The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-12 00:00:00

~u~J ~'

4v / -/

- /
‘.....
- .
.
AV? ,
, . •'. • .ll - JP' -
pit ~,,N-
/r/.
/) I :';'.. '"" k..\\,•,• ,
• l.
,eAlirs
(i ~. ' , ... ' "I.thf (WM. ...ft .um
.3, , -..--0,
A 4-• N . -.....,...."...'V. ••'-`--
- %,‘ '''''' 'p...411011,,„,..,' f• '
\\4;;* 4, .
• %bort -'- .s• itY''''itc,? ;
lir • 4 i/4,
-k. • 4
.
... 4-- -.%...t,-, ' - a . • ,
'-' ' - e i/ ~°.', -, . ~, .0 v- i --,1 4-.' --""'• ''-- - i -, '''
1 , 0 44
„,
t
. • - _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_l/4111111 " • " l'.
1 I I I 111111111111
I.
' ' 6N.
..
. , ,
'.54':..,! -
---, -> .., ~ rt 4.6 9? I , -••• •,. ,
~eld. &a *\. Dili '' ,1r LIZL: 2' , 'PilliiiilNe (74 ' "lr'l:' Atli t% .. ' -:'"?'4s- ,4.'
_
IN Ilimb'W , ‘ 16- ~.....111; .."' ;.ek die, - -.. ''s'-'
.. •.., ~ , 4.0"" - ~. • ',,,, 4. \ .4., I 'ROI -'' ge
11. ,IL , , -Z. Nii,j-,,_ q,
. .... T - ' - ,T, • ...,.....„1.7,...„ • , ~,
,
, .
C.,1

sale house in Wood-street, Gresham-street, or the
surrounding districts, and receive them with the
least possible delay ;. or a person detained in the
City by unforesben business can communicate to his
family not to expect him home at the usual Boor
or, indeed, the cases which may arise are so nuras-
rous that, we need not speculate upon thm. This
company will have its instrumento oxi the second
floor of the building, while the instruments of the
Submarine and the Magnetic Companies will be on
divisions of the third floor—all the rooms above
the, first floor being secured from the intrusion of
strangers, who must confine their business to .0;1*
public 40e on the ground floor, and the we,,,vot,arive
and Plerke offices on the first,
Coupled with the great pnineettuff and
oical advantage '* which the Submariner-
twbo.iothn
boon
tehegrseeaa
were t4P firEitlq
of. tPleffrftphic ooramunioatior undp-under the Continent; it was the
nest to 'educe the pricea of tolographio taw
..s.ages to an extent that would
years since have been deemed as
fabulous 1-
Co- 4aving in connection with the Inland
~..,apany (the British and Irish Magnetic), not-
withstanding. an' 'exclusive concession in France
and other countries, and therefore without the
pressure of competition, reduced the tariff for a
message between London and Paris from 193. to
Bs, 6d., and between Liverpodl and Paris from £1
lls. 6d. to the same sum of Bs. 6d.; and that these
reductions have not been unfavourable to the com-
pany is shown by the fact that the dividend, which
ranged from 7 to 8 per cent. on the original capital
of .£75,000, is still kept up on the increased capital,
the messages having increased in proportion to the
facilities. and accommodation granted to the public.
The number of despatches transmitted is still aug-
menting month •by month. , Neither should it be
forgotten that, irrespective of the reduction of the
Continental rates, the directors and officers of the
Submarine Company were the first, in connection
with the Inland Company, to inaugurate and carry
out those reductions in the tariff for the trans-
mission of messages throughout the United King-
dom from which the public are at this moment so
largely benefiting.
As the weight and dimensions of the various
cables may prove interesting to the public, we sub-
join the following particulars, with which we have
been 'favoured by Messrs. Glass and Co., who have
manufactured the Hanoverian, Danish, and Folke-
stone cables of the Submarine Company :--
The Folkestone and Boulogne cable is the finest
and strongest yet lail. It contains a large hempen
core, round which are wound six gutta percha
wires, No. 1 containing copper conductors. These
only two or tbreQs67ll: to, the
gutta percha wires are again served with a thick
covering of hemp, on wich rests the 12 No. 0
iron wires forming the outside covering. The dia-
meter of the whole is Win., and the weight about
10 tons per mile.- The length is 25 miles, thus
giving .a total weight of 250 tons. The Hanoverian
cable contains two conducting wires, served with a
great quantity of hemp, and with 10 No. 2 iron
wires for shore end, and a somewhat smaller wire
for the deep sea portions. The diameters are 14 in,
and 1 in. respectively. The weight is about 6 tons,
and 31 tons per mile. The total length is 280
miles, and the gross weight about 1,030 tons. The
Danish cable is provided, with a hempen core and
three conducting wires, a thick serving of hemp,
and outside is 10 No. 2 iron wires for those ends,
and smaller wire for the deep sea lengths. The
diameters are an inch and a quarter, and an inch and
a thirty second ; the weight about 61 tons, and 41
tons respectively per mile; the total length is 380
miles, and the gross weight about 1,710 tons. The
Ostend cable, we are informed, contains six conduc-
tors wound outside the gutta percha with hemp,
and covered with 12 iron wires. The diameter is
an inch and three-eighths nearly; the weight about
71 tons per mile ; the length 70 miles ; the total
weight 525 tons. The Calais cable, the last men-
tioned here, but the first cable submerged, and the
model for all submarine cables since suc3essively
worked, cents ins a large hempen core, four con-
ductors in gutta percha, a thick serving of hemp
outside these, and 10 iron wires, No. 1, over all.
The diameter is nearly an inch and three-eighths,
the length about 30 miles, and the weight 225 tons,
or about 74 tons per mile. The two latter cables
were constructed, we believe, by Meisrs. Newall.
It will thus be seen that this company in a day or
two will be working with 21 wires and about 3,770
tons of submarine cable, or a grand total tonnage
which sinks the Atlantic into insignificance ; and
with all these cables there has, up to this moment,
been absolutely no failure in the laying, and there
they lie as an example of what may be effected by
the Joint-stock system of this country, supported by
public enterprise and guided by public wants.

