The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-12 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

RIGHT TO A FAMILY VAULT.—Judgment has just been
given, in an appeal from the Arches Court, which raised
the question of right to a family vault. The appellant way
the perpetual curate of Ecchinswell-with-Sydmonton,
Southampton, and the respondent a landowner, of
Sydmonton Court. It was originally a cause in
the Consistorial Court of Winchester, of granting
a faculty or license to appropriate and confirm
a family vault underneath the chancel of Sydmonton
Church to Mr. W. H. Kingswell, the proprietor of
the parish. The Court of Arches, Dr. Lushington as
judge, affirmed the judgment of the Diocesan Court,
on which Mr. Rugg appealed to her Majesty in Council.—
Sir Robert Phillimore gave judgment, noticing the objec-
tions raised by Mr. Rugg to the authority of the bishop to
issue the faculty for the vault, and even to the consecra-
tion of the church itself, because both had taken place
without his consent. Their lordships had no doubt that
the ordinary had the power to do both, and the question
was, whether it was discreet to grant the faculty at the
present time. The only entrance to the vault was through
the garden of Sydmonton Court, and, although the
burial service might be performed in the chancel (there
being no churchyard), yet a difficulty might arise. Their
lordships thought it advisable that the faculty should not
be granted until the ground near the vault had been conse-
crated. The cause would therefore be remitted to the
Arches Court for additional ground to be consecrated be-
fore the faculty was issued. Both parties to hear their ow'
costs.

MANSLAUGHTER BY A CHIMNEY SWEEP.-At the Maid-
stone Assizes Samuel Martin, chimney-sweeper, was
charged before Mr. Justice Byles with the manslaughter of
a boy whose name was unknown. It appeared that
the deceased had no parents or friends, but was a poor
wanderer, when he became acquainted with the prisoner.
a few months before his death, and agreed to accompany
him and a woman, and assist him as travelling sweep.
The evidence left no doubt that the prisoner was in the
constant habit of beating the boy in a most
brutal manner ; and it appeared that when the three
were at Appledore, in the neighbourhotd of Ashford,
in the month of January last year, the prisoner was
seen to knock the unhappy boy down and kick him
while on the ground ; and he also on the same day
appeared to have beaten him most severely with a thick
stick. The occurrence in question took place on the 17th
of January. On this night the prisoner obtained permis-
sion from a farmer at Appledore to sleep in one of his
barns. They had lighted a fire in a lane near the spot to
cook some food. The prisoner and the woman went in to
the barn, leaving the boy in the lane, the prisoner telling
him that he had better go "home." There was snow on
the ground, and in the middle of the night the prisoner
got up to see after the boy. He returned shortly after-
wards with the boy in his arms ; and at this time
he was alive. The prisoner told the woman that if she
said a word of what had occurred he would serve
hix as he had served the boy. The prisoner and the woman
resumed their occupation, and nothing more was heard of
the deceased until the month of June following, when, in
consequence of information that was received by the
police, the prisoner was taken into custody by Mr. Dance,
the superintendent of the Kent constabulary, and the
prisoner then made a statement which led to the discovery
of the dead body of the deceased in the barn, concealed
under some straw, and in a most horrible condition. The
prisoner was originally committed to take his trial for the
crime of wilful murder, but an indictment for manslaughter
only was preferred against him. When the prisoner was
apprehended he said the boy was not quite dead when he
put him under the straw, but he was limp, and groaning.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner
was sentenced to be kept in penal servitude for twenty
years.

IMPORTANT TO FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.—III a case tried at
Manchester in which the Painters' Society charged their
treasurer with forgery, 11.1 r. Ernest Jones, who defended
the prisoner, objected that the case of Hornby v. Close,
which was argued in the Queen's Bench, had the effect of
putting the Painters' Society out of existence, as it re-
itricted trade. Mr. Justice Lush, however, held that the
case quoted decided that a society, one of the main objects
of which was in restraint of trade, could not take advan•
tage of the Friendly Societies Act, as a friendly society.
to ask a magistrate to exerc'se summary powers on
its behalf under the Friendly Societies Act, as it
was not a lawful friendly society within the mean-
ing of that Act. It was, however, a great mistake
to suppose that all such societies were otherwise
unprotected. He was of opinion that this money was the
money of the collective body of the members of the
Painters' Society, as it was formed of the subscriptions of
the individual members of the association. To obtain this
money the prisoner had been guilty of a forgery under the
statute, and it was not necessary to prove whom he
intended to defraud, and it made no difference in the legal
character of the offence that the money belonged to a
trades union. Prisoner was, on this ruling, found guilty
and sentenced to five years' penal servitude.

A MATRIMONIAL STRATAGEM.--An extraordinary matri-
monial stratagem has occupied the attention of the Bir-
mingham magistrates. Mary Ann Shaw, alias Osborne,
has been brought up on remand, charged with having per•
mitted a false entry to he made in a marriage registry.
James Brittan was an ironmonger and general merchant.
of Stourbridge, 75 years of age, and a cripple. He died
on the 23rd October last, to all appearance an old
bachelor. When the relatives were discussing the
appropriation of the Property, however, a solicitor
appeared amongst them, awl remarked that half
of the personalty belonged ti the widow. " Widow !"
they exclaimed ; " what widow?" "There she stands,"
responded the solicitor, pointing out old Brittan's house.
keeper. Being questioned, she said she was Brittan's
widow, that she was married to him about a year before,
at St. Andrew's Churth, Bordesley. The relatives had
the register examined. They found an entry of the
alleged marriage, but the signature of Brittan was not in
Brittan's handwriting, and the name was spelt "Brit-
ton." Further inquiries were made, and the woman was
charged with having induced a man to personate old Brittan.
The incumbent who performed the ceremony, and the sex-
ton who witnessed the marriage, examined obi Britan's
Cody after his death, and declared that lie was not the
man who was married to the prisoner. The woman was
committed fur trial.

Tit E ALLEG ED ATTEMPTED MURDER AT CLERNENWELL.
—Mrs. Brittain, charged with attempting to murder her
husband by cutting his throat, has been finally examined
at the Clerkenwell Police-court. The injured man
had so far recovered as to be able to attend and give
evidence. The woman's statement is, that they had
quarrelled, and her husband, in a fit of rage, took up a
knife and attempted suicide. The husband, in what he
thought was his dying deposition, affirmed that she
wounded him ; but now, being evidently anxious to screen
her, he alleges that they had had words, and that he had
grossly exasperated her • that they struggled together
and that the excitement, aided by the drink they had
had, prevented his being able to say whether he or she
iafiicted the wound. The wife was committed for trial.