The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-29 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

THE OUTLAWRY OF TEE HON. RICHARD BETHELL.—At
the Sheriffs' Court, Red Lion-square, the Hon. Richard
Bethell attended in an outlawry proclamation to surrender.
When the action was called Mr. Bethell answered and
claimed protection on the production of an official document
from the Coujt of Bankruptcy, under an arrangement deed.
Mr. Under-Sheriff Burchell asked whether tie defendant
surrendered. Mr. Bethell said he did surrender. The Under-
Sheriff said, as the defendant surrendered, the officer
would have to take him to 'Whitecross-street Prison. Mr.
Bethel! said the officer would do so at his peril. Mr..
Slowman, the sheriff's officer, told Mr. Bethel! he was in
his custody. The Under-Sheriff explained to Mr. Bethel!
that he could apply to a judge at chambers to be dis-
charged on the protection he had produced from the
Court of Bankruptcy. Mr. Bethel! left the court in
custody. Subsequently the parties attended before Mr.
Justice Byles at chambers, who took the case without
the usual practice of a day's delay and the service of a
summons. Mr. Under-Sheriff Hall attended for the
sheriff. The facts were mentioned to the learned judge,
and the case of Ames and Colqua.hi (in which Ames was
released) was cited, in which the Court of Com Mon Pleas
had recently decided that a protection under a deed in an
outlawry matter was valid. His lordship, on the autho-
rity of the case quoted, ordered Mr. Bethel! to be dis-
charged, and he was accordingly liberated without going
to prison. On the application of Mr. Under-Sheriff Hall
it was ordered that no action should be brought against
the sheriff for the arrest by his officer.
MISCONDUCT OF AN ATTORNEY.—In the Court of Queen's
Bench the case of the Incorporated Law Society v.
Robert R. Hill, an attorney, was heard. The defendant
had been clerk with an attorney, and had received on his
behalf the sum of £B5 in the year 1865, and this money he
had retained. The matter was discovered three years after-
wards, and the defendant returned the money. The excuse
urged was that he did not mean to retain the money. The
Lord Chief Justice said that if the matter had been dis-
covered before the person had been admitted an attorney,
the court would not have had him placed on the rolls
until satisfactory proof was adduced that he had departed
from his evil ways. As the defendant had a wife and
family relying on his exertions, the decision of the Court
was that he be suspended for the term of twelve months.
THE ELECTION OF GUARDIANS FOR STOCKPORT.—The
election of guardians for Stockport has been the cause of
proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench. An applica-
tion was made with a; view to question the election of a
person as guardian, and the point in dispute
was whether the fact that the voter's name appeared on
the last register of votes was conclusive as to the right
to vote, or whether:a subsequent default in non-payment
of rates would disqualify. The voters whose votes were
disputed had not paid the last rate made in September,
and were registered in March, less than six months
after the rate, and had voted in April, more than six
months after it ; and the statute excludes from voting those
who have not paid all the rates for a year, except those
which had been made and become due within six months
of the time of voting. The votes were excluded, and
turned the election. The court, however, held that as the
terms of the statute were explicit that the rates must be
paid for a year, except the rates made within the six
months previous to voting, the register, therefore, could
not affect it.— Rule refused.

