The Sun. — London, England, 1859-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. Jan. 14. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. SCULLY V. INGRAM. The following is a more complete report of this case than we were enabled to give in our impression of yresterday : Mr. Bovill (with whom was Mr. Huddleston and. Mr. Prentice) moved for a rule calling on the plain tiff to show cause why the verdict found m his favour, with £3OO damages, should not be set aside and a new trial granted. The action was brought by the plaintiff, who was formerly member of Par liament for the county . of Cork, against Mr. Ingram, one of the members for Boston, to recover damages for making a false representation to the plaintiff, that he (the defendant) was the owner of an estate called " the Castle Hyde Estate," in the county of Cork, with a view to deceive and injure the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff was deceived and injured, and prevented from obtaining pay ment of a debt of £9,000, due to him from John Sadleir, and abstained from pressing the said John Sadleir for payment of the said debt, and so lost the payment. The plaintiff also alleged other damage—viz., that he had lost the profit which he would have derived from purchasing and reselling the estate, but the learned judge who presided at the trial (Lord Campbell) thought that both the claims of daniage were rather circuitous and remote, and it was clear that the jury, in giving only £3OO as damages, did not recognise the plaintiff's claim. Lord Campbell said that, if the learned counsel could show that, on either ground, damages could not be awarded, the verdict would be impeached. Mr. Bovill said it was clear the jury could not agree. Lord Campbell said he haol told the jury they ought not to find for the plaintiff, unless they were convinced that the defendant made the untrue re presentation, and knew it to be false, and did that with the intentionto deceive and injure the plaintiff. Mr. Bovill said that, looking at the plaintiff's claim of damages, £lO,OOO, it was clear that the jury, though nct agreed, had agreed to give the plaintiff a verdict for some small sum. Lord Campbell said the jury might have doubted whether a larger sum had been lost by the plain tiff, and whether he would have made a larger sum by the sale of the estate. Mr. Bovill thought there must have been a com promise, or the jury would not have given the sum of £3OO as damages. However, this was not to the defendant a question of money. Lord Campbell—lt is a question of infinite im portance to the defendant. Mr. Bovill said it was to the defendant a ques tion of his position in society, and the character of his life, and he came before the Court with affida vits, and on them, as well as on the facts proved at the trial, he claimed a second investigation. The defendant had represented his native town in two Parliaments, and he produced affidavits— Lord Campbell said he doubted whether the Court ought to receive such affidavits. Mr. Bovill said the Court would admit affidavits to this extent. The defendant had been cross-exa mined as to a correspondence which had taken place in 1853, and as to transactions which tended to disparage him, and to produce an impression un favourable to his character. There was a letter which referred to a bill of £2,000. The defendant was asked whether he had not accepted accommo dation bills for John Sadleir to the extent of £20,000, and a letter was shown him, dated in January, 1853, which referred to a bill of £2,000. He looked at the letter, and, not being able to re collect any transaction in January, 1853, he de clined to pledge his oath as to the acceptance of a bill at that time, or to pledge his oath positively as to any of those acceptances. It turned out, how ever, that he was now ab'e to give a clear and distinct detail of all his transactions with Sadleir. The letter was dated " January, 1853 ;" but it turned out that it was a mistake for " January, 1854," and the defendant could now pledge his oath that he had had no transaction with Sadleir of £20,000, or to that amount, and he had given a detail of all his transactions with him. He had now ex plained everything, which, in his confusion, he was un able to explain at the trial,when he was under cross examination. The learned counsel' here read a long extract from the defendant's affidavit to that effect. The fact was, that because the defendant was con scientious, and would not swear that the transac tions suggested had not existed, their existence, as was commonly the case, was assumed. The learned counsel here read another long extract from the defendant's affidavit explanatory of his dealings with Sadleir, with a view to rebut the suggestion that the defendant had had the dealings suggested on his cross-examination. The learned counsel then referred to the fact, that at the time referred to John Sadleir was in highrepute ; he was a member of Parliament, one of the Lords of the Treasury, chairman of the London and County Bank, and had the full confidence of all with whom he asso ciated. At that time the defendant was advocating a proposed railway to Boston, the town which he represented, and he was anxious to obtain Mr. Sad leir, a Lord of the Treasury, as one of the directors. In order to- induce him to become a director, he gave him a - guarantee against all risk, and the learned counsel contended that that was only a na tural thing for him to do under the circumstances. Lord Campbell here retired from the court for a few minutes, and Mr. Bovill proceeded to state the grounds on which he moved for a new trial. The first was, as to the mode in which the question was left to the jury, that if the misrepresentation was false, the plaintiff was entitled to the ver dict, and the jury must then consider the damages. They ought to have been told that the damage must result from the misrepresentation. Secondly, there was no evidence that the damage resulted entirely from the alleged misrepresentation. Thirdly, it was uncertain under which head the jury had given the damages. Fourthly, if the plaintiff could not recover on all the heads, he could not recover on Lord Campbell said he had made a note that he had told the jury that they ought to find for the plaintiff if they were convinced that the defendant had made the representation complained of, that it was false to his knowledge, that he made it with intent to- deceive and injure the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was deceived and injured by it. As to damages, his lordship said he had told the jury they could only give the plaintiff damages for 'the pecuniary loss which was the direct or probable consequence of the misrepresentation. There was evidence, indeed, that the plaintiff had been induced not to take proceedings against Sadleir, and that otherwise be might have become the owner of the estate, and might have derived a profit from it ; but there was also evidence that he never could have bought it. Mr. Bovill—Your lordship told the jury to say upon which of the two heads of damage they found this verdict, but the jury neglected to do as sug gested. Lord Campbell—lf one is found that is enough for you. Mr. Bovill said he had a fourth ground fer a new trial—viz., that the verdict was against the evi dence as to the false representation, the fraudulent intent, the plaintiff's acting on the representation, his being prejudiced by it, and also as to damages. There was also a fifth ground, of surprise, and facts which had been discovered since the trial. The learned counsel here read from the defendant's affi davit an explanation of the circumstances under which in Nov., 1852, he lent Mr. Sadleir the sum of £2,000. It was only one single transaction, and the money was repaid in December. The defendant was asked whether he had not been security for Mr. Sadleir to the extent of £90,000, and the learned counsel was proceeding to read from the defendant's affidavit his explanation of this part of his cross-examination, when Lord Campbell said that, although he might de sire to hear the defendant's explanation, he ought to avoid establishing a precedent which might be inconvenient. Mr. Justice Crompton said it was enough for the learned counsel to state that he had the affidavit, if Mr. James should seek to cast any imputation on the character of the defendant. Mr. Bovill was quite contented, if he was allowed to present the defendant to the Court as a gentle man whose character was unimpeached, except by the attack now made upon him. It appeared that in the year 1851 the plaintiff had bid for an estate. Lord Campbell—He was the purchaser of it; he was the highest bidder, by his