The Times from London, Greater London, England • Page 18

13 THE VTES SATURDAY, JUNE 2, ISW judgment under which thoj fell bf noir no sanctity they form no longer a precedent they may perfectly followed by pardon, or partial pardon, aa tho authorities ahall Tlio critno u( it to haro read tho first articlo of tho Berlin Act, and not t. havo read at all (aa how ahoald ho when it has never tranalatod tha Insidious protocol which cuntaina.ita aignificahco tho critho of hia followers ia to haro practised clan and to havo in conaoquenco raised an itnjriMirt in imvtri'o, and fought against tho Govyrnimmt. Tiieir punishment ia to bo sent to a coral atoll and detained there prisoners. It docs not sound much it is a great deal. TahVrti from a mountain island, they must inhabit narrow strip of reef sunk to tho gunwale in tho ocean.

Sand, stone, and cucoanuts, atone, sand, and pandanas make tho scenery. Thero is no grass. Hero these men, used to the cool, bright mountain rivers of Samoa, must drink with loathing the hrsckirh water of tho coral. Tho food upon jueh islands is distressing even to tho omnivorous white. To tho Samoan, who has that shivering delicacy and ready disgust of tho child or tlio rustic mountaineer, it is intolerable.

I remember what our present King looked like, what a phantom ho was, when ho returned from in the samo place Lastly, theso 14 jtsve Wd divorced from their families. Tho daughter xf MaUafa somehow broko thii consipnf nud accompanied her father but sho only. To this day one of tlem, Palepa, tho; wife of Kaamuma, is dunning the authorities in vairi to le allowetl to join her husband slid a young and hajhomo woman, ho an old man and infirm. I cannot sixak with certainty but I Iwlicvo they are allowed no communication jwith tho prisviners, nor tho prisoners with them. My own open experience is brief and conclusiro I hare not been suffered to send my frjends ono stick of tobacco or ono pound of am, So much to show tho hardships aro genuine.

I haro to nk a pardon' for thoso unhappy victims of untranslated' protocols and inconsistent justice. After the casu of Tamaseae, 1 ask it almost as of right. Ab for tho other 27 in tho gaol, let tho doors bo opened at once. They hare showed their patience, they haro proved thoir loyalty long enough. On two when the guards deserted in a body, and again tho Aina prisoners fled, they remained ono may truly say voluntary prisoners.

And at least let "them bo fed I have paid taxes to tho iramoan Government for some four years, and tho most sensible benefit I havo received in return has been to bo allowed to feed their prisoners. Second, if tho farco of tho Berlin Act is to be gone on with, it will bo really necessary to moderate among our five Sovcreigns six if wo arc to count poor Maliotoa, who represents to tho life tho character of tho Haro and 31any Friends. It is to bo presumed that Sir. Jdo and Herr Schmidt wcro chosen for their qualities it is little good we aro likely to get by them if, at wind of rumour, the three Consuls are to intervene. threo Consuls are.

paid far smaller salaries, they havo no right under tho treaty to interfere with the government of autonomous Samoa, and they have contrived to make themselves all in all. The King and a majority of tho Faipulo fear them and look to them alone, while the adviser occupies a second place, if that. Tlio misconduct of MM. Cedercrantz and Senft von Filsach was so extremo that tho Consuls were obliged to encroach and now when these aro gone the authority acquired in the contest remains with the eiicroaohers. On their side they havo no rights, but a tradition of victory, the ear; of the Governments at home, and the ra of tho warships.

For tho poor treaty officials, trhat have they but rights rery obscurely expressed and very weakly defendou by, their pre deeesors Thus it comes about that people who nro scarcely mentioned in the text of tho treatv are, to all intents and purposes. our only rulers. UOBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. Vailima, Apia, 23. i CoLoxtL Siusdeusos at OxroBD.

The debate on Home Rale was continued at the Oxford Union Society on Thursday night, when Colonel Kaunderson, M. replied to the speech delivered.by Air. John Dillon, 31. 1, last week. Colonel Saunderson said it alTonied him the greatest pleasure to speak to that audience, because it was composed of the.

men who in the future would be either the makers or the unmakers their country. It would depend upon them, 'when this generation had passed away, whether Great Britain was to remain what she 'was i.ow, the greatest Empire of the world, or whether she tva to iiy into dismembered atoms. It had. been Viiged that one of the greatest misfortunes that had ever happened. to Ireland was the fact of Irjsk emigration, but they were told immediately afterwards that the effect ot Irish emigration was this that the emigrants sent $1, GOO, 000 back to Ireland.

Colonel taunderson then criticized the speech delivered by Mr. Dillon, which he described as full of assertions without a single attempt to. prove them. 'Over and over again in the House of Commons he had challenged his opponents to bring forward one single instance in Ireland of any law abiding Irishman being interfered with by any Coercion Act, and they had never done it. If 11 r.

Dillon could havo shown that Ireland before the Union was more prosperous and more wealthy than the was to day; that might hare been soma argument for a change. All he did was to show that the population had decreased. Aa far aa bo could make out from Mr. Dillon's speeches, his beau ideal of Ireland as a happy country would bo to turn her again into a congested district, to give her a Home Kule Government, without money and without credit, and aj population of eight millions living on potatoes. Certainly the population had decreased, but what bad decreased it Certainly not the oppressive government of Great Britain, but education and the facility of locomotion.

He should say that the population now was far richer than Ireland was when she had eight millions of people liable at any time to famine, tvery grievance that tie Irish people could show with any reason had been redressed. Of all tho rack renting landlords in Ireland who had caused evictions, there' were none worse than Mr. Dillon himself. Yet Mr. jDillon had said that landlords bad been a blight and curse to Ireland.

He believed there was a hope for 'a peaceful solution' of the question, and that their Nationalist friends believed that as much as any one. 'They were not so blind not to see the advantage they: had secured by the alliance with Great Britain. The division took place at 11 o'clock, and the' result was announced to be For the Homo ltule Bill, 182 against, 314. Uxivebsity or Londox. An influential mooting of graduates of the University of Loudon was held on Thursday evening at 3, llarcourt buildings.

Temple, Mr. II. M.lloajpas, Q.C., in tho chair. The following resolution were proposed by Mr Hebor Hart, LL.D., seconded by Mr; J. George Joseph, and carried unanimously (1) That this meeting is of opinion that if a local teaching University for London be desirable it ought to be constituted ajart from the existing University of London (2) that a committee be ap in ted for the purpose of giving practical effect to the foregoing resolutioa, to consist of thj following gentlemen (with power to add to theirfriumber) Messrs.

II. M. Bompas, C.C., J. George Joseph, llcber LL.D,, M. Barnes, M.D., Ji Sinclair, Benjamin Whitehead, ltobert Bryant, D.Sc, Bascoo Daphne, II.

Broughton Edge, Hi J. M.D.. K. M. Williams, M.D., and J.

M. Goyerj LL.D.' Graduate who aro ia sympathy twith the (objects of the committee may commonicato with the hon. secretary, Mr. Hebcr Hart, Goldsmith buildings Temple. OF THE LEE OX THE SoLKNtJIU1LWAY.

A new light railway just over three miles in length, which puts the pleasant and rising watering place of Le on tbe Solcnt in direct communication with the general railway system of the country, was on Tnurnday fermally opened by the Countes of Clan william. The brief ceremony, took place on the arrival at Lee of a special tram from Waterloo with a t)rlv of invited guests, and selections of music wvre pcrlennefl Dy tne nana oi me ua, xmiiuiiiou Kuuth Wales Borderers. A luncheon wai jai terwards in the assembly room of the Victoria Hotel, and nubMnjucnlly tho Usin left again oa iU return to 1 o'jdai Among the visitors jircsent wcro Admiral the Earl of Claawilliam (Naval Commaudcr in Chief at Ports i.outh), Lieutcnant General Sir Vrederick l'itxVy ram. M.P., tho Mayor and Mayoress of Ports moudi, the late Mayor of Southampton (Mr J. Lemon, O.K.), Sir Charles and Lady Kobinaon, Mr aud Mrs.

