The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-11 00:00:00

LAW AND POLICE.

APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER CF SHARES.—Before the
Araster of the Rolls a case was heard in which a gentle-
man named Weston applied to have the name of a trans-
feree of his shares in the firm of Smith, Knight, and Co.
(Limited) inserted on the share register instead of his own.
It appeared that Mr. Weston sold his shares to a Mr.
Birnie on the 18th June, 1866, and sent the transfer to
the office to be registered on the 10th. In the beginning
of July IDCG a resolution was passed to wind up the com-
pany, and the directors, subsequently to such resolution,
informed Mr. Weston that they could not register
the transfer to Mr. Birnie, inasmuch as that gentleman's
address was not inserted therein. The directors -at the
same time asked Weston to furnish them with Birnie's
right address, but this request does not appear to have
been complied with. On behalf of Weston, the present
applicant, it was contended, first, that Birnie was a most
respectable man, and that the plea of informal address
was mere moonshine on the part of the directors ; and,
secondly, that the directors had no power under the com-
pany's articles of association to refuse to register a transfer
bond fide made previously to the order to wind up. The
court held that the directors, being trustees for all parties
interested in the company's assets, were entitled and
bound to exercise a discretion in all cases of transfer and
registry. The application was refused, but no order was
made as to costs.

AN ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTION.—III the Court of
Queen's Bench an application was made, on behalf of the
archdeacons of the diocese of Carlisle, for a writ of prohi-
bition to the chancellor of the same diocese to restrain him
from exercising archidiaconal jurisdiction in the archdea-
conry of Carlisle and Westmoreland. The question to be
raised in the case was as to the effect of a provision in
the Ecclesiastical Commission Act.
MANSLAUGHTER BY A GIRL.—At the Central Criminal
Court Isabella Davidson, a servant, was indicted on the
coroner's inquisition for the wilful murder of her infant.
It seemed that the prisoner, who was out of a situation,
took the child to a Mrs. Stokes, who lived in Chelsea, and
agreed to pay 3s. Gd. per week for the support of
the child. Soon after an application was made for an in-
crease of the weekly allowance, which, however, was not
given, and the accused fetched her infant from Mrs.
Stokes'. Early the next morning the gardener of Park
House, Fulham, was at work when he discovered a
parcel lying on the footpath, and on. opening it
discovered the body of a newly-born infant. A cloth was
drawn tightly over its face, in fact, so tightly that the
nose was considerably flattened, the eyes protruding, and
every indication that death had taken place from suffoca-
tion. The prisoner was suspected, and on being charged
with the crime, said " I did it ; shall I be hung ?" The
jury found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, and she
was sentenced to penal servitude for ten years.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY AND HEAVY SENTENCE. —At the same
court Daniel Cocklin, 27, tailor, was charged with highway
robbery. The prosecutor was Mr. William Henry Hicks,
a tutor, living in Islington. He had been dining with a
friend at Bow, and was on his way home at night. He
had treated a young man whom he had met, and had
asked him to see him home, he being very tipsy. About
ten o'clock he found himself in the Borough Market,
being attacked by a number of men and his arms being
pinioned, and he distinctly saw the prisoner rifling his
pockets. His watch and chain, purse, tobacco-pouch, and
pocket-comb were stolen from him. He raised a cry of
" Police !" and all the men ran away. The beadle of the
Borough Market, hearing the cries, saw the prisoner
running away from the spot, and followed him and caught
him. He had seen the prisoner near to a standing van,
and after he' gave him into custody he found there the
watch and chain, tobacco-pouch, and purse. The jury
found the prisoner guilty. Numerous convictions were
proved against the accused, and this time the sentence was
ten years' penal servitude.

Ti CASE OF MADAME RACHEL.—At Marlborou,h-
-r.
as ttrtce cntd' attended iStahy rer,f. Kingswell, therom
offi eceo aocfh \b
trtri dEe rd, w Urpd piece wSits.,
Martin's•lane, and Mr. Richards, of the Thistle and
Grown, St. Martin's-lane, who had consented to become
bail for Madame Rachel. In reply to questions from Mr.
M. Williams, Mr. Kingswell said he had known Madame
Rachel for twenty years. Ire believed her husband lived
at ZO, Maddox-street, and was " an independent man,
living on the earnings of his wife." As far as he knew, not
a shilling had been deposited in order that he might
become bail. Mr. Richards had been asked by Mr. Kings-
well to become bail for Madame Rachel, and was
guaranteed against loss by Mr. Leverson. Mr. M.
Williams said he must object to this last bail, as he was
told that Madame Rachel's property was in Paris. Mr.
Sayer would undertake to say there was property in
Maddox-street belonging to Madame Rachel worth at
least £4,000. Mr. Leverson said he had chambers in
Dean-street, but did not pass by the name of Phillips.
Mr. Knox thought he must .be satisfied with the bail
tendered. Madame Rachel was then released.