agent. Mr. Bovill said that Mr. Sadleir, as the plaintiff's confidential agent, went into the Encumbered Es tates Court, and bought two lots for the plaintiff, for £19,000. The plaintiff provided the deposits of £l,OOO out of his own money. But, instead of I declaring the plaintiff or Sadleir to be the purchaser, I the purchase was declared to be made in the name of Mr. Ayre, who was the plaintiff's uncle. The reason for this was because they Wanted to sell the estate again at:a profit, ae appeared by the letter of Mr. Sadleir, which the learned counsel read. Not withstanding this, the plaintiff had ventured to swear that he did not buy the estat e t o se l l it again. He said he had a sum of £ll,OOO, and £9,000 aving; to him by Sadleir, and that if Sadleir repaid him he should have paid for the estate. In Feb., 1852, Sad- 1 leir represented to the plaintiff that he had resold the estate, and there was a letter from the plaintiff to Sadleir, that if he could not pay the £9,000, he had better resell the estate, even at a loss. Sadleir then told the plaintiff that he had resold the estate to the defendant, Mr. Ingram, for £6OO profit, and he repaid to the plaintiff his £l,OOO and gave him £3OO, being one-half of the profit. The whole of that was a fiction on the part of Sadleir, for he had not, in fact, sold the estate to the defendant. The one. estate was to be conveyed by the Encumbered Estates Court in July, 1852, and Sadleir proposed to the, plaintiff that it should be conveyed to E. Morrough, plaintiff's cousin, who was brother of Mr. Morrough, a solicitor, who was Sadleir's part ner in the firm of Sadleir, Morrough, and Kennedy. That was accordingly done, and the estate was in July, 1852, conveyed, with Mr. Ayre's concurrence, to Mr. E. Murrough. All that was done with the plaintiff's knowledge. Lord Campbell said the plaintiff admitted he was aware of that conveyance, and said it was conveyed to Mr. Morrough as trustee for him (plaintiff). Mr. Bovill said that plaintiff said he believed the defendant had paid the whole of the purchase money, though he was found in July, 1852, privy to its being conveyed to his cousin, his own nominee. It was in Aug. or Sept., 1852, Sadleir told defen dant he had bought an estate in Ireland, called the Castle Hyde estate, which would just suit defendant, and he showed him a description of a beautiful mansion, with a park and river likely to captivate any gentleman who saw it. Sadleir offered it to the defendant for £22,000 or £22,500, and told defen dant it was so good a property that he would not allow him to refuse it. Sadleir afterwards told de fendant if anybody asked the price of the estate he was to say £25,000. The plaintiff then applied to defendant to purchase the estate, he having been told in Feb. 1852, that he (defendant) was the owner (though he was subsequently pressing Sadleir for his money in order that he himself might have it and pay for it), and in Feb. 1853, he (plaintiff) said he went and. saw the defendant on the subject. About that time Sadleir had told the plaintiff the defendant was willing to sell it, and had sent a me morandum on the subject, which, however, plaintiff would not sign. The defendant denied that he had anything to do with such memorandum, which he had never seen, for it was entirely a fiction. Lord Campbell here read the evidence given by the plaintiff on this part of the case, and , Mr. Bovill readthe defendant's affidavit in expla nation. The only false representation alleged to have been made by the defendant was that he had said he was the owner of the estate, when Sadleir had given him the option of becoming the purchaser at £22,000 or £22,500, the defendant could not tell which. In one sense he was the purchaser, though he had not signed any contract, for he had the option. Mr. Justice Hill—lt was only offered to the de fendant as a residence, jot to sell again for his s own profit. _ _ . Lord Campbell said that according to the plain tiff's evidence, which his lordship read, the defend ant, at the Reform Club, had acted as owner, and as competent to make what terms he pleased. Mr. Bovill explained that it was not left to the Jury to say whether the defendant had represented himself as the owner; but it was assumed that the representation made was false, because there was no conveyance. In May, 1853, the defendant for the first time went and saw the estate, and on the advice of Mr. Powell, the surveyor to the Board of Trade, who reported that the mansion would require £lO,OOO to be laid out on repairs, he (defendant) declined the purchase, and told Sadleir so. The learned counsel then came to the question of sur prise, and read from a paper produced at the trial ,an extract from the books of Messrs. Sadleir, Mor rough, and Kennedy, which ran as follows : " 1853. June.—lnstructions to prepare outline of the title to the - estate comprising the manor and lands of Castle Hyde, or Carrigeen, &c., to lay before Mr. Scully. " " Attending Mr. Scully therewith. " 1853. Juue.—lnstructions for the deed of conveyance from Mr. E. Morrogh, a trustee, to W. Dargan, Esq., in consideration of £25,000. . . . . " Attending to Mr. Morrogh when he executed same. " The arrangement being broken off, attending to ca.nce] stamp." That extract showed that the plaintiff must have known in June, 1853, that the defendant was not the owner of the estate. After some further obser vations the learned counsel concluded by urging the Court, upon the grounds stated, to grant the de fendant the rule now prayed. Lord Campbell said the learned counsel might take a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside upon the grounds stated in the affi davits, that there had been no damage, and that the hury had not distinguished on what ground they ad found the damages, and on the question whe ther either would support the damages, but not on the ground of misdirection. Mr. Bovill—And also on the grouhd that the verdict was against the evidence ? Mr. JusticeCrompton—On all the points except the misdirection, for it was quite clear there had. been no misdirection.—Rule nisi granted. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. Sir,—Although we know it is your practice to hold over ex parte reports of legal proceedings, yet we do not feel that we can ask you to suspend for several days the publication of the defendant's statement, made on the motion for a new trial this day, on which, of course, the plaintiff could not be heard. On this application it was suggested that certain facts, seemingly inconsistent with the plaintiff's case, were within his knowledge. We are aware that our client, Mr. Scully, can show beyond all question, that they were wholly unknown to him, but he has no opportunity of doing so until he shows cause, a few days hence. In the meantime, should the proceedings appear in your columns, we shall feel obliged by your in sertion of this letter, in order that the denial may circulate as early and as widely as the report.—We are, sir, your obedient sgrvants, Jan. 14. THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS. PARR V. WITHERINGTON.-TURF TRANSACTIONS, This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman well known on the " turf," to recover stakes from the defendant, which the plaintiff had won on a race at the races at Catterick. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Crompton, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, with liberty to the defendant to move to enter the verdict in his favour. Mr. Knowles, in now moving, said the plaintiff was the owner of a horse named Kelpie, and entered it to run for stakes against a horse named Pelissier, which was nominally, for the purposes of the action, the property of the defendant, who was clerk of the course, and held the stakes. There were three stewards, to whose decision all disputed questions respecting the running were to be referred, namely, the Earl of Zetland, Captain Lawson, and Mr. Merry, and when the race was about to take place notice was given that Kelpie was a defaulter, and had not paid forfeit; and Capt. Laws on , one of the stewards, decided that the defendant was entitled to the stakes. The race, however, was run, and Kelpie won, when Capt. Lawson decided formally in favour of the defendant, with an intimation that the matter would be referred for the opinion of the other stewards. It was subsequently referred to the Earl of Zetland and Mr. Merry, who decided against Captain Lawson's judgment, but in the absence of that gentleman. He (Mr. Knowles) was of opinion that the decision was void, inasmuch as it was not the joint decision of the three stewards, who we re in the character of arbitrators, and as such were bound to meet together and give their decision when so met. He submitted, therefore, that he was entitled to a rule. Lord Campbell was of opinion that stewards at races were .judges of a peculiar description, who were not called upon by the common law to meet together, as arbitrators were, in order to give bind ing force to their decision, but whose decision might be taken separately, that of the majority being final. That was the opinion of the Lord Chief Baron in a recent and somewhat similar case in the Court of Exchequer, and to that decision of a co-ordinate court this was prepared to adhere. The rule must therefore be refused. The other judges concurred. Rule refused accordingly. