The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-22 00:00:00

MErNN V. DENTON.

This was an appeal from the borough of Bury St.
Edmund's. The claim to vote was made for a house,
which was in reality but a cow-house, with one room
occupied by the person in care of the cows.
The COURT held that where there was a habitable
room actually occupied as a dwelling, that constituted a
house, and the claim was good.
DOSS V. THE OVERSEERS OF ST. MICHAEL'S, LICHFIELD.
The appellant occupied a house jointly with his father,
who alone was rated, although the son paid the rent.
The barrister refused the claim, and the Court now de-
cided against the appeal on the ground that the payment
by the son was a voluntary act, and could not entitle him
to vote, as he was not rated.

MARSHALL V. BROWNE.
This appeal was also from Lichfield. It appeared that
the appellant, with five others, took a house jointly, for
the purpose of procuring votes for the city of Lichfield.
The barrister disallowed the claim on the ground that
it came within the meaning of the Act the 7th and Bth
Wm. 111., for the prevention of splitting votes.
The COURT took time to consider their judgment.
There being now but nine cases decided out of thirty-
three, and this being the last day set down for hearing
registration appeals,
Mr. COCKBURN begged to ask their Lordships whether
they would name a day for resuming the hearing ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said they must appoint a
day out of term, as Monday would be the last day of
term, and it was impossible to take any of the remaining
appeals in the meantime.
The Court then rose.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 21.
(Sittings in Bunco.)
BOOSEY V. PURDAY.

In this case a rule had been obtained by Mr. Cramp-
ton, on the first clay of the present term, calling on the
plaintiff in the action to show cause why an entry made
at Stationers' Hall should not be expunged or varied, or
why the plaintiff should not be restrained from using the
said entry as evidence in the trial of the cause.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES moved this morning to set aside
the rule. It appeared that a musical composer of great
eminence at Milan, named Bellini, composed an opera
called La Sunnambula, for the managers of the great
theatre in that city, and that on the 19th of February,
1831, he sold the copyright to an Italian gentleman of
the name of Ricardi, the managers of the Milan Theatre
concurring in the sale. On the 9th of June, 1831, Mr.
Ricardi sold the opera to Mr. Boosey, the plaintiff in
the present action, by whom it was entered at
Stationers' Hall. Iu 1841, Mr. Purday, the defendant,
published a song, which was part of the opera in ques-
tion. The plaintiff remonstrated with him upon the
subject, and Mr. Purday, or his brother, agreed to sup-
press the publication and destroy the plates. Notwith-
standing this agreement, Mr. Purday had, in the preient
year, published other parts of this opera, and for that
infringement of the copyright the action was brought.
On th 13th of May, 1844, before the trial of the action,

Mr. Boosey made another entry at Stationers' Hall, which
was the entry now sought to be expunged. The parties
had proceeded hitherto as far as declaration. The
Learned Counsel then referred to the sth and 6th of Vic-
toria, relating to copyright, and contended if the rule were
made absolute, the plaintiff would be deprived of an ad-
vantage which the legislature intended that he should
possess. The case of Chappell and Purday, which was
yet pending, afforded no criterion for the present.
The Court here suggested that it would be desirable to
let the matter stand over until Chappell and Purday had
been decided.

Mr. Sergeant Byles adopted the suggestion on the con
dition that the defendant should keep an account of al
that he might sell in the interval.

ARCHES' COURI; Noy. 21.
(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER Busy.)

