The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 20, 1859.

" tight little island" he asked again who had a right I
to find fault? (Cheers.) These were reasons enough
for disclaiming anything like offence to France.. He
had a great respect for 14puis Napoleon. It so hap-
pened that he had been fortunate enough in the
course of his life to have the opportunity of render-
ing not unimportant services to different members
of that very distinguished family ; and he was free
to confess—it was in the time of their adversity—
that it was with infinite pleasure, and with very
great zeal and alacrity, that he availed himself of
that opportunity. On their part, too, he met
with not only the greatest courtesy, but the
very greatest kindness ; and, therefore, he should
be the very last man in the world ,to do aught
that might by possibility give umbrage to any one
of them. If he was speaking in this way it was
because he was impressed with the necessity of tak-
ing measures to insure, as far as might be, our own
national safety. He was not an orator; he-was not
accustomed to public speaking, and if he- were to
allow himself to go on he should spin them a much
longer yarn than they might wish to hear. (A
laugh.) Nothing could be better than the spirit
which animated them now; and for that reason let
them identify this movement with the habits, and
if possible with the pleasures of society. (Cheers.)
He could not but think that the precautions we
were now taking' were thosb best adapted to the
situation by our constitutional habits. Those habits
would naturally have prevented us increasing our
army, a course in favour of which also the argu-
mentum ad crunzenam might be used. But besides
that, it appeared to him that this great national
movement had the additional advantage of the esta-
blishment of a sort of club, which would bring to-
gether various classes of society who under no other
circumstances would have ,opportunities afforded
them for friendly intercourse and for co-operation
in a good cause. (Hear.) That was a very impor-
tant feature, and he believed it would tend very
much to increase, the harmony and goodwill in
which all ranks of the community ought. to be
united. (Cheers.)' He felt much obliged to them
for the patience and good humour with which they
had listened to his rigmarole—(a laugh)—and, in
conclusion, he would suggest to them a motto, among
others, which was particularly applicable to this
great movement--" Noll me tazzgere." (Cheers.)
The resolution was put and carried, as was also
another moved by the Rev. F. BROTHERS, autho-
rising a subscription in aid of the funds of the
Queen's Volunteers.

Lord Otho Fitzgerald, Mr. George Russell, Col.
Evelyn, Mr. Sharpus, the Rev. Dr. Wilson, and,
other gentlemen subsequently addressed the meeting
which terminated with three cheers for the Queen.
Last evening about 250 members of the above
corps " assembled at Westminster Hall, for the
purpose of drill. The corps was divided into
five squads, each under the superintendence of
a drill sergeant, three sections being exercised
with rifles and two without. The drilling was con-
tinued, without intermission, for about three, hours,
and the men generally displayed a marked increase
of aptitude and precision in their movements. This
corps now numbers upwards of 300 effective mem-
bers, exclusive of about 200 honorary ones.

THE LONDON RIFLE BRIGADE.

The members of this corps assembled on Satur-
day afternoon last at Guildhall, for the purpose of
taking the oath of allegiance. The ceremony at-
tracted more than ordinary attention, and a large
concourse of spectators were assembled in the body
of the building to witness the marching in of the
brigade and the administering of the oath. At a
little after three o'clock upwards of 600 enrolled
members, partly in uniform and partly in every-day
costume, preceded by an excellent band, marched
into the hall in good order and with a soldierlike
bearing. As soon as the ceremony had .been per-
formed, _ _

The LORD MAYOR, in returning his acknowledg-
ments for the vote of thanks which had been ten-
dered to him for his services as chairman, briefly
expressed his. sense of the honour which had been
done him.

The men then marched out of the hall, the bnd
enlivening them and the public by playing martial
and popular music, and thus the proceedings ter-
minated.

THE MUTINY ON BOARD THE PRIN-
CESS ROYAL.

(From the Hampshire Telegraph.)

