tkt 31-ttruptlio.

The church of St. George's-in-the-East was again the scene of riotous disturbances and unseemly behaviour. A regular warfare now- appears to be carried on. The rector's party are better organized and better commanded.. The weapons used are.the voices of both parties ; and the rector's people-outsing and ontshout their opponents. This does not pm- vent hissing and coughing, and a free and easy style of going, coming, and sitting: The police are still employed.

The Vestry of St. George-in-the East has unanimously carried a reso- lution requesting Mrs Bryatiring tsi resign. the office of rector, as his continuancein, that post is incompatible -with the peace of a• parish which can no longer recognize Mr. King as-its spiritual director or guide. A resolution to support Mr. Allen, the lectimer was passed, and it was re- solved to petition Parliamenefor an amendment of the Church Discipline Act.

Lord Frederick Paulet reviewed thedloneurable Artillery Company on Monday. The corps went through the regular evolutions of a field day ; and Lord Frederick Paulet declared that he was astonished and delighted by the admirable steadiness with which the manteuvers were executed. It augers well, he said, fur the success of the volunteer rifle movement, since the men of the volunteers are of• the same stuff as those of the artillery company.

The case of Swynfen VOTILS Lord C1M1msford is again before the Court of Exchequer. It may beeemembered that the Court granted a rule to show cause. On Wednesday, four counsel appeared on behalf of Lord Chelms- ford, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. M. Smith, Mr. Bovill, and Mr. Ellis, Three counsel were.engaged on the other side, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. lellahon, and the Honourable George Denman: Sir Fitzroy Kelly- began his argument on Wednesday. On Thursday he concluded -it, and was followed by his learned brothers. The Court rose at this stage,

Sir Fitzroy Kelly first cleared away from the charge its criminal element. He said it was now- proposed to strike out all the- allegations which gave character to the charge, except• that the defendant •had, without the au- thority of his client, entered into a compromise. Suppose- the Court was against the defendant and-granted a new trial, were they to hear a learned gentleman at the bar,—he would not allude to his subsequent position,—and a learned Judge assailed with a charge of fraud ?

The Lord Chief Baron—"'No, we should, in the exercise of our discretion, strike out the second count, and the first count would be reformed so that the charge of fraud would be entirely removed," Sir Fitzroy Kelly submitted it Was not competent to the pluintifeto alter the charge from one of a criminal nature to one of Ss totally different kind. He would now come to the question itself-that question was whether an advocate, believing that it was for the interest of the client that he-should enter into a compromise, and that he had her authority to do so, could be liable to an action ?

The Lord Chief Barod--" The question is, what is the responsibility of an advocate—what.is his duty to his client avid to the profession to which he belongs i"

Sir Fitzroy Kelly—Was a counsel to draw the line and to say where his discretion was to end ? If a counsel, under peril of an action to be brought against him, was. to determine- the exact boundary line of his authority—if he were to recall to his memory, and put his own construction on every word that has fallen from him, it would be utterly impossible for a gentle- man to discharge his duty in that fearless and intelligent way in which they at least endeavour to ditch:Twee it In the case of " Fray versus Vowles," Lord Oanipell had laid it down that an attorney had power to enter into a compromise for his client ; supposing he"did so skilfully and bona fide, he was not liable to an action:. The learned counsel having referred to the eases cited by Mr. Kennedy in support of the rule, concluded his ob- servations by contending that the plaintiff lad not made out a case for a new trial, and that the rule must be discharged.

In the Court of Queen's Bench on Thursday Mr. Coleridge, on behalf of the Reverend A. Watson, the Reverend W. kreemantle, and Mr. Godfrey Lushington, for a rule calling upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to him, as Visitor of the College, commanding him to hear the appeal of these three gentlemen, and to determine the matters embodiedin The hearing of this motion occupied the Court for a very long time, but the points in it are within a very narrow compass.