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Martin, Watson, and Channell.) HARRISON V. PEARCE.--LIBEL Mr. M. Chambers moved fora .. new trial . in this case, which was tried at the B sittings at Guildhall on Martin. It was after last term before Mr. an action for libel brought ebia3crirtheTimes, plaintiff, who is of thenekt against the the proprietor of the Sheffi a eeld Daily defendant, the proprietor members dispute b several h had Telegraph. It appeared that arisen between the plaintiff vv a e n r d e the men in his employ who e ie t i .s of the Printers' Union, with regard to terms and ru of work. A manifesto was issued by the soci eu ty rs headed " Trampling on the Rights of Labour," e which Mr. Harrison's conduct towards the men i n n his employ was most severely censured. This docu ment was published in the defendant's newspaper, and at the trial he pleaded a justification, but the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with damages of £5OO. The learned counsel now moved, on behalf of the defendant, for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection, improper reception of evidence, and that the damages were excessive. The court postponed further proceedings until a copy of the shorthand notes of the learned judge's summing up was produced. Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Baron Bram well and Common Juries.) HAMBLIN V. WHITE.-COLLISION. Mr.. Sergeant Shee and Mr. D. D. Keane were eounsel for the plaintiff; Mr. EdWard James and Mr. Cross were for the defendant. The plaintiff, who is the owner of the smack Halifax, brought this action'to recover damages for injuries received by his vessel in a collision with the defendant's brig the Glasgow. It appeared that in April last the smack was anchored off the North Foreland, showing, as it was alleged, a bright light, when she was run into by the defendant's vessel. The substantial defence was that the smack did not show a light, and that the defendant had taken every possible precaution to prevent the collision, which was the result of mere accident. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff; da mages, £34 Bs. 2d. COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE. LAKE V. COLLETT.-ALLEGED FRAUD. The alleged testator in this case was Mr. Thomas ' Collett, late of Wendover Hall, Bucks, who died in June, 1857. His estate amounted to about £,1,000 in personalty, and £lO,OOO in real property. His niece, Mrs. Lake, propounded a will, by which she was left sole executrix and universal legatee. The Queen's Advocate (with whom was Dr. Spinks) opposed the grant of probate on behalf of Mr. Collett, the nephew and heir-at-law of the de ceased. The learned advocate contended that the document was a mere forgery, and that the evidence given in support of it was perjury. In fact, of so questionable a character was the transaction that the proctor first employed (Mr. Abbott) had refused to go on with the case. Mrs. Lake's account of the subsequent steps which had been taken in the suit was that she had come up to London, and had been captured by a touter in Doctors'-commons. Sir C. Cresswell—l am aware that pirates of that description infest the neighbourhood of Doctors'- commons, for attempts have been made more than once to capture me. (Laughter.) It is a disgraceful practice, and I wish I knew any means of putting a stop to it. The Queen's Advocate said the parties had got " howsoever" into the hands of a gentleman who did not now appear to support the case. He should therefore pray that probate be refused with costs, and that the pretended will should be impounded. Sir C. Cresswell said he must take time to read the evidence, and should therefore postpone his decision. CHAPLIN V. HUNT-A RESPECTABLE WITNESS. The testatrix in this case was Mrs. C. Bailey, late of Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, who died on 30th April last, leaving avery small estate—about £2OO. The only controversy in the cause was whether her last will had been duly executed ; and after calling some witnesses there appeared no doubt that such had been the case. The ground of opposition was the story of an old man named Salter, who charged his son-in-law, a Mr. Moxey, with having forged the will. Dr. Deane, Q.C., supported the will ; Dr. Spinks and Mr. Honeyman appeared for the plaintiff, who was the executor in a previous will. The learned Judge had no doubt that Salter was a most gross liar, and had perjured himself before the Court. Indeed, if he (Sir C. Cresswell) had the power which was given to the common law judges under the late Procedure Act he should order him to be indicted for perjury. He considered that Mr. Chaplin had shown great want of caution in the mode in which he had conducted himself; and he should, therefore, take time to consider whether he ought not to be condemned in the costs. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. IN RE WALTON AND WALTON. -JUDGMENT. Mr. Commissioner Fane delivered the following judgment in this matter, which occupied the court for several days :—The bankrupts, Mr. Charles Walton and Mr. Wm. Walton, now asked for their certificates. Their father, Mr. Charles Walton, had carried on business for many years (it is mid 30 years before 1856), as a 'shipowner, and he consi dered, and had been considered by others, as a wealthy man. He at one time estimated his pro perty so highly as to have left each of his daughters £lO,OOO. His property, however, consisted princi pally of ships, and shipping having fallen very much in value before his death, he had reduced his daughters' legacies to £7,000 each. He had pro vided for his two sons by taking them into part nership with him, giving each one-fourth of the property. On the admission of the sons the busi ness was carried on under the style of Walton and Sons. Before April, 1856, the bankrupts had sus tained a heavy loss in connection with a consign ment to Australia, and Win. Walton had gone to Australia to see what could be recovered. In April, 1856, whilst Win. Walton was in Australia, the father died, and Charles Walton carried on the business under the style of the old firm, Walton and Sons, on behalf of has father's executors, himself, and brothers. This continued until the early part of 1857, when Wm. Walton returned to England, bringing very unfavourable intelligence as to the Australian loss. It is clear that at that time the firm was utterly insolvent, partly from losses and partly from depreciation in the value of shipping, of which their property chiefly consisted. That, therefore, was the time when they ought to have looked their affairs steadily in the face, ascertained how they stood, and if they Were tillable to meet their engagements, to have brought their affairs be fore their creditors, and proposed a further arrange mentwith them Butcreditors are a large bodytowhom Quot hontines, toe sententim, is singularly applic , able, and it rarely happens that ail St ill ad reason ably; hence debtors have seldom courage to en counter their creditors sufficiently soon. The debtors shrunk from the ordeal, struggled on, and I regret to say, not only for a reasonable time, but until their joint debts amounted to £44,000 and upwards, and their joint assets to very little indeed. They represent their joint assets as £3,000 or £4,000, but the official assignee is of opinion that no such sum wil be produced, and if it be, ifwill be by the aid of a sum of £1,794 10s., which, if re ceived, will be raised under circumstances inflicting a very cruel injustice on the owners of a ship called the Natolia. lam not sure that lam stating the facts quite correctly, but I am stating them with sufficient accuracy for my present purpose, which is to show how unjustly Charles Walton acted. The Messrs. Marten and Co., of Liverpool, had a vessel for chartering called the Natolia ; Dale and Co., of Liverpool, were shipbrokers to Marten and Co., charterers. They put themselves in communication with Charles alton, who had a pl ace o f b us i ness