THE LAND CLAUSES ACT.—In the Court of Common
Pleas the case of Morgan v. the Metropolitan Railway
Company was heard. The railway company had given
the usual six months' notice that they should require the
plaintiff's premises, and he sent in his claim for com-
pensation, which amounted to £ll,OOO, and he asked the
defendants to cause a jury to be summoned to assess the
damages. They had never done so, and the plaintiff had
been aggrieved by having to provide other premises. This
action was brought for a mandamus to compel the company
to issue their warrant to the sheriff to summon a jury to
assess the damage. The court was of opinion that the
mandamus ought to be issued, as the notice sent by the
company was binding on both parties.
SHOOTING BY A JEALOUS HUSBAND.— Andrew Simmons,
a grocer, was committed to the Chester Assizes, by the
Birkenhead stipendiary magistrate, for firing at John
Boddon, at Birkenhead, with a revolver, with intent to do
him grievous bodily harm. The prisoner was persuaded by
his wife to go to Australia in July last, leaving his property
in her charge. On his return to England, in April last,
he found the prosecutor living with his wife, and, as he
asserts, in possession of his property. Prisoner at that time
demanded access to his wife, which was refused, and, in
consequence, he broke into Boddon's house, for which
offence he was tried and acquitted. On Wednesday morn-
ing he walked up to prosecutor as he was opening his shop,
and fired three shots at him with a six-chambered revolver.
They all passed close to him, and lodged in the wood-work
of the shop. For the defence, it was urged that the shots
were fired for the purpose of frightening Boddon. The
magistrate took another view of the case, and refused to
'flow the prisoner out on bail.
ACTION FOR THE BITE OF A Doc.----At the Birming-
ham County Court an action was brought by Esther
Stanley, a girl twelve years old, to recover damages for
injuries sustained by the bite of a dog belonging to Mr.
Molyneux. The dog was chained to defendant's cart. It
bad been a vicious dog, and had bitten many people before.
Mr. John Vinrace, surgeon, said he had attended the
plaintiff. The wound had been a severe one, and the child
had been injured for life. His Honour gave a verdict for
the plaintiff for
ACTION AGAINST THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT LOIVE.
At the Reigate County Court, an action was brought by
a person named Russell against the Right Hon. Robert
Lowe for £5 wages. The plaintiff was engaged as
gardener, at 20s. per week. He asked 235., but was
refused, Mrs. Lowe saying that if he stopped twelve
months, which he did, a r resent of £5 would be given him.
When he applied for the £5 he was refused, on the ground
that he had broken several things. For the defence it was
argued that an agreement no 1; to be performed in twelve
months must be in writing. His Honour said that it was
a very unusual defence, but the plaintiff must be non-
suited.

The University at Naples has been closed for a
week by order of the authorities, in consequtnce of a
manifestation of the medical students against Professor
Deluca. _

,(14,...••
The Sultan, in receiving a deputation from the
Christian communities, declared that he wished that every
one in his dominions might be able to rise even to the rank
of carAudYizigaithsnit sliztinWQß crged..

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

A Cov,rt of Common Council was held yesterday
at Guildhall, at which the Lord Mayor (Alderman
Allen) presided.

THE CORPORATION AND THE PROPOSED FOREIGN

CATTLE MARKET.

Mr. J. F. B ONTO'S inquired of the chairman of
the Markets Committee whether a statement made
in a morning newspaper to the effect that the Cor-
poration had declined to be parties to, or to inter-
fere in any manner with, a bill before Parliament
for establishing a new market for the sale of foreign
cattle was correct ?
Mr. RUD KIN, the chairman of the committee re-
ferred to, said that the statement was substantially
correct. The Corporation had retained counsel on
their behalf to watch the proceedings before the
committee, and the Government had consented in
the first instance to introduce certain clauses which
the Corporation considered necessary for their in-
terests. The Government bad, however, entirely
broken faith with the Corporation in reference to
these clauses, and had actually opposed them ; and
this being the case, the counsel for the Corpora-
tion had been instructed to withdraw from the
matter.

In answer to a question put by Mr. DE JERSEY,
Mr. RuDjuN stated that the Corporation had not
yet formed a decision as to what course they should
take in the event of the bill becoming law. By a
great deal of exertion they had succeeded in pre-
venting the Metropolitan Board of Works from
being constituted the " local authority" for carry-
ing out the measure, and that privilege was vested
in the Corporation of London. If that body did
not choose to undertake the duty, there would be
five commissioners appointed for the purpose. Mr.
Rudkin added that he believed, from information
that had come to his knowledge—and he might add
that he was very glad of it—that the bill was not
likely to be passed in the present session.