24 NOVEMBER 1860, Page 2

et 311rtroyolis.

A movement has been sent on foot by some members of the Common Council to found a free library fOr the City. It is opposed by Mr. Alderman Sidney, M.P., and Mr. Cox, late M.P. for Finsbury. Mr. Sidney objects to everything being done for everybody; the Corporation " has something better to do than to provide light literature for the rising generation." [What the "something better" to be provided by the Corporation is, the Alderman did not say.]

Mr. H. Fawcett, one of the candidates for Southwark, addressed the constituency at the Ship Tavern on Friday week, and gave an exposition of his political creed. He is a Reformer, and as such objects-to the con- duct of the Government, last sea-Sion., upon the subject of Reform ; it was deficient in earnestness. He thinks much of our present national ex- penditure unnecessary, especially since the country is protected by Vo- lunteers. He is in favour of abolition of church-rates, and will redress any grievances under which Dissenters labour. Incidentally, he com- plained that there was too much " talk" in the House of Commons, but not good talk, in " which men state their views in few, clear, and intel- ligible sentences." A vote of confidence in Mr. Fawcett was passed.

A meeting of Southwark electors, to consider the claims of candidates, was held on Wednesday evening, and came to a resolution in favour of Mr. Fawcett and adverse to Mr. Scovell. But another resolution was also passed, appointing a deputation to Mr. Layard, to induce him to become a candidate.

St. Paul's Cathedral is to be reopened on Sunday, December 2. The repairs and alterations, however, are not yet completed. The Reverend Henry Soames, M.A., is appointed Chancellor of St. Paul's.

A meeting of costermongers was held on Thursday night, at Petticoat Lane, to take steps for resisting the efforts of "certain parties" against the freedom of their trade in the streets. It was stated that a capital of 3,000,0001. is invested in the trade, which will be lost if they are de- prived of the right to sell in the streets. A memorial to the Common Council was adopted.

The great case of the Sheddens was resumed on Friday week in the Court of Divorce. Mr. Blaziers Moore, of Fort Washington, U.S., proved that his aunt lived there before the war. Opposite her house was Captain Wil- son's property : it was customary for persons to be married in a room at and after that time. Mr. Robert Shedden Patrick, one of the respondents, proved facts with reference to the family properties. Mr. Shedden, the petitioner, was in custody at the suit of his own former solicitors, and Mr. R. S. Petri& had since added a detainer. Mr. Lascelles, the assistant- keeper of thd public records, produced from the Rolls the memorial pre- sented by Archibald M'Call and William Shedden to the commissioners ap- pointed to investigate the claims of American loyalists. In 1789, Mr. Shedden had taken proceedings against a debtor • but it was dismissed on the ground that Shedden was a British subject, and had taken advantage of the 23d George III., cap. 80, to declare he was a British subject, and to claim compensation 'for 35001. The documents were produced. A. letter from Dr. Robert Patrick to Mr. John Patrick, of New York, was read ; it suggested that steps should be taken to put an end to the uncertainty as to the succession to William Shedden's estates; that Hugh Crawford should be appointed guardian ; that a suit should be instituted, and the question dis- cussed and decided without delay. A letter from John Patrick, of New York, to William Patrick, of Edinburgh, dated in 1798, was read ; it stated that Shedden was dead, and that the property was left especially to the three children ; that the boy William, the present petitioner, was to be sent totcotland to be educated.

The examination of Mr. Carment was resumed on Saturday. He stated tharin 1848, Mr. Patrick lodged in the Court of Session the duplicate and triplicate of a letter dated the 12th of November, 1798. He also lodged an original letter from Mrs. Ann Vincent, dated the 3d of September, 1799; None of these were now in Court. Miss Shedden produced the letters which she had obtained from the process. The ease of the respondents de-

pends-on them, and the case of the petitioners is that they are not genuine. It isallensitthat the original of the latter of Noronha; 1798, was sent to Mr. Shalom when he was in India. It is said to have been written by William t33redden, a few days before his death, to William Patrick. It is as follows-

. " New York, November 12, 1798.

