The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-05 00:00:00

•
This was an appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor
Kindersley, dismissing the plaintiff's bill, with costs.
This suit was instituted for the purpose of setting aside
an appointment, under an old agreement, that was proved
existed at the date of the execution between the appointer
and the appointeed. The plaintiff's father, T. K.
Pickles, had a power of exclusive appointment
among his children, under the will of his father.
Part of his property was held in lease by one Fox, but
Duckworth, who was trustee for his creditors, granted a
new lease to one Godling. At the time that that lease was
executed, Thomas Kingston Pickles made his will, and
appointed all his realty to his daughter, and his personalty
to his other children. A bond was to be executed, under
a penalty of £5OO, to Godling, to secure him in the event of
Pickles' death. This bill was filed to set aside the appoint-
ment, as it was made in :consideration of the daughter
giving the bond.

A vast amount of evidence was entered into, but the Vice-
Chancellor held the allegations as to the appointment were
not proved, and dismissed tho bill. After hearing the
arguments of counsel on both sides tho Lords Justices
allowed the case to stand over a few days for arrangement
or judgment.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce and Lord Justice Turner
wore decidedly of opinion that there were no grounds what-
ever for suggesting that the deed of appointment in favor
of the daughter was made on account of the bond of indem-
nity for £5OO. It was purely and entirely a voluntary
deed.

Their Lordships affirmed the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor, and dismissed the appeal, with costs.

ROLLS COURT.
(Before the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly.)
JUDGMENT-740SE V. BAGLEY.

The plaintiff filed his bill for a dissolution of partnership,
and the question raised was whether he was a partner or
an agent under salary. _

His Honour the Master of the Roll% in delivering judg-
ment, was of opinion that the agreement proved that the
plaintiff engaged to manage the business at a salary of
£200; and, although he might have a gratuity on the
amount of the profits, it was extraneous of the agreement.
His Honour dismissed the plaintiff's bill with costs.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Jury.)
:3IPORTA.NT CAUTION TO DEBTORS.-B.A.ERSBLMAN V.

BARNES.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and de-
fendant, by a plea which he had put upon the record, caused
plaintiff to come to this court to prove his case.
Mr. Palmer (instructed by Mr. Metcalf) said that although
defendant had stated a defence, yet he had not thought it
wise to attend here to-day. He well knew that he owed the
money, but to gain time, probably, had defended the action.
Witnesses were called, from whose testimony this ap-
peared to be an undefended case.

The jury at once found for plaintiff, and the learned
Secondary granted a certificate for costs, which will be, to
defeadant's surprise, rather heavy.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH. STREET.

ROBBERY IN AN OMNIBUS.—THE WAY THEY ARE
EFFECTED.—EIIen Reed, a smartly-dressed prostitute, and
who, when taken into custody, wore a gold watch and had
£1 7s. 10d. in her possession, was charged before Mr.
Tyrwhitt with stealing a purse containing one sovereign
and ls. 61d., the property of Mrs. Ann Pepper, a widow
lady, residing at 29, Norfolk-street, Strand.
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, appeared
for the prisoner.

Mrs. Pepper said she got into one of the Atlas and
Waterloo Association omnibuses at the end of Devonshire-
street, Portland-place, about half-past ten the previous
night ; and when she got into the middle of Regent-street
she felt the prisoner's hand, the prisoner sitting opposite
her, touch her knee. Upon this she (Mrs. Pepper) moved
further down the omnibus, and the prisoner did the same
thing ; and shortly after she saw the prisoner put her hand
under her dress, and on her putting her hand into her
pocket it went through the bottom. She at once called out
that she had been robbed, and on getting up the purse was
lying between her and the prisoner on the bottom of the
omnibus. She was positive it was the prisoner's hand, as
she had been watching her, having been formerly robbed.
She also observed that the prisoner had some small instru-
ment in her hand at the time.
_ _ _

In answer to the Clerk, Mrs. Pepper said that her pocket
was whole when she got into the omnibus, and that the
60. was loose in her pocket, and was found at the bottom
of the omnibus.

