The Sun. — London, England, 1841-12-20 00:00:00

MORNING SUN FRANCE. (PROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) PARIS, DEC. 16.—The sentence of the Court of Peers is not yet pronounced on the individuals under trial b& fore that Star-Chamber tribunal, although the evidence and pleadings have all been gone through. It will pro bably not be known for the - next four-and-twenty hours, bur its tenour is pretty confidently anticipated. The pro secution against one of the most insignificant of the pri soners, a man named Prioul, has been abandoned, and he therefore will be set at liberty, but the rest will all be found more or less guilty, and condemned to various pe nalties. In his reply the Procureur-General spoke out rather more openly about Dupoty, and those of the prisoners who are accused of having formed a complot. He admitted that the evidence might not perhaps go so far as to show that they had all conspired in common, but he maintained that they had conspired by fractions—se parately, that is to say ; and " what could they have conspired for," he asked, "if not for this attempt ?" He then reminded the Court of Peers that they had, on no better grounds, adjudged in 1834 the persons implicated in the Lyons disturbances, to be guilty of conspiracy ; and lie encouraged them to follow up their practice by a similar verdict on this occasion ; adding, that after all they were not so much a Court as a Jury, not tied down by the letter of the law, but free to act as their con sciences and opinions dictated to them. Such is the state of law in France at the present moment ! The practice of the Court of Peers, and-the doctrines of the French Crown lawyers at the present thy, are exactly what existed in England in the times of Charles 11. ;. and the manners of the Judges are equally brutal and illegal. Truly the French Government is the " Best of Republics !" Every body sees clearly that the con demnation of M. Dupoty is desired not only as an admir able precedent for future proceedings against the Press, but also as a set-off against the continued defeats to which the Government has been lately exposed in pro secutions before Juries both in the capital and the pro vinces. Thus, though the law officers of the Crown have obtained one verdict against the Editor of the National in Paris, and though I. Ledru Rollin has been found guilty cf sedition by a packed jury at Angers, yet the Government has sustained signal defeats at Arras and at Evreux (where the Journal de l'Eure has just been ac quitted), and at Pan, when all the " conspirators" of 'Toulouse—one ins'g,iiiicant person except , al—have been freed from the accusations brought against them. In the capital, too, the Government has lost all the leading prosecutions of the year, so that something to put on the other side of the ledger is absolutely indispensable, and this piece of dirty work the Peers are required to perform. The fact is, that they are already so " double damned" in public opinion, that any iniquities they can now commit will add but little . . to the contempt in which they are held; and therefore this verdict will produce much less sensation than if it had not been anticipated. As to Quenisset, Dufaur, and some of the men whose guilt of the attempt at assassina tion is evident, nobody can dispute the justice of their being punished : but the law of the case turns entirely on M. Dupoty, and public attention is directed to him almost exclusively. It has been well observed by a Legitimist Paper, that if the mere receipt of a letter by the Editor of a Journal is enough to con vict him of complicity in the opinions and actions of the persons writing it, though he might not know him even by sight or name—(and this is the case of M. Dupoty with the letter sent to him as Editor of the Journal du People by Launois), the narrow slit of an editor's box will become as dangerous an instrument of tyranny as the brazen jaws of the Lion of St. Mark at Venice. A most amusing instance of French political law has just been witnessed near Grenoble. Last summer, dur ing the troubles excited by M. Humann's illegal orderS foe the taking of the census, search was made in the small town of Vizille in the Isere for a depot of arms said to be kept there. Two brothers of the name of Avril were possessors of the house. No arms whatever were fount!, except an old fowling-piece ; but there was discovered the draft of a letter without sig nature, date, or address, the purport of which seemed to be connected with some political meeting, but for what object, or when, or where, or with whom, it was to take place, no mention was make. This was quite enough to found a prosecution on : the paper was sworn to be in the writing of one of the brothers, Avril, who w as ac cordingly brought to trial last week before the Correc tional tribunal of the district. No witness whatever was called by the law- officers of the Crown, nor any evidence whatever offered, except the putting in of the draft of the letter mentioned above. Of course as the King's Procurator had done the tribunal the honour of giving it cognizance of a political case, the Judges could not be so unpolite as not to gratify him with a condemnation ; and therefore without any further ado they adjudged M. Avril, to be guilty, of what P—of a conspiracy !—one man guilty of conspii iny with himself! and they actually sentenced him to a mouth's imprisonment, with costs. It should be died that he had previously been detained in prison, under accusation of the crime, for four months. A case parallel to this cannot perhaps be quoted in the present century ; and we should have refused to believe it had ,we not read it in the official Government paper, the Moniteur. Certainly the French Charter must be a most glorious one to have produced fruits like this ! The French squadron must by this time have sailed from Toulon; seven ships of the line have been detached for troops to Algiers, and the destination of the rest is still as uncertain as when we wrote last. If this squa dron is ultimately destined far the Levant, it is only in fended as a sop to. be thrown to the opposition at the opening of the Chambers. The fact is that the absence of any French division of importance in the Levant, coupled with the order for reducing the army, while England has still ten or twelve sail of the line in the Me diterranean, might very well afford ground for opposition to the address, and, therefore, the ordering of four or five sail of the line on a cruise without any specific object, may be alleged by Ministers, in the absence of any better argument, as a reply to the taunts of their adversaries. The reduction of the army is really an