The Times from London, Greater London, England • Page 11

THE TIMES, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1873. 11 European assuraxcs ARBITRATION, Before Lord WnrrwTRT.) mARLtJ nAYIaVs case. the 2Gth of October, 1SH, Charles lies fUd ifialT Court for thelhuidatioo of his 4n by ilrfV A rtwolution waa then passed a eomr" 11. tk. VnUnrnf lnft the Kuron Society of which lUOy had ben pahl The Slitr wored aain.

i hie iuU for T. 10. ia, respect etUi made on the abuts end (M. 1(V i.B 0f tSJ'loplUl. The dividend of 2.

in the pound received by the Society upon "tabcr, cave Danes a dctanre of "i9L 2l for nspaid calls tad Jo teres Iwrcoe and also in respect of the claim of the said Uociety for lOOt further fer calls not yet mede, but to which the Davie may betwafter become liable upon the ki This dischaire riven by the nro ional official liquidators of the Society pradbs the prosl OD the petition preaenieua on ugiinu oi une, vri to wind bp the Society, and before the windinr un jr tu nude on the lrth of January, 1872. Daviess tame, however, waa ot removed from the remitter. it will be necessary to make a farther call beyond the noOBt of the share capital for the payment of the coU Society now applied to retain Daries on the liat of contribu Mries ia respect of these costs. Davies contended that he tal revived 1M discharge from all liability in re ict of the shares, and that his non liability to tribute to the costs of the winding up wai shown by a nYntra dcciaioa ia tbU Arbitration, Michael Brown's Jw (La Timti European Reports, page 21). Oa th hand it tu contended that in that case a trustee bad been appointed in the liquidation by arrangement, and vre had been a forfeiture of the snares under the 23d lird rsTBClT said that the liability on the aharea in rrPt of the cotta of the winding up vai Utterly inca rb! of beinj aacertained, unless one could foretell; what vodl harpen at that very remote period when the costs of the winding up would be ascertained.

It was impossible ts tnsle thisTiability the of proof, exeept by agree erst. Howerer. it was not necessary to decide this, inasmuch a the parties had not attempted to bring this in aeaite thing into ptooti the discharge was limited to rails already made, and calls to be made of the cspaid share capitaL It would be quite, another! tJii if it were asked that Darles should be rUced upon the Jist of oontributoriea but his lUae being on the register the measure of his obli ntioa and liability is not fulfilled and discharged Kitd this possible liabDitT is ascertained. The name must rttainea on the list, adding "in respect only of the cost of the winding up." Xo order was made as to the costs of the application. Jlr.

Montague Cookson wu for the official liquidator of tie European Society, and Mr. CracknaU for Mr. Daries. To. 4.

GLOAO'S CiSX. Tui was a question oi aei on. Mr. Clone held eeral policies granted by the European Aiiarujce Society. He had also borrowed from the Society trbsererUnmi ofMM.lCs.ld.snd8SZ.

ia 1865 and im icuwctirely. Each aJ races wu'made by the Society upon the security of his note of hand and a memorandum whereby lie charged his interest in the policies' with the psyment of the sum. He now claimed to be entitled to set off the a of his policies in the winding up against the debt due from him to the Society. Mr. H.

M. JACK50S, O.C., appeared for Mr. Cloag, and contended that the decision in Paribus Case," in the Albert Arbitration Reilly's RqxtrU, p. 44, Solicitors' Jour iui4th of July, 1S71), was erroneous. On the commencement of the liquidation of the company the policyholder fcl a right of proof against the eompaoy, and this did not differ an ascertained debt The date of estimating this proof was the dat of the winding up order, and the ilrlsyof tie company's offioersin working out metical ralue did not affect the question the policy 'holder's rights referred back to that date.

Thus, there being an ascertained debt dun at that time from the com paay and also one due from the policyholder, these two debts should be set off the one against the other. With rA7u lO Ul asscte wuxg unuiram uj miv vluww itu dtor equally among the this meant the net assets alter alLrwiag a set oS ia a case like the present. Lord WrsTBCKX wished ha could accede to the arra cent, because he felt that the conclusion he was compelled tj amreatwas not in acoordaace with the dictates of natural Jostle. He wished the rules in the liquidation of companies were more in accordance with the rules in Bankruptcy. Howerer, be could cot deal with an Act of fsrliamesi to add to it or detract from it.

Under the CbtcpsBies Art all the property of a company ordered to be wound up was to be collected by the official liquidator, and Leld as a fund for equal distribution among the The amount due from the policyholder was due on a contract wholly independent of the contract in the policies. The oScial'liquidatoT had power to sue for and recorer the amount due, and to add it to the fund to be so distributed aaong the ci editors. One of these creditors was the policy LoUer, because, immediately on the commencement of the liquidation, the policy no longer remained as a subsisting contract, but there was substituted for it Mother statutory 1 Al A.J 1 A I. ncBS tu, a nglis to pruis aui um wnimtw nun vi un With one of the policies, which contained a protiso that Mr. Gloag might surrender it for a certain ralue, it coeJd not be meddled with in order to import into it say particular right sot claimed before the insolrencr.

Tbie policy, therefore, stood on the same footing as the ethers. Thus then i could be no set off, and the application nisst be dlrmissfti. 1 Xb aDnlicaAAi would hare had to dst the cotti but for the fact that the parties agreed thai the case was likely to put as estd to macb litigation. Mr. Montague Cookson appeared for the official liquids Wof the European Society.

WlUiUtS's CIS. This wss one of the many eases of the transfer of shares at a time when the European Society was generally sup poeed to be insolvent. 1 The society's deed of settlement prorided that a person TiiLicr to triniier his shares was to request the directors to certify their approbation or disspprobatton of the pro owd traosf eree, and was to describe in his notice the nil name and profession or calliog and place of abode" sf such pro posed transferee. Is September, 18, Mr. Eiehard Williams, of DolgeQy, Wales, was a holder of 1,000 shares, lathe society.

A sctiee'of his wish to transfer the shares was seat to the society by Messrs. Barber, stockbrokers. In this notice tl proposed transferee was described aa Lewis Jones, of Iiyws MQL DolgeDy, and the consideration was stated as" being 4XL The directors approved the tnmf eree, and the tranaf er was executed and registered, kad certieates were sent to Lewis Jones. It new appeared that, down to May, 18C9, Jones had been esploj ed by WUliams for waees of 10s. a week and his food.

WW A a Ml '1 ll A WM tie wen nwnms icsans oi oour nuu at me rent of zuc. a Tear. He did all the work of the mill himself, baring no Lboarers under Hm. At the time of the transfer all his rroveity was worth about GOf. lie did not consider himself 'to be a merchant.

Xo money bad ever been paid by him for the shirt, but a promissory note, prepared by WilGams's linker, bad been brought to him, and he had signed and S' 'rea It to AVQliams 4s a consideration for the Ho Wrest waterer paid on the note, but Williams had ap 4ied to him for interest. Tbe official liquidator of the society bow applied to bars Williams's name placed on the list of coutnbutdries in re tpect of these shares on the ground that the transaction Vis not an out and out transfer of the hires, and that the 'directors had. been induced to approve the proposed by misrepresentation of the transferor. Lord Westsc aT said that this was a case in which, if it could be probed to the bottom, a different conclusion be arrived at. However, be must deal with tbe facts as ther were before him.

The transaction might hare been set aside if it could have been shown that it had not been a toad fdt. transfer that it had not been entered into with a view to an out and out transfer of the shares from ene to tbe other. But there was not sufficient proof before lita to set it aside on that ground. Jones bad sworn that klid buy the shares that he complained Williams ef the bad bargain that he had given the promissory note knowingly, and had believed be might be able to pay the saooey tn six or seven rears. All that Jones had sworn was vvnsistent with its having been an actual contract, and (here was nothing to warrant a conclusion that there had ticca an agreement to indemnify Jones.

