The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-23 00:00:00

THE METROPOLITAN INTER-
MENTS BILL.

It is quite true that certain parts of this Bill do
not go far enough for some, but then these same
parts go much too far for others ; it is likewise
thought by some that private interests are more con-
sidered than they ought to be, but, on the other
hand, a large and powerful body are of opinion that
these interests are not sufficiently protected by the
Bill ; and if those who are honestly labouring to get
rid of intramural interments and provide means for
" burying our dead out of our sight," will take this
clashing of interests into consideration, they will see
that the Government measure is framed so as to have
the best chance of passing into an Act, and that it
should have their earnest support.
Much of the individual opposition which has been
shown to the Bill has been caused by the misrepre-
sentation of interested parties, that its provisions are
what those who have examined the Bill know they
are not. "

Clause 7, for example, which provides that the
Board of Health may, if they see fit, purchase and
take by agreement or otherwise all or any of the
cemeteries mentioned in the schedule, stipulates that
it must be subject to the rights to graves, vaults, and
monuments subsisting therein.
By clause 12, the Queen in Council may, upon
report of the Board only (but i 3 not forced to do so),
order discontinuance of interment in churchyards, &c.
By clause 13 the inhabitants of parishes comprised
in the district or part in which interment is ordered
to be discontinued are to have right of sepulture in
burial grounds provided under this Act.
And then as to the assertion that the Government
have taken forcibly into their own hands the conduct
of all funerals, let the public read the clause (26),
and judge for themselves. It runs as follows :
" And be it enacted, that the said board shall make
provision for the management and conduct, by per
sons appointed by them, of the funerals of persons
whose bodies are to be interred in the burial grounds
provided under this Act, where the persons having
the care and direction of such funerals desire to have
the same so conducted; and the said board shall fix
and publish a scale of the sums to be payable for such
funerals, inclusive of all matters and services neces-
sary for the same—such sums to be proportioned to
the description of the funeral, or the nature of the
matters and services to be furnished and rendered,
but so that in respect of the lowest of such sums the
funerals may be conducted with decency and solem-
nity; and the persons having the care and direction
of the funeral 'of any person whose body is to be in-
terredin any such burial ground, where they are de-
sirous of having the same conducted by the same
board, upon furnishing to the said board or their
officers a note in writing, stating the scale according
to which they are desirous the funeral should be fur-
nished, and upon payment for such funeral according
to such scale, shall be entitled to have such funeral
conducted by the said board accordingly."
Parties may still employ their own undertakers if
they will. But even if we admit 'that the manage-
ment of all funerals will fall into the hands of
Government—that they will monopolize the trade—
we must remem,ber it is a monopoly by which the
public themselves are to benefit : no revenue is to be
derivedf rom it : the accounts will be audited, be open
to public inspection, and be brought annually before
Parliament.

No time should be lost in providing places of sepul-
ture away from town, and closing the present over-
filled graveyards of the metropolis—the fever-stills
of this might' centre of active life. Summer is ap-
proaching, and there is too much reason to fear that
with it will again come the mysterious destroyer
which last year carried off, in the metropolis alone,
no fewer than 16,000 persons. The deleterious effect
of graveyards on the atmosphere, and the connexion
between a tainted atmosphere and the cholera, can-
not now want proving.--Builder.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 22.

HUDSPETH V. YARNOLD.-ACTION BY AN ♦CTOR TO

RECOVER HIS SALARY.
This was an action which had been brought by a
low comedian against Mrs. Yarnold, as the lessee of
the Pavilion Theatre, to recover twenty-two and a
half weeks' salary, at the rate of 21. a week. The
case was tried before the Chief Justice at the sittings
at Nisi Prins, in Middlesex, after last Hilary Term.
The plaintiff, in his particulars of demand, credited
the defendant with the sum of 241. odd, and sought
to recover the balance. The jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff for 121. Bs. 21 only.
In the course of last Easter Term, Mr. Hawkins,
on the part of the defendant, obtained a rule nisi to
enter nonsuit, or to enter a suggestion upon the roll
to deprive the plaintiff of costs. The ground upon
which the Learned Counsel sought to enter a nonsuit
was that a letter in which the defendant offered to
give the plaintiff a salary of 21. a week for the sum-
mer season, constituted an agreement, and being
for an amount above 201. ought to have been
stamped, and not being stamped had been improperly
reeeived in evidence. The Learned Counsel applied
to enter a suggestion upon the roll to deprive the
plaintiff of costs, because the jury had found that all
chat was due to him was 121. odd, and that sum
being under 201. the action ought to have been
brought in a county court, and not in one of the su-
perior courts.

