The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-05 00:00:00

IN -CHIEF.

The Court has acquitted the prisoner. The presi-
dent and members have, I must suppo,le, decided
" according to their consciences and the best of their
understanding." The prisoner quitted his barrack at
an unlawful hour, in a dark night, taking with him
his arms and ammunition ; he wounded one native
sentry, and he killed another.
This was "an offence which, if committed in Eng-
land, would be felony," and it comes under the cog
inizance of the 31st article of war

The precise terms in which the charge should be
couched are nowhere dictated, either in the Mutiny
.a.et or in the Articles of War, or in any regulation
-whatever. It is therefore sufficient far a court-
martial that the accusation or charge he made clear
and distinct to the Court, and that the crime be one
which " in England would be felony"—that is to say,
malicious, wicked, malign ; but it is not even neces-
sary, according to the 31st article of war, that the
crime should be felony.
Now, the understanding of the Court must be
exceedingly limited if it required an attorney to
explain to it that the killing of one sentry and stab•
bing of another sentry by a soldier who issues from
his ba.rrack in a dark night contrary to orders, and
fully armed, " would be felony in England."
If the president and members of the Court consci-
entiously believed the prisoner to be innocent (which
belief would be incredible if they had not themselves
recorded the extraordinary fact), they were right to
• cquit the prisoner. But unless they were so con-
vinced they have deliberately erred, and have broken
the 31st article of war, in not convicting the prisoner
of murder, for that article does not say that the pri-
soner is to be charged with having " feloniously"
committed a crime, but who shall be accused of any
offence "which, if committed in England, would be
felony," and it goes on to say, "or of having coin-
mated any offence against the person or property of
any of our subjects," &c. This (whether felonious or
not felonious) does away with the necessity for using
the word felonious, or other legal technicalities, in
form ing a military charge against a soldier brought
before a military court.
I will here quote the words of a high legal func-
Conary at Calcutta, expressed on this very case :
" Charges affecting the life of another cannot be framed
with too much particularity, but it does not follow,
neither is it desirable, thatthey should be framed with
the precise technicality of an indictment. All that
is essential in a charge is, that the prisoner
and the Court should be distinctly informed of the
nature of the offence for which the prisoner is to be
fAied. In the present case (of Private Banks), as the
'altered charge contains the word murder, I am of
opinion that the accused can be convicted and sen-
tenced for murder under such altered charge." To
be sure he could, and the court has been misled by
qui'ablee, instead of being guided by the Articles of
War and plain sense.
I am quite at a loss to discover why the court refers
to the Adjutant-General's circular, dated 15th of
June, 1829. That circular was issued by order of
the Commander-in• Chief to warn the European pri-
vate soldiers that A change had been made in the law
of the land, and that a man who wounded another
could, by that change, now be hanged, whether the
wounded man lived or died. What, then, has this
circular to do with the present case, where a sentry
was shot dead ? 'What had the court to do with this
circular? Nothing whatever; and a reference to it
by the court was calculated to pervert the course of
justice, by making a delusive use of that circular.
I therefore publicly express my disapprobation of
this improper introduction of irrelevant matter. It
was the special duty of Lieut.-Colonel Horeford, as
pre.ident of the court, to have prevented the insertion
of t) is absurd reference in the proceedings, which he
ex officio conducted.
These quibbles appear to me to be unworthy of
'officers forming a court of honour and of equity, and
sworn to judge according to their consciences and the
custom of war; they are calculated to injure the dis-
cipline of the army. They afford protection to
crime!

Toe result of the Court's finding and sentence is,
th,.t the prisoner, who quitted his quarters at an il-
legal hour, in a dark night, taking with him his arms,
loaded and prepared for mischief, who wounded one
sentry and slew another, is to return to the ranks an
absolved man, because the unnecessary word " felo-
nious" was not inserted in the charge on which he
Was ti ed. Thus the inteArity of discipline remains
unvir dicated.

