The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-25 00:00:00

donor or devisor, as the case might be ; and in
order that there may be no suspicion that the law is
unfairly executed, a commission for the management
of charitable bequests generally--Protestant and
Roman. Catholic in common—is provided, and it is
enacted that five of ten members of the board shall be
Roman Catholics. Nothing surely can be imagined
more wise, just, and liberal than this law ; but because
it is wise, just, and liberal, Mr. O'Connell and his
friends are embarrassed by it. The truth is that
they did not desire any Charitable Bequests Bill at
all; though the want of a distinct law upon the sub-
ject of endowments seemed an excellent grievance—
a handsome addition to the hacknied falsehood that
the poorest people in the empire have to support two
churches. The Roman Catholic clergy—the only
efficient Roman Catholic party—do not desire
endowments, any more than they desire a
State provision because they are much better off
with the help of that elaborate system of taxation
which they have wrought up to an exquisite perfec-
tion. While a priest can represent himself to be
absolutely dependent upon the gratitude, generosity,
and Christian charity of the poor ignorant creatures
at his mercy, he may excise them at the rate
of 300/. or 4001. a-year, the present average in-
come of 'lrish priests ; but these gentlemen are
sufficiently well aware of the native shrewdness
of the most ignorant of their countrymen to know
that if the proprietor of a comfortable cottage,
with a settled income sufficient for his wants, say 801.
or 1001. a year for a single man, were to call upon
them for a penny, he would call upon them in vain.
The secular Roman Catholic clergy are therefore
exceedingly averse to any endowment of them.
selves ; and if any endowment is forced upon
their Church, they would willingly push it away
to the regulars' • who sometimes are, by sheer
poverty, compelled to trespass on the market
for masses. The Charitable Bequests Act, however,
makes no provision for the endowment of the
" regular orders," for this good reason, that the law
has already provided for the extinction of these
orders. Here, then, begins Mr. O'Connell's diffi-
culty. The priests universally hate and dread the
operation of the law, but they cannot avow the true
reasons of their hatred and fear of a law so manifestly
wise just, and liberal. The lower class know
nothing of the law, and hear nothing of it, except from
their priests, and the priests and the lower orders are
Mr. O'Connell's paymasters, and consequently his mas-
ters in all other respects. The intelligent and well-
disposed Roman Catholics have reason to be pleased with
a measure which must ultimately go far to break down
the intolerable tyranny of the ileces of Mayncroth,
and which even at present protects them from those
frequent robberies, by death-bed solicitations, to
which they are exposed. The intelligent and well-
disposed Roman Catholics, we repeat it, have
reason to be satisfied with the law, and are, in fact,
highly pleased with it, as they :lave given proof.
This fact, that the law is well received by the
well-disposed and intelligent and, indeed, by
all . the proprietary class of Roman Catholics is
important, . because it ensures that an adequate
nutnVer of Roman Catholics commanding public
confidence to work the commission will never be
wanting; so as fully to justify Dr. Murray's expla-
nation, if not apology, that if he did not take a
place on the commission, another, perhaps less zealous
for the Roman Catholic faith, could easily be found,
wbo R ould not have any scruple upon the point.
It • would be ungenerous, probably unjust, to say
that all or any of the Roman Catholic gentlemen
who have agreed to act upon the commission have
been determined by this kind of pis-aller conside-
ration ; but it is a consideration which, used by any
of; them as a defensive argument, would be unan-
swerahle. How, then, was Mr. O'Connell to pilot
hig way through the labyrinth of difficulty in which
he found himself? If he were to approve of the
Bill, and boast, as the Morning Chronicle advises
—that it was " his thunder," the fruit of his
victory and sufferings—the priests, whose bread
he eats, and who in their secret souls abhor the mea-
sure, would owe him little thanks for such "inoptata
tonitrua hand facientia ccenas"—they would reject
with :corn such fruits of victory and martyrdom.
And this is not all. Had he avowed approbation
of the measure, he must have stultified his
own Bill upon the same matter, and of a precisely
opposite character. Finally, he must have sacrificed
one topic' of agitation, and condemned himself to
show respect to one law of the Imperial Parlia-
ment—offerings 10 loyalty and common sense
quite foreign to his metier of " monster men-
dicant." But it is said he has embroiled himself
with' his Church by condemning a measure acted
upon by three of its bishops. He has, however,
done- no such thing ; he has a majority of the
Roman Catholic bishops, and nearly all the Roman
aittolic priests upon his side. It' any one can be
sail. to be embroiled with the Roman Catholic Church
in the affair, the parties so embroiled are the five Roman
Catholic Commis-tioners. A few weeks will tell which
party will lead the priests and the ignorant populace.
Meanwhile it is most unjust to assume that
Mr. O'Connell, who never in his life made a
mistake where the main chance (money) was con-
cerned, blunders at that period of life when, as it has
been said, all other faculties take leave, to set the
partly free to give his undivided energies to money-
getting. No, no, Mr. O'Connell has made no mis-
take—" an sic *As Ulysses ?" There is no one
living who feels more sensibly the force of the old
rule :

