The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-15 00:00:00

.

"S

THE 'SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENITkTG. MAY 15, 1861.

IA TV IN TR IL It; :E'N'eff--4r2fris 'Day -

YORK.-.RACEg—(77ds Day.)

gXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

(Sittings in Error, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn,
and Justices Williams, Crompton, Willes, Hill, Byles,
and Keating.) _

BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH:

THE TYRO STAKES.

SWINFEN V. BACON.

The contention raised was whether the tenant was un-
lawfully and wilfully holding over possession of his tenancy,
after notice given, against his landlady, contrary to the
statute.

Mr. Kennedy resumed his argument for the plaintiff,
Mrs. Swinfen, and maintained that there was, in this in-
stance, a wilful and malicious holding over possession after
due notice given to quit, and of the plaintiff's title to the
lands in question, and read several Acts of Parliament, and
cited several decisions in support of his argument to that
effect.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn observed, that if Mrs.
Swinfen had been a party to the compromise, and if the
compromise had been held good, her notice to the tenant to
quit would not have been held good, because she had
parted with her interest in the lands, but, as it did not take
effect her title reverted to her, and the question raised is
whether the notice to quit is good, and whether there was
a wilful holding over of the property as against her, the de-
fendant believing that under the compromise she had no
title, and that the title to the lands was in another person.
Mr. Kennedy submitted that there was a demise of the
property to her, and by the compromise she had not lost
her right, therefore her notice to the tenant to quit was
good, and that he had incurred the penalties of the statute
by holding over after due notice given to quit.
The arguments are not yet concluded,

RACING FIXTURES FOR 1861.

York
Malton ..16
Salisbury l6
Bath ... 2l

Chelmsford
Beverley .. 5
Hungerford .. 6
Ascot
Hampton l9
Newton 19

COURT OF DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)

THE LATE ARISTOCRATIC SCANDAL.-DRUMMOND (COM-
MONLY CALLED VISCOUNTESS FORTH) V. DRUMMOND

Newmarket
Carlisle
Worcester 4
Liverpool July 9
Abingdon 9
Pontefract ll

(COMMONLY CALLED VISCOUNT FORTII).-JUDGMENT.
In this case, the facts of which have been already fully
reported, the point at issue being whether the petitioner
was entitled to a judicial separation, she having been proved
to have committed adultery with a person named Dering,
with whom she went to America, subsequent to the filing
of the petition. The case, it will probably be remembered,
came on for argument on Wednesday last upon an appli-
cation by the petitioner to bo allowed to give additional
evidence, in order to aisprove sue aliegea antrge or
collusion with the respondent, her husband. The
Queen's Proctor, through the instrumentality of the Attor-
ney-General, intervened, and from the information he had
received was induced to plead, and the application on the
part of the petitioner that additional evidence might be
given was refused. The Attorney-General contended that
according to ecclesiastical law parties in pari delicto could
not be held as entitled to the relief prayed for, and he ap-
plied to have the petition dismissed.

Lewes ' 5
Brighton
Brighton Club 9
Wolverhampton l2
Reading l4

Devon and Exeter
Stockton
Derby
War wick lO
Lichfield
Doncaster 17

Newmarket F 0 1
Newmarket S 0 l4

The case being the first of the kind under the statute, the
Judge Ordinary adjourned his judgment until this morn-
ing, when his lordship decided as follows :
After recapitulating the facts, he said that ho knew of no
case where any party, suing for matrimonial relief, had
been guilty of adultery, in which such relief was to be
given, if that adultery had been clearly proved to have been
committed subsequent to the proceedings, or at all. That
had been decided in the case of Proctor v. Proctor, where
the same circumstances had been proved ; and as the peti-
tioner in the suit now before the Court had herself proved
that she had been guilty of adultery, she was not entitled
to any relief in a matrimonial cause for judicial separation
or divorce. He must therefore dismiss the petition.