Every fact which tends to throw any light upon
the somewhat mysterious cause of the recent out-
break on board the Princess Royal is deserving of
consideration, in order that censure may be pro.
nounced upon whomsoever is deserving of it, and
that erroneous impressions, if any exist, may be re-
moved. That unfortunate manifestation of discon-
tent seems, after all, to have been the result of a
series of misunderstandings, whi-.311 would scarcely
be pardonable were the issue infinitely less serious
in its character. The immediate effect is that the
country has been, for a time, deprived of the ser-
vices of more than a hundred seamen, just such as
are required in the present exigencies of the ser-
vice, and an amount of obloquy has been cast upon
the character of an officer of estimable reputation,
still vigorous in intellect, though an octogenarian,
who has had no public opportunity of defending
himself, and whose testimony on the question upon
which there has been so much doubt would have
been of the most material importance. The
British public is not prone' to judge harshly or
prematurely the conduct of men holding commis-
sions din her Majesty's service, but we aro bound
to confess that upon the evidence elicited by the re-
cent courts-martial, there were prima facie grounds
for attributing the spirit of discontent on board
the Princess Royal to the misjudgment of Admiral
Bowles in cancelling an order for leave which had
been once given. But it must be remembered that
the only evidence, upon this pcint was that given
by Captain Baillie himself, whose impression of what
actually took place was, according to his own
statement, undefined and uncertain. We shoed
be sorry to attribute to Captain Baillie any inten-
tion to mislead either the Commissioners of the
Admiralty or the courts-martial delegated to try,
the rioters of the Princess Royal, but there ap-
pears on record a remarkable discrepancy between
the report of the circumstance furnished by him to
their lordships and the statement be, made on evi-
dence on board the Victory, as to the precise na-
ture of his interview with Admiral Bowles relating
to the question of leave. Owing to that discre-
pancy, mainly, a court of inquiry has been insti-
tuted by order of the Admiralty, with a view to
elicit from Captain Baillie some explanation of the
circumstance. Now it appears to us that the whole
question of responsibility for the outbreak hinges
upon the precise nature of the communication made
to Admiral Bowles by Captain Baillie, and the re-
ply he received ; and we state authoritatively that
the question now assumes a very different aspect,
in so far as it vindicates the commander-in-chief at
this port from the imputation of having, with a
perfect knowledge of the facts, committed an act
derogatory alike to his judgment and the position
which he sustains.

It will be remembered that when Admiral Bowles
requested. the attendance of Capt: Baillie on the
occasion of his second interview, an intimation was
given to the latter by the flag-lieutenant, who con-
veyed the message, to the effect that it related to a
question of leave. The result was that the men be-
longing to the first halves of both watches, to whom
liberty had been already granted, were ordered. o
remain on the jetty until the captain's return. It
appears, however, from the evidence elicited during
the recent inquiry (subsequently to the courts-mar-
tial) that Capt. -Baillie misinterpreted the message
from the commander-in-chief, which had reference
to a totally distinct case of leave. It is easy to under-
stand that a misunderstanding of this kind might
arise, and Capt. Baillie is, therefore, upon this point,
not censurable for detaining the men until he had
ascertained, as he seems to have supposed, the fur-
ther instructions relating thereto from the admiral,
although it is to be regretted that he did so.
But the mutiny, for such we must call it (what-
ever attempts may have been made to change the
character of the offence by giving it another name)
was the consequence of a second misunderstanding,.
which was not explained at the courts-martial. There
was a totally erroneous impression of the state of the
case conveyed to the commander-in-chief, who, ac-
cording to his own testimony, was ignorant of the
fact that the men had been allowed to proceed to the
dockyard gates, and was led to believe, by the state-
ment of Captain Baillie, that the spirit of discontent
was general in the whole of the ship's company.
Therefore, on its being reported to him that the
crew—that portion to whom leave was already
granted as well as those who remained on hoard—)
were not content with an indulgence which has of
late years been seldom granted to ships paying off,
but claimed leave for " all or none," he very natu-
rally replied, "Then, none." He had, indeed, no
alternative (supposing the fact to be properly stated
to him), except to yield to the clainour of the ship's
company, and thus make a precedent which would
inevitably be productive of the most serious conse-
quences to the British Navy. This view of the case
is not formed upon the ex parte testimony of Admi-
ral Bowles, but upon the corroborative evidence of
mmw e
again
oa ft
tot
thee r
, i
s Captain Baillie himself, who explains the discre-
pancy between his letter and his evidence by stat-
ing
einr i
tthnh e
g discontent
thethe
erowr
hinoleimp
ship'sn tinegeminpathe for-
mar in-
stead
menextentto
rer awiiinicehd material
either
ntihmbepro
eaorrrtda.bn"oetehTi hhoifsdtefhtaeecsrte..,
gallant officers are responsible for the late out-
break, and we certainly can arrive at no
other con-
clusion. than that while the character of one is 17111-
'a he
ss was
to on