Claries Newton Kolinson, Sir K. Seymoup and Lady Hs'len, and Admiral and Miss do Kauticn. The new watering place, which as lately as 18S3fwai but a Lamlct of five cottages, it situated entirely upon the estate of Sir Charles Robinson, her Majesty's Burrcyor of pictures, on the mainland i coast of llamnshire, and opposite Cowes, in th Isle of Wight. Four years ago a certificate of the Board of Trade, possessing the force of an Act of Parliament, wu obtained by an independent company for the construction of a new light railway line to Lee, Under the Ball wajs Construction Facilities Acts, and in 1S93 this contract was intrusted to the firm of Pauling and Elliott, of 28, Victoria street. Westminster, who ia a few months have successfully eompleted the line, which is laid with 601b.

rails. It commences with a junction with the London aid Eou Weitem Bail way at Fort Brvckhurrt tat ion, on the line to Stokes Bay and Hyde, and terminates at a tation almost oa the leach at Lee and elose to the plr. The engineer Is Mr. P. W.

Meik, C.E. The chairman of directors is Mr. James and Mr.lE. B. IratU has cu appointed manager, LA REPORT, June HOUSE OF LORDS.

(Btfort tkt Lord CnasotttoB, Loan Watsox, Loan AsnzocuxE, Loan MacysonTrx, Loan Mcaais, Lord 8nAD, and LOUD KCSSILL.) MACTABLaXX T. TU XOat AVOCAT OF BOOTtAlfD. This was an appeal from certain interlocutors pronouncrd by tbo PirH Division tha Cemrt of Beaaion in Scotland, afSrmlng ia ono instance, and varying in another, tho decisions of the Lord Ordinary. jSirTt. Webster, Q.C, Mr.

II. Johnston, and Mr. James C. Pitman appeared for the appellant and the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor Central for Scotland, and Mr. MacDongall (of the Scotch Bar) for tho respondent.

By the trust disposition and settlement of tho late Alexander) Dunlop of CarndafI and his trustees were directed to lay out in tho purchase of land tho residue of his estate, which amounted to 340,000, and to scttlo such land upon Mr. William Hamilton Dunlop and tho bcirs male of his body, whom failing, upon other persons in succession. Tho testator died in September, 1883, and in January. 1TO0, Mr. Dunlop presented a petition to tho Court of Session under tho Entail Acts of 1818 to the authority of the Court to enable him to acquire in fee simple the whole heritable ami personal property vested in the trustees, with the exception of a sum of 20,000 rctacd to annuities and other expenses.

The. Court assented to tho pra)cr of the petition, and tho directed to La conveyed in fee simplo to Mr. Dunlop on his setting aside certain sums to purchac the, interests of tno next heirs. The question then arose whether Mr. Dunlop was liable to pay legacy duty on the valuo of his life interest only or uncn the whole value of the estate as acquired by him under the dcerco of the Court of Session.

The Court below held that Mr. Dunlop was liable to pay legacy duty upon the whole value' of the estate, but allowed deduction to be. made in respect of the sum of which had been expended! "upon the building of a mansion house on the jToperty. The trustees appealed. Their LoitDsim affirmed the decision of the Court below, and dismissed the appeal with Costs.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. COURT OF APPEAL. (Btfon Losds Justices Lbtulky, Lorrs, and DariY.) Gnosyrxon hotel cosifasv v. UAMii.To:r. This was an action' by tho Grosvenor Hotel C6C1 pany fori a quarter's rent in respect of certain premises in Buckingham Palaee roaO, of which the defendant was tenant under a lesse dated March 25, 1S87.

Tho defendant's case was that the plaintilf company had placed certain pumping and electric cnginca on land adjacent to tho defendant's premises, and that the vibration caused by the working of the engines had so damaged his premises that they had been condemned by a magistrate as dangerous structures and 'ordered to ,16 renovated aud: repaired, In consequence of this order tho defendant who had previously carried on his busincs of a printer and publisher upon the condemned premises, was compelled to remove his business. The defendant accordingly counter claimed for damages for the loss which he had sustained by removal. It was proved at the trial that the premises iiT question were at the date of the lease in an unstable condition, and were, in fact, 12in, out of the perpendicular. Tbey Wero let for a term of 14 years subject to a proviso enabling the plaintiff company to put an end to the lease at any time upon giving six months' notice to tho defendant. The company covenanted thatt tho defendant, his executors, administrators, and assigns, duly paying, performing, and observing tho rent and covenants respectively thereby reserved and tkerein lefor contained, might at all times during the continuance1 of the term thereby granted quietly enter into, hold, and enjoy and receive and take the rents, issues, and profits of the demised premises without any claim or demand to the contrary by the said hotel company, their successors or assigns, or any person rightfully claiming by, under, or in trust for' them.

The action was tried before Mr. Justice Grantham' and a common jury on April 23 and24, The jury' found a verdict for the plaintiffs on tho claim for JL'C (the amount of the rent), and a Verdict for the defendant on the counter claim for 306 and judgment was entered accordingly. Tho. plaint ill company 'now applied for a new trial as to the counter claim, on tlx; ground that the learned Judge ought to have directed tho jury that tho plaintiffs, would only be liable if the. vibration was such as would havo affected houses of" ordinary stability, and also on the ground of excessive damages.

Mr. J. Witt. y.C, and Mr. Hume Kothcry (Mr.

Terrell themj appeared for tbe plaintitf company Mr. Bernard Culeridge, O.C., ana Mr. T. Dale Hart were for tho defendant. pen their acceding to the suggestion of the Court that the damages on the counter claim should Le reduced, to 200.

they were not called upon to argue. The Cocht refused the application. Loan Justice Lisdlky said that this was an action by landlord against a tenant for rent. That was met by the defendant by a counterclaim to tho effect that the plaintiff company had. by working certain engines in connexion with their hotel, shaken down his home.

The vibration was so great that the tenant was obliged to leave, and his case was that he had thereby been put to unnecessary expense. The first question was, Was there any cause ot action at all It was said that the tenant's bouse' was an old and weak house, and that the tenant was seeking to impose on his neighbour a more extensive duty than would be imposed if the parties were strangers. Jt was said that' the vibration would not amount to a nuisance unless it was sufficient to affect a house of ordinary stability. That might be so as between strangers, but hero the Court had to deal with the case of landlord and tenant, and the proposition of law which had been contended for assumed a different shape. The house when it was let was ah old house and more or less delicate, as it was put by one of tho witnesses, and it was several inches out of tho perpendicular.

That house had been shaken down by the landlord. How could it be said that there was no Cause of action The cause of action was nuisance arising from the vibration which shook tho house down, and one consequence of the relation existing between 'landlord aud tenant was that the. landlord was estopped from setting up, as against the tenant, that the house 'which he had let was a weak house. That would bo, allowing the landlord to derogate from his grant. The derogating from one's own grant was not the cause of action cause of action was the shaking.

That got rid of any difficulty as to there being an implied covenant for quiet enjoyment. If the acticn defended on that, there have been a difficulty; because it had been held that if a lease contained an express covenant for title, though of a limited, nature, that excluded any other covenant, which might be implied by virtue of tho demise Lino v. 4 N.C., 278). Tho true cause of action was nuisance. Then as to the damages.

