The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-22 00:00:00

SERVICES OF BREVET-MAJOR

MACKAY.

(From the British Army Despatch, 4th Jan., 1850.)
We would be remiss in our duty were we not to

direct particular atention to the subjoined services of
Brevet-Major Mackay, of the 21st Fusiliers, who,
after a full-pay service of forty-one years, is still but
a captain and brevet-major in the army. A harder
case, or one requiring more immediate redress, has
never come under our notice; and we hope and
trust the authorities will give this officer a rank which
his length of service so imperatively calls for, and
justice at once requires to be conceded to him. To
render it one of greater hardship, Major Mackay was
thirty years a subaltern, though he purchased his first
and second lieutenancy. He has been upwards of 17
years a captain, of which he has been for the last six
years the senior in the regiment. He was 26 years
on foreign service, in the four quarters of the globe.
He was for five years a prisoner of war in Franke,
having had to surrender to a superior force in Calabria,
in June, 1809, on which occasion his commander,
C iptain Donald Mackay, was desperately wounded,
and his own captain (Hunter) killed. Dis-
heartened by the manner in which he has been
treated by the legitimate service he depended on for
promotion, he has no alternative but to exhibit,
through the press, his unparelleled case of hardship,
af:er long and arduous services. A friend of Major
Mackay's naturally indignant at the treatment he
has received, writes to us :—" I leave it to your su-
perior advocacy to bring it forward in whichever way
you deem advisable, and I am sure you will at once
convince the public of this unheard-of case of injustice.
I even question whether there is a siaiilar
instance in the British army ; and I would add, that
in looking over " Hart's Army List," I can find but
two exceptions to Major Mackay (Lieutenant-Colonel
Dennis, 3d Foot, and Lieutenant-Colonel Despard,
99th Foot, both effective Lieutenant-Colonels) in the
whole of the field officers of the line, whose commis-
sions bear date antecedent to his ; and
.the services of
his late father, Captain Robert Mackay, who served
wish distinction for thirty-five years in the same
regiment, should be borne in mind, as giving Brevet-
Major Mackay an additional claim to the notice of his
Grace the Commander-in-Chief."

Brevet-Major Mackay entered the army as second-
ligutenant, by purchase, in the 21st Fusiliers, on the
24 h July, 1802 ; reduced at thu peace ( f Amiens in
the same year ; re-entered the 21st Fusiliers as second-
lieutenant on the 16th Oztober, 1805, without paying

the difference ' • was promoted 83 firs`.-lieutenant, by
purchase, on the 30th June, 1803. IL proceeded
with his regiment to Egypt, May 17, 1807, under the
command of Major-G lieral Mackenzie Fraser, and
returned with the army to Sicily, September
28th following ; and from June 19, 1809, to July
14, 1814, was a prisoner of war in France. lie
obtained his company, by purchase, in May, 1815
In August, 1815, his company was cancelled through
family circumstances, but he was allowed to retail,
his original position of lieutenant in the regiment,
and served in Americo, the Netherlands, France, and
Jamaica with the 33d Regiment ; and from Oetober
23, 1833, to 12th March, 1840, in Van Diernen':.
Tiled with the 21st Fusiliers. He went on half-
pay in 1819 on account of had health, bat returned
to full pay, as lieutenant, 331 Regiment, in Oc-
tober, 1821, repaying the difference. He was pro-
ev:ted to aa unattached company July 27±, 1832
Without purchase ; 'removed to full pay in the 331
giment August 10th, 1832; and exchanged to his old
regiment January 18th, 1833. He previously volun-
teered, when on leave, to accompany a draft under
Major Alexander James Ross, and embarked for the
United States of America to join the Ist battalion, and
commanded Captain Conran's (killed in action) com-
pany at the attack on the American lines before New
Orleans, January Bth, 1815, and served subsequently
with the army in France. Major Mackay further
served from June sth, 1840, to February 18111,1847,
in the Bengal and Madras Presidencies, and ou
Nevember 9th, 1846, was promoted as brevet-major.

