MISCELLANEOUS.

Southland Times, Issue 1741, 16 May 1873, Page 1 (Supplement)

MISCELLANEOUS.

' Our Indian Empire contains a population of 241,000,000, accepting the figures assigned to the 153 feudatory States by Parliamentary Bluebooks. Of these, 156,000,000 are directly ruled by the Grovernor-Greneral. two Governors, three Lieutenant-Grovernors, and three Chief Commissioners. Of the other 55,000,000, 48,000,000 are directly ruled by 153 native chiefs, who absorb Jill their revenues save a slight tribute which is insufficient to meet their share of our political and military establishments. Profitable Remorse — We did not overrate Mr Jay G-ould's financial skill when we predicted that he would gain by his " restitutions." It appears from the fnller reports of his arrangements with the Erie Railway Company that he stipulated with the directors before restoring the $9,000,000 that he should have time to bid for 200,000 shares. This he did, and as the price rose £4 a share, the dealers who agreed to deliver must have forfeited about £800,000. He had, however, previously issued other orders in Europe, and the New York papers assert that his total gains amount to $12,000,000, or about half a million sterling more than he gave tip. For making this money he haß received a full discharge of all liabilities of every kind, and a promise that he shall always be consulted on ail the important affairs of the railway. — Spectator. An Episode of the Commune.— A suit has recently been disposed of by the Tribunal Civil de la Seine which incidentally threw light upon the condition of Paris during the reign of the Commune. The Comtesse d'Orglandes sued M. Ghistave Fould, son of the former Minister of Finance under the Empire, for the rent of apartments in a house adjoining the. Etat Major in the Place Vendome. According to the defendant's case, on the 18th of March, 1871, when the so called Federal troops took possession of Paris, the head-quarters were established in the Place Vendome, and the house of the Comtesse d'Orglandes was occupied militarily. M. Fould had left Paris, having been wounded in a reconnaissance during the siege, and Madame Fould was exposed to the insults and menaces of the Communist soldiers. She was so alarmed at the threats levelled against her that, after having been arrested and confined for some hours in a police-cell, she left her apartments in the charge of a femme de chambre, and sought shelter in the provinces. The Federal Colonel, Brunei, who had formed an acquaintance with the waiting-maid, remained in the house until the entry of the Versailles troops, when, having been discovered concealed after his presence had been denied by the woman, he was at once shot in Madame Fould'a bed-chamber. The woman being regarded as an accomplice, was condemned to the same penalty, and four shots from a revolver laid her apparently dead by the side of the so-called Colonel Brunei. A few hours later, '"when the bodies were about to be removed, it was found that the woman was still living, and, having fallen into more humane hands, she was conveyed to an hospital, where she ultimately recovered from her wounds, although sorely disfigured. The defendant's counsel, relying upon these facts, contended that the rent claimed for the period between March and July, 1871,

was not due, the tenant not having enjoyerl possessipn of the apartments. M. Fould has also suffered considerable loss 3 by the pillage of his wine-cellar, a fact ) which he attributed to the connivance of i the concierge appointed by the Comtesse ) d'Orglandes, who was subsequently sent > to the hulks as a Communist convict. i The plaintiff's counsel insisted that the . defendant was bound to pay the quarter's ; rent, as all the occupiers in the same ? hotel had done, and that the sole cause i of the danger whicb Madame Fould had 1 incurred was ber connection with a late Minister of the Empire, and not the , proximity of her residence to the heads quarters of the insurgent Communists. ; The Court decided that, aa it was proved i that for a considerable portion of the period between March and July, 1871, the defendant had been prevented by ' force majeure from occupying the apart- • ments held by him of the plaintiff, the claim of the latter for rent during that I period could not be sustained, and she ' must bear the expenses of the suit.