in Liverpool, as a shipbroker, and Messrs. Walton found a charterer in Messrs. Perie and Co., of Liver pool, who were willing to take up the vessel to carry coals to Bombay. Having regard to the circumstances of Walton and Co. it is clear that Charles Walton ought to have made the chartering of the Natolia direct to Messrs. Perie, in which case Messrs. Perie and Co. would have made the pay ment due on the charter party to the owners of the ship which had earned it. Instead of doing this, Charles Walton took the Natolia on charter to his own firm, and then rechartered her from his firm to Perie and Co. The donsequence of which is that Perie and Co. have to pay to Walton's joint estate £1,794 10s., and the real owners of the vessel will set, not the L 1,794 10s., but a pitiful sum of ls. 6d. in the pound as dividendupon Walton's estate. This transaction took place on the 3d of Oct., 1857, and on the 18th Jan., 1858, the Waltons stopped pay ment. Why did not Mr. C. Walton, in the then state of his circumstances, which he must have known on the 3d of Oct., 1857, take care that the charterparty was direct between the owners of the Natolia and Messrs. Perie and Co., by which he would have earned his brokerage, and which and which only was his due; and why did he not ab stain from doing a great wrong to the owners of the Natolia by taking the chartering of the vessel on his own firm, and then chartering her to Messrs. Perie and Co. ? There was another transaction re lating to a ship called the Eugenie, which involved the placing of bills on the money market with the Waltons' names upon them, and this transaction also was commented upon as an accommodation transaction. lam satisfied that it was a perfectly legitimate transaction in itself, though owing to a forgery, or something like it, it involved a loss to the bankrupts ; but whilst I exempt the bankrupts from the above and other charges, made through misapprehension, and whilst I believe that the bankrupts are in the main well-intentioned men, and whilst I look upon them as, to a certain extent, objects of commiseration, as having found them selves, as successors of their father, involved in dif ficulties, for which it would be harsh to say that they were wholly responsible, still I am obliged to fall back upon my original charge against them, that they shut their eyes against what they did not choose to see, namely, to the fact that they owed £44,000 and upwards, and really had scarcely any assets to meet it ; and that rather than meet their creditors, as they ought to have done, while they had yet substantial assets to distribute, they went on to the last, paying, amongst others, the Bank of England to the extent of £4,000 a short time be fore their bankruptcy, and thus unjustly preferring some and sacrificing other creditors. Under these circumstances I can only give them certificates of the lowest class. I pronounce this judgment with a certain degree of regret, but I feel myself com pelled-on all fitting occasions to denounce the great commercial offence of which a debtor is guilty, who, when there is no reasonable hopo of recovery, per sists in struggling on day after day, increasing the loss which must fall sooner or later on his unfortu nate creditors. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills and Ointment.— Influenza, Colds.—ln diseases of the throat and chest, so prevalent in this country during the winter, nothing so speedily relieves or so certainly cures, as these inestimable remedies. These disorders are too often neglected at their commencement, or are injudiciously treated, resulting in either case in disastrous consequences. Whatever the con dition of the patient Holloway's medicines will restore if recovery be possible ; they will retard the alarming symp toms, till the blood is purified and Nature consummates the cure, gradually restoring strength and vital nervous power. By persevering in the use of Holloway's preparations, tone is conferred on the stomach and frame generally; the fluids are regenerated ; morbific matter is expelled ; and a happy revolution occurs throughout the system. POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Jan. 14. MANSION-HOUSE.—Wm. Vaile, * respectable looking man, about 36 years of age, described on the sheet as a "press reporter," 'was brought before the Lord Mayor by Jarvis, the detective officer s charged with having forged and uttered a bill of exchange for £24 Ms., with intent to derma Mr. Lewis, sun., appeared in support of the pro secution, and M. Worrand for the prisoner. Mr. J. 3. Brown said—l am a bill broker, at 27, Change-alley. Some time in Nov. last the bill pro duced was brought to me by a Mr. Linde for dis count. It purports to be drawn and endorsed by Henry Lea, and accepted by William Vaile. It is dated the 4th of Jan., 1868, and was, to run two months. I thought there was something irregular about it, and refused to discount it ; but to oblige Mr. Lindo I advanced £lO, which I should have done to him without any collateral security, buthe said, " I will leave this bill as a collateral security." The bill came due on the 7th Jan. On the follow ing day the prisoner called on me; he saw the bill lying on my desk, and said, " Why did you have it noted ? If you will allow it to stand over till Tues day, I will give you a sovereign for the accommo dation." Of course I had no objection to make a sovereign with the consent of all the parties to the bill. (A laugh,) I told him to bring me the con sent of Mr. Lea, and he brought me the following letter " Warwick-lane, Jan. 8, 1859. " Sir—Mr. Valle tells me he has not entirely honoured his acceptance to me, but that you will wait till Wednesday morning, with my consent, I hereby consent to that arrange ment, and hope he will fulfil his promise. —I am. &c., 14 H. LEI." I allowed the bill to stand over, and finding it was not paid I gave all the parties notice, by which means the forgery was discovered. • Mr. H. Lea—l carry on the business of a pub lisher at 22, Warwick-lane, and am vendor of the Home Magazine, on commission. I formerly knew the prisoner as part owner of that publication, and have had occasion in business transactions to pass my acceptance to bills of exchange through him. The signature and endorsement to the bill produced are not in my handwriting. I never gave the pri soner any authority to use my name as drawer or otherwise to any bill of exchange. The letter re ferred to by the last witness, and purporting to be signed by me, is also a forgery. The handwriting of the letter I have no knowledge of. The signa ture to it is very like his writing. The bill is drawn and accepted by him. The Lord Mayor—You have no doubt about that ? Witness—l have no doubt about that. The Lord Mayor—Your belief is that the body of the bill, the acceptance, and the drawer and en dorser's name are in the prisoner's handwriting. Witness—Yes ; the drawing and endorsing I will swear to. I received notice of the dishonour of the bill from Mr. Brown, and wrote to a person named Williams, who has been his partner in the Home 211ctgazine. I then received the following commu nication from the prisoner, which is in his hand writing : " Jan. 11, 1859. " Sir, The matter to which you refer is paid, and the holder ;411 ask your permission to destroy it. It is no new transaction,. but an inevitable renewal of past transactions, gradually reduced in amount, and with this payment finally extinguished. I will place in your hands this day the ab solute proof of this statement. Do nothing to injure me further until I see you.