The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVEN INa JANUARY 17, 1861,

world of the causes that have induced her to secede. '
The causes for the aet set forth are that the North
have denied the right of property in slaves ; that
they have pronounced the institution sinful; that
they have permitted the organisation of abolition
societies ; that they have aided in the escape of
slaves; that they have excited servile insurrections;
and that they have elected " a man to the high
office of President of the United States whose
opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery," and
that " publie opinion at the North has invested a
great political error with the sanctions of a more
erroneous religious belief."
P.S. JAN. 3.—The messenger charged with the
above letter having missed the Persia, I have an
opportunity to add a word. The Legislatures of New
York and Pennsylvania met yesterday. In the
former, after the reading of the Message the Demo-
cratic leader in the Senate offered a series of reso-
lutions, declaring that treason exists in one of the
States, and directing the Governor to offer to the
President the use of the State militia, and also to
instruct the proper standing committee to report a
bill appropriating 10,000,000 dols. for arming the
State. The Governor of Pennsylvania denounces
secession as treason, but urges compromises. I
learn from Washington that a call will soon be
made public from the members of Congress in the
border slave States to their constituencies, propos-
ing a convention of those States on the 12th Feb.,
to secure united action. I have no idea that they
will go otherwise than with the cotton States.
Large forces are arming in Maryland and Virginia
:o prevent the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln by force.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Jan.I

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,
(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice G )ck-
burn and Justices Wightman, Crompton, and 1-1 ill.)
EMPSON (APPELLANT) V. TEB METROPOLITAN BOARD OF
WORKS (RESPONDENTS).
This was a case stated for the opinion of tl
Court upon appeal from a decision of Mr. Trai 11,
police magistrate at Greenwich.
The appellant, James Empson, was a rateps er
of St. Nicholas, Deptford, and he had been s um-
moned before the magistrate, on the 13th of 3Feb-
ruary, 1860, for the non-payment of a rate assessed
uron him by certain assessors appointed b the
Metropolitan Board of Works, under' the L 61st
section of the Metropolis Local Management Act
(the 18th and 19th of Victoria, chap. 120). The
appellant appeared, in answer to the gammons, on
the 18th of February, and also on the 17th of
March, 1860, when it was proved before the magi-
strate, that on the 3d of March, 1857, the Metro-
politan Board of Works made an assessment rlpon
the Greenwich District Board of Works, amounting
to £10,723 14s. Bd. for defraying the annual ,ex-
expenses of the Metropolitan Board, and also for
the payment of the debts of the defunct Metropoli-
tan Commissions of Sewers up to the 31st of
March, 1856, when that body expired and was suc-
ceeded by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Upon
that assessment a precept was issued, dated the 13th
of March, 1857, requiring the Greenwich District
Board to pay the amount by the 3001 of May.
Certain payments were made in respect o.f the said
precept to the extent of £1,650 13s. 100.,
thus
leaving a balance of £9,073 Os. 10d. unpaid. Upon
the default of the Greenwich District Boa.
rd of
Works to pay that balance the Metropolitan 13,,Ard
of Works, on the 24th of June, 1859, appois ted
certain assessors to assess and levy the said balane.9
of £9,073 Os. 10d. ; and the assessors so appointed
on the 3d of August, 1859, made an assessment of
4d. in the pound upon the rateable property in the
parish of St. Nicholas, which rate was allowed
and published. On the proof of these facts, two
preliminary objections were taken and overruled,
and the appellant then raised the following objec-
tions to the rate :-1. That the Metropolitan Board
of Works had no power to issue the precept of the
3th of March, 1857, and to demand the full sum of