" My very dear Nephew—My long and painful illness must apologize for my long silence. I am now going to quit this world. I have married Miss Annie Wilson, which is approved of by my friends here, and which restores her and two fine chil- dren I have by her to honour and credit. I have settled all my affairs, and ap- pointed executors here, who will correspond with you. One of my children is a boy; named William Patrick Shedden ; they are charming children, he in particular. I have ordered my executors to send him to you. I now remit first of Griffith and Walrond's exchanges on Messrs. T. Daniel and Co., London, dated Barbadoes, 23d of June, at sixty days' sight, for 326/. 15s. 8d., and first of B. Farquharson and . Co., on Barclay and Farquharson, London, dated Martinico, 21st of July, at sixty days' sight for 91/., together 4171. 15s. 8d., and I desire that such farther sum or sums of money may be appropriated for the purpose of maintaining and educating him g,enteely, and according to his talents and inclination, not exceeding 5001. without the consent of my executors, of whom you are to be totally independent in the business. I can only add, that I remain till death, dear William, your affec-

tionate uncle, WILLIAM SILEDDEN."

The second letter is said to have been written to Mr. Robert Patrick, by Mr. Shedden's widow, after her marriage to Mr. Vincent. It is as follows-

" New York. September 9, 1799.

" Sir—On looking at my signature you will, of course, find that I am a stranger to you ; but when I inform you that I am unfortunately the widow of your late uncle, William Shedden, Esq., of this place, I trust that you will listen to the con- tents of this letter with that attention which the memory of your late uncle and the interest of his son is in my opinion fully entitled to. I had the misfortune to lose my valuable husband last November, a loss irreparable to me as well as to his children, and by his death the public, as well as his family, have to lament the event. However, we must all submit to the decrees of that Almighty Providence who placed us here, and meet with becoming resignation the Divine will. My worthy husband made his last will and testament some short time before his death, making settlements as far ns he could, and appointed executors for fulfilling his in- tentions. He also at the same time wrote to your brother William in the most af- fectionate terms, recommending our son William to his guardianship and pro- tection, and made a remittance on account of this infant, the view being to send William to Scotland for his education. As the affairs of Messrs. Shedden, Patrick, and Co., which were very extensive, are yet to wind up, it is uncertain when a set- tlement will be made, or what the issue of the business may be. To the small pro- perty in Scotland my young child, and myself as his guardian, must look for support ; and now that I find that you have returned to your native country, I hope and trust you will stand forward as the protector of the widow and fatherless. My chief rea- son for troubling you at present is owing to a report circulating here that my hus- band's relations mean to interfere and claim this estate, to the prejudice of the child, on the pretence of illegitimacy. As you are next of kin to Mr. Shedden, of course if a claim of this kind should be set up it must be from you. The fact is, the marriage was solemnly performed, and the will as regularly executed as any two acts of their nature could possibly require, and ample testimony of the facts I trust I have furnished. At so great a distance as this, my friends have advised me to send a power of attorney to Scotland, and I have acquiescedin their advice. The gentle- men appointed are William Macfarlane and Alexander Cunningham, Esquires, Writers to the Signet, at Edinburgh, to whom the necessary papers, with the power, I transmit by this conveyance. To quiet my mind, to protect my innocent boy, and to set matters before you in a proper light, is the cause of troubling you with this letter, as, doubtless, your own feelings will plead an apology for me, and excuse my importuning you so anxiously. To be honoured with a few lines from you after re- ceipt of this, will be considered as a peculiar mark of regard for the memory of the deceased, a happy omen of your attention in future to his offspring, and a relief un- speakable to me. I conclude by wishing you and all the relatives of my late be- loved husband every comfort and happiness which this world affords; and, with every sentiment of respect and esteem, I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant,

" ANN VINCHNT."

The will of Mr. Shedden, executed on the 7th•of -November, 1798, and proved in New York on the 16th of November, was also produced. The executors were Mr. Farquhar, Dr. Hosack, and Mr. John Patrick. The deceased left 400 dollars a-year to his wife, and, after giving some small legacies, directed the whole of his property to be divided betwee4 his three children. .

