The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-23 00:00:00

CEMETERIES IN ITALY.

A representation having been made to Count
Cavour, by her Majesty's Minister at Turin, on
behalf of the relatives of the three gentlemen who
perished last year on the Col du Geant, complaining
that their bodies had been buried in the portion of
the cemetery at Cormayeur assigned for the inter-
ment of the unbaptised, the following circular has
been addressed by the Minister of the Interior to
the Governors and Intendents-General, with the
view of preventing the recurrence of similar occa-
sions of complaint.

Translation.
(From the Gazetta Ufliciale del Regno d'ltalia
Turin, April 11, 1861.)
" CIRCULAR TO THE GOVERNORS, INTENDENTS•
GENERAL, AND DISTRICT INTENDENTS.

" Department of the Interior.
" The laws and usages regulating the establish-
ment, purpose, and removal of cemeteries, and the
burial of the dead, also out of the locality where
the death has taken place, having been based on the
general principle of abolishing, for the benefit of
the public health, all privileges, with few and well
defined exceptions, they could not consistently ad-
mit, in the differences of the various religious per-
suasions held by the inhabitants of the kingdom,
any sufficient ground or motive for modifying the
general principle sanctioned by these regulations—
that is to say, that all interments without distinc-
tion shall take place in the common cemeteries.
"But considerations of a nature entirely foreign
to the principles of public health, and directly
connected with the rites and religious beliefs pro-
fessed by the populations, suggest the expediency
of admitting within the limits of one and the same
enclosure (where such does not exist already) a
separation of locality for the use of non-Catholics,
with a view to obviating, as far as it is possible, the
opposition and the remonstrances which ptomiscu

ous interments, though in very rare and exceptional
cases, have not failed to give rise to, and which have
their principal origin and most natural explanation
in long-existing usages.
"The undersigned therefore consider it expedient
to call the attention of the Governors, Intendents-
General, and District Intendents to this subject, in
order that they may, in accordance with certain
principles and uniform rules, issue, when the case
occurs, such directions as may be most in harmony
with the principles enunciated.

" In conformity therefore with the general maxim
that all burials shill take place in general ceme-
teries, a portion of each of these, when no distinct
locality for this object exists already, shall be
marked off so as to distinguish one part of the area
from the remainder by a ditch, or wall, or hedge,
according to each case and to the nature of the
buildings of the place, for the burial of non-Catho-
lics, reserving to the ecclesiastical authorities the
previous performance of the rites and forms usually
observed by them in such cases.
" A separate part of the common cemetery shall
a'.so be assigned for the interment of infants born
of Catholic parents and buried before performance
of the baptismal rite.

" But no classification of the dead belonging to
the same religion—such as, for example, suicides,
capital criminals, and the like—can be admitted, as
the separation of burial-places within the general
enclosure is made solely with a view to the differ-
ences of worship professed by the populations.
"And here it is proper to observe that, although
the different principles of worship professed by
various peoples have taught all civilised nations,
ancient and modern, respect and reverence for the

dead, yet cemeteries must not be considered from
the religious point of view solely, but also as insti-

utions eminently civil, and it will therefore always
)e just and expedient that they be properly regu-
lated and governed by the civil authorities.
6,T. MINGHETTI, Minister.
" Tarin, March 31, 1861."

ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL, GRAY'S-INN-ROAD.--
The number of patients relieved at this hospitAl during the
week ending April 20 was 2,804; of which 811 were new
cases.

FATAL CARRIAGE ACCIDENT.—A melancholy
and fatal event occurred at Tadcaster, between York and
Leeds, on Friday last. On that day Mr. and Mrs. John
Wormald were returning in their own carriage, drawn by
a pair of spirited horses, from Skelton Hall, near York,
the residence of Mr. W. W. 'Bettye ; and the coachman
drove on all right for a distance of nine miles, until he got
to the bottom of the hill leading into Tadeaster, where he
overbalanced himself trying to ease the break. He fell off,
and was pitched on to the ground with great violence, and
the horses taking fright gall.,ped madly through the town,
Onward the fusions animals dashed, spreading surprise and
alarm on every side ; but on reaching the first tollgate in
the direction of Leeds, it teems that they bated a little, and
Wormald determined to sic e the opperi Unity of leaping out,
fearing that to remain would be inevitable death. He did
so, and received a few bruises about tho face. Unfortu-
natelyl Mrs. Worreald tried to follow her husband's ex-
ample, but in endeavouring' to do so, she fell heavily upon
the ground, fractured her skull, and expired almost imme-
diately. The coachman was a good deal injured by his
fall, but not seriously. The death of Mrs. Wormald,
under the painful circumstances just narrated, has excited
great sympathy, the snore so as she and her husband were
returning from the celebration of the marriage of her
brother (Mr. Thomas Hague Cook) to Miss Mary Elizabeth
Eattye, which had taken place at Skelton on the previous
day.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(2his Day).