£10,723 14s. Bd., inasmuch as £6,275 18s. 7d. was
for payment of the loans, mortgages, debts, and
liabilities of the late Metropolitan Commissioners
of Sewers, under the 11th and 12th Victoria, cap.
112, of which the district of Greenwich was not
liable to pay any portion. 2. That nothing was
now done under the said precept, the Greenwich
District Board having paid the sum of £1,650 13s.
10d., which was more than the Metropolitan Board
could legally demand of them. 3. That conse-
quently the appointment of the said assessors was
invalid, and the rate made byithem illegal. 4. That
the assessment made by the said assessors was re-
estimated according to the estimate or basis on
which the county trate was assessed in 1857, the
county rate of 10d. having been adopted, instead of
the county rate of 1856. 5. That the defendant
(appellant) was not liable to pay the demand
claimed, which it was contended was due, if at all,
on the issuing of the precept of the 13th of
March, 1857, at which time the defendant (appel-
lant) was not, nor until the: month of March,
1859, did he become, an occupier in rateable pro-
perty, nor liable to pay rates in the said parish of
St. Nicholas, Deptford. The magistrate declined to
entertain these objections, upon the ground that
they were matter for appeal to the Quarter Ses-
sions against the rate ' • and, as the defendant (appel-
lant) had not appealed, the magistrate could not
receive those objections at that stage of the pro-
ceedings. The appellant then objected that the rate
was not duly published, inasmuch as the notices
were affixed only to the churches and chapels of the
Established Church, and not also to Dissenting
chapels, and that evidence only showed that they
were affixed on Saturday, the 6th of August, and
not on the Sunday. The magistrate also overruled
these objections, being of opinion that the statute,
the 7th William IV. and Ist Victoria, cap. 45, Lee.
2, which required such notices to be " affixed on or
near to the doors of all the churches and chapels
within such parish or place," only required that
they should be affixed to or near to the churches
and chapels of the Established Church, and that, in
the absence of proof to the contrary, the reasonable
presumption was, that the notices so affixed on the
Saturday were there on the Sunday. The magis-
tiate also found that the notices were affixed "on
or near to the church doors," and ultimately, on the
17th of May, 1860, he ordered the appellant to pay
the rate, or that a warrant to levy the same should
issue. The appellant then required the present
case to be stated.
Mr. Woolrych. in support of the order of the
magistrate, contended that his decision was right.
The rate in question had been made by lessors ap-
pointed by the Metropolitan Board of Wo"ks, in
default of payment by the Greenwich District
Board of Works ; and, by the 168th section of the
Act, the rate so made by assessors was to be en-
forced in the same way as a rate made by overseers
under the 161st section. The objections taken to
the rate, if valid at all, were ground of appeal;
and, as the rate was good upon its face, and had
been duly allowed and published, the only duty of
the magistrate was to enforce payment.
Mr. Justice Crompton—The magistrate stated
that the objections were matter for appeal, and that
it was sufficient to show that the rate had been
duly made, allowed, and published.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn intimated that
he thought the magistrate was right, and called on
Mr. Lush to support his appeal.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., for the appellant, said the Me-
tropolitan Board of Works had charged the parish
with the debts of the old Commissioners of Sewers,
which they had no right to do, and the statute gave
no appeal against such an assessment. The learned
counsel referred to the 168th section of the Act,
which enacted that, in default of payment by a
vestry or district board, the Metropolitan Board of
Works might appoint assessors to levy the money
required, and such persons should "proceed in the
same manner, and have the same powers, remedies,
and privileges, and be subject to the same regula-
tions and penalties, with reference to the levying
of such money as any overseers would have had or
been subject to with reference to levying any such
money in pursuance of an order of the vestry or
district board," Jec.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said, surely that
section, when read with the 161st section, involved
the right of appeal. The two sections must be
taken together, and his Lordship intimated that
the 168th section put the assessors in the same
position as the overseers were in under the 161st
section, which enacted that all rates made by
the overseers, in obedience to the order of a vestry
or district board, " shall be allowed in the same
manner, and be subject to all the same provisions
in relation to appeal, and to excusing persons from
payment on account of poverty or otherwise, as the
rate for the relief of the poor in the same parish."
Mr. Lush contended that the 168th section gave
no appeal, and that its terms were different from
those of the 161st section.
The Court, however, expressed a strong opinion
that the magistrate was right.
Mr. Lush said the assessors had assessed a person
who was not liable to be assessed at all, and the
rate was void on that ground, It was like the case
where a person was assessed who had no land in
the parish.
Lord Chief-Justice Cockburn referred to the case
of the Luton Board of Health (29 L. J. M. C.) as
conclusive.
Mr. Justice Hill said it was sufficient if the rate
was good upon its face.
Mr. Justice Crompton said, if the -appellant could
go back to the precept, he might go back to the
original order.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said, the appellant
might have appealed. It was a sound principle
that when an objection was taken which was good
ground of appeal, the magistrate could not go into
that, but he was bound to act ministerially.
Mr. Lush then contended that there was no
sufficient publication, but
The Court overruled these objections likewise,
' and confirmed the decision of the magistrate.
Mr. Woolrych applied for costs.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—No, no, no.
' Judgment affirmed without costs.
• Another similar case in the Crown Paper—
' namely, that of Peckham, followed the same course.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
LEATIIAM V. LEATHAM AND GETHEIR.
In this case the husband, a civil engineer, em-
ployed on an Indian railway, had obtained a disso-
lution of his marriage on the ground of his wife's
adultery with the co-respondent, an Irish baronet,
and the facts of the case have been fully reported.
Dr. Swabey now applied for permanent alimony
for the wife, alleging that there were some extenuat-
ing circumstances in her conduct.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., for the petitioner, opposed
the motion.
Sir C. Cresswell considered that it would not be
conducive to the interests of public morality if he
granted the application, but directed that the
damages £l5O recovered against the eo-respondent
should be laid out in a Government annuity for the
wife.