Williams's cod act was most reprehensible, but his' Lordship tlid not tit to administer any equity that might exist between the transferor and tbe transferee Mith tmnt tn thm other aMiimeki. that the comnanr bad leca imposed upon, the alleged misrepresentation con sisted ia two facta. 1. That Jones wss misdescribed as a "merchant and 2. That tbe consideration wssmis ttiti being 4X1.

actually paid As to the latter, although it was true that tbe money wu not paid, yet secu rity was given, aad there was notuiDg to warrant nim in say that that seeuritv was aihsm. It was prepared by bankers, t.l.,A II A.11...I 1 .1 A mA witnessed by a person of gool position ia life. His Lord iVipeotilJ not say that the nilsdescriplioa of the ooosidcra tun amounted to that quantity of misrepresentation which wwld indues the directors to nass a transfer which ther ald not oUierwise bavo passed. The deed of settle oat of the society did sot require us coDnaemion stated in the notice of transfer. Thus the misdescription ncid only be viewed as having induced the directors to be in the correctness of tbe term merchant, With "gam to this word Ids LertUlUn suspected a crest aeai, out could not art upon his suspicions he could not say the word emanated rem Willi m.

anl bod been insertod in the botice Bikiw i'ui tth tha intmtinn tu deceive the diree fcn .1. I i t. il. iiiuuminia sworn, nuiimuuiifuwivi nwi fhekaew nothing about the insertion of the word; ho ud alto sworn thst Jones was in the habit of buyinc and Solttn, corn, as well as ef erindinr it. The term ucrchaal as indeSnitc that it could not bo said that it was si that Jones did not really possess it could not be thl it ought to bare sathued, tbe directors wrtbout inquiry, or that it must necessarily hare deceived muctantly dinnltted the application, costs.

Mr. Xaaer lIiffr4o O.fL and 'Mr. Montana Oooksos PPd for ths official liquidator of the European Society Cracknall for Mr. Williams. MAiinrrrt Case TUt was a question as to the forfeiture of shares, Mr.

member of tbe Bombar Board Directors vvvau MWKI taara awa as usauMwfvsi hthtUW shares La tU society. Ia 1870 he and, other wx.oi joerd csasea to was Pppcsed to the odrty by their solicitors that uwy should ha JIn i of thrir lUhOitr In ro pect of their shires by the society a transfer was not done, but at a meeting of the London Board of Directors on tbeZM'of August, 1S70, it was resolved under the advice of their solicitor that the calls due upon the shares held by these Bombay directors not having been paid, the shsres were declared to be cancelle.1 under tbo clause of the deed of settlement. This clause prorided that, in case any call upon anr shares should remsin unpaid for two months, the directors" might dcclsre the shares to forfeited, and mijht proceed to sell or othcrwito dispose of them snd ia the meantime Mit shares should be extinguished. Mr. was not awsre of the advico given, to the society by their solicitor He had had notice of the calls, and had no reason to suDixne that the share were forfeited for snv ether cause than that expressed ia ihgf resolution, tnenon parmcntof calls.

The OSici.l liquidator of the society tow applied to liars pit. placed on the list of coutributorits in'respect of the 50 shsres so declare 1 to be cancelled. Lord WatiTSCKV said that no reproach or imputation of any kind restetl on Mr. Manisty. The ilircctors thousbt that they had the power to cancel the shares, and ttf resorted to this power for the puqoe of benefitting the Bombay directors.

However, the jower contained ia the dei of settlement wss ncrer ioten.lo.1 to apply to such a collusive transaction," but was intended to be exercised only in case of a tond fide neglect to pay calls. The directors had used tbo words of the clause in the letter, but not in the spirit. There had been a misuse of the power what is frequently called a fraud upon tbe power. A fraud is nliuJ actum, aliud tuuulatum, litre the pretenco was that Mr. Manisty was a defaulting shareholder' one atainst whom they wercbbliscd to take adverse proceedings, lie never was in that position.

Though tbe mode of earrvins ihe forfeiture into effect wss a matter ha knew nothing about, be cannot take advantage of tbo misuse of tbe power there la no right to rob the other shareholders of the benefit of his co liability with thenV. Mr. Manisty's name must, accordingly, be placed on the list of contri butorics. So order was made as to costs. MrXapLer Higgins, O.C, and lr.

Montaguo Cookson appeared for theotbcial liquidator of the European Society, and Mr. Whitehorne for Manistyi Jromthm a the price of the day in thsttams ofisome Party, asd the vslus they paid for the shares "psjtsng throogli the society's books ss eoapea wa? erne, anisi, Aowsrtr CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, Feb, 4. OLD 1 Be fort Sir THOMAS Chambeiw, the Deputy Jletordtr.) oha Davidson, John Denisou, arid Henry Komilly surrendered to recogaixances to answer an indictment charging themwith a misdemeanour ia uttering, publishing, and selling an indecent book in the nature of a libel, and a series of obscene and indecent; pictures. There was also a count for conspiracy. The defendants pleaded "Not Mr.

Besley, with whom was Mr. Straight, conducted the prosecution, which had been instituted by the Society for the Suppression of Vke snd Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Serjeant Sleigh, Mr. Montagu Williams, and Mr.

Walter Ball an tine appeared for the defence. The subject matter of tbo trial was such that an spplica lion on tho part of the defence was made at the outset to the Deputy liecordcr to have tho casa opened in private, and in the presence of counsel on the side, the result of which, it was said, might possibly be to save a public trial in the interests of public morals. Tbe object of this application was ssid, by Mr. Serjeant lUllaotine, to be to consider whether the publication in question came within tbs meaning of tbe law of obscenity. A precedent in.

a similar case was cited in support of tbo application, but the Deputy Kecorder irecliood to accede tb.it, more especially as the defendsnts bad pleaded "Not guilty." A previous application had been made by Mr. Serjeant Sleign, for the defence, that the defendants bo excused going into the dock, but to that also the Deputy cordcr declined to accede, and they took their places at the bar. One of the defendsnts Ilomilly wore a number of Mr. BtSLST then proceeded to open the case for the prosecution, which had relation to Dr. Kahn's Museum, and in doing so he read extracts from thepublicstion in question, of which he said as many as 8,000 copies had been put in circulation.

He read many extracts 'from the book ia question with the view of showing its disgusting obscenity, and was proceeding to read more, when the jury interposed at length and peremptorily stopped him, saying they had beard enough. The Detutt Becokoxk said, by the way, the question was whether the pamphlet under consideration was an indecent libel and whether the prisoners Formal evidence waa afterwards given of the publication by John Green, calling' himself, in cross examination, a patent agent, and admitting, on being pressed, that ho went to buy it in the character of an informer, and that he: had bean repeatedly engaged in similar work before. Dr. James it. Lane, a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, was called for the prosecution, and said he had seen the book In question.

Being asked by Mr. Besltt if it waa in any sense a medical treatise for the information and' education of medical students, tha question was objected to, before the witness could answer it, and it wu not pressed. This, very shortly stated for obvious reasons, was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Serjeant BaIaIaASTIXI.

for the defence, expressed his great regret that, in the interests of morality, the application he made at the outset had not been acceded to. He complained of the temper in which the case for the prosecution had been presented to the jury, and ex pressed his regret that it had not been conducted, if at all, by the Qorernment, and under a proper sense of responsibility. He submitted that the head and front o( their offending was the umbrage they had given a certain Mr. or Dr. Deacon, a rival practitioner, and hs cited, amid some merriment the saying of the late Sydney Smith namely.

a man whose trade is rat catching loves to catch rats the bug destroyer seises oa a bug with delight and the suppressor of vies is gratified by finding the rice." The learned Serjeant went on to say. if it were law. fnl far resnectable men to combine, he trusted the time might corns when greater stUs might be exposed and subsequently werentsd than' any that were ever contcmpiatea oy.ur. AJeacon or tns ooaesy tor too Suppression of Tic. He submitted there could be no doubt of tha substantial truth of the statements contained ia the book ia question, and that through its medium persons might, be prevented running a destructive course by timelv warninr.