—Yours respectfully, " WILLIAM VAILE." Williams was present when I gave the prisoner into enitodv. After some conversation respecting the necessity of calling Mr. Lindo, Mr. Brown was recalled, and upon being further examined said —Subsequently to my receiving the bill, and before it became due, I saw the prisoner in the presence of Mr. Lindo on two or three occa sions. I did not hear Mr. Lindo ask him for the £lO due upon the bill, but I heard the prisoner say that Mr. Lea, the publisher, of Warwick-lane owed him money, and that he was partner with Mr. Lea in the publication. This Was the case for the prosecution. The Lord Mayor, after giving the prisoner the usual caution, asked him whether he wished to say anything in answer to the charge. Prisoner—l leave the matter entirely in the hands of my solicitor. Ile was then fully committed to the Central Criminal Court for trial. John George Wood, a farmer, living at Moulton, in Norfolk, who was brought before the Lord Mayor on Thursdsy, charged with being found in Bishcpsgate-street, in possession of a carpet bag bontaining apparel, supposed to be stolen, and Mar garet Beck, who was charged with being in his company, in the dress of a sailor, were again placed at the bar. The eirentistatites that led to the apprehension of the prisoner's Were these—While Russell, the detective officer, and W. Smith, another constable, were proceeding along Bishopsgate-street on Wed nesday last, they received information that Beck, who was dressed as a sailor, and who had just left a bootmaker's shop at which she had purchased a pair of boots, was a female, As she and Wood were about to enter a cab, the officers asked them what was the meaning of Beck's being in the dress of a man, and their reply not being satisfactory, they were taken to the station-house. Beck then stated that up to within a few days previously she had lived as ser- Vant to Wood, who had a wife and three children at Moulton, and that she had eloped with him from that place with the intention of accompanying him to Australia ; £4l in notes and gold were found upon Wood, as well as a game certificate, and a document showing that he had been in nego tiation for the passage of two persons to Australia. The Lord Mayor then remanded the prisoners, in order that the officers might telegraph to Moulton, and ascertain whether any charge could be substan tiated againgt them. The result of the telegraphic communication was, that yesterday Wood's wife, a pretty little woman, and the father-in-law of Beck, appeared in court. The Lord Mayor—ls there any further evidence in this case, Russell, or is there any charge against either of the prisoners Russell—No, my lord. Wood's wife is here, as well as the girl's father-in-law. The Lord Mayor—Deliver the girl up to her father-in-law, and let me tell her if she again suffers herself to be seduced by the persuasions of any per son to pursue so foolish and wicked a course as that upon which she has just entered, it will inevitably lead to her ruin, both here and hereafter. She is discharged, and may be given up to her father-in law. . Russell—She is only 16 years of age, 'my lord, and not 19, as she stated at the station-house. The Lord Mayor—So much the more foolish of her, and so much more wicked the conduct of the man who seduced her. However, deliver her up to her father-in-law and he will take charge of her. She then left the dock. BOW-STREET.—Frederick Bolton, late clerk to Mr. Alfred Mayhew, solicitor, of Carey-street, Lin ' coln's-inn, was examined on remand, charged with stealing a £5O bill of exchange which had been ntrusted to him by his employer for the purpose of paying it in at his bankers, Messrs. Dixon and Co., of Chancery-lane. The cheque was drawn upon Mr. J. S. Fulke, of Richmond, by Messrs. Bloxam and Co., by whom it was endorsed to Mr. Mayhew. It was dated the Bth October, and payable one month after date at Messrs. White and Co.'s bank, 11, Haymarket. It was handed by prosecutor to prisoner about the 26th October, with instructions to hand it in at Dixon's the same day ; and it appears that it was never de livered to Messrs. Dixon, but was presented and paid at White's on the day it became due, the 11th of November. At the beginning of December Mr. Mayhew, on receiving his pass-book from Dixon's, was surprised to find that he was not credited with the £5O bill. He consequently questioned the prisoner, who said, " There is some mistake ; I will inquire about it." After an interval of some days the prosecutor wrote to Messrs. Dixon, who replied by a, letter stating that they had not received the bill. The prisoner inter. cepted that letter and absconded. A few days ago the prosecutor met him in the street and gave him in charge, He said he was sorry, and begged Mr. Mayhew not to prosecute. When brought before the magistrate he admitted that he had received the money. There was a second charge against the prisoner, of stealing or embezzling a sum of £7, paid to him at his master's office, on account of rent due to a client, the plaintiff in an action of " Hodder v. Tart." Mrs. Elizabeth Lamerton, of 67, Regent-street, Westminster, stated that after Lady-day she paid the above amount to the prisoner at Mr. Mayhew's office. Mr. Mayhew said he had never received the money, nor was the prisoner authorised to take it. Mr. Jardine—lf not, it is not an embezzlement. I am afraid it is only a breach of trust. Mr. O'Brien (the clerk to the court)—As• it was payable at Mr. Mayhew's office I think it is a felony. Mr. Jardine—l shall commit him, and leave the Court to decide that. The Prisoner—l reserve my defence in the first case, and shall take advice. The second charge must fall to the ground. Mr. Sydney Mayhew was the appointed receiver, and he owes me money. Mr. Alfred Mayhew has nothing to do with it. The Prosecutor—There is nothing in that. I am appointed by my son to receive the money. Mr. Jardine—lf you can prove that, it is a good defence ; but I shall commit you for trial on both charges. WORSHIP-STREET.--William Jackson, a re spectably-dressed youth, was charged with uttering thrtv forged cheques on the London and West minster Bank. Mr. Richard Jackson said—l am a meat sales man in St. John-street, and also carry on business in Newgate-market. I bank at the London and Westminster, and at Christmas sent my book there to be made up, but when it was returned, in a few days afterwards, I was greatly astonished to find that my account had been slightly overdrawn. This induced me to closely examine the re+. ,, rned cheques, and on doing so I discovered three for z3O odd, which were certainly not drawn by me, although the signatures bore a close resemblance to mine. The cheques had obviously been cut from my own cheque book, and as I had some time before sent my son to pay in LlB5 for me, when he only paid in the odd £B5, retaining the £lOO, I suspected the prisoner had committed the forgeries, and, as he was not living with me at the time, I communicated with the police, who took him in bed as early as three o'clock this morning. I wish this, however, to be understood, that he has made a statement to the officer of which I am convinced of the truth, and I am convinced, too, that the handwriting in the forged cheques is not that of my son, or I should have looked over it, and not appeared here against him, as I do now. Mr. Hammill—Let the officer stand up, then. Taylor, of the G division, said—l had directions to apprehend the prisoner, and found him in bed at a coffee-house in St. John-street. I said, " I want you for uttering three forged cheques, and you must get up." He said, "It is a very bad piece of busi ness, but will soon be set straight." The truth is that I took the blank cheques from a drawer in my father's room. had before that met a man in Newgate-market, named Kentick or Kenrick, I don't know which, who asked me if my father did not keep an account at the bank, and on my reply ing that he did he said if I could get some blank cheques he would fill them up. I made an appoint ment to meet him at the foot of London-bridge, and having got one cheque out of the drawer, I met him at the Adelaide-hotel, London-bridge, where we went into a room, and he called for pen and ink, and filled in the cheque in my presence. For that cheque he gave me £4, and I then took an other cheque, for which he gave me £2, and then a third, for which he gave me only £l, and then in• timated that when he wanted me again he would write to me." On hearing this statement I lodged the prisoner in the station, and went back to search his lodging, where, in one of the closets, I found the cheque I produce, which is a genuine one of his father's, and has, no doubt, served as a copy by which to forge the others. Mr. Geo. Dutton, cashier of the Eastern Branch Of the London and Westminster Bank, deposed to paying the three cheques in question. The prisoner is in the habit of paying in money to the account of his father and might have presented the cheques, but who in reality did so he could not say. The prisoner, who declined questioning any of the witnesses, and treated the charge with a cool ness almost amounting to indifference, was re manded for a week. CLERKENWELL.