EXCHEQUER COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Channell.)
LAST V. DOWLING.I

Examination continued—l had a debtor named Dethier ;
his name was on the list. I proved my debt through
Messrs. Brandon.
The affidavit was read, which stated that the bankrupt
was indebted to Joseph Last, printer, of Savoy-street, in
the amount of £6l for work done and performed.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins—l opposed the seizing
of the whole of the property, which is worth about £1,600.
I have also a debt against Smith for £6OO. Smith is not
liable for my debts for types and presses. Smith never told
me so. I have paid nothing out of the money I took into
the business. I was in Francis's employ about three years.
He died some time ago. I then received £3 a week as
manager. I had been in business for myself previous
to that. I have been once bankrupt and twice insolvent.
I have printed several newspapers. The Town was one of
them. I was not indicted for that publication that I know
oi. My acquaintance with Smith commenced before I went
to Francis's. I had done some printing for him. We were
good friends, but we had not then had any money transac-
tions. I did not suggest to Mr. Smith to have a printing-
office of his own to print the Sunday Times. He suggested
that to me. I did not while I was at Francis's urge
upon Smith to start a printing-office, as a
large profit might be made. I made an estimate
of the cost of the printing of the Sunday Times, in
order to let Mr. Smith know whether he was
paying a proper price for it. I' did not express a wish that
Mr. Smith should employ me instead of Francis, as he was
on the verge of insolvency. I fancied Francis was in
difficulty. I will not swear I did not say so. Francis com-
mitted suicide. I thought he laboured under mania. It is
possible I might have said to Smith that I was very un-
comfortable in Francis's employ. I have no recollection of
mentioning that I was so. I never asked Mr. Smith to
employ me. I think it would be about the early part of
last year that I told Smith I was uncomfortable in Francis's
employ. Smith knew I received £3 a week, and knew
I was dependent on that, but I did not then ask Smith
to get me something to do. After Francis's death, in Sept.,
1860, I carried on the business. Before I took possession
of the premises in the Savoy I did not go to Smith and tell
him that he could get the printing of Her Majesty's
Theatre, Drury-lane, and the Alhambra for nothing.
By the Judge—l mean by that that the cost might be
defrayed out of the profits.
Cross-examined—l never told Smith he could get his
printing done for nothing. I always meant the profit would
always more than cover the expenses. I never told Smith
anything definite about the printing being done much
cheaper. When I had conversations with Smith it was
always about his promise to set me up in business.
He was to get half of the profits when the
thing was paid for. The thing never was paid for.
I claim the property and also a debt of £6OO, as I consider
myself responsible for the debts. I knew the premises in
the Savoy were to let for some time before it was taken for

the company. I saw the party having the right to let

several times. Smith was not with me. I paid £4O
for the fixtures, but I got the money from Smith.
I paid a month's rent in advance. Smith paid

for that and the expenses of drawing up .tho

agreement. He gave me a cheque for the whole
amount upon his private bankers. The cheque did not

cover the three charges, and I paid the difference out of my
pocket. I will positively swear I did not get the £3 Bs. Od.
from Smith. All I got from Smith was the cheque for £5l
13s.

By the Judge—The cheque was for the rent and fixtures.
I did not then know of the charge for the• agreement. I
paid the £3 3s. out of my own pocket. I never got the
amount back. It was put down amongst debts. The sig-
nature put into my hand is in my handwriting ; but the
writing in blue ink was that of Mr. Smith. It was not on

the receipt which I agreed to sign. It was not written on

it either with my knowledge or concurrence.

Baron Channell—lt is no uncommon thing for a trades-
man to make out a receipt for a certain amount (say the

amount of this cheque) to a creditor signed, and then a cer-
tain item baying been thought of, a deduction had to be

made. Can you undertake to say such was not the case

here ?

Witness—l now recollect there was some talk about the
amount of £2, and it might have been written while the con-
versation was going on.
Cross-examination continued—Smith used to pay bills.
I used to send to him for the amount. I put "Last and

Co." to the imprint naturally. _ Smith never told me he

would not allow it. Smith, about six weeks after 17;e-

started, suggested that it should be called the "Savoy
Printing Company," as he thought a good thing might be

made of it.

C wing to the number of witnesses to examine the trial
cannot conclude to-day.

POLICE INTELL IGEN CE.—( This Day.)

MAIILBOROUGH-STREET.