Works of that kind, he said, ought to be legitimatized by being sold at particular places and under proper authority. Beyond the fact of the publication ia this case, it was not shown that ant human being had been damaged or injured a hair's breadth. He left the matter in the hands of the jury, who could judge for themselves of the probable effects of the book. If their verdict should be an adverse one, he should hare another opportunity of addressing the Deputy Eeeordtr, when there could be no further attempts at prejudice. His clients would undertake to suppress tbe pisce, but in oomg that, it should not be forgotten thst the defendants had come in at a comparatively recent period, and tbe police or the parish had not interfered with it.

He had a tkAn.rf 4n.t In fJQJT fUIVUVr VU MA ym. aia particular they would comply with any order the Court lit A 1 A A. mignt rosae. ana uus it wu pimuii wj u.iu Him. th hm had reached a stare when, in the hands of the Judge, it ceased to be a matter for tbe importation of prejudice, and became again dignified with the name of justice.

eon tending that he could not be answerable for the book, inasmuch as he simply believed it to be a medical work, and neither published nor attempted to disseminate it, he being merely a servsnt in the establishment at a salary probably of or 30s. a week. The Deputy Recordee, in summing up tbe casa to tho jury, said he did cot think the facts were seriously disputed as respected Davidsoa and Denison. At the same time he eonld not withdraw the case of Ktmiilly from the jury. There could be no doubt, be said, that the pamphlet in question had relation to a most pamiui ana insagrcvnpw subject, and that it was impossible to treat such a subject without the employment of terms and the introduction of allusions which might be called It was impossible, therefore, to say the book was not obscene but all obscene mta antra not in themselves subject to imtictmest.

From Chancer to Byron, as among, too, the ancient elastics, thero were books expressions more or ics puwcoc pv, again, in picture galleries there were occasionally subje els trested in sucn a way as to uo iu iriau wiJ'" ''4U to then. It did not follow tnat an onscene dook was properlv a subject for indictment But wliat was it that made the distinction If topics were treated, not in a scientific, but in a popular and pamphlet form, in order to be disseminated generally and indiscriminately among all classes, and at a very low pneexuea too wuoio eucc vi the alUration of the form in which they were being diss, mlnated was such as to render the hook a subject for in dictment. In other words, ir tho tendency or auoorwas to degrado public morals and to poUuteQhe imaginations of an indiscriminate class of readers, it betsme at common law the subiect of a nuisance, because ofJits general ten. dency, whatever the motives which prompted its publication. The object of the book might Bo to do away with private evils resulting from ignorsnce but if tho jury believed that was not its tendency they would find accord ioclr.

At the same time be did not think tbe mere fact of a book, Uealing wita a uuagrrcaDie sudjccs wouiuoi iwcu m'ske it tho subject of an indictment. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against all three of the defendants, but with a' recommendation that they 1 subjected to as light a puuishment as the law would allow. The DEPCTT RrcoRDEn. remarkinr that it was an inde cent libel, the publication of which had been going on 25 years, said he would defer sentence until Thursday, and mU mult two of th Jndffea ia tho interim. Mnn.

while he would allow the defendants to go at large oa their own recognizances. XEW COURT. Zcore ilr. Cmmittioncr Kerb.) William Scott, 53, dealer, pleaded Guilty to unlaw, fully attempting to obtain money by false pretences, with intent to defraud. A previous conviction for conspiracy having been proved, ho waa sentenced to two years' hard labour, and at the expiration of that time to be placed under the supervision of the police for four years, Elizabeth Sduthunt, 23, spinster, was Convicted of a robbery from a shop door at Woolwich, but the jury recommended her to mercy on account of the temptation which the hanging of tha property outside the shop supplied, i Mr.

Commissioner Kebr said he would giro the fullest affect to the rwcommendatioa. At the last session he announced his determination to disallow the costs of the prosecution in eases ia which articles were stolen from the doors of shops, and he would disallow tbe costs in this case. Woolwich furnished considerable occurtioa for that court. and, as so many disreputable people frequented the place, the practice of exhibiting articles for sate outside the shops was especially reprehensible. Us sentenced the prisoner to three months naru lacour.

James Scott, 33. carrier, was charged 'with feloniously cutting and wounding LUxata launicf, wtta intent, to do Him giiSTOU Doauy Ur. Austen Metcalfe prosecuted. Tha nrisoner aad tho prosecutor were fsllow workmen. On the 27th of January the prisoner, by the use of abusive Ungusige, greatly asnoyed the prosecutor, and the Utter at last unshed him scalar! the will and asked him what he meant by such conduct.

As the prosecutor was turning round to leave, the rrisoaer tkuek lha the ara with a knife with which he had been The blow severl several tendons and an artery and renJcred.tha prosecutor insensible. He was at once to Guy's Hospital, where the wound.was dressed. It is probable, according to the medical evidence, that the prosecutor will permanently lose' the us of one or two of his fingerN Tho jary found the prisoner Guiltv, snd he was sentenced to IS months' hard labour, James Brace. 23. norter.

was indietal for felonioualv ut tering a forged request for the delivery of goods. Mr. Bichard Harris prosecuted. OntholCthof January the. prisoner went Johnson sn.l wholesale jewellers in a written nuest that the'y would forward by him to his employers, Meurs.

ales and M'Cullocb, Lud 5ste hill, two or three gold Alberts to show to a customer, le was told thst the goods would be sent on to his employers, when he answered that they must be forwarded immediately or' they would bo of no uiet. Messrs. ohnson and Walker accordingly sent five chains by messenger, who. lesrnt that the request which the prisoner had broujht was a Tho prisoner had not then returned from the.errand on which he bad been sent, but when he came in he denied having either written the request in question or having been st tha premises of Johnson and Walker that day. The jury ConvkUd the prisoner and he wss sentenced to 12 months hard James Drsper, 21, and Henry Thomas Draper 19, brothers, were indicted for feloniously wounding Walter Blackett Trevelyan.

Mr. l'oland prosecuted Mr. M. Williams defended the prisoucrs. The prosecutor was in his garden at Hcodon on the af ler noon of tbe 12th of January, when his attention was called to the youuger prisoner, who was: leaning over tho palings and shouting.

He went towards the prisoner and found that he wai stroking a inside the garden. He then asked whose dog. it wis, and the prisoner snswered, Not yours." Upon that he told the priioner that he had better take it out. prisoner then whistled, swore at him, put one foot inside the gate, and' struck 'him in the chest The prosecutor was able to shut the gate, but tbe prisoner theo threw stones st him and got over the" fence. that moment his father and a younger brother, a lad of 16, cstno in the prisoner went back.

The prosecutor and his brother, one of whom had a stick, resolved to follow the prisoners. Tito elder prisoner suddenly turned round, ssked them what ther were following them for, and struck tho prosecutor a severe blow oh the back. of the head with a stick, stunning him for a few seconds. The same nruoner then sat tiuon him and beat him with his fist. The other brother was knocked down twice by the younger prisoner; Tho prosecutor was iU for several days afterward The jury iu the end returned a verdict of AV Guilty, with the observation that some heurs had been wasted with the hearing of eases which ought to have been settled at the police court.

Mr. Commissioner IvZUR said that that was pretty much his opinion, but magistrates unfortunately yrcre not sometimes absolute masters of tbe situation, being' compelled by law, however unwillingly, to scud cases for trial. Where the magistrates had discretion they generally exercised it wisely. The present case might have been presented iu a much more serious light at the polico court At any rate, one ot tbe committing magistrates was, he knew, a magistrate of grest experience. The great remedy for this state of things was tho appointment.

If a publio prosecutor, who would have no interest in costs or fees, but be paid by the public, to whom he would be responsible. If that course were adopted, a host of cases which came before tho Court would never be heard of. PARLIAMENTARY URA UGIITSMANS1UP. TO THE EDITOR OF TOE TIMES. Sir, The stringent criticisms passed the other day by the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench on the method of legislating by incorporation and reference, and their unanimous expression of opinion that all new legislation which modifies the existing statute law ought to be effected by repeal and consolidation, 'command universal assent.