important measure, and there is reason to b e li eve that it will carried into effect. The cause of this is plain : the Government is horridly hampered for money, it dares not lay on another sol of taxes, so universal and so profound is the discontent that pre+ails; and it has been forced on the King and the Cabinet by the obstinacy of two of the Ministers. M. llumann, the Finance Minister, knows the state of the treasury ; he knows the real amount of the deficit (nine hundred millions of francs before the recent loan of 150 millions was con tracted for); he knows that this deficit is) early on the increase; that the expenses of the war in Africa, and the maintenance of the French in half-a-dozen towns of that country, has cost France one hundred millions in hard cash for this last year alone, and that next year it will amount to as much if not more, Abd-el-Bader being as able to continue the war as ever ; that the for tifications of Paris will sink twice as much money as the estimates arc limited to ; and that under all circum stances a fresh loan would not be very easy to raise. For all these causes he has insisted on a diminution of the war budget, and it has been accordingly ordered to be cut down for 1843 by 30 millions of francs. M. Guizot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, knows that he was able to conjure the storms raised against France, by that Charlatan Thiers, only by dint of pacific promises, and that after being a year in office, he cannot, in com mon decency, continue to countenance the French army being kept on a war footing. Both these Ministers, therefore, pressed the matter strongly on Marshal Soult and the King, and at length, in September last, suc ceeded in extorting the Royal signature. 'We say ex torting, for they had nearly resigned, the King being afraid of doing anything to discontent the army, in whose hands he and his children entirely are ; but the order for the reduction was issued only the other day. Ministers fancied that earlier in the autumn it would have produced a rise in the funds, and so no doubt it would. They were afraid, therefore, of' having t o nego ti a t e th e new loan at rather too high a price, and the ordonnance was consequently kept in the p ortfolio of the Y. mister of War to be used at a fitting occasion. As we have said before, it will only come into operation in 1843, and Louis Philippa may be taken off by a b ullet before that time! M. de Lamartine will certainly be put up as a candi date for the Presidency of the Chambe r of Deputies,and we think with no sm all likeli hoid of success. Se the contest will be bt twetn him and M. Sauzet ; he will ‘ unite the suffrages not only of" the Opposition party, but all those of Count M ole's party also, as w e l l as those of ( some personal friends amon g st the usual supporters o f Ministers. We confess that we expect to see him in the chair. He will not do anything to oppose the King, b ut he will not agree over well with either Guizot or Vin e _ main. Count Mole is still very active a bout somethi ng, probably about getting into office—he_ is such a (excuse the pun) that he cannot leave burrowin g under the ground upon which Ministers off stand, no matter what may be the opinions of the men who, for the time being, held office. H e has, alway s , it should be observed, a better chance than any other man in France of coming into office, being, the leing's principal favourite and toady; whilst Count Montalivet, who is grand lick-spittle to the palace, and another of antesthe King's antes damnees is always re ady to coalesce with him in any Cabinet he miy form. Mole for Fo reign Affairs, Montalivet for the Interior,—give Louis I'hilippe these two, with any thing like a majority in the Deputies, and he is ready to go th e w hole hog. Every thing at the Tuileries is uncommonly economic and dull this year. Louis Philippe is breaking, and does not like large parties ; the Queen, too, is getting more and more fond of her fireside ; and it is very doubtful whether any large fetes will be given. The Duke and Duchess d'Orleans have commenced a series of concerts, but they can get nobody to go to them. About a hun dred and fifty ' ()vests are the most they can mus t er ; th e singing acid fiddling is all over by eleven o'clock, the lights put out, and the guests are getting into their fiacres to go hom e . 'Paris is, in - general, dull this winte r . The French all regret Lord Grenville very much ; he kept open house, as an English AmbaSsadorfought to do. Lord , Cowl sy they complain of as b e i ng un bon ho nme, ratle e • eull, and inclined to be stingy. llow ever he is not yet installed in his official residence ; when he is once settled in the Faubourg St. Vonore, noes cerrons! Thi :e question of the line to be selected for the Paris and Strasburg ad has given rise to much con troversy among the tow ns lik e ly t o b e a ff ecte d b y i t. The two line; hitherto talked of are that by Nancy and that by Dion. The former is stroi gly supported by tie local interests, but the latter is recommended by Govern ment as being the best ruited for a main line fnm which not only the Strasburgtras r oa d b ut t h at of Lyons may also branch off. Chamber of Commerce of Havre, ha%ing been consulted by that of Strasburg on this point, has expressed a strong opinion in favour of the line by Dijon. Meanwhile the municipalities of various places, more or less important along either line, continue to come forward with votes of money, land, &c., for pro moting the undertaking, We were in error in stating in our report of the Music Hall, Store-street, in The Sun of Wednesday, that 31. Mainzer had or a class in Brighton num bering. 800. M. Mainzer has th ree c l asses in Brighton, compr i is i n , n all nearly three thousand pupas. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOUItNALS. FROM TUE EVENING PAP . RS OF SATURDAY. GLOBE.