WESTERN RAILWAY.—
NO:iifitSt; .gtA-SIDE and FAMILY TICEETS,
vailatild fbr d Month; or longer by extra payment, are now
isautdAtygiddingtoit
TO WEYMOUTH, Ms: First-Cidss, and 255. Second-class
to parties taking not less than Four First or Six Second-class
tickets.
To DAWLISIT, TM/41101 M TORO-LI-AY, BlDE-
TFhoTrßoeeiDut,:eolkriieStsAißSTAPL (for ILFRACOMBE), 505., First-
class, and 355. Second-class to parties taking not less than
iCheater Kid Liverpool, 70s. First-
class and 50s. ppon -p ass,
To BANGOR, 41.J34-41tig, and LLANDUDNO, 70s.
First-class and 50s. second-class.
To PAPIATIYON, via Llangollen-road, Capel Cori;, gn4
Llanloris —to t4ALA, Lialigillien,roacl Or Corwen-=or
to NEWTOWN, via Uawestry, 70s, nret=olass and 50s,
Second-class.
To li-1,1-PERTII-ROAD and NEYLAND for TENTiT
and MI FOIM IfAYA.T`T, 70s. FIM-9.ltYg amcl SUd, 4M,10-
class.
To KILLAIINtt and SOMA of IttilLAN'D via Milford
Haven and Waterford, £5 ss. First-class and £1 Second-
class.
To'JERSEY and • GUERNSEY, via Weymouth, 'l5O, FiVitT
class and 355. Second-class.
Full particulars may be known on application at the Pad,
dington Station.