I may venture to add that probably the first to endorsa them would be the much abused draughtsman. If left to himself there is nothing he would like better than to make a tabula rasa and to ioscribe on it in the shortest and clearest language the whole of the law relating to a given subject. Why, then, it msy be asked, are principles of legislation which all admit to be true in theory never observed in practice Mr. Justice Blackhum has himself supplied the answer. Bills must be drawn to pass and it by no means fol lows that the Bills which are best to pass are best to work.

In tha interests of the promoter of a measure and tbe interests of tbe general public are too often hopelessly at issue. It is the interest of the general publio that a mra. sure should be drawn in such a way as to leave room for the smalltst amount of doubt aa to iu meaning. It is the interest of the promoter that it should be drawn in such a way ss to excite the smallest amount of opposition to its provisions. Now, however objectionable legtslstion by incorporation and reference may be from the first point of view, it must be admitted that from the second there is a great deal to be said for it It minimises ia appearance the changes effected by a measure, and it minimirek the number of points on which opposition can fasten, 'it enables a Minister to say, You see at a glance tbe trifling chance I wish to make.

I enforce my measure by means ot existing and constitutional machinery, and, except when I expressly alter, I re cognize and apply the existing law." On the other hand, from the same point of view, a Bill which repeals sjid Is open to serious objections. In tbe first place, this method greatly increases the bulk of a Bill, and mere bulk is.an element of dsnger. In every additional clause an obstructive finds another piece of Injustice, an amateur reformer another peg on which to air his favourite crotchet. Again, it does not follow that because a clause merely reproduces the existing law it will therefore pass unchallenged. The reappearance of phrases once familiar revives long forgotten controversies.

Penalties which have rusted unnoticed in the Statute book look dangerous and unconstitutional when furbished up and brought to light and, lastly, every one knows, cr ought to know, that aa exact reproduction ot the existing law is impracticable, and that every Consolidation Bill really involves fresh legislation. The machinery of 1853 is not suited to the requirements of 1873, Privileges and disqualifications which were once reasonable have become anomalous sod unjust Sanctions which were once thought sflec tire hare been proved by experience to be inoperative. Phraseology has to be altered sod made simpler, clearer, more consistent, yet important coosequeocei may flow from the alteration of a word. Hence every Consolidation Bill involves a number of petty changes too trifling to be made the subjects of a substantive measure, yet each not without its possible influence oa existing and consequently, in its march through the House, it exposes a long flank to every Parliamentary iharpshxitcr. At the same time, so far as it remodels the form and Dot the substance ct the law, it meets wfth hut faint and half hearted support from its friends, for when wss Consolidation ever a hustings cry These remarks find an apt illustration in the fata and prospects of a well known measure.

There has been for many Sessions before the House a Bill which appears to be drawn; on the very principles recommended by the Judges. It does not eke out its provisions by reference or incorporation. It canUios wjthio its lour comers all the enactments on the subject with which it proposes to dead. It repeals by a clean sweep all existing enactments on the same subject With a few trifling exceptions it makes no change in the existing law, but merely collects and re enacts what is now scattered up and down some hundred statutes. Yet the Merchant Shipping Codo has becomo the byword of abortive legislation.

It is recognized in tbe House as a standing dish. Successive Ministers shrink from making themselves reipo'csiblo for its 700 clause. Each honourable member who has, or thinks be has, or thinks hiT constituents have, an interest in this subject jots down an amendment on the notico paper. Kach amendment adds to tbe friction which impedes tne progress oi tne nuge mass, and them is no motive foroo sutDcient to counterbalance this friction. There are always more urgent and consolidation has to wait for a more convenient season.

Hence it hsppens that while little amendment Acts on the subject of merchaot shipping slip through each Session, their big brother is annually massacred, tho hugest and mos helpless of tbe innocents. Doubtless as a Consolidation Bill the Merchant Shipping Code is susceptible of improvement but who can i doubt that it is the mere fsct of its' being a Coosoliditjoo Bill which is the main obstacle to its passing And with this melancholy example constantly before their eyes, is it a matter for wonder that Ministers disregard tbe remonstrances of the Judces, and persist in their more slovenly hut easier method of legislating by incorporation and refer iu. Whether there is any possiDia remeuy lor iuu uisw culpable results is another question. I am, Sir, your obedient servant Lincoln's Inn. P.

I. A WATERLOO VETERAX. TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir You would confer a great favour by allowing us to make'an appeal in your columns inbeh.lf of James Brier rw of aterloo. He entered jpy OUO OI IUO 1 the 3d Battalion Royal Artillery in 1812, was present at Waterloo, and retired from service in 1337 ss the old man ha urvel under four Sovereigns.

1 nis pension of Is. lL per diem, with 2. or 5s. a week which his wif earns by teaching a few children, hi total iBflehas now resided many years in this village, and has i i rhiraeitr for sobrietr and always wnn ,7 honesty. Although SO years of age, completely crippled by rbetuMtisin, ana sunenng great yiu, 0 of his lot If his case were mada known to the public, we feel sure many would gladly contribute to a fund to render the rest of his life more comfortable, their present Income being quite insufficient to provide proper food and fuel for the old people.

The underilgned will be happy to receive and acknowledge any sum, however small, for this object and will take care that the money be Tested in the hands of trustees and properly applied. We remain your obedient servants, GEORGE DEERB, Curate In Charge. A rfFPr7" CODSOy. M.B. Chcadls, Chcahlra; JUDICIAL COMMITTED OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Feb.

4. Promt Lortl Juttice AMtn, Lorrl Jtuiicc 3Ir.t.Uir, Sir B. rrjtcocK, andSir 31. Smith. TTIE SA KOMAX.

This was an appeal from the Court of Admiralty, and raised a question at to alleged lots to Messrs. aad merchants in the City of London, the sppellariu, by too xrenca aoaLrerman war. action was against toe North German" vesacl San Itooian, under the 6th section of the Admiralty Court Aet, 1S61, for the recovery of dimages in nspect to the delay in the non delivery of a cargo; Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr. Cohen were for the appellants Mr.

Mil ward, IXC. (with whom was Mr. E. a Clarkson) was for the respondenU, the owners of the vessel. The suit ia the Court of Admiralty was heard before Sir Robert l'hillimore.

The vessel was to sail froifi Wales to Jaaau. The niaster was to sign bills of lading without prejudice to the charter party, and' the excepted perils were the act of Cod, the (jaeeo's enemies, restraints of Princes and Rulers," and others. The bill of lading pleaded by the. plaintiffs only contained one excepted peril. the.

dangers of the sea," and they alleged'that the contract was violated by deviation from the voyage and by a delay not caused by the excepted dangers. The Sao Roman sailed to Port Ludlow, there loaded a cirgo and proceeded on her voyaje to Qaeenstawn. The serions illness of ber master and damage sustained at sea caused her to put into Valparaiso on the iKhh of August. 170, and the ship did not leave before tha till cf December. The necessary repairs were completed i6a tbe 21 of September, when tbe ship was rcsdy for sea, and the point iii contention was whether the delay was jus titUble.