We feel confident that the above enumeration of
Brevet-Major Mlekay's services will speak more elo-
quently in his behalf, and plead his cguse far more
etE.ctually, than all the words we could pen upon a
case of such unparalleled neglect, and cold and
withering injustice.
In contrast to the neglect of Major Mackay, we
take the following announcements from Gazettes
immediatey preceding :—" Brevet-Major Hamerton
is brought in Loin half-ray to full, in the 9th Foot,
.and allowed to sell his commissions ;" but re-ap-
pears at the bottom of the same Gazette as lieu-
fanaut-colonel by brevet. A still more glsring
case of favouritism is the following :—" The Hon.
Cap'.ain Cust, from half-ply, 3d Dragoon Guards, if,
brought into full pay as Captain into the 22d Foot,'
sells his commissions, and at the bottom of the very
same Gazette he appears, first as " major by brevet,"
and then as " lieutenant-colonel by brevet. This is
promotion with most comfortable rapidity indeed!

BRITISIr ORPHILTI ASYLUM. Yesterday, the
t vert, -third ahnual mooting pf the members of tais in-
stitution, which has f its object the boa-ding, clothing,
aid ,dudating of orphan children, with the view of
valiying them to 611 hereafter usffal stations in life,
1734 held in t',at London Tavern, Bislnpsgate-street,
the Right Her. the Lori Major in the chair. The Rev.
C. limbic, ono of the bonora-y snrctirics, rat
the report. It commenced with al expression of t'sank
fulness to the Almighty for the continued manifestation
cf his 'avour with which he was pleased to bless the
iustituttore During the fea f.,l ravages of cholera which
had raged on all sides of the asylum, not one t f its in-
mates had been a:tacked; and this, whilst it offered ano-
ther ground fur thankfulness, bore also strong testimony
in f %your of the sanitary regulations which were adopted
in the asylum. The committee bad, in common with other
institutions, to regret the loss of the excellent and
laved Queen Do we ger, who had been an annualcontributor
of tin guineas. The number of children resident in the
asylum, on the 31st Dec. last, was 95 (59 boys and 36
girls), a-id 8 more we-e added 3 esterday, out of a list of
37 candidates. Since the last meting a considerable in-
crease of aceommoda ion has been provided, and several
important arrangements which had become necessary to
promote the greater healthfulness and comfort of the
institution had been effeetel at a considerable cost, to
d fay which 7241. 12:. 63. had already been subscribed.
Tae dinner, which was held in May last, under the pre-
sidency of Mr. Alcock, M.P., had realised 7001.; and
1511.6 had been collected after sermons on behalf t f
thz institution. These two sums, in addition to a pre-
vious ba'ance of 74/. 21. I ld., 116/. 9s. (the dividend on
4,050/. stock), 5991 4s. 93. (from de sale of 6501. Three
per Cent. Consols), and subscriptions, amountel try
2,602/. 183. 5d.; and the expenditure to 2,391/. 16s.
leaving a present bsetalce of 211/. Is. 9d. The report
having been unanimously agreed to, the meeting pro-
coeded t the election of eight children, and sp (clay
broke up, upon the a-inouncement of the names of- the
successful candidates.

