The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-19 00:00:00

BANKING IX

Proprietors' Capi-
tal • X 14,553,000
Rest
Public Deposits (in-
cluding Exche-
quer, Savings'
Banks, Commis -
missioners of Na-
tional Debt, and
Dividend Ac-

3
Other(°un Dts)
ep osits 14,538,898
Seven Day and
other 131118

799,948

£40,871,422
M. 1

Dated Feb. 17, 1859.

AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR.

The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from Returns made in the week ending the 15th day
of Feb., 1859, exclusive of the duties of Customs paid or
payable thereon, on the importation thereof into Great
Britain :
Per cwt.
From the British possessions in America 29s Od
Muscovado, the produce of the Mauritius 3ls 11fd
Muscovado, the produce of the East Indies 24s 101 d
Average price of the foregoing 3os "fled

_RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

TRAFFIC RETURNS FOR THE WEEK.

Miles Opened. Receipts.
Railways. ,_...._.___,
18.59. 1858. 1859. 1858.
.. . .
X X
Ballymena and Portrush... 3.5 35 - -
Bedale and Leyburn lO 10 109 72
Belfast and Ballymena 65 65 1; 08 1,022
Belfast and County Down 2O 17 _ _
Birkd., Lane., &Ches. June 32 32 2,405 2,043
Blyth and Tyne 2O 13 1,533 1,253
Bristol and Exeter llB 117 5 477 4,972
Caledonian
Ches.&Holyhead(withMold) 9181 94_ - _
Cockermouth & Workington 8 fii - -
Cork and Bandon . ..
Cork, Blackrock, & Passage 6l 61 175 172
Deeside l7 17 231 199
Dublin & Belfast Junction - 56 56 - -
Dublin and Drogheda 63 6.3 1,323 1,400
Dub. & Wicklow (m.Kinget ) 401 401 1,205 1,123
Dundalk and Enniskillen
Dundee and Arbroath l7l 174 594 437
Dundee, Perth, & Aber. Jun 3l 31 973 939
East Anglian . - . . ,
E.Counties,Nrik.,&.E.Union 489 489 22,158 20,312
East Kent l9l - _ -
E.Lancashire(in.Blackburn) 111 105 6,471 5,427
Edinburgh and Glasgow 142 142 5,290 4,787
Edinburgh, Perth,& Dundee 78 78 2,701 2,703
Forth & Clyde Junction •• • 205 295 - -
Furness 22 22 - -
Glasgow & South-Western lB3l 1831 6,035 5,866
Great Northern 283 283 22,717 20,312
Great North of Scotland
Gt.Southn. & Westn.(lrind ) 229 203 5,954 5,829
Great Western 460 486 26,186 23,851
Hull and Holderness - _
Enverness & Aberdeen June 57 15 - -
Irish South-Eastern 5l 251 2 ._-
Killarney Junction 4l 41 - -
Lancaster and Carlisle (in
Kendal and Windermere) 1 1 5,800 5,573
Lane. & Yrks.(in.Blackburn) 289 289 23,629 20,439
Limerick and Foynes 2e 2 - -
Llanelly 4
LondonLondo and North-Westernßiac
London
&
1,217 1,066
London & South-Western . 321' 287 12,704 10,956
kivau . 791 752 61,443643 57,577370
Lond. Brighton, & S. Coast. 242.
18. 10,861 9,873
L'derry and Enniskillen .. 60 00 710 611
Loud., Tilbury, & Southend. 42 40 860 1,231
Man.,Sheffield,& Lincolnsh. 173 1731 9,721 8,687
Manch. S.Jun.& Altrincham 9 91 799 794
Maryport and Carlisle
Midland
Midland Gt.Westn. of Irind. 1774 614 i 32,278 29,988
177 3,819 3,569
Monkland 52 52 - -
Monmouthsh. Rail. & Canal 44 44 - -
Newcastle and Carlisle 7B 78 - -
rg Newport,Abe.,& Hereford 50 43 1,344 1,151
North British (in. Dalkeith) 2,149 149 5,079 4,696
North Devon
North-Eastern 734 720 32,534 31,352
North London 9 9 2,206 2,013
North Staffordshire 233 233 7,051 6,271
North-Western 464 461 - -
N. Yorkshire and Cleveland 104 - - -
Oxford, Wore., & Wolver 94 94 4,093 3,794
Peebles lB 18 - -
St. Helen's Canal & Railway 30 30 -
Scottish Central
Scottish North-Eastern ll5 115 3,425 3,320
Shrewsbury & Birmingham 294 291 1,423 1,386
Shrewsbury and Chester
Shrewsbury & Hereford
Shropshire Union 291 29- 671 94
South Devon
South-Eastern 3Ol 3011 14,988 13,828
South Wales l7l 1711 5,891 6,563
S. Yorkshire and River Dun 108 108 2,999 '2,648
Stockton and Darlington
Taff Vale 54 54 3,860 3,936
Ulster 52 36 1,404 1,292
Ulverstone and Lancaster . 19 19 -_-
Vale of Neath 251 251 1,307 1,630
Warrington and Stockport l2 12 _ -
Waterford and Kilkenny 3l 31 265 252
Waterford and Limerick
West Cornwall 274 274 482 506
W.Hartlepool Harbr.&R ail 39 39 3,090 2,721
Whitehaven Junction l2 12 451 313
Whitehaven & Furness Jun 35 35 492 348
W'haven,CleatorotEgrmnt 7 7 - -
FOREIGN AND COLONIAL
Antwerp and Rotterdam 52 52 738 721
Austrian B2B 673 _ -
Belgian Eastern Junction 264 264 234 231
Buffalo and Lake Huron
Detroit and Milwaukie lB5l 140 _ -
Dutch Rhenish lOBl 1081 _ -
Grand Trunk of Canada 879 849 8,205 8,612
Great Indian Peninsula l3O 88i __ -
Great Luxembourg 122 38 1,708 901
Great Western of Canada . 294 283 5,726 8,012
Limbardo-Venetian 285 285 - -
Lyons and Geneva 142 107 _
-
Madrid, Saragossa &Alicant 284 224
Maria Antonia' 2l 21 ._ -
- -
Northern of France 574 574 40,005 40,842
Norwegian Trunk 44 44 - -
Paris, Lyons, & Mediterrn B4l 781 - -
Paris and Orleans 922 857 _ -
Paris and Strasburg 979 838 _ -
Royal Danish 69 69 337 362
Sambre and Meuse 6B 68 _ -
Southern of France 777 773 _ -
West Flanders - -
W. and N.W. of France 716 598 - -