It was alleged, on the part of the vessel, that the delay was causetl br the dsnger of ciptcro from French cruisers, which rendered it uiusie to leave Valparaiso, ami which brousht, it was stated, the delay within the exceptions iu the charter party as to the Queen's enemies." On tho part of the plaintiffs it was admitted that there waa danger, but not of the extent to warrant the lonn postponement of the execution of the contract it. wai not, it was sail), of that pressing and imminent character which alone would justify such a delay. It was a danger rather in the nature of other terils bv sea which it was tho duty of the master to encounter. The Court of. Admiralty held that only reasonable and prudent steps had been taken by tbe master for the preservation of the ship in refusing, under the advice of the Consul, to leave before the 13d of December, loTO, and the suit was dismissed with cots.

on which the present appeal was lodged. The case was opened on the part of the appellants, and the other side wu not called upon. Lord Justice MELttsu delivered tho judgmeatbf the Committee. Their Lordships confined themselves to the question whether tbe delay at Valparaiso was justifiable on the circumstances narrated, and they arrived at the conclusion that it was, and their Lordships would, therefore, humbly advise Her Majesty that the decree of the Court of Admiralty be affirmed, and' that tho appeal be dismissed with coats. LAW REPORT.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Westminster, 4. (Sittings in Ilanco, More Jlr. Justice BLACKBCKS, Jfr. ice Mr.LLOU, and Jlr. Justice Lt'Sll.) The Court proceeded with the New Trial Paper.

CIIX V. THE MANCHESTER, SHEITIELP, AND LI.VCOIaX smnE raiLWAY coitrAXY. Two points of considerable importunes to railway companies were discussed in this esse. The facts which. raised them were these The plaintiff contracted for the carriage of a cow from Doncaster to Sheffield with the Grest Northern Railway Company.

When tbe cow arrived at Sheffield the plaintiff, believing that the cow was in a restive state, told a porter who was about to let her out not to do so. Tbe porter, not heeding this caution, let her out, and she rushed frantically down tho line, and was killed. In the contract made with the plaintiff there was, among others, a condition relieving the railway company from liabilityin the event of damage accruing from the restive state of the animal. Holding that by reason of this condition, the defendants were relieved from liability Baron Clessby at the trial nonsuited the plaintiff. Showing cause against a rule which had been obtained to set aside this nonsuit, it wss contended on behalf of tho defendants that as the contract bad been made with the Great Northern Railway Company, the present aetion was not rightly brought against the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company.

It appeared, however, that an agreement had been entered into between the two companies, which, as regards parts of their lines, amounted, aa far as it was possible for an agreement to amouct to it to an amalgamation between the two companies and this being so, Tbe COCHT heM thst the action was rightly brought against the defendants. It was further contended on behalf of the defendants thst the death of tbe cow was occasioned by the cow's own restireness. ft was urged on tbe plaintiff's behalf that, though restive, no damage could have happened to the cow had she not been let out of the truck by the porter, and that in so doing the defendants did not conduct themselves with reasonable care. On this point the Court took time to consider their judgment Mr. Price, Q.C, and Mr.

C. Dodd argued for the 'plaintiff Mr. J. W. Mellor and Mr.

Kennedy for tbe defendants. Sittiugi at Jfiii Pritu, before the Lord ChIZT Jcmcx and a Special Jury.) The Court was occupied nearly the whole dsy in trying a part heard case, and iu the afternoon a second case, neither of which was of any particular interest SECOND. COURT. (SUtittfft at Pritu, UJori Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD and a Coimon ury.) The Court was occupied all day with the trial of a case as' to the right to some furniture under a bill of sale, which was of no interest to any one but tbe parties concerned.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WErnnKstra, Fa. 4. Sitting at Jfiti rritu, after before Lord Chief Justice BoviLL and Special Juries,) SAKKE V. THE TORE aTttXET WARIHOU3I COMPAST, This was an interpleader issue, to try tbe right to some agricultural stock and furniture seized by the Sheriff under an execution. The action.

commenced List Saturday morning, and was not concluded till midday to day, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. ROGERS V. SORREL L. This was aa action brought by a cabdriver against a cab owner, for letting to him for hire a eabhorso unfit to be driven and dangerous as a vicious, kicking; horse, to recover damages for injuries he received in consequence. Mr.

8erjeant Parry and Mr. Marshall Griffith appeared for the plaintiff'; Mr. M'Intyre, Q.C, and Mr. Anderson for the defendant It appeared that the defendant is an hotel keeper st Edgware, and also a Urge cab proprietor at Nutting hilL On the l'Jth of April last the plaintiff, a cabman, hired a Hansom and horse at his yard, forthe purpose of plying for hire. The defendant's man, Smith, let to him a bay mare known in the yard by the name of "Go before 'era, Sal" This mare, the plaintiff's evidence showed, was well known to defendant's serrsots as a "jibber'' and kicker.

She' would "jib" and back, and lie dawn, and kick and run away if struck. The plaintiff took a gentleman as his fire to St JohnVwood, and at the corner of Alpha road the mare suddenly began to kick, kicked in the and at last got one leg over the shaft and immediately fell, pitching the plaintiff over bit cab on to the pavement breaking his collar bone, seriously bruising him, snd renderiosT him for a time insensible 'The fare Mr. Baring scrambled out ot tbe cab, gave tbe plaintiff halt a sovereign, and he was taken to the hospital. He was Uiil up for l'J weeks from the injuries he received aad was unable to follow his vocation, and lost gains which he stated to amount te about 50a. a week.

It was shown that tbe defendant's manager, on hearing of the accident, said the mare was a "cuss," anil they had had a deal of troublo with her and it was proved that on one occasioa when. she was hired by another cabman for tho day, they could not get her to start. She was forced on and a witch'used, and at last she started at a gallop'down the yard and then suddenly stopped. The plaintiff at the time when asked how the accident hapneocxl said lie could not tell what made the mare kick he had not touched ber with the'whiii, unless the gentleman inside hail poked her with his stick. This gentleman was railed and positively denied having touched the mare.

She was afterwards sold for uf.j to an omnibus proprietor, and the drivers gave her the worst of characters. Sho kicked snd jibbed to such a degree that she emptied the o.xnibui tho people got out and would not go any further. OU the other1 side, witnesses were called who said the roam was a quiet, useful mare, and fit to be, let to drive in a Hansom, and the defendant personally knew nothing of her character. HisLoRDitnir having summed up the evidence, The jury found a verdict that tbe more was not fit to let out on hire, and gave the plaiutiff iW. damages.

COURT OP ERROR IN THE EXCHEQUER. CHAMBER, Feb. 4 (Sittliiffs ia Error run. Vie Court of (Juan's Bench, before the Loud Chief Ijakov, Jlava Martin, Jlr. Justice KeaTI.so, Baron PlGOTT, Jlr.

Just ice Bkett, Barvn CLeasbv, and Jfr. Justice Grove.) CROXSHAW V. THK BCRIAfc BOARD OF WICAN. This case raised a question between tbe incumbent cf a district church and the incumbent of the mother church, as to tho right to fees on burials persoosdjing within tbe district and buried within the cemetery of the Board. The plaintiff.

Mr. Cronshaw, is incumbent of the district church of St Thomas, Wigan, the district of which wai fcarred out, of the old parish of. Wigan. The church was: consecrated in 1351 as a chapel of ease under 43 Geo. I1L, e.

108, without any right of interment The 59 Geo. HL, e. 131. gives power to assign a particular dis trie tand then the Bishop may asiijn what fees, if any, shall be allowed to curates for interments. In ltiol there was an Order in Council assigning a district to St Thomas's, burials to be performed in tbe church, and fees to goto the incumbent with consent of the Bishop.

In 1So4, Mr. Cronshaw was appointed incumbent of St. Thomas, and in the same year a Burial Board was established for the borough and township of VVigao. In 1S5G tbe burial ground was consecrated. Ii ISG4 a new incumbent was inducted into tha rectOrshiD of Wigan; and he claimed the fees on burials of persons it il.

1 UJin wiiuMi aa umiAM aaa uiizuuimiiu, watnu Mr. Cronshaw, as minister of the diatnet, claimed the fees on burials of persons dying within his district The, Burial Board received the fees and held them for the person' entitled, and the question was, which of the two incumbents was entitled to the fees. The Court below decided in favour otthe plaintiff, Mr. Cronshaw, the incumbent of the district, and as the rector pressed his claim the Board annealed. Mr.