dicated, that of the other must undergo some change
in the estimation of the public.
Captpin Baillie has applied to be tried by court
martial, but his application has been refused. This,
we think, is to be regretted, not only on Captain
Baillie's account, but because an officer. in the posi-
tion of Admiral Bowles should have the amplest
opportunity afforded of vindicating himself before
that public by whom he has, as it now appears, been
unjustly condemned. Neither of these officers is,
we imagine, supremely indifferent to the opinion
formed of him by the public, but would rather be
ambitious of a reputation which should extend far
beyond the circle and influence of the Board of Ad-
miralty. Moreover, it would be simply an act of
justice to Capt. Baillie who, we have authority for
stating, is now under the censure of their lordships.

SIR J. T. COLERIDGE'S AW ARD IN
THE PONTEFRACT ELECTION.

The following is the award of Sir J. T. Coleridge
in this matter, and the letter to Mr. Overend's
agent
by which it was occompanied :
" Sir, I enclose you my award in the. Pontefract
case ; you will perceive that I have recited in it the
statement made respecting Mr. Overend's conduct,
which seemed to me a material circumstance in re-
gulating the terms of my award. I am glad it
was made, and in justice to that gentleman I
feel it right to say that, having carefully read and
considered all the papers sent to me, my judgment
is this respect upon all the facts there disclosed en-
tirely concurs with that which you and
•Mr. Wilkinson have formed, and I shall
be glad if you will be good enough to communicate
this to him.—Your obedient servant,
" 6, Southwick-crescent, Dec. 8."

" J. T. COLERIDGE.

" To HUGH CULLING EARDLET CIIILDERS, ESQ.
AND WILLIAM OVEREND, ESQ.

"Whereas a petition was presented on the 9th of
June, 1859, to the Hon. House of Commons by
Hugh Culling Eardley Childers, who had been one
of three candidates at the last preceding election
for the borough of Pontefract, against the return of
William Overend, another of the candidates, in
which petition he alleged, among other things, that
for divers reasons therein stated the majority ob-
tained. by the said William Overend was apparent
only, and that in truth and in fact he had had a
majority of good and legal votes and was duly
elected and ought to have been returned, and by
which petition he claimed to have the return
amended by substituting his name therein instead
of that of the said William Overend ; and
whereas before the hearing of the said petition
certain negotiations took place between the duly
constituted agents and representatives of the said
parties respectively, which terminated in a certain
:agreement, and, consequently thereon, in the with-
dl'awal of the said petition ; and whereas the true
intent and effect of the said agreement, and what it
was proper under the circumstances -for the said
William Overend as a man of honour to do in pm.-
-suance thereof, and in consequence of the said with
drawal, became a matter in controversy between
the said parties, and it was agreed by them to refer
the said matter to me, and that they should respec-
tively stand to such award as to the premises as I
might make therein ; and whereas I have accepted
the said reference, and have therefore been duly
authorised to decide the said matters, and what the
said William Overend should, as a man of honour,
do in pursuance and for the due execution on his
part of the agreement, and whereas since the
making of this submission the duly constituted
agents and representatives of the said parties
respectively have on their behalf instituted an
inquiry at Pontefract, and by an instrument in
writing under their hands, dated the 29th of
November, 1859, addressed to me, have informed
me that they have received evidence which
struck off the poll of the said Wm. Overend a suf-
ficient number of bad votes to place the said Hugh
C. Eardley Childers in a majority of good votes;
but that no part of the evidence in any way im-.
peached the personal honour or conduct of the said
William Overend, and they accordingly jointly sub-
mitted to me that I shouldrequire the said William
Overend forthwith to resign his seat, and that he
should not:become or be a candidate at the election
consequent on such resignation, and that the said
Hugh C., Eardley Childers should be placed by my
award as nearly as possible in the same situation
as he would have been in on a scrutiny before a
committee of the House of Commons .—Now know
ye, that in pursuance of the authority so conferred
on me, and in compliance with the request afore 7.
said, I do hereby declare that the said William
Overend as a man of honour ought, and to the
extent of the authority conferred on me I h.reby
direct that -he shall, forthwith take all neces-
sary steps for making vacant the seat he Row
fills for the borough of Pontefract, and that be
do not become or be a candidate at the elec-
tion consequent upon the vacuncy so made; and
further, that in case the said Hugh Culling Eardley
Childers should be a candidate to fill such vacancy
he shall not in any way oppose or attempt to pre-
vent his election. In witness whereof I have to this
my award set my hand in duplicate, the Bth day of
December, in the year of our Lord, 1859.