In cross•examination by Mr. Lewis, the prosecutrix said
the prisoner at first said she was going to Brompton, but
on her saying that she had been robbed, she said she wanted
to get out, but she prevented her. There were several others
in the omnibus, but no one near her (prosecutrix).
Mrs. Harriet Blake, of the Colonnade, Old Kent Toad,
said that as soon as the constable came in sight the prisoner
stood up, and she (witness) felt the cushion on which she
was sitting rise up, and saw the prisoner place something
under it.

Inspector Holden here handed the magistrate a sharp-
pointed knife, which Lindsay, A 305, proved finding under
the cushion, after the prosecutrix had told him that she had
had her pocket picked.
Mr. Lewis said the knife was an ordinary fruit knife.
Mr. Holden said it had a remarkably sharp point.
Mr. Lewis having addressed the Magistrate on prisoner's
behalf,
Mr. Tyrwhitt said he had no doubt the prisoner was a
regular omnibus thief, her victims being females, and he
should commit her for three months, with hard labour.

CHARGE OF ATTEMPTING TO POISON
BY STRYCHNINE, NEAR SHEFFIELD.

At the Sheffield Town Hall, yesterday, James
Windle, a labourer living at the village of Darnall,
about three miles from Sheffield, was charged with
attempting to poison Mrs. Sarah Liversidge, a
widow, residing at the same place. The case for the
prosecution was that the prisoner and his wife went
to lodge with the prosecutrix rather more than a
year ago, and that the wife died in the following
August. About a month after that the prisoner
made proposals to pay his addresses to Mrs. Liver-
sidge, but she rejected his advances. He, however,
continued to press his suit, but without any en-
couragement; and on one occasion he said to the
prosecutrix that, if she would not have him, she
should have no one else, for he would be the end of
her. Shortly before Easter, as he persisted in his
attentions, Mrs. Liversidge gave him notice to
leave. He went to live at another house in
the same yard, and occasionally called to
see the prosecutrix. One night he went into her
house and used abusive language, saying that if he
had a gun he would blow her brains out. On another
occasion, when asked what he had called for,
he answered that it was to torment the prosecu-
trix; whereupon Mrs. Liversidge ordered him never
to enter the house again. It was the custom of
the prosecutrix to send every night to a neighbour.
ing public house, kept by her sister-in-law, for a
gill of ale for her supper, and on Monday evening,
the 27th of May, she despatched her son, a boy
about nine years of age, on this errand. He saw
the prisoner as he went, and as he returned the
prisoner met him and asked some trivial question.
Whilst Windle was talking, the boy saw him put
something into the ale, and charged him with it.
The prisoner denied that he had done so, but
the boy saw a substance floating on the sur-
face, and took it off with his pinafore. On
reaching home the boy told his mother what had
occurred, whereupon she poured the liquor down
the sink, and sent for another gill, but not in the
same pot. On examining the first pot, Mrs. Liver-
sidge saw something green on the handle, and she
also noticed a similar substance on her son's hand.
These she wrapped in paper and laid on one side.
Afterwards, noticing that the boy's pinafore was
marked with the same green substance, some of this
was also preserved. Mrs. Liversidge's father on
becoming acquainted with the facts, communicated
with Mr. Jackson, chief constable, who advised that
the substances should be analysed. They were
accordingly handed over to Dr. Bingley, analytical
chemist, for this purpose. Dr. Bingley's evidence
was not taken on this occasion, but it was under-
stood to be his opinion that the substance was
strychnine.—The prisoner was remanded to Friday,
when Dr. Bagley 's and other evidence will be
taken.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. MURE moved an instruction to the committee to
make the rules and regulations contained therein conform-
able with those of the Act 19 and 20 Vic., chap. 58, in so
far as they are applicable to counties.
The SPEAKER said the instruction was informal, but
it was quite competent for the committee to deal with the
subject without the instruction being given to them.
On the SPEAKER putting the question that he do leave
the chair,
Mr. BLACKBURN said he had to move an amendment
to that motion. The bill which the hon. member proposed
to go on with contained no less than sixty faults,
which he himself had amended. He should therefore pro-
pose, as an amendment, that the bill be reprinted with the
amendments proposed, and that the house should on the
present occasion merely go into the committee on the bill
pro forms.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE said he had taken the utmost
trouble in framing the bill, and was therefore very desirous
to proceed with the consideration of it without delay. He
would leave the question as to proceeding with the bill in
the hands of the house, although he thought they would not
have for some time so favourable an opportunity for dis-
cussing the bill as the present.