—The Tories of South Devon have been entertained by their Representatives, Lord Courtenay and Sir J. Y. Buller. The Times, I whence we obtain our information, describes the gathering in the inflated phraseology generally employed in recording, events of the kind. The company, large—the viands, excellent—and the cheers, tremendous! The tout ensemble was, in fact, perfectly enchanting. It was " a most important political demonstration"—such as " had not been witnessed for a long time in the county." As a banquet given to cele brate a great political triumph, by a party which has recently obtained ascendancy in the country, the constituencies of which have recently transferred the Government to its hands, we naturally looked for two things. We ex pected that there would have been a fair portion of professions of constitutional attachment to the Crown, and of cordial congratulation to the Queen and her illustrious Consort, on the recent birth of an heir to the throne of her ancestors. We looked also for a clear exposition of the measures which, in the present embarrassed state of the trading and commercial interests, and the consequent deep distress of large num bers of the population in the manufacturing districts, the representatives who addressed their constituents on such an occasion would be prepared to propose or support, with a view to their relief. In both these expectations we have been disappointed. The loyalty was cold, even for Conservative temperatu re. The whole of this part of the day's proceedings is aptly, though somewhat ambiguously, disposed of by the reporter in two lines. " The usual loyal and constitutional toasts were proposed and received with due enthusiasm." Whether the scene which the recent Exeter Hospital feast exhibited was repeated, but the description suppressed, as unfit for the public eye ; whether the health of her Majesty was received with marked dislike or with cold respect, rendered more invidious by the " continued and uproarous cheering" with which Conservatives deem it consistent with due deco rum to express theirrelati ve feelings ofattachment toward the two illustrious ladies whom they thus usually bring into invidious positions at their feasts, we have no means of knowing. Either may be implied in the phrase, that the "usual toasts were proposed and received with due enthusiasm." The public know what Conserva tives over their cups have deemed due to the pre sent Sovereign. There is nothing in the report of the Devon meeting from which to infer that they have improved in their sentiments; al though, under their changed circumstances, they may have become rather mole prudent in their modes of giving utterance and publicity to them. If the loyalty of the Devon Tories was cold, their political orations were equally meagre. Sir R. Peel could have desired nothing more vague than the speeches delivered at this " great political demonstration." STANDARD.—An evening organ of the Op position has returned to the charge upon the Irish appointments. As this accuser has made some remarks of the Standard the pretext fbr its renewal of the war, and charged us with but partially meeting the case, we shall, as briefly as we may, dispose of all the heads of accusation. First, let us explain that we do not mean to defend the Irish Government from the imputa tion of having preferred Conservatives to office; if the Irish Government had failed to make such a preference, it would stand in need of a defence ; it wants none for doing what was merely its duty to the Constitution of the country, and to good faith between man and man. The members of the Government have been placed in their pre sent elevated station by the Conservative people of the United Kingdom, represented by the great Conservative majorities in the two Houses of Parliament, because they, the Members of the Government, are believed to main tain Conservative principles ; and, in ordei that they may as far as possible (without injury to the public service), promote the influence of such principles—and it is ob vious that one of the most effectual modes of promoting the influence of any principles is to encourage them by patronage. We, therefore, are so far from denying that the Administration, either in Great Britain or in Ireland, has preferred Conservatives in ap pointments to office, that we boast, on behalf of Ministers, that they have made this preference universally when they could do so without harsh ness or injustice; and it is a matter of exultation, that so strong is the Conservative party in quali fications of every kind, that Ministers have been able to make this preference universally without incurring the reproach of a single unworthy or inefficient appointment. All the men who have been placed in office arc admitted by the most un scrupulous objectors to be men of fair character, of competent ability, and objectionable upon no other ground than an agreement in political sentiment with the Ministers who have appointed them, and with the great party who have recom mended these Ministers themselves to the fa vour of the Sovereign. The accusers of the Con servative leaders, who, while these noblemen and gentlemen stood in opposition, tried to injure them by the prediction that in office they would desert both their professed principles and their friends, naturally enough wish that the predic tion may be verified ; but it is a little too much to make the non-fulfilment of a slanderous prediction matter of accusation. We come now, however, to the several articles of im peachment brought forward against the Irish Government. They are as follow :—First, Mr. Blackburne, the Irish Attorney-General's ap pointment of his two nephews, the one to be his secretary, the other to be his professional junior. Secondly, the appointment of Mr. Brewster, to be consulting Counsel to the Chief Secretary fbr Ireland. Thirdly, the appointment of Mr. Lefroy to be Baron of the Irish Exchequer. To these appointments are added, in these lists of wrongs and grievances, the change of the physician and apothecary to the Lord Lieutenant's house hold, and the reduction in the number of stipen diary Magistrates. The alleged oppression of the Tipperary attorney, who was not allowed to make his office of solicitor at the Sessions a sine cure, is no longer insisted on. Now the bare enumeration of such a list of grievances, even were all admitted in the exaggerated shape in which they have been represented, must demon strate upon what trumpery grounds the whole accusation rests. NAVAL JNTELLIGENCE. PORTSMOUTH, DEC. 17.