It was said that tho mcasuro of damages was the loss of the valu'e of the lease. The'lease was probably worth nothing, but It was erroneous to say that the damages should be confined to the valno of tho lease. The true principle to be applied was the principle: which governed damages in an action of tort; and in such cases the injured party was entitled to recover damages for what wero tho natural consequences of the wrong. It was a natural consequence here that the tenant was obliged to find new premises for his business, and he was entitled to damages On that footing. But their Lordships; were all of opinion that the damages awarded by the jury wcro too large and that they ought to bo reduced to 200.

Loans Justices Lopes and Davev concurred'. THOX1PS0K r. ROCEKE. After the midday adjournment, Mrs. Thompson applied in person for an order that tho judgment which had yesterday been delivered.

against her in her absence in the Court might he re read ia her presence or, in tho alternative, that rho might be supplied with an official copy of the judgment. Loan Justice LiNULEY explained that tho Court had no jurisdiction to grant the application. Mrs. Thompson then became very violent, and, as she insisted upon interrupting the course of business, the Lord Justice ordered her to leave the Court. This she refused to do, and ultimately sho was forcibly ejected by the officials.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCEUy DIVISION. Before Ma. Justice Stikliko.) 4 J. r.

8. This case raised the important question whether tho Court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction I against person of unsound roiud restraining him from I interfering with the business of a partnership firm of I which'he was a member. "The plaintiff and defendant i were and the defendant had recently become I of unsound mind and behaved so strangely that plaintiff I felt himself obliged to commence this action for dis solution of the partnership. The action came on for hearing on May 0 last, bnt his Lordship, being of opinion on the evidence then before him that' the defendant was not permanently insane, directed the action to stand over until after tho Long Vacation, in order to see if he would recover. In the meantime it appeared that the defendant, who was under medical care and under a certain amount of restraint, had en one occasion eluded his attendant and gone to I the office; of the partnership and interfered with tho carrying on ot tho business, ana naa aiso urawn a cheque upon the banking of the rm, which had teen honoured ly tho bank.

these circumstances tho plaintilf applied for and obtained, oa Tuesday last, an interim injunction' restraining the defendant from dealing with tho partnership assets, and from issuing bills or notes or drawing cheques in tho name of the firm, or from coming to or remaining oa the business premises, or from in any way interfering with the partnership business. The plaintiff dow asked for an order continuing that injunction until judgment in tho action or further order. Mr. Quabam Hastixos, Q.C, and Mr Robert SOX MACMKAID appeared for the plaintiff, and in support of their application relied upon an anonymous case before Lord liatherley, reported in2 K. and 441, when that learned Judge said that if he had been of opinion that the defendant in that case was of unsound mind he would have granted an injunction against him.

They also referred to the following cases re (L.B. (1892) 1, 459) Robinson Galiand (S 3 At Ttsws Law Beporta, 604). Mr. Riitos. who appeared for tho guaruian ad lilm of the defendant, coatended.that the Court could sot mat an Injunction against a person of unsound mind, inasmuch as there was no means of enforcing th order If made.

The eae Wore Lord Hathrly was no authority for the plaintiff's contention, the mint not having been argued or decided there. Counsel stated that the defendant was now placed under more effective control. Ha. Justice Stibuko said that the case was somewhat remarkable. It was an action by a partner against his co partner, alleging that the defendant was of tmsonnd mind, and, farther, that be was permanently ao, and claiming dissolution of tha partnership.

Tho action came before his Lordship for trial about three weeks ago, and he was then satisfied by tho evidence that the defendant was of mmomtid Bind, but. in consequence of what was stated by one. of tho medical witnesses, he was not satisfied that the defendant was permanently insane, bnt thought there was some hope of his recovery be therefore directed that the ease should stand over nntil after tho Long Vacation. In the mcantimo the defendant Was under medical care and was in charge of a keeper, but it appeared that he had attempted to assert his rights as a partner by drawing xncqnea upon tb partnership banking to the business premises and claiming totako a part in the business tn a manner which was injurious to tho firm. It was in evidence that the defendant medical attcndantySOrecenUy as MayS last, had stated to the plaintiff, in answer to an inquiry, that in his opinion the defendant was not in a fit condition to bo about.

His Lordship was therefore entitled to infer that the defendant's condition had not improved since tho hearing of the action, and accordingly came to the conclusion that he was still of unsound mind. The question was whether under such the Court could grant an injunction against tho defendant. It was not absolutely certain that dissolution would be granted it therefore came to this would the Court interfere to restrain a partner from acting in such a way as to injure the partnership business if the defendant was of unsound mind A person of unsound mind might be sued, and judgment' could be recovered and an order made against him. Why, then, during the pendency of an action for dissolution, should not an order be made against each a In order to orevent him from so actine as to injure the partnership business An injunction might. be granted although dissolution wa not sought it seemed to his Lordship, therefore, that in a case of.

this kind the Court might make an order againsttbe defendant. Oh. general principles the Court ought to interfere. There was very little authority, but such as there was was deserving of the greatest respect an expression of opinion by Lord Hatherley in favour of the plaintiff's contention. It' was suggested that if an injunction wcro granted tho Court would not bo ablo to enforce it.

Thcro might le difficulty, but it was not necessary now go into it, because there were cases in which a remedy had been found. His Lordship was not persuaded that if the injunction wero granted it would be ineffectual. Tho interim order had apparently already led to tho useful result that the' defendant had been placed under better restraint. Tho injunction had been properly granted and would be continued until judgment in the action or further order. Heore Mr.

Justice Bomeb.) CouiAiE3 (W'uniixo Up). We are requested to state that, during the absence of Mr. Justice Vanghan' Williams and Mr. Justice Wright on circuit, urgent matters will be heard by Mr. Justice Bomer.

Application must be mado in the first instance to Mr. Kegistrar Hood, office of the Kegistrar in Companies (Winding Up), Bankruptcy buildings, Carey street, "Lincoln's inn. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Before MB. JUSTICE MATHEW and a Special Jury).

BURROWS V. LOXDOJf GENERAL OUNIEUS COVVXSY (LIMITED). This was an action by an accountant, 70 years of age, residing at Stoko Ncwington, to recorcr damages for the loss of four fingers of his left hand which were crushed by one of the defendants omnibuses in the following way. The plaintiff, on June 7 last, was waiting at the corner of Catherine street, Strand, for an A Favourite" came up, which ho thought was going to stop, and accordingly ho stood on the kerb. The omnibus, however, without stopping, came along close to tho kerb, and the box of the near hind wheel (which projected nine inches over the pavement) struck him on the knee and threw him In trying to save himself his left Li nd got under the wheel and 'four lingers were crushed, and had afterwards to be.

amputated. The defendant' case was' that plaintiff slipped oh the kerb and fell, thus causing the accident, lor which they were in no way liable. The case was originally tried in January before Mr. Baron Pollock (jFAcTimM, January 12 and 13), and a special jury awarded the plaintiff 12, tho amount claimed for loss of. earnings while in the Charing cross Hospital.

The Court of Appeal, however, in February ordered a new' trial on the ground of the inadequacy of the damages (10 The Times L.B., 298). Evidence was given as to various accounts of the accident given by tho plaintiff, and that at the time ho stated he had slipped and that it was his own; fault. It was also given in evidence that tho omnibus had stopped to pick up passengers at the particular spot and could not have caught the plaintiff as described. Ma. Justice Matiiew, in summing up, said in all his experience of street accidents he coma across a similar case.