THE BASINGBOURNK CASE—THE OFFICE OF TIIE JUDOS
PROMOTED BY TITCHMARSII, AGAINST CHAPMAN,
CLERK—THE JUDGMENT.
The Learned JUDGE upon the sitting of the Court this
day, proceeded to pronounce judgment, and in doing so
read through all the voluminous affidavits. commenting
upon each point in the evidence as he went along. After
referring to the demand made for the first time in 1840,
respecting the burial of Jane Rumbold by her father,
when it was alleged that the Rev. Mr. Chapman refused
to perform the burial service over it, on the ground that
the child had not been baptised according to the rites of
the Church of England, which circumstances the
Learned Judge did not seem to consider as affecting the
latter proceedings, he commenced with the demand made
in 1841, against which it was alleged by the Learned
Advocates on the part of the Rev. Mr. Chapman,
that due and convenient notice had not been given
previous to the corpse being brought to the churchyard.
Upon this subject the Learned Judge said that after a
careful perusal of the affidavits of John Rumbold, the
child's father, of the Rev. Mr. Moorse, and of the de-
ponent Hopkins, he could not see that either of them
had distinctly stated any facts which would lead to the
conclusion the required " die and convenient" notice
had been given to Mr. Chapman. It was true that it
deposed in the affidavit of Hopkins that when the corpse
was deposited in the church porch, and he and John
Rumbold went up to the Rectory to request that the I
funeral service might be read, the Rev. Mr. Chapman
expressed a wish that he might have a wiiness present,
thus leading to an inference (as he had a person present)
that he had a previous intimation of the object of this
visit, but he (the Learned Judge) could not decide that
this fourth individual might not have been accidentally
present. The Rev. Mr. Moo rse, John Rumbold,
and Hopkins had each bad interviews with Mr.Cbapman,,
and he (the Learned Judge) thought, that nothing could
have been easier than to prove the fact, if either one of
the three had given " due and convenient" notice to the
Rev. Gentleman. In the affidavit of the Rev. Mr._
Moorse, the most material points were those. with
respect to the deceased havin-Mceived the sacrament of
baptism, according to the observances and forms of
Christianity ; and also with respect to the application
to the Bishop, in 1840. In fact, through the whole of
this gentleman's affidavit, there was not the smallest evi-
dence of notice having been given to Mr. Chapman.
fleArtihtehr roefs ptehcet
dt on
et Is
see
da, ffideg ea t
hoe f
(theJoh !Li
elalrunmbld
in e
do , tbe
Judge)
felt bound to say, that he thought no proof had been
afforded of due notice being given. If thoseministra-
tions were to be taken before a Court of
Common law instead of an Ecclesiastical Court,
and tried under a statute instead of a canon, there must
have been proof of a refusal to perform the lawful re.
qourimr eamn
ce
en t so,f afterthes those
ureigahntsd
had
convebneteennt
given,notice of f e
ftt
jhree ptehre-
ftphaerte)t•estoutceh,aargnd edLweroduludebnemeso hadubjectedto
himselfthe hpeenldaltt
Court,
ss
to
be necessary. It was precisely the same in this
for if it had been proved that sufficient notice had been
given of the time of burial to the clergyman, and if after
that he refused to " perform his office," he was clearly
guilty of an offence against the canon. It was his (the
Learned Judge's) opinion, that every person must feel
convinced that decency, and the due, and respectful, and '
effective performance of the reillire4 Mißiatratiovi

peratively demanded that " due and convenient" notice,
should be given to every clergyman, when he was re-
quired to perform any office of his ministry, and believing
that, in the present ease, there had been a neglect of
such observance, he felt bound to pronounce in the Rev.
Mr. Chapman's favour, as it had not been proved that he
was guilty of an offence against the canon, as the pre
sent suit was promoted, and that the promoters had
failed to establish the grouuils of their suit.

COURT OF REVIEW, Nov. 21.
(Before Sir K. BitucE.)
His HONOUR sat this morning in Bankruptcy as Chief
Judge of the Court of Review, and disposed of bankrupt
petitions.
At an early part of the proceedings Mr. Alexander
took his seat within the Bar as Queen's Council.

IN RE DAYKIN.
The petition in this case was an application to the
Court to annul a fiat of bankrurcy as invalid en the
ground of an alleged fraud in creating a debt. The peti-
tion was first presented in September last, and now came
on again for rehearing. The fiat was issued in No-
vember, 1843, and under it the assignees were chosen in
December in the same year. The bankrupt had been
a farmer, and had dealt in horses, and there was much
contradictory evidence as to whether he had bought and
sold them beyond what was necessary in bis business,
and to such an extent as to constitute him a trader. The
question had been twice before juries, in actions at nisi
prius, and in both cases the validity of the fiat had been
affirmed. The evidence on the trial was given by an
immense number of jockies, horse dealers, &c. On the
point as to whether the trading was established by that
evidence or not, his Honour would not give an opinion ;
but he thought it would require a very strong case indeed
to induce the Court to annul a fiat affirmed by two juries
before whom the questions at issue must have been
directly brought. He should, therefore, refuse the peti-
tion.