—The following statement will tend to remove the misconception which appears to exist both at home and abroad as to the extent and object of the armament fitting out at this and other ports, and will show that, even including the vessels destined for China, there has been no increase whatever of the Navy; but, excluding the equipment for China, which is for a special and isolated object, having no reference what ever to European questions, there has been a very con siderable reduction, especially in the Mediterranean. _ During the last four or five months the undermen tioned vessels, including the Powerful, 84, which is now on its passage home to be paid off, have been paid out of commission : Britannia, 120 ; Bellerophon, 84 ; Belleisle, 72 ; Sa marang, 28 ; Crocodile, 26 ; Tyne, 28 ; Scorpion, 10 ; Princess Charlotte, 104 ; Edinburgh, 72 ; Seringapatam, 42 ; Dido, 20 ; Hazard, 18 ; Ringdove, 16 ; Melville, 72 ; Powerful, 84 ; Castor, 36 ; Carysfort, 26 • Orestes, 18 ; F ores t er , 16 ; an d S p id er, 6 ; being altogether c s e tal v lrrel e li n sia: l uag in e e Bp - 9e o 2r f i - go b du a n t a t sr l . e e ships, seven frigates, and six sloops, vessels which have been commissioned during : Queen, 110 ; Illustrious, 72; Madagascar, 38 ; .Spar tan, 26 ; Thalia, 44 ; Dido, 20 ; Pantaloon, 10 ; Harle 'l' , 16 ; Malabar, 72 ; Warspite, 50 ; Alfred, 50 ; dera, 36'. For 36 ; North Star e al)le ' Isis, 44 Volag m e i , d 26 ; Syren, 16 ; Serpent, 16 ; Belvi -84 ; Vindictive, 50 ; Cambrian, s, fourinc!unt ships-of-the-line, 12 frigates, and roine, 10 ; b ein ' 8 L'Aigle, 24 ; Hazard, 18 ; He paillg altogether 896 guns. seven sloop Of the vessels Britannia, 120 ; ^ (1 off the following are from the Me terranean :- 18 ; Princess Edinburgh,Charlottelo4'2; P o C w a e ry rf s u fo l, r B t, 4 26 ; ,• Tyne,Ha- 28 ; Scorpion, 10 ; Bellerophon Ha zard, 20. Total, five sail of the lineB/' ; Castor, 36 ; Dido, sloops, mounting altogether , our frigates, an d t wo , 594 guns. In addition to the foregoing, three more line -of-battle • ships have ordered home ; the Ganges, 84 ; H as ,. been "ngs, 74 ; and Im placable, 74. Of the ships which have been commissioned fol lowing only are ordere d to the Mediterranean the being two line-of-battle ships and two frigates:—.TheQueen 110, with the flag of Sir E. Owen ; Malabar, 73; Belvd era, 36; and L'Aigle, 26. The squadron for China are the Cambrian, 3 6; North, Star, 28; Dido, 20; Hazard, 18 ; Warspite, 50; Syren, 16; Harlequin, 16; Andromache, 28; which the Mada gascar, 44, has gone to relieve at the Cape of Good (lop e; together with the Belleisle, Apollo, and Sapphire troop ships, and the Minden, hospital-ship. Of the other ships commissioned, the Illustrious, 72, has gone to the North American and West Indian sta tion. The Spartan, 26, is for the same destination ; Alfred, 50, is for South America ; Pantaloon, 10, Coast of Africa ; Heroine, 10, for the same ; Serpent, 16, West Indies. __ . The destination of the Formidable, 84 ; Thalia, 44 ; Lis, 44 ; Vindictive 50 and Volage, 26 ; is at present not known. It i s supposed that some Of them are for China, DEATH FROM THE EFFECTS OF COLD.—The body of a man named Daniel Clinch, a porter in Covent garden, was brought to the station-house, Bow-street, about two o'clock on Saturday morning. It appeared that the deceased, who was well known in the market, dropped down dead, it is supposed from apoplexy occasioned by excessive cold. LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 18. TRANSFER OF CAUSES. The LORD CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat this morn ing, stated that he had found it necessary to order the transfer of some more causes to the paper of Vice-Chan cellor Knight Bruce, and had chosen those causes in which the briefs had not yet been delivered. FISHER V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. This case came before the Court upon motion to dis charge an order pronounced by the Court, transferring the cause from the Vice-Chancellor of England, to Vice- Chancellor Knight Bruce., His LORDSHIP ordered the cause to be referred back again to the paper of the Vice-Chancellor of England. ROLLS COURT, Dec. 18. ROBERTSON V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY. This motion, which was partly heard yesterday, was about to be resumed this morning, when it was stated by the defendant's Counsel that an injunction similar to that now moved for had been already obtained, and the plaintiff's Counsel not appearing to be aware of this cir cumstance, the motion was ordered to stand over, to afford time for explanation. In the latter part of the day the case was again briefly mentioned, and the motion was dismissed, with costs, on the ground of irregularity. THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1841. FOSTER V. ROBINSON. Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. BICKNER moved to dissolve an injunction that had been obtained in this suit, on the ground that an order of the Court had not been com plied with by the plaintiff. The property in question belonged to ono Ralph Foster, the father of the plaintiff, who had several other children, and died intestate. It consisted of an estate which had been supposed to be freehold, but which turned out to be leasehold, held for a long term of years. On the death of the intestate his widow received his personal estate, but did not take out letters of administration. The defendant, who was one of his children, applied for administration, and due notice of the application was given to the plaintiff, but he did not attend, and admi nistration was consequently given to defendant, who then applied for the personal property of the deceased. This being refused by the plaintiff, who was in posses sion of the estate in question, and the property being mortgaged to one Daniel Crawford for 2001., defendant obtained from him an assignment of the mortgage, but to enable her to do so borrowed the amount of Crawford, and gave him an equitable mort gage for the amount, by depositing with him the title deeds, and they being in possession of th e l ega l ti t l e , brought an action to recover possession of the premises. Plaintiff then filed a bill to restrain defendant from proceed ing with the action, and obtained an injunction, and upon the answer coming in, defendant moved to dissolve the injunction, unless cause was shown to the contrary. Plaintiff having appeared to show cause, the Court made an order that upon the plaintiff's undertaking, on or be fore the Ist September last, to pay the amount due to Crawford on the security of the deeds in his pos session, the injunction should be continued until the hearing. The money was not paid in pursuance of this undertaking, and it was therefore moved on the 22d November last, that the injunction should be dissolved, when it was proposed to allow another person to pay the money for the plaintiff, and take possession of the title deeds. This was objected to by the defendant, who now again moved to dissolve the injunction. The MASTER of the ROLLS, after hearing Mr. Pem berton and Mr. Dunn contra, said that he did not see what advantage would result from the transfer of the mortgages. He thought the best thing he could do would be to enlarge the time allowed for payment of the mort gage money until the first day of Hilary Term next, when, in default of payment, the injunction must be dis solved. VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 18. (Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE ) KELLY V. HOOPER. • In this cause an injunction had been granted on the 11th of December, 1839, to restrain the defendant, or his agents, from publishing the " Post-office Alma neck. The ground on which the injunction was granted, was that the publication in question was a piracy on one published by the plaintiff, under the title of " The Post-office London Directory." A motion was made on the 27th of Dec. to dissolve the injunction, but the motion was refused, and the plaintiff was directed to bring an action against the defendant, for the purpose of ascertaining the leg al right of the parties. The action, though commenced , continued in conse quence of some correspondence between the parties, and the answer was put in on the 7th of March, 1840. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Tripp appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Simpkinson and Mr. Bickner for the defendant. The question submitted to the Court related solely to costs. The cause was part heard yesterday. At the conclusion of the arguments this morning, his HONOUR continued the injunction, and decreed the defen dant to bear all the costs of the suit. (Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.) FREWSTER V. TURNER. His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. The his tory of the dispute was this. The defendant had pro perty consisting . partly of the Acorn Inn, and partly of other premises, and he bad a pipe laid to his house to supply him with water. The pro perty was advertised for sale, with a direct intimation to the purchaser that, if he did not purchase the other lots, they would pass into the hands of other persons, and would be dealt with by them as legal owners. The plaintiff had notice, therefore, from the vendor, that the other property would no longer remain as it had been. Suppose it were a natural flow of water, the vendor did not engage that the other purchasers should not disturb the flow, and the purchaser of this portion of the property must assert his rights against the purchasers of the other lots. In the present case the water was artificially conducted ; and if the effect of the contract was to give to him the benefit of which he had been deprived, the other pur chasers had notice of the contract, and having purchased their lots subject to all the equities in question, they would be just as much liable to the purchaser as would the vendor himself if he had remained the owner of the other lots. In point of fact, they had all purchased upon the same footing, and the plaintiff could not, therefore, be damni fied by a decision against him in that cause, whereas the defendant might be seriously damnified, if, after selling the property under such circumstances, he should be called upon to restore to the plaintiff an advantage which he had lost since the sale. On these grounds he thought the plaintiff had entirely failed to establish the equity which he claimed as against the defendant. The prayer for specific performance was not opposed. The cause was ordered to stand over for a month, with a view to intermediate proceedings. RANDALL V. BELL. His HONOUR gave judgment in this cause. The cause had been ordered to stand over in order that his Honour might refer to former decisions. The question was whether, there being no legal execution under the will of a testator, and a scut pending, a receiver should be ap pointed. His Honour said, that where there was no repre sentation before the Court, the practice was not to appoint a receiver ; but in cases where, like the present, there was litigation going forward, a receiver for the property must be appointed. It was a point clearly settled, that litigation alone could justify the appointment of a receiver. It was then referred to the Master to appoint a receiver, with liberty to all the parties in the suit to propose themselves. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 18. Sittings in Nisi„Prius at Guildhall before Lord DEN- DIAN and a Special Jury.) GREGSON AND OTHERS V. RUCK AND OTHERS. Mr. CRESWELL stated the case. It was an action brought by Messrs. Gregson and Co., East India mer chants, to recover a sum of 3031., the value of 45 hogs heads of Calcutta rum, which had been sold to the defendant. It would appear that the de fendants, Messrs. Ruck, Son, and Fenwick, had entered into a contract with the Government for the supply of rum, and in the month of November, 1840, they applied to Messrs. Field, the brokers -of Minchin-lane, and purchased from them the rum in question. The rum had been imported by the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Field had been instructed to sell it on commission. It would be shown from former transactions between the parties that the usual mode in which the sale of Co lonial produce was conducted was that the buyer should pay cash; prompt at two months' discount, and in one or two instances bills at two months had been given by the defendant and regularly paid. In the pre sent case the defendants not having paid cash, applicatio was made to them at the expiration of two months, a d the answer returned was that they knew nothing of ..ne plaintiffs in the transaction. He would prove the sale of the ruin by the brokers - , -and it would be for the Jury to say whether they were not bound to pay for it. Chapman Harrison—l have been clerk in Messrs. Gregson and Co.'s offices since 1832. They have been in the habit of importing rum from the East Indies. They had some dealings with the defendants, who are wine-merchants. The transactions were carried on through the Messrs. Field, the brokers. The earliest date of the notes handed to me is the 2d January, 1840. It was for 49 hogsheads of Calcutta rum, 33 over proof at 4s. Id. per gallon, by bill at two months, sold on account of Gregson and Co. The rum was paid for by defendant accepting one draft. The bill was read —it was for 445/. for 49 puncheons rum ex Eleanor, two months after date-. Another broker's note, dated 3d April, 1840, to the same effect, was put in and read ; and a third of the 23d May. In November, 1840, Messrs. Gregson received a quantity of rum by the Shepherdess, from Calcutta. The Messrs. Field were instructed to sell it. They said they had had an offer from the de fendants. The delivery order was given to Messrs. Field. Edward Devonshire—l am a clerk in the West India Dock. office. I had, in November last, some rum belong ing to Messrs. Gregson, ex Shepherdess. The delivery order II as brought by the Messrs. Field ; it was signed by Messrs. Gregson anti Co. Warrants were taken out by the Messrs. Field, and the rum delivered under them. The warrants were endorsed by Field to the defendant. They were delivered out on Nov. 28. Mr. Harrison was then cross-examined by Mr. KELLY —Their house had one or two other