An enthusiastic expert, called by the plaintiff, iiad stated that theso wheels wero quite out of date, and that in modern vehicles they were placed well under the body of the omnibus. If that were done he could not seo that tho would benefit much, as the omnibus itself would then overlap the pavement. It was strange that if one had been' living exposed 'to this danger for all theso years that one' should not have come across a similar case' before now. They must consider carefully where the evidence of negligence lay and not find a verdict for the plaintiff merely because ho had been, seriously injured and was suing a rich company. The jury found a verdict for the defendants.

Judgment Mr. Kemp, Q.C, and Mr. Home were for the plaintiff Mr. McCall, Q.C, and Mr. M.

Lush for the defendants. Before Justice Mathew and a Common Jury.) VOX WEBSEB V. MANSER A'1 EL011E. This was an actioh by Mrs. Charlotte von Werner, widow, against Mr.

William Henry Manser and Baron Adolf Blome to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of two horses, a phaeton, harness, tc. Originally Mr. Edmund Tattersall was a defendant, as somo of the things had been sold by him, but, he having paid into Court tho amount produced by tho sale, the action was discontinued against him. Tho defendant Manser pleaded that he had bought the goods from Baron Blomo for S0, and the defendant Blome pleaded that tho plaintiff's late husband had sold them to him. Mr.

Willis, Q.C, and Mr. Crisp were for tho plaintiff, but the defendants did not appear either in person or by counsel. Mr. Willis, Q.C. in opening tho case, said that in January, 1893,.

the plaintiff was introduced to Baron Blome by her husband, who was endeavouring to raise money for him. In August last it was arranged that Mr. von Werner and the Baron should go for a trip to Normandy. Mr. von Werner took with a sum of money in bank notes and two horses and a phaeton, together with the harness and stable necessaries.

They started on August IS, and tho plaintiff was to follow later on, but two days later she received a telegram announcing her husband's death. She at once started for Dinard, with her father, and was met by tho Baron. She found tho horses, wero there, but that there was no money left. She spoke to the Baron, who said that her husband had owed him money and that he ought to keep everything, but he promised to return the horses, carriage, to England as soon as certain formalities with the Customs had been gone through. Tho plaintilf had then to return to England with the corpse, and, not bearing anything about her property, she wrote to the Baron, but got no reply.

Inquiries, however, disclosed the fact that thero had been a sale at Tattersall 's and that thero had been an alleged sale by the Baron ia Manser. Mrs. Charlotte yon W'emcr was then called, and stated that she was the widow and administratrix of the late Mr. von Werner. The roan gelding was her own property, and had cost between 90 and 100.

The bay mare cost 21 guineas. Alfred Beech, examined, said he was Mr. von Vemer's coachman in August last. The Baron sent him back to England with the horses, and gave him written instructions to take them to Tattersall'. The defendants' answers to interrogatories having, been put in and other evidence given.

The jury assessed the damages at 170. Judgment was accordingly given against the two defendants severally for 'that amount and an order made for the plaintiff to take out of Court the.amoont paid in by Messrs. Tattersall. Before Mb. Justice Charles, tcithout a Jry.) VEITCU AND OTHERS V.

BEYSOLUS. In this action the plaintiffs, three spinster ladies, who for 40 years have been residing at 45, Peckham grove, sought to obtain an injunction against tho defendant, who has since 1891 carried on the business of a laundry upon tho adjoining premises 41, Fcekhatn grovc, to restrain him from conducting that business in such a way as to constitute a nuisance to the plaintiffs. The defendant denied that his business was in any way a nuisance as alleged. Upon these pleas issue was joined. Mr.

A. J. Walter appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Willis, Q.C, and Mr. Hw Dobb represented tho defendant.

A considerable number of witnesses were examined on both sides, the evidence of whom was in many instances conflicting. At the close of the. case, Mb. Justice Charles, who had yesterday viewed the premises in question, gave judgment for the defendant. Having stated the causo of action, the learned Judge said that since 1891 the defendant had carried on his business on the premises adjoining the SlainlifiV garden and up to November, 1893, there id not appear to have been any complaints aa to the manner in which be bad conducted that business.

Bat in November, 1S93, the defendant had substituted steam for tnannal power which had hitherto been nsed. There was no doubt that the plaintiffs promptly complained to the defendant of the annoyance camed them by the change. The defendant' business, however, being in every way a lawful one, he ought not, nor could he. Brant this injunction unless, ia the words of Vlee Chancellor Bruce, in the ease of Walter v. BeUe" (4 Get and B.i 331), to which he had been referred, it was carried em tn such a maimer as to diminish seriously and materially the ordinary comfort of existence; to the occupiers and inmates of the plaintiffs house.

Now, did the alteration in November, 1893, in the working of the defendant's business, which necessitated the use' of a gas engine of 3 horse power and certain new machinery and plant, constitute such a grievance as ho had just indicated The groends pat specially forward in support of the plaintiffs case were three fold (1) vibration, (2) smell, and (3) noise. The first had not been seriously pressed, and the second was clearly not established by the evidence. The question of noise was the only substantial grievance open the evidence. The learned Judge, after carefully reviewing the evidence upon this head, in conclusion, said that though yesterday after hearing all the evidence he had been against the plaintiffs on this point also, he had considered it right and desirable that he should personally inspect tho premises before giving his decision, lie had accordingly gone down yesterday to Beckham, where he was met by the. solicitor on either side.

Ho made; a thorough inspection and had the defendant's machinery and plant set to work at its full capacity, and, leaving the plaintiff's solicitor on tho defendant's premises to see that this was continued, he went with the defendant's solicitor into the house. He sat in their drawing room, both with the door open and shut, for some time. He had also gone into the bedrooms with the windows both opn and shut, and he must confess that ho was perfectly astonished at the real state of things after listening to tho plaintiffs' account of them. AH he would say was that the experience of his senses had convinced him that the evidence of the plaintiffs two witnesses Hackett and Childs and that of the defendant's witnesses was mure reliable than the plaintiffs' own account, and that, under all the circumstances, there must be judgment in the case for the defendant, with costs. (Sitiingi in Bantruftey, beore Me.

ItrciSTRAB Hofe.) IIS RE WRIGHT. Upon the application of Mr. H. jKumncy, solicitor, His Ho.nouk granted the usual receiving order under a petition presented by Mr. H.

Wildey Wright, described as a barrister.at law. The debtor was some years, since a Parliamentary candidate for a London constituency. An order of adjudication was also made. IV BE CRENFEI.lV A petition was presented to the Court by Pascoc Leger Grcnf ell, described as of Bruton strcet, May fair, and Paris, late of Bartholomew house, City, merchant. Tfoj amount of the liabilities was not stated, but it is understood that; the aAsets comprise furniture to the value of about 5,000, and other property.

Upon the application of Messrs; Bischoff, Bcmpas, and solicitors. His noxoua granted tho usual receiving order. rCO BATE, DIVOKCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. Before tke Bight Hon, President and a Speritd Jury.) nopECoon r. rEENcn.

The trial of this probate. action was resumed to day. Tho contest.it will bo remembered, is one over the real and personal estate, amounting to about 140,000, of the late John Ismay Freneb, of New lodge, Burstead, Essex, who died in January, 1893, at the age of C8, after being almost helpless in body from tho year 1874. There arc two; plaintiffs, Harold Hopegood and his wife Catherine barah Hopegood, who profound as executors, a will and a codicil par porting to have been duly executed by Mr. French, and leaving the entire of his property to Catherine Eliza French, mother 'of Mrs.

Hopegood, who was a Mrs. Clarke at the date of the ill, but became the wife of Mr. French before the date of the codicil. The plaintiffs and tho universal legatee are charged by relatives of the deceased gentleman, who are defendants in tho suit, with having obtained the two testamentary papers by fraud. Mr.

lr'inlay, Q.C, Mr. Bayford; Q.C, Deans, and Mr. Gill appeared for the plaintiffs Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C, and Mr. Gore for defendants who are' next of kin Mr. J.

