The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-09 00:00:00

THE AFFAIRS OF PARMA.

,--
The following despatch has been addressed by
Count Cavour to the Marquis d'Azeglio, the Sardi-
nian Minister at the court. of London :

TURIN, JUNE 22, 1859.

Sir James Hudson has, by direction of the Earl
of Malmsebury, read to me and furnished me with
a copy of the annexed despatch having reference to
the affairs of Parma.
In this communication the principal British
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs endeavours
to establish that by the act of Sardinia the govern-
ment of Parma found it impossible to protest against
the entrance of the Austrian troops into the
duchy if it had been inclined to do so, being no
longer able to ground its protest on the neutral
character of the duchy.
The Earl of Malmesbury adds that the govern-
ment of Parma has never departed from the line of
the strictest neutrality, and that Austria has not
set the example of disregarding it ; whence he con-
cludes that the intervention of Sardinia can only
be looked upon. as a cruel and unjustifiable employ-
ment of force against a feeble and small state.
I shall abstain from commenting on the unfriendly
tone of this communication, and shall confine my-
self to the task of rectifying the facts therein
alleged. These facts are even so notorious, that
after reading the despatch in question it might not
unreasonably be asked if the minister who accuses
us has glanced at the map where the events of the
war have taken place.
No one, in fact, is ignorant that the attack against
Piedmont was prepared on the territory of Parma.
It was there that the Austrian troops collected and
threatened our frontier ; it was by borrowing the
territory of the duchy that they invaded Piedmont.
Piacenza had become the principal basis of Count
Gyulai's offensive operations ; Voghera, Tortona,
were occupied by an army corps that advanced by
the frontier of Piacenza ; the march on Bobbio
started thence. If Alessandria was threatened, if
our communications with Genoa were for an instant
compromised, this must be attributed to the viola •
tion of the territory of the duchy.
Did the governmet• of Parma make any protests
against those acts accomplished under its eyes ? It
did not utter a single word to prevent, as far as lay
in its power, the military operations of its ally,
a neighbouring state, with which it affirms that it
dcoirod to maintain friendly relations. When hos-
tilities were imminent, mere courtesy, as well
as international duties, would have at least re-
quired some communication to be made to Sardinia
explanatory of the line of conduct that the Go-
vernment of Parma proposed to itself t 3 follow in
the exceptional circumstances under which it was
on the eve of being placed. Nothing was said to us.
It was not until the enemy's plans had miscarried,
and the allied armies of Piedmont and France
having in their turn assumed the offensive--the
Austrians were on the point of evacuating the
duchies—it was not till then the wish to maintain
neutrality was broached. It is evident that after
all that has passed this pretension could not be ad-
mitted.
The Earl of Malmesbury, in his despatch, has
shown a desire only to insist on one fact, which
is, that the Government of Parma had never failed
in the duties of neutrality, and that Austria had
always respected her. In order to refute these
allegations I need only reca 1 to mind the military
operations that took place from and after the 29th
of April ; they prove that the information which
reached Lord Malmesbury was inaccurate. If the
Minister of Foreign Affairs :had raised the discus-
sion on other ground, and invoked in favour of the
Parmesan Government anterior treaties that placed
it in an exceptional position, it would have been
easy for me to have replied in a no less satisfactory
wanner. My circular of the 16th inst. enables you
to argue this question should it arise.
I beg you to read this despatch and give a copy
of it to Lord John Russell.—Accept, &c., &c.

MADAME JENNY LIND GOLDSCIIMIDT.—It has
been arranged that this distinguished vocalist will visit
Ireland in the autumn, under the management of Mr.
Mitchell of Bond-street, for the purpose of singing in
oratorios. She intends giving ‘‘ Zhe Messiah," for the
benefit of the Mercers' Hospital, in Dublin. Sho will visit
Cork, Limerick, and Belfast as well.
CRICKET.---lIARROW V. ETON.—This annual
match was commenced yesterday at Lords' in the presence
of a large company of spectators. Harrow had the first
innings and scored 242. Eton then went in, and at the
conclusion of the day's play had scored 47, with the loss of
five wickets. The game will be resunied,to-day.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.

(Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords' Justices.)

APPEAL-COLLARD V. ROE-JUDGMENT.

The further hearing of this part-heard appeal was re
sumed and concluded.

This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Sir John Stuart, disallowing the objection taken by the
purchaser to the title of conveyance to Hugate Manor or
Park, in respect that the Bar Dower-Trustees had not
joined in the conveyance.

The Lord Chancellor considered that the decision of the
Vice-Chanc6llor was right and should be affirmed.
Lord Justice Turner entirely concurred. There was no
power of appointment.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce considered the objection and
appeals entirely frivolous and vexatious.
The Lord Chancellor affirmed the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor, and dismissed the appeal with cost:,

APPEAL-ROSSITER V. THE TRAFALGAR LIFE ASSURANCE

ASSOCIATION.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Master of the
Rolls in favour of the defendant.

Mr. Selwyn, Q.C., and another, appeared and was heard
for the appellant.

Mr. Palmer, Q.C., is now being heard for the re-
spondents.

Plaintiff claims £l,OOO on a life policy, on a person of the
name of Frederick Strange, of Sydney, effected in 1854.
Defendants repudiate their liability, as the policy was
not granted by any of their agents of the Sydney Branch.

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

This suit came on to be mentioned at the sitting of the
Court this moraing.

His Honour, the Master of the Rolls, said—l have read
over this will, and I think that the legacies must be en-
larged in the same proportion as they have been reduced by
my decision.
His Honour declared accordingly.
JUDGMENT-DENT V. HARTLAND.

