The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-11 00:00:00

LLOYD'S EHIPPI/19.—(This Day.)

LONDON, Nov. 11.—Wind this day at noon, S.E.
light breeze and fine.
CARDIFF, Nov. 10.—Wind W.—Arrived—blesanje,
from Gibraltar. Sailed—Success, for Buenos lyres; Louis
Napoleon, for St. Thomas.
SWANSEA, Nov. I.o.—Wind—S.E.—Sailed--Nancy, for
Gibraltar.

QUEENSTOWN, Nov. 9.—Wind S.— IrriTed—Thomal-
zine, from Monte Video.
SHIELDS, Nov. 10.—Wind E.S.E.—Sailod—Texas, fur
New York. _ _ _ _

- -
FALMOUTH, Nov. 10.—Wind E.—Arrived—Pcnaia
Mertideoshase, from Ibrail.
PORTSMOUTH, Nov. 10.—Wind E.N.E.—Arrived—
Alexander Back, from Taganrog to Boston. Sailed--The
New Great Britain, for Southampton, for examination.
SOUTHAMPTON, Nov. 10. —Wind S. E.—Sailed—Granad a
(s), for Bombay.
RAMSGATE, Nov. 10.—Wind E.N.E.—Arrived—lda,
from Rio Janeiro ; Honour, from Havannah ; Meldon,
Beyrout.
OFF Doviu, Nov. 10.—Arrived—William Carey, for
Jamaica.

PLYMOUTH, Nov. 10.—Wind E.S.E.—Arrived —Espe-
rauce, from Rio Janeiro for Hamburg.
OFF THE LIZARD, Nov. 9.—Arrived—Fiery Cross, from
Foo-Chow-Foo.

- -
WATERFORD, Nov. 9.—Wind S.—Arrived—Thistle,
from Quebec.
OFF QUEENSTOWN, Nov. 10.—Arrived—Sangaroo (ss),
from New York for Liverpool.
YARMOUTH, Nov. 10.—The Mercury. of and from Sun-
derland for London, is on the Barber Sound, fall of water,
and abandoned.

(PER ILEOTBIO TZLEGE APR.)
SOUTHAMPTON, Viedneeday, 10 a.m.

Wind E., fine.
Arrived—Tenors, from Dublin.
LIVERPOOL, Wednesday Morning,

Wit.d S.E.
Arrived—Rita, screw steamer, from Santander.
QUEENSTOWN, Nov. 9.

Wind S.S.E.
Arrived—Diva, from Odessa.

(BT SUBMARINE AND BRITISH TELEGRAPH.)
GRAVESEND, Wednesday, 9.30 a.m.
Wind easterly ; bigh water.
Arrived—Frederik, from Osten&

An extraordinary affair is related in a Silesian jon-rnal.
Five little children belonging to two tradesmen of 8.,1-
kenhayn, In that country, went ont a few days ago to
play in a garden, and were joined by a boy of eleven,
who has been always noted for the perversity of his dis-
position. After awhile their parents sought for them,
but to their astonishment found that they had disap-
peared. After looking a long while, they found them
lying piled one on another in a large wooden case in a
shed in the garden ; four were dead, and the fifth,
though still breathing, was in so desperate a state that
ho died shortly after. The lad referred to. was then
questioned ;, and ho calmly related the astounding fact
that he bad persuaded the children to enter the case in
play—had then clammed down the lid, and seated him-
selfde andad ,
meansgar: da noa finding
hasp—after
that
wwhei :he
on it—remaining there for three-quarters of an hour
he then raised the
listeningte to
see if hoeyi r
war©cries
lid
This little monster has
tovojthsaod hgaodnieasttounfleyd
bitsb.ykite
Ueeli arrested.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Xov. 10.

EQUITY COURTS.