" Be it for better, or be it for worse,
Stick fast to the party who carries.the purse."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 23.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
HOLMAN V. BRIGHTMAN.

This was an action to recover damages for an in-
:iury alleged to have been done to the plaintiff's
character by the publication of a pamphlet containing
malicious and libellous paragraphs against him.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Greenwood were counsel for
the plaintiff; Sir T. Wilde and Mr. Smith for the
defendant.

In the declaration, it was stated that the plaintiff,
having retired from the sea, had commenced the busi-
ness of a sail maker, being at the same time a sur-
veyor to Lloyd's Register of British and foreign
shipping, and a valuer of losses occasioned by the sea.
The defendant is the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the General Maritime Assurance Com-
pany. The pamphlet which formed the ground of
the action was addressed to the insurance com-
panies, underwriters, and others, interested in the
mercantile marine. The seventh page of the pamphlet
contained the following statement :—" The Directors
of the General Navigation Company, having taken
into their serious consideration the charges made by
their underwriter against Mr. James Bowen and Mr.
John llolman, two of the surveyors of Lloyd's Register
of British and foreign shipping, for having, in their
official capacity, signed certain documents and com-
mitted acts calculated to facilitate the establishment of
unjust claims against the Company, in respect of the
ships Hannibal and Brutus, are decidedly of opinion
that these officers have been guilty of acts of indiscre-
tion, negligence, and misrepresentation, which called
for the most marked and unequivocal disapprobation
of their employers, and they are atbprehensive that the
course pursued by the Committee of Lloyd's Register
in Confining the expression of their disapproval to the
circumstances of Mr. Bowen having affixed his signa-
ture to the abstract of the bills for repairs to the
schooner Ilaneibal, not noticing other parts of
his-: conduct equally reprehensible, and in the
case of the survey .of the Brutus, passing
over the conduct of' Mr. John Ilolman, not only
without censure, but with implied commendation,
will have the effect of aggravating the evil com-
plained of, instead of redressing and correcting it.
Moreover, the Directors cannot give to the surveys
and reports of men guilty of such practices that faith
and credence which the statements of the officers of a
society that exercises so important an influence on
the commercial marine of the United Kingdom
ought in all cases to command." Then, again, in the
twenty-first page:—"And they consider that they I
might, with a greater show of equity, seek to be re-
imbursed, and have the expenses they have been sub-
ject to in procuring the evidence necessary to resist
the unjust claims brought against them, founded on
the gross misrepresentations and misstatements both
of James Bowen and of John Holman, and to prefer
this demand against the Committee of' Lloyd's
Register, who appointed them to, and still retain
them in, the responsible office of their surveyors, and
for which services in that' capacity they are deriving
remuneration." The pamphlet was published in
September last, by W. James Gray, the underwriter
of the Assurance Company, under the authority of the
Directors, the avowed object being to secure the co-
operation of insurance companies in introducing more
efficient men into the surveying department. It was
sent to the Shipping Gazette, and appeared in the
columns of that journal. The defendant had two
pleas on his record—first, that of Not Guilty; and,
secondly, that the libel was true.
The substantial facts of the case were these :—The
Brutus having sailed from Ballina, in Ireland, bound
,for London, with a cargo of oats, ran upon a bar
during the passage. She was insured for the sum of
5001. A dispute having arisen between the owners
and the Insurance Company, the defendant, a sur-
7yor in the employ of the Directors of Lloyd's Re-
gister, was sent down to examine her, and by his re-
port he confirmed a previous condemnation of the
vessel. It was to his conduct in so doing that the'
alleged libel referred.
Several witnesses were called on the part of the
defendant, for the purpose of impugning the accuracy
y
of the plaintiff's report as to the state of the vessel.
The trial did not terminate until half-past ten at
night, when the jury returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages, 504