" JOHN TAYLOR COLERIDGE."

LA TTY INTELLIGENCE—Dec. 19.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at N.isi,Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)

HYMAN V. THE LAW FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
This action, part tried on Friday, and resumed
on Saturday, the whole of which it occupied, was
again resumed to-day, and occupied the Court "up
to nearly six o'clock, when it was brought to an
abrupt termination. The action was ,brought by
Lewis Hyman, alias Hyman Lewis, a Prussian Jew,
who formerly carried on the business of a tailor, out-
fitter, and waterproofer, in the Waterloo-road, to
recover from the defendants the sum of £5OO, for
loss alleged to have been sustained by him, in stock
and otherwise, by a fire which broke out on his pre-
mises, in Eagle-terrace, Barking•road, near _the
Victoria Docks, on the night of Sunda, the 20th
of March last. .

The defendants, in whose office plaintiff's premises
and stock were insured lit the time, resisted the
plaintiff's claim, and pleaded—firstly, that he was
guilty of fraudulent representation as to the, value
of his stock; and secondly, that the procurement of
the fire was caused by the plaintiff.
The case, in its trial, exhibited a great deal of an-
tagonistic swearing, and was of importance not only
to insurance companies, but to the public.
Mr. Joyce and Mr. Gibboni appeared as counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, and Mr. Doyle, con-
ducted the casd for the defence.
In the first days of the trial it was elicited that the
plaintiff had had three fires on his premises in other
quarters of London, the Waterloo-road included,
within two years, and that he got compensation
from the fire-office companies with whom he had
insured for the losses which he alleged he had sus-
tained by the destruction of his stock ; and in the
present case he was insured in the defendants' office
for £l,OOO, and claimed for half that sum, as the
amount necessary to cover his loss by the fire which
destroyed his premises in March last. In two of
'those fires he was insured, it appeared, in the Sun
Fire-office ; and it was elicited from hiin that that
office declined to accept his tender to insure again
with them, on the ground that they considered the
waterproofing part of his stock dangerous.
The progress of the trial on Saturday was brought
down to the close of Mr. Hawkins' address to the
jury for the defence, and the
.proceedings of this
day commenced with the examination of witnesses
in support of it.

t a,
oswtsecoadk6s: iovonac
.111 rs. Eliza Cording deposed—l live at 140, Wa-
terloo-road. The plaintiff, before he removed to
twoo Lfiewreissocaenpdrrsininag
intboenrdes._Htehefirnsatmpuetoufpsthimemnacimndess
Eagle-terrace, lived next door to me. I recollect
s
et: morning
alstatetisnot
borrow
vera
renpaoryoywbo
airs.
t
was painted out after he and his partner had
infe
emrßdle
.eogfhnao
aerrlyddet
lota looft ul:fiannell•dsal r tnehslcfii.o: r smallaahonisnd e Lewis.
sy
m
was mostly " dummies" and brown paper patterns.
The woman he was cohabiting with left a few days
before the fire.—(The learned counsel was about to
examine the witness relative to the quarrel with the
woman, and their conversation' about the fire, but
his lordship overruled. The only thing material to
this case was plaintiff's eircumstances.)—When the
plaintiff removed to Eagle-terrace he hired a van,
but a small cart would have done—he had not then
£l4O worth of goods.
Cross-examined—l have not been on ill terms
with him, but I have paid great attention to his
business from the fright I was in from the fires.
His character is well known in the Waterloo-road.
I should have been sorry to have given £5 for'tho
whole furniture and stock.
Mrs. Turby, of 5, Eagle terrace, Victoria-docks-
road, deposed that she remembered the plaintiff,
Hyman, coming to Eagle-terace, and that his fur-
niture was dirty and old, and that his stock in the
shop just before the fire was very scanty. Slie kept
a greengrocer's shop next door to plaintiff's house,
and he called in on her one day, shortly before the
fire, and asked her if she was insured. She said she
was, and asked him if he was insured. He replied
" No; but I am thinking of insuring." He next
came into her shop on the morning after the fire, in
company with the fireman who was left in posses-
sion. She asked him how the fire broke out, and if
ho could account for it. He said he could not. She
then asked what the raking of the fire in his hoes©

was for, about half an hour before the fire on the
premises was discovered, and he replied he did not
know, and that he could not account for the
cause of the fire unless it had been "the cat." He
further said, in answer to a question by her, that
he left his gas a little turned on when he was going
out. She commented on the danger or his having
done so, and having asked what sort of " cat" his
\\, as, he replied a "tortoiseshell cat." She then said,
" How can that be so, when your cat was in my
house all the night ?" He remarked she, might
have broken a square of glass and got out of
the house. Her husband made a claim for about
£l2 for the injury done to their house by the fire;
and plaintiff on hearing that said they should have
claimed for at least £4O.

