Sir Joseph Savory, ex-Lord Mayor, lis' been placed in a very unpleasant position by the failure of his action for Libel against London. The able organ of the Progressive Party on the London County Council, a journal which belongs to the proprietors of Lloyd's News and the Daily: Chronicle, charged him with having, as. Chairman of the now defunct municipal body known as the Commission of Sewers, a position which he occupied for a year by" virtue of his office as Lord Mayor, created: amonopoly—the City of London' Electric: Lighting Company—which enriched himself and other members of the Corporation. Londondid not minceits words. Tt described. the transaction as discreditable, clumsy, barefaced, combining the characteristics of Hooleyism and Tammanyism—one "of the worst jobs which tarnish the mv.nicipal history of the City of London." more serious libel from the point of view of damages, could scarcely be ima' gined; and Sir Joseph Savory was boy ud to take ction. The jury have, how ever, decided favour of the plea of j¥stitication put in by the proprietors of London, and found a verdict for the defendants, Sir Joseph was not charged with fraud—only with using his position as Chief Magistrate for his own advantage wad to the disadvan tage of the City of "London. In ordinary circumstances, therefore, although the charge is held by a jury to be true, Sir Joseph would not be subject. to any penal ty. Butat yesterday's meeting of the Corporation our elf: friend Alpheus Cleophas Morton, who, wlthoughi he has lost his seat in Parliament, is still a Common Councilman, raised an interesting point. Ho showed that in the Commissioners of Sewers Act there is a clause which imposes a penalty on any member who votes for a. contract in which he is interested, an further declares that such a contract shall! be null and void. The matter has been referred to a Committee; but if Mr. Morton's reading of the law is correct, the monopoly of the City of London Electric Supply Company, which has by no means given unmixed satisfaction, may be destroyed.
THE DRUCE BURIAL CASE, It. is understood that the Home Office has intervened in the Deuce Case, and has proclaimed the fact that in spite of the faculty granted by the Chancellor of the Consistory Court for the opening of the late Mr. Thomas Charles Druce, the grave cannot be opened without the Home Secretary's permission, It not stated posi—tively that this permission will not be: granted; but it seems not improbable that: it will be withheld. It is much to be rev gretted that the faculty was ever granted. f there was any hope that the opening of the goave would put an end to the folly of those who place credit in Mrs, Drnce's ita. sane statement, one would be incline®, ay, for goodness' sake open it and have, done with it. But there seems no greund for such a hope and it is thorefe-ro a pity that ayrave should be disturbe?, on such ridiculous pretext. Mrs. Drv.ce's contention, it will be remembere?,, is that hor father-in-law pretended te, he buried and afterwards hal himself immured under another name ina private asylum. Even if this were tru+ it would make no material difference to the disposition of his property, and she would have nothing to gai by the action she is taking; but everybody knows that behind this story is another, to the effect that Me. Thomas Charles Druce was the fifth Duke of Portland. Mrs. Druce has been issuing bonds which are to be repaid five-fold when her son's claim to the Portland Dukedom and estates is made good; and some foolish people, mostly of the working classes, who can ill afford the ori
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.