, "Phisat
rhee rt there
principle
iepbflereostonm wast eh enormouse length
recommendeddfit i n
ic
eub difficulty
13n
cotaohr:e
mish waya
..s
to of adoptingthis pr
itnhciisple principlebefore at
it thewi t
ho
utAdmiraltya do t
1.
nif g w.
it.e
lion in 1806, but the recornmendati
acted upon to this day. It ma--
it would require fur earryin76.
the existing o.Weial machinery
for, if yeilik Ax 'Ai has not been
.y be admitted that
it out an addition to
of our Dockyards ;
0n you': price beforehand, you must
„Ilitkit
.leery ()I• other responsible for that price
Lts,"rng ex'.,eded. You may say that the Ad-
alk,""'L. '3" 7.-s responsible, but to make a man respon- '
""'.:co himself is not doing much; you must have
some official personage, who binds himself to a ,par-
ticular sum as the cost of labour in building a vessel,
and who, if it exceeds that cost, must take the
excess upon himself. That is the 'sort of persoiage.
you want, as supplementary to the existing'serviee
' of the Admiralty for working this principle, and
applying the merchant sytem to the labour in our
Dockyards. A private shipbuilding firm does not,
of course; want any supplementary personage of
this kind, because it takes the office upon itself.
When the sum is fixed that the ship should cost; the
,firm is its own guarantee that it shall cost no more;
if it does cost more, the 'shipbuilder pays it and
bears the loss. • That is the strongest, security
against careless expenditure which you can have.
But the Admiralty does not stand in this position
towards the vessels it builds ; it may fix before-
hand on the cost, but if the cost is exceeded, the
Admiralty does not loSe, but the publie. What
you want, then, is some personage who shall lose
if the cost of the'labour in building a ship exceeds
the proper estimated one, who binds, himself to a
given sum, and is responsible for the excess .if more
is spent. You want in fact a sort of work con-
tractor—one who does on the single article of la-
bour what your shipbuilder does upon the whole
field of material-and labour together.
This, application ,of the " merchant ' system" is
now being again recommended to the Admiralty,
and the recommendation comes from high quar-
ters. It 'is simply, in essence, that of contract or
purchase: The principle of contract is already par-
tially used •by the Admiralty ; it contracts for its
steam-engines, it contracts for its anchors; nay, it
has. just- contracted for the most extraordinary
piece of work it ever undertook—the new Steam
Ram. The Admiralty does not, and indeed is hardly
expected, to *throw itself wholly upon this prin-
ciple, for the reasons above mentioned. It picks its
firms with which to , deal, and picks them, as Mr.
Lindsay observes, much too timidly and exclu-
sively the consequence of which is that it pays
£6O for an engine which it 'Might get for £4O, and
only the other day paid £3,500 for 17 anchors—
/. e., nearly £2OO a-piece. This is to make the Ad-
miralty contracts a monopoly. Still it is an ac-
knowledgment of the principle of contract, and
there can be no reason why this principle should
not be applied to the subject of labour. If the Ad-
miralty cannot throw itself wholly upon this prin-
ciple, and buy its ships altogether for fear of being
cheated in the material, it may still do so partially
and apply it on the simple article of labour.—
Times.
-----
- . .LAW INTELLIGENCE—JuIy 11.

_
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, before Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. BUSH.
This was an indictment, charging George Bush,
an attorney's clerk, with perjury, alleged to have
been committed on the trial of an action of " Smith
v. Wisby" before Mr. Justice Erle, in January last.
The prosecutor, Smith, is a builder, carrying on
business at Bishop Stortford, and it would seem
that in the month of November, 1856, he was ap-
plied to by a person named Wisby, a resident in
the same neighbourhood, and who was about to
take a small farm from a gentleman named Haw-
kins, to go over the farm and see what repairs
were required in the buildings upon it. Ultimately
Wisby took the farm, Mr. Hawkins agreeing to
allow £5O out of the rent for repairs. Upon that
Wisby gave the order to Smith to execute the
needful repairs, and Smith's bill came to £7O. As
Smith had some difficulty in getting his money, he
employed a Mr. Ley, an attorney at Bishop Stort-
ford, to take proceedings for himin the first place
against Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins, however,
paid the plaintiff the £5O which he undertook to
allow Wisby out of the rent, and denied his further
liability. And now commenced the second action,
that of " Smith v. Wisby," . for the balance of the
account, amounting to some £29 or so. At the trial
the contention on the part of the defendant was
that Smith had undertaken to do the whole of the
repairs for the sum of £5O ; that his contract was
with Mr. Hawkins, and not with Wisby ; that
Hawkins had paid him the £5O due, and that it
was quite an afterthought his attempting to charge
Wisby with the balance said to be due.
In support of Wisby's case, the defendant, Bush,
who had been a clerk of Mr. Ley, the attorney ori-
ginally employed by Smith, was called, and he
swore that in November, 1857, he had seen Smith's
books at Smith's house, and that the entries in the
books having reference to this transaction made no
mention of Wisby's name at all ; but that Haw-
kins's name stood by itself. That showed that this
attempt to make Wisby share in the outlay on the
repairs was quite an afterthought. On the other
hand, the books being 'produced showed Wisby's
name coupled with Hawkins's in every entry bear-
ing upon the transaction. If, therefore, Bush's evi-
dence was true, Smith must have altered the books
subsequently to his determining to sue Wisby. At
the trial, the jury, unable to reconcile the testimony
on both sides, was discharged without coming to a
verdict.
To-day the question which the jury had to deter-
mine was, did Bush knowingly and wittingly swear
to what was untrue, when he declared that at the
time he saw Mr. Smith's books there were no such
entries in them as when produced at the trial ; or,
allowing for the lapse of time which had intervened
between his alleged inspection of the books and the
trial of " Smith v. Wisby," was he simply mistaken
as to what he saw.