(Before the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices.)
HENRY V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COM-
PANY.-THE GREAT NORTHERN PREFERENCE
SHAREHOLDERS.
This appeal from the decision of Vice-Chancellor
Wood, by which he held that the preference share-
holders of the Great Northern Railway Company
were entitled to their dividends irrespective of an
act of parliament authorising the payment of the
losses caused by the frauds of Leopold Redpath,
was resumed.
The Attorney-General, for the defendants, urged
whereas the ordinary share capital of the company
was something over 4,000,0001., the preference
share capital was above 3,000,0001. ; and the ques-
tion was whether so large a portion of the share-
holders should not contribute to the reparation of
that which was a misfortune common to the whole
company. The whole difficulty had arisen from a
confusion in the use of the terms "dividend" and
" interest." The construction he put on the Acts
of Parliament by which the company was governed
was, that the guarantee to tee preference share-
holders was limited to a priority of those share-
holders, and to the rate and amount of the divi-
dend; but they left the existence of profits contin-
gent and unsecured. The preference shareh )Iders
were therefore left to the chance of their being any
profits in common with the ordinary shareholders.
The dividend was determinable by the length of
time for which it was declared. It was the aliquot
part of the profits of each half-year, to a share of
which all the shareholders were entitled. It was
a question whether or not the guarantee was satis-
fied by the payment of each half-yearly dividend,
and whether the profits of 1856 were applicable to
the fulfilment of the guarantee of 1857. He would
contend that the guarantee was satisfied by the
payment of each dividend. In none of the Acts of
Parliament was anything more provided than that
there should be a priority of payment to the pre-
ference shareholders out of the profits of the com-
pany, if there were any profits. By the Act of
last session the preference shareholders could not,
under the circumstances, be entitled to receive any-
thing out of the profits from January in this year ;
they could not have received any dividend irrespec-
tive of that act, and its provisions were prospective,
and not retrospective. The 243,9231.5 s Bd., which
were the half-year's profits of the company, were,
in fact, at the time of the passing of that act, no-
body's money ; for, owing to the quantity of forged
stock which had been issued, it was not possible to
say who was entitled to that money. The act was
intended to apply to that sum; it disposed of it
absolutely, and it was the plain meaning of the
act that the common loss which had been sus-
tained by the company in consequence of these
frauds should be borne by all the shareholders in
proportion to their respective interests. The pre-
ference shareholders were not creditors, but part-
ners, of the company, and were, therefore, liable
to bear a due share of its losses and misfortunes.
Without the authority of this act no dividend could
have been declared, arid the act gave the preference
shareholders no rights Previous to the beginning of
the present year. The 3d secti ,n of the act was a
disposition by Parliament of the 243,9231. ss. Bd.
which the company had is hand, and it was bind-
ing on all parties interested in it. The legislature
was aware that that sum was quite sufficient to
meet all the claims of the preference shareholders,
and yet by the act in question they directed it to
be applied to a totally different object. In the face
of that act, how could the preference shareholders
base their rights on this and the former Acts of
Parliament ? Whatever might be the construction
of the act of August last, with reference to the
future, it was certain that with respect to the half-
year's dividend from July to December, 1856, the
claims of the preference shareholders were wholly
taken away by that act.

Lord Justice Knight Bruce—lt seems to me thst
the remedy in this case is worse than the disease.
The Act of Parliament appears to me to be no more
nor less than a dreadful thing, construe it which
way you may, if construed it can be.

' The Attorney-General—The question 'refore the
court was simply whether they could re4rain the
directors of the company from declariog a divi-
dend, unless they were prepared to pay the pre-
ference shareholders the whole twelve months'
dividend divisible from Ist July, 1856. It was im-
possible that they could claim that dividend, and
yet be entitled to the benefits provided by the 3d
section of the act of last session. if the claims of
the preference shareholders were allowed it would
be, in fact, treating them as creditors, and the
whole of the loss arising from the frauds which had
teen committed would have to be borne by the
ordinary shareholders. Ho would howevtr contend
that it was impossible, looking to the whole facts of
the case, that such a decision could be come to, or
that the claims of preference shareholders on the
dividend for the half-year ending Dec. 1, 1856,
could be allowed ; nor could it be held that the loss
which had been incurred was not provided for and
satisfied by the provisions of the act of the present

year.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Danison followed, but the lat-
ter learned gentleman had not conclud:d ►hen the
court rose.

