and consequences.
Verdict for plaintiff, with full costs.

FOREIGN GRAIN IMPORTED INTO Hun:-
following duty has been
into Hull :—XIS6 7s. o
3,paidl27 Duringoc
inr
sft the pastgif.oarintnigilhvt,orttehde
reeefigwnheat ; £756 145., on 15,134 qrs. of barley; ;
£34 95., on 689 qrs. of oats ; £75 4on 1,502 qrs. of beans; £l6 45., on 324 qrs. of peas; and 395 9s. 7d., on 20,870 cwt. of wheat flour; total, £1,434 Os. 7d.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY)

The further hearing of this part-heard motion for degree
was resumed this morning.

Mr. Churchill resumed and concluded his argument for
the plaintiff.

This was an administration suit under the will of the late
Mr. Timothy Greathed. The contention was between the
executor's legatees and next of kin. And the question
raised was whether there should be a partition of the real
and personal estate of the testator.

His Honour ordered a report of the debts due before
making any order of partition.

The next question was, whether the gift ever took effect
if the devisee died before attaining the age of twenty-one.
If the gift ever took effect, the plaintiff's claim under the
will was:six-eighths of an eighth of the residue of the tes-
tator's estate, subject to payment of a mortgage of £750.
Mr. Bird appeared for the defendants, the widow and
next of kin of the testator. The learned counsel contended
that if the prior gift failed it lapsed and' went over to the
next of kin. It was admitted that the widow was entitled
to one-third of the real estate as dower, but she also claimed
one-third of the personal estate.
Mr. G. L. Russell appeared for the heir-at-law, and
contended that there was no gift over, and that lapsed
shares fell into the residue which he was entitled to take.

His Honour observed it was a new mode of construing
" or" into "and" to defeat the purposes of the will, the
ordinary rule was to change " or" into "and" to give
effect to the will.

Mr. Churchill was heard in reply on the effect of the
gift over to the children and their heirs as tenants in tail.
His Honour said he would look at the will before dis-
posing of it.
Judgment reserved.

This was a suit promoted by Rebecca Emily Massie, to
obtain a judicial separation from John Massie, her husband,
on the ground of adultery.

Dr. Spinks was counsel for the petititioner, and the cause
was undefended.

From the statement of the learned counsel it appeared
the parties were married in 1842, and lived together for
some years, when they separated, and respondent formed
an improper acquaintance with a female named Bell.

Charles William Armstrong, a schoolmaster, residing at
Birkenhead, proved the marriage, and that the parties lived
together for some time subsequently.
Mrs. Elizabeth Bell said, in January, 1850, the de-
fendant came to her house, in Aston-Park, Victoria-road,
near Birmingham, and took lodgings. He stated that he
was then a widower, and had been so for three years, and
by promising marriage succeeded in seducing her. She
had a child by the respondent, which was about two years
old, and was still living. When she understood that he
was married she refused to cohabit with him, and they did
not live together afterwards.

Mrs. Massie, the petitioner, deposed that she was mar-
ried to the respondent on the 16th of April, 1842. They
lived together until 1851, when they separated, but in two
months after they became reconciled, but they separated
again in consequence of his ill-temper and her inability to
maintain him. She left him and went to her uncle's to
reside.

The judge said he would take time to consider what he
should do in the case.

FLANAGAN V. FLANAGAN.
This was a petition presented by the plaintiff who is a
mariner, to obtain a decree of judicial separation from his
wife on the ground of her alleged adultery with a party
named Aplett. It appeared that the parties were
married in 1844 and lived very happily until
1857. The plaintiff was engaged in the China
trade, and his wife was in the habit of accompanying
him:on his voyages, but in the year 1857 he left her behind.
While in India he had heard some reports relative to his
wife, which induced him to make inquiries on his return,
and he obtained information that satisfied him she had com-
mitted the offence imputed to her, both at Sunderland and
at Angel-cottage, Pentonville-road

Mr. Jacobs, who appeared for the petitioner, stated, in
his opening, that the reason why his client did not apply
for a divorce was, that he was a Roman Catholic, and had
conscientious scruples on the subject.
Some witnesses were called, who deposed most positively
to the respondent having committed the alleged offence on
different occasions.
The judge granted the decree.
The court then adjourned until Wednesday the 23d
instant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MANSION-HOUSE.

ROBBERY BY AN OLD SERVANT.—Wm. Sheaths, whose
case was reported in The Sun of Monday, was placed at the
bar, on remand, charged with robbing his employers,
Messrs. Cook and Son, of some articles of stationery.
The prosecutors recommended the prisoner to mercy, and
Mr. Perry (from Mr. Buchanan's) addressed the bench at
some length on his behalf. He pointed out the length of
time prisoner had been in the service of Messrs. Cook and
Son (23 years), and that nothing to further criminate him
had been discovered since Monday last. He hoped the
Lord Mayor would bear in mind the recommendation of the
prosecutors, and on behalf of the prisoner he pleaded guilty.
The Lord Mayor said he was astonished to find old ser-
vants forfeiting all title to respect for long and faithful
services for trifling matters of this kind. Under all the
circumstances, prisoner must go to Holloway for two
months.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
BRUTAL ASSAULTS.—John Jacobs, a low-looking fellow,
was charged with annoying, and smashing a pane of glass
of the value of 50s. at the house of, Mr. Henry Hart, beer-
house-keeper, 79, Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square ; and
also with assaulting William King, barman, Henry Bur-
gess, a coach painter, and James Reed, 412 S.
Mr. Hart said the prisoner came into his house on the
previous afternoon, and seeing that he had already had too
much to drink he, as was his rule, refused to let him have
any more. After some time he succeeded in getting him
out, and shut the door, but soon after he came back and
began kicking violently at the door, and then deliberately
smashed the glass, value 50s.

William King, barman, proved pursuing prisoner and
being struck a violent blow on the back of his head by him.
Henry Burgess, a coach painter, of 9, Pitt-street, Tot-
tenham-court-road, proved going for a constable to give
prisoner into custody, when he struck him, and made seve-
ral attempts to kick him and others. He had seen him
smash the window.

James Reed, 412 S, took prisoner into custody, and at
the station, having behaved with great violence on the way,
he kicked him violently in a delicate part, causing him
great pain, and which he still felt very acutely.
Mr. Bingham said he would keep him for some time.
He was a lamentable specimen of what a man might come
to through drink. Having acted like a wild beast, he mut
be treated as one. He should sentence him to one month
for the assault on the constable, and to pay the damage
done to the window, or another month.