Worcester Autumn 5
Liverpool Autumn 13

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

EXTRAORDINARY DISCLOSURES RE-
SPECTING SER.3IONS 4. BISHOPS' CHARGES. •

At the Sheriffs' Court yesterday was tried before Mr.
Kerr, the case of Rogers v. Havergai. The plaintiff is a
retired clergyman, and the defendant is the Vicar of Cople
Vicarage, in Bedford.
Mr. Hudson, of Fenchurch street Buildings, stated for
the plaintiff that the action was brought to recover £2 10s.
for 20 sermons sold and delivered to defendant.

Mr. Marchmont, agent to the plaintiff, ;;ted that de-
fendant ordered upon the 27th April, 1859, a sermon upon
" the Thanksgiving for the Termination of the Indian
War," price 2s 6d. This was sent, and subsequently de-
fendant wrote for copy of sermons, and 20 were sent upon
general subjects. Since then defendant wrote for a special
sermon upon the re-opening of his church, and for this he
paid £l. _ _

A number of letters were read by Mr. Hudson, and in
one defendant was surprised that so many sermons had
been sent, but " he would look them over, and keep what
suited him." (Laughter.) The letters provoked great
laughter and surprise, such phrases as " Stock sermons,"
" What have you in stock," and " Send me so and so,"
occurring so frequently, that his Honour called the business
a " sermon manufactory."

Plaintiff's agent remarked that many clergymen had four
or five sermons a week to preach, besides Bible classes, and
it was impossible to give original sermons. The sermons
were lithographed in sets of 30. (Laughter.)
His Honour—Then, if I went into two or three churches
on one Sunday I might stand the chance of hearing the
same sermon at each I (Laughter.)
Plaintiff's agent—Precisely.

In answer to the claim defendant produced a circular sent
Lo him by plaintiff, and contended that he had returned the

sermons.

A desultory conversation ensued, and plaintiff's agent
observed that sermons fetched all prices, and some as high
as £5 ss.

His Honour—What sermons fetch a 5s ?
Mr. Marchmont—A bishop's charge or an arcHeacon's
address ?

His Honour—Do you manufacture bishops' charges ?
Witness—l can produce a man who has written them.
His Honour—What would a sermon before the Lord
Mayor cost ?

Witness—From £3 3s. to a ss.
His Honour (to Mr. Hudson, who is a Common Council-
man)—T here is no knowing where our sermons come
from. (Much laughter.)
Mr. Hudson—l was not aware of it till to-day.
Defendant then urged that he had returned the sermons,
and complained of the price, but it was shown that he had
paid 108. into court for four, thereby admitting the price;
that he had kept the sermons for a very long time ; and
that plaintiff had not received them back even now. De-
fendant said that even in 'the case of the sermons paid for
he had to rewrite: them before he could preach them.
His Honour—Perhaps you picked out the tit bits.
(Much laughter.) I must hold that you did not return
the goods within a reasonable time, and find for the plain-
tiff for the full amount, with costs of attorney.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STRE ET.

AN OLD TRICK REVIVED.—Joseph Williams was
charged with the following artful fraud :—Ralph Ingram
Newton, a stone mason, living at 25, Lewisham-street,
Westminster (and who formed a striking contrast to the
prisoner, having a fresh and ruddy look, evidently just
from the country, while the prisoner was a dirty dissipated
looking fellow), said that some days ago the prisoner met
him in the neighbourhood of Leicester-square, and asked
him to buy a gold chain, saying he wanted 50s. for it. He
told the prisoner he did not want it, but the prisoner
returned to him and said he would let him
have it for 12s. and his silver chain. He told the
prisoner he did not want it, and prisoner then said he should
have it for 125., and on his representing that it was gold he
bought it. He afterwards found that it was only brass.
Yesterday, seeing the man in a public•house, he spoke to
him, and he ran out, but he pursued and captured him.
Prisoner—Did I not say that it had been stolen?
Prosecutor—No, you did not.