D. Crawford and Mr. T. Stevens for the heir at law Mr Loekwood, Q.C, and Mr. Bank es for an Hopegood, who in his marriage certificate was styled Harold Hector Hampshire Hopegood' in his elimination by Mr.FlNLAYsaid father's namo was Hoguod and his own Christian nasue George.

It was tue that in 1680 ho was Convicted of a fraud on a co operative stores at Brighton. He did not now mean to represent that he was not rightly convicted, but ho did ay that his who was convicted at the samo time of receiving, was not guilty. His father was a gas fitter and not a general, as ho represented when filling up the application for the licence to. marry Miss Clarke. After he did his 12 months for the affair at the co operative 'stores he made1 a change in his name.

In 1882 he obtained a situation at tho Uaymarket Civil Service Stores in the name of Hampshire," and served thcro till 1SU0, when be left with a good certificate 'as to hi conduct there, which be. produced. Ho changed his namo to "Harold Hector Hampshire Hopegood." to cover his disgrace, and described himself ax' a. barrister and his father as a general with' the same object, and with no idea of fraud. When Mr.

Hicks, Mr. French's solicitor, read to that gentleman and Mrs. Clarke the report of Moser, the detective, on his career, 'he was asked for an explanation, and he said that as the descriptions given by him of himself and his father they did not render his marriage with Miss Clarke illegal, as "a mauiiad a right to take any he liked. Ho had picked up his knowledge of law while doing, writing for a solicitor at lirighton. Mrs.

Clarke was to indignant with him when the discoveries as to him were mado that he hail to leave Brighton for a short time and come to London, but Mr. French took a kindly view and brought about a i reconciliation. A will was first talked of by Mr. French when a Mr. Wollings, a former tenant of his, asked him whether he had mado one.

He replied that he had not, on which Mr. Wollings said, i You ought. Sir consideringyour age." To that suggestion Mr. French replied, Vpu are quito right. I'll see about The testator himself gave instructions for the will of October, 1K90, ana that of November in (the same year, by which it was superseded, and it) was at his request witness drew both, which were read over to the testator ami approred by him.

Ho himself spent half an hour in reading over one' of them. At the marriage of Mr. French and Mrs. Clarke in the registry office he did sign the namej of Cooper "jas that ot one of the witnesses. It was an absurd thing to do, but he did it because he had caught a glimpse of Cooper.

After the marriage he) said to Mr. French that be supposed that gentleman was aware that by the marriage the will of November, 1690, had been rendered inoperative. Mr. French said a codicil would make that all right, and at Mr. French's request he drew the codicil reviving tho It was by Mr.

French's order he handed the Haywards, father and son, half a crown each for witnessing the execution of the codicil. had, heard the evidence given by those two men. Nothing whatever was saiid: about 2,000 or an investment to that amount. In that respect the evidence of the Haywards was erroneous, false. The suggestion that Mr.

French, when signing the will and the codicil, thought he was signing an order to tho bant for an investment was untrue. Witness thought that the investment bad been made already. In cross examination by Sie Edward Clabke, tho witness said that before getting tho cooperative stores he bad been in grocer's Brighton. It was not true that at that time he obtained music by fraud in the; name of Masters Jor that a Mr. Wharton had threatened to give him into custody for so having done.

A man came and said his mother that he Lad so obtained the music, but lie denied that ho was the person; Iwho had done so, and the man who had come to his mother was satisfied that he was not. He was 14 days at the co operative stores before he was apprehended for the fraud there. When he got into the Haymarket stores he had a alary of 25s. a week. This was in 1862.

The salary was afterwards raised to and subsequently) to Since August, 18S2, he bad, various means of obtaining money. Asked to mention them, ho said that in 18S8 he came in for his father's estate, the amount of which was about 400, a sum obtained by the sale of his father's furniture. Then, he got 2C0 from a niece of a Miss Ilampshire.jwho lived with his parents when he was a boy, and took a great interest in him. Ho did not know where the lady who had taaen such an mitrco iuuuu wvn five years ago. M.e gave mm tne sad 11J.

ftofor MS, JWTICS spoke to Mr. Frefefi abect He could not exactly say how he paid the proceeds of the eheques. He knew that the cheque were for rent of Mrs. Clarke's bouse. He could not say he had say thing to do with that boose except letting it.

Asked to state the name of any person to whom he ever bad let it, his reply was that he hail pot it ia the hands of three agents. "Asked whether the name of Hampshire ever had been used in the letting of the house, be replied that be should say it never had been. Shown cheques drawn by Mr. French in favocr of Horry or Moray he said they had reference to the rest of Miss Clarke's bouse. The wttnes underwent every long cross exam inatioa oa the subject of cheques obtained from Mr.

French on a representation that accounts of certain tradesmen bad to be met. the amounts of which accounts wcro stated by Sir Edward Clarke to be in some instances mneb under these for which the eheques were drawn. The explanation given by Hopegood waa that the balances had been anolied by him to pay small bills due by Mr. French. i L.

L. L.J Asked to name ice iraaesmen io wu uui psiu uuuhpji. iiw stj particular balances mentioned to him, he said he 'JiliiUta0 a ebiiS CljJLia SO UO srUe but 4l, A.LS uuuvs uou aM ea.M a ceipts which, would show the names asked far. Asked abeut sums deposited by him between 1887 and. 16S0 in a deposit account opened by him in the former year, he said that they came to Mm from various Bourees, some of them being winnings in betting.

He was closely questioned as to the handwritings in various letters, portions of which were, he said, written by him and other portions by Mr. French, and those manuscripts were handed to the jury for inspection. Questioned as to bis personal relations with Mr. Freneh, he said that after he married Miss Clarke in Jnne.lSOO. he went down from London to Brighton and lived in his wife's house there with her and her mother and Mr.

French; He knew that Mr. French aetkm. v. ocxmfs Bncs Cocwi it MB I MlilifU1 Cosw Ji ODaBms Cofapaay, pan tsard Ceeea BK1 ethers rnlnefs and Co. v.

aatrpheason v. orrSs BtxcjB Cocxr TIBerore Ha. Jnrnn 0w. at IS 30 Om imfflis Brtgaass Coi( ut oihm. Qcxxjrt RaacH CoCKT lY Bmton Ma.

Jcsrica Ban tola On farther nitn a. Tnttw fiST' vtk to Jttkxxm. Itehnn nil tat Oswt IT rwialred to attend fa Ceort VI 11. at 10 21 vw bsiiBMa for tha nei enilne JonaS XiMn Wednesday, exports Jtotioo oo Vbt trowo LU ta lo7, aanuij sun rMflf.ra ymm swisn tmnim ve 4m biTU OKIM aiti atotkns on the dnl Skis. 'orxrsv Ma.

JcrTcaWBjairrwtU ta4tlieas of IIovi Ember. put bemnl liKm JnT.tr eonsvatL oa Pridsr. Jan. BAKKKUFTCT As Bsa kraptcr Miaidiaca, larnwck. eola's ma.

Etfore Ms RtucrraAa Uorc JD VhMatrnt SS OmpetkloBU IL PmSulBC. Jbnstm. at iiw EMa V'svj sa Ti A 4v tailW ST A euBTh 1 v.iiainiirt sy iqjom (a. ii lQaawirk Irra wI SSsel Cootev U.Hnhill. ILon.

r.Mmfm KkhiOI KkiIkfi IIJnimIL At 11 XI fc yewtaptr and fnMisMng Tnac IIO BAIT. DrVUEAT. AJID ArVTEALTT Dmsin PXXtHTr. DlTCltT, ass AunnLALrv TackT I. aw IUubt Host.