Mr. Joyce now showed cause against the rule, and
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Prentice supported it.
The COURT said they were of opinion that the letter
in question only contained a proposal on the part of
Mrs. Yarnold to give the plaintiff a salary of 21. a
week, and it did not amount to an agreement between
the parties, consequently it did not require a stamp.
With regard to the second point, the Court thought
that the action was one which ought to have been
brought- in a county court; and therefore the rule
must be made absolute to enter a suggestion upon the
roll to deprive the plaintiff of costs.
Rule absolute accordingly.

WESTMINSTER COUIVTY COURT, May 22.
(Before FRANCIS BAYLET, Esq.)
M'CANN V. FERGUSON.
The plaintiff, Mr. M'Cann, sought to recover the
sum of 141. 1 ls. 6d. for services rendered to the wife
of the defendant as her medical attendant.
His Hosioua, upon M'Cann entering the witness•
box, inquired for his "certificate." Mr. M'Cann ac-
quainted the Court that he did not consider that he
was called upon to produce it.
His HoNouß observed, that whether Mr. M'Cann
considered himself or his profession called upon to
produce their certificates, he would now take the op-
portunity of acquainting the medical profession, that
unless they came before the Court provided with their
stamped certificate most unquestionably would they
be nonsuited.
Mr. ROBERTS—Your Honour, I am informed that
the plaintiff can produce his certificate in a few mi-
nutes; I, as counsel for the defendant, respectfully
beg that your Honour will postpone the case for a
short time.
His Honoun acceding to the request of plaintiff
and 'defendant,
Mr. M'Cann deposed to the disease under which
Mrs. Ferguson laboured, and the treatment he had
directed.
The Learned JUDGE here called for the ledger,
day and scrap books of the plaintiff, and desired the
plaintiff to read the prescriptions.
Mr. M'Cann—What if I do, you may not perhaps
understand my. dictation ?
His HONOUR—Proceed, air.
Mr. ROBERTS, after the examination of the defend-
ant,riestot client's
0 wife1.
contended that the plaintiff ought to have
w was too
much, ac-
cepted
the terms tendered by his client, Mr. Fergu-
son, that he had not treated
his o
poor
successfully, and that to charge
man 141. for seven weeks' attendance was not only
wrong but illegal.
Mr. Ds LAINE (for the plaintiff)—lllegal, Mr.
Roberts ; let us understand you. -
Mr. Ronaars—l contend that this claim is not
only illegal, but cruelly unjustifiable.
His HONOUR—I would like to know, Mr. Roberts,
your grounds for this assumption.
Mr. ROBERTS—If your Honour had had to listen
to the instructions given me by the unfortunate and
ill-used defendant, you would not have demanded
the grounds upon which I characterise the plaintiff.
I think, your Honour, that there ought to be a tax-
ing master for doctors as well as for lawyers.
The Learned 'TUDOR postponed the case for some
time, and, in giving his judgment; stated that he had
misgivings in his mind which induced him to consult
the highest medical authorities, who were unanimous
that the bill was a reasonable one, and that, there-
fore, he must give judgment for the whole amount.
BARRISTERS V. ATTORNEYS.—IMPORTANT APPLI-
CATION.
Yesterday Mr. 0. W. Hoggins, in company with
Mr. M'lntyre, two barristers, attended to make an
application to the Court for
the purpose of giving
members of the bar precedence over attorneys in the
'leering of causes in whieh they are concerned. Se-
veral barristers and solicitors addressed the Court in
support of the conflicting views held by them re-
specting the course most advisable for adoption by
the Judge in coming to a decision on the applica-
tion ; and his Honour determined on postponing his
judgment to a future day.

neighbourhood,
pin
ilVslneroc:a,a
johtijetibonis
observed on a clear evening. It wus yesterday at its greatest
elongation, and was then 22 degs. east of the sun, and as its
apparent declination is upwards of 25 degs. north, it will re.
main visible above the north-western horizon for about two
wheres id
it may seene
easily )t,hbi be
hours and a quarterafter the sun has set. OnWednesdaynext
it will be in conjunction with the brilliant planet Venus at
seventeen minutes after three in the afternoon, and will be
only 38 mins. of a degree, or little more than the diameter
of the sun, north of the sun. If the evening of that day
happen to be clear, the two planets may be seen at the same
time, within the field of view of an ordinary telescope.—
Newcastle Chronicle.

LONDON,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mary Anne Williams wai placed at the bar before
Alderman Musgrove, charged with stealing between
200 and 300 fourpenny-pieces, g 0 threepenny-pieces,
and two florins, the property of her master.
The case was remanded from Saturday, and, in the
absence of any further evidence, the prisoner was com-
mitted for trial.