The remaining argumonts!which occupied the greater
part of the morning, were directed only to the question
of costs, with respect to which his Honour reserved his
decision.

SHERIFFS' COURT. Nov. 21.
RICHARDS V. POILE.
This was an action for the recovery of the sum
11/. 11s. 6d. due for lodging and boarding the son of de-
fendant.

William Wamford deposed that he was a grocer and
cheesemonger, near Peckham. Plaintiff is also a grocer.
residing at Peckham. He, witness, knewitho defendant's
son Thomas for some time, and remembers that he had
been at Mr. Richard's for about four months, during last
summer, it being intended to apprentice him to plaintiff.
Plaintiff frequently requested defendant to complete the
transaction, but several objections were raised, and delays
made, and when the defendant decided on apprenticing
his son, it was found that the lad would not consent to be
bound. Upon his making this refusal, plaintiff said that
if he would not be bound, he had better leave the place,
as he was running up expenses all the time he remained
there.

George Richards (a lad about 16 years. of age), the
brother of the plaintiff, corroborated the previous evi•
dence, and stated that in a conversation, at which he was
present, plaintiff said that if the lad was not apprenticed
he (defendant) would have expenses to pay, to which
defendant answered that he knew that, but that he would
apprentice his son.
_ .

The third witness was John Harrison, who proved
the drawing out of an indenture, for which one guinea
was in the bill, upon which the action was founded.
Mr. CHARNOCK, on the part of the defendant, said
that he thought defendant was entitled to a nonsuit, be-
cause during the time that the lad was at the plaintiff's
house, he served in his shop, and he (Mr. Charnock)
considered that that was quite sufficient remuneration
for his board and lodging. If an action had been brought
by defendant for the wages of the lad during that time,
no doubt Mr. Richards would have said that the board
and lodging was a remuneration for the work; and, in-
deed, it was always understood, unless an agreement was
made to the contrary effect, that, when a lad was taken
upon trial, his work was payment for his board and
lodging.
The jury found for the defendant ; but gave 11. for
the drawing up of the ind.mtures.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 21.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HoLncrrp.)
IN RE J. N. COOKE.

The insolvent, whose case, it will be remembered,
excited a considerable degree of interest, in consequence
of his having been involved in gaming and bill transac-
tions to a large amount, this day applied by Counsel for
his final order, under the 28th section of the 7th and Bth
of Victoria. Although the debts of a doubtful character
exhibited against him amounted to several thousands,
yet the bona fide claims were somewhat under 900 L
Mr. BAGLEY, who appeared for some of the creditors,
said that if the fraudulent debts were expunged there
could be no question that the insolvent's estate and his
own personal efforts would soon satisfy the claims which
were really just, and the gentlemen he represented would
therefore offer no opposition to the insolvent's appli-
cation.

The final order was then granted.
Lord Huntingtower was in Court in expectation of
being examined in the case, but his Lordship was not
called on to give evidence.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
CLERKEIV WELL.

John Smith, a half•starved-looklng—poor fellow, was
charged as follows :
Police-constable 101 G, with an air of great solemnity
and importance, deposed that being on duty in St. John-
street, on the previous night, in plain clothes he saw the
prisoner pass close to a shop-window and take some-
thing ; witness pursued, overtook and captured him, and
found under his dress concealed
Mr. GREENWOOD—What ? Policeman—A potato
(producing a blooming " Murphy").
Mr. GREENWOOD—Anything else ? Policeman
(eagerly)—Yea, a brass button.
The poor wretch was discharged.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
On Wednesday a person named Edward Roche was
brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged with inter-
marrying with Elizabeth Flack, his former wife being
still alive.
It appeared that the prisoner was married in Cork
26 years ago, and that after living with his wife about
seven years he deserted her, and left her destitute
with three young children. About five years ago he
met with Elizabeth:Flack, and having married her, he
took the Sun public-house in Heddon-street. The
first wife having obtained information of her hus-
band's proceedings, came over to England, and, find-
ing that she was renounced by her husband, threw
herself upon the parish, in order to compel him to
allow her a maintenance. The second wife having
been put in possession of unquestionable evidence of
the prisoner's infamous conduct towards her, immedi-
ately separated from him and took a coffee-shop in
Sherrard • street.