James Houghton, fireman to the Thames Iron
Works, at Barking station, examined by Mr.
James, deposed that he remembered the night of
the fire, and that it broke out about eleven o'clock.
He went to the premises, where, in the lower part,
both back and front, the fire appeared to rage. He
did not notice that the partition between the rooms
on the basement was burned. None of the stock
on the premises had been stolen -by the thieves,
owing, perhaps, to the fire raging too, strongly at
the time. The West of England fire-engine was
the first that came up, but betbre it arrived he had
himself succeeded in extinguishing the fire. He
remained there until the fire was entirely out,
which was at half-past eleven o'clock, and he
neither perceived a smell from burnt oilskin coats,
nor did he see in the salvage any remains of pilot
jackets, or indeed of anything except the old piano.
John Holderston,,
.a fireman, examined by Mr.
James, said he was at the Rateliff station on the
night of the fire, and that he was called, and arrived
at the scene of the fire at about 20 minutes past 11
p.m. He entered .the premises, and took the hose
which was being used at the time by the last wit-
ness. He observed a round piece of partly-burnt
flooring, between the parlour and shop, beyond
which, and between it and the kitchen, there was a
brick partition, which seemed uninjured by the ac-
tion of the fire. There was a report that the plain-
tiff was destroyed in the fire, and he ,(witness) went
into the premises, examined, and found the appre-
hension was unfounded. The quantity of talvame
which he saw was very small indeed, and from his
experience of the smell of india-rubber and gutty
percha, he should say that none of those materials
had been consumed by the fire. With respect to
bales of cloth, had there been any touched by the
fire, the ends of them would be merely burnt, while
the interior, or part closely rolled up, from which
the air was shut out, would remain—at least there
must be some remnant of it. There were neither
cellars nor underground kitchens in the house, and
therefore there could be no draught: Had there
been 74 " sou-westers" burnt, there must have been
some remains of them.

In answer to the Chief Justice,
Witness stated that had there been 200 pairs.of
boots and shoes burnt on the premises there must
have been some remains of, them discovered. '
The Chief Justice—l have asked that question
because I have had some experience in that matter
when I was where you, Mr. James, are now ; and I
asked the question the more so as the plaintiff has
claimed for 200 pairs of boots and shoes, and this
witness has deposed that there were no remains of
those articles.

James Farmer, a fireman, from the Jeffrey-square
station, examined by Mr. Hawkins, deposed that
he saw some remnants of pilot coats on the pre-
mises when he examined them after the fire ; but
he did not see any remnants of "piles of coats,"
and taking the whole of the salvage, there was
not, in his opinion, more than a small cartful. He
remembered seeing Hyman the morning after the
fire, and having asked him if he was the master of
the place, he said he was; and he (witness) then
asked him how he came to set his house on fire.
(Laughter.) He said he thought it was caused by the
" cat ;" that he and his housekeeper went to the
.Eagle,in the City-road, that night, and while he was
absent the Are broke out, and he was not aware of
it until his return home, about half-past one
o'clock, a.m..

A Juror here addressed the learned Judge, and
said—l don't know, my lord, that we ought now
to say anything, but we are quite of opinion that
this is a fraudulent claim ; while we, it the same
time, do not think that there is any ground for the
charge of arson.
The Lord. Chief Justice—Perhaps it will be
enough for the defendants to take a verdict for the
alleged fraudulent claim.

