The Sun. — London, England, 1858-12-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 9. - Tar COURT. OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall—(Before Lord Campbell and a Special Jury.) SCULLY V. INGRAM—THE SADLEIR FRAUDS. The trial of this important case was resumed at the sitting of the court to-day. Mr. Scully, the plaintiff, by the permission of Lord Campbell, was allowed to be recalled. In reply to Mr. Bovill he said—Sadleir sent me the £6OO profit on the sale of Castle Hyde in the be ginning of March, 1852. It was employed in the expenses of my election. It came a little while after the £l,OOO. The arrangement with Sadleir was that he should pay me my debt of £9,000 as soon as he could and then I should pay the whole of the purchase money. The completion of the pur chase in my name depended on Sadleir paying me my £9,000. There was no arrangement between us that he should find £5OO of the £l,OOO deposit. He owed me £5OO as interest, I believe at the time and I think he directed me to set off against that £3OO, being half of the £6OO which I promised he should have, being half of the profit of the sale. I have no account of my transactions with Sadleir except that in evidence. I last settled accounts with him in Nov. 1852. Some weeks after Sadleir's death I employed Mr. Mahoney as my solicitor. It appears from the last settlement that he owed me £9,000. Mr. Herbert Ingram, M.P. the defendant, was then examined by Mr. Hiiddleston. He said—l knew the late John Sadleir. He first mentioned to me the Castle Hyde estate in Aug. or Sept. 1852. He said, " I have got a very nice estate in Ireland which I should like you to have." He described it and said he was sure I would have it, and if I would not it would do for the company. I was associated with a company in Manchester for the purchase and resale of Irish estates. I was a shareholder and director. I think Sadleir said be would send the particulars. I had never before heard of the Castle Hyde estate. He did not at that time men tion Mr. Scully's name in connection with the estate, nor Mr. Morrough's. I received the par ticulars of the estate about a week afterwards, directed to me in the handwriting of Sadleir. I was living at that time in Hertford-street, Mayfair. A few days afterwards I saw Sadleir at the Reform Club. He then said, "I have sent you the particulars of it, and you shall have the refusal of the estate." He, named £22,000 or £22,500 as the price. I told him I might happen to go and see it. He said " You must go and see before you give a refusal." I saw him again about a week after that. He asked me again if I had looked at the particulars, and when I could go and see it. I said I would go as soon as I could, as I wished to see over other estates, meaning the estates of the company. He told me, if any one came to me, I was to ask a price for it. This conversation took place at the end of 1852. There is a letter, dated 30th January, 1853, from me to Mr. Sadleir, say _ ing the arrangement he had made as to the estate - was perfectly satisfactory; but it had no reference to Castle Hyde, but the Kingstown property, which he was about to purchase. In February, 1853, I had not purchased the Castle Hyde property. I never paid £6OO profit on it, nor agreed to do so. I never agreed to sign a purehase on being paid £5,000. The document produced, sent by Sadleir to Scully, was never seen by me. [This was the memorandum of the 7th February, 1853, enclosed in a letter from Sadleir to Scully.] I never con sented to sign such an agreement. I knew nothing of the transaction stated in the letter. Sadleir never gave me any bank shares, as he mentions in one of his letters. I remember Mr. Scully coming to my house at Loudwater, Hertfordshire, on a Sunday morning, in February, 1853. He came in a fly, and it waited while he was with me. He came between half-past ten and eleven, and stayed less than half an hour. I had never seen him before. He said, " I have come from Mr. Sadleir. lam his cousin, and a member of Parliament." I invited him into the breakfast-room. I thought it was rather strange his coming on a Sunday morn ing. He said, " I have come with a message from Saieleir about the Castle Hyde estate. I have come to see whether I can purchase it of you." I told him whatever he had got to say he had better put it in writing. I fetched him pen, ink, and paper. Mr. Scully had all the talk tohimself. I walked out on the balcony and left him writing. When I came back he had finished writing, and he gave me the piece of paper; saying, " These are my proposals." I said, " Leave it with me and you shall have an answer in a day or two." I had then a little con versation with him on Irish matters and Irish estates. When he left I said I would see him again' and I think I wrote saying I would see him on Tuesday. To Lord Campbell—l read the paper when be was gone, and not sooner. Examination continued—He never uttered a word about the original purchase of Castle Hyde by Sadleir for him, nor about a re-sale of it to me at a profit of £6OO. He never said anything about his standing for the county of Carlow on the faith of the promise which Sadlier had made to him that he should become again the purchaser of the estate on the payment of the interest. No discussion took place about the paper. I never said I had been at considerable inconvenience in providing funds for the payment of the money for the estate. After Scully left I wrote the letter of the 13th of February to Sadleir, enclosing the document which he had left with me, and saying I had appointed to see Scully on Tuesday at the Reform Club. I saw Scully at the club on Tuesday : Sadlier was there also. Sadleir and Scully went to a corner and had some conversation together. They then came to me, and I said to Scully, " Before I can say any thing about the estate I must go and look at it. Mrs. Ingram wishes me to look at it." Before this I had shown her the picture, and the particulars of the estate, and she thought it would be a very nice place to live at. Not a word was said about the purchase of the estate by me from Scully at a pro fit of £6OO. When I wrote the letter of the 16th of February I had spoken to Mrs. Ingram on the subject of the estate, and she was disinclined to part with the offer of the refusal to take the estate until I had seen it. In May I went to Ireland. I went to see the estate, taking with me Mr. Powell, who is referee of the Board of Trade. He is a gen tleman of great experience. I also went over to see the estates of the Land Company, near Mitchell's Town. I wrote the letter- produced to Sadleir. It is dated. from the Strand, and states that I would be in Dublin on a certain dav, and asked him to get me an order to view the estate. I went to Castle Hyde in company with Mr. Powell, and as he said it would take £lO,OOO to put the mansion in repair, I made up my mind to have nothing to do with the property. I communi cated. my determination to Sadleir on my return to England. Afterwards I had nothing to do with the estate. After May, 1853, I saw Mr. Vincent Scully several times in the lobby of the House of Commons, and he never said a word to me about Castle Hyde. In Aug., 1856, I saw Mr. D. Maho ney, who said he called upon me to make a com plaint against me in the affair of Castle Hyde. He said, " Through you Mr. Scully was induced to believe that you were the purchaser of Castle Hyde, and were ready to sell it to him, and that in con sequence of that belief he stood for the county of Cork, and incurred great expense." He said Mr. Scully's claim was £75,000. I replied, "If you have anything to say about this I will give you the name of my solicitor," and he left his card and did not utter another word. After that I lent Sadleir £2,000, about Jan., 1853. By my request Mr. Sadleir became , a director of the Boston Railway, and I guaranteed him against all loss in respect of his shares. I once accepted a bill for £2,000 for his accommodation, which he took up. Mr. Bovill, in reply to Lord Campbell, said the date of the conveyance of Castle Hyde to Mr. Mor rogh was the 24th of July, 1852. It was signed by Mr. Eyre, the plaintiff'; uncle, who was represented as _ the o r i g i na l purc h aser i n 1851 . M r. E yre, M r. .Morrogh, and John Sadleir were parties to the mort gage. Mr. Ingram the defendant, was again examined. by Cross-examined Mr. James—Before Feb., 1853, when I saw Scully at Loudwater, I had no pecuniary transactions with Sadleir, except with ref - ran - 1 to the