In proof of the double marriage, the first wife was
put in the witness-box. She produced her certificate.
Mr. HARDwica said that the evidence of this wit-
ness could not be received. The first marriage must
be proved, not by the wife, but by witnesses.
The wife said all the witnesses were dew' but one,
and that one was living in Cork.
Mr. HARDWICK said the question now appeared to
be one of expense—who was to defray the expense
of procuring the personal attendance of the witness ?
A solicitor, who attended on behalf of the prisoner,
said, even admitting that clear evidence could be
brought forward of the validity of the first marriage,
la point, however, in dispute, he had a complete answer
to the charge. He would admit that the first and
second marriages had taken place, and his answer
was that the defendant could not be called upon to
pay the penalty of bigamy, inasmuch as he had lived
apart from his wife for more than seven years. The
9th of George IV., chapters 31 and 32, expressly
stated that when either husband or wife continually
remained absent from each other for the space of
seven years then last past, and had not been known
by the other to be living within that time, " that he
should not be liable to the consequences of bigamy."
He could prove that the alleged first wife and the
defendant had no intercourse or communication with
each other for ten or twelve years, and that therefore
the husband had a perfect right to consider his first
wife dead, she being really dead in law, and to marry
again.

-Mr. HARDWICK wished to know how proof could
be given that the party charged with bigamy did not
know of the existence of his wife ? The solicitor
said he apprehended it was not necessary to furnish
any proof. It was only necessary to show that the
parties had been asunder for seven years, and that they
had had no communication with one another for that
period, to entitle a party to the benefit of that clause.
Mr. HARDWICK said, such a construction of the
Act involved a manifest absurdity. According to
this view of the law, it was only necessary for either
husband or wife to conceal him or herself for a space
of seven years to entitle them to marry again without
rendering themselves liable to an indictment for
bigamy. In the present case, the husband deserted
his wife and family. He knew where to find them,
but they knew not where to find him. He chose
voluntarily to conceal himself from them for more
than the space of seven years; there was no want of
evidence of the existence of his wife, and it brought
him within the meaning of the Act.
The solicitor said he would not attempt to argue
the rationale of the Act. What he contended for
was, that a penal Act ought to be literally and
strictly construed. The Court must look to the
e , h
of
fproposed
a s
he
t
was
reserve
s in
a
words, and must be guided by their plain meaning.
The Act in question did not require the husband to
make himself acquainted with the existence of his
situationa
wife, any more than it required the wife to know
thata the husband was
odisprove
alive.
discussion o n
t h Heowv
the objection,er
validity
the first
marriage.

Mr. HARDWICK said, the first step would be to
procure evidence of the first marriage, as the parties
were not in a situation to defray the expense, and
application must be made to a judge at the Central
Criminal Court, to allow a sufficient sum to cover
the necessary charges.
Police-sergeant IVhall was then desired to make
arrangements,for procuring the attendance of the sur-
viving witness of the first marriage. .
The defendan, vam then renlandv4 for week,

William Roberts, a decent looking and very aged man
with grey hairs, was charged with drunken and dis-
orderly conduct. Police-constable, Thomas Webb, No.
180 of the C division, said he found the prisoner at the
door of a public-house in Regent-street, creating a great
disturbance and making use of extremely violent
lang utzgo.

Mr. TrAuDwicK—An old man like you ought to be.
have himself better.

Prisoner—l wai grossly insulted by a stripling and I
could not bear it, for I have a daughter 43 and a son 42
years of age. I have been a stage coachman for 60 years
and never had an accident in my life, although I've
driven some very great men. Steam has been in my
ruin (shedding tears and wiping his eyes with his cuff).
I can't help it when I think on the glories I've seen.
The " Whip, the Whip" used to be my song, but it's all
passed now, and when I dies► I hope's they'll bury me
out of the sound of the rail.