ST. HELEN'S SAVINGS' BANK.—The total amount
of detukition, sp, eking from data which have been co'-
eted is about 10.0001., or rather, we should say, that
sum will alt ar it, and it is believed Mr. Johnson and hie
brother hare sufficient property to curer it. The amount
of the bank liabilities t•as-been represented as 13.0001. ;
it is supposed they should be 23,0001. Though tke
trustees have not got them, there can be no doubt that
the fraud was carried on by means of duplicate books,
and Mr. Johnson appears to bare regularly entered and
raid interest, from some source or other, upon the
amounts abstracted to the accounts from which they
were taker', and also to have made a•i account straight
where he found the parties in whore name it stood were
about to alter it,• and there was a danger of an exposé.
This, however, he effected by merely taking sufficient
from some other account, or, in common phraseology,
" robbing Peter to pay Paul." Of course the sub-
actuary, his brother, who kept the books, was cogniz ant
of all this, as he admits, and actually effected the
transfer; but he. denies that he got any pecuniary
benefit. It is but justice to sta'e that both brothers have
made over the whole of their property, by a legal instru-
ment, to the trustees, to be applied in liquidation of the
claim upon them; and it is thought that, if the sum
eventually made out be not more than 10.000/. or
12,000/., that there will be sufficient asset'. We trust
this may be true.—Manchester Courier.
GENERAL LYING-IN HOSPITAL, YORK-ROAD,
LAMBETH.—A quarterly meeting of the governors of
this charity was held yesterday at the hospital, to take
into consideration the alteration of the laws, orders, and
regulations of the hospital, relating to the number
of patients which governors and subscribers of all
classes are entitled annually to recommend, and other
maters suggested by the report of the committee ap-
pointed in April last,'and to transact other business—
Thomas Somers Cox, Esq., M.P., in the chair. The
report stated that the expenditure exceeded the receipt]
or what might be called the regular income, including
the dividend on stock, annual subscriptions, and dona-
tions, by 304/. 9s. 63., the expenditure being for the
year 1,955/. 18s. 10d., and the income, 1,651/. 9s. 6d.
The average amount of annual subscriptions for the
last five years had been 3601. 14'. The largest amount
of subscriptions had been collected in the year 1849.
During the la't year 311 in-patients had been ad-
mitted, and 445 out-patients 'visited at their houses,
The election of officers and vice-presidents was then
procseled with; and a resolution passed, adjourning
the meeting till Feb. 18th, to take into consideration the
various alterations proposed by the committee. A vote
of thanks to the chairman concluded the business of the
day.

MANCHESTER.—Considerable gloom has been
ing of a melancholy case of suicide and supposed
oc-
casioned in this city by the discovery yesterday morn-
murder, which took place under very mysterious cir-
inweolliks nnoitwy.n aisir
wenosfftohnendlarygnessttersdhaipypinangnraminerg-,
cir-
cumstances. The deceased is Mr. Philip Novelli, a gen-
tlemanchants
about eight o'clock, hanging in, his bed-room, with the
rope nit iched to the bed-post', at his residence, Cliff-
mount, Lower Broughton, and his sister-in-law, Mrs.
Harriet Nonni, the wife cf his late brother, Louis No-
vell', was found quite deaf], lying upon the drawing-
room floor with a glass cf gin on ihe table beside her.
The jury have not pat held their inquest, we cannot
ersefore Mate anything further in the matte; Mr. Y.
Novelli was a widower. It is stated that he attended
I)..i.,:itwieh Church, a distance of three nalles from his
house, on Su.iday morning, in company wi.h his &-
ceased sister, and that they spent the evening together
as usual.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
EXCHEQUER COURT, Jan. 21.

'Sittings at Nisi Prius in Middlesex, in Hilary Term,
before Mr. Baron ROLFE and Common Juries.)
LEWIS V. FALCONER,.

This was an action to recover the sum of 45/. upon
a bill of exchange, drawn by one Atkins, and alleged
to have been accepted by the defendant. The defend-
ant pleaded in effect that he had not accepted the bill.
Mr. Hutnfrey and Mr. Hawkins conducted the case
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin James, with Mr.
Pearson, appeared for the defendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff is an attorney, and
that he had received the bill in question from a per-
son of the name of Leon, under the following cir-
cumstances. The defendant is a large cowkeeper at
Hoxton.