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 23.
(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN RE J. MYNDE COOKE.
The case of this insolvent has been frequently re-
ported, he being an attorney, and deeply engaged in
gambling transactions with well-known persons
named Coglan, Stratford Stratford, Page, and others
of the same clique. He now came up in custody
from the Queen's Bench, his further examination
having been adjourned to this day, upon applicaticn
for his final order.
Mr. Cooke appeared for the insolvent, and Mr.
James for Mr. Flight, who had discounted accept-
ances of Stratford for the insolvent to the amount of
2,0001., but not knowing that they were given for
gambling transactions.
Mr. Encke, as agent for Mr. Flight, and Mr. Cox,
his solicitor, were again examined as to the discount
of these bills, and they positively swore that it was
effected upon the representation made by the insol-
vent that Stratford was entitled to considerable re-
versionary property, and was about to marry a wife
with a large fortune. The insolvent was also exa-
mined at great length, and from which it appeared
that his debts and liabilities were upwards of
40,0001., including, however, qui tam actions
for gambling penalties, for 24,0001., and no as-
sets. He was in business about a twelve-
month, and had some law bills due to him.
He kept horses at Cheltenham, which he sold, and also
kePt a Brougham in London, where he had had dif-
ferent lodgings, but only one at the same time. He
went, when very ill, Oh a visit to Coglan, at Strath-
field Sturges, where he met Mr. Stratford, and Mr.
John Evans, a wine-merchant, of Crown-court,
Broad-street, and considerable " play" took place,
and he won about 5,0001., for which Mr. Stratford's
acceptance was afterwards taken. Many difficulties
pressed upon him in consequence of his marriage, and
also the injunctions in Chancery. His profits from
his business were not more than 2001., if so much,
while his debts and liabilities were about 8,0001. to
10,0001., but chiefly upon Stratford's bills.
By Mr. JAMES—Did not Stratford accuse you of
playing with false dice ?
Insolvent—l know he did so since, but not at the
time. I brought the dice to play with. from a gam-
bling house in St. James's-street, where I won
2,5541., where I had previously lost, with the very
same dice, all I had in my own pocket ; but I was
tipsy at the time.
By Mr. COOKE—These dice were afterwards left
in Stratford's lodgings, and were now, with an affida-
vit, in the Court of Queen's Bench.
Mr. Jocelyn Cooke, the brother of the insolvent,
was (at his own request) examined by Mr. COOKE—
He lent his brother (the insolvent) 1,075/., includel
in which was a cheque for 6004 and on the 28th of
November, 1842, an I O U for 2401., together with
another cheque for 801. Those sums he (the in-
solvent) repaid me in 1843, when he (witness) dis-
counted Stratford's bills. He would swear that he
did not know that they originated out of gambling
transactions.
Wm. Jordan, clerk to Mr. Jocelyn Cooke, and
formerly clerk to Mr. Mynde Cooke, repeated his
former evidence as to his having heard a conversa-
tion between Mr. M. Cooke and Mr. Encke, when
certain bills were sought to be discounted. Cooke
said he had received 4,0001. from Coglan for gambling
transactions, and Encke was to have had 500/. for
his labour in getting the discount.
By Mr. JAMES—I did not say at the last exami-
nation before Mr. Commissioner Evans that I heard
what occurred through a hole in a boarded partition,
and that I swear. Cooke did not attend regularly at
his office after the injunctions, and I believe notice
was ultimately served upon him at the Reform Club.
He was served with the injunction at the latter end
of May last. I saw Mr. Cooke pay Mr. Page 3,800/.
Mr. James and Mr. Cooke having been severally
heard at considerable length for their respective
clients,
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that this applica-
tion was made under the 28th section of the act, to
grant the insolvent his protection. The opposition to
the insolvent he considered to be perfectly legitimate,
although no trade creditors as such now opposed him.
There were three charges made against the insolvent;
first, his obtaining money from Mr. Flight upon hills
by means of false representations.; second, his retain-
ing 1,2001. out of 3,8001. from Mr. Stfatford's father's
estates, and third, reckless expenditure. Now, as to
the discount of the bills by Flight, he (the Learned
Commissioner) .believed the statement of Drake and
Cox, who both said that the money was to be raised
for Stratford, who had considerable expectations, and
was then about to marry the daughter of a Baronet.
Besides, the insolvent was all that time acting in the
character of Stratford's solicitor, and no doubt it was
only from the expectation of large gains that Flight
discounted the bills. The transactions with Page are
certainly left in doubt, for Evans (the wine-merchant)
had not been called ; but yet, taking the whole of the
evidence upon that point, it was decidedly against the
insolvent. As to the transactions between him and
his brother, they appeared to be a complete juggle;
and, under all the circu nstences of this case, which
was full of fraud and culpable neglect, he had no
hesitation in at once dismissing the application alto-
gether.
Mr. COOKE—By the Act the insolvent must be pro-
tected after twelve months.
The Learned COM.MISSIONER—That must be for
another tribunal.
The Court rose at seven o'clock.
DECEMBER 24.
Commissioners Evans and Holroyd sat this morning,
but no case of any importance came before them.
IN RE JARVIS.
The insolvent, a builder, in Kennington-lane, applied
for his interim order, and was examined by a solicitor,
who appeared for several of the creditors.
The Hon. Commissioner EVANS dismissed the peti-
tion, as the insolvent would not swear positively, or to
the best of his belief, whether credit had been given to
him in a certain account for payment of a 151. bill o
exchange.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
BOW-STREET.
Monday Ebezier Farms Hingston, a young man,
employed as prosector to the professor of physiology
in King's College, Somerset-house, was brought up
for re-examination, before Mr. Jardine, charged with
stealing a coat, a pocket-book, a cigar-case, several
letters, an inkstand, and a key, value 41. and upwards,
the property of Mr. John Farmer, a medical student.
Several coffee-shop keepers, who had known the
prisoner for a considerable time, were in attendance
in the early part of the day to identify a number of
books that had been stolen from their premises, and
which were found by the officer, with other property,
on searching the prisoner's lodgings.
Mr. Wontner appeared for the prisoner.
The prosecutor having repeated the statement he
made on Friday last, said, in answer to Mr. Wontner,
that the porter's room was much frequented by the
students, and when his coat was found in the cup-
board, the articles were found in the pockets per-
fectly safe.
Dr. Robert Bentley Todd being sworn, said—l
reside at 24, Parlilment-street, and am professor of
physiology at the King's College. On Friday last
the prosecutor stated to me the suspicions he had
of the prisoner, in consequence of which I thought it
right to examine several cupboards and boxes in my
private room, which were solely in the charge of the
prisoner, but when he is out of the way the key of
the room is in the possession of the porter, the pri-
soner being responsible for the safety of the property
deposited in the several boxes. I examined the open
boxes first, and not finding anything in them to ex-
cite my suspicions, I asked the prisoner for the keys
for such as were locked, and he proceeded to look in
a drawer in which I understood he was in the habit
of keeping them, but not finding them after con-
siderable search being made by the prisoner, I asked
for a chisel, with which I broke open a cupboard, from
which a coat immediately fell, and on taking it up I
called for the prosecutor, who identified the coat, and
took several articles from the pocket.
By Mr. JARDINE—No person had the key of the
cupboard but the prisoner, in whose exclusive charge
it was, there being several preparations in it of which
he had the care.