The jury, without leaving the box, found the
defendant not guilty.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Sleigh, and Mr. G.
Francis, appeared for the prosecutor ; Mr. Sergeant
Parry, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. J. M. Howard, for
the defendant.

the horse fell, and the wife, who is sixty years of
age, met with an accident to her wrist. On reach-
ing home, the defendant was sent for, and on exami-
ning the arm he said it was broken about three
inches below the elbow, and that something was
also the matter with the wrist. But in point of
fact the conclusion was wrong, for in reality the
wrist bones had been dislocated, and required im-
mediate re-setting. The defendant immediately
put the arm between two splints and bandaged
it tightly, and applied some lotion. He
continued to visit the plaintiff's wife from day
to day, still keeping the arm in bandages, using
bran poultices, fornentations, lotions, &c„ but he did
nothing to the wrist. The plaintiff's wife continu-
ing in great pain and getting worse daily he sug-
gested that further medical advice should be called
in. Dr. Thomas was accordingly sent for, and, ac-
cepting the defendant's account of the nature of the
injuries as the right one, he expressed his opinion
that the plaintiff's wife would soon get better.
Afterwards Dr. Bowring was called in, but did not
examine her arm, as he took the defendant's account
to be correct. He, however, advised the application
of leeches. The plaintiff's wife continued to get
worse up to the 30th. of October, when the plaintiff
told the defendant it would be useless for him to
continue his attendance, and again called in Dr.
Bowring. The case being then under his imme-
diate care, Dr. Bowring examined the arm, and on
removing the splints he discovered that the arm
had never been broken, but that the wrist had been
dislocated, and it was then, from the lapse of time,.
impossible to re-set it. The wrist was cramped with
the tight bandages and the want of setting, the
fingers were so stiff that one of them cracked in the
attempt to straighten it, and the plaintiff's wife
continued to get worse. .In December Mr. Turner
was called in, and he and Dr. Bowring continued
to attended the woman. Her sufferings were so in-
tense that they affected the nervous system, and a
most lamentable result had followed, but whether
from the neglect in the treatment or not it was
impossible to say. She was unable to get any sleep
for 14 days and nights, and when at last sleep came
on her she awoke a maniac, and was now in a
lunatic asylum with no chance of recovery. Under
these circumstances the present action was brought.
Evidence was adduced in support of the above
facts, and from this it also appeared that the de-
fendant had sued the plaintiff in the county court
for the amount of his bill for attendance, but had
not succeeded in recovering it.
Some of the witnesses stated that the arm had
not been broken, or the wrist dislocated.
Mr. T. Atkinson, at the conclusion of the plaintiff's
case, submitted, there was no evidence to go to the
jury; but the objection was overruled, and the learned
counsel then addressed the jury for the defence.
He contended that one of the bones of the arm had
been broken, and had been properly treated, so
much so that the woman could now work at her
needle in the asylum. He commented on the fact
that this action had not been brought until after
the lapse of four years, and after the defendant had
sued the plaintiff in the county court for his bill for
medical attendance. Nothing could be more un-
grateful than the plaintiff's conduct ; but when
"The devil was ill, the devil a monk would. be,
The devil got well, the devil a monk was he."
(Laughter.) The learned counsel said that the real
cause of the lunacy of the poor woman was that she
had caught cold and had taken gastric fever, and
he would call Dr. Campbell, of Brentwood Asylum,
to prove this.

Rvidence was then adduced to prove that the arm
had been broken and had been so treated that it
was as well now as could be expected in a woman
of the age of the patient, and that the lunacy was
in no way attributable to the negligence of the
defendant.