Bib Fbahcis II. Jama, hntdm. BpcciU Jnry. P. Ucppf and aaother v.

raca uA Jl luitarr yuaswiftaa inf mi i mi is. OTlcx. Then Tlii flr uiadiM cmujeft in tk Mvuustj vv av mmstk wvssvtaa. Taa follow lnf Probaia anj tiiToras Motioos vtli to ia Ute had loU of property, but Mr. French had tho Erst will SffriT iY.rTlr: lrri bw i i 4 i' U4t AarrraartOSS.

At ih Coral CocrU at Joatle. tcbm iv. AaarrBaroKs. In yueeo UeoJi Cook L. ,7 I'orr rci t.

Uailarar daaxlnz boaai. In kanrn LE CLahoner t. Ilavorta. FOLICX. au out when he drew it up in iorm zor mm.

co anew that as friends Mr. French, ilr. HlckS. his deceaa A. 1unmixi.

deceased T. folara. pmuij i i tw hi, m1i.l ntffr.nt T. Gardner, traamed deeeisol llatun aad iheT VaTinformed abVuTthe wiU. Mr.

French ijTll Jf did not say that Mr. Hicks was not to te tohl of it, Dirorra MoOons. Uila wr. VsUnr uente t. urna and'KSSi but ho always said that Hicks had dissuaded him Coxon t.

Ccx sod lUalinsoa Enrtan Txmtm from making a will. All trace oflhe October will gVauV' had disappeared. From October i January 2C, ton otnl.r oaraner tSj tStST 1691. four documents were sent down by Mr. Hicks Burgess, Ui.uc.cn.aij Kcaitto tion t.

td Tbo, l'' to be signed by Mr. Freneh. Witness did not know un idaa aaDosmua v. Sfcoostfr Reere T. Ullj fclAIUg vtirT.

'i1'" aatw ve, lfiaO, left everything to Mrs. Clarke, and named her as sole executrix. On Noremler 1 he had to confess to Mr. French that he was aa imposter. After that Mr.

French requested him to draw the will of November 21, in which he and his wife were made executors. The request was not in writing. He believed a solicitor acting for him had authorized the taking of the photographs naw prodnced. The photographs in question, taken since the litigation commenced, am supposed to represent the attesting witnesses, Mrs. French and air.

Hopegood. as they were grouped when the will and the codicil in dispute wero executed The PataiDEJf strongly condemned the taking of such photographs pending litigation, as obviously they could be used for the purpose of securing the telling of the satno story by all tho witnesses who had to Speak to a particular occurrence, and thus they might lead, to false evidence. He was not aware that such a thing had ever been done before for tba purposes of a trial in an English Court, and he trusted it never would be again. The cross examination of the witness had npt concluded at 4 o'clock, when tho trial was adjourned until to morrow. Baho.v Pollock's Cocst.

During the progress of a case a juryman remarked that he had great difficulty in 'hearing one of the witnesses. His hardship asked Mr. Finlay, Q.C (who was engaged in the case), whether the Court. (Queen's iknch II.) bccxned more difficult to hear in than sone of the other Courts. Mr.

Finlay replied that he thought that there seemed to be a louder echo. His Lordship remarked that something like a curtain, or wire to break the pound, waa A Solicitor's BASKacPTcr. Frederick Arthur Alexander Rowland, against whom a receiving order was made oa April has submitted accounts showing liabilities amounting to of which 7,441 are. unsecured, with assets of uncertain realizable value. The debtor states that he was admitted a solicitor in 1871, and began to practise in that year at I.

Howard street. Strand. W.O., having a capital of about 5.000. form inc tart of a turn of bequeathed to him by his father. The Official lle cciver (Mr.

A. 11. Wildy) in his observations on the case says that in 1S7U the debtor, when practising at 14, Clements inn, Strand, filed in the London liank runt'ev Court a petition for liquidation. It appears by the lilo of thee proceedings that his liabilities amounted to and bis estimated to 642. He states that a composition of Is.

Cd. in the pound was paid, bat that a great many of his creditors subsequently received 0s. in the pound. The debtor further states that he continued to practise at the last mentioned address until ISS'J, when he entered into partnership with another person, and the business was then removed to offices at 33, New Broad street, E.C. This partnership, tbe debtor, says, lasted for a few months only, and there ara no debts owing for which his lata partner would be "legally jointly liable." The debtor adds that at the date of the receiving order he was practisingat 20, Bucklersbury, E.C.

He attributes his present insolvency to loss on investments in house property and falling off in business. Recist FAlLcair. Thomas Lawrence. Wright, against whom a receiving order was granted on April 19, states that for the last tivo years or thereabouts his occupation has been to introduce clients to different stockbrokers, from whom he Received a commission. His income fc'r the three years previously to tho date of the receiving order averaged between 200 and 300 per annum From the observations of the Official Receiver (Mr.

A. II. Wildy) it appears that in November, 1S9 the debtor was owing about 3,500, and he then held a' meeting of his creditors, and an arrangement was accepted by nearly the whole of them that a friend of the. debtor should purchase their debts at the rate of 2s. in tho pound, which is stated to have' been carried cut as regards debts At WESTUiysTZB, yesterday, before Mr.

Eafaea. Fei tz BaA LL.ayoumj Eker.of PUi. walk, Chelsea, was charged with the felonious pjj. session of a quantity of chemicals, electric batteries, ic, for unlawful purposes. A list of seme tif the articles found at, the prisoner's house appeared oa the charge sheet, and included' ten glasj vessels, acids and other chemicals, pieces ot Be.tl a number of bullets, documents, and a large isiurt mcnt of Anarchist and revolutionary literature present a charge relating to the possession of moallt, for the manufacture of counterfeit coins wit jass into, the police ask in; for a remand in erier tau matters of a more serious character could be invest igsiciL.

Detective sergeant of the Special mcnt of vard, deposed tbatonTharaiar eincj he, in company with Chief Inspector Melville, Sertsu Walsh and Flood, and three other o2eri, Dekcti Powell, Kerr, and Leonard, went to the koua occupied by the defendant in 1'ark walk, The prisoner was not there at the time, but amei subsequently. The place was searched from top to bottom, and in a front room in the basement a mars wooden box waa discovered containioir metal hat appliances used in the manufacture of rosaterftit com. In the kitchen they found two batteries, for large bottles containing acid, plaster of Paris, a.i pbate of eopper, and some white powder ia paper. In another room, in a portmanteau cade: a oed, were plaster models for the manofacturv 4 coins, including half crowns and live franc tltttt. Distinct from the coining apparatus and retmus, the police a cupboard in the front ti.n.

a number of bottles containing powerful acids, tubes, and apparatus, white powder is bottles, large battery, which the prisoner said beloarei ta him, and other apparatus and chemicals. Witaca asked the prisoner what he did with these things tx: what he used them for. He replied, "They were Ult with me 12 months ago by a Russian Pole namei Sheipperer, who lived in Whitechapel and sttwiet medicine." With respect to the coining models, tis prisoner said, They were given to me by a Fnacs man who lived in Cleveland street. I don knot Lit namo." Subsequently be said to witness. Tea know the man well enough, his name is Fritz.

Jlr. de Rutzen. The police, I understand, ask for a remand. We need not go farther now. The ergvat.

Very well. Sin. We found a quantity of printed matter and documents. The prisoner said he cat questions to ask, and Mr. de Katzen remanded Lim ia custody.