P. Bristowe, Q.C. (with him, Sir J. ana air. i umiaii, uv imniuii fin.

MMaatj, Q.C., and Mr. Forbes were far the plaintiff, tha respondent The case occupied all day, and the arguments war of no Interest The jadameat of tbo Court ef Queen's Beach was 1 COURT OF PE0R.VTE AND DIVORCE, Feb. 4. Before Sir J. ILtsyrx.) rinup r.

rniLip. The JcpGE OEtiiXARY gaTe jodimeat in this ease, ia which, the wife prayed for a restitution, of conjugal rights, snd the husband praved for a judicial separation ca th ground of cruelty. He iai i it was proved, and hot contradicted, that the wife haiLbeen guilty of a series of acts i wmcn it unexpiaioeu made out a case or. legal cruelty, ice only excuse suggested oa her behalf was that she was insane; and no doubt sie did ultimately become for a time insane. but be was of opinion th.it this insanitv had been brought on by her indulgence in habits of driokiag.

He should pronounce a decre of judicial separation, but it would be suspended until the allowance whkh the husband had promised to make to the wife should be secured to her. Jlr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. C. Russell.

Q.C, and Mr. Icder wick appenredforMr. Philip Dr. Dease, Q.C., aad Mr. Potter for Mrs.

Philip RIVERS T. RIVERS. Mr. Pearce appesrol for the petitioner. The defect in the evidenco'ia this case, which was part heard last week, was supplied, and a decree nisi was granted.

DRAKE V. DRAKE. Dr. Tristram appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner, a solicitor's clerk, married the respondent in October, 135ti.

She had been guilty of adultery. A judicial separation was decreed. nCBLSET V. HCEI.VET A30 VOODISG. Dr.

Spints, Q.C., aad Mr, W. A. Clark appeared for the petitioner; The parties were married in July, 1SC0, the petitioner, a Frenchman by birth, bein a wine merchant, carrvin on business in Mark lane. The respondent had formed an improper intimacy with the co respondent who wis ia the cm pioymcnt or a ercengrocer near ner residence. Decree nirf, with costs.

riTT V. PITT AXD K5IGITT. Mr: Bayford appeare.1 for the petitioner. The petitioner, a solicitors clerk, married the rcspoodent in and afterwards livel with her at Pimlico. They sepivrateil in consequence of her misconduct and she had since cohabited with the co respondent Decrees iii.

I CHAMEZELAVX V. CHAMBERLATX. Mr. Inderwick appeared for tbe petitioner. The parties were married ia 1S67, and.after travelling for some time on the Continent went to live at Dartnou4h.

where the husband was proved to have been guilty of several acts of adultery. Judicial separation decreed. WIXTLE V. WISTLE. Mr.

Searla appeared' for tbe petitioner. Th petitioner mam'ol the respondeat, who was the son of a retired fish salesman at Bristol, ia ISfia They lived together until 1SV, the respondent carrving oa the same business. In that year he sent the petitioner home to her fansily, and he had since committed adultery with a domestic servant The petitioner prayed for a decree oa the grounds of adultery aad desertion. Decree nisi, with costs. ERCCUER V.

BRCGCIER. Dr. Tristram appeared for the petitioner. The petitioner, who was lady 's maiJ, married the who was a butler, in JuIv.ISam. They afterwards lived together in different parts of London.

She charged him with adultery and cruelty. The Court took time to consider whether it could act upon the evidence produced in support of those charges. POLICE. At the; MaxsTox HOCsr yeterday Jou.y a cabdriver, attended before the Court oa a summons charging bim with impeding a constable of the Great Eastern Railway Company in the execution of his duty. It may be remembered that there has been a longstanding dispute between the cnrupuny and the general body of cabmen as to tbe right of tbe latter to ply for hire in front of the Fenchurch street Station without paying for the privilege, and that it haa recently been decided in the Queen's Bench that the company, as the owners of the freehold, may, if they choose, eject trespassers.

The defendant drove an empty cabin fiont of the station, and. refused to leave when requested. Sir Thomas Dak in obtained a promise from him thst now he knew tne law he would not offend again, and nnder those circumstances merely fined him the cost of the summons. Mr. Marriott, barrister, attended to prefer the complaint Mr.

Alsop, solicitor, appeared for the defence. At Guildhall Willlui Forwood. who had been in the employment of 'Messrs. Stevens and Sons, Jaw stationers, of 119, Chancery lane, for about 20 years, waa charge before Sir S. J.

Gibbons with stealing postage It appeared that the prosecutors had missed postage stamps from drawer in Mr. Steveos's desk for some time, and John Monk, an assistant, was placed to watch. On Monday evening be saw tbe prisoner to Mr. Stevens's desk, take some stamps, and go to the back of the shop with them. As it was after 6 o'clock he had no letters to stamp, and, therefore, had no business itt tbe desk.

Monk communicated with James Haun. a detective officer, and be apprehended the prisoner after he left the prosecutor's establishment He asked hint if be had any stamps about him, sod he said Ho." Haun took him to the station house, and there ha found on bias lis. lOJd. worth of stamps. Tbe prisoner tben said that he had.

taken more than he wanted and he intended to use them when tbe principals gave him more letters to post Sir S. J. Gibbous sentenced him to 21 days imprisonment, ith hard labour for unlawful possession. Sir S. J.

Gibbons acknowledged the receipt of 20s, from u. ueara lor tne poor oox. Bow STRECT. fWe acknowledred a short time back the receipt of a check for 251. from Sir Thomas Gabriel, to be be devoted to Mrs.

Chirgwin, the poor woman whose child died from the alleged neglect of Cannon, one of the Work house omciais, wno was coavicted ot the oueoce st tbe Sessions. We are asked to state that Sir Thomas Gabriel was merely the almoner of the donor At Marlboro roii sTRCET Locisa Hooker, 23, St Ann etret Waterloo road, was broazht before ilr. Xew ten by Detective Beechey, Division, charged with ob taining enantanie contributions cy rraml. ir. ISeckley, of the Society for the Relief ot Distress, 23, King street, St.

James's, said that on the 13th of January the prisoner applied at his office for assistanoe, stating that sho wanted the means to co to Mrs. Gladstone's Convalescent Home at Woodford. As she lived in Lambeth he asked her whether she bad applied to! the Lambeth branch committee of the Charity Organization Society, and she said slje had, but had been refused assistance. Having made, inquiries, and finding that her statement was not true, sho was given into custody for attempting to obtain money by Mr. W.

Martin, agent of U.e Lambeth Committee of the Charity Organisation Sociitr.saM that onthe 8th of November the prisoner applied to him for assisUuce. He made inquiries, the received a good character, and as she had met with an' accident the committee gave ber Ss. and a letter for Mrs. Gladstone's! Convalescent Home. The prisoner then said) that all ber under clothing was iu pawn, but having ascertained that she had received 10s.

from a lady to get her things out of pawn, he pot the question to her, and she admitted the fact The prisoner was in srrear of rent She spoke to some gentleman and he collected lf.s.Gd., giving her 17s. to get her clothes out of iwd, and an additional 5s. M. to pay her fare to Woodford. She was to have to Woodford oa the 10th of December, hut on calling at her lodgings li found she was still there, ber excuse being that it was so wet He called the following week, and was told by her that unless she had more mosey to get her clothes out of pawn with, as she bad not done so yet, she could not go.

Being sware that she hsd begged ami receive contributions from ladies and rentlemea on the same 'plea, he Jold her if sh continued to do so she would be on which she laughed and said she would chance it lJctective Jieechey, JJivision, said that on taking the prisener into custody at St Ann's street and telling her be had a warrant to. apprehend her for obtaining money by false pretences, she said it was. very cruel of Mr, Martin to take steps against her, as she was an invalid. He to see her letters. She showed lira some, and from one of them he saw she had received Iuu, from a captain residing, at Kemp town, Brighton.

Several of the letters were handed to the magistrate, who, after reading them, remarked that theprisocer appeared to have carried on a regular system cf begging letter business. IScechey ssid the prisoner sttcmpted to throw several letters acd papers into the tire. Mr. ISewtoo said it would appear from the letters that the prisoner had been living on charity for a long time, was anything known of her? Mr. Martin stated that the prisoner had worked at a milliner store in the but harinAT met with an accident last year to her hip, she went into aa infirmary.