It would appear that according to the Old Statutes All Souls' College occupied a position very different from the other colleges at Oxford. It had- no undergraduates, and its residents were men of rank, with no peculiar functions or duties devolving upon them except that of living together. All Souls then was very pleasant place to live in, and its residents were very fortunate, and of course, as Mr. Coleridge observed, meat " club-able." However, the 17th and 18th of Vie., chap. 81 the Oxford University Reform Act), passed, and there was a change in things at All Souls, yet not so great as the present appellants contend for. In former times the Fellows of All. Souls were elected• without any very material reference to their aca- demical qualifications, the social qualities of the candidates greatly influ- encing the election. However, under the new ordinances transmitted by the University Commissioners to the Warden and Fellows of the College, and now embodied in their statutes, while they did not alter therule of the Cole lege with respect to the reception of undergraduates, and allowed it to re- main a collection of Fellows, a plan was prescribed for the encouragement of new studies, and two Professorships, one for modern history and the other for law, were to be established. Accordingly, two Chieheley prizemen were appointed, who were also elected Fellows of the College, and made first-class men. Now, by the 8th section of the new ordinances, the Fellows and Warden are bound in their election of Fellows to elect those who, upon ex- amination, should provethemselves of the greatest ability, mainly having regard to the special subjects of modern history and jurisprudence ; and the 431, 44th, and 45th sections showed clearly what class of men should be for the future elected Fellows, and what should be the scheme of education for the College. Now, upon the receipt of the ordinances early in the year 1&57, the College passed certain by-laws regulating the examination of Fellows, and which by-laws the present appellants considered a complete evasion of the ordinances. Instead of the examination being open and competitive' it was to be conducted by a Committee, who subsequently were to cuenlate the examination- papers among the rest of the Fellows, with a repott= as to whom they considered the fittest person for election—not the fittestperson with a reference to his attainments, especially having regard to the-subjects of modern history end jurisprudence, but the fittest alto- gether, that is, according to a blending of the old social system arid the standard of the new ordinances. However, the appellants thought that in framing those ordinances the Commissioners did not intend that a preemi- nent knowledge of classics or high social qualities ought greatly to weigh at an election. They therefore opened a correspondence with the Commis- sioners, and the Commissioners declared that it was in tendeeby the ordinances that the examinations should be open and competitive, and that the men of the highest attainments having reference to the scheme of education marked out for the College should be elected. Notwithstanding that, at the election which took place iu November, 1868, the old state of affairs was kept alive, and, having no other resource open to them, the appellants petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Visitor of the College, to decide as to the con- flicting views against the construction of the new ordinances. It was not, however, until the 2.5th of October last that his Grace delivered his decision, which, as the appellants contended, left matters precisely as they were. The Archbishop. declared the true construction of the 8th clause of the ordi- trances to be,- " that at every election for a vacant fellowship the Warden and Fellows were bound to hold, an election to test the precise qualifications of the candidates, and to elect the person moat fitted for the office"—omit- ting the words contained in the ordinance,. " with special reference to the subjects of jurisprudence and modern history." That being his view, the Anehbishop.did not feel disposed to disallow the interpretation of the Col- lege. The -Court, therefore, would see that his Grace did not say what weight was to• be attached to the declarations of the Commissioners, nor whether the -old social practices—if one might term them so—of All Souls were still to be acted on.

Mr. Justice Crompton—" Show us the law whioh compels the Archbishop to determine the matters in difference."

Mr..Coleridge apprehended the necessity was imposed by the 38th section of the Act.

" As often as any question shall arise on which the Warden and Fellows shall be unable to agree, depending wholly or in part on the constnirtion of any of the sta- tutes of the College, it shall be lawful for the Warden and Fellows, or fur the War- den or any three of the Fellows, to submit the same to the Visitor ; and it shall be lawful for the Visitor to declare what is the true construction of such statute or statutes with reference to the ease submitted to him."

Mr. Justice Crompton said enough had been stated to show that the sub- ject should be inquired into, and therefore a rule would be granted. Rule nisi accordingly.