A SON CHARGED WITH ROBBING HIS FATHER.—
STEALING AND RECEIVING.—WiIIiam Jackson, 13, a re-
spectable-looking boy, son of a bootmaker, at d 7, Frith-
street, Soho, was charged with Stealing three pairs of boots
and shoes of the value of £3 Os., the property of his father,
and Michael and Edwin Crawley, father and son, of 44,
Dudley-street, were charged with receiving the same.
Mr. Jackson said that on Sunday he missed the boots
and shoes, and from inquiries found that his son had stolen
them from him and sold them at the shop of the Crawley's.
John Fincher, a boy, said he went with young Jackson
at half-past eleven on the morning of Saturday last to the
Crawley's shop in Duley-street, and Edwin Crawley took
a pair of side spring-boots from young Jackson and looked
at them under the shelf of the window, and told Jackson to
call again at one. He did so, and then Edwin Crawley
called Jackson into the passage and paid him 75., keeping
back one shilling for a pair of boots for him (Fincher). He
did not see Michael Crawley.

In answer to the magistrate (Mr. Tyrwhitt), the witness
said he was not with Jackson when ho stole the boots from
his father.

The magistrate said there seemed t) be no evidence
against the elder Crawley.
Mr. Jackson said his son sold a pair of boots to him. on
Friday last.

The prisoners denied purchasing any boots of the boy.
Edwin Crawley and Jackson were remanded, Michael
Crawley's bail being taken for his reapiiearance. Bail was
refused for Edwin Crawley.

THE SOM EItGETSIIIRE CONSTA CLARY.--Several
murderous assaults having been recently committed on
members of the Somerset County Constabulary, Mr. Valen-
tine Gould, the chief constable, has obtained the sanction
of the magistrates to arming the officers with cutlasses
when on duty by night in the neighbourhood of large towns
or cities. The constables are instructed that these weapons
are only to be used in defence of their lives, and that any
breach of this rule will render them liable to dismissal and
Purdshment,

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant for illegal distraint. The defendant, it appeared,
had a claim of £2,000 against Mr. E. T. Smith, and the
contents of the premises occupied by the Savoy Printing
Company, in Savoy-street, being alleged to be his property,
an execution was levied by the sheriff on them• for the
amount. The plaintiff denied that the property in question
belonged to Mr. Smith, and brought the present action
against. Mr. Dowling to eject the sheriff.
Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Joyce appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. HawkiL 5,
Q.C., and Mr. Salter appeared for the defendant.
Mr. M. Chambers, having opened the case, proceeded to
examine his witnesses.
James Last, examined by Mr. Joyce—l am the plaintiff
in this action. I know Mr. E. T. Smith, and have done
so for the last 20 years. 1 was formerly in the employ of
the late Mr. Francis, printer. Mr. Smith always professed
the greatest friendship for me, and promised to start me in
business. I had some conversation with him about opening
a printing .office in the Savoy. I was to manage the business.
I was to take £3 a week during the time Smith was making
advances until business got on. I made return statements
to Smith in writing. There was nothing mentioned about
my becoming a partner except that after the thing was paid
for Smith was to have half of the business, and I the other.
After the business had gone on some time I asked Smith to
carry out his agreement. He told me he had an agreement
drawn up, but that his solicitors, Messrs. Lewis, would
not allow him to sign it. He gave as a reason that he
should be glad to do it if the thing was paid for. I men-
tioned the agreement to him repeatedly, but he always re-
fused to carry it out. I recollect meeting Mr. Smith with
Mr. Wyld. Mr. Smith commenced talking about the
printing office to Mr. Wyld, and said Mr. Last is a very old
friend of mine, and I believe a sincere one. What
I have done at the printing office I have done
to serve him. In June last I was introduced
to Mr. Phillips about some goods. It was before the goods
were delivered. Smith told him he was desirous of serving
me, and he was to give me as long a time to pay as possible.
The business was carried on under the style of Last and
Co. In about eight weeks after I altered the imprints to
the Royal Printing Company. Smith had work done to
the amount of £1,187 9s. Od. without cre lit. The printing
for Smith was from the commencement, and lasted until
four days before the seizure. I wrote to Mr. Smith about
the amount. I did not keep a copy of it.
Mr. Smith was next called upon to produce the letter,
but he said he had not such a one.
Witness continued—About four days before the seizure
I took him a list of the debts and asked him for some money.
He said he had not got any, but I had better see Mr. Bran-
don, his attorney. I did not get any money. I had never
heard of Mr. Smith being indebted to Mr. Dowling before.
The execution came in on the Wednesday before Good
Friday. At that time the Sheriff had seized the presses.
I had a considerable quantity of work to do. Sloman had
the warrant. I saw him and had a conversation with him.
Mr. Hawkins objected to evidence of that description.
By the Judge—Smith was a guarantee for me. Nothing
was said about interest. In fact he was always largely in
my debt.