The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-17 00:00:00

CHESTER.

SPRING FASHIONS, for Gentlemen's Overcoats,
Morning Coats, Trousers, and Vests.

BOYS' NEGLIGE, and othor suits, HIGHLAND
DRESS, KNICKERBOCKERS, &c.

LADIES' RIDING HABITS, JACKETS, OVER-
COATS, CLOAKS, &c.

11. J. and D. NICOLL'S GUINEA WATEUPROOF
TWEED COATS for Gentlemen, and CLOAKS for
Ladies, are patronised by Travellers all over the world.

It J. and D. NICOLL, 114, 116, 118, 120, Regent-
street ; 22, Cornhill, London ; 10, Mosley-street, Man-
chester ; and 50, Bold-street, Liverpool.

JOHN GOSNETJ4 and CO.'S CHERRY
TOOTII PASTE is greatly superior, to any tooth
powder; gives the teeth a pearl whiteness, protects the
enamel from decay, and imparts a pleasant fragrance to
the breath. Price 6d.--Red Bull Wharf, 93, Upper
Thames-street. London.

COUGHS, ASTHMA, and incipient CON-
SUMPTION are effectually cured by KEATING'S
COUGH LOZENGES, which are daily recommended by the
Paculty -testimonials from the most eminent of whom may
be inspected—as the most effectual, safe, speedy, and conve-
nient remedy for Cough and all Disorders of the Lungs,
Chest, and Throat

Sold in boxes, l•, lid.: and tins, 2s. 9d., 40. 61, and lls.
each, by T. HEATING. Chemist, 79, St. Paul's Churchyard,
London. Sold by all Druggists, Aro.

PHILLIPS AND COMPANY'S TEAS ARE
BEST AND CHEAPEST.

-1,71 +' .I."nv mu 1 9s._ 2s. 13d._
Most Delicious 13iaks. Tea is oow only 3s. M. per pound.
Pure, Rich, Rare, Choice Coffee, is. 4d.. is. 6d., ls. Bd.
PHILLIPS and CO., TEA MERCHANTS,
8, King William-street, City, London, E.C.
A price current free. Sugars at market prices.
PHILLIPS and CO. send all goods Carriage Free within
eight miles of No. 8, King William-street, 40s. worth Car-
riage Free to any Railway Station or Market Town in Eng-
land. Phillips and Co. have no Agents, nor any connection
with any house in Worcester or Swansea,

TEETH AND PAINLESS DENTISTRY.—.
The fear of pain and dread of operation inherent to all
deter very many to whom ARTIFICIAL TEETH are of
vital importance from availing themselves of the services of
a dentist. In a practice founded in 1830, and now extending
over greater part of the kingdom, an experience unequalled
has been obtained, enabling us to offer even the most, sensi-
tive sufferer a System of. dentistry perfect in its absolute
ire
and foredoinfro which her a specugite 'pertaining only to our prac-
tice, her Majesty has granted her royal letters
patent. This system embraces the non-interference with all
stumps, however decayed, the supporting instead of extrac-
tion of 10080 teeth until they become firm and useful in mas-
tication, and the utter absence of all and every operation, so
that the most nervous person can be supplied without tear of
pain or inconvenience. These teeth are cheaper, more dur-
able, natural, and comfortable than any yet produced.
Consultation free. Teeth from 55. Sets from 5 to 25 gs.,
warranted.

For the eiUcacy, utility, and success of this system, vide
Lancet."

Messrs. LEWIN and SIMEON MOSELY and SONS,
30, Berners-street, Oxford-street, and 448, Strand,
Opposite Charing-cross Railway Station.
Daily attendance at 15, Whitefriargate, Hull; 10, Norfolk-
street, Sheffield ; 4, East-parade, Leeds ; 14, St. Nicholas-
street, Scarbro' ; and 33, Coney-street, York.
Established 1830. No connection with any one of the same
name.

The Cattle Plague.

