Page:Littell's Living Age - Volume 131.djvu/326

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.



attention to an observation made at Madrid about five hours before Weber observed his round spot. On April 3, as Weber, Wolf, and Schmidt agree, there were no spots on the sun's face, and such was the experience also of the director of the Madrid Observatory. On April 5, again, he found the sun's face clear of spots. But on the 4th, in the morning, there was a small oval spot, of the kind sometimes seen, showing a nucleus only, without penumbral fringe (puró nucleo, sin penumbra). It was clearly seen (se observaba muy bien). We might suppose that this was Vulcan (though Vulcan has no right to an oval shape), but for one circumstance, which shows that the spot was on the surface of the sun; there was a small facula (or bright streak) on one side of the spot (una fácula pequeña por el lado). May we not see in such a phenomenon as this the explanation of, at least, those supposed observations of Vulcan in which all that the observer noted was that a round spot, seen at one hour, had disappeared a few hours later? Lescarbault's observation cannot, indeed, be thus explained. But Liais, a French observer of repute, who was studying the sun at Brazil during a part of the time when Lescarbault says he saw Vulcan, asserts that at that time, with a much more powerful telescope, he saw no such spot. It certainly would seem that at present astronomers have hardly sufficient reason for adding Vulcan to the list of known planets.

From Notes and Queries.


As an oasis in the desert is the following droll case in the heart of a learned legal treatise. I have just lighted upon it, and note it as an illustration of the, in a twofold sense, amenities of the law, — of the "locos lætos et amæna vireta" juris, and of the considerate and delicate euphemism to which the legal mind can, when need is, condescend. Everet v. Williams, (2 Pothier on Obligations, by Evans, p, 3, note, citing Europ. Mag., 1787, vol ii., p. 360) is said to have been a suit instituted by one highwayman against another for an account of their plunder. The bill stated that the plaintiff was skilled in dealing in several commodities, such as plate, rings, watches, etc.; that the defendant applied to him to become a partner, and that they entered into a partnership, and it was agreed they should equally provide all sorts of necessaries, such as horses, saddles, bridles, and equally bear all expenses on the roads and at inns, taverns, alehouses, markets, and fairs; that the plaintiff and the defendant proceeded jointly in the said business with good success on Hounslow Heath, where they dealt with a gentleman for a gold watch, and afterwards the defendant told the plaintiff that Finchley, in the county of Middlesex, was a good and convenient place to deal in, and that commodities were very plenty at Finchley, and it would be almost all clear gain to them; that they went accordingly, and dealt with several gentlemen for divers watches, rings, swords, canes, hats, cloaks, horses, bridles, saddles, and other things; that about a month afterwards the defendant informed the plaintiff that there was a gentleman at Blackheath who had a good horse, saddle, bridle, watch, sword, cane, and other things to dispose of, which he believed might be had for little or no money; that they accordingly went and met with the said gentleman, and, after some small discourse, they dealt for the said horse, etc.; that the plaintiff and the defendant continued their joint dealings together until Michaelmas, and dealt together at several places, viz., at Bagshot, Salisbury, Hampstead, and elsewhere, to the amount of 2,000l. and upwards. The rest of the bill was in the ordinary form for a partnership account. The bill is said to have been dismissed, with costs to be paid by the counsel who signed it, and the solicitors for the plaintiff were attached and fined 50l. apiece. The case is said to have come before the courts in the early part of the last century, and to have been referred to by Lord Kenyon; "but there is some doubt whether it actually occurred." (Lindley on Partnership, third ed.) John W. Bone, F.S.A.