Miss Shedden continued the examination of her witnesses on Monday. The Judge Ordinary complained of the quantity. of irrelevant matter intro- duced into the ease. Miss Shedden asked Indulgence on account of the position in which she was placed. It was trne.that Dr.. Phillimore offered to conduct the examination ; he was a great international lawyer, and a high- minded gentleman, but he had not read all his papers, and therefore the - examination could not be confided to him with safety. Sir Hugh Cairns had returned his fees, and all her other counsel had refused to take any fees at all. Evidence was given of the late William Shedden's right to be con- sidered a British subject. A box of papers was produced, containing letters and accounts between Hugh Crawfurd, the present petitioner's guardian, and William Patrick, relating to their pecuniary transactions. Mr. William George Shedden was examined. He said he was fifty- seven years old, and the son of the late George Shedden, of Bedford Square, and the grandson of Robert Shedden, of London, the senior partner in the firm of Shedden and Sons. Robert's wife was a Miss Goodrich, and he died in September, 1826. He produced a copy in William Patrick's hand- writing of a letter written by William Shedden of New York, on the 10th of November, 1798, to Shedden and Goodrich, respecting certain payments which were to be made out of his estate after. his death to the Barr family. He further stated that, in September, 1823, he and his father and his grandfather were in Ayrshire. They were at a house belonging to John Shedden, of Crawfield. That John Shedden was one of the persons who joined in the petition that William Patrick should be appointed judicial factor of William Shedden's estate. He had a 'son John, and a daughter Agatha, both of whom were now dead. After Agatha's death, the house in Ayrshire came into witness's possession. In 1853, some application was made to him to furnish accounts relating to William Shedden's estate. Soon after this application was made, a number of books and papers were burnt by his direction in the garden of his house in Bedford Square. He had been very intimate with Captain Brown, of ICnockmarlock, and also with John Shedden, the brother of Agatha. It was very likely that they dined with him while the burning was' going on, a day or two before John Sliedden's death. John Shedden destroyed himself. At the inquest, Captain- Brown produced a letter, which he had since destroyed. In the letter John Shed- den said that be felt disgraced in the eyes of the world, and could not, from some cause that he was unable to explain, face the world again. At the time of the inquest, he had no idea of what John Shedden alluded to in that letter. He believed he now knew what it referred to, and that it did not in any way relate to this case. He was desirous of explaining what in his be- lief it did relate to. In 1857, the petitioner was bringing his ease before the House of Lords. Mr. Carment was in London, and living next door to Cap- tain Brown, before the case was 'brought before the House. He had very probably spoken with Captain Brovin about the petititioner's claim the day before his death. Captain Brown, unfortunately, destroyed himself. Miss Shedden proceeded to examine the witness with respect to -the accounts between Robert Shedden and Sons, and the Shedden and Co., of which 4E, -William Redden was a member; for the purpose of eliciting t at the

time of William Shedden's death, there was a balance of upw of 30001. due to his estate, but he said that, to the best of his belief, tlis mice was on the other side.

In cross-examination, the witness produced a bond for 40001., dated the 3d of September, 1798, from Shedden and Co., to Robert Shedden and Sons, upon which was endorsed a receipt, dated the 22d of August, 1810, for a promissory note for 40001., paid by Dr. Robert Patrick to Robert Shedden in discharge of the bond. Letters were also produced and read, written in November and December, 1798, from John Patrick and from Ro- bert Shedden, of New York, to Robert Shedden, of London, containing ac- counts of the illness and death of William Shedden on the 13th of Novem- ber, 1798, and stating that on the 7th of November he had married a woman with whom he had for several years been living, in order to rescue his two infant children from a state of bastardy. With respect to the papers which were burnt in 1853, the witness stated that they had no connexion what- ever with the claim of the petitioner. He was very particular in prevent- ing any papers connected with this suit from being mixed with those which were burnt.

The Court adjourned after the examination of this witness. On Tuesday, a long correspondence was put in and read. Among other letters, was one from William Patrick to Dr. Robert Patrick, written on the 31st of December 1798, and enclosing copies of the letters he had re- ceived from New York, announcing the illness and death of William Shed- den, and the terms of his will. In this letter, William Patrick expressed his regret at the death of William Shedden, and spoke of the trying situa- tion in which the Patrick family was placed, the infant children of the de- ceased being left entirely in their charge, and their interest and that of the children being diametrically opposite. They must, however, he said, be brought up as the children of the deceased. He further said that he could not quite reconcile himself to the deathbed marriage, as he understood that the woman was by no means a respectable character. He appeared to be under the impression that the children would be made legitimate by that marriage, and suggested to his brother, that, if he did not acknowledge the marriage, it might be advisable to take steps for obtaining the opinion of counsel in America and Scotland as to the effect of the marriage upon the legitimacy of the children, and upon the title to the property in the two countries. He added that his brother might be put into possession of the estate ; but that might be too decided a step under the circumstances, and that he should greatly regret seeing it sold, as it must be if it was to be divided equally among the children. It would be a work of immense labour to make up his father's accounts, and, perhaps, it might be proper for him to adjudge the estate for their mother's portion. Mr. Patrick, in conclu- sion, said he was vexed beyond measure, and knew not what to do. The letters written by Mr. Farquhar and John Patrick, the executors of William Shedden, to William Patrick and to Hugh Crawfurd, in May, 1800, when the petitioner was sent to England, were also read. Also the case submitted by John Patrick to American counsel for an opinion, containing the state- ments that the deceased had on his deathbed married a woman with whom he had been living for many years previously; that at first he had lived with her secretly, but she gradually introduced herself into his house ; that she was not admitted to his table when strangers were present; that she had conducted herself improperly while they were cohabiting, frequently ab- senting herself for weeks at a time, and being intimate with other men ; and that the deceased had overlooked her misconduct, had continued to live with her, and had married her a few days before his death. The questions upon which the opinion of counsel was asked were, whether this marriage was valid, and, if valid, what effect it would have upon the legitimacy of the children previously born ? These documents, and a number of others which were read, had been obtained from Mr. Van Hook, the administrator of the estate of John Patrick, of New York, among whose papers they had been found. Mr. Van Hook's evidence had been taken before the American Commission, and was also read.