(Before the Master of the Rolls.)
SWINFEN V. SWINFEN.
On the conclusion of the arguments of the Atter-
ney-General, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Hobhouse, who
appeared for the plaintiff, Capt. Swinfen, in support
of the compromise effected on the trial of the issue,
his Honour gene judgment without hearing the
other side. He said that he had come to the con-
clusion that the compromise was not binding on
Mrs. Patience Swinfen, and that there must be a
new trial. The question of principle resolvel it-
self into this, whether an attorney or solicitor is at
liberty to compromise a suit without express au-
thority for the purpose. It had been argued on
two grounds—one on principle, the other founded
on the practice of the court. His Honour said that
as a matter of principle he could not understand
how it could be contended. The principle of the
doctrine of principal and agent was that the agent
has full authority to do all which falls within the im-
plied scope of his authority. But an attorney is em-
ployed to conduct a suit, and I think it clear that
the effecting of a compromise is no part of the con-
duct of a suit. There is, therefore, no general im-
plied authority to support a compromise by an
attorney. If there is, what is its extent ? Does
an authority to recover property by legal proceed-
ings extend to empower the attorney to sell the
subject-matter of the suit ! Can he sell to a
stranger? And, if not, can he sell to the other
side f And what is a compromise but a sale to the
other side ? Could Mr. Simpson have sail to a
stranger, " You secure us an annuity of 1,0001. and
sou shall hive the benefit of this suit if we succesd ?"
And if he obviously had no authority to bind his
client by such an arrangement with a stranger, how
could he do so by a similar arrangement with the
defendant ? Unless, therefore, it could be shown
to be necessary for the due administration of jus-
tise the authority of the attorney could not extend
to enable him to dispose of the subject-matter of
the suit. The authorities cited appear to me to
support this view, and, in particular, I concur fully
in the observation of Load Lacgdale, that it would
be impossible to carry on the business of the court,
unless reliauce could be placed on the statements of
solicitors and counsel. It is of the utmost impor-
tance in this court, which deals daily wieh consents
to a very large extent, and the court is in the habit
of making consent orders not only so as to affect
adults, but married women and infants also. But
the practice in these respects throws great light
on the general principle. The court will not
allow any one to consent for a married woman,
but takes her consent personally in court. In
the case of infants it only deals with their pro-
rerty by consent afrer an inquiry whether the
arrangement is beneficial for them. When coun-
sel says, "I consent," the court assumes that
counsel has been so instructed by a solicitor,
duly authorised for the purpose. If the client could
be bound without having given authority it troll('
be the duty of the court to make an inquiry into
the circumstances of each case, and to ascertain
whether authority had been given. So far, there-
fore,
from the principle contended for being
necessary for the administration of justice, it would
be productive of the greatest inconvenience. His
Honour then discussedthe evidecce which had been
read, and stated that there was not in his opinion
enough to show that amount of acquiescence on
the part of Mrs. Swinfen by which the pldainfre
tiff's
counsel had argued that she was estP
resistine, the compromise. Adseceeeciez as°iben
accordingly
made dismissing the bill
for p performance,
and directing a new trial, Mrs. Swinfen being
allowed to remain in possession of the propert
giving security to account for the rents. y en

The court w.‘s occupied during the whole day
with the special paper, but none of the cases argued
presented any feature of public interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sit' ingi in Banco before Mr. Jusitce Williams.)
The Court only sat this morning t hear motions
and almost immediately afterwards adjourned, their
lordships having to sit in the Court of Error.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
Their lord hips sat in the Court of Exchequer,
and there were therefore no cases in bane° to-day.
The learncd judges present were the Lord Coief
Baron, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Baro❑ Wat,ou,
Mr. Baron Martin, Mr. Justice Willes, Mr. Baron
Bramwell, and Mr. Baron Chinnell.

LISTON V. LEATHER.