—Mary Ann Hodge, a very respectably attired and decent-looking young girl, aged 16, described as a servant out of place with no home, was charged with wandering about and having no visible means of subsistence in Oakley square, St. Pancras. Police-constable Whiteley, 239 S, stated that late last night he was on duty in Oakley-square, St. Pancras, when he found the defendant sitting on a doorstep crying. He asked her if she had any home, and being replied to in the negative, he said ,4' Why not go to the workhouse ?" an d b e i ng informed that she had been there and been refused admission, he went with ber himself, and she was then refused admission. Finding that she was refused a second time, he took her to the police-Station, and was again sent with a sergeant and the defendant to the St. Pancras Workhouse, when the girl was again refused admission, and they were told that the master said she belonged to Clerkenwell, and for that reason was not taken in. It was then abort half-past 1 in the morning. Sergeant Edwards, 21 S, said he took the girl to the St. Pancras Workhouse s and there saw the porter, who refused to admit her. The master of the workhouse refused to admit her, said she be longed to Clerkenwell, and that he could not take her in. He then took her to the Clerkepwell Work house, - and was there refused admission, conse quently the girl was locked up to give her a shelter. The poor girl said that she had been out of a situation for some time, and where she had been lodging some sheets were missed, and she was locked up. She was remanded for a week, and was then discharged, and having no home went to the St. Pancras Workhouse and was refused admission. Mr. Tyrwhitt inquired if any one from the parish was in attendance, and being answered in the negative said it was a very disgraceful case. That in a Christian country, and in this large metropolis, a poor homeless, unfortunate girl should not be able to obtain admission into a workhouse when it would not cost them one shilling was really intolerable. The parish of St. Pancras was one of the worst regulated parishes in the metro polis. The master must be sent for to explain his con duct. The Master, who gave the name of George Wil liam Winlo, attended in the course of the day, in company with the assistant-porter, and the latter, in answer to the magistrate, stated that by direc tion of the porter he went up to the master and told him that the police had brought a girl for admis sion, and that she belonged to Clerkenwell, when the Master said she had better go there. He was told more than once that the defendant had been brought to the workhouse by the police. The Master said the reason why he did not give the order for the girl's admission was because he was not told that she was " destitute ;" only that she wanted a night's lodging. Mr. Tyrwhitt—You do not mean to say that when persons are brought by the police, found in the public streets without a home, you refuse admission because they belong to a neighbouring parish P The Master—Well, no; it depends— Mr. Tvrwhitt—Because the word " destitution" had not been used admission was refused to a poor The Master, who seemed to treat the matter with great callousness, was about making some remark, when he was told to sit down, upon which Mr. Tyrwhitt said he looked With real sorrow and annoyance on this case, and, was surprised at the way in which the master of the workhouse seemed to treat it. This was not one of those pathetic cases which sometimes occurred where the girl had been exposed to every vice and wickedness, but here she was taken to the workhouse for a night's lodging and refused admission, and had it not been for the police might have lain in the streets exposed for any scoundrels who might be passing and who were ever ready to take every advantage of any poor pitiful girl whom they might meet with, and thus bring dis grace and ruin upon them. He could not help saying he felt a certain degree of shame that in this coun try, which was so ready to relieve the unfortunate and distressed—in this country, where workhouses only existed for such poor people that a max should be found who could be so coldhearted as to refuse admission to a poor helpless girl and turn her with out a home upon the streets. He could not help remarking that the masters of workhouses read poor law reports and regulations until they thought of nothing else, and their hearts grew harder. This was never intended by the authorities of the Poor Law Board. What was this girl refused admission for ? Only because she did not make use of the word " destitute." If she had been taken in and relieved with her four ounces of bread, the master this morning could have made her work for it. Such conduct as had been pursued in this case was a perfect disgrace to the administration of the poor law. He knew the storm that would be raised and the strong interest which worked in St. Pancras, but he would fearlessly do his duty, and he said advisedly that he believed no other parish would act in this way. In the parts surrounding this court—viz.; Clerkenwell, Islington, more especially the latter, and St. Andrew's, Holborn, every atten tion was paid to such cases—attention which was not paid by the parish of St. Pancras. His brother magistrate (Mr. Corrie) was, he understood, of the same opinion. How was it that such dreadful cases came from that parish alone ? There must be a " screw loose" when one of their officers was now under remand, and warrants had been issued against others, who could not be found. The master might have admitted the girl, for the turning of her on the streets exposed her to many dangers which he did not seem to know of. It was a serious thing to the country at large. He (Mr. Tyrwhitt) must ex press in the strongest and the roughest terms the indignation he felt at the neglect and indiffer ence which was shown to the most helpless of the population. The parish authorities of St. Pancras might appeal to the papers and to the poor law, but the girl should have been admitted, and he should have been spared the pain of hearing such a case as that before him. He could not understand how a man could bring himself to be so hard-hearted and so indifferent. Were the rates raised to be spent for the pleasure of those who sat in judgment over the poor ? No, but for the relief of the distressed. It was a sad case, in every way in which it could be looked at. Mr. Tyrwhitt then directed that the unfortunate girl should be taken by the master to St. Pancras Workhouse and treated kindly, and, if Clerkenwell was her proper parish, that She might be passed in the legal way. Marks of approbation were several times ex pressed by the spectators at the magistrate's dis course, which were at once suppressed by the officer of the court. The magistrate has received ss. in postage stamp 3 from "F. E. R." for the poor-box. Within the past month between 200 and 300 poor and deserv ing families have been relieved with coals, meat, bread and potatoes ; and great praise is due to all persons concerned in making the inquiries and ad ministering the relief. LAMBETH.—Mr. Herring, the solicitor, accom panied by Mr. Cave, the lessee of the Marylebone Theatre, waited on Mr. Elliott, and said he attended at the request of his friend' and client, Mr. Cave, the proprietor of the Marylebone Theatre, who ac companied him, to make an offer of an engagement at his establishment to the poor ballet girl, Jane Newell, in the event of her returning to the home of her mother. Mr. Cave, he said, on reading a report of the distressing circumstances which led to the want of an engagement, and consequent disap pearance from the humble home of her mother, had determined, notwithstanding his having a full com pany, to offer her an engagement at the same amount of salary that she was to have had at the Haymarket ; and his object in offering it thus pub licly was that it might meet the eye of the poor girl, and induce her at once to return home, and also that it might afford the poor mother some con solation that a situation was open to her daughter. A letter was received from Drury-lane Theatre, of which the following is a copy : " Theatre Royal, Drury-lane, Jan 13, 1859. " Sir,—Permit me to enclose you two sovereigns on be hiiif of the poor virtuous ballet girl, Jane Newell, whose case came officially before you yesterday. lam glad it was made public, as it will satisfy the minds of the numerous readers of the public journals (and perhaps the Dean of Carlisle) that artists of this description who unfortunately have no other occupation to follow, continue as virtuous on the stage as in any other situation that females have re course to for obtaining a livelihood. If Jane Newell should return to her parents, an engagement awaits her at my establishment, " ITemain, sir, your most obedient servant, "Hon. G. C. Norton. " E. T. SMITH." Mr. Herring said he was glad to find his friend Mr. Smith acting in the case with his usual liberality, and his offer would give the young lady an opportunity of making an election for an engage ment in the profession which she had chosen to follow, and in which she appeared to make such progress. In conclusion, he begged to say he was authorised on the part of Mr. Cave to hand in half a guinea towards the subscription for the assistance of