Mr. James—The defendants will be suite satis-
fied to take the, verdict in that respect.
Mr. Joyce said he now felt he had to apologise
for having carried the case so far, but he had the
case of a stranger in his hands, and he was now
satisfied that his client had greatly exaggerated
his claim. Upon that ground he was satisfied to
take the verdict of the jury for the plaintiff on the
plea of arson, and for the defendants on the other
plea.
The Lord Chief Justice am quite sure, Mr.
Joyce, you have exorcised a sound discretion in
relation to your client.
Verdict accordingly.
SCULLY V. INGRAM.
The Lord Chief Justice, in reply to a question put
to him by Mr. James as to• when he would fix a
day for the trial of this cause, said, looking at the
state of the list of causes standing for trial, that
he doubted that it could be tried at those sittings.
Mr. James said it was important to know, as
there were at least 40 witnesses from Ireland, now
stopping at great inconvenience in London.
The Lord Chief Justice—Let the case be men-
tioned again to-morrow by counsel in court.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Mr.
Baron Bramwell and Common Juries.)
RUTT V. HODGKINSON-MATRIMONIAL ADVENTURES.
The declaration in this case stated that the de-
fendant, in consideration that the plaintiff would,
at his request, marry the defendant's daughter, pro-
mised within a reasonable time to pay him £5OO,
and that on the faith of such promise the plaintiff
did marry the defendant's daughter, and although
a reasonable time had elapsed the defendant had
not paid the sum as promised, and further, that the
dekndant promised to place the plaintiff in a busi-
ness, but had failed to do so. The second count of
the declaration alleged that the plaintiff had left
his situation as clerk to a timber merchant,
with the view of marrying the defendant's
daughter at his request, and on his promise to
put him in a business, but the defendant had not
put him into the business. The defendant pleaded
that he did not make the Promise as alleged, and
that the plaintiff did not give up his situation.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Jacobs were coun-
sel for the plaintiff; Mr. Layton represented the
defendant.

The pleadings having been opened,
Mr. Tindal Atkinson said that the parties to this
action stood in the relation of son-in-law and father-
in-law, and as there must be many painful family
revelations if the cause were to be tried, he would
suggest that it should be referred to some gentle-
man at the bar.

Mr. Baron Bramwell thought this would be a
very proper course, and . _

A
consultation took place, when Mr. Laxton said
his client objected.
Mr. Atkinson pressed the advisability 44 a refer-
ence, and added, the defendant's attorne7 says it
will cost from £4OO to £5OO.
Mr. Baron 13ramwell said that was all nonsense.
The defendant's counsel, however, would not
agree,• and the case proceeded. 4.
It appeared from the case for the plaintiff, as
stated by his counsel and by himself in evidence,
that he resides at 7, Lennox-place, New-cross,
Surrey, and is the son of a timber merchant. He
first became acquainted with the defendant, having
called upon him as collector of rents for his father,
of whom the defendant rented a house. The de-
fendant had been a labouring man, earning about
3s. a-day, and his daughter contributed to his sup-
port by shirt-making. The defendant, however,
came into some property, and it then appeared
that he was desirous of forming a matrimonial con-
nexion between the plaintiff and his daughter.
How the introduction of the subject took place was
thus described by the plaintiff:—" At last the de-
fendant was kind enough to introduce me to his
daughter. I went down one day, and ho asked me
if I liked his (laughter ? I said Yes. Do you,'
he asked, like her well enough to make her your
wife?'. I replied ' Yes, I like her well enough so
far—(laughter):—if I had means to support her.'
To which he replied Oh, nonsense ; I will pay £5O
into your banker's liqnds, and will make a gentle-
man of you.'" (Laughter.) It appeared that the
.defendant then called his daughter into the room,
and asked her if she liked Mr. Rutt well enough
to marry him P The young lady was
.nothing loth,
and her parent told her totris upstairs and fetch
him down an £BO note to put gou
banns and to
Pay preliminary expenses. 'Plcoe"h.replied the
daughter; "for if I do I shall see' im no more
until it is all spent ;" " and that," said„the plaintiff,
with which
" was the opinion she had of me the
which
the defendant did give the plaintiff £115.,
he paid foi• putting up the banns buying a ring,
and "ribbons, and such like, as ladies are fond of."
Accordingly, on the 18th of October, oh and ctober, 1858, the
plaintiff, who had lost his right through the
bursting of a gun, married the young lady, one of
whose legs was a few inches shorter than the other.
According to the plaintiff's accountl
differ-
ences arose between.him and defendant shortly
after the marriage. The defendante
tfamily
wanted to buy
some houses of the plaintiff's father, and the con-
tracting parties got drunk together. The defendant
in
did not pay th
e 000 to the credit of the plain-