C. J. NAPIER,
General, Commander-in-Chief, East Indies.
33y order of his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief,
AILMINE S. H. MOUNTAIN,
Colonel A. G. H. M. Forces in India.

METROPOLITAN SEWBRA.—YeStOrday a Parlia-
mentary paper of 22 folio pages was printed, showing the re-
ceipts and expenditure of the Genend Commis,ions of Sewers
in force from tb e Ist January, 1845„ to the 31st December,
1849. The t0t,„,1 receipts for the live years (1845 to 1849)
including the general cash balance in hand on the Ist of
janua!Y, 18,115, was 470,778/. 9s. 10d.; whilst the expendi-
tun, In the, period was 461,5431. 15s. 11d., leaving the
general ewe
balance in hand on the 31st December last
9,2341.13x.1
,ld The receipts from the Bth October to the
31st Decenit ,et
22,1971, 95. a little more than two months, were
Id., and the expenditure 19,9741. Os, 7d.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 4.
:Sittings at Nisi Pries, before Lord Chief Justice WILDE
and a Special jury.)
CUFFLEY V. BONE.

This ease, which occupied the Court a part of Tues-
day. was resumed this morning. It was an action
brought by the plaintiff, who sued in forma pauperis
for damages sustained by the seduction of his daughter,
by the defendant, Mr. Bone, a bookbinder, of Fleet-
street. _ .

Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Browne appeared for the
plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Maynard for the
defendant.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE opened the case fer the plaintiff,
reciting the evidence which he was about to offer. The
first witness called was the young woman herself,
Ann Cuffley, whose evidence was to the following
effect :—She had been a bookfolder in the establishment
of Messrs. Bone, employed in folding sheets for the
binders. She hal alio been -often employed in doing
little matters in the counting house 'of Mr.. Bone, jun.,
such as lighting his fire and sweeping his room. He
had always treated her with more attention and favour
than the other girls, often giving her fruit. He had also
taken her to Greenwich,and once to Sadler's Wells Theatre.
On the 16th of October, 1848, the defendant met her on
the stairs in the warehouse, and desired her to go up
stairs and light a fire in his counting-house, which was
on the second floor; he followed her up stairs, and
fetched her the coals and firewood for her to light the
fire. After that he brought up some walnuts, and gave
her something out of a bottle which he said was wine, and
which made her stupid and sleepy; she also drank some-
thing out of another bottle. which he said was gin. He
then threw her down on the floor, and began to take impro-
per liberties with her, and of erwerda effected her ruin, she
resisting cad crying out at the time. He would not allow
her to leave the room, but kept her locked in for three
hours, until five o'clock, when the porter brought up Mr.
Bone's tea to the counting-house. She then went into
a cupboard while Mr. Bone went to the dour, unlocked
it, and took the tea from the porter. She had some tea
with him, and afterwards went down stairs, creeping
under the counter to escape the notice of her fellow-
workwomen, and got out of the warehouse without being
seen. She was questioned on the following morning by
the foreman as to the reason of her absence, and said
that she had been locked out and could not get in in
time. About a month after she told the defendant
that she was with child, he told her it was only a cold;
hut, at any rate, he would give her something to take.
On the 14th of July, 1849, her child was born; and she
afterwards went to the defendant with her mother and
brother, to try to prevail on him to allow something for
the child's support.
Her cross-examination, by Mr. M. CHAMBERS, elicited
that she had been in the habit of often going to public-
houses with young men and drinking spirits with them,
also of going to theatres and concert-rooms unknown to
her mother. She bad also made assignations, and had
made an appointment with a gentleman to take a ride
with him in his gig to Kew; but she did not do so be-
cause it rained on the day appointed.
William Cuffley, the brother of Ann Cuffiey, was the
next witness, and he deposed that having learned that
his sister was in the family way, he went with ber and
his mother to the defendant to prevail on him to make
some provision for the child. The defendant, however,
refused to do anything in the matter, denying that he
had ever had any connexion with witness's sister. At a
subsequent interview he still persisted in his denial.
Harriet Pounceby and Maria:Peacock were called and
deposed to the attention which the defendant had paid to
Ann Cuffley. The former witness had been in her com-
pany on one occasion when the defendant had taken
them to a public-house called the Blue Hart, and treated
them to some refreshment. The second witness de•
posed to the defendant's having given the girt fruit
on various occasions which she brought down into the
warehouse, and shared with her follow-workwomen. Also
to the fact of Ann Cuffley having been discharged from
the service of Messrs. Bone some time after by the fore-
' man fir some alleged misconduct.
Mr. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS defended in a speech of
considerable length. The tale of Ann Cuffley was, he
contended, a palpable falsehood, and after commenting
at some length upon its probabilities, he left it to the
jury to say whether they would by their verdict destroy
the character and position of the defendant on such
evidence as had been adluced in the present case.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury, after a short
deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, July 4.
(B4ore Mr. Commi,sioner GoULBURN.)

IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE GENERAL SHIP LOAN AND

INSURANCE COMPANY.

This was a meeting for the choice of assignees in this
matter. The business ..f the company was carried on at
71, Cornhill. The petition of bankruptcy bears date the
6th of June, 1850, and was issued by Messrs. Plimmer
and Co., of Newcastle, shipowners.
The company origina:ed with two persons, named
Augustus Collingridge, who was connected with the Sea
Fire and Life Office, a company which is insolvent; and
John Newman Barnard, of 2, Royal Exchange-build-
ings, who was managing director. They commenced
business in the early part of 1847. It was alleged that
parties were induced to sign the deed of contract for halt-
a-crown piece. The amount of liabilities is about
10,0001., the assets about 8001.
The claims of course mainly arose out of policies ef-
fected upon ships. A claim was tendered by Mr. Keane.
a solicitor, based upon what was termed " credit notes"
given by the company. The claim was objected to by
the solicitor to the petitioning creditor, on the ground
that those credit notes were not b ised upon realised
funds, and that they ought not to be retarded in the
same light as a bill of exchange, as they were not nego-
tiable. It was urged that the claim ought to be ma le
upon the policy to secure against the lossls upon which
the notes were given.
Mr. KEAZTE contended that the words " credit or
order," in the body of the note, constituted it a nego-
tiable instrument.

Mr. PEARSE, for the petitioning cre litor, argued that
notes which were made payable only in the expectation
of assets, could not be negotiable, uor could the holder
recover on them.

The Commissiorma, after referring to the treatises of
" Bayley and Chitty on Bills," held that these credit
notes could not be regarded in the same light as bills of
exchange or promissory notes; they were not, according
t.) mercantile law;negotiable instruments. He felt bound
to reject the proof in its present shape.
Mr. KEENE said. it certainly was very hard upon his
client.' The Tart..s had been given to Mr. Fitzgerald, who
was the party who had effected the insurance. The
question involved in the decision of the Court was one
of so much importance to the mercantile community
that,with the leave of the Commissioner, he would ap-
peal to the Vice-Chancellor.
The COMMISSIONER at once acceded.
Mr. GREENE, a solicitor, tendered a claim for 400/. on
behalf of Mr. •Farlane, a Scotch merchant, founded
upon a policy of insurance effected upon a vessel named
the Caledonia. The loss had been adjusted, and was
secured by credit notes. The proof was, however, upon
the policy.
Mr. PEARSS objected to the reception of the claim, on
the ground that the affidavits in support of it merely
stated the facts of the policy having been made and the
loss adjusted, without any averment or allegation as to
the loss of the ship.
Mr. GREENE held that that was unnecessary.
The COMMISSIONER, however, thought otherwise. It
was, in the opinion of the Court, necessary to set forth,
if not the fact of the actual loss of the vessel positively,
at all events that the deponent believed the vessel to have
been lost.
Debts to the amount of 5001. were proved.
Messrs. R. Plimmer,cof Newcastle, and William
Fauntleroy Street, described as of Lloyd's Coffee-house,
insurance-broker, were chosen assignees.