At Massiox bocsk, Geoege Axdezws, 10, charged before the Lord Mayor with obtaining ecbcj by false pretences and with uttering a forced lease. Mr. Warburton was counsel for the prosezatioa Mr." Winter for the defence. In January last the prisoner eailed upon Mr. Asbby Darby, a solicitor, tt 32, Graceeharch street, and applied for a loan of upon what purported to be the lease of a house ia.

iioxton street. He represented that be had paid .) on a. mortgage of the property effected with a Xr. Eenge, and had let the premises to a butcher for .4 a year, and that be required the loan to put the place in repair before bis nant took possession. Sir.

Asbby Darby took tl to a client of his Mr. J. B. Crump, a chartered accountant in LiimBan: court and the latter, after visiting the premise, advanced the 50 on a morterase of the prejerty. Later on the prisoner applied for another loan of amounting to about 2.000.

the debtrbeimr assigned on some jjronerrv in tho name of Benre. in 1 1 .1 i i I a ens It was aeeiineu. it was proveu yesemay uniuc house in Hoxton street belonged to the trustee the will of the late Captain W. H. Shsrpe and that the alleged lease was an absolute fraa The property in Kingsland belonged tothe Goocx trustees, and the lease was a fabrication.

It wu aUeged that the prisoner vw ai associate of two tsra named Kussell and Benge, who were convicte at tta Central Criminal Court on Thursday and sentence: penal servitude for a similar offence, and tha. beta! been under police observation with them "since FeV ruary. On being arrested, be said be had defraaiicl no one, and that he had committer a criniatl offence, it was entirely through ignorance. Keplyit; to the usual Caution, he reserved his defence. Set protested his innocence.

The Lord Mayer eoasitted the prisoner for trial. At'BOW STREET, GZOEGZ AUSOLD, 21, oft FM3 Stah.tox or Veea Hops, waa charged on reaaad, before Mr. Lushington, with obtaining money by false pretences. Mr. Sim, of tho Treasury, prosecuted.

It was alleged that prisoner bad obtained small scJ from a number of girls, who wished to go on tie stage, by promising to give them remunerative'enjse mentti ia companies which, afterwards proved to have no Further evidence was now civeu'; reference to other cases in which the prisoner said tlut he was to take companies on tour and received money from girls who wished to accept engagement. Evidence waa also given to show that prisoner occupied humble lodgings in various parts of Lsndon. acd that ho had pawned nearly everything he powea His sister was called and gave the name of JrarT Overall. Prisoner's name, she said, was Sisfcey Vernon Overall. Her mother lived at Strangewsyi.

Manchester. A few weeks ago she went to lire thf r.ncr in Tn.Tor. IT inlA her he VU SBW to the friend in question, who now appears in the statement of affairs as an unsecured creditor for 2,160, being the full amount of the debts he is stated to have purchased, and, a further loan to the debtor. The liabilities aro returned at 3,602, of which 2,671 are unsecured, with assets V. The debtor attributes his insolvency to bad debts in 18S9 and 1S90, and great stagnation of business daring the last three years.

The Official Receiver states that be will be glad to receive any information from creditors respecting the debtor and his affairs. LAW NOTICES, Jckz 2. HOUSE OP LORD3, Westminster. The foUaving taatoess Is spiii for MoacUj next, at 19 Causes. Cofcb v.

Cress Wait era Caiivar Compu7 (eonaiderotionHUuaUton v. Kltciue aad anorhpr (lurther hearing Gitta or SUTenson v. Stevenson (lor hear BUPUEJIE COUETOFJTrpiCATCEr. COtnrr OF APPEAL. Appxal Coitet I.

Eefore the Mi mt cf the Rolls. Loan fan Kar, anl Lokd nmcx A. L. Hxrnt, at 10 39 Appeals from tlia Unata's llnch Ditision UKluil LUtt Moxbam v. Cam ball, partbeaid.

and Moxiiam v. Caapbaa U'o. Zi. arruL Cocar II. Xo tilling.

On Mcnday next their Lordships will take the following butitvs at 11 Appeals from tha Vaea'i tench Division Trial Pspert Tmer v. IHscoant Baalin2 CMa pu; ot KngiaoJ and W'alas, (vt heard IlardT aad aaother t. MarV gto Imunoc, Corporation KohuU v. l'roch acd Co Gould v. Plccadillx Club and others (So.

13k Tho Court will, nntil further, notice, hear the Vueen's Bench Sea Tnal Paprr. Lut on Wedncsd? laterlocutorj Chancerj Motiocs (if nj) U1 bo taken ant. Tha next to coma into tha paper ara Nowfci v. CaUer v. Lctinja Jacoh and Co; Can acd Co.

CaLUl and Co. v. Conrad. Tha loUoTioz I'alatioa ArpriLiwlllUj Uken oa ThuraiaTnext, at 1J 39 lttieiama y. Manif 04 M'Keaa v.

Crewdson and K.inlitoo. man court of justice. divisiox. CHAKcxar Cocrt I. tfor Me.

Jcmci Cnrrrr. at 13 30 1 Short I'auses. 'BcODO JaSs and ltam ysltir lanolia t'aLna v. V. llolLm ami Co.

(UralMf v. llecahaa'. Petitions, first. Cd Haddock (restored bj order) West cf Xoglaod lire and Life Insurance Company and Companies Acts (to confirm acreaect)'aithf oil v. vca Re liaU (Hail v.

Hali Lcaltcs v. Tncmtson Uetaors IrtscDarca Socirtj's Act. i6. Cause for Trial, without witnesses. Kc Lyaood LLr wood v.

Wright, part heard. Cnaiczav Cocst IL Ecfora Ha Jcancz Soxra, 13 33 Short Causes. He Shapland (Sav Mills Cbrapaejr v. ItnJ Tncr v. Ucrtha Consols Ku t.

Maoslng WouliM v. Woodanl Sluock too v. Jiuncatcn. reution, uaupw aeJ first. Stalled btatts and titled Ftsttt Act.

1377 Cour's Trusts AUerton. Kaon, and Co. and Crmpaair Acts (to reduce capital? lUbUe thwaiui Alej liriis' Volky Trusts lie bpiUer (bpiUer v. Made) Levy v. Kc lumen.

Adjourtitd Summonies. Ea Seton Xmiin (Bright Smith v. Altorner Geoenll. lart heard Be tanrdoo (Chaad kr t. JeHerj Tucier v.

Tonst lit tVisa (Lindsaj v. Wue) lia et'ott lltusug peUittL Loan CsasccLLoa's Coral Before Ma. Jcvxicx Erraixxo, at 10 j0 Motion. best v. Tottenham, short CacS saiuh v.

liueoos Ayrra aoi Valraniao, tc Ballway Compaoy llitt rley llewling Youn( v. Marchant. Young; and Co. Urae v. Morton.

Petiuoes, uaoppuaed first. bettled ttatc and Settled Estates Act. 1577 Ex rarta Ctmmisicnn of tietrm of the Cttv ot London lta Jennett (Jailler Miiler LmuxKMt Storteacs Compuoy and Ci.mpanie Acts (to redoca eapiU) i'airce v. Carrington Uop uopcrart. reuuoa (iar ur.

Jazzx ivawKC Btroni ki fnnr or fire vears airo. rs.r ir, inns nt Mandcville villa. Blackheath. The money was a preseni, acu was i 8ummonses. te BlrUOlSiTth lf1tr in notps arid COin.

He HUt lt.Cn depOSlt in 1804 I An IMmirll lUorm4javr i car; the London and South Western Bank. He Ba Parker and Thomas. Ac Ea Xathews had no diary or writing of any kind to, show when the mcnev waa raia him or ween ce opeseu me nana. llinw arciunt. .1 CHJiscixT Cocai IV.