An action for breach of promise of marriage, tried in the Court of Exchequer, elicited some really curious facts. The plaintiff was "a widow in prime of life ; " the defendant was a Mr. Thomas, the son of the late Dr. Thomas, of Merthyr Tidvil, an owner of valuable property. in that rich mineral district. The widow, Mrs. Margaret Harris, had married early in life, and her hus- band forced to take a sea voyage for the benefit of his health, never returned, and Mrs. Harris found a refuge in the Crown Inn, at Merthyr Tidvil, kept by her sisters husband. Here young Thomas saw the buxom widow. He was-, to use the language of Mr. Serjeant Parry, " not a cultured, nor highly educated man," or to take advantage of the elegant diction of his own Counsel, Mr. Edwin James, he was " a louring sortof stupid country squire," who cannot write. However, Thomas wooed and won the pretty widow. He called her " Magi" gave her presents, rings, riding-whips, bracelets, books ; he went to- see her every evening in the bar of the Crown Inn ; he even proposed to marry in seine sly place, privately, .so that his father, a gentleman apt to cut off his children-with a shilling who married without his consent, should not know it. The widow, with a caution that cannot be too much commended, declined a marriage under that liability. Thomas promised to marry when his father died; but when that event took place, and he became the master of a fine house and 20001. a year, ho proved faith- leafs, and married a cousin. No witnesses were called for the defence, but most "extraordinary pleas," as the Judge called them, were set up, first. that Thomas made no promise; next, that the widow was not ready and willing -to marry him; and, finally, that when he made the promise, which he says he did not make, the widow was not a widow, but a married woman. All this is untrue. Thomas did make the promise; the widow was willing to marry him ; and he knew that when he made the promise she was really a widow. Well might Mr. Baron Martin say, that " the pleadings in the case were the most extraordinary he had ever seen in his life," and hoped "never to see such again," and tell the Jury that the only question was as amount of the damages. The Jury behaved handsomely, and mulcted to the amo

Thomas in 10001.

At the Middlesex Sessions, before the Assistant-Judge and a full bench of Magistrates, the conviction of Perlutm, a mason, actively. engaged in sup- porting the strike and preventing workmen front engaging in work, was confirmed on appeal. Some legal points of objection were raised by Mr. James, but the Bench did not regard them as important. Mr. James went forthwith to the Court of Queen's Bench, and applied for a rule to show cause why Perham should not be brought up under a writ of habeas corpus, in order that he might be discharged, on the ground that his conviction showed no offence in law. On Wednesday the Court refused to grant the rule. The Judges were of opinion that in the conviction the offence was stated in the very words of the statute creating the offence, and upon that ground there ought to be no rule. Mr. Edwin James next appealed to the Court of Exchequer for a rule, but that Court refused it, the Lord Chief Baron laying down the law as it was laid down in the Court of Queen's Bench. One of the chief witnesses in this case, Charles Robjohn, was mobbed, hustled, and insulted on leaving the court. As he could not reach a cab he had called, he applied to the police, and pointing out one man, the constables con- fessed him. The prisoner, Henry Billington, a carpenter, naively n- fessed that he left a public-house at the invitation of a frien,g, to give them, the witnesses against Perham, "a a rowing." He was remanded, and,bail was refused.

It has been decided in the Westminster County Court that if a landlord lodges with a house-agent a description of a house to be let, and agrees to the terms on which the agent will let it, he is bound to pay the agent a per- centage, although the agent does not let the house. The fault is with the landlord, seeing that he should not sign papers binding him to pay for any- thing but work done.