Mr.—ROEBUCK complained of the manner in which
business was transacted on Wednesdays. He found there
was no less than sixty alterations proposed in this bill, and
he did not think that the hon. member was a fit person to
make such a law as he proposed. The Lord Advocate was
the proper person who ought to have introduced the mea-
sure. There was a system springing up of peddling into
the constitution on the part of private members on Wed-
nesday, and he thought the sooner the system was put an
end to the better.

The LORD ADVOCATE said he could not agree with
the statement of the hon. member who had just resumed
his seat. Ho was of opinion that private members had as
good a right to bring in bills as members of the Govern-
ment. His hon. friend (Sir E. Colebrooke) had paid great
attention to the subject,and he thought he was as competent
to deal with the question as any member in that house.
(Hear, hear.) With respects to the 69 amendments which
it was said had been made to the bill, it was certainly true
there were that number of amendments, but they were much
to the same effect, namely, the altering the month from Sep-
tember to August. The bill would effect a great improve •
went in the registration in Scotland, and he thought the
present was a very favourable opportunity of considering
its provisions.

gir J. FERGUSSON thought the house would be in a
bettor position this day week to discuss this bill. The
changes proposed were very important, but the bill was most
loosely drawn up, and although it proposed only to assimi
late the county to the borough registration it required no
less than sixty alterations. Under such circumstances he
thought the bill ought to be postponed.
Mr. DUNLOP, under certain circumstances, was not
unfavourable to delay. He was, however, quite ready to
go on with the bill.
Mr. LOCKE said he should not have obtruded himself
on the house had it not been for the observations of the hon.
member for Sheffield. He thought the hon. member,
if he recalled his recollection for a moment, must
become aware that many of the most important
alterations of the electoral law had been introduced by
private members. (Hear, hear.) It was to the exertion of
private members that the Jews owed the present position in
that house. (Hear, hear.) Then, again, there was the law
that admitted members to Parliament without the property
qualification ; for that also they had to thank a private
member. (Hear, hear.) There was also another bill on
which the hon. and learned member invariably recorded
his vote; he meant the ballot. (Hear, hear.) He thought
the hon. member for Sheffield would wait for a very long
time before he found that measure brought forward by
members who occupied the Government side, or by those
who graced the Opposition side of the house. (Hear, hear,
and laughter. His (Mr Locke's) opinion was that the most
important changes in the laws affecting the people had
been introduced by independent and private members of
Parliament.

Mr. C. BRUCE thought that on the present Wednes-
day when a very attractive proceeding was to take place (the
opening of the Horticultural Gardens), the hon. member
ought not to persist in his intention.
The amendment was withdrawn, and on a motion made
by the LORD-ADVOCATE for the adjournment of the debate
until Friday next, it was agreed to.
WHITE HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion that the bill be read a second time, _ _ _

Mr. CAIRD said he could not consent to this bill which
contained a very stringent penalty of a former bill. The
penalty to which he alluded was that if a person was found,
not simply dealing, but even having in his possession, such
a fish at a certain season of the year he should be subject to
a penalty of £2O. He thought the bill ought to be referred
to a select committee.

Mr. ELLICE was in favour of referring the bill to a
select committee.

The LORD ADVOCATE said he should not object to
the select committee if any result could be arrived at
during the present year. The inquiry would be so largo
that it would be altogether impossible to arrive at a settled
c•nclusion this year.
The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted this day week.
CORK INFIRMARY BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill—Mr. MAS-
SET in the chair.

The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the bill was
ordered to be reported,
DWELLINGS FOR, THE WORKING CLASSES
BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OATH RELIEF BILL.