Yesterday the Right Hon. Earl Granville, K.G.,
and President of the Council, appeared before the
Edgware magistrates on a summons charging him
with contravening the Cattle Diseases Act of 1866.
The charge
" That you, the Right Hon. Geo.
iahev ee arn
Gower, Earl Granville, K.G., did on the
cshoBth March last bring into the jurisdiction of the
justices of the peace for the county of Middlesex,
to wit, in the parish of Hendon, from some other
part of Great Britain beyond the said jurisdiction,
certain cattle, to wit, eight cows, in contravention
of a certain order made by the local authority for
the said jurisdiction, in pursuance of the Cattle
Diseases Act, 1866." On the bench were Mr. A. W.
Cox (chairman), Mr. L. D. Flood, and Mr. Kelk.
The prosecutor was the local inspector, Mr. Dale,
who was represented by Mr. Peckham, and Mr. G.
Lewis, jun., of Ely-place, represented the noble de-
fendant. Mr. Sleigh appeared for two other defen-
dants, the one a butcher, the other a cowkeeper,
charged with the same offence.
Mr. Peckham, in opening the case, stated that
this was an mrvnce not
-rmimitted by
Lord Granville, but by his servants or agents, ior
whose acts there could be no doubt he was respon-
sible. The facts of the case were that beasts brought
from Holland had been driven from Black-farm at
llendon, which was out of the district, and under
the jurisdiction of the magistrates, whose regulation
that no cattle should be moved from place to place
had thus been contravened, and a very heavy penalty
incurred. This contravention had taken place in
two instances, and the cattle had either died or been
slaughtered through having the plague, and though
Lord Granville might not have been personally cog-
nisable of the circumstances, yet it must be held that
he was answerable for his agents. He then called
Mr. Panter, the steward of Lord Granville at the
farm, near Child's-hill, Hendon. From the opening
question it appearedthat there were two summonses,
the defendant being charged on one summons with
bringing five cattle on March 1, and an another with
bringing eight cattle on March 8.
Mr. Lewis said there was amistake, and to shorten
the case, he would inform the court the real facts of
the case with respect to five cows brought on to the
farm on March 8.
The first summons was then abandoned, and
Mr. Panter was examined on the second. He said
that, on March 8, on returning to the farm, he
found that five cows had been driven on to the pre-
mises by Mr. Roche, a cattledealer, who had bought
cattle for Lord Granville for many years, and who
occupied the next farm. The cattle were driven on
the premises without Lord Granville's knowledge,
and in obedience to an order which witness had
given to Mr. Roche to buy some cattle if he could
legally do so. Lord Granville's instructions always
were that the law was not under any circumstances
to be infringed, and witness had given these in-
structions to Mr. Roche, who told witness that he
had complied with the law, inasmuch as he had a
permit to drive the cattle on the farm from Sir R.
Mayne. The cattle when seen by witness were quite
healthy, and continued so for three days, when they
were taken ill with some disease, which witness did
not believe to be the plague.
Mr. Peckham asked whether any other cattle on
the farm had died of the plague which had been
ordered to be slaughtered—a bull which caused roars
of laughter.
Mr. Roche was called, and he stated that his in-
structions from Mr. Panter were to comply with the
law, and he thought he did so when he obtained the
police permit: This permit enabled him to drive
them on to his own farm, and he then drove them
across the fields to Lord Gran-ville's farm—the two
farms adjoining.
rtehpelied ,
The Chairman asked whether the cattle had been
driven through a hedge or gate.
The
" The hedges are very green
in our witness
part o f
country, and there is no trouble
in getting through them." (A. laugh.)
It was further elicited that witness's farm was in
the metropolitan police district, while defendant's
farm was over the boundary, and that the witness
thought if he d:d not take the cattle over a road he
should not be breaking the law.
Mr. Lewis said his instructions were not to plead
any technical objections, for his lordship was quite
ready to take the responsibility of any act of his
servants. But it must be apparent to the magis-
trates that his lordship was neither morally nor
legally answerable in this case, for his servants had
received instructions not to act illegally ; they had
not acted illegally, and the only person who had
acted illegally was Mr. Roche, who ought to have
been summoned instead of his lordship. The sum-
mons charged Lord Granville with " bringing" the
cattle within the jurisdiction; but he had not brought
them, his servants had not brought them, and there
was no pretence for summoning him.
The Chairman, after consulting the Bench, said
the magistrates had come to the unanimous conclu-
sion that this was not a " bringing" of cattle within
the meaning of the order by the defendant, and
neither morally nor legally was Lord Granville in
this case responsible, for it had been proved that he