Objections to the admission of this correspondence were overruled by the Court.

On Thursday, Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr. Conch appeared as counsel for Mr. and Miss Shedden. The examination of William Patrick, one of the respondents, was read ; it went to show that, until the receipt of the letter from William Shedden, of New York, in 1798, he had no knowledge of a marriage. The original of that letter he had sent to the petitioner, Mr. Shedden' in 1823; and duplicate and triplicate had been deposited in the Court of Session in 1848. A. letter from the petitioner, dated in 1824, to Mr. Patrick, was read, thanking him for sending what appeared to be the last signature of his father, but also complaining of over-zeal in William serving his brother Robert as heir to the estate.

The petitioner, William Patrick Ralston Shedden, was examined viva voce. He was four years old when his father died, and he came from America to Scotland in 1800. He lived at Wm. Patrick's house ; eventually he went to India, but returned in 1823 ; on a visit to Dr. Robert Patrick, he accidentally read a county history ; he was thunderstruck by the perusal, and ordered the servant to take away his things, but waited at Mrs. Patrick's request till Dr. Patrick came in. Dr. Patrick threw his arms round him and said William Patrick would explain everything. He had not known anything of the suit in which Hugh Crawford acted for him. William Patrick came over, and the petitioner referred him to the book, which stated that Robert had transferred to William Patrick some of the lands in Ayr- shire, Robert having succeeded as heir to William Shedden, who had died without issue. William Patrick said that the estate had been eaten up by debt, that the Patricks had bonds upon it, and he produced the opinion of the American counsel. He asked for his father's letters, and got the one acknow- ledged by him in 1824 ; it referred to a trifling affair; he never saw the ori- ginal of the letter of which the duplicate and triplicate were produced. In 1824, Mr. Shedden again returned from India ; Wm. Patrick showed him a pedigree of the Shedden family and a new edition of the County History, in which it was stated that Shedden left issue, a daughter and a son—the petitioner. All the Patricks said the petitioner was the representative of the Sheddens. He was on friendly terms with them until 1839.

The case was again adjourned.

Mr. George Crawshay applied to the Queen's Bench on Monday, for a rule calling upon Mr. Baxter Langley, proprietor and publisher of the Daily Chronicle, at Newcastle, to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against him for misdemeanour. Mr. Langley had pub- lished articles inciting persons to enlist into the army of Garibaldi in Au- gust last. But the Court held that no private person had a right to inter- fere in a matter which the Attorney-General did not think it right to en- tertain ; and refused a rule.

The Queen's Bench granted writs of habeas corpus to bring up the body of Charlotte Barton], a young lady fifteen years of age, who had been re- moved from her father's house at St. Alban's, without his consent. Mr. Howe, one of the parties, made a return that, before he knew of the writ, the young lady had left his house and gone to her aunt, Mrs. Crawford. Mrs. Crawford returned, that the young lady had left her house to go to that of Miss Hopkins, her stepmother's sister. Unsuccessful efforts had been made to serve Miss Hopkins with the writ. The Court declining to accede to an application for an attachment against Howe and Miss Hopkins, al- lowed the matter to stand over, but with an intimation that the Court would not be trifled with. The young lady must be produced.

The Queen's Bench on Saturday discharged the rule for a habeas corpus obtained by William Thompson, as reported last week. The Court did not think there was any ground for coming to the Court, and granted costs. The original application was renewed in the Exchequer, and that Court granted a rule to show cause on the whole case.