The rule nisi for the dissolution of the marriage,
which had been suspended until the question of
alimony was determined, was then made, and the
co-respondent was condemned in the costs.
GURNEY Y. GURNEY AND TAYLOR.
The husband had presented a petition for a di-

vorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with the
co-respondent, which is set down for hearing. An
application was subsequently made by the peti-
tioner for the Court to make a settlement out of the
wife's property, which is very considerable, on the
children of the marriage. This question stood over,
and was again brought before the Court to-day in
the form of a motion praying for direction as to
the mode. of hearing a petition on the subject.

Dr. Waddilove appeared for the husband, and in
support of the motion.
Sir C. Cresswell said that, in the jurisdiction
vested in the Court in dealing with the property of
the wife for the benefit of the children, a most
difficult and embarrassing duty had been imposed
on the judge by the Legislature, and a full know-
ledge of the circumstances of the parties was neces.
sary to enable him to deal with the question. It
would be essential to inquire into how the children
were situated, and what the father could give them.
The Legislature had not invested him with authority
in this matter in order to enable him to punish a
delinquent wife, but merely to provide for the
children of the marriage. There would surely be
so me difference in the order made where a wife had
only £lOO a year and her husband had £lO,OOO
a year, and where she had £l,OOO a year and he
had only £lOO a year. He must refuse the present
motion.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.

CAPTAIN ACKERLEY V. MR. BENJAMIN WEBSTER,

THE COMEDIAN.

At the Westminster County Court held yester-
day, Mr. Benjamin Webster, the eminent comedian,
was, in his capacity of Master of the Royal
Dramatic College, summoned by the well-known
Captain Ackerley for refusing to admit the latter
to the recent Dramatic Ball without a voucher.

Mr, H. G. Robinson, solicitor, attended on the
part of Mr. Webster.
When the case was called on for hearing the
plaintiff ascended the witness-box, holding an im-
mense supply of papers and books in both hands.
The folio wing discussion took place :
Mr. Robinson—May I ask your Honour to allow
the summons to be read, as it is a very extraor-
dinary document ?
The summons ran as follows :—" For damages
sustained in loss of time in applying for tickets for
the Dramatic Ball, and for your refusing to admit
plaintiff to said ball without the production of a
voucher ; also for money had and received."

Captain Ackerley (with a grave judicial manner)
—lt is a cause for trespass by Daniel Webster upon
my rights in refusing me admission to a ball given
at St. James's-hall, by the stewards of the Dramatic
College, and for my loss of time in applying for
tickets. In consequence of receiving no answer to
an application which I made for tickets on the
morning of the ball, I attended at half-past eleven
o'clock p.m,, at St. James's Hall, and claimed my
right of entrance. I was refused on the ground of
not having a voucher. They exclude the public
unless they can produce a voucher, which I contend
they have no right by law to insist on.
The Judge—Did you have a ticket ?
Captain Ackerley (gradually warming)—They
would not let me have one unless I wrote to the
stewards.

The Judge—Did you pay any money?
Captain Ackerley—No, sir. I wished to contri-
bute towards their undertaking, and they refused
me admission because I had not applied for a
voucher as the notice states. That is an assumption
not allowed by the law. HI had asked them for a
voucher I should have sacrificed my right of being
a vouchee. I should have surrendered my right by
submitting to the college, and they have no legal
right, as they are not registered before the clerk of
the peace for the county of Middlesex; I therefore
summons Mr. Webster for the purpose of claiming
my right. (The latter part of this speech was deli-
vered with much solemnity of manner.)
Mr. Robinson—l will not trouble this gentleman
to go any further, and I submit to your Honour
that as he has no locus stande there is an end to the
case.
The Judge—lf you will have patience for a
minute we shall be able to determine. (Turning
to plaintiff)—lf Mr. Webster refused you admis-
sion you have no right to summon him for loss of
time. . _

Captain Ackerley—l summon him for my loss of
time in applying for a ticket.
The Judge—You had no right to go to the ball
unless you had been supplied with a ticket. The
stewards must have the right to refuse what per-
sons they please, as improper persons may go to
such pla.c.n.
Captain Ackerley—But they put in the notice
that you must have a voucher, which they have no
right to do.
The Judge—You have not sustained any injury.