This wag a special case in error from the Court
of Queen's bench, and had been partly argued.
The question was, whether the defendant had in-
fringed the patent of the plaintiff, and was wholly
without public interest.
Mr. Chambers, Q.C., was for the defendant in
error ; and Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. B will, Q.C., and
Lush, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff.

CONSISTORY COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
The Court was occupied all morning in disposing
of questions arising out of the admission of a libel
in a case of divorce.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 10.

MANSION-HOUSE.—John Grace Leveridge, a
very respectable-looking young man, clerk, to Mr.
W. Oldham, a wine merchant in London-streets
was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with
embezzling the moneys of his employer.
Mr. Lewi9, jun., appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Hobler for the prisoner.
The prosecutor, having been sworn, said--The
prisoner, who was in my service as clerk, was au-
thorised to receive money on my account, and it
was his duty to pay it into my bankers. On the
4f h of Novembor inst. I gave him a cheque for 31/.
12s. 2d. to pay the duty upon a butt of wine. The
cheque has been returned to ;no by my bankers as
paid. The prisoner has absented himself from my
counting-house since Saturday last, and suspecting
that he had been embezzling my money I yester-
day broke open his desk. I have ascertame.i at the
Cu,itoin houso that the but of wine has not been
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wood.)
lIANSO.N V. REECE. removed, and the duty has not been paid. This
is only one out of a grcat many charges that I have
This was a question of livn. The facts were to bang 7, • prisoner, and I ask for a re-
shortly these. A cheque was placed in the hands mand to e‘ rtialln,l3'' the
am e
_t,
acompiet-, it.
of a solicitor, it being agreed in writing that it Mr. tickleradmitted
to bad. pphe that his client might
,le
The Lord Mayor refused the application, and the
should be made applicable to what mightanbde
trh(e.,
covered by another party in an action,
residue to the costs. The client obtained a verdict, pris ,nor was remanded,
engage
of several. hours in
subject to a reference. The award was in favour His Lordship was en
Principally boys,
of the client. He became bankrupt, and on taking hearing charges again.st
the accounts between him and the defendant in the of picking pockets and of attems,
nar,irison-
street robbery
action, the latter, it appeared, was entitled to a i
pdruisrionngertsh processioneweresent ee
enathe
.o ppreePre
periods
of iin A
g -,ay The
balance.
t tv'th hard 1 t,
The case was argued by Mr. Cairns, Mr. Eddie, I men 1 a 'our ranging from 21. days to two
and Mr. C. Barber. months.
The Vice-Chancellor decided ia favour of the The Lord Mayor thankfully uknowledged. the
1