He had no doubt she had been living for some time by system of betrging from the benevolent Tbe prisoorr said she was very sorry for what she had done, but she was still unwell. Mr. Xewton must tell the prisoner that she should not continue to prey on the public i it was in his power to prevent it. lie should send her to the Hou.e of Correction' for two' months, where she would meet with every attention and be cured, and theo be expected a stop would be put to tier practices, ine prisoner wastnea re moved. The following contributions have been received for the poor box T.

S. and Mr. TierneylW. At Ma kylkboxr William Alfred Dale. 23, Hkxrt ScAiuwRocuu, 1.: Arthur 17, and Hesrv I'LUR, described as labourers, were oa remind, ibefore Mr.

DEyncou'rt with burglariously entering the dwellingbouse of Mr. James Willis, grocer, 7. Park place, Kilburn, and stealing various articles of wearin? aDTiarel and other rrorertT bek'nririr to the rprosecutor. Mr. Jloore.froni the office cf Meslfu lUckettt, appeared for tte prisoner xiaic be prosecutor uid on his retiring to rest Dst Thursday week the premises were quits secure.

Oa Frilly morning, shout 5 o'clock, he was called up by tbe jolice, when it was found that the house had been broken into. The prisoners were captured a few days after, and on being searched at the Kilburn pdicc sUtion pawn tickets were found relating to property which hail been identified as belooiag to the prosecutor. Mr. Moore, on behalf cf the prisoner Dale, called witoesses to show that he was at home oa the night of the burglary. Mr.

D'Eyn court discharged Dale, but conimitted the other prisoners for triaL At Wr miixsTtE Mr. Thomas a nuster hlacksmith. of Markbam street Chelsea, appeared ia discharge of his bail to answer a charge of jafeaultisg Mr. Benjamin R. of 20, Oakley crescentf and knocking out of his teeth.

Mr. W. Dovrtoo Smyth, who defended, suggested a farther remand ia order that the parties might come to soma arrangement The prosecutor had sustained serious injury, and the defendant was willing to make due reparation. Jlr. Woolrych would not allow this course to be adopted, and said he should send the defendant for trial for causing bodily harm.

Bail was accepted for his appearance. At Woiaiiir TrAuErr Joxathax Kitchxt, 36, described as a ehymist'i assistant, living ia Ho wntmtKings Isnd road, was charged a before Mr. Bmshby with having atolen a quAatity cf spirits of wiaa property of his employers, Messrs. Charles Bewlay aad Boa of 174, Kiagsland road. It appeared from tha evidence of Mr.

Bewlar. Iuxl. that the rArisoser hiA cxdy raoeatly bees engaged as ihos auistaiit. aad Satu I day, about two days after he had commenced his duties, a quantity of spirits of wiae was given into his care. Oa Msoii whn rt was wanted it was coa.

and the prisoner I in explaaaiiou said that he had made eaa de cologne of it. Tte, cxpuliatioa was aecepteo, ana notaiog 1 A I I more was tcougnt oi i. ai ito tiiuc. a however, the rrosecutor having left his purse on a table, the prisoner wis seen by the shop boy to take some stamps from it aad put them into his own pocket The prosecutor then made inquiries, and found that no eaa de cologne had beta made with the spirits of wine. The prisoner, too, had made false entries ia tbe books, aad other drugs were missing.

His defence now was, that if drinking the spirits of wine was stealing, he." was guilty. The pnweeutor recommended the prisoner to mercy, snd Mr. BushSy sen t.ttl Ktm in fttirM mnntKs imnrisonment vitii hirvl labour. At CLxaxKXwnx Edward VAicvATf and Grace Mabttx. shopkeepers ia Whitecross street, St Luke's, ap jared to s3a.ttoiASeS chirAa them with pursaiAis.

a worldly avocatioi not being a work of necessity or charity on the Lord's Day, conn art to the Acs of Charles IL Mr. Douglas, oa behalf of Mr. Poland, conducted' the Mr. Kicketts, solicitor, defended. The summonses were taken out hy order of the vestrr of the parish, with the eqn sent ot tne Commissioner ot ouce.

ino tacu tea.uog to the proceedings were detaile 1 by Mr. Douglas. It will be remembered that the Sunday business, carried on ia Whitecros stret having been, greatly complained of. tho Vestry of St. Luke's some time ago resolved to abolish the' costerinongers stalls ia the street on Sunday.

It waa pointed out ho veveV, that the shopkeepers carried on so much business on Sunday as practically to lead the trade, sad that to remove the eotennosgers only was but ooe rided justice. Eventually, aa agreement was come to whereby all shops were to be cloned, and all coiterrnoners' atalli, barrow, removed by 11 o'clock ia the morniag. For a short time this succeeded, the cortermoagers keeping faith, but one or to of the shopkeeper, setting the order of the Vestry at kept open. Other shops tben opened. and the costerroocgers returherf, eompUieiog: ttut while they were willing to abide by the agreement the shopkeepers broke it Recently, th Vestry decided to institute proceedings agaipst some of the offending shopkeepers, and heece these susj mooes.

iiti Rieketts first ake for an adjournment on the ground of want of time to prepare a defence, but the objection wat overruled. He then took objetioes to the orders for the regulation of the street in question, hieb, however, were proved to be in form and allowed by Colonel Henderson. Evidence was then given showing that oa the Itftb alt the defendants were pursuing their ordinary business occupation, Martin helping in the noise which rendered the street a Babel by calling out Buy, buy, buy what will you buy when vending his good's. The sanitary Inspector, Mr. Neighbour, proved the state of the street from aa early hour in the' morning till past 3 o'clock on Suatlty afternoon, aad Mr.

Pedder, a vestryman, said that it was one of the most disgraceful streets in the metropolis. After hearing Rieketts en behalf of the Mr. Cooke ordered each to pay's line of Is. and the costs. At SorTHWARK JoHX Small, Ci, was placed at the bar.

before Mr. Partridge, for nasi examination, charged with, stealing a purse cootainiuz Ss. and some papers. from the person of Ellen Goodwin, on tha sWp of a tramway carriage in Weatminster bridgenBtL Herbert Reeve, a warder in Coldbatb tields prison, said ha knew the prisoner. On the 19th of February last year ha was senteuced to sit months hard labour at the' Clerkea well Police court for picking pockets.

Mr. Partridge committed him for triaL AtLAMEETn Hexrt Barxev 21, a cabdrivxr (badge living in Lothian road, Brixtoo, was charged nefore Mr. Chance with being drunk and furiously drivings horse and cab in Kennington road on Monday night, and also as saulting Police constable Recder, 8 L. K. Sir.

Chance said the prisoner's conduct was most dbgracefnj, sod showed he wu net fit to be intrusted with a horse and cab. For being drunk and furiously driving he would hae to pay a fine of 2., or three weeks imprisonment, and for tho assault oa the constable a further penalty of or one month's imprisonment with hard labour. William aVd.ulj, fT. cabdriver, was also chained with being drunk and incapable of taking care of his horse and cab. A constable pro vet i the case, and the prisoner, who.

did not deny the charge, said owing to the. inclement weather he had taken more than he was ia the habit of doing. Mr. Chance inflicted a fine of or five days. The money was paid.

Received for the poor box, 2T. 2a from C. At Grexxwicu Charles Cripps, a collector aad commission agent i she employ of H. G. Smith, coal merchant of Kaveosbourne wharf, Greenwich, was brought up; on remand, charged with embexsling sums of money amount iag.to 7'M.

lOsreceived for ami oa account of his employer. The prisoner, who had been ia prosecutor's service about six years, pleaded "Guilty, "and threw himself on the mercy ot the Court Mr. Maude passed a sentence of three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, at Maidstone. At Hammersmith two checks each for 9s. 3d.

were received for the poor boies of the Hammersmith aad Wandsworth Police courts, being the proportions of a be quest of 5CXV. left by the late Mrs. Jane Lyon to be distri buted among the poor boxes of the Metropolitan Police Courts. LA N0TICE3. Thif Day, Weintsday, Feb.