A question of great importance, affecting the right of 1500 persons to vote in South Lancashire, was discussed in the Common Pleas on Tuesday. " Wm. Brumfit, of No. 8, Netherfield Road North, in the township of Ever- ton, on the register of voters for the parish of Liverpool," gave notice of objection to numbers of persons who claimed to be inserted on the list. It appeared in the bound copy of the current register of voters for the parish of Liverpool in the custody of the Sheriff, on a sheet pasted into the book after it was bound. The name had been omitted, but was interpolated. Two printed copies of the list were supplied by the deputy-clerk of the peace, which did not contain the name of the objector. The error of omis- sion was one of the printers', but the revising barrister held that he had no power to alter after the list was published by the clerk. If the printed list was good, all Brumfit's objections failed for want of notice, and the name objected to must be retained ; if the written list was the correct list, the notice given by him was good, and all the voters he objected to must be ex- punged. The Court held that the list signed by the clerk of the peace and delivered to the Sheriff was the list. Judgment was, therefore, delivered in Brumfit's favour.

Mr. Alderman Humphery indulged in some strong extra-magisterial re- marks one day at the Mansionhouse, upon a handbill, issued by a Mr. Paris, offering prices for " kitchen-stun; dripping, candle-ends," &e. and the re- marks were not only reported but commented on in the Daily Pleyraph. Mr. Paris brought an action for libel against the newspaper, because the speech and comments suggested that the handbill offered an inducement to servants to rob their masters. At the trial, the newspaper had the ver- dict; and on Friday week, in the Common Pleas, a rule for a new trial was refused after an exposition of the law of literary criticism from Mr. Justice Bytes, which the Court adopted ; there is no difference it is held between a handbill and a book ; both are subject to criticism free from malice.

The Anglo-Californian Gold-Mining Company resolved to " wind-up " in 1857, and resolutions appointing liquidators, who afterwards made a call of 3s. per share, were passed. It was discovered that the proceedings were in- valid ; they were begun de novo in 1858, but a resolution confirming what had been done was also passed. Mr. Lewis, a shareholder, ratified to pay the call on the ground that the first meeting being invalid the liquidators were not duly appointed, and the Exchequer sustained the objection, setting aside a verdict for the call.

The practice of giving commissions to the servants of public companies, by contractors employed, peeped out in a case in the Exchequer, on Friday. week—Taylor v. M'Guire—an action for 2551., money lent. The suggestion by the defendant was, that the money was received as commission on Mr. Taylor's contract for the construction of gas and water-works at Ackling-- ton, near Birmingham. An arrangement was made and a verdict entered for 1001. only.

Mr. Bourcicault applied on Saturday to Vice-Chancellor Wood for an injunction to restrain Mr. Egan, the lessee of the Queen's Theatre, Man- chester, from performing a scene from the Colleen Dawn, in another piece called The Lost Bride of Garry Owen, or St. Patrick's Ere. The altera- tions were only colourable; and after the Court had been amused by recita- tions from both pieces by a learned counsel, the "Vice-Chancellor granted an interim order for an injunction.

Messrs. Cottam and Wilson were trustees jointly with a person named Allen ; the trustees lent 16001. to the Eastern Counties Railway upon de- bentures; Allen absconded, and his co-trustees, on inquiry, found that the debentures had been transferred to the Royal Exchange Assurance Com- pany. The deed of transfer was forged as to the signatures of Cumin and Wilson ; but the Royal Exchange Office had purchased in the usual way through their brokers, and gave full value. Who was to bear the loss was to be decided by Vice-Chancellor Wood on Friday week. He decided that the Insurance Office must do so, for they had notice of the trust, and should haVe got the conveyance of all the trustees; but he would not allow costs to either party.

A poor woman applied at the Lambeth Police Court, on Friday week, for assistance from the poor-box to bury her child, burnt to death. Mr. Norton gave her half-a-sovereign from his own pocket ; the poor-box of his court was quite exhausted.

James Mullins, convicted of the murder of Mrs. Emsley, at Stepney, was executed on Monday, in front of Newgatc, in the presence of about 20,000 persons. He made no confession of his guilt ; but he made an admission,

I believe Emm to be innocent of the murder of Mrs. Emsley." The crowd was orderly in its behaviour.

The Clerkenwell House of Correction was on fire on Thursday. The pri- soners were formed into gangs to work the engines as they arrived, and re.? hewed each other in relays, and in the afternoon they succeeded in extin- guishing the fire. Many of the prisoners are sufferers by the loss of their clothes.