railway, t2 Tdi o e letter of 3d Jan., 18?)3, alludes to a bill of It was an accom modation bill. I wrot e to S ' adl ° e . ir about taking it up at Glyn's. There were two bills, but I cannot say to which the letter refers. II gave me a bill for £2,000 I had lent him. I did p timebut I e never £2,000 for Sadleir's accommodation discounted a bill for him. Glyn'saver'o at that t my bankers. I accepted the bill Pk., able at Gly n ' s " The letter of mine of _ December 15, 1852 , thanking . Sadleir for the payment of £2,000, alludes to a re payment of money which I had lent him. I sw ear that such a transaction never took place as Sadlier giving me bank shares at a price which would put £450 into my pocket. He never gave me shares in the London and County Bank, but he promised me some. The paper produced is in my handwriting._ d (It was dated 17th March, 1852 ; and ad ressed to Sadleir. Mr. Ingram said in it, "I have not yet received the shares in the London and County Bank ; if it will make no difference, I would rather have cash.") On my oath that does not refer t o his promise to give me shares in the London and County Bank which would put £450 into my pocket, but it refers rather to the Kingston estate, which he said he wished to purchase. At his re quest I and several other gentlemen put down our names as security for him to the London and County Bank. My share of the profit on the trans action was to be £5OO. He said he would give me London and County shares for the amount, and I THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 10, 1858, wrote curd said I wouhi rather have cash. He gave me h - lheque a long time afterwards for £3OO. I was not to money for the purchase of the Kingstown estate. I became security for him at the end of December, 1852, or January, 1853. The security was given to the London and County Bank for £90,000. Ten gentlemen joined in it. The bank told me that I would only be liable for my share. I have told you all the trans actions I had with Sadleir. I wrote a letter to him on the 4th of December, 1854, in which I said, " I have not a pound just now. If my ac ceptance for £l,OOO will do, I will take that amount of capital in- the mines." He had asked me again to lend him some money. I refused afterwards to have anything to do with the mines. They were German mines. I got £3OO from Sadleir as my share of the profit on the transaction, in respect of the security given the bank. I had never ac cepted bills for the accommodation of Sadlier for more than £2,000 at a time. I should say I did not lend my name to him to the extent in all of £20,000. I swear I never had any accommoda tion from him. When Scully called upon me at Loudwater he said he came about the estate. I don't know that I asked him a price. I did not ask him £25,000 for it. I said, " Make your own pro posal, and I will forward you an answer." I meant at the time to send the proposal to Sadleir, because I had not sufficient power over the estate without consulting him. I did not discuss with him the terms of the paper. I told him to write what he liked, and I would consider it. I gave him the - paper on which he copied that document. Sadleir told me to name a price for the estate. He men tioned £25,000. I don't think I gave the price to Mr. Scully. £25,000 is the sum mentioned in the memorandum drawn up by Mr. Scully. I sent the memorandum to Sadleir. I did not see Sadleir, as far as I recollect, before the conversation I have mentioned took place at the Reform Chib. I don't remember calling upon him at the London and County Bank on the *day before, and being with him an hour. That is the only answer I can give. At:the interview at the Reform Club I won't swear I did not ask Scully more than £25,000, or a sum of £28,000, but I might have done so. I don't re member discussing with Scullyat Loudwater about his getting me an equally eligible property. Mr. Mahoney, on my solemn oath, mentioned £75,000 as Mr. Scully's demand upon me. I can remember that. When I went to Ireland I don't recollect going in the same carriage with the_directors of the land company. By Mr. Bovill—To none of these matters has my attention been called from 1853 until the present time. Mr. Sadleir paid me all the money he owed me. I had a few shares in the London and County Bank. I bought them myself shortly be fore Sadleir's death, and I sold them soon after wards. At Loudwater I gave Mr. Scully a few sheets of note paper. I never, to my knowledge, saw a rough draft he made, nor did I discuss it with him. Mr. David Mahoney called and examined by Mr. James.—l am a solicitor in Dublin, and succeeded my:father, the late Pierce Mahony. When I called upon Mr. Ingram respecting Mr. Scully's claim I did not say he claimed £75,000. I mentioned no sum. Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill—l told him that Mr. Scully was a sufferer to a very large amount. I :depend upon my recollection since 1856 in say ing that I did not mention to Mr. Ingram £75,000. The first time I heard of that sum was when you made your speech. I am confirmed in my belief by the letter which I wrote to Mr. Scully within two hours of my interview with Mr. Ingram. (The letter was here produced.) There is no mention of £75,000 in the letter. Mr. Bovill then summed up the evidence for the defence. He said Mr. Scully, the plaintiff, had possessed a great advantage over _his client, being skilled in the practice of courts of justice, and able to give his evidence with the greatest ease and composure. On the other hand, Mr. Ingram, without this advantage, was subjected to a cross examination by Mr. James, which was enough to frighten and confuse any witness. How, after the lapse of six years, could a man, called upon for the first time to speak to a particular matter, tell whether he had been to his banker's or solicitor's on a certain day ? Yet Mr. James said, " Now, upon your oath, did you not call at the London and County Bank on a certain day—mind, an at- I tendance book is kept at the bank," as if he really meant to produce it, and confront Mr. Ingram with .the written entry of a particular call he made six years ago, which if he did make, had escaped his recollection. Mr. Ingram had not risen into im portance in a day, he had long been extensively engaged in business,, and his history was well known from his birth upwards ; and although the plaintiff had every opportunity of inquiring into his character, he had not attempted to impeach his honour or veracity in any other transaction. It could never be said of him that he ever did a dis honest action, or defrauded any man of a single farthing. Putting these facts in the scale against Mr. Scully's volubility and powers of speech, he asked them to discriminate between truth and falsehood, being satisfied that on a careful con sideration of the evidence they would acquit the defendant of the charge of fraud which was in volved in the action. Mr. James then replied on the whole case for the plaintiff—l quite concur with my learned friend that this action is in the nature of a criminal charge against Mr. Ingram, and that it ought to be established by the clearest evidence. The evi dence of the defendant is quite consistent with that of the plaintiff, and makes out no defence at all. I ask you if there is any reasonable doubt in the minds of any of the jury to give the defendant the benefit of that doubt, but I say there can be none. The plaintiff's case is that he placed implicit confidence in Sadleir, and the whole object of this scheme was to keep from him the estate which remained in Sadleir. Frauds like this cannot be perpetrated alone by one party, and the defendant was just the person that Sadleir would seek outito lend himself to him. And the defendant did lend himself as the ready instrument of Sadleir. How could the defendant stand up in the face of docu ments and say that he did not represent himself to Mr. Sadleir as the purchaser of the estate, and the seller to the plaintiff? Look at his position with Sadleir; he was engaged in various speculations and accommodation bills with him, and took from him £3OO for lending himself as a security with others for £90,000 on Sadleir's account. Was not he, then, the sort of man Sadleir would select as his instrument ? When he asked the plaintiff £25,000 for the estate on the Sunday, and on the Wednesday asked £28,000, no doubt the plaintiff became disgusted, and never spoke to him after wards when they met. What was it done for ? To save Sadleir from being called on to repay