Lewis Leon stated that he is a watchmaker and
jeweller in Hatton-garden, and that he had discounted
this bill. The bill was dated the Bth of October in
the last year. The bill had been brought to him by
a gentleman of the name of Tucker, a billbroker, to
whom he had given a cheque for 411. 12s. 6d. fur it.
(It was afterwards proved by Tucker that ha had
handed this cheque to Atkins, the drawer of the bill,
for whom he had obtained its discount). After he had
given the money for the bill, he had called upon the
defendant, to whom he said that he had called to
make an inquiry about a bill of exchange. During
that interview he had stated that he had discounted a
bill drawn by one Atkins upon, and accepted by the
defendant and made payable at No. 45, Smithfield.
To this the defendant said, that " the bill was all
right." He then told him he had been to Edgavvare,
where he had ascertained that Atkins had been com-
mitting some forgeries, and had, therefore, gone off.
The defendant remarked that be had heard Atkins
had got himself intosome mess, but the bill was all right,
and would be paid when it became due. He asked the
defendant if he had accepted a bill of the same amount
as this, when the reply was in the affirmative.
Cross-examined—He had originally received this bill
from Tucker. It was drawn for 451., at two months'
date, and he gave Tucker a cheque for 411. 12s. 6d. fur
it. He had no running account with Tucker. The bill
he had paid into the London Joint- Stock Bank, by
whom it was re-discounted for him. When the bill

became due it was not paid, and, having got it from the
hank, he then gave it to the present plaintiff, with whom
he had an account. He gave the bill to the plaintiff in
)rder that he should do the best ho could with it,
,Ind, in truth, that that gentleman should sue the
defendant, and thus enable himself to become a wit'
iIOSS on the trial. He had not received any account

from the plaintiff, but it was a distinct understanding
with that gentleman that, if the amount of this bill
were recovered, the sum should be placed to his ac-
count. The bill was most decidedly given to the
plaintiff in order that he (witness) should be able to
give evidence when the trial came on. 11,,t had had a
general understanding with the plaintiff that in any
lotion which he might bring on his account he would
pay the costs if the action were lost.
Mr. JAMES here submitted that this witness had a
.dear interest in the action, and therefore ftll within
the Act of Lord Denman. This was now proved,
hat the day the bill had become due the last witness
had handed it to the present plaintiff without any
consideration. It was thus evident that the bill had
been indorsed to the plaintiff Leon, the real holder, in
,rder that he himself should be brought forward as a
witness to prove certain admissions or statem,,nts
which it was alleged had been male by the defen-
dant. Upon the ground, therefore, that the present
Action was not for the individual benefit of the plain-
tiff, he must submit that the evidence of Leon was not
admissible. _ _ _

Mr: Baron ROLFE said he should admit the evi-
lene,‘, but would give the Learned Counsel leave to

move.

Cro-A-examination resumed—He had caned on Mr.

Williams, a banker, in Smithfield, at whose house the
bill had been made payable, to inquire if the bill had
been accepted by the defendant, when Mr. Williams
replied that he could not say that it was not his hand-
writing.
Mr. JANIFF, on the part of the defendant, con-
ended, in the first place, that the plaintiff had never
given one farthing of consideration for the bill, and,
;a the second place, that the acceptance of the de-
,'endant to the bill was a forgery. It unfortunately
happened that there were several bills in circulation
en which the acceptance of the defendant hid been
'urged, and if the present or any other jury were to
gold him liable, the result must be his ruin.
John Williams being called, said that he and his
brother had an office in Smithfield, where many of
the salesmen who attended that market were in the
habit of making their hills payable, and of paying
money in to meet such bills. They had had many
'ransactions with the defendant:, and some with the
plaintiff. lie remembered a person coming to his
office to inquire whether the acceptance of a bill was
in the handwriting of the defendant, when his reply
had been that he could not say that it was not, and
that if any funds were in their hand-, on its arrival
it maturity, to meet the bill, it would no doubt be
paid. Tne bill was drawn by William Atkins
!laving now again looked at the acceptance, he was
unable to say that it was in the handwriting of the
lefendant. The defendant is aco wkeeper in an ex-
tensive way of business at tioxton.
Cross-examined—He had frequently seen the de-
;endant write. Its knew Akins, who had been in
-he habit of leaving money at his office to take up
hills of which the acceptances purported to be in the
handwriting of the defendant in the present action.
This proceeding, however, had not been renewed
since about last June. Probably Atkins had done
this as many as six times. The defendant had never
called at his office before any of these bills had be-
come due ; but after they had become due and had
been paid by money placed in the office by Atkins, the
mat er had been mentioned to him. The defendant
had told his brother and himself that he had heard of

the plaintiff's putting hills in circulation with his
name upon them as the acceptor, but that it had been
gone without his consent. The drawer Atkins was a

calf-salesman living at Chelmsford, but occasionally
attending Smithfield.