Captain -Ackerley—There is my lo3s of time.
The Judge—There is no loss of time, nor any
law by which you can claim any damages against
Mr. Web3ter.

- -
Captain Ackerley—Beg your pardon, sir, there
is. (A laugh.)
The Judge—You show no right of action against
anybody.
Captain Ackerley—Allow me to explain that the
word voucher is illegal. (Great laughter.) It is a
receipt for money, and has nothing to do with
character. I wished to contribute my money to
the affair as other gentlemen did, but could not go
to the ball without first obtaining the stowards'
assent for a voucher, which is nothing else than a
character.

The Judge—Do you mean to say that any
woman who produced 15s. had a right to go to the
ball ?

Captain Ackerley—Yes, any woman or man
either. (Renewed laughter.)
The Judge—You have no claim against Mr.
'Webster.

Captain Ackerley—May I place him in the
witness-box, to ask him if he is registered

The Judge—That has nothing to do with it. A
ball is advertised. You apply for tickets, and you
are refused.

Captain Ackerley—l go there to obtain them,
and they refuse to let me have them.
The Judge—They have a right to do .so. The
case is dismissed.

Mr. Robinson—l apply for costs, and for the
expenses of witnesses brought here.
Captain Ackerley I came here on public
grounds. (Roars of laughter )
Mr. Robinson—lt is to prevent actions of this
frivolous nature being brought against other persons
that I apply for costs.
Captain Ackerky—The law states that they
should be reg'stered with the common. seal. (What
common seal the gallant captain did not explain.)
The Judge—lf Mr. Webster has acted illegally,
this is not the court for such a case.

Captain Ackerley—l lose my time in coming here
upon public grounds.
Mr. Robinson said that several gentlemen had
been put to great inconvenience by coming to the
court. Mr. Webster was in attendance, and so
were Mr. Anson, Mr. Bedford, and Mr. Brown.

Captain Ackerley—l had a dinner party, after
which the gentlemen who dined with me went to
the ball. I wanted to go also, but was refused
admission. (Laughter.)
The Judge—Yes ; because you had no legal right
to be there.

Captain Ackerley—l think, sir, you ought to
consider the wo,-d -voucher as illegal. It is a regular
fleece, that you know. (A laugh.) But as you
have it all your own way, it must be so.
The Judge—lt seems to me that the costs must
be allowed. It is quite a common thing to have
vouchers in cases of this kind.

Captain Ackerley—Then, the word voucher is a
legal term!
The Judge—Certainly; in point of law you have
no claim against Mr. Webster.
Captain Ackerley--I have brought the Act of
Parliament to show you that the word voucher is
not legal, and that character has nothing to do
with admission to a ball.
The Judge—What is the Act of Parliament ?
Captain Ackerley-22d Geo. 111. It is very hard
that you should not allow this case to go on. Why
should I sacrifice my money to the Board of Trade
and Plantations. (A laugh.)
Mr. Robinson—The money allowed for witnesses
will be given to the poor of this parish.
Captain Ackerley here handed his Honour a book
which he called an Act of Parliament, into which
the judge looked, ard having read some mysterious
hieroglyphics evidently without much enlighten
ment, returned it to the owner.
The summons was dismissed with costs, and the
parties then left the court, the captain inveighing
loudly against the absence of all law, justice, and
judgment, in this unfortunate country.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably ag-
gravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, dis-
appointment, and expense may be avoided by persons
in indifferent health sending only their address to E.
S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and they
will receive gratis and free by post the " INVALIDS' OWN
GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex-
pmse, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and
refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the removal
of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaints
nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitatioL,
cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diarrheea,
dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds,
noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions,
hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpi-
tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, spasms,
sinking, tits, bronchitio,—"Unleestlenably the inkiest Vuido
tg