the £9,000, and to divide any , profit that might be obtained by a resale. It is a case which for the ends of justice has been brought to light by the discovery of these papers, and I can well under stand how it came upon the defendanrby surprise I am amazed with wonder That I, who never left a track In all the dark and secret windings to my wealth, Should be thus discovered, defeated, and made void." If you find, gentlemen, that the defendant has lent himself to one of those great [frauds which have disgraced the character of this mercantile com munity, do your duty and return a verdict accord. ingly. Lord Campbell, in summing up, said this was, indeed, a very serious case. It demanded, had re ceived, and would yet receive their most deliberate attention. A charge was brought against the defen dant, a gentleman who had hitherto maintained a mostrespectable position in society, which imputed to him fraud of a serious kind. The action was founded on fraud, and unless they believed Mr. Ingram's con duct was fraudulent, he was entitled to their ver dict. The charge against him was that he repre• sented to the plaintiff that he had bought the estate of Castle Hyde from Sadleir. Now unless they believed that the defendant made that representa tion, knowing it to be untrue, and with the fraudu lentintention of deceiving and injuring the plaintiff, he was entitled to their verdict; but if they be lieved that he knew it to be untrue, and that he made it with the intention of deceiving:and injuring plaintiff, and thereby damnyfying him, the plaintiff was entitled to such damages as they thought he could fairly claim. The jui'y should clearly under stand that nothing which was said or written by Sadleir was evidence against Mr. Ingram, and it was only by clear evidence against Mr. Ingram personally that he was in any danger of any ver dict being found against him. With regard to Sadleir there could be no doubt that he was a most unprincipled and wicked man, and that he had de ceived Mr. Scully. It was also possible that he might have deceived Mr. Ingram, and unless they believed that Mr. Ingram made the representation to Mr. Scully, believing it to be untrue, for the purpose o f d ece i v i ng hi m, h e was no t liable to this action. Lord Campbell then read over the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant, and told the jury that their verdict would depend entirely upon the credit which they attached to the evidence of Mr. Scully on the one part, and on that of Mr. Ingram on the other. He owned th a t if Mr. Ingram . had purposely lent himself to such a fraud as was here imputed him, it was very difficult to discover his motive, but at the same time it certainly did ap desirous t o represent himself pear that he was very as the owner of the estate. In the event of their finding a verdict for plaintiff there would' be the question of damages, which presented some diffi culty. In the first place the defendant said that in consequence of the misrepresentation of the defend ant he was prevented from pressing Sadleir for the payment of the £9,ooo,but considering the desperate condition of Sadleir for many years, it was not likely that he could have paid that sum. Another ground of damage was the increased value of the estate since Mr. Scully first purchased it, but as Mr. Scully ad mitted that he could not pay the whole purchase money unless Sadlier paid him the £9,000, and as it was not probable that Sadlier could have done so, the conclusion was that he would not have become the owner of the estate. The jury would, however, *form their own opinions upon the matter, recollecting that before they came to consider the question of damages, they must he satisfied that the defendant had knowingly made to Mr. Scully a false representation that he was the owner of the estate. The jury retired at five o'clock, and in about half an hour came back into court. Lord Campbell, on being apprised of their return immediately resumed his seat on the bench. The Foreman—We do not clearly understand my lord, whether the connivance of the defendant with Sadleir consists of a fraud. Lord Campbell—Undoubtedly. If he connived with Sadleir, then he is an accomplice. A Juror—We cannot believe that the defendant is guilty of a fraud. Lord Campbell—lf he connived with Sadleir in a false representation, he is guilty of fraud himself. A Juror—l am one of those who do not think he connived with Sadleir. Lord Campbell—l can only direct you in point of law. It is for you to deal with the facts. You may now withdraw and deliberate again. A third Juror—We are not likely to come to a unanimous conclusion. Lord Campbell—l hope you will by to-morrow morning. It would be impossible to maintain the principle of trial by jury if they are to be dis charged because they are not all of one mind after half an hour's deliberation. His lordship then repeated the direction he had given in reply to the question of the foreman. The third Juror—lf we have to sit up all night will we have a fire ? Lord Campbell—l think the law expressly for bids a fire. I hope in another session of Parliament to succeed in passing a bill by which, if the jury, after having deliberated a certain time, cannot agree, the verdict—l will not say of a majority, but of a certain number of them may be taken as the verdict in the case ; but at present I am not at liberty to discharge you. I can only hope that you will be unanimous before to-morrow morning. (Laughter.) A Juror—We came down on the understanding that we would be unanimous when your lordship answered our question. It is very hard on us on this side. Lord Campbell—You see I cannot enter on a discussion of your differences. Another juror appealed to his lordship that they might be allowed a fire. Lord Campbell—By law candles are allowed, and you can have as many as you like in order to warm the room. (Laughter.) I should hold that a lamp comes within the meaning of the law. After a pause, His lordship said he was glad to hear from Mr. Secondary Potter that the room was warmed with gas lights. A juror said he understood that the plaintiff and defendant agreed to their having a fire. Lord Campbell—l see no objection to your having one, but as the room is heated by gas, a fire would be unnecessary. The jury then left the court, and were locked up as before. _ _ _ _ _______ They returned after an absence of about two hours, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—da mages £3OO. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. THE PARIS MODEL LODGING-HOUSES-IN RE G. D. CLARK. This extraordinary case again came before the court. The insolvent was connected with the Paris Model Lodging-houses, and claimed upwards of £13,000 of Mr. Kennard, the extensive iron founder in Thames-street. The claim was denied, and, on the contrary, it was alleged that the insol vent was a debtor to Mr. Kennard. An action had been brought, and some accounts had been re ferred to Mr. Ingpen, the registrar. Mr. Reed applied this morning, on the part of insolvent, for an adjournment of two months. He regretted to state that Mr. Clark had met with a severe accident at a railway station, by which he had broken his arm, and could not attend to busi ness. Mr. Sargood, for Mr. Kennard, said he, of course, regretted the accident, which it seemed, happened a month ago. He thought the adjournment asked for too long, and hoped the documentary evidence would be gone into though Mr. Clark was absent. Mr. Reed objected to any evidence being taken in the absence of Mr. Clark, who, in his present state, could not attend. _ _ _ Mr. Commissioner Phillips, after further discus sion, granted an adjournment for one month and renewed the bail. If Mr. Clark could not attend a further application could be made. He wished it to be understood, if the case was not proceeded with, he should not afterwards renew the bail. Adjourned to the 13th of January. IN RE JOSEPH DOBBS WILDSMITH. This insolvent, the late train bearer of Lord Jus tice Knight Bruce, applied to be discharged. Mr. Beard, a publican, opposed in person. Mr. Richard Martin appeared as counsel for the insolvent. The insolvent had petitioned under the Protec tion Act, and his petition was dismissed for a mis description. He had since lost his situation, and said he had no promise that he should be restored, or have a situation of equal value. Mr. Commissioner Phillips hoped Lord Justice Knight Bruce would restore him to his situation. There was nothing in his case to prevent his resto ration. Should he again fill the appointment, he trusted that he would live within his income. The insolvent was discharged. IN RE CHRISTOPHER HARRIS THE ELDER. Mr. Richard Martin opposed for a creditor named Martin. Mr. Dowse supported. The case had stood over to prove that the insol• vent's sons, Charles and Christopher, had advanced money to the insolvent, and had taken a bill of sale of his shop as a hosier, in Hampton-terrace, Camden Town. The Court was satisfied, and granted the fina order. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, DEC. 9. (Before Mr. Justice Wightman.) Francis Briggs, 30, was charged with arson. The two first counts in the indictment alleged that he had wilfully, maliciously, and feloniously attempted to set fire to his dwelling-house, with intent to injure Jane Waller, the owner of the property; and a third charged him with having set fire to certain goods and chattels contained in a building, the setting fire to which building would have been felony under an act of Parliament. Mr. Addison appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Ribton. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Michael Cavan, 31, John Wall, 17, and Henry Webb, 20; were indicted for feloniously setting fire to two stacks of hay at Gillingham. The prisoners Wall and Webb pleaded guilty. Mr. Barrow conducted the prosecution. It -appeared that -the irttteks in -question-were the property of a farmer in the neighbourhood of Chatham, and were of the value of £125, and they were consumed on the night of the 27th of July last. All the prisoners was seen close to the stack: at the time the fire broke out, and they were seen to be running away immediately afterwards with out rendering any assistance to extinguish the flames, but the additional evidence given against them was of a very unusual character in such cases, and established their guilt in the most conclusive manner. A Scotchwoman named Annie Stewart, who, it appears, was tramping about the country, but who seemed to be a most intelligent woman, and who gave her evidence with great clearness and consistency, deposed that having had a " drop of beer" on the day in question, she went to lie down at night under one of the stacks, and she was awoke by hearing men talking, and she ascer tained that it was the three prisohers, and she listened to their conversation. She stated that she heard Cavan say to the others, " Let us have a lark and set fire to the stacks, and give the ' Bobbies' (police) a job, for they want one," and she said that one of the other prisoners gave Cavan some lucifers, and struck them and set fire to the stack, and then they all ran away, neither of them being, as she said, aware that any one was near enough to have overheard their conversation. The prisoners were taken into custody a few days after wards, 'and, upon Cavan being told what he was charged with, he said that as others had been speak ing he should do the same, and the fact was, that it was not he who set fire to the stacks, but " Little. Jack," meaning the prisoner Wall. A good deal of laughter was occasioned by the ingenious man ner in which Cavan cross-examined the witness Stewart, and the answers she gave to the ques tions which were put to her, which evinced un common shrewdness and intellect. The prisoner appeared very curious to know why she did not give an alarm when she heard what she alleged was going on, and she replied that she was "too good a judge," for she knew what sort of people they were, and that they would very probably have put her out of the way if they had found out that she was listening to their proceedings. The learned Judge having summed up, the jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty, and all the prisoners were sentenced to ten years' penal servitude. WESTERN CIRCUIT.-EXETER, DEC. 8. (Before Mr. Justice Byles.) Mr. Justice Byles arrived in Exeter yesterday afternoon, and opened the commission for the city of Exeter and the county of Devon. This morning his lordship attended divine service at the cathe dral, after which he commenced the business of the assizes. The calendar is light. despatched, witnesses being under examination to show the small amount of ruins or debris which had been found after the fire. YORK, Dec. 8. The calendar of prisoners for trial at the gaol delivery for this county is heavy, there being four cases of murder, three of manslaughter, one of at tempted murder, besides several daring burglaries, and highway robberies. There are 82 prisoners for trial. Mr. Baron Watson, the presiding judge, arrived in York from Newcastle, this morning, and pro ceeded to York Castle, where ho opened the com mission for the county, and afterwards went to the Guildhall, where the commission for the city was opened in like manner. MIDDLESEX SESSION&—Dec. 9. (Before Mr. Pashley, Q.C. Assistant-Judge, at Clerkenwell.) _ _ Mary Ann Neal, 21, was indicted for stealing 11 umbrellas, value £2, the property of Edward Unwin. Mr. Le Bruton prosecuted; Mr. Smith defended the prisoner. The prosecutor is a hosier, carrying on business at 164, Strand, and on the 29th of Nov., the pri soner went up to his shop door, and placing her shawl over a bundle of umbrellas standing there for sale, she broke the string by which they were fastened to the railing in front of the window, a man and a woman standing close by to screen her from observation. One of the prosecutor's servants, however, saw what was going on, and as the prisoner was moving the umbrellas, he ran out to her, and the man and woman made off. The prisoner was detained and given into custody for stealing the umbrellas, but she asserted that it was not - she, but the man who stood beside her. The prisoner was found guilty, and, being a well known offender, and previously convicted, the court sentenced her to four years' penal servitude. AN UNGRATEFUL SCOUNDREL. EXTRAORDINARY CASE. Thomas Sherwood, 42, was indicted for stealing 252 lbs. cf yarn, and 91 lbs. of mohair, the property of Edward Wm. Augustus Taylor, his master. He was charged with feloniously embezzling the sums of £l5 14s , £1 10s., and £5 65., received by him on account of his said, master. Mr. Bodkin appeared for the prosecution ; the prisoner was undefended. The circumstances of this case were of a very peculiar and complicated character, and not only conclusively proved the guilt of the prisoner upon the charges brought against him, but showed that he had been guilty of conduct towards the prosecu tor, his benefactor and friend, of the basest and most ungrateful description. The prosecutor, a dealer in yarns, now carrying on his business at Guildhall•chambers, Basinghall-street, formerly in Bevenden-street, Hoxton, and the prisoner, were schoolfellows 30 years ago at Leeds, and at one time the prisoner was in business as a spinner at Bradford, but he failed, and for many years, until about 18 months ago, the prosecutor lost sight of him. He was very much surprised one night to find the prisoner following him home, and he then told such a tale of suffering and distress, represent ing that he had been without food for days, that he had been compelled to sleep in the parks, and that he had no friends to whom he could apply for aid, that Mr. Taylor became his friend and provided him with clothes, his own being tattered, torn, and dirty—lodging, food, and money. The pri soner offered to assist the prosecutor in his busi ness for a small remuneration to keep him from starving, and the prosecutor, knowing that he was acquainted with the details of the trade, employed him to sell goods on commission, providing him in addition, with lodgings and necessaries. The prisoner also undertook to manufacture mohair and silk yarn, solely and entirely on prosecutor's ac count, the latter paying all expenses ; the arrange ment being that, after deducting these, there should be a division of the net profits -.Ton the sale of goods actually sold. It was distinctly understood that this was to be solely on prosecutor's account, and prisoner undertook the business on the terms of a letter written by the prosecutor, expressly de fining the arrangement. When the prisoner was charged he impudently contended that upon this arrangement he could neither be charged with stealing nor with embezzlement, as he was a partner in the concern. After the prosecutor had dismissed him from his service he actually went to his credi tors and represented that he (prosecutor) was in the habit of procuring ;goods on credit, and imme diately pledging them to