Mr. TlAnnwica said the defendant must not disturb
the public poste; under the circumstances he should die-
charge him. _

The defendant, with a genuine coachman's " Thank
yer honor," left the Court.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Wednesday a miserable-looking man, named Carmen,
stated to have formerly been a milkman in Heaton,
waited upon Mr. Broughton, and asked his advice.
The applicant said—l am a native of Ely, in Cam-
bridgeshire, but had a good business in Hoxton here,
for many years, until I unfortunately went out of
my mind. When I came out of the madhouse, in
July last, I attended to my trade as usual, but an-
other man started in the same business in opposition
to me, I was ruined by it. Finding myself in
this state, I applied to Mr. Coste, the relieving officer
of Shoreditch, and asked him to write a letter for me
to the board of guardians to my native place, asking
them for only V. or 4/. to set me up again, and, as
lam very well known to several gentlemen down
there, I was certain of receiving the money. But
Mr. Coste told me he should not do any such thing,
and I was obliged to go and get work as a common
sewer labourer, and worked in that manner all through
the last winter.

Mr. BROUGUTON-Why do you not try to get work
now ? Cannell—l can't ; there is no surgeon in the
country would say that I am fit for work now, for
while t was employed at the sewer-work a few weeks
ago, and standing on the edge of a bank that was
thrown up, a wretch of a boy came behind me, and
pushed me down into the sewer, by which three of my
ribs were dislocated.

Mr. BROUGHTON-Why did you not give the boy
into custody ? Cannell—l could not, for I was so
stunned and injured that they carried me home imme-
diately, and before I had sense enough to think about
it, the boy had gone away. The foreman of the works
of course discharged me, and gave me 45., but that
was of no use in my state, and I applied to the parish
for assistance, but they refused to give me anything,
and though I have applied a great number of times
since, they still refuse me.
Staines (the beadle of Shoreditch)—l don't know
anything of the case myself, Sir, but I will give him
an order for the house immediately, if he likes to
go in.

Cannell—The order's of no use to me, for they
won't take me in—l know they won't—they've told
me so several times—unless my wife and children go
in too. My wife has the strongest dislike possible to
go in, and is determined not, and as she can contrive
to keep herself out of the house, though she can't
support me too, I am willing to separate myself from
her and go into the house by myself ; but they will
not take me in alone, and here am I wandering about
almost starving, for I have not had a bit or sup in my
mouth all this day.
Mr. BRoucirrox—But, as that is the case, why
don't you try to persuade your wife to go into the
house with you? Cannell—She is determined not,
and I can't force her to do it. I have pawned and
sold everything I had that would fetch any money, till
now I have not got anything more to sell. It's very
hard to be refused relief, after paying rates for many
years.

- Mr. Baotrearrox—Perhaps you have not properly
explained yourself to the parish authorities ; for if
you had I should think they would take you in at
once, and pass you in the regular way as soon as
possible to your native place.
Cannell—Oh, yes, I have, Sir ; I have explained it
a great many times, but it's all of no use, for they
won't listen to it, and tell me as positively as possible
that they don't intend to take me in unless my wife
goes in too, and that she won't.