Befora the crisnner in London Ilai told her he was plays, and promised to train her for a small part a one of them. Witness added that she had cabs and obtained many letters addressed to May Fort, and handed them to tho prisoner. Mr. Stm read aa advertisement issued by the prisoner offering 10 engagements to ladies who would sell i worta tickets for hia'. Prisoner made a lon statement, a the course of which he said that Bobin son was perfectly gennme, bat he was tmaWe get sufficient mcrtey to start on tour.

He went neariy mad, and, having no ono to help or advise, hia, wew from bad to worse, Mr. Lushington committal Bia for.trial. At West Loxdos, CuARtri Meade, a eabdnv living in TVhcatstone road, North Kensington was I.mrt!hl' nn in tn ankxrer eharceS for beiCl cralt v. Stooa. Unm loe Tnal.

wiLbeai tilpiiai, aod Ad.oarattt Tha BoUe mmonses. ba Blrthilliyth v. Ktrth Ba Christchurch Incloauro I droniC and disorderly, and for assaults. lr Acs (Merrick r. AUorartjorrlH Uamty (ILuTMon T.

bamej) cxse WM first taken. Serjeant Adams depot uu VI. a passbg the Crown pusu i i on Tuaaday.jBnaS Ea Caborna (Uoyd v. Oshorna ftitchlay v. i wrian he hearda ItTW Ms.

Jcsticx Kjcswich. at i altercation, and, on looking across the read, witaeaaeL Rhodes v. Monies, part rrisoner stasdimrtmder the dickey of a nansom the tl uL bail. uriver, a una nameu ouiui, au.wjj Tuesdar. the ith inst.

1 tn th wimed tne witness saia ce i rJ TH t.ni'.rt i. mnnfHnt.1 fr Queitionedfurtheronthistopicbytheleaniedeotinsel, canal Cospaoy IUnnett 5outh IUapstead Sanitary Laundry pnsonerwaa shafcmghisatranBpp witness said that the lady might be living at ixmwr xaoia v. layior. paricearj. ananaxteaKS to Miara tnreatemng language, ceiecui.

1.1,... nrTxr r.tvT. THPT TPn1 mi IHUILIIE. ILUtA UI I 1 LAI tTS WtTUL kaAO U.10VU.4 a the Ttla. recent years ho had only seen 'her passing through London at the railway station.

Whatever the amount of money given bim, he pat about 130 of it inthe bank. rrcssed on the matter by Sir Edward, the witness asked, What is tha use in your quibbling On this tho learned. Judge, addressing Hopegood in a very crave tone, said, 44 What do you; mean by addresiinj; tho learned "counsel in that way You bad better recollect in what a seriens position yon are placed. In reply to further questions by the learned counsel tho witness said that since 1890 he 'earned ano money; by manual labour. He was introduced to Miss Clarke by a Mr.

Rhode about nine years ago. Be had not seen4 Rhode since to speak to, but he might have seen him once or twice. From 1S7 or 1S88 he interested himself in the affain of Mr. French, whoso housekeeper was Miss Clarke's mother. About that time be get fo him au estimate concerning a earriage, but he could not say at what date he commenced to write letters for him.

He waa net known to Mr. Freneh aa Hampshire," but as Hampahire Hopegood," and he did not know how it was that cheques of Mr. French's which be cashed were drawn in favour of 11. Hampshire." He thought that when in tho Hay market Stores be received some of those cheques in letters from Mrs. Clarke, and he either took the proceeds to her at Brighton or sent theta He, asked her for no explanation.

He did not disguise hia ordinary writing when endorsing those cheque. He could not say why the endorsement on one of them now Btwdfin I Cbaiuii, FltXil Uelcrara Mntzui bufil KnihMnT Ktvw v. Cocntick taker v. ILWn Hood v. HoUand Cole v.

ckaameil Attomey Qcseral v. bpitUe Waawltoott v. PeUga aad Co. (Umrwll Cnxscaav Com IIL Eefera Mjl Jcanea Bostxs. UI3 Xj SLtioo, to Vary CWSeUl Befaree't Kepett (by Baaas Sonthead Local Board.

for Trial, with wtmamia, Aaotney. Ccoefalv. ferr tth. pan Tha fnUuarics eases an tha oca ut case into the list Ullton v. DainUrr IliBraa Georsa v.

Oud frey ISrear v. Jewett Staityn v. Iiawkisa Cheaters BrvwT Com up to the driver and spit nia lace i'" 7 ran into the Crtrwn. Witxess went to arrest defendant aimed a blow at bis face. Xley 7Tt trim rnui togetlier, ana witn asststance ne wro.

w. Joseph Small, the station, where the prisoner repeated Xuz Joseph Small, a cabUnver, Iivimt j7a street, NewuLjton eacseway said he was rll3 own cae when the prisoner wno nau stj jj pany atoaucy nowusi t. neeszs xnaraa Swaasba raviaoa. o. ncU CoxrAXin (WiSElia wri Dcricr the absence of Mr.

Justice The prisoner then abused him and threa.enea to Vaushan WOUaaia ud Mr. JaaUm Wrtaat va CbeoitrfeaS aaattm hint off the box and ill htm. The prisucer Tti will latsaalhy Mr. Janice Knaitr. AptJietOT Emada tn had been all dav without food.

Ml Cartli ,1 rbS Compaq tw dina rpLBaok the Wrfor ne mentb 't Eimm 7L.i..j iw.ui on the sergeant and fined bin 60s. for the assa nmrm. Eimita Official fiafmra Conrta. Pnrtasal atnct. UacOriaa CoenL Befora Ma.

Vaajrr. at 10 33 LuwWlyn t. Widiaaia (MUBmens) Sajaa t. cWansea Gab (saaaaoas Indico Cojipaay Claiuone. tan heard.

Cocrt 1L Befaes MJc Btolxv. y.C at 13 Skeilon v. WcocV part beard. Court ILL Belore jU Haxxxxo. Q.C at 13 Truss.

T.Tacmaa. pan heard. QUXX2T3 BF2fCS UTTISIOS. TBxn an not any PtTtoVmal Conns risdnc So day. orxzr' BrxcnCotraT Beforo Ma.

Kaaox Pdixocx. at 13 33 HUileaax Special Jary. Uakaat v. Toaps. pars heard t)vxi Knew Cocn T.

Efcfa Mju JcjncT.ILtwrnrjLU MeaUooad as to Cost. Bull v. Mayses O'o. LSOtt. Wltboct a Jury, by conarat.

Gewnl UyJraaLe Powae Caopanyv. rortcaroaJ. L9C8 For rarchea; Caoatdaradem. 1araaiar a4 ethers v. lUraeM and others.

Qcaxrt Bxch cocxs LXBeroT Xa. Jmet XiraTr atian Xcn Juiy Actloeu by mnirnT Jrmas v. Bwanatv part heara la a LaiiL. uraer j.iv jtme i AnsoeBg v. Ctmoec rtr Bmnn vr ara aaa cav (Xav assak bim was not in bis ordinary writing Tne II" was toCH cocar Ttt BeXar.

UM. Jcroca Cava, a tnJtJm diffcreat. He oevex wbea he west down to Brighton 1 U.ActtesfaTtUl cadet Ordar XTT XerJrtmmnJt, ljh Jalua. which wUI aow toniaia easjww on the sergeant, and fined hia the cabman, or one month. ISTAJTT OnraAS AsTLCif.

Tbo ann1! ing of this Institution was held at Cannea mt Hotel oa Thnraday aorning.lGencral IjnoaPT; Tho secretary presented tba a usual report, to income of 24.379, legacies alone of which bad beja vested, balance of 802 was tarried forwaid after PT a debt of The Morrison fund bad committee to make 21 grants, aaeeatin aaairt pnpila leaving tan, i hwl J. sTnoiarscipa, oz ast aacn. aw former scholars of distinguished character aadab.