The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

(Peers present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth,
Lord Wensleydale, Lord Kingsdown, and other Peers.)

APPEAL.-SMITH V. KEAY.

The further hearing of this part heard important appeal
was resumed this morning at 11 o'clock.
Mr. James Dickenson resumed his argument for the
respondent.
The case is not yet concluded.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
The judge will sit in this court at Westminster on Wed-
nesday, 13th April, at 12 o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

BOW-STREET.

A boy, named James Murphy, a vender of water-tresses,
was placed at the bar before Mr. Jardine charged with
robbery.

Mary Osborn, a domestic servant to Mr. Pocock, of 20,
Gower-street, stated that of late she had employed the boy
to run for a few trifling errands, and amongst the places to
which he had been sent was Mr. Lathers', a butcher in
Store-street. He had been sent there when either chops
or steaks were required, and he always was directed to
return with the meat as ordered.

Mr. Lathers saw the prisoner on Saturday evening
in his shop as usual for two pound of rump-steak
and four mutton chops for Mr. Pocock. As
it had previously been discovered he had been trading on
his own account, he was given into custody. The prisoner
had twice, previous to the present occasion, been to the shop
and ordered and received a quantity of rump steak and mut-
ton chops for Mr. Pocock, without having any authority to
do se.

The Magistrate asked the prisoner what he had to say to
the charge
The prisoner said he had had the grub, as he was
hungry.

Magistrate-But you were not sent for it ?
Magistrate
—th__Nol;mlulmst
commit
that
you for trial.
Committed accordingly.

MARLBOROUGH. STREET.

ROBBERY AT THE " HOME FOR MOTHERLESS GIRLS."
—Elizabeth M'Donald, servant, was charged with stealing
at 2, King-street, Grosvenor-square, at various times, the
sum of £l5, the moneys of the trustees of the institution
called the Home for Motherless Girls.

Miss Isabella Elizabeth Glennie, the superintendent of
the Home, said the prisoner had been employed by her since
November last as cook at the Home, and that since January
last she had been continually losing sums of money from a
drawer in the library table in the office, which she always
carefully locked, but frequently had found open. On mak-
ing up her accounts on the 16th of March she missed £2
10s., and on the 28th she put a £5 note and other money in
the drawer, locking the drawer as usual. On the Ist of
April the prisoner absconded from the Home, and the next
day, on examining the drawer, she missed from it the £5
note and other moneys, altogether about £7 10s. She gave
notice to the bank, and informed the police. She heard
nothing of the prisoner till Saturday last, when she came
to the Home, and on witness'asking what she had to say as
to her conduct, she at first denied having stolen the money,
but afterwards confessed she had taken it, and had changed
the £5 note in Tottenham-court •road. There were no
wages owing to the prisoner, and she believed she had no
money of her own, but she bad ascertained that the pri-
soner had been since visiting theatres and riding about in
cabs with a companion, spending about 10s. a-day.

In answer to the charge, the prisoner said she was told
if she acknowledged taking the money she should not be
punished.
Miss Glennie said she distinctly told the prisoner she
would forgive her for what she had taken from her, but the
money being that of others, she could not do so as far as
that was concerned.
The prisoner was then remanded.

THE BALLOT.

(From the Examiner.)

We are amongst the oldest advocates of the ballot.
We have laboured for it in season and out of season,
and whEn any one who raised a voice in its favour
was scouted and run down as a " low Radical." We
hold secret voting to be essential to the freedom of
election and the true representation of the people,
but we deprecate making the ballot a shibboleth,
and proscribing all candidates who are opposed to
it, or who hesitate to adopt it, as is proposed by
the committee of the Ballot Society. We cannot
afford this exclusiveness. We are not yet strong
enough to be able to turn away all who do not agree
with us upon all the articles of the reform creed.
Our circumstances counsel toleration: With the
option of a reformer for the ballot, and one sound
upon all points except the ballot, we should of
course prefer the former ; but where there is no
such choice, let us take the best man we can get,
compounding for his shortcomings upon one point.
But let us put another and not unfrequent case.
suppose there are two Liberal candidates in the
field against a Tory, one for the ballot, but with no
chance of carrying his election, the other moderate
reformer not prepared to accept the ballot, who will
succeed if the Liberal votes are united in his favour.
Would it be wise and politic to throw away the
suffrage on the man who had no chance of success.
and to let in an out-and-out anti-reformer ? All
other things equal, choose a ballot man, otherwise
take the candidate who will give his support to
reform, though not to secret voting. Lord John
Russell has, as a reformer, the one deficiency of not
being for the ballot, but wanting in this single
respect, would he not, in the judgment of all rea-
sonable men, carry overwhelming weight against
any Liberal candidate who could be put into com-
petition with him ? The Ballot Society has ren-
dered excellent service, but let it beware of straining
its demands too much in this approaching struggle,
and losing the substance while snatching at a
shadow. All dissolutions. advance the popular
party, and it is quite certain that the coming gene-
ral election will greatly increase the numbers in
support of the ballot, perhaps even to the extent of
a majority, without any rule of prescription.