The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-24 00:00:00

THE ALLIED ADMIRALS AT VARIANCE.

" Great blame is imputed to the French for the
failure of the first
bbe°twrnebeanrdthraeent and something
very like a quarrel
Admiral Dundas
admirals is recorded.Frenchand desiredßr'iltsh
o
anchor within a thousand yards of the forts,—Ad-
ruiral PE amelin desired almost to double the dis-
_
tance. 'At first Admiral Dundas would not hear
of this proposal, but the French
admiral then said
tkat he would not carry out the first plan, and
that, if Admiral Dundas did not agree
to the
one then proposed, he should think it necessary
to send to General Canrobert to inform him
that the allied admirals could not come to
*an understanding on the mode of attack,
andan therefore he could not promise him7the raco-
Edmund Lon of the fleets. It is said that Sir
of Admiral yons was very indignant at the conduct
Hamelin, and did all in his power to
persuade Admiral Dundas not to give , ,
insist on the old propositions being c inarri but to
ed out.
-Admiral Dundas, fearing the responsibility of re-
fusing to agree with Admiral Hamelin, finally
deified fo follow his plans.'"

PUNISHMENT IN SEBASTOPOL.
" About two years ago, a gang being at work
in
the dockyard at Sebastopol, one of them attacked
passer-by without any provocation, knocked hitna
down, smashed in his face with the manacles on his
bands, then jumped upon and trampled him to
death. The act had been so sudden that the
occurrence could not be prevented. It was
thought by the authorities that so brutal a murder
-should be visited with some peculiar punishment,
as an example to the others, for if ti e man was
hung or shot immediately, the circumstance would
soon he forgotten. The case was made known to
the Emperor Nicholas, who, on hearing of it,
ordered an iron wheelbarrow to be made, and chair
from its legs to be attached to those of the man.
This was accordingly done, and, of course, the man
could not move a yard without wheeling it in front
of him. It is said that a week after he had been
thus punished he begged to be put to death, as it
made his life a burden to him. This, of course,
was not listened to, and three months after the
wretched man died, rsving mad !"

AN OPINION IF GENERAL CANRoBERT.
"When in April, 1855,, be assault waspostponed by
the desire of G,ll. Canrubert, the Staff-officer writes:
--` I need hardly tell you how much disgusted we
all are at the vacillating conduct of General Can•

robert, who never seems to know his own mind
two days together. No one knows what trouble
and annoyance these constant changes of opinion
at the French head-quarters give Lord Raglan,
and how very difficult his position is, the more so
as people in England appear generally to attribute
the delays to the fault of the English Commander.
in-Chief. No member of the British Government
who really knows the state of affairs dare say any.
thing in defence of Lord Raglan that would (=-
promise General Canrobert, as they are so fearful
of in any way endangering the alliance between us.
It is said that General Canrobert is getting very
unpopular with the French army here, as it is be-
come pretty generally known that he is the great
obstacle in the way of an assault on the town.' "
It is known that the Emperor napoleon had
proposed the plan of a campaign in the field in
the summer of 1855, and we learn from this
book that the plan was approved by the French
and English Governments, and that orders
were sent out to the allied commanders to
carry it out if practicable. Lord Raglan ad-
hered to his idea of the necessity of continuing
the siege. In spite of the earnest remonstrances
from General Canrobert, and the instructions
from home, he refused to give up the English
trenches to the Turks. Canrobert, unwilling to
incur the responsibility of disobeying the Emperor's
orders, resigned, and was succeeded by Pelissier,
who cordially fell in with Lord Raglan's ideas.
The capture of the Mamelon was decided.

E SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING JANUARY 24, 1857.

ages from the defendant, a publican, the proprietor of ,
the Founders' Arms, in Brick-lane, Spitalfields, for a
breach of promise of marriage. The defendant pleaded
not guilty. It appeared that some three years ago the
plaintiff entered the service of a Mr. Holmes, a publican
at the Eastend of the town, where also the defendant
was employed in the capacity of barman. She remained
there some 15 months, during which time an intimacy
sprung up between them, which resulted in the defend-
ant proposing to marry the plaintiff. Matters went on I
till ultimately the plaintiff left Mr. Holmes's service in,
Nov. 1855 in the familyway, alleging that her master
was the father of the child. The defendant also left,
his employer having set him up in business in
the house which he now occupied ; but notwith-
standing the condition of the plaintiff he continued to
visit her, displaying great solicitude about her unhappy
situation. The child was born ; and the plaintiff, not-
withstanding the expressed wish of the defendant, at-
tempted to affliate it o❑ Mr. Holmes, from which time
"a change came o'er the spirit of his dream," and he
wrote to her saying she had " brought the misfortune
on herself, and she must put up with the consequences."
Subsequently, not being successful in affiliating the
child, she brought in this court an action against Mr.
Holmes nominally for an assault, but which amounted
to an action for seduction, when the jury awarded her
201. damages. Several letters written by the defendant
to the plaintiff were put in evidence, in one of which he
said, "I trust to your future good morals, and we shall
in the course of time be happy and comfortable toge-
ther."
The case on the part of the plaintiff having termi-
nated,
Mr. Edwin James addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages. He said there was no denying that the de-
fendant had promised to marry the plaintiff, but his
breach of that promise was solely and entirely attribut-
able to the misconduct of the girl herself, who was made
the tool of her attorney in bringing this action, which
should never have come into a court of law. Emboldened
by the success of the former action, those behind this
unfortunate girl had prompted her to again come into
court. They all knew that love was ardent, and as
Hudibras said—
" Love is a thing that burns and sparkles
In men as natural as in charcoals."
However, to return to the case. The letters from the
defendant were couched in affectionate terms to the
plaintiff down to the 16th of February, 1856, when she
attempted to affiliate the child on her former master,
from which time the defendant, although he was willing
to marry her, knowing her disgrace, could not reconcile
to hie mind the ruinous public exposure which had
taken place before the magistrate. He therefore with-
drew from all further intimacy with the plaintiff.
He would ask the jury how could the defendant
marry a girl who had made her disgrace so notorious
What an ornament as a publican's wife I Why, his
neighbours would scoff at him, saying "You have
married a woman who has had a child by Holmes." In
conclusion, the learned counsel expressed a hope that
the jury would only award nominal damages ; such an
amount as would show that actions of this description
ought not to be brought into a oourt ofjustice.
11.-. Sergeant Thomas—As in imputation had been
cast on the attorney in this case, may I observe that
this action was brought by the advice of my learned
friend Mr. Charnock and myself.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—You are not justified in making
any such statement ; it is not, as counsel, your province
t ) do so.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas excused himself by saying that
the attorney for the plaintiff bad been attacked.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—Let the attorney submit to it
then. _ _ _

The learned Judge, in the course of his summing up,
told the jury that they must measure the amount of
damages to which the plaintiff would be entitled by the
injury she had sustained. The damages ought not to be
regarded as referable to the making of the promise, but
with respect to the breaking of it, and the jury were to
say what amount they would award for such breach.
To do that it would be necessary for them to consider
what would have been the condition of the plaintiff if
she had married the defendant. If they considered that
the plaintiff and defendant would, in the married state,
have led a cat and dog life, a very small sum would com-
pensate her for the injury she had sustained ; but if, on
the other hand, they were of opinion that 13he would
have been happy, she would be entitled to recover a
a large amount. The fact of the woman having give❑
birth to the child was no abatement of the injury com•
plained of by her, as the defendant had, after his
knowledge of her disgrace, renewed his promise to
marry her.
The jury retired ; and, after an absence of an hour,
returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 301.

Trelawney's, Mr.

...Tues. Buller's Arms, Dean ll 0
Sat. The Rising 'un Crabtree 10 30
Tyned ale Mon. Short Flat Tower lO 45
Wcd. Great Whittington
Fri. Minsteracres
V. W. H., Lord Gifford's Tu es . Barro w Elm
Thur. Stone Mill
Sat. Preston Toll-bar
Vaughan's, Sir R. W... Mon. Tyffos lO 0

Wed. Rhu,

10 0

11 0
11 0
10 45
10 45
10 45
10 30
11 0
11 0
12 0

11 0
11 0
11 0
11 0
11 0