The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-14 00:00:00

The origin of this fracas, as we collect from the evidence
reported elsewhere, was pretty much as follows :—Four years
ago the chapel of Ballyboghill was rebuilt, partly on the old
site, and partly on ground the property of Mr. Byrne. Mr.
Byrne had, moreover, been so zealous and active in the re-
edifice that, out of the £lOOO raised for the purpose, his own
contributions, and the subscriptions collected by him,
amounted to six hundred pounds. In consideration of such
services, and the gentleman's rank and character, Mr. Byrne
either stipulated, or was permitted, by the Rev. Mr. Cana-
van, then the Roman Catholic parish priest, to erect a pew
for himself and family, in the sanctuary : that is to say, with-
in the railed space that surrounds the altar ; and of this pew
he continued to hold undisturbed and unenvied possession,
until a few months ago, when " a Pharoah, that knew not
Joseph," succeeded Mr. Canavan in the parish ; and having
discovered that the Roman canons forbad the erection of pews
within the sanctuary, proceeded to have Mr. Byrne's seat re-
moved to the gallery. Mr. Byrne resisted, and had his pew
restored to its original place; and the consequence was, that
on going to chapel on the succeeding Sunday, he found the
seats of himself, his wife and daughters, preoccupied by a
host of paupers, who, claiming a full equality with the gentry,
both in rank and rights of property, had, voluntarily, and of
their own motion, obtruded themselves into that distinguished
place. Such is the statement of the witnesses.
With the subsequent matter of litigation we have nothing
to do. We care not whether the canon law of Rome do or
do not regulate the sittings in a Roman Catholic place of
worship. This canon is not acknowledged by the law of the
land. The reason why we advert to the case is this : be-
cause it strikingly exhibits the perverse fealty of the Roman
Catholic priesthood Ito the laws of a foreign judicature, in
contempt of the laws of the realm of which they are the natu-
ral born subjects, and to which they, as well as their fellow-
countrymen, are bound to pay obedience. If Mr. Byrne's
pew were illegally erected, there are laws and statutes of our
swn, binding enough to abate the wrong and establish the
right ; and we cannot but say that priests, who set up a fo-
reign jurisdiction in preference, teach badly, by example, the
order and obedience to the laws of the land, which it is their
moral, as well as their civil duty to observe themselves, and
inculcate upon others.

FRANCIS AND COOPER.—The sessions of the Central Cri-
minal Court commenced on Monday (yesterday), and from
the appearance of the calendar made up on Friday night,
there being upwards of 200 prisoners for trial, they are likely
to occupy a week or twelve days. The judges who are ap-
pointed to adjudicate at the trials of the assassin John
Francis, for shooting at her Majesty the Queen, and the
prisoner Thomas Cooper, the highwayman and murderer of
of the unfortunate policeman, Daly—are Lord Chief Justice
Tindal, Mr. Justice Patteson, and Mr. Baron Gurney. It
is not yet ascertained whether Francis will traverse over to
the next sessions in July. If not, his trial will be proceeded
with in the Old Court on Thursday next, and that of Cooper
on Friday. The latter prisoner has entirely recovered from
the effect of the poison he swallowed prior to the commission
of the murder.