raise capital ; the conse quence of which was that the creditors were down upon him, and he was brought to the verge of bankruptcy and ruin by the prisoner's base and in famous proceedings, for which there waa not the slightest possible justification. The evidence given in support of the prosecution showed that on the 27th Sept. the prosecutor acci dentally discovered that the prisoner had received a sum of money from a customer for which he had not accounted, in consequence of which he was im mediately discharged, having admitted that he had embezzled the amount. The result of subsequent inquiries was the discovery not only that he had embezzled money to a very serious amount, but that he had appropriated to himself goods as well, the loss to the prosecutor being altogether £261. The prosecutor then caused him to be apprehended On the 31st of August the prosecutor had a conver sation with him with reference to some yarn, 242 pounds in weight, which prisoner said a customer, named Dart, Bedford-street, Covent-garden, would purchase at a dertain price, which price the prose cutor agreed to take, and on the following day the prisoner told him he had delivered it to the customer and charged him cab fare for taking it. The value of the yarn wa3 £33 6s. 10d. On the 14th May there was a conversation about a lot of mohair, 91bs. in weight, which the prisoner said he had sold to a customer named Hartley, a trimming manufac turer, in Pump-row, Old-street-road, St. Luke's, at Bs. 6d. per pound, at two months' credit. This was entirely a falsehood, and he had secretly taken the mohair from the premises, pledged it, and appro priated the proceeds to himself. He kept this transaction secret in a very cunning manner. After two months had expired, the prosecutor spoke to him about this account, when the prisoner told him he had seen Mrs. Hartley, but the account could not be paid then as Mr. Hartley was at the seaside. A month after that he had seen Mr. Hartley, who was not satisfied with the mohair, and would be glad if it could be disposed of to another customer. The prisoner said that in consequence he had,agreed with a Mr. Lewis for the latter to take the lot at 10s. per pound, a profit of ls. 6d. per pound upon the price Mr. Hartley had agreed to give, and had delivered it to him; but this was entirely false. Mr. Lewis was alsoa customer of the prosecutor, and the latter was, content that he should have the goods at the increased price. The prisoner's object was to create delay in having to account for the property which he had disposed of on his account. When his guilt was discovered he had put a bold front on the matter, and audaciously declared that the prosecutor being in urgent want of money, he tried all he knew throughout the trade to sell the wool and mohair to furnish him with ready money; but as he could not succeed in doing so, he pledged them, and gave the prosecutor the proceeds ; and the prosecutor made this charge against him, to derive for himself all the benefit of a good trade which, by his knowledge of the business and the persons in it, and his perseverance and industry, he had got together. Mr. Dart, Mr. Hartley, and Mr. Lewis severally contradicted the prisoner's assertions as to the sale of the goods to them. The prisoner, in his defence, said there was no understanding between him and the prosecutor, but a bona fide partnership. He worked the trade and got up an excellent connection for Taylor, and he pledged the• property to help him out of difficulties, and Mr. Taylor had every penny of the money raised upon it. Mr. Bodkin—lt's a pity you did not ask any ques on in cross-examination about that. Prisoner—Taylor well enough knows it. He was poor, and if he had stuck to me as I meant to stick to him, all would have been well, and we doing a good business. Prosecutor recalled—There is not one word of truth in . his statement that he pawned the goods for me, or to my knowledge. The Assistant-Judge told the jury he should direct ,that, in point of law, the prisoner was prosecutor's servant, and not entitled to deal with the property without his consent and knowledge. It was quite clear prisoner had represented to his employer that lie had sold the property on his credit; it was ad mitted by the prisoner that that was all false, and the proof was that he pawned it. His assertion was that he did so on the prosecutor's account. That was 3positively denied; and if true, why should he have represented to Mr. Taylor that he had sold it to Hartley first and to Lewis afterwards ? That the prisoner did not deny. Prisoner—lt was all lies, your worship. The Assistant-Judge told him he must be under rating the capacity of those whom lie wished to im press with the idea that he pawned the property for the benefit of his employer, when he owned the account he gave to his employer of having disposed of it his customers on sale, and now said it was lies. The jury, without a moment's hesitation, found the prisoner guilty. Mr. Bodkin—The total amount of which the pri soner has robbed the prosecutor is £260. Between his dismissal and his apprehension he communicated to Mr. Taylor's creditors that he was pawning goods, obtained on credit, as soon-as he got them, through which proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced, and he was brought to the very brink of ruin and destruction. With respect to the em bezzlements, we have selected three_ instances, all which we can put in one indictment, -and if the court desires it we will proceed upon that charge. The Assistant Judge thought it had better be tried. The case was then gone into, and it was proved that the prisoner received from G. Bartholomew and Co., of Finsbury Pavement, £5 65., and from Mr. Kelsey, of Wilmot-square, Bethnal-green, two sums, £l5 14s. and £1 10s., on account of ! Mr. Taylor, for which he had never accounted. The prisoner asserted that he paid the money to the prosecutor on the very day he received it, and that he also paid on Mr. Hartley's account £24 which he did not owe, and which he had not re ceived from Mr. Hartley. Prosecutor—Mr. Hartley did not owe me any such sum at the time. The orders for Bartholomews' and Kelsey were executed by me, and I never re ceived the money. There is no sum of £24 entered to the credit of Mr. Hartley in my books. Prisoner—l paid it in Hartley's name, in respect of the deficiency on the mohair. Prosecutor(to Mr. Bodkin)—The prisoner received from me about £26 in money, clothes, food, and lodging, &c., during the time he was in my service —about 12 months. The prisoner—All I have to say is I paid the money, and I am the injured man. The jury found him guilty, without hearing the summing up. Mr. Bodkin—The nice return the prisoner made for the prosecutor's kindness is now fully before the court. The Assistant Judge said—The court on many former occasions had to pass sentences of penal ser vitude in cases of embezzlement, and it would fail in its duty to the public if it did not do so in the present case. The offence had been greatly aggra vated by the prisoner's conduct to his benefactor after he had robbed him of £260 by false entries in his books,false accounts of misappropriated property, and embezzlement. In addition to receiving clothes, food, lodging and wages, he had robbed his friend of £260 in one year, and had then done his utmost to bring him to ruin and beggery by destroying his character as a tradesman. The sentence would be one likely to induce others to think a little before they entered upon similar courses, for in no similar case would a less sentence be passed. The sen tence on the prisoner was that he be kept in penal servitude for five years. CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY. His lordship, in the course of an able and interest ing charge to the county grand jury, observed that observations on the causes of, or the means of pre venting crime, were common-place. The theme was too vast; he was too sensible of his own incompe tency to deal with it ; and he had too much respect for the experience of the grand jury and magistrates of the county to trouble them with general observa tions on the subject; yet there was one matter which had been brought very seriously to his attention. He knew of no more common-place observation than that they must look for a diminution of crime to the education of the poor ; bat when they came ' to practical details, he knew of no subject on which there had been more controversy, or in which there were more unsatisfactory results. But