5.) JUDICIAL CXHMITTTJE OF THE PBIVT COUSCH WHrrx BUC At aalt 9ut IX Iionden Chartarvd Bank of Amtrslia v. Ltmprfars and others, part baanl Laclers v. Baaodrr. TSe Court o( Queen's Bench win ait tn Bason, ai.Wntmbster. at IX COURT OF QUZEX BE5CI1.

WrJTxrssTrjL 2t 10. (MUdlesex 8pdal Jnrles.1 Baiklnaba v. Whitehead, part hert Buniaby v. Zrl BlUoe ackwffcttr COURT OF COXVOIf PLKAi. WraTMISiTix.

Al IX (XUdkMX SpMUIJarUa,) Parry v. Zaat fart Want v. Londaborou(h iCXaSnw an anothtr v. Lertaon jfelsou v. Hsmtltun.

SECOND COUET. tCbuuDcn Jurla.) Coles (taeator) v. Carter Tajloe v. lilnehfsId IWlov v. Uertt.

awr Karth v. Owro STlUtainna v. lletbrrlartoaLcssoa a aHaaloa. COURT OF XXCHEQUEE. WxstXUXSISS Al 10.

i BrtxnbrVif t. Hoara, pars lwaxd. htCOSV COURT. (Coosmon Joricsi) Lmb v. rrohart Crown t.

bradoarr AhercronjMs v. Itoters xlij r. Carry Tox v. VUlars t. KePj Fraaer v.

new HelKlt t. TooJey Saadcrm v. AUoa. i COURT OF PRORATE AXD DIVORCE, WxsrxlIX. At baU nut 10L (OafoTs 8 Jajss lUxsxjJ (Common Juri.

Probata Caaaa, Saonilars lasacutors ot ItarSar) v. Mo Thomas v. MLirra" Danes Dariea rorl r. Laashoroatftarca a aaothaf v. CarrctL IX)" TIT OF ADMIRALTY, Wsstxiwstxb.

(Ilctora th Right Ha, su K. PujLluiokkA Xha Oyorto (lor the oral civi.lnatlon of witneaaes and for fcearin. JtOLIK CllAMBERJf, CHA.vnar Laax. ltaamaRSra7ae In LI ml Sail LmIkIist IKrWoo Sx I. Conines Cwitoralioa, ml 11 lkrnad'.

lUak p). 11 CosunurciaX nk Ovporauonot IUa and thtf at 11 ttfaIey Vtdnnocm. lmpasy, at. 2 Drittot and Xurth Smerrt lUilwar Ootapaos.at IKruion Xo. KsJorrnioater tdinsliBS Society.

Ui qiurter to aaO. an PcleuaU IWlBJ Cutapanyaa quarter to II. XnvtMua ISik 1 United cwtw Comoy, at IX Tram iCattway, sc. Company, at baif sast II Ceeae Rlrrr Comtanr. at half past 'Jietan tna'Jmoc) LUt A.

at Foler v. Coakto lirwalwond v. tTltU AIlniitfi Cnanurs He isaTnavninxcrctai wu vorpnrauoa oc loai. tirBT r. Cttolmaoieley tirovaa T.

llalfonl Chrfer and iticaca hei Kailaay Coa3t Qj 'wmiu'a Eitato UammenJey T. lln totnlrf Law Rcrerslonary Inttrt Sodaty v. rjfcrvart Hafetl Hutet Cooipaay HMlry v. Gumnvar IlardiB r. Maora Lotxlon, 1La Wx.

fcc. baak Jcrrwl llerry Mctta AUcrscnU. B.W(Axl'S Eruta rrint' Trusts Rklfvaj v. lU Uar loooo v. tiarsoa.

Liat af a quarter to I. Uacuo v. Dibo. VICBAXCXXLORJ CHAilBXHa. LrxooxjrVonr.

(Vtoe OutmUor Matiaa's Baaiinodma, SXL. in Ijatitad LUbtlity Comotalet, A to T. Kecnoude ltaaeet lhiidiB gndtr. as a fitArtr pwt 11 Chymical Litht Conranr 01 attuvl rasl II Odvorts, at II A'jer dara Mrnhyr ntram Coal Uoiapany, as half paat 1. SuS.

InuKitat TaI (AnhAjv MnetSaa IaL at half nut li LcniAoa Co OMmliTa rVty. pt 11 Mcaarch Isauraux Company, at aat IX to Z. Uoul fompanr. at lulf fass 10. tVife ChaiitelW Baros" Chsntiers.) Satamoaaes, ii, in Lttuitsl LtaUlity Campaaica.

Dnrhau County Pusnv Uaaa. quarter to 12 fcntiaa aad AlBtaricaa Trksnpis Compsoy, at 2 and 3. tVica Chanrnor wicxaxs duasbers.) Samnunues. tc. la Limited I'tiill'y Union Ceseot CofttpuiT.

atX UJ51XJS BAXK.VHCY CUVkT. Lacos.nss rttUM. (lief ore Mr. BcTistrar ruAT. sittisc as Chief Jad.) MoUosa.

at' half part 10.. PlvU Kl.n.lntion. HoT. at 11 Report. A.

Pocwk. i IL llatioia. R. CUnvas II J. Bee, at 11 J.

WAHiaoia. at 1S D. Draper, at half paat U. Prirate. Xrans, at IX.

Ar BastonaxirSTaisTL fRefnra the Hnn. Vt. Srxxso Rica.) Yotion. at IL T. Hie, at 11.

f.Utiuo. at IL Petition. ai IX. A.lwne 1 Dantor' iSaaunciue PL at AppiitaUon. M.

A. liiaoas. at 1 orayana tipoo. atz. AOioaratd rctiOiAepT.as X.

(Before Mr. Heatnr Haxxirt.1 T. UoUyer. at IL tin Meetinf. J.

D. C. RaaBrson, atl. Prime fcittin. U.

B.S.nuta. at IL. Aiijeanal PetilKm.a II. Adjouroetl Prirala SiUlnf. Waliatev and at'U.

Pint Mretitu T. iMom. at I Xtotiaca. Schilt aad ochlS PL at 12. lrirua titer.

bitcatonda. at haifpaat (lfcre Mr. teytttrar Eoewx.) Adionned A4xmcd Petition, at tL The Hon. W. C.

riParsu Uicx ia tbo Keaatcaras1 the day. MrTEOPOLITAS corsTT COURTS. (Sittinc thia Day.l West abater. Oeitenwull. WUteetvapai.

Greenwich. VXDESIRED ASD UNDESERVED PUBLICITY: TO TUE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir, As a person utterly unknown to the medical officers tt Chatham aall MUlbauk who have been attacked by a Psoiaa priaooer in tbe Court of Queen's Bench by a motioa for a rale airi fora informatioii, I beg leave te aekaowledgw with gratitadet the aalntarj rule which I observe you have laid down not to publiih the names of these jentletacn. The other day I was similarly attacked hy a motioa which the party making it knew eonld not succeed and yet I saw a report of my name aad what was said atainst it ia every newspaper except your own. I had no notice of the application, and, therefore, no chance of refutiaj tha statements mads.

The object of the applicant, however. was answered, lie had made tn ex parts statement, and had secured jjuhlicatioii ef remarka of Judjes who had only heard one tiae. Sorely, Sir, if anything requires rsform this does. Thi Court of Chancery always requires service of notice of motioa on the opposite party, so as to give hist a chance 'Why cannot the Common Law Courts adopt the same rule, or why, until it is adopted, cannot Mrrpapen, allow to aa ajy ftfrl btti wtwwitfarjal irKj fTftt mhat waj fair play I an, Sir, yar obedient servant, a soucrros..