Mr. BROUGHTON—WeII, I'll give you ls. from the
poor-box, to provide you with food and lodging for
to-night, and one of the officers shall call upon Mr.
Coste, and explain to him the nature of your applica-
tion and the distress you are in. I dare say the
officer's intercession on your behalf will induce Mr.
Coste to take you into the house without your family,
and pass you in the regular way to your own parish.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM'S MEDICAL
REFORM BILL and the DOCTORS.
There cannot be a stronger proof of the fallacy of
the system pursued by doctors, viz., the Organic
Theory, and that they know it, than their present op-
position to the Bill introduced by the worthy Ne-
therby Baronet. Let us for one moment consider the
nature of the opposition. It is this, that Sir James
has not put a stop to the sale of patent medicines,
which doctors are pleased to style the sanctioning of
quackery. By the Bill, doctors have got, we main-
tain, all the protection they are entitled to, and which
would be quite sufficient for them were they not fol-
lowing a false theory. It is made a misdemeanor by
Sir James Graham's Bill to pretend to be a doctor or
on the register, which is just and fair enough, for no
man should represent himself to be that which he is
not, and if he does he should, as provided by the Bill,
be subject to criminal punishment. But are doctors
satisfied with this ? No, no ; they know that any
man who can be such an impostor as to represent
himself falsely stands but little chance of success.
However, they are protected on this point by the
Bill; but they say that it is of no use to them! What
they wish is, to put down those who differ from them
in theory! ! who prove their theory (the Organic) to
be false by a successful practice ; who boldly stand
forward in their 'rue colours ; who clearly draw a
barrier, so that there can be no mistake in the parti-
cular class ; those we say are the persons which doc-
tors wish to put down, and which Sir James Graham
has very justly omitted to provide for by his Bill.
Sir James has very naturally said to the doctors—
" What more can you require, if you are right, than
that I should prevent men, who have not diplomas,
from representing:themselves as doctors to the world?"
Why, the thing speaks for itself, and Sir James
Graham must see through the whole concern with
half an eye.
Now let U 3 for one moment apply the foregoing
observations to the now numerous body of Hygeists,
who for the last twenty years have been showing the
errors and fallacy of the Organic Theory of the doctors.
Do they represent themselves as doctors ? Can there
be any mistake made by the public ? In the first
place, all the statements of Hygeists expressly deny
the truth of doctors' treatment, from beginning to
end, in the most clear and unmistaken terms ; and in
the next, the Hygeian Medicine is not sold at the
poison shops of the chemists and druggists, but at
greengrocers, shoemakers, stationers, &c., &c. Yes !
and we take a pride in acknowledging the fact. Mo-
rison's Pills are not, we say, to be had at the poison
shops of the doctors, where numberless rank poisons
are kept, in order to make a regular trade of the mi-
series of the human race. The honest and unassum-
ing persons who deal in Morison's Pills have but a
simple story to tell; they know that they themselves
have been reinstated in their health, and also that so
and so was at death's door under doctors' treatment,
and that he was, as it were, brought to life by the
Hygeian Medicines. But how is it with your chemist
and druggist and his different coloured bottles in his
window, which well accord with the mist and con-
fusion into which doctors have, for profit, clouded the
true science of health ? Why, all is contradiction,
confusion, and mystery. The people are, in short,
according to doctors, to be kept in the most profound
ignorance as to what is to keep their bodies in health ;
that is the long and short of the business ; and such
being our opinion, we fervently hope that Sir James
Graham will proceed with his Bill, and at once, and
for ever, establish that which every free-born Eng-
lishman is entitled to, viz., the Medical Liberty of
the Subject; and if he does, his name will be handed
down to posterity as a great benefactor to mankind.
In short, his fame would be imperishable, considering
the bonds of mystery, confusion, and death, which he
would have broken asunder.
Issued by Morison and Co., of the British College
of Health, New-road, London, for and on behalf of
the body of Hygeists.

CARRIAGE ROBBERY.—Wedneaday information was
circulated to all the station-houses of the metropolitan
police of another of those daring carriage robberies which
have of late become so frequent, having occurred at the
west-end. It appears that while the carriage of the
Hon. E. Phipps, of 64,. Mount-street, Grosvenor-square,
was proceeding through Hanover-square or Brook-
street, some thieves contrived to detach a large wicker
basket that had been fastened to the hind part of the car-
riage by straps, which were afterwards found to have
been cut. The basket, which was covered with oil skin,
contained a great quantity of very valuable property, in-
cluding Cashmere shawls, velvet scarfs, barege shawls,
lace collars, and robes of lace, two capes trimmed with
point lace, a lace bonnet, silk bonnets, blonde caps,
ostrich feathers, flowers, parasols, and many other ex-
pensive articles of ladies' apparel.
ACCIDENT.—About twelve o'clock on Wednesday a
serious accident happened in Piccadilly, to a breaks-
man in the employ of Messrs. l)ickensons, of Curz,n-
street, Mayfair It appears that he was breaking in a
young horse previously to putting it in harness, and
on its attempting to run away with him, he pulled it
up rather sharply, and consequently it fell over, break-
ing the unfortunate man's leg off short a little above his
ankle, by reason of his being thrown under the horse.
He was immediately carried to St. George's Hospital,
when 40 now lies it} sat vsn7 procsrious stye,