Untitled

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 243, 12 May 1868, Page 3

Bankers and their, Clients.—ln < a case, Hardy v. Teasey, which was ' heard before the Barons of the Ex- 1 chequer, the important question of the 1 duty of bankers not to disclose the ] state of their •customers' accounts was ] incidentally raised. The plaintiff, re- ] ports the Examiner, had over drawn J his account by £7O, and the agent of '< the defendants at Huntingdon had dis- ! closed this fact to two persons with ' whom the plaintiff was negotiating for a partnership. In delivering their s judgments the Lord Chief Baron and ' Barons Martin and Chan nell intimated ( an inclination —but an inclination only 1 as the question was not in direct issue, f —to hold that there was no legal obli- ! gation on bankers, but only a strong ( moral one, not to disclose the state of their customers' accounts to a third party ; but, as to the question in the ' case before them, they agreed with the I jury who tried the case at Nisi Prius • that it was a fit and proper occasion to make the communication complained : of, being intended for the benefit of the customer himself* : Rejected at Cambridge.—The number of men rejected must not be attributed solely to the algebra paper. The complaints of senior sophs and others have elicited a letter from Mr Whitting, one of the examiners, which contains the following damaging statement to their view of the case : "Of the 86 men who went in, 36 were plucked, as follows —16 on algebra, and one, or more than one, on the other subjects ; 13 on algebra alone ; seven on other subjects, but not on algebra. I find that the total number of marks obtained in algebra, was 5142, which sum, divided by 80, gives to each man an average of 64 marks, the papers being set at 300 ; yet it appears that the highest contribution made by anyone of those who failed in algebra was only 26, being 38 below the average." The only matter of surprise, now the real state of the facts is apparent, is the leniency of the examiners ; and the disclosures they have made will not advance the merit of a poll degree in the eyes of the public. The controversy that has arisen upon this subject has been the means of drawing ugly comparisons With the examinations at foreign Universities. A specimen paper of the latter is before us, set to youths of 18 and 16, far more diffiuult than the on<e complained of. Another correspondent attributes the failure to the increasing attention paid to the university sports. — Cambridge pendant The Washington correspondent of the N. F! Tribune, Under date of 4th March, says :—" The probable defence of the President is much canvassed-, and from good sources we gather that the line of the proceeding will be somewhat as follows :—On the day when the summons is made returnable, he will appear by counsel and ask that time be allowed for preparation. It is thought that the Court will allow more than one-half of that time, which will carry the trial into April. It is the general opinion among Republican members that Mr Johnson will obiect to the jurisdiction of the Senate, on the ground that it is not the Senate of the United States, owing to the States lately in rebellion. This, of course, will be overruled, when his counsel will raise the further point that certain senators have expressed opinions on the merits of the' case, and are consequently not competent to sit on his trial. When a ruling shall have been made on this point, it is believed that he will put in a demurrer, admitting the acts, but denying that any law has been violated, or that there is a ground for impeachment. This having been ruled upon, he will rest the case on its merits, alleging the unconstitutionality of the Tenure-of-oflSce law, and setting forth the intent that, in the removal of Secretary Stanton, and the appointment of Adjutant General Thomas as Secretary ad interim, he contemplated no violation of the law. This, of course, will be for the Senate, as a jury to decide."

GEOEG-E ERA.NCIS TEAIN. (NEW YORK HEBALD, tfAJH". 21. It is the duty of the Government to inquire at once into the facts connected with the collaring and hauling oft' to gaol of such a prominent patriot and distinguished citizen. Congress should immediately take Up the 'case. It will be far better than legislating to destroy the government, and give political and social supremacy to the negro over the white man. Above all, Secretary Seward should not suffer this outrage to pass unnoticed. Let him write no long letters on the subject, which nobody will read, but bring the matter to an issue, by immediately arresting Charles Dickens and holding him as a hostage for the captured Train. Here is a direct road out of the difficulty. Dickens and Train are both great talkers, each has an immense idea of his own importance, and each wear a profusion of seals, rings, pins, and chains. They would be an excellent set-off, one for the other. As the greater nation of the two we can afford to be the more generous, and therefore we do not propose that Dickens shall be imprisoned, even though Train be kept under lock and key. The hostage may go through with his readings and make as much money as he can, onl y g' v i n g his parole not to leave the United States until Train's return, safe and sound, with his flowing locks unshorn. If Seward will at once arrest Dickens in the name of the American republic we shall speedily bring England to her senses, and satisfy the Fenians on both sides of the Atlantic.