solicitor's hen on the amount of the cheque for the
costs of the action.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Campbell, and
Justices Coleridge, Wightman, and Erle.)
THE GRAND JIIRY.--OBSCENE PUBLLICATIONS.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, in addressing the grand
jury, who are summoned to this court every term
in accordance with immemorial custom, said, after
a few preliminary observations, that it occurred to
him to say a few words with regard to an offence to
which public attention had been recently drawn,
an offence to his mind of great magnitude, and
producing mischievous consequences—he meant the
publication of obscene books, prints, and pictures,
which every one must be aware tended very much
to the corruption of minds, especially of young
persons. In the course of last session the noble and
learned lord who presided in this court (Lord
Campbell) introduced a bill to the House of Lords
for facilitating the punishment of persons who were
engaged in this wicked and most nefarious trade,
and if possible for puling it down. After some
opposition, the bill had happily been passed into
law. Its object was rather to give greater power
to the magistrates—to put down the sale of such
publications by the power of search and seizure,
and then by the destruction of the articles—than to
create any new offence, or alter the mode of punish-
ment. When the bill was under discussion in the
House of Lords, it was said by a high authority
that the common law of the country was strong
enough for that purpose. He did not mean to
enter into that controversy now, but every person
passing through certain streets in London must know
that thecommon law did not prevent the existence
of this evil, and that the trade was carried on to
a most mischievous extent in London. It was
not the business of a judge to exaggerate mat-
ters beyond the truth, but he thought it was
hardly possible to exaggerate the mischief of a
thing of this kind. They had all been young, and
they retained recollections of what passed at that
time in their bosoms ; and looking into their own
hearts they could not doubt that if publications of
this nature had the misfortune to fall in the way of
the young they were calculated to do harm ; and,
unhappily for the depravity of human nature, such
impressions were retained longer than matters more
worthy of being treasured up in the mind. He, for
one, thought the noble and learned lord had done
a great service to his country by introducing thebill,
and he hoped it would be acted upon with geed
effect. He was led into this train of remarks te-
cause sometimes persons who carried on this busi-
ness were disposed to encourage and defend it by
resorting to a mischievous kind of ingenuity. They
thought they could turn the tables upon the public
by instituting prosecutions with regard to other
works and publications, under the colourable pre-
tence that they were of the class indicated by the
legislature, although there was no foundation for
such a charge. It was not uncommonly said that
this or that picture of some great artist—this or
that statue, this or that poem—might properly form
the subject of a prosecution, being of a loose, perni-
cious, or voluptuous character ; and it was very
easy for ingenious persons to deceive themselves,
and perhaps others, by such a tone of argument;
but common sense supplied an answer. No doubt
the publication of a picture or a statue, if impro-
perly treated by mischievous art, would have a bad
tendency, but if treate i merely in the course of high
art and in a natural dealing with the subject, it
would have no such tendency. A corrupt mind
bringing its own corruption to a picture, statue, or
poem, might perhaps make it worse, but an honest
and chaste mind looked at it without injury, and
received from the contemplation of it a higb, pure,
and instructive pleasure. Take a familiar illustra-
tion. Every one must have read Milton's dascrip-
tion of Eve soon after her birth, contemplating her
person at the fountain. It was well known that a
modern sculptor, taking his idea from that beauti-
ful description, had made a statue of Eve ar,
the fountain, which was familiar to the eye by
casts in shops and elsewhere. Who would sup-
pose for a singl-) tuomer.t that the author of "Para-
dise Lost" or Mr. Baily, the sculptor, believed
that in what he did he was producing anything
which would have a bal effect upon morals, and to
prosecute "Paradise Lost" because it contained
chose beautiful lines, would be absurd. To repre-
sent Eve at the fountain as dressed would be an im-
propriety, and it would not only be opposed to the
law of the country, but an insult to common sense,
to present a bill to the grand jury on any such mat-
ter. On the other hand, common sense pointed out
that the object of publications like those to be found
in Holywell-street was to excite depraved passions,
and when that was the case the parties selling them
ought to be brought before a tribunal for punish-
ment. His object in making these observations was
that it was possible bills of the kind he bad referred
to would be laid le fore them, and that this court
would be insulted by trials with respect to matters
of high art and high literature. It was possible
that advantage would be taken of the statute to
bring such matters under their consideration, and
if they did come before teem, instead of looking to
an isolated passage or picture, they would look to
the book itself and see whether the general objec.
of it was of the kind represented in the indictment.
If it was not, they would throw out the bill and not
suffer the case to come before a court of justice.
Take any medical or surgical book; they all knew
that author, in dealing with his subject, must tell
things for the sake of instruction. A person of
impure mind might take up the book and dwell on
a particular passage, and it might do him some
harm, but it would be most absurd and mischiev-
ous to consider the autimor a criminal because he had
introduced matter of that description for the pur-
pose of instructioh in a book on scienc. They all
knew that in the book of all b ioks—the best book,
God'sgift to man—there were stories such as Joseph
and Potipher's wife, which to an impure mind
might bo perverted to its own pollution ; but this
particular story was not there for that purpose, it
came there by way of history and instruction. He
mentioned these familiar and striking instances in
order to point to their mind the broad and grave
distinction which existed between the two cases.
Therefore he only suggested, by way of caution,
in the event of anything of that kind coming before
th-m, that it would bi 3 their duty to throw out :my
bill which was presented purely for a mali-
cious purpose, and re dly and truly with the object
of bringing the law into discredit. The learned
judge then remitted tau grand jury to the discharge
of their functions.