transactions with the Messrs. Field. In the transaction of the 23d of May the purchaser was nct named, and the payment was made to them by the Meisrs. Field. In the colonial trade the practic e is for the broker to send the cash to our office. I n a () th e cash. transacti onlv h When n i t n he q p question w t a h s e e x b p r i o r k e e d r o s n a i t d h e he tra h n a s d . action of the 23d of November, a letter was sent from our house to the defendants for payment, and a verbal answer was returned, that they knew nothing of us in the transaction. With regard to that transaction the plaintiffs said it was contrary to their usual practice in selling produce to draw bills, and would expect cash with the usual prompt. Mr. CRESWELL proposed to put in the broker's note of the 23d of November, but that was objected to by Mr. Kelly, on the ground - that it was not signed by the de fendants, that those names were not mentioned in it, and therefore it could not be binding upon them. If the broker was called he might prove that he was acting by and with the authority of the defendants, but in default of that there was no contract binding upon the defendants, it being an arrangement made behind their backs and without their sanction. Lord DENMAN thought there was prima facie evidence of authority. Patrick Johnston—l am official assignee tinder Field's fiat. I saw the Messrs. Ruck, who were creditors. I have not the account with me. Mr. KELLY addressed the Jury for the defendants. lie said the course adopted by the defendants was the straight forward proceeding of ordinary mercantile transactions ; they bought the goods and paid the Messrs. Field for them on receipt, and it was only on the Messrs. Field becoming bankrupt that they were surprised by the application of the plaintiffs for the payment, and the answer they gave, as had been already stated was, that they did not know them in the transaction. The usual mode of doing business was, that when the principals were named in the bought and sold notes, the transaction was settled between the buyer and seller, but where all parties were not named, the broker was the party. responsible—he was in the posi tion of a principal, and the payment was invariably made by him. The contract under which the defendants pur chased was between themselves and the Messrs. Field, and that would be shown by the bought notes sent to them, and it would be seen that in that note no principals were named. As soon as the rum was delivered they gave a bill to a broker at two months, which fell due on the 23d January, 1841, and which was duly honoured by them, and it was only a few days afterwards that the application was made by the plaintiff for payment, which they at once repudiated. They had honestly paid for the goods, and it would be for the Jury to say by their verdict whether they were to pay the money over again. James Field—ln 1840 I carried on business in Minc ing-lane in partnership with my brother, as wine and spirit brokers. In January-, 1840, we were employed to sell rum for the plaintiff. In the bought note the names of the principals, the plaintiffs and defendants, are in scribed. In April we sold for them again. The bought note is the same. In May we received orders again to sell, but they declined to take bills as in the former in stances. They required cash, two months discount. We sold to the defendants. The seller wal not named, and" we paid the plaintiffs by a cheque drawn upon our own bankers. We received a cheque from Messrs. Ruck for thexums. In November, 1840, we were again authorised to sell by the plaintiffs. The instructions were to sell, as on the former occasion, for cash, two months discount. I saw Mr. Ruck, who looked at the samples, and he purchased on the 20th November. I said I would take a certain price with a bill at two months, but that I intended to pay in three weeks. The bought note did not mention the name of the sellers, it was to be paid for by bill at two months. The entry on our books is the same, and was made the same day. We sent in a bill of parcels and drew a bill at two months. We negotiated the bill. We stopped payment on the 20th of January, and up to that time no appli cation was made by the plaintiffs to us for payment of these sums. The practice of the trade is when it is stated to be a sale on commission, and, when the principal is not named, the payment is made to the broker who sells. That has been the custom for 25 years that I have been in the trade. Cross-examined—l discounted the bill through the house of Stephens and Co. on the 27th Nov. It never came into my hands again. The contract note sent to Messrs. Gregson is dated the 19th Nov. If a broker was authorised to sell only for cash, he ought not to sell for bills. I don't consider I had any authority from the plain tiffs to sell for a bill. I have had dealings with the Messrs. Ruck for 25 years, to a considerable extent. It was admitted that the bill for 303/. had been paid by the defendants on the day it became due. William Field (brother to the last witness)—l was not present at the contract, but I entered it in the book. In the book I entered " bought of Messrs. Gregson and C 0.," but that was not in Mr. Ruck's contract. If the seller authorises me to sell for a bill, it is usual then to name the party sold to. If the seller says he will not take a bill, that means that he will not take a bill himself but it does not prevent the broker taking one, provided he pays the seller at the stipulated time. It is the duty of the broker to make the bought and sold note corre spond where he can; when he sells on different terms from those stipulated by the principal, he cannot make them correspond. Frederick Godsell—l am a wine and spirit broker, and have had a good deal of experience during the 19 years I have been in business. We sometimes sell on comission without naming the principals. When the sellers are not named, and when the sale is on commission, I con sider the broker is the party to be paid. I have acted in that way to a great extent. In the case of the contract put into my , hand I should say that Ruck and Co. could only recognise the broker. The brokers would„ have to deduct th dock charges before they paid over to their principal. That is always to be understood as a case in which the seller's name is not given up. Even if the seller's name is mentioned, unless it be mentioned in the contract, the practice is as I have stated. By Lord DENMAN—If the seller says he will require cash, and not a bill, the broker may make what arrange ment he pleases with the purchaser. Matthew Clarke, 30 years:a wine and spirit-broker— In a note of the form put into my hand, the