Mr. LOCKE moved the second reading of this 1;11.
He said he thought a great deal of misapprehension
existed as to the effect of this bill, as it had been thought
its provisions were more extensive than they really were.
This bill was simply for the purpose of enabling those who
have a conscientious scruple to the taking an oath by leave
of the judge, to make an affirmation. That was the whole
of the bill, and it was confined to criminal cases,
and the reason he so confined its operations was because
the civil court possessed the power of allowing witnesses
to give evidence after having made an affirmation. All ho
proposed to do was to extend the privilege of the civil to
the criminal courts. Notice had been entered on the paper
that it was the intention of an hon. member to move that
the•second reading of the bill be taken:that day six months,
but he was quite at a loss to know on what ground, be-
cause the bill was totally different from that of the hon.
member for Tavistock, as he had attached the same pen-
alty for making a false declaration as that for taking a
false oath, viz., an indictment for perjury. The hon. and
learned member here cited several cases to show the neces-
sity of the bill, and concluded by moving the second
reading.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT moved the adjournment of the
debate.
Mr. LOCKE hoped that the motion for adjournment
would be withdraWn, because he had for the last six weeks
been watching for an opportunity of bringing it forward.
The honourable gentleman, he did not think, had
ever read the bill— [Mr. Estcourt said he had.]
He (Mr. Locke) was delighted at that, because he
did not object to it, and he supposed his reason for moving
the adjournment of the debate was to give an opportunity
far some one to come in who had. (Laughter.) The Attorney-
General had no objection to the bill, and under such cir-
cumstances he hoped it would be read a second time.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he had been informed of the
operations of the bill. He did not think there was any
danger in allowing certain witnesses to make affirmations
in preference to taking an oath. He thought, however, the
second reading of this bill could be taken that day on the
understanding that his hon. and learned friend, the At-
torney- General, should be free to take whatever course he
pleased when the bill was in committee.
Mr. SPOONER supported the motion for the adjourn-
ment of the debate simply because there was so limited an
attendance of members of the legal profession.
Mr. ESTCOURT withdrew his amendment.
Mr. HENNESSEY moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months.
After a few words from Mr. D. GRIFFITHS
Mr. ROEBUCK said it appeared to him that the pre-
sent bill was to extend the privilege given to Moravians,
Quakers, and Separatists to all other classes, and as such
he approved of it. As the law stands, a man in a peculiar
cut coat or shaped hat, when he had the oath tendered to
him in a court of jastiee, would say, "I am a Quaker;"
the judge immediately would reply, " The law relieves you
from that oath," and an affirmation would be received.
Now what would be the case of a man in a similar situa-
tion,e not either Quaker, Moravian, or Separatist y:
.enu
would come into court, and with a sbacereatrer s
he
desire to observe the injunction, " Swear not at ale
would object to the taking of the oath.
ask if he were Quaker, Moravian, or Separatist,
or
reply " I do not know what you mean by Moravian
not avail him,
Sepa-
ratist, but lam a Ckristian." That wouldoath
or bear the
and he would either have to takeTheajud Fna
mightwould
• "leo•es were
con-
sequences of a refusal to do so.
whet religious privileges thee
t allowedh o ut
og 4tuiatkuenrjsulto thatul should
divided, when
ng.
After a short discussion the therefore he should support
there
btheermefoutrodn tfoorCthhreissteicaonnsd ar
enadd i
house

651 appeared—
...... 3
—34
Majority
the read a second time.
TRAMWAYS The bill was t
AND
AF °gra
itoheet
iste.c.o.n. d..r.e
......
(IREL) ACT AMENDMENT
BILL.
The house
went
into committee on oenndtmhiesnbtsilto some of the
clauses
N
Col. DUN moved
lenses of the bill, some of which were agreed to.
Mr. BE AMISH moved the following proviso to one of
E
the clauses of the bill :—" Provided always, that it shall not
be competent to make application for a tramway or tram-
ways, under the provisions of this or the said recited act, to
unite places between which a railway or railways directly
connecting the same, shall have been constructed under the
authority of Parliament, or between which statutory powers
for the same purpose shall have been granted, and be
force."
Du, y, scul He
ax gtrongly ObjeCfaß Iv VL4O proviso.