JULIA GRISL—The suit jnstituted by Mdme. de Melcy
against her husband for a separation de corps was determined
on Wednesday se'nnight by the Tribunal de Premiere In-
stance. M. de Melcy having made no opposition, the court,
upon the requisition of M. Glanday, the avoue of the fair
complainant, and without any argument of counsel, delivered
judgment, pronouncing for the separation to the following
effect :—Considering that the marriage between M. and
Mdme. de Melcy was celebrated in London on the 26th of
April, 1836—that in January, 1839, the complainant was
constrained by the ill-treatment of her husband to quit the
conjugal dwelling, but afterwards made ineffectual efforts to
return—that in order to withdraw himself from her just
remonstrances, M. de Melcy quitted Paris, and concealed
the place of his abode ; that he afterwards formally refused
to receive her, answering her appeals to him either by insult-
ing reproaches or contemptuous silence—that in November,
1841, on her retv rn to Paris to fill her engagement at the
Italian Opera,-.,Ce found that M. de Melcy had taken pos-
session of the Chateau Vaucresson, which is her own
property, and on her making known to him her intention to
come and live there, she was insultingly forbidden to enter,
and that M. de Melcy had in the same manner treated a
formal summons by a bossier, and another by a justice of the
peace; and finally quoting the articles of the Civil Code ap-
plicable to the case in question, declares M. de Melcy sepa-
rated from his wife, and interdicts him from henceforth
haunting or frequenting the complainant ; but allows her to
receive him into her own habitation.
The Court of Assizes of the Eure-et-Loire, held at Ev-
reux, was engaged, on Friday and Saturday last, with the
trial of two men, Langlois and Godefroi, for an attempt to
murder the father of the former, under the following circum-
stances :—Langlois, the prisoner, having expectations of a
considerable inheritance on the death of his father, was eager
to enter into possession. He first attempted to poison his
sire, by sending him an omelette drugged with arsenic when
at work in the fields. This, however, failed, producing only
a violent sickness. Upon this he seduced a shepherd, the
other prisoner Godefroi, a man aged only 2:,.', but married
and having a family, and being in the greatest distress, to
become the murderer of the elder Langlois, by shooting him.
To insure his success, Langlois made him practise by firing
at rabbits, fowls, and other objects. When thought to be a
sufficient marksman, he was put on the watch for an oppor-
tunity of shooting the parent of his suborner. Finding, in
October last, the old man, who is 72 years of age, in his or-
chard gathering apples, Godefroi fired at him and struck
him. He then hastened back to the house of the son, and,
pot finding him at home, left word for him with the servant
that he had hit the rabbit, but it was not yet dead. Langlois,
on receiving this intelligence, went to his father, feigning
great grief ; but, finding his father had only his arm broken,
he determined again to have recourse to arsenic, and sent
Godefroi to a chemist's to purchase some, but fortunately it
was refused him. Langlois, the son, lived in concubinage
with his female servant, who was with child by him. She
i was acquainted with his horrible projects, and frequently 1
re-
monstrated against them, upon which he quarrelled with her
and ill-treated her. At length she communicated these
facts to her brother and his wife. They, on hearing of the
attempt against Langlois, senior, went and related the whole
story to the chief magistrate of Guillefontaine, in the Seine
tvianfaerieure, where all the parties lived, and the nefarious act
fg°uriltthoaftthd
perpetrated. Langlois, the son, and Godefroi, were ar-
rested, and in due time brought before the Court of Assizes
eetear prisonerst tnent.
was
incontrovertible,
d
evidence
Godefroiof
fullyth
confessed h
e
of guilty,
in favour of bothtit
his
shore in it, and declaring that he was to receive
LOOM as
found that
the jury in delivering their verdict
discovering some floe
which subjected both'
t there were extenuating circumstances
delinquents. The Procureur-General,
of hard labour at the hulks in the form of delivering this verdict,
re. M this convicts to the minor punishment
the judgment, and ordered against it to the Court for life, instead of death, ap-
pealed Court of Cassation, which quashed
ered newnew
hearingtrial before
all the
tll Courtefae
ts oof
f
Assizes for the Eu
his confession. The prisoneerklrce.
the case were again given in
have
was further proved
and Godefroi renewed
to have been so avaricious as to ye committed robbery and
forgery for the purpose of obtaining
was attempted,
then actually
oney. Holding a farm
under his father at a rent of I,Bora.aa jear, he had, on the
mpted, written his
nametooareeeipt lodf mmanf'.s.
tlwifeo
to Godefroi for the bloody deed. h
due, in order thereby to save nine-tent aof
an hour
the money he
ynot concluded till twelve at night onesproceed-
winagss twoeprea
when the jury retired, and remained upwards of
deliberation. On their return they found Langlois guiltc in
parricide, and Godefroi of murder, with extenuating eireuY of
stances as to the latter alone. Langlois was condemneticato-
death, and Godefroi, as before, to hard labour at the hulks
for life.