Cross-examined—l lectured on the day in ques•
tion, and concluded about half-past one o'clock, and
I do not recollect ever having seen the prisoner take
the keys from the drawers I locked in. The prisoner
was in the King's College about four years, and he
came there with a recommendation from Dr. Sharpy,
of the University College.
Eliza Gannon, wife of the porter, proved that on
Saturday morning she found the keys in the theatre
(a constable being present), between a patent stove
and a skeleton, on the floor, while she was dusting
the room.

In answer to Mr. Wontner, the prosecutor said he
was a student about fifteen months, and about two
months back the key of Dr. Todd's room was lost, in
consequence of the students locking the door and
running away, having locked several persons inside,
who were ultimately obliged to get out by the win-
dove as well as they could.
Mr. Wontner submitted that no case had been made
out against the prisoner, for, instead of acting like a
person who had committed a felony, he had made
every exertion with the porter to recover the pro-
perty ; and as to the keys, they might have been re-
moved by some of the students in the pranks they
were constantly in the habit of playing.
Mr. JARDINE said he would express no opinion
upon the subject until he could hear some account of
other charges, several of which, he was given to un-
derstand, were about to be brought against the pri-
soner.

Constable West, F division, said that on Saturday
last, while searching the prisoner's lodgings, 25, Har-
wood-street, Hampstead-road, he found in a front
room occupied by the prisoner the three diagrams
produced, Which were used in anatomical lectures,