[ADvEnnsEmtsT.]—Holloway's Ointment and Pills.
—Sudden changes of temperature have frequently a most
injurious effect upon the skin, and also upon the nervous
system. Hence the prevalence of erysipelas, blotches,
boils, rheumatism, and sore throat. Fortunately in
Holloway's Ointment and Pills we have the means of
promptly removingjthis class of diseases. These wonderful
remedies not only suppress the inflammation, but expel the
cause of it by a gentle excretion through the pores, and
thoroughly invigorate the whole system; so that pa-
tients who have given Holloway's Ointment and Pills a
fair trial are often delighted to find that when their disease
is vanquished they are in better health than they ever were
before, Directions are affixed to each box and pot.

reasons the plaintiff had dismissed himself from the
defendant's employment. To that the plaintiff re-
plied that he had remained in Ireland, and had
started on the second expedition, first, because he
was not recalled, and the defendant knew very
well where to write to him ; and, secondly, because
his engagement was "to give an account of the
laying of •the cable," and he therefore pleaded his
contract would not have been completed unless he
had done so. As to his undertaking with the
Ximes, that he was compelled to enter into by an
arrangement with the company; while, lastly, as
to his supplying the defendant with " manifold" re-
ports, he had never agreed to do anything else,
unless time 'allowed of it. But, moreover, the
defendant had accepted the contributions of the
plaintiff on three or four occasions subsequent to
the 17th of July, and had inserted them in his
papers- as from " our own correspondent." How-
ever against that the defendant attempted to show
that all such notices had been copied into the
Herald from the Express newspaper, and argued
furt.her, that the fact of the proprietors of the
Daily News having published the plaintiff's
letters in their evening paper, the Express, showed
plainly that the plaintiff's contract did not pre-
elude publication, in the first instance, in the
evening. papers. That position was met by the
plaintiffs proving that the proprietors of the Daily
News did not publish, in the first instance, a single
report in the Express previous to the publication of
the 17th of Sept.; and that was only done when it
was found that the plaintiff's contract with the
Daily News had been repeatedly broken by the de-
fendant's publishing the reports as they reached
hint in the Eveniny Herald, but supposing the de-
fendant was beholoten for the reports to the Express
why had he inser*d them in the Herald as from
" our own correspondent ?" 'Lastly, the plaintiff
claimed a week's salary for the period intervening
between his wrongful dismissal by the defendant
and his absorption on the staff of the Daily News
at a salary more than dauble what he received from
the defendant. The plaintiff had received a sum of
£l5 10s. from the Times for his report of the suc-
cessful laying of the cable, although it had appeared
in the Evening Herald of the previous evening.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, £244,
which was the full amount claimed, minus tha £l5
10s. received from the Times.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before Mr. Justice Erie and a Common Jury.,
WOODS V. JOIINSTONE.--THE. ATLANTIC CABLE.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Hawkins, Q.C.,
and Mr. J. Gray appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Barnard for the
defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, Mr. John Woods, is
a young gentleman, and a member of a family iat
for 40 years has been intimately connected with
the London daily press. The defendant, Mr. James
Johnstone, is the messenger of the Court of Bank-
ruptcy; and proprietor of the Morning Herald, the
Evening Herald, and Standard newspapers.
As early as at 16 years of age Mr. Woods was
engaged as a reporter upon the Morning Herald,
at first on a sessional engagement, but afterwards
on an annual engagement, and when the paper was
transferred from the hands of the late proprietor,
Mr. Baldwin, to the defendant, Mr. Johnstone, Mr.
Woods retained his position upon the establish-
ment. Thus engaged, in May, 1858, preparations
were made for the laying down of the Atlantic
cable, and it coming to Mr. Woods' ears that the
company had decided upon only allowing two re-
porters to accompany the expedition, that is to say,
one to represent the Times, and the second the
remainder of the London daily prese, he made pro-
posals to the managers of the Morning Post, the
Daily News, the Morning Ackiirtiser, and the
Morning Chronicle, to be allowed to represent those
several establishments on the occasion of the forth-
coming expedition. Mr. Woods' proposal was
accepted,. by, those gentlemen,.upon the terms that,