A jeweller said that the chain was not worth more than
as., anal 1 80.1 have been VV V/ 1,14 .00 ~a 4131•
was no gold whatever in the chain.
The prisoner, who said he did not know but that the
chain was gold, was then committed for trial.
ROBBERY AT A JEWELLER'S BY CHILDREN.—Two little
boys, named Knight and M'Grath, were charged before
Mr. Tyrwhitt with stealing a gold chain of the value of 355.
from the shop of Mr. Lansberg, jeweller, 322, Oxford-
street.

William Furneaux, assistant to Mr. Lansberg, said that
on the previous evening he was putting some chains in the
window when he saw the prisoner M'Grath leave the shop,
and directly after missed one of the chains from the counter.
Frederick Sturn, another assistant, said that M'Grath
came to the shop that morning and asked if a piece of brass
chain was gold, and he then recognised him as the boy he
had seen at the shop before.
Charles Harwood, assistant to Mr. Gedding, pawn-
broker, near Lisson•grove, said the chain was brought by
Knight's mother, who said her boy had found it, and as he
believed it had been stolen, he detained it.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said he had done quite right.
A constable said that Knight's mother afterwards went
to the prosecutor and told him all about it. Knight said
he had it from M'Grath.

M'Grath said that Knight told him to take the chain,
and that his (Knight's) mother would sell it, and give him
money to go to the play,

Mr.Tyrwhitt said he would remand the boys—the eldes
of whom is not more than ten—for a week.

THE PRICE OF GOLD.

The quotation of gold at Paris is about 1} per mile prem.,
and the short exchange on London is 25.271 per £1 sterling.
On comparing these rates with the English Mint price of £3
17s. lOid. per ounce for standard gold, it appears that gold is
nearly 3-10ths per cent dearer in London than in Paris.
By advices from Hamburg the price of gold is 425 per mark,
and the short exchange on London is 13.51 per £1 sterling.
Standard gold at the English Mint price is, therefore, about
3-10ths per cent. dearer in London than in Hamburg.
The course of exchange at New York on London for bills at
60 days' sight is 104 i to 105 per cent., which, when compared
with the Mint par between the two countries, shows that the
exchange is against England. But, after making allowance
for loss of interest and charges of transport, the present
rate leayee U 9 profit 911 sending geld t 9 the TJuited Staten.

Miss Coutts
Miss Swift

Six ran.
THE FLYING DUTCHMAN'S HANDICAP.
Wildman
Ten ran.

LATEST BETTING.
THE DERBY.
4to 1 aget Diophantus (offered)
9to 2 agst Dundee (offered)
Bto 1 agst Klarikoff (taken)
12 to 1 agst Dictator (taken)
12 to 1 agst Kildonan (taken)
25 to 1 agst King of Kent (taken)
45 to 1 agst Neighbour (taken)
Offers to bet 1,000 even on Lord Stamford's lot against
Mr. Merry's.

Manche stc, 22
Harpenden 24
Epsom

Odiham 25
Newcastle 25
Bibury Club 26
Stockbridge 27
Winchester 2B

Nottingham 16
Stamford lB
Southampton 23
Hartlepool 29
Goodwood 30

Radcliffe l9
I Egham 20
Oxford 22
York 28
Plymouth 29
,MIS tat.

Richmond 24
Leisest®r 25
Walsall
Monm.outh 26
Manchester Autumn 27

IBER:
1 Newmarket H 2B

[BER.
Shrewsbury Autumn....l9

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(THIS DAY.)

The SPEAKER did not take the chair until some time
after 12 o'clock, in consequence of there not being a suffi-
cient number of members present to constitute " a house."

The following bills were read a third time and passed
The Alton, Alresford, and Winchester Railway Bill, and
Rhyl Bridge Bill.
The following bills were considered, and ordered to be
read a third time :—Cockermouth, Keswick, and Penrith
Railway; Henley in Arden Railway; Southampton and
Netley Railway; and West Cheshire Railways.