there was one kind of education which the wisest men had considered to be the most valuable that any man could receive, and that was his fi rs t an d ear li es t education received at his mother's knee— w h en th e domestic hearth was, as it might be, and as many gl a n s '. His lordship then the school of virtue o a f nd the t m he kn t elv p it le ac o t f ua r ll e y li alluded to the importance of improving the dwell ings of the poor, and regretted the fact that in a number of instances—not only in large cities, but in the agricultural districts —the mother and father, and brother and sister herded together in one room. How could they expect bright influences to radiate around, when families were thus circum stanced ? The learned judge then referred to the noble efforts made by the Duke of Bedford to im prove the dwellings of the poor, and urged upon private gentlemen to do all they could, in their respective vicinities, by effecting or encouraging improvements in the abodes of the poor, as it could not be expected that Government could do any thing in the matter. UTTERING A FORGED NOTE. Joseph Smith, a young man, was indicted for uttering a forged £lO Bank of England note. Mr. Cole prosecuted. The:prisoner, since Sunday last, has appeared to be insane, but the medical gentlemen connected with the prison stated that it was feigned madness. The prisoner, being called upon, refused to speak, and a jury was then empanelled to try whether he was " mute by the visitation of God, or by fraud and malice." The jury found that the latter was the case, and a plea of not guilty was then entered. The prisoner still refusing to speak, it was clearly proved that he had attempted to pass the note to several tradesmen, and having been found guilty, he was sentenced to f our years ' penal servitude. WHOLESALE POST-OFFICE ROBBERIES. Emma Stoneman, a young girl, was indicted for stealing money and a quantity of articles from let ters, whilst in transit through the Crediton Post office. Mr. Poulden and Mr. Cole prosecuted ; and Mr. Carter defended the prisoner. It appeared that the prisoner lived as a domestic servant in the employ of the Crediton postmaster ; and was sworn in an assistant in the stamping de partment of the office. Money and valuable arti cles, enclosed in letters, had been frequently missed in their transit through the office, and Mr. Moule, from the General Post-office, was sent down to Cre diton to institute inquiries. He caused some money to be marked, by which the prisoner was detected, and on searching her bedroom a number of the missing articles were found. By the advice of her counsel she pleaded guilty, an d was sentenced by his lordship to three years penal servitude. NORTHERN CIRCUIT.--LIVERPOOL, Dec. 9, CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice Hill.) TWO POLICEMEN ROBBING A CHURCH IN LIVERPOOL. William Smith, aged 24, and Thomas Thwaites, aged 26, were indicted for sacrilege, they having ented St. Paul's Church, Prince's-park (the Rev. Dr. M'Neile's), and stolen therefrom certain articles of property, belonging to the wardens of that church. Both the prisoners pleaded guilty. His lordship, in passing sentence, stated the chief facts of the case, from which it appeared that Smith belonged tothe Liverpool police force until 23d Oct. last, when he was dismissed for bad conduct, he having been many times previously reported by the inspector ; the other prisoner was also in the police force, and was still a member of the force at the time of the robbery. On 9th Nov. Thwaites went off duty on the plea of indisposition, and another officer was sent on to his beat, which included the dis trict in which St. Paul's Church is situated. During the night the officer observed a light in St. Paul's Church, and reported the circumstance to his in spector, who immediately accompanied the man to the vestry window, through which they saw both the prisoners open a wardrobe and an iron safe, in such an ingenious manner as to convince the inspec tor that they were no novices in that kind of work. The men were at once arrested ; and his lordship, after animadverting on the wicked conduct of men, to whose vigilance and honesty the lives and pro perty of the public were committed for protection, acting as the prisoners by their own confession had acted, sentenced them each to four years' penal servitude. CIVIL SIDE. (Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.) CHADWICK V. THE DEFENDER FIRE AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.-ACTION AGAINST AN IN SURANCE COMPANY UPON A FIRE POLICY. , This was an action upon a policy of insurance against fire, to which the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had made a fraudulent claim, whereby his rights under the policy had become forfeited. The issue being on the defendants, Mr. Ath er t on , right to who begin, and representedthe l e t a h r e n ed company,judgea claimed the ecided in his favour. _ _ Mr. Atherton proceeded to explain at some length the circumstances of the case and the grounds upon which the defence rested. The pl a i nt iff was a cabinet-maker residing and carrying on business at 59, Great Ancoats-street, Manchester, and had effected a policy of insurance for the sum of £3OO with the defendants, £2OO of which was a pp or ti one d to the stock, £B5 to the furniture, and £l5 to the fittings and fixtures. Oti the mor n i ng o f t h e 10th i Sept. last a fire broke out n the plaintiff's premises, and it was in respect to the property dest ro y e d b y this fire that the. present action arose, whi c h th e defendants felt it incumbent upon them to resist as dishonest and fraudulent. By the conditions of the policy, in the event of loss ordamage, an authen ticated claim was to be sent in within a given time, and "if there were any fraud in the claim made for such a loss or damage, or any false de claring in respect thereof," all claims arising under the policy were to be forfeited . The c l a i m sen t i n to the defendants, in compliance with this stipula tion, amounted to £373 9s. 6d., out of which he claimed £235 13s. 6d. for stock in trade, £l2O. for household furniture and wearing apparel, and for fixtures and fittings £l6 16s. Mr. Atherton pro ceeded to explain the grounds upon which the de fendants, or rather the Leeds and Yorkshire Insu- rance Company, to which company the policy had -beefi transferred, had come to the conclusion that the claim was very grossly exaggerated, and that nothing approaching the amount of property alleged to have been destroyed by the fire could possibly have been upon the premises. The points upon which the learned counsel dwelt were the shortness of the time during which the conflava tion lasted, the disproportion between the limited dimensions of the shop and the number of costly articles alleged to have been contained in it ; the very limited extent to which the premises them selves had suffered ; the fact that the staircase under which the plaintiff had said there was a large chest of drawers containing the wearing apparel of the family, for the destruction of which a large claim had been made against the company, was in reality very little injured ; the very trifling remains of metal of any description which had been found after the fire, compared with that which was gene rally discovered after a destructive fire, and which might naturally be expected to be found if the pre mises had actually contained the articles set forth by the plaintiff in his detailed claim ; the proof afforded by some of the plaintiff's papers which had been found that he had been carrying on a very small business ; the fact that so recently as June last he had been compelled to submit to a distress levied for poor's-rates, and, although the amount was small, he had to pay it in instalments ; that he had sent in a claim in which wearing apparel had figured for the sum of £6B ls., the whole of which, with the exception of a small quantity,worth about £l2, was described as having been new ; the discovery by the police that some of the most valu able articles of dress, which had been also included in the claim, had not been injured at all by the fire but were in the hands of pawnbrokers, and the im probability that such valuable property as that specified in the claim could be in the possesssion of the plaintiff, who was put to such extreme shifts as to be .compelled to pledge articles of dress. The defendants being convinced, said Mr. Atherton, after the most minute and careful inquiry, that a gross