upon, the termination of his engagement, he was to
be paid a lump sum for his services, each paper
contributing its quota of the total amount. An
arrangement of this kind was necessary, as it
was impossible to say how long the expedition
would be detained at sea. Having thus agreed,
the plaintiff had an interview with the
manager of the _Horning Herald, acquainted
him with the determination of the direc-
tors of the company not to allow more than two re-
porters on board the Agamemnon, and at the same
time with the agreement which the other papers
were willing to come to with _him. He further
stated his brother would represent the Times, and
that he (plaintiff) would have a cabin to himself as
one of Sir C. Bright's staff. In answer to the ap-
plication the manager, Mr. Evans, said that before
coming to any determination upon the subject he
must consult with the proprietor of the Herald.
Subsequently Mr. Woods had an interview with
Mr. Evans and Mr. Fowler, the commercial mana-
ger of the paper, and it was then agreed that Mr.
Woods should go in the Agamemnon as the special
correspondent of the Morning Herald, receiving
nothing beyond his usual salary of two guineas a
week, but with permission to communicate at more
or less length to other newspapers. Accordingly
the following letter was received by the plaintiff,
dated the 12th of May, 1858 :
"My dear Sir,—l have much pleasure in stating
that it has been agreed by the proprietor of the
Morning Herald and Standard newspapers that
you should be authorised to furnish the account of
the laying of the Atlantic cable. Wishing you may
have a pleasant trip, I remain, my dear sir, sincerely
yours, " D. M. EVANS."
Armed, therefore, with this authority, Mr. Woods
proceeded in the first instance on the trial trip to
the Bay of Biscay, and on his return thence sup-
plied to all the papers above specified a narrative of
the proceedings. This was on the 10th of June.
Mr. Woods went out in the Agamemnon on what
is known as the unsuccessful attempt to lay the
cable. The Agamemnon remained at sea more
than a month. Immediately on landing Mr. Woods
forwarded a long account of the attempt to all the
London papers he represented. His report reached
London on the 14th, in time for publication in the
evening papers, and accordingly Mr. Johnstone, the
defendant, did publish it in the Evening .Herald.
The morning papers, therefore, of the 15th, instead
of having recourse to Mr. Woods' copy, as forwarded
to them, extracted the narrative of the unsuccenful
undertaking from the Evening Herald—in
other words, the defendant forestalled the publi-
cation of the report in his evening paper, and it was
therefore useless to the morning journals as origi-
nal matter. Accordingly, on the plaintiff's apply-
ing on his return to London for payment for his
contributions to the Morning Post, the Daily News,
the Morning Advertiser, and the Morning Chronicle,
all that he succeeded in obtaining was £3O from
the Daily News, and £lolox. from the _Advertiser ;
the Morning Post, as well as the Morning Chronicle,
refusing to pay him anything, on the ground that
they were not indebted to Mr. Woods, but to the
Evening Herald, for the report appearing in those
journals. Indeed, the same objection was raised
by the Advertiser, although eventually Mr. Woods'
services were requited by that establishment to
the extent mentioned. It was here that the plain-
tiff's first claim against the defendant arose. The
question was, did the express contract entered into
with the proprietor of the Morning Herald allow
of the defendant publishing the plaintiff's reports
in the first instance in the evening paper. On the
one hand, it was put forward on behalf of the
plaintiff that, considering the small remuneration
which he was to receive from the Herald for the
services to be rendered, it would have been pre-
posterous to expect that he would forego his
chances of gain from the publication of his letters
in the other morning papers, by permitting them
previously to appear in the evening papers. The
undoubted custom, as recognised by the press, was
that when a notice had previously appeared in any
other paper, a subsequent publisher was entitled to
use it without any cost or remuneration to the con.
tributor. Mr. Evans and Mr. Fowler were both,
it was alleged, perfectly cognisant of this practice,
and therefore, when they were made aware that
Mr. Woods went out to contribute to other papers,
independently of the Morning Herald—that esta=
blishment thereby effecting a considerable saving
—they must have felt that to publish the plain-
tiff's reports in the first instance in the Evening
Herald was precluding the plaintiff from all
chances of remuneration from the other establish-
ments contracting with them. On the other hand,
the defendant affirmed that Mr. Woods was en-
