NEWS BY THE MAIL.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2859, 13 April 1878, Page 2

NEWS BY THE MAIL.

Thi Bjudimtoh Pjosaccrnoir. — Jcdomxht.—The Court of Appeal at Westminster, composed of Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and. Cotton; hare delivered a unanimous judgment in the case of Mr Charles Bradlaugn and Mrs -Annie Besant, who appealed from a judgment of the Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Mellor, affirming their conviction for the publication of an obscene work called "The Fruits of Philosophy," and for which they were sentenced after a trial before the Lord Chief Justice and a special Middlesex jury to, six months' imprison* ment each in Holiowaj Gaol, to pay a fine of £200, and further, to find securities for their good behaviour for two, years after the expiration of their sentence. Lord Justice Bramwell first delivered judgment, having cited a nuaiber of decisions bearing oh the law of the case, and which he said the Court had alone to determine, and not die merits, said he was of opinion that it was necessary to have set put in the indictment the words relied upon as'" indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene," and that the omission to do so, was fatal, and was not cured, as contended for, by the verdict. The judgment of the Court below must therefore be set aside, and be given for the defendants. Lord Chief Justice Brett took a similar view, and added that if the defendants again committed the offence of publishing such a work, no doubt another prosecuton would be instituted, and, it the indictment was not again defective, they would receive even a severer punishment. Lord Justice Cotton concurred. . Air Actiok to Bscovxb a Gift.—At the Leeds County Court, before Mr Serjeant Tindal Atkinson, an • action; twaa brought by Mr Samuel Chapman (as* signee of the estate of Mr Thomas Turner, formerly a draper in Hudders--1 field from the trustee), to recover the sum of £26, money received by the defendant, Julia Anderson. The defendant's solicitor did not deny that the money was paid, but said that it was while there was an understanding between the parties that they were to be married. Miss Anderson was taken by Mr Turner to Scotland, and she; during this time/received money that altogether amounted to , £25. He also made her presents of babylinen, in view of coming, events. If the child were- a boy it was to be called Tom, and if a girl, Maud. But while this was all going on, Turner was already married, and had a wife living at Halifax. After he had taken the girl to Scotland he had the audacity to take her home to his own house, while his wife had gone on a visit to her friends. Mrs Turner afterwards made herself known to Anderson, who said that until then ehe had believed the debtor to be a single man. Soon afterwards the debtor filed his petition, and then made public his connection with the girl, and stated what money he had paid jtjt. His Honour said that, the girl could have brought an action for breach of promise of marriage, and could have recovered damages against Turner. He had never known such a case before. The debtor, knowing that he could not fuifil his pro* miae to the young woman, gave her £88 as a sort of instalment to provide a home in view of their marriage. The plaintiff was non-suited, and the judge declined to grant costs.