The learned judge summed up, leaving it to the
jury to say whether the defendant had exhibited
proper and reasonable skill and care in his treat-
ment of the plaintiff's wife.
The jury, after a brief consultation, found a ver-
dict for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sittings at Nisi Frills in London.—(Before Lord
Chief Justice Erle and a Special Jury.)
GREEN V. MACNAMARA AND OTHERS.-OMNIRUS

NURSING.
The plaintiff in this case owned two or three
omnibuses running from Brompton to Islington,
and he claimed damages from Messrs. Maenamara,
Wilen, and Price, managing men of the London
General Omnibus Company, on the ground that
they had caused his omnibuses to be " nursed"
by those of the company.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Edwardes appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. E. James, Mr. Sergeant Ballan-
tine, Mr. Gifford, and Mr. Poland for the
defendants.

The case occupied the whole of Saturday and to-
day, and that evidence, as might be imagined, was
most contradictory. The plaintiff's case was that
his omnibuses were constantly nursed by those of
the company, one of their vehicles being behind,
and one before each of his. On the other hand it
was denied that there had been any "nursing" by
the company's omnibuses, and it was positively
stated that the defendants had, so far from encou-
raging any system of annoyance, given distinct
orders against anything of the kind.
Beyond this
it was said that the plaintiff and his men were the
aggressors, and that they had "nursed" the com-
pany's omnibuses, and had annoyed and assaulted
their men.

The court was very much crowded during the
trial, and in the course of Mr. Knowles' reply some
remarks of his elicited loud applause. One of the
persons who had offended in this way was brought
before his lordship. The delinquent stated that he
was not connected with either party, and what he
had done was not from any definite motive, but
merely from the impulse of the moment. Under
theso circumstances he was discharged upon a pro-
mise not to offend again.
Ms Lordship directed the jury that there was no
evidence against Mr. Macnamara, no witness
having said that he had been guilty of any impro-
per act ; and as to Mr. Willen, there was only one
witness who had spoken to anything affecting him.
This was a policeman, who said that he had seen
Mr. Willen making signs to the company's drivers,
instigating them to annoy the plaintiff's servants.
His lordship then went through the evidence on
both sides in reference to the other defendant, Price,
and left the case for the decision of the jury.
The jury, after considering the matter for an
hour and a quarter, found a verdict for the plain-
tiff as against Price only—damages one farthing.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL

CAUSES.
(Before Mr: :rustice Wightman, Mr. Baron Martin,
the Judge-Ordinary, and a Common Jury.)
HOWES V. HOWES AND FRY.

•Mr. Macqueen conducted the petitioner's case.
The petitioner, William Howes, was formerly a
grocer at Norwich, and he married the respondent
there in January, 1850 ; he now prayed for a dis-
solution of the marriage on the ground of her
adultery. In 1852 he became involved in pecuniary
difficulties, and at the end of October he was obliged
to go to London in order to make an arrangement-
with his creditors. He was absent for a few days,
and upon his return he found that his wife had left
his house. She did not return for a fortnight, and
then refused to give any account of what she had
done or where she had been. She asked for an
allowance, and her husband refused to let her have
it without some explanation of her conduct. She
went away, expressing an intention to go to her
mother's house. Howes went to live with his
mother, who was a tallowchandler, and remained
in her employment. About eleven months after-
wards Mrs. Howes applied to the magistrates, and
upon their suggestion her husband made her an
o making
allowance of us. a-week. He afterwards learnt
that she was living at Yarmouth, and that she had
formed an adulterous connexion with the co-respon-
dent, a hairdresser and perfumer, and n
further inquiries he ascertained that she he was ,
lead-
ing a life of prostitution. The responden t by her
answer, recriminated and charge
with desertion, but did not appear charged the
the petitioner
support those
pleas.
avnersduillictinfoerd p,
paentaitioner.
TMhre.
jury
t i creetloVringehdt ma
Their Lordships thought there was not sufficient
evidence with regard to the interval of three or
p tourart
oyr years a
fromrs
her
husbandelapsed
prostitution in Yarmouth.between Mrs. Howes' de-
parture her leading a life of
Previous to the rising f the Court the mother of
fhreomantdhehtiisme
of had
into the box, and stated that
with him aftetrhaehderabaleirveriaed comfortably together
live marriage
insolvent.unt il her refusalshe
a l
st
oo
detailed the circumstances under which they sepa-
rated.
The Court dissolved the marriage. •
RERvEy V. HERVEY AND LORD RIBBLESDALE.
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr. F. F. Brandt ap-
peared for the petitioner. The respondent denied
the adultery of which she was accused by the peti-
tioner.' The co4eSpem-dent did not appear.
111 r. Henry Arthur William Hervey, a son of