gaged as the reporter of the Morning Herald,
the Evening Herald, and the Standard newspapers;
that he was bound to report, consequently, for all
three ; that in the interview between the manager
of the defendant and the plaintiff not one word was
said about excluding the Evening Herald from the
benefit of plaintiff's report ; and that, in fact, the
plaintiff offered to undertake the service as a kind
of vacation trip, and for the benefit of his health,
which had been impaired by a recent illness. The
Agamemnon sailed again on the 16th of July, and
this time the cable was successfully, laid. On that
occasion Mr. Woods' brother,' the correspondent of
the Times, did not accompany the expedition, but
by an arrangement with the company the plaintiff
undertook to supply the Times with a report of
the proceedings. This undertaking, however, was
given without any authority from the proprietor of
the Herald. The expedition returned to Valentia
on the sth of August, and Mr. Woods forwarded in
'manifold' a narrative of the successful laying down
of the cable to all the papers he had contracted
with. But this time again Mr. Woods' arrange-
ments with the other journals, independently of the
Herald, were forestalled by the publication in the
Evening :Herald of the 1 lth of August. Mr. Woods
remained in the west of Ireland for the next two MANSION-HOUSE.—James ToyeZ, William
months watching the progress of matters connected Sodo, Emma Richards, Alfred Newbury, and
1 with the establishment of the telegraph, but finally James Beaumont were charged with having re-
left Valentia on the Ist day of October. Up to the ccived large quantities of silk handkerchiefs which
time of the second starting of the expedition Mr. had been stolen from the premises of Messrs. Va-
Woods' salary had been regularly drawn ; but from vasseur, Taylor, and Co., of Cannon-street West,
that date down to the period of his return to London silk manufacturers, on the night of the 7th, or the
he had been paid nothing by the defendant. At morning of the Bth of January last.
that time, therefore, some £25 was due to him, and Mr. Wontner, for the prosecution, said—lt was
on calling at the office to receive it the cashier in- his duty to enter upon an inquiry which must
formed him he could not pay any money
except by necessarily be one of very considerable length, in-
Mr. Evans' authority. That gentleman's autho- asmuch as the circumstances attending a very large
rity was consequently sought, but at an interview robbery had to be investigated, the premises of the
which took place between the plaintiff, Mr. Evans, prosecutors having been entered and property to
and Mr. Fowler, the plaintiff was informed that the amount of £l,lOO or £1,200 swept away. About
Mr. Johnstone, the defendant, had given orders a week ago it was discovered that a portion of the
to pay no more money to the plaintiff as he property was in the- possession of Foyc and Sodo,
(Johnstone) did not consider Mr. Woods
to the former keeping a linendraper's shop in the
have been on the establishment of the Morning
neighbourhood of Bethnal-green, and the latter
Herald since the 17th of July. The plaintiff's having formerly carried on the business of a weaver.
second demand, therefore, was directed to recover These two prisoners had been apprehended in con-
the sum of £25, alleged to be due to him as his sequence of statements made by a commercial tra-
salary from the 17th of August to the 6th of Oct., yeller named Renvoize to Haydon and Webb, the
the date of his formal dismissal from the defen- detective officers. Shortly after they were re-
dant's employment. With regard to this branch of manded the prisoner Newbury was apprehended by
the inquiry it was alleged, on the part of the de- Knight, the officer, with a quantity of the stolen
fendant, that as the plaintiff had broken his con- property in his possession, and on the preceding
tract with him first, in not returning to London day Emma Richards (the female prisoner) was
after the first expedition and resuming his duties taken into custody at the shop of the prisoner Beau-
there; secondly, in entering into an engagement mont, in Bridport-place, New
North-road, Horton,
to contribute to the columns of the Times, unau- whether she had gone, with a man not in custody,
thorised by the defendant ; thirdly, in sending for the purpose of disposing of a large bundle of
'manifold' copy to the Morning Herald, instead of, silk handkerchiefs which would be proved by the
as per agreement, sending for the exclusive use of prosecutors to be a portion of the property which
the journal a long and special report ; and fourthly, had been stolen from their premises at the time of
in not contenting himself with sending
short the robbery.
(sketches to the other papers ; that for all these Legg (440) said—Yesterday I saw
the prisoner