There are other perils of collision in railway travelling besides those oc- casioned by erratic trains. On Thursday the Reverend Robert Maguire, Incumbent of St. James's, Clerkenwell, was charged with an indecent as- sault on a young lady in asecond-class carriage on the South-Western Rail- way. The complainant, Louisa Lettington, stated that the defendant entered at Clapham, the compartment in which she and a gentleman were seated at opposite corners. The defendant seated himself in front of her, and some minutes afterwards he placed his feet under her dress, so that both of them touched both her legs, Just below her knees. After she had con- vinced herself that he had done this intentionally, she moved away, eltd the other gentleman who was in the carriage said to the defendant, "You are very much annoying that lady; I wish you would move on the opposite side." The defendant did so directly, and said—" If I am annoying you I hope you will excuse it. I offer you every apology." Those were the only words defendant said, and nothing more was said on either side. On her cross-examination, complainant said she wore crinoline, and the second- class carriages were very narrow. Directly defendant got into the carnage, he crossed his legs, and it was while they were being crossed that he com- mitted the insult. She did not say anything about the insult until the other gentleman in the carriage noticed it. She was too disgusted. She naturally felt a reluctance to tell her fellow passengers about it. Defendant imme- diately after he was told he was annoying her said, "Annoying you, madam, I have not annoyed you ; if I have, I assure you it was quite unin- tentional. I am a married man and a clergyman. If I have annoyed you, I offer every apology." Her friend, the witness, said, " Ah, ah ! You re a parson are you ; you ought to be all swung up together." He repeated this several times before they came to the Waterloo station. Any other gentle- man would have done the same thing. When they got to the statio-, Mr. Maguire went to her friend, and assured him that the lady had made'a mis- take, and that he could give them the fullest satisfaction as to who he was. Upon this her friend struck him. Any other gentleman would have done the same. The defendant was given in charge at the Waterloo Station by Evans, the complainant's friend. Inspector Smith, who took the charge, said, the first he heard of this matter was in his office. Evans said he should like to see Mr. Maguire, Mr. Bryan King, and a clergyman at Wandsworth (who is in trouble), hung up together. Mr. Maguire said he was in their hands, and if they pressed the charge be should be ruined for life. He added, that if anything could be done he was prepared, and that if they ex- tended mercy to him he would never sit with a lady in a railway carriage again. Mr. Maguire did not deny having insulted the lady. lie said if he had done so he was sorry. He said if he had insulted her he had net done it intentionally. The defence was that the charge was founded upon a mistake, for which crinoline might fairly be held account- able. The Magistrate, Mr. Norton, adopted this view of the case. Having elaborately reviewed the whole of the circumstances, he said that Mr. Maguire's remarks were naturally those of a man who was alarmed at his position. No man could tell how his nerves would serve him at any par- ticular time, and a clergyman was more likely to be alarmed than any other man, for a mere charge of this kind was likely to have a most serious effect upon him. In this case, without throwing any imputation on the witnesses, he repeated his belief that the whole affair arose out of a mistake, and Mr. Maguire, therefore, would leave the Court without the slightest reflection upon his character. The summons was then dismissed. The Magistrate's decision was received with loud applause. Another example of the perils of railway travelling is furnished in a letter which has appeared in a contemporary. The writer says:—" Some months ago I was seeking a second-class carriage at the Shoreditch terminus. A pretty young lady attracted my notice by politely informing me that there was room in her compartment, politely pushing open the door at the time, As soon as I was seated opposite to her she pulled to the door, as much as to say there were enough. We started, I very ungallantly becoming en- grossed in may newspaper, she silent, having no one in the carriage but my- self to speak to. I felt the carriage very narrow and feared I was crowding her, and I moved back as far as I could. In a few moments I still felt her dress against me, and soon was really crowded, being pressed by her. Now, I confess with shame that, being a young man, I felt a little vanity at her attentions, and I yielded to temptation so far as not again to move from her. In half an hour a gentleman got in, which, from the lady's face, was not an agreeable thing; ; she looked vexed. However, our silly conduct proceeded, she,throughout taking the lead. At length the gentleman observed us, and ray companion, blushing crimson at being discovered, very wickedly drew herself away from me, and flying to the opposite side said I had insulted her. When she found, moreover, that she was known to the third comer she became very indignant and screamed for the train to stop—that she had been most grievously assaulted, &c. I cannot tell you, Sir, my confusion. I durst not charge her with being the first to commence—how cowardly it would have looked !—atd upon reaching the terminus her brother was in- formed—not by the lady, but by the gentleman—how infamously I had in- sglted Mr He iiew.,,att,ple like a , thinking ,X had rea.15aWined his sisteri-lie.iniiislied Mk a-iV hat eiit' iffesi,ritiid hetet. iiiuch' ' g .i'..fliitii mysclf, and itssieteffidt the other passenger, gave ine'aftch an a naafi- meat that I shall nelmi forget it. They were then going to. gi44 taint° custody ; but upon ink appealing to her, she said that she would gladly have given me into the charge of the police, but was too bashful to appear in a court of justice to prosecute ; and so I got off."