payment should be made to the broker, if he delivered the goods. I have known several such cases in the course of my ex perience. It is not customary to sell Colonial produce by bill, but I have seen it dune sometimes. My mode of business is always to give up principals. Where the sale is by bill, it is very unusual not to give up the name of the principal. The broker has frequently an interest in the goods, from having made advances ta the owner. Charles Sutherland, a broker of 20 years standing, gave similar evidence. For the plaintiff Mr. Cresswell called Mr. Bennecraft, a broker of twenty years' standing in the Colonial trade. He thought it was very unusual to sell Colonial produce by bill, or for a broker to draw a bill. lam speaking of rum sold in the Colonial mar ket. If the seller is not named in the contract, and that the buyer is to pay by bill, he must give the bill to the person he buys from. When the broker has made ad vances on the property, I have known him to draw bills. Andrew Johnstone—l have been twenty-three years a broker in East India produce. It is not my prac tice in that branch of the business to sell for a bill. I am not aware that such is the custom of the trade. If the broker sold for a bill the seller is the party who ought to draw it. It is the duty of a broker to enter the names of the buyer and seller in his bobk. I have known instances of brokers making advances upon Colonial produce. East India rum is an article that has- been only within the last few years brought into the market, and the practice is not yet well established. If the prin cipal is not named, and that the broker delivered the goods, he would be authorised to receive payment for them. John Barrow, a Colonial-broker, of 40 years standing —lt is not usual to sell fora bill. It is usual when the sale is by bill for the principal to draw it. Peter Bell—l am a member of the firm of Scott, Bell, and Co. We have lately imported East India rum. We sell at one month's prompt. lam not aware of any in stance of a broker selling rum for the importer to be paid by bill. r—kWe import newanagood deal of East India instance of selling by bill ; produce. Henry G l o n u e g v e e r it is always cash on delivery. We almost always give the dock warrant to the brokers, - who receive the pay ment, and account to us. George Barton, of the house of Crawford, Colvin, and Co.—We import East India produce. I know of no in stance of East India rum being sold to be paid for by a bill. Charles Kerr, of the house of Fletcher, Alexander, and Co.—Selling for bills is very rare, and these we have al ways drawn ourselves. We sell for cash on delivery, and the broker pays us. Paris Paul, clerk in the house of Cockerell and Co., East India merchants—We have always sold for cash on delivery. I know of no instance in which rum has been sold for a bill. Mr. KELLY then addressed the Jury in reply, and Mr. CRESSWELL having replied for the plaintiff's, Lord DENMAN summed up at considerable length, and the Jury returned a verdict for the defendants. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 17. WILLIAM HITCHCOCK'S BANKRUPTCY. ----- . In this case an application was made to the Court to day by the bankrupt's solicitor for a copy of all exami nations taken under the hankruptcy. The COURT granted the application as far as it re ferred to the bankrupt himself. and also as far as it re ferred to his two servants, Mr. Churchhouse and Mr. Hayward, but said it would be sufficient time to consider the application as respected the examinations of Messrs. Cook and Gladstone when it was seen whether at the next sitting in this case it was intended to put those gentleman into the box for examination, for it was under stood that that would be the course pursued by the gen tleman who conducted their- case. The reasons, as en tered upon the proceedings, which induced the Commis sioner to adjourn the examination of the bankrupt in this matter, were as follows :—" The proceedings of the Court having been interrupted by great noise and clap ping of hands, similar interruptions (though to a less extent) having previously occurred, and there being no power inherent in the Court of enforcing order and de corum, I adjourn the said last examination sine die, with liberty to the bankrupt to apply for a further sitting when he shall be prepared. " EDW. HOLROYD." Mr. NIAS applied-to his Honour to-day for a warrant to enforce the attendance of Mr. James Clark, late one of the official assignees of this Court, with certain books and papers, to undergo an examination for the benefit of the estates of which he had the superintendence while in his official capacity. It appeared that a summons had been served upon Mr. Clark at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and not having appeared to it at the expiration of the hour to-day allowed for such appearance this application was made. l o V r iL th L w i i l th ms iss gr ue a d n . te was granted the application, and the Sr warrant iCE. f SATURDAY. IN THE MATTER OF WM. WEBB OGBURN. The bankrupt in this case was a commission agent in Honey-lane, and his debts and liabilities amounted to between 40,0001. and 50,000/., while the available assets were comparatively trifling. This day being appointed for the last adjourned exa mination of the bankrupt, a number of creditors attended to prove their debts, amongst which was one for 1,4581., by Mr. Stevens, a bill broker, who had large bill dis counting transactions, which was allowed to be esta blished, after a deduction of 1381. On the proof on behalf of the Nottingham Bank for between 8,000/. and 9,0001. coming under considera tion, a discussion arose relative to some bills which were, through inadvertence, not produced into Court. Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said he should allow the proof to be admitted conditionally, the parties whose duty it was bringing the bills in Court. ; MritßonnonAlL E , on behalf of the creditors in Not tingham, applied to have the examination further ad journed, as they had some doubts respecting the disposal of certain pictures,'furniture, and jewellery, which they considered bad not been properly accounted for. Mr. Edwards, the solicitor to the fiat, said he could see . no further utility in adjourning the case. The official assignee was perfectly satisfied with the accounts. The COURT refused the application, and the bankrupt was passed. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Dee. 18. IN RE J. E. CAREW. The examination of this insolvent was continued this day by Mr. Platt. Mr. PLATT—Now, in your schedule you claim a ba lance which you allege to be due from the executors of the late Earl of Egremont, of 19,000?. Is that the result of an account of former years ?