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

:Before the Judge-Ordinary and Common Juries.)

BRITTAIN T. BRITTAIN AND CAMP.

This was a petition by a husband for a dissolution
of marriage, on the ground of his wife's adultery.
The respondent and the co-respondent pleaded a
denial of the adultery.
Mr. Wordsworth, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Pigott, and
Mr. Turner were counsel for the petitioner • Mr.
Lilley, Mr. Laxton, and Mr. Martin for the re-
spondent. The co-respondent appeared in person.
The petitioner was formerly a cabinet•maker,
but has now retired from business, and resides at
Waltham-cross. He married the respondent in
1840, he being then about 25 and she about 19
years of age. They have one child, who is between
15 and 16. The act of adultery alleged in the pe-
tition was distinctly proved by a servant named
Judd, who stated that she hid witnessed it one
evening in Feb., 1857. She told her master whit
she had seen about three months afterwards, and he
immediately separated from the respondent. The
co-respondent is a journeyman carpenter, a married
man with a family, who lives near the petitioner's
house.

Among the witnesses called by the petitioner was
his son by the respondent.
No evidence was given on behalf of the respon-
dent, but the witness Judd was cross-examined at
considerable length for the purpose of impeaching
her credit, and it was suggested that the jury ought
not to convict the respondents of the serious offence
of adultery upon her unsupported testimony.
The jury found that the respondent and the co-
respondent had committed adultery.
His Lordship, after the verdict was delivered,
recalled the witness Judd, and put some questions
to her with reference to another. person with whom
Mrs. Brittain was alleged in the petition to have
committed adultery.
The case was then adjourned until the sitting of
the full Court.