Mrs. Newell. Mr. Elliott said he was very glad to see the kind offers made by Mr. Smith and Mr. Cave to the poor girl, and he hoped she would soon return to avail herself of one or the other. Enquiries were last evening made at the house of the mother as to whether she had heard anything of her missing daughter, and her reply was that on that morning a gentleman called on her and said he saw a person exactly resembling her daughter in the neighbourhood of Soho-square on the night before, in company with two women, one of whom had the appearance of a French woman. The mother also stated that the gentleman took her in a cab to Vine-street police-station to give as accu rate a description as she could of her missing daughter, and she added that it was her belief her girl was still living. In addition to the subscriptions already acknow ledged, the following were yesterday received for the mother:—From " A Lady," £2; the Printers at Mr. Grainger's, Holborn, ss. ; Mr. Lemon, ss. ; Anonymous, 2s. 6d. • Mr. E. T. Smith, .L 2 ; Mr. Cave, lOs. sa. ; and ill% Arthur Dennis, 20s. FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 15, 1859, WHITEHALL, JAN. 13. The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to he passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Knight of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire land, unto James Buchanan Macaulay, Esq., C. 8., some time Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, for Canada West. _ _ _ FOREIGN-OFFICE, JAN. 14. The Queen has been graciously pleased to appoint the Hon. Frederick William Adolphus Bruce, now her Ma jesty's Agent and Consul General in Egypt, to be her Ma jesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Emperor of China. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Horace Rumbold, Esq., now Second Paid Attache to her Majesty's Legation at St. Petersburgh, to be Secretary to her Majesty's Legation in China. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Rutherford Alcock, Esq., now her Majesty's Consul at Canton, to be her Majesty's Consul-General in Japan. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Daniel B. Robertson, Esq., now her Majesty's Consul at Shanghai, to be her Majesty's Consul at Canton. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Harry Smith Parkes, Esq., now her Majesty's Consul at Amoy, to be her Majesty's Consul at Shanghai. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Walter Henry Medhurst, Esq., now her Majesty's Consul at Foo-chow-foo, to be her Majesty's Consul at Tangchow. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Thomas T. Meadows, Esq., now Interpreter to her Majesty's Consulate at Shanghai, to be her Majesty's Consul at Newchwang. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Martin C. Morrison, Esq., now British Vice-Consul at Foo-chow-foo, to be her Majesty's Comm' at Foo-chow-foo. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint William Raymond Gingell, Esq., now British Vice-Consul at Amoy, to be her Majesty's Consul at Amoy. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Charles A. Sinclair, Esq., now British Vice-Consul at Ningpo, to be her Majesty's Consul at Chinkiang. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Frederick E. B. Harvey, Esq , nowßritish Vice-Consul at Shanghai, to be her Majesty's Consul at Ningpo. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint George Whittingham Caine, Esq., now First Assistant in her Majesty's Superintendency in China, to be her Majesty's Consul at Swatow. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint Robert Gilmour Colquhoun Esq., now her Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Wallachia, to be her Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint John Green, Esq., now her - Majesty's Consul at Alexandria, to be her Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Wal lachia. The Queen has also been graciously pleased to appoint E W. Bonham, Esq., now her Majesty's Consul at Calais, to be her Majesty's Consul at Naples. FOREIGN OFFICE, JAN. 14. The Queen has been pleased to approve of Mr. Ewing Pye de Colquhoun as Consul-General in London, for his Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Oldenburgh. COMMISSION SIGNED BY THE QUEEN. 2d Royal Lanarkshire Militia—James M'Gregor Hamil ton, Esq., to be Paymaster, vice Dyer, resigned. COMMISSIONS BY LORDS-LIEUTENANT. County of Dorset—Sir John Hesketh Lethbridge, Bart., to be Deputy Lieutenant. County of Worcester—John Utley Ellis, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant. Prince Albert's Own Leicestershire Yeomanry Cavalry —Cornet John Bainbrigge Story to be Lieutenant, vice Seddon, resigned; Charles Packe, Gent., to be Lieutenant, vice Beaumont, resigned. sth or Royal Elthorne Light Infantry Regiment of Mid dlesex Militia—Auston Heuston, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Balderson, promoted; Aubrey Howard James, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Truman, promoted. Warwickshire Militia, 2d Regiment—James Satter thwaite Rudd, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Norris, promoted. West Essex Militia—Lieutenant Myles Lonsdale Formby to be Captain, vice Travers, resigned. BANS OF ENGLAND. An Account, pursuant to the Act 7th and Bth Victoria, cap. 32, for the week ending on Wednesday, the 12th day of January, 1859: ISSUE DEPARTMENT. Notes issued £.33,036,100 Government Debt £11,015,100 Other Securities .. 3,459,900 Gold Coin & Bullion 18,561,100 Silver Bullion .... £33,036,100; £33,036,100 BANKING D: Proprietors' Capi tal £14,553,000 Rest Public Deposits (in eluding Exche quer, Savings' Banks, Commis missionets of Na tional Debt, and Dividend Ac counts) 5,518,742 Other Deposits ... Seven Day and other Bills 838,535 i:PARTMENT. Government Secu rities (including Dead Weight A nnuity) £10,698,807 Other Securities 16,561,191 Notes Gold and Silver Coin 631,250 239,850,186 I M. 31 I £39,850,186 ITARSHALL, Chief Cashier. Dated Jan. 13,1859. AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR. The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com puted from Returns made in the week ending:the 11th day of Jan., 1859, exclusive of the duties of Customs paid or payable thereon, on the importation thereof into Great Britain : Per cwt. From the British possessions in America 2Bs Od Muscovado, the produce of the Mauritius —s —d Muscovado, the produce of the East Indies 29s Od Average price of the foregoing 2Bs 61d BANKRUPTS. Thomas Baron, printer, Sloane-square, Chelsea, to sur render Jan. 22, at twelve, and Feb. 24, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Matthew Henry Cowell and Charles Brock, brewers, Southwark, Jan. 24, at half-past one, and March 3, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy . John Symons, commission agent, Manchester, Jan. 28 and Feb. 18, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court. John Davidson Newbold, Wyman, Lincoln, Feb. 2 and March 2, at twelve, at the Town-hall, Kingston-upon-Hull. Henry Parry, draper, Cape l Cerri g , Carnarvonshire, Jan. 26 and Feb. 16, at eleve n, at the Liver p ool District Court. J os eph Sharp, cattle dealer, Metheringham, Jan. 25, and Feb. 15, at eleven, at the Shirehall, Nottingham. William Burbidge, corn dealer, Birmingham, Jan. 27, and Feb. 17, at eleven, at the Birmingham District Court. William Limbrey, grocer, Dunstable, Jan. 26, at one, and Feb. 25, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. George Manby, licensed victualler, Sudbury, Suffolk, Jan. 27, at one, and Feb. 28, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. ' John Peter Flint, plumber, Sheffield, Jan. 22 and Feb. 26, at ten, at the Council-hall, Sheffield. James Turner, miller, Warsop, Nottingham, Jan. 22 and Feb. 26, at ten, at the Council-hall, Sheffield. Henry Barrick, shipowner , Homerton, Jan. 21 and Feb. 25, at twelve at the Court of Bankruptcy. William Tinker, carriage wheel manufacturer, Newing ton-causeway, Surrey, and Oxford-road, Manchester, Jan, 28 and Feb. 25, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. William Smith, builder, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset shire, Jan., 25, and Feb. 22, at eleven, at the Bristol Dis trict Court. Thomas Brewin Turnell (and not Furnell, as advertised on 7th January), draper, York, Jan. 15, and Feb. 19, at ten, at the Commercial-buildings, Leeds. SCOTCH BANKRUPTS. John Howden, insurance agent, Stornoway. John Douglas and Archibald M'Millan, shawl manufac turers, Glasgow. COUNTRY MARKET S. LIVERPOOL-JAN. 14. At this day's market there was only a moderate attend ance of buyers, and the demand was quite on a retail scale. Flour is held firm, but not much dealt in, at last week's currencies. Indian corn neglected. Oats and oat meal quiet, at late prices. Egyptian beans were a shade easier. Peas as before. In barley little doing. WAKEFIELD-JAN. 14. At the market this morning there was a moderate sup ply of English wheat, for which the trade was dull, and sales could only be effected at a decline of is per quarter. Barley inquired for, and is rather dearer. Beans made is more money. Oats and shelling without change. Averages for the week : Wheat 5,823 qrs., at 40s 4d 8ar1ey.........1,694 „ 33s Old Oats 22 „ 2ls. 6d Rye ,, ' —s Od Beans — ~ —s Od Peas EXETE -JAN. 14. At this morning's market a rather better character, and the trada in wheat was of a numerous attendance. Wheat, white.. 