John Keats, Henry Fosset, and Matthew Noble,
members of the London swell mob, were brought up
on remand, eharged with attempting to pick the
pockets of several ladies on Blackfriars-bridge.
The prisoners were remanded from Monday to in-
quire into their characters.
Daniel May stated that he had made inquiries, and
ascertained that Keats had been committed from Bow-
street for three months on a charge of felony, and
previous to that a former conviction stood against him,
when he had nine months. It was also ascertained
that Fosset and Noble were noted " skittle-sharps,"
and were constantly observed in company with the
worst of characters; one of their companions was
lately transported for " shaming" a tradesman out
of a large sum of money at skittles, and three more
were keeping out of the way for being concerned in
the same affair.

The father of Fossett was called to speak for him,
when it was proved that he lived entirely by skittle-
sharping.
Mr. Chandler, the landlord of the Prince and
Princess, Gravel-lane, appeared to give Noble a cha-
racter, and eventually. proved that he was as great a
sharp as FoJset.

The prisoners were fully committed for trial.
Francis Johnson, clerk and bookkeeper to Messrs
Warner and Sons metal merchants in Jewin-street,
was placed at the-bar charged with embezzling vari•
ous sums of money the property of his employers.
The prisoner, who said he would reserve his de-
fence, was committed to Newgate to take his trial.

TVORSHIP-STREET.
Mary Reynolds, a decent-looking woman about 30
years of age, stated to be the wife of a blacksmith
in Nelson-street, Bethnal-green, was placed before
Mr. Hammill, charged with an attempt to commit
self-destruction, and also attempting to destroy the
life of her daughter, Ann Reynold., an infant eight
months old.

Alfred "Watson, a hawker of china, stated, about 7
o'clock yesterday evening I was in the Victoria-park,
showing my little boy the swans and wild fowl in the
ornamental water, when I noticed the prisoner, who
is *neighbour of mine, standing a few yards from me,
by`the side of the water, with her infant in her arms.
I moved away from the spot a short distance, when,
hearing a scuffling noise, I turned round, and at the
same instant saw the prisoner leap into the water
with her infant clasped to her breast. The child di-
' rectly after dropped from her arms, and sank beneath
the water, but floated up again ; and the prisoner, who
had likewise sunk, also re-appearad about half-a-yard
from it, and made a violent effort to get hold of it.
I and my brother, however, jumped in, and while I
secured the child and brought it to the bank, my
brother succeeded in grasping hold of the prisoner
herself, and dragged her on to the path. Upon getting
her up, she wrung her hands, and exclaimed, " Oh,
Mr. Watson, you had better not have saved me—you
had better have let me alone • for my husband has M-
used me. I haie a poor deaf dumb boy at home,
and I wish to God that he was here also. She then
became faint ; and having laid her upon the grass, we
sent for one of the park-keepers, and gave her into
custody for her own protection. She appeared to me
to have been drinking; but scarcely five minutes
before she leaped into the water with the infant I saw
her sitting upon a hank with another woman, crying,
and apparently in much mental distress.
Mary Thompson, a married woman, stated—l live
in the same house with the prisoner, who has four
children, the youngest of whom is now in court; and
is about Bor 9 months old. About half-past 5 yes-
terday evening I and the prisoner, accompanied by
her husband and a party of other persons, went out for
a walk, and in the course of it, had a small quantity
of spirits each. On reaching Birdcage-walk some
sharp words -ensued between the prisoner and her
husband, which appeared much to hurt her feelings,
and, on reaching the park, her husband walked on out
of sight. We were walking along the bank together,
the prisoner with the infant in her arms, when I
happened to look across to the opposite side, and,
noticing that the prisoner did not follow, turned round
to speak to her, when I heard a sudden splash, and
the next instant she and the baby were struggling in
the water. The act was so sudden and unexpected that I
became greatly alarmed, and do not know what else
took place until she and the infant had been rescued
by some of the b7standers, nor do I know the cause of
her committing the act; but, whilst previously walking
near the water, I noticed that she was very low
spirited and crying bitterly, and upon asking her to
tell me why she was so, she refused to speak. The
witness added, that she had lodged in the same house
with the prisoner and her husband for the last twelve-
months, and that, as far as she could observe, they ap-
peared to live on happy terms together.
When asked if she wished to say anything in
answer to the charge, the prisoner, who was deeply
affected, and in such a state of debility and illness
that she was obliged to be allowed a seat during the
examination, faintly replied in the negative ; and
HAMMILL ordered her to be remanded until
that day week, for the completion of the evidence.
She subsequently applied for her infant to be re-
stored to her, but the magistrate considered it unsafe
to intrust her with the care of it, and the child,
which was in the arms of a nurse in court, and ap-
peared to have suffered from its immersion in the
water, was afterwards conveyed to the House of De-
tention, with directions that it should there be
properly attended 'to. Several persons before the close
of the court presented themselves as bail for the pri-
soner's future appearance, but the magistrate refused
to accept it. _ _