Mr. Richardson, of London Wall, was summoned before the Guildhall Bench for refusing to pay a church-rate, levied in the parish of St. Ste- phen's, Coleman Street.. Mr. Richardson objected that the rate was not valid, and that the money raised was to be illegally expanded ;`whereupon Alderman Humphrey told the Churchwarden that he could elo'ttothing to the matter and that the claim must be pressed in the Ecclesieittleal Court. Summons dismissed.

,

Mr. William Cornwallis, the parson who misbehaved last Sunday at the church of St. George's-in-the-East, disturbed the congregation by claiming the free seats, and insulted the Churchwarden in the execution of his duty, all in consequence of his "over-zeal for the choral service," and his ill-state of health, was brought before Mr. Selfe on Monday. Ile was discharged after making an ample apology to Mr. Churchwarden Thompson. In the Bow Street Police Court, a remarkable charge was preferred against three boys, Kelsey, Woolen, and Irish. It appears that a hamper, ready packed for conveyance into the country, was placed outside the shop of a herbalist in Covent Garden Market. The boys, who had got honey out of hampers, exercised their skill on this one, and from one of the jars it contained extracted twelve ounces of its contents, which looked " like Jain." They could not read, or they might have seen on the jars, the label, " Bella- donna—poison." Thinking they had got a prize, " Spanish liquorice," if not honey, they stole a bottle from the same shop, and mixing the supposed liquorice with water, began to sell it in small quantities for " a pni " Nearly twenty boys drank the mixture, and of course had to be taken' fd the hospital. Some have been reclaimed by their parents, but one is raving mad, and it is thought he will die. Mr. Henry has remanded the boys, and indicates a desire that they should be sent to a reformatory. A youth, Alfred Howell, has been shot by the accidental discharge of a pistol in the workshop of a Mr. M'Kenzie. It appears that M'Kenzie was making experiments with pistols. He was showing one of his men how easily a trigger worked, when the pistol, which was loaded, went off„ and the ball killed Howell. It seems to have been a pure " accident," but one of that kind which could have been prevented, if when experimenting on a loaded pistol IP-Kenzie had made sure that the barrel did not point towards any living thing. M'Kenzie was brought up to Guildhall. He was re- manded, but admitted to bail. A Kaffir, who was in a very wild state, and who could not speak one word of English, was charged before the sitting Magistrates, Mr. Folkener and Mr. Bodkin, at Highgate, under the following peculiar circumstances z-- On Sunday night information was received at the Highgate police-station that a black man was in Highgate Woods, where he had made a cave and was roasting a sheep. Sergeant Aylett, 15 S, Daniels, 30 8, and Mar- tin, 20 5, with a large body of constables, searched the woods, where they found the greater part of a sheep, and some of it had been roasted. Upon further search a scythe was found with which he had slaughtered a sheep in a field adjoining. By daylight the inhabitants of Highgate had got the information, and a large number of people went into the wood. After a long time the man was seen by several of the people, when he immediately darted into a thick part of the wood, but so nimble were his movements that he was more like a wild monkey than a man, and it was very difficult to get near him. At about ten the following morning the man was secured by police-constable Bishop, 3848, 8, and Ridley, 124 S, and after a hard struggle he was taken to the station. In addition to having stolen the sheep the prisoner had also taken a quantity of articles of clothing. The prisoner while before the Magistrates behaved in a very wild manner, and was remanded for further inquiry. The Court was crowded to excess.

A serious fire occurred in a brush factory in Bishopsgate Street on Tues- day night. No lives were lost, but the factory was destroyed, and a large number of houses were greatly injured by fire and water. The difficulty of arresting the fire was enhanced by the want of a prompt supply of water.