fraud had been attempted to be perpetrated upon them, they consideredit their imperative duty to resist the present action, and to lay all the facts before the jury for their consideration and decision. The case was not concluded when our parcel was POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 9. MANSION-HOUSE. William Henry . Cory was brought before Sir R. W. Carden, in the custody of James Brett, the detective officer, charged with having uttered two forged cheques upon the London and County Bank. Mr. Mullens, the solicitor to the Committee of Bankers for Protection from Forgeries and Frauds, attended for the prosecution. Mr. William Baker, proprietor of the Wheat sheaf Inn, St. Peter's, near Margate, said—About six weeks ago the prisoner was introduced to me by an acquaintance at Margate, and since that time has been boarding at my house, and lodging next door to me. I have been paying his bills for the lodgings, and have advanced him money from time to time, and he owes me about £35 or £36. Some time after he had been staying at my house I received from him this cheque (produced) for £2O, dated 12th October, 1858, upon the London and County Bank, in Lombard-street, signed Wm. R. Cory. He told me he had it from his father. I subsequently received from him another cheque for £2O, drawn in the same manner, which he said he had also received from his father. I told him I wanted to present them for payment, and he wished me not to present them lest his father should think him extravagant. Mr. Mullens Did he say anything to you about the Blue-coat school ? Witness—He did. He told me he could get my son, who is about ten years old, a presentation for the Blue-coat School, and he gave to me two letters purporting to come from his father. He had men tioned to me that he had a presentation to Christ's Hospital himself. Mr. Mullens here read the following paragraph from one of the letters referred to :—" Your boy is admitted into "the Blue-coat School. William has given him a presentation. I hope he will be a good boy." The witness proceeded—Supposing this to be true, I made the prisoner a present of a watch and a ring. On the 7th inst. I brought the cheques to London and presented them at the London and County Bank, and I found they were worth nothing, Mr. Mullens—Have you seen the prisoner's father since you presented the cheques ? Witness—l have but just left him. The prisoner—l wish to ask the witness some questions which I consider to be important to my defence. In answer to questions then put by the prisoner, the witness said—You told me those cheques were not to be put in circulation till you backed them. You asked me to make out your bill, to be ready for your father when he came down. You asked me to deliver my account to your sister. You kept me back from presenting the cheques under the delusion that my son would be presented to tl e Blue-coat School, _ . The prisoner—The presentation to the Blue•coat School is still good. Witness (to Sir R. W. Carden)—l never asked the prisoner for the presentation to the Blue•coat School at all. . _ _ Mr. W. D. Turner, cashier in the London and County , Bank, said—We have no eustqmer of the name of William R. Cory. Brett (the detective officer) said—l took the pri soner into custody this morning at Margate, and I found at his lodgings, next door to the Wheat sheaf Inn, the envelope I produce, with the name " William R. Cory" upon it. I also found upon him a silver watch, which has upon it an inscrip tion as follows :—" William Henry Cory, a present from Baker." Mr. Mullens here requested that Sir It. W. Car den would remand the case for a few days, and said he considered it necessary to state that at the next examination witnesses would be produced to give evidence to the fact that the prisoner had uttered a forged cheque to a lady at Brighton. The prisoner requested that the next examina tion might take place on Thursday next, as it would better - suit the convenience of the witnesses he should call to attend upon that day. Sir It. W. Carden at once consented to appoint the final examination for the day named by the prisoner, who was then accordingly remanded. It was mentioned in court that the prisoner had fought hard at Balaklava, and that his horse had been killed under him, notwithstanding which he walked back to the English camp without a wound. WESTMINSTER.—A very respectably-dressed good-looking girl, about 18 years of age, entered the court yesterday, and addressing Mr. Arnold, the sitting magistrate, said—l want your worship's advice if you'll be good enough to give it me. lt's under very disagreeable circumstances. Mr. Arnold—What are they ? Applicant—Very disagreeable ; I hardly like to mention them. Mr. Arnold—But you must if I am to know them. Applicant—Weil, I am a servant, and I have had to leave my serviee very abruptly. My mistress charged me with putting some things in a pudding. Mr. Arnold—You could mot make a pudding well without " puffin.- things in it," could you ? Applicant=ifell, no, I couldn't, that's true. But that is not what I mean. She says I put something wrong in it—something that gave them all the diarrhcea, and made them very ill. I never put anything in it. I never made the pudding at all. Mr. Arnold—What do you want of me ? Applicant—l left my service, and they will neither pay me my wages nor let me take away in, things. She is not right in keeping them, is she ? Is she right in refusing to pay me my wages ? Mr. Arnold,--If you left without reasonable cause I think she would be ; if she unlawfully detains your clothes I can grant you a summons for that, but as your remedy for your wag es is in the County Court you had better take both claims there. I can interfere about the detention of your clothes if you like. Applicant—Yes, do if you please. Mr. Arnold then directed an officer to call on the mistress and inquire concerning the clothes. A REVEREND DENOUNCER OF CRINOLINE.—On Sunday night the Rev. Mr. Rees, of Tatham -street Chapel, Sunderland, fell foul of the present rage for huge propor tions in ladies dresses. His chapel is generally well at tended, and he had observed lately that wh ere f ema l es were seated more space was taken up than the chapel could afford th orn , and so he spoke out, and told them in good, set phrase that the chapel was free—that all who came could enter any part they pleased—but that each pew was intended to hold so many, as they could see plainly marked in figures, and that persons for the numbers so marked must go in, if they presented themselves. The sittings, , he said were not ar ranged for " the present exaggerated proportions of the ladies ;" yet he could not see that these proportions should be the means of excluding people from the chapel, or of hindering the devout worshipper from hearing the gospel. —Newcastle Chronicle. GOVERNMENT EMIGRATION. Her Majesty's Emigration Coramissioners chartered yesterday afternoon, the 9th inst., the Palmyra, 706 tons, to sail from Plymouth for Sydney, New South Wales, at £l4 16s. 9d. per statute adult, to be ready for the reception of passengers on such day as the Conitaissioners may appoint between the 14th and 21st January, CHURCILRATB CONTEST QUESTION AT GREBNIVIC, Last evening one of the largest ] 3ublic meetings of the ratepayers of Greenwich eve n• held in that town took place in the hall of the I :Aterary Institu tion, on the occasion of the propol ed making of a church rate. The chair was occup iea by the Rev. W. A. SOAMES, Vicar. The noti 'w,e , of meeting having been read, Mr. Churchwarden HOLDING pro duced his esti mate of expenses for the curren year, which amounted to £541 Bs. 5d., to meet 1 7n. hich a rate of lid. in the pound would produce abou t £645, leav ing a balance of £145 I Is. sd. in 11 tvour of the parish. As, however, the estimate i;n: eluded a sum of £69 9s. 4d. due to their late chart lwarden, he (Mr. Holding) would not ask for more, than a penny rate, which would leave his successor in the same position as he was himself at present.. (Laughter.) Mr. JOHN ROBERTS seconded the n otion. Mr. Saw, clerk to the Greenwich 13c - x ird of Guard ians, in a temperate but forcible addrt •ss, proposed as an amendment : " That this meetin .g refuses to make any rate, but requests that the ch . urchwardcns do appeal to the parishioners, and esp •cially to the seatholders of the church, for volunti try contribu tions to meet the expenses of the cturrent year." (Cheers.) He (Mr. Saw) had only just the n returned from a place where relief