Ann Johnson, the niece of the defendant, proved
that she was present when the witness Leon had seen
her uncle, who had told him that the acceptance to
this bill was not made by him—it was not his hand-
writing. Leon then asked her uncle if he thought
Atkins would pay the bill when it fell due, to which
question her uncle had replied that no doubt it would
be all right.
C. Perry, the managing clerk to the attorney for
the defendant, proved that, on the 14th of January,
the plaintiff had communicated with him on the sub-
ject of the defendant going before a judge at Cham-
bers to snake an affidavit that the acceptance to the
bill was a forgery, and that the defendant having con-
dented to do so upon condition that the affidavit might
be used in evidence, the plaintiff refused to allow such
:1 proceeding. However, the parties met, and, find-
ing that it was too early to go before a judge, an
arrangement was made that they should go before the
magistrate at Bow-street, when the defendant should
make a declaration to that effect. When the clerk
to the magistrates had heard the nature of the de-
claration, and that it was not to be given in evidence,
he said that the magistrate would not take the decla-
ration.
Mr. HUMFREY then. replied.

. _
Mr. Baron RoLFB, in leaving the case to the jury,
told them that the question which had been raised in
this case was not so much whether the bill had been
accepted by the defendant—for that acceptance now
appeared to be admitted on all hands to be a forgery ;
but whether he had, in an interview with the witness
Leon, "adopted" the bill. Now, so far as the testi-
mony of the witness Leon had gone, it might be said
that such adoption had taken place. But then, when
they came to contrast that with the evidence which
had been given by the niece of the defendant, it
would appear that there was a great contradiction
between the two statements, and so far as his opinion
might be said to go, from the statement which had
been made by the niece, there had been no adoption
by the defendant, for all ha had said was that he'
thought the bill would be all right when it became
due. The jury must bear in mind that the plaintiff,
in order to entitle him to a verdict, must satisfy
them either that the acceptance was in the hand-
writing of the defendant—which it had been proved
was not the case—or that by some act of his he had
" ad-opted" the bill. If he did this, the plaintiff
would be entitled to a verdict. If not, then' it would'
be their duty to find in favour of the defendant.
There were two peculiar points in the case which
he felt it necessary that he should direct their atten-
tion to. The first was, that, although Leon had not
handed the bill to the present plaintiff until the day
upon which it had fallen due, there appeared upon its
back not only the indorsement of the plaintiff, but of
another name under his. It was somewhat difficult
to conceive why those indorsements should have been
made after the dishonour of the bill. Then the other-
point wai this, that it was quite clear that the idea of
imputing the " adoption " of the bill in October by
the defendant had never occurred until after the 14th
of the present month, fbr, on that day, the defendants
had been asked to go before a judge and make affi-
davit to the effect that the acceptance was a forgery ;
or when it had been found too early in the day to
meet with a judge at Chambers, then that the parties
had gone to Bow-street, in order that the defendant
should make a declaration to that effect. When they
arrived there, however, the clerk to the magistrate,
having been informed of the purport of the intended
declaration, but that the plaintiff had refused to
allow the document to be used in evidence, said
that the magistrate would not take the declaration.
It was manifest, therefore, that the plaintiff had
thought nothing of the assumed adoption in October.
These were two matters well worthy of the attention
of the jury.
The jury eeeeulfeel e few minutes, an then returned
a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. JAMES then applied that the bill might be im-
pounded.