His Honour the Master of the Rolls considered that the
bequests in the will were not too remote, whether the
children of the tenants for life died before or after attaining
the age of twenty-one; in either event the survivor would
be entitled to take the share of the child predeceasing, and
therefore the gift is not void from remoteness. His Honour
reserved the rights of parties and declared accordingly.
Costs to be paid out of the estate.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Jury.)
AN INTERMINABLE CASE.-FIEBIG V. ARTHUR.
This was a new trial obtained at defendant's instance.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson; instructed by Mr. Moss, appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Joyce, instructed by Mr. Wel-
borne, for the defendant.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that this was
a claim for lodging, &c., at plaintiffs ready-furnished house,
in Peckham-rye, at 50s. per week. Mrs. Fiebig is an
" unprotected" female, who furnishes her house and lets
out apartments, and defendant is a draper in the borough.
In August last, according to his instructions, plaintiff
agreed to let, and defendant to take nearly the whole of the
house at ss. per week, plaintiff undertaking to provide coals
and attendance. Defendant's mother was included in the
agreement for 15s. per week extra. This last sum had been
regularly paid, and the plaintiff now went for the larger
amount. Now, just before defendant entered he advanced
a sum of £2O, and by way of securing himself had a portion
of plaintiff's goods valued by a broker. When defendant
left, although he had not paid the 50s per week, Mrs. Fiebig
allowing that sum to run off in liquidation of the borrowed
£2O, ho took away some of her furniture ; hence the present
action. On the last occasion the jury found for plaintiff.
Mr. Joyce—Well, in all the course of my experience I
never heard such a remark.

Mr. Atkinson—Well, you will be rev*ged I am sure.
(Laughter.)
Mr. Joyce—l shall say to you what they say in the
Court of Queen's Bench.
Mr. Atkinson—Don't. (Laughter.) Spare me, gentle-
men of the jury, you see I am under the threatened ven-
geance of my learned friend. I hope it will not prevent me
conducting Mrs. Fiebig's case. (Laughter.)

Mrs. Fiebig and her witnesses were then called, and de-
posed that 50s. per week was the sum agreed. In plain-
tiff's cross-examination, she denied most positively that she
agreed to take defendant, his wife, five children, and a ser-
vant for 15s. per week. Some receipts were handed to de-
fendant about which she expressed grave doubts. They
might have been signed by her, but in reference to one or
two she believed they were not.
Mr. Joyce, on the part of defendant, said that a great deal
of extraneous matter had been imported into this case, and
the learned counsel had remarked upon the absurdity of
letting a furnished house in Peckham-rye during the sum-
mer months for 15s. per week. But the jury must recollect
that the plaintiff, as he could prove, bargained for this sum,
and must stand by her bargain. The jury would see by the
documentary evidence conclusive testimony of 15s. per week
being agreed upon. This was a new trial, and the case had
been sent down for re-hearing because the coui t above hold
the first jury to have been wrong in their verdict.
Mr. Atkinson—Well, in all the course of my experience
—You have had your revenge, and now I hope you are
in a better temper. (Roars of laughter.)
Mr. Joyce—My learned friend endeavoured to prejudice
my client's cause by his statement, and mine is only a little
retaliation. He gave you the poison—l apply the antidote.
As jurymen, he knew that twelve respectable men would
give the documentary evidence every consideration.
A Juryman—lt is absurd to suppose the house could have
been let for 15s. per week.

Mr. Joyce—But the receipts have been produced, proving
that it was.
A Juryman—That was for the mother.
The learned Secondary—You had better not argue with
the learned counsel ; and I may as well say that it is always
more satisfactory to hear both sides.

Mr. Joyce—l know sympathy may be excited for the
plaintiff as a female, and the feeling is a very proper and
honourable one ; but the jury have to do justice between
the parties or this case will never be terminated.

Defendant and his witnesses were then called, and most
positively swore that 15s. per week was the amount agreed
upon and paid.

After an address from the learned counsel respectively",
and the summing up of the learned Secondary, the jui
again found for plaintiff for the full amount.
Mr. Joyce—l have again to apply, on behalf of defen-
dant, for permission to move for a new trial.
The learned Secondary—Of course the permission is
granted.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH-YESTERDAY.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special

Jury.)
FLETCHER V. FLETCHER.

Counsel for the parties in this case arranged a compro-
mise, giving the plaintiff an annuity of £lOO, and with-
drawing all imputations against him, and paying all e%-
penses.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(IRIS DAY.

MARLBOROUGH STREEET.

THE ARTIST AND THE ORGAN GRINDERS.—Mr. Sheed,
of 9, Blenheim-street, Bond-street, was summoned for
using abusive language, and threatening Mr. Charles Win.
Day, miniature painter, of 82, New Bond-street, whereby a
breach of the peace might have been occasioned.
It appears for some considerable time past the com-
plainant, an elderly gentleman, has been greatly tormented
by organ grinders playing in front of his house, and within
hearing, notwithstanding he has requested them in Italian,
so that they should understand him, to go away,
their practice being to continue playing till he had
been at the trouble of fetching a constable, when they
immediately walked off. He has charged several of thou
at the court, and they have been fined, but all to no pur-
pose; and it would appear that on Friday last, while
driving one away, the defendant, not knowing him, abused
him by calling him a " old brute," and used other in-
sulting language. The complainant further stated that lie
now began to despair of ever putting a stop to it, and that
he should ultimately be compelled to leave his house.
The defendant, having stated that he was not aware
who the complainant was, and that he did not even know
where he resided, was ordered by Mr. Beadon to pay 51.
and costs.