was granted, but that relief was never given to th ose who were young and able to work, or who had ii toney in their pockets. (Cheers.) To come to that meeting and ask for a compulsory rate to support the church was a mode which, were he a churchman, he should feel to be a disgrace • and as it was undoubtedly the law that the parishioners could reuse to make a rate, he hoped that the meeting - would support his amendment. Mr. STONEHAM seconded the amendment, and said he regretted that any body of persons profess ing any particular form of worship should not have sufficient spirituality about them to support such religion without forcing their neighbours to con tribute to it by a tax. (Cheers.) The CHAIRMAN ruled that the amendment pro ro3ed was a direct negative to the motion made, which could be as easily expressed by the meeting without it, and refused to put it to the meeting. Mr. SAW said that such refusal would invalidate the rate, if made. The CHAIRMAN said he was perfectly willing to take the responsibility upon himself, and declined putting it. The original motion for granting the rate was then put to a show of hands, and declared to be lost, upon which a poll was demanded by Mr. Churchwarden Holding, and which was fixed for Thursday and Friday next. COUNTRY MA.R IBTS. MANCHESTER-DEC. 9. There was about the usual attendance at our market this morning. Wheat was only in moderate request, but any thing hi good condition brought last week's rates, while dainp sorts, of which the great bulk consisted, were ne glected. Flour sold slowly at the currency of this day se' nnight. In other articles scarcely any change was ob• servable. NEWAR :—DEc. 8. There was a moderate suppl ket, but prices remained wit, White wheat, new, 473 to 50s 1 Red do. 4ls to 42s Old white 3Bs to 40s Red do. 37s to 40s Barley, malting 37s to 40s ly, and generally a dull mar thout much change. Barley, grinding 318 to 33s Oats, old, .. —3 to —3 New do 24s to 25s I Beans.. Malt.. 448 to 46s 686 to 72s BO STON—DEc. 8. The supply of wheat from the growers was good, and although an attempt was made to buy at a reduction, the farmers succeeded in obtaining last week's prices. Barley of fine quality maintained former rates ; indifferent sorts nearly unsaleable. Oats easier to buy. There was very little alteration in beans. Wheat, white 44s to 45s I Beans, Mazagan..—s to —s red 38s to 39s Middle & small 42s to 50s Barley 2Bs to 34s White peas 42s to 44s I Oats 2os to 25s Grey.. 40s to 42s BIRMINGHAM-DEC. 9. At this day's market there was a large supply of wheat and sales could not be effected without submitting to a fur ther decline of is per qr. Barley dull, with the turn in favour of the buyer. Oats, beans, and peas nominally un. altered. BRISTOL—DEc. 9. Wheat was dull at late rates. Flour irregular. Good barley held for 6d advance, which checked business. Oats were dull, but not lower. Beans and peas were unaltered in value. LOUTH-Du. 8. There was a fair supply of wheat from the farmers to day, and transactions were limited at a reduction of is per qr. Not much doing in other sorts. Wheat 37s to 398 I Oats.. 23s to 25s White do 40s to 428 Beans, new 36s to 395 Barley 32s to 34s Ditto, old .36s to 394 EDINBURGH GRAIN—DEc. 6. There was a tolerable supply of grain at market. Sales were heavy, and prices at about late rates. Wheat on the top is 6d down average Os lld down. Barley on the top Is Od down average Os 8d down. Oats on the top Os 6d down . —average 6d down. Beans on the top is Od down ..... —averagels2d down. Averages per Imierial quarter. Wheat............ £2 1 1 1-12ths Wheat (N). 0 0 0 0-12ths Barley 1 10 5 0-12ths Oats 1 1 8 8-12ths Beans Total Supply and Sales. Wheat .1083 qrs Sold 906 qrs Barley... 2780 qrs Sold 1747 qrs Oats .1441 qrs Sold 1205 qrs Beans 167 qrs Sold 136 qrs CORK-DEC. 7. The following were the quotations this morning :—Red wheat, 15s Od to 19s 9d; white, 18s to 23s 6d; barley 10s 6d to 14s Od; oats, lOs 6d to 12s 9d. DERBY SMITHFIELD-DEC. 7. There was a good supply of fat beasts to-day, mostly of excellent quality; the attendance of buyers was small, and the greater part went away unsold. The pens were well filled with sheep, and high prices asked. A. good number of fat pigs, demand brisk, and prices better. A very poor supply of fat calves. Beef slcl to 6fd Veal sid t o 7d Mutton .... 6 lll to 7d Pork . 5d to 51d Lamb .....0d to —d Rough fat, 4s 10d per stone. Hides, 4d to 51d; calf skins, 4icl to 51-1 PROPOSED REFORM ASSOCIATION IN MANCHU TER.—At the weekly meeting of the general committee of the Bright and Gibson soiree, held at Newall's-buildings, on Tuesday evenin g , D r . John Watts said that they were told that Mr. Bright was preparing a new Reform Bill, and he regretted that they had no effective organisation of Re formers in Manchester. He suggested that the soiree on Friday would offer a good opportunity for inaugurating such a movement. Mr. Councillor Simpson thought the suggestion a good one, believing if a committee were formed on Friday Manchester might give an impulse to the Reform movement, and emerge from the total eclipse that had come over it during the last few years. Mr. George Wilson, the chairman, approving the suggestion Mr. Simpson proposed that the executive committee should draw up a resolution to be submitted to the meeting on Friday, with a view of organising a Reform Association in Manchester. The motion was seconded and agreed to. [ADVERTISEMENT.I — Rarey'S4 Horse and Cattle Improv ing Food is equally adapted to improve the stamina of ill conditioned Horses, Cows, Bullocks, Calves, Sheep, and Pigs. It causes no extra expense, as it contains far more and better nourishment than its cost of lid. per feed sup plies in corn and hay; hence ensures an actual saving in the keep. But its principal advantages are a great im provement in the digestive functions, the stamina and general condition of horses enabling them to perform far more labour without getting distressed. It imports new vigour to sick, debilitated, or old apparently worn-out horses, and it puts rapidly the finest flesh on cattle gene rally, and improves the milk in cows, as it enables them to extract the entire nourishment out of everything they feed on. Rarey and Co., 77, Regent's Quadrant, Piccadilly, London. Packed in tins of about 99 feeds, 11s. • in cask of about 450 feeds, 50s. ; of about 1 , 000 feeds, /5, being lid. per feed. BIRTHS. BRADLEY --On the 9th inst., at Belinda-terrace, Mrs. B. Ents.—n the adley O ofa Bth inst., daughter at 23, Queen's-road west, Glou cester-gate, Regent's-park, Mrs. A. S. Eddis, of a son. GILES.—On the 7th inst., at Clifton, the wife of John Ed ward Giles, Esq., of the Inner Temple, barrister, of a daughter. JOHNSTONE.—Ori the 7th inst., at Hampton Vicarage, the wife of the Rev. Edward Johnstone, of a son. MARRIAGES. HOSTE—BRUNE.—On the 9th inst., at St. George's, Han over-square, Captain ' Sir William Hoste, Bart., R.N., to Caroline Dorothea, the daughter of Charles Prideaux Brune, Esq., of Prideaux-place, in the county of Corn wall. OTIVAY—SETON.--011 the 4th inst, eldest son of J. H. Otwuy, Esq., daughter of Miles Charles Seto. Caesar Hastings Otway, , Q.C., to Julia, the eldest 1, Esq. DEATH ADIE.—On the 4th inst., at Cannan, near Edinburgh, A. J. Adie, Esq., aged 84. CORDELL.—On the Bth inst., at 6, Henrietta-street, Co vent-garden, Mr. Benjamin Cordell, of 36, ',Bedford street, Covent-garden, aged 69. EBERS.—On the Bth inst., at Notting-hill-terrace, Mr. J. Ebers, of 27, Old Bond-street, aged 80. MUSGRAVE.—On the 6th inst., at Barnsley-park, Glou cestershire, Sir James Musgrave, Bart., aged 74. RAINE.—On the 6th inst., at Crook Hall, Durham, the Rev. James Raine, D.., aged 67. Sx.ExEr..—On the 7th inst., at Brixton, Mrs. Louisa Made lina Skekel, widow of the late Rear-Admiral J. Skekel, aged 62. - - - TATTERSALL. — On the 7th inst., Charlotte, wife of John Tattersall, of Ealing, aged 64: LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Friday, December 10, 1858, kn . ) The GE at the ,Soci FRIDAY, '1 London ~.l\ I The Coi Yearly div of in come after rop the t ration, N( the hours Proximo, 11'o, 7, 17 —ON] WA after WE TIONs 4ancliesi intermed and York ton at th ( °lnpanN eaPsia -Liiarnen By Eustor L ow ' CII LAISTD M. LAST ,APP v°caevlistit TiCie secured Mesas 'win be at Hall AD ance cess of in nun) and da crowds Pit, is, Nobiiil D' rnarke LECT inwor TONn Vann I BO R. p Auth( ROY, The Two EL form trodu eau Beau Pit rate seats 10 o'( Til Pan. —_, the 1 these the past poi )1a! Jai