58 3d to 5s 4d I Barley.. 3s 9d to 4s Od. Ditto red 55 Od to 58 3d Oats ..... .... 28 6d to 2s 9d Flour, fine, 29s to 30s; seconds, 28s to 29s per sack. CATTLE.—The market was fairly supplied with stock, but business appeared to be small. Fat beef, p score, lOs to lOs 6d Ewes, per lb .... 6d to Od Pork carcases, do 780 d to 8s Od Wethers, do. . 61d to Od Lambs, per lb .Odto Od Fat calves, d0....61d to 7d Rough fat, 41d per lb. BRISTOL SUGAR-JAN. 14. The market continues very steady, with an adequate de mand to take off all that has been brought to market suit able either for pan or scale purposes, and prices must be quoted fully 6d dearer for the week. Refiners' produce is still rather quiet, but we do not alter our quotations. Ruo;s in good demand at market. 120 puncheons Demerara have found buyers at 2s 3d proof, being an advance of ld per gallon. COAL MARE (Prices of Coal per Ton at . 14. the close of the market.) Walls End. s. d. Buddle's West Hartleyls 3 Davison's WestHartleyls 3 Wylam l5 0 Tanfield Moor .12 0 Tanfield Moor Butes..l2 0 Lambert's W. Hartley 15 0 Walker Primrose l3 0 Haswell Gas. l3 3 s. d. Gosforth l7 3 Eden Main ..18 0 Hetton. . Cassop lB 9 Whitworth.. 15 0 Bradyll's Hetton 18 9 Eden 18 Harvey .16 9 Trimdon Thornley....l7 6 Riddell 17 3 Belmont l7 3 Russell's Hetton 18 6 Framwellgate 17 9 Haswell 2O 0 Hunwick - 15 0. Nixon's Duffryn 21 0 Nixon's Merthyr .21 0 Powell' s Duifryn Steam 21 0 , 115—501d,1.82. Walls End. South Hetton 19 6 Acorn Close 18 3 Byron. Northumberland 15 3 Heugh Hall 18 3 Kelloe l9 0 South Kelloe l9 0 South Hartlepool 18 0 Hartlepool. l9 3 , Ships at market, RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE. TRAFFIC RETURNS FOR THE WEEK. Miles Opened. Receipts. Railways. 1859. 1858. 1859 . 1858. £ £ Ballymena and Portrush 35 35 - - Bedale and Leyburn lO 10 105 75 Belfast and Ballymena •65 65 1,084 1,227 Belfast and County Down 2O 17 481 264 Birkd., Lanc., & Ches. Junc 32 32 2,06 1,862 Blyth and Tyne 2O 13 920 8 97 Bristol and Exeter llB 117 5,190 5,170 Caledonian Ches.&Holyhead(withMold) 941 94 - - Cockermouth & Workington 8 218 207 Cork and Bandon 2O 20 328 287 Cork, Blackrock, & Passage 64 64 277 155 Deeside l7 17 232 220 Dublin & Belfast Junction 56 56 1,160 1,089 Dublin and Drogheda 63 63 1,325 1,318 Dub. & Wicklow (in. Kingst ) 404 40.1 1,589 1,224 Dundalk and Enniskillen Dundee and Arbroath 174 171 624 555 Dundee, Perth, Sr Aber. Jun 3l 31 1 , 0 7 9 756 East Anglian 674 675 772 843 E.Counties, ~ Nrik &E.Union 489 489 21 , 213 21 , 176 East Kent 195 - 234 - E.Lancashirean.Blackburn 111 105 6,279 4,976 Edinburgh and Glasgow Edinburgh, Perth, & Dundee 78 78 3,209 3,117 Forth & Clyde Junction - - 258 208 Furness Glasgow & South-Western 1834 1834 6,739 5 , 826 Great Northern 283 283 21,362 23,292 Great North of Scotland .. 535 531, 1,394 1,285 Gt.Southn. & Westn.(lrind 229 2035 6,637 5 , 355 Great Western 466 466 24,442 24,091 Hull and Holderness Inverness & Aberdeen June 57 15 600 - Irish South-Eastern 254 25.1 286 279 Killarney Junction Lancaster and Carlisle (in Kendal and Windermere) 100 100 6 ,349 5,131 Lane. & Yrks.(in.Blackburn) 299 299 23,521 18,741 Limerick and Foynes 2 20 135 104 Llanelly 4 347 348 London Sr North-Western 686 647 60,256 54,77 0 London and Blackwall 5 1,239 1,229 London & South-Western 28 270 13,006 11,770 Lond. Brighton, &S. Coast. 199 18. 11,618 10,831 L'derry and Enniskillen .. 60 60 722 711 Lond., Tilbury, & Southend. 42 40 952 86 0 slan.,Sheffield, & Lincolnsh 1731 173 10,034 9,018 'Manch. S.Jun.& Altrincham 04 9 854 81 3 Ma port and Carlisle 2B 28 1,027 869 'Midland Midland Gt.Westn. of Lrind 177 177 2,313 2,823 Monkland 52 52 1,190 1,13 9 Monmouthsh. Rail. & Canal 44 44 1,910 1,896 Newcastle and Carlisle 7B 78 2,622 2,705 Newport,Aberg.,& Hereford 50 43 1,362 1,001 North British (in. Dalkeith) 149 149 6,428 4, 59 North Devon 35 35 300 , 214 North-Eastern 725 5. 720 29,080 27,948 North London 9 9 2,111 2,135 North Staffordshire 233 233 6,771 5,88 8 N orth-W estern 465 465 -- - N. Yorkshire and Cleveland 104 - - Oxford, Wore., & Wolver... 94 94 4,283 3,74.7 Peebles lB 18 192 178 St. Helen's Canal & Railway 30 30 1,891 1,380 Scottish Central Scottish North-Eastern ll5 115 3,544 3,481 Shrewsbury & Birmingham 295 295 1 ,6 89 371,5 Shrewsbury and Chester 4B 48 2,566 2,295 Shrewsbury & Hereford - - Shropshire Union 29 29 r 719 731 South Devon " 57. 571.. 2,699 2,005 South-Eastern 3Ol 301,,k 18,431 18,136 South Wales l7l' 171 i 6,103 6,060 S. Yorkshire and River Dun 108 108 :3,039 2,440 Stockton and Darlington Taff Vale 53 38 • 3,886 2,366 Ulster 36 36 1,720 1,393 Ulverstone and Lancaster Vale of Neath 255 255 1,309 1,029 Warrington and Stockport l2 12 - - Waterford and Kilkenny 3l 31 315 • 348 Waterford and Limerick West Cornwall 275 275 473 552 W.Hartlepool Harbr.&Rail 39 39 3,195 '.3,093 Whitehaven Junction l2 12 499 36 1 Whitehaven & Furness Jun 35 35 449 38 0 W'haven,Cleator,&Egrmnt 7 7 266 117 FOREIGN AND COLONIAL Antwerp and Rotterdam 52 52 698 684 Austrian B2B 673 25,986 24,621 Belgian Eastern Junction 265 265 223 261 Buffalo and Lake Huron Detroit and Milwaukie lB 140 1,369 1,137 Dutch Rhenish l OB4 1084 2,138 2,227 Grand Trunk of Canada 879 849 9,261 10,018 Great Indian Peninsula l3O 885 2,865 1,256 Great Luxembourg 122 38 1,559 764 Great Western of Canada 294 283 7,555 8,228 Lombardo-Venetian 283 249 7,600 6,608 Lyons and Geneva 142 107 4,711 2,85 4 Madrid, Sara t ?,•ossa &Alicant 284 176 8,196 6,22 4 Maria Antonia' 2l 21 247 21 5 Northern of France 574 574 40,033 35,31 9 Norwegian Trunk 44 44 577 50 1 Paris, Lyons, & Mediterrn B4l 781 68,256 57,794 Paris and Orleans 922 771 45,071 37,292 Paris and Strasburg 979 791 47,953 40,56 7 Royal Danish 69 69 354 38 4 Sambre and Meuse 6B 68 - Southern of France 777 577 16,354 11,182 West Flanders W. and N.W. of France 716 594 30 ; 458 ~5,1910 207 287 155 220 1,069 1,318 1,224 • 455 555 750 843 21,176 CARDINAL WISEMAN._We are sorry to hear that Cardinal Wiseman is suffering from a painful disease, die' betes, which has been gradually growing upon him for the last year and a half or two years. The disease under which he labours is one of a serious and fatal nature.—Constitu tional Press. BIRTHS. MITCHELL.--On the 13th inst., at St. Bartholomew's Hog' pital, the wife of the Rev. Walter Mitchell, of twins, a' son and daughter. ROBERTS.—On the 13th inst., at Norwood, Surrey, the wife of Christopher Roberts, Esq., of a daughter. TUKE.—On the 12th inst., at 6, Somers-place, Hyde park, the wife of Henry G. Tuke, Esq., of a daughter. VEsEy.—On the 13th inst., at Wimbledon, the wife of Ed" ward Vesey, Esq., of a son. MARRIAGES. McMAnoN—HoLroun.—On the 13th inst., at St. Paul% Knightsbridge, Colonel McMahon, C. 8., sth Dragoon. Guards, eldest son of General Sir Thomas McMahon► Bart., K.C.8., to Frances Mary, daughter of the late J• Holford, Esq. KERSEY—WINTER.—On the 13th inst., at Notting-hil l ' Samuel Overbury Kersey, Esq., of Hadleigh, Suffolk) to Emma, the fourth daughter of the late Robert Winter , Esq. DEATHS. BARROW.—On the 12th inst., at Barwell Rectory, lief Hinckley, Charlotte Frederica, wife of the Rev. C. P . Barrow, rector, aged 40. BUCK.—On the 10th inst., at Deptford Dockyard, Willis° Buck, Esq., aged 64. DAwsoN.—On the 13th inst., at 19, Park-road, Stockwel l ' Robert Sharrock Dawson, Esq.. late of the Home-office, aged 76. D'OYLY.—On the 14th inst., at 21, Lowndes-square, Mar i ! Frances, widow of the late GeorgeD'Oyly, D.D. F. 11 .4 rector of Lambeth and Sundridge. HAWKINS.—On the 12th inst., at Islington, T. Mitchell Hawkins, Esq., aged 78. TIIORNTON.—On the 12th inst., HenryA. Thornton, of 45, Lincoln's-inn-fields, and of 8, New-square, . 1 -4 w.. coin's-inn, only son of the lath Colonel Henry Thornton' C. 8., aged 32. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOTJI O ° of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 1 . 1 : f Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the count" Middlesex, Saturday, Jammu 15, 1859. . i