—Yes. You said you had been present at part of the trial of your cause with the executor ; have you seen the execu tor's account of it ?—I have. • I expect you have read the address of Sir Wm. Follett on that occasion have not read the whole of it. Have you read that part of it in which Sir Win. Follett speaks of the cheque you have received ?—Yes ; I read some part of it, but I flung it down in vexation. Now, Sir, will you be good enough to look at the pass books of Messrs. Wigney's you have in your hands, and take this cheque also. Did you ever receive that cheque ? (This was a cheque signed by the Earl of Egremont for 1,0001.)—No ; not that I have any knowledge of. What is the date of it ?—The date is Nov. 21st, 1832. Mr. Commissioner BOWEN—What is the amount ? Insolvent— 1,000/ Mr. PLATT—Now can you undertake to say that you received that amount ?—I can say there is no evidence that I received it. My name is not upon it, nor my banker's, and therefore it can't be shown that it came through my banker's hands. Is there an item in Wigney's book to show it ?—I will refer to the date ; perhaps it will— Mr. PLATT—Perhaps you may find something there to help you. The Usher of the Court—The book coaamencita the 23d Nov., 1832. Mr. PLATT--Without referring to the book,l ask you, Sir, whether you did not actually open the account at Wigney's with 555/., part of that very cheque ?—N6t, that I know of. You swear it was not ?—I cannot swear ; I have no recollection. Will you tell the Court from what means you derived that 5551. you paid to Wigney's ?—lt was in 1832 that that was paid them. I had property of my own ; and I had a banker's account at Marten, Call, and Co.; to the best of my recollection. By the COURT—I have no knowledge, nor have I any means of referring to know whether the 5551. was part of this cheque of 1,0004 At that time I had other pro perty of my own. Mr. PLATT—DO you mean to say your property was at Marten, Call, and Co.'s ?—One of the partners is in Court, and can answer that question. Can you ?—I cannot answer that question. There is a cheque-book of Marten, Call, and Co. ; let me have it, and I will answer you. You told me yesterday that you closed the account when you went down to Brighton. Had you any other pass-book ?—Not that I know of. That pass-book you have in your hand is not filled up. —How do you mean filled up ? Do you not understand when a book is filled up ? Filled up with entries ?—I said yesterday that subse quently I paid a sum of money to Call and Co., therefore the account remained open for years, and a trifling ba lance remained in their hands ; about 31. or 41. Then after the entries in that book, did you place any more money with Call and Co., except that 1,200/ ?—I have no recollection, but I call on them to produce the account, and I dare say I can then answer the question. At this distance of time I cannot, having a bad memory; I am sure I do not wish to misrepresent. Your memory appears to be all on one side—that of money you received. Mr. COOKE—He has not been examined as to others. What means did you derive the 555/. from ?—From my profession. I was at that time in receipt of 200/. a year. I made an engagement with the Earl of Egremont and all the sources of my previous income were swallowed up in that. Can you tell me where that 5551. came from ?—I can not tell yo. I had several sources of income at that time. Do I understand you to state that this 555/. was part of that cheque ?—To the best of my belief it was not. Will you swear that ?—I am on my oath. But you say you believe so. Will you swear it ?—I have no means of swearing that. Might it have been part or might it not?—lt might or not. Do you remember when you opened the account at Wigney's whether you wrote your name at the back of the notes you paid in ?—No, I do not. Now I put into your hands another cheque, dated the 6th May, 1833, for 1,000/. ; did you recive that of the Earl of Eg r, mont I— , --There is no evidence that I did. You say there is no evidence, do you ?—I cannot swear that I did not receive it. Might you have received it and forgotten it 7—No, I cannot reply to that, Sir. Don't you know ,whether you might have received it and forgotten it ?—I do not know how I can answer such a question as that. The Earl of Egremont was in the habit of writing such cheques, and giving them to other people, and I have received such cheques, and when I did so my name was written on them, or my banker's. Did the Earl of Egremont never give cheques payable to the bearer ?—He did several. And did you always write your name on them ? Either I or my bankers did. Always ?—I think so. You see I cannot get anything certain ; it is always I think ; I want to know if you will venture to assert whether that cheque was written on the back ?—When they were paid into the bankers not by myself, Marten, Call, and Co.wrote their names upon them as the agents in London. Will you venture to say you wrote your own name, or saw any other person do so ?—I will not. They did not write upon them in my presence. In the account you hold in your hand is an item of 700/. on the 15th May, 1833. Now, I ask you if that 7001 was not, in fact, part, of the 1,000/...0f this cheque? —I cannot say whether it was or not. Now, I ask you whether you did, or not, receive that amount of 1,0001, and pay into Masterman and Co. 700/. to be placed to your account with Wigney and Co ? —The cheque will shoW that. Do you not recollect it ?—No, Sir, I do not recollect it at this distance of time. Can't you tell where it came from ?—No, Sir ; I had extensive business, and a great deal of money passed thrcugh my hands. That was in 1833 ? It was. When you speak of extensive business, do you mean with the Earl of Egremont, or after that time ?—Exten sive business for the Earl of Egremont, containing works of the greatest value in the kingdom. My business with the Earl of Egremont was one of the sources, and the prin cipal source, from which I derived my pecuniary means. That is what I say, and I want to know if the 7001. did not come from the Earl of Egremont ?—Not by any means. Then I understand you to say that you will not ven ture to say that 1,0001 was not paid to you by the Earl of Egremont ?—I will not venture to say so, but there is no evidence. I have not asked you about what evidence there is, the Court will settle that. Will you tell the Court where you got the 7001. from 7—Let the books be produced, Be good enough to tell me of one source you got that 7001. from?—l want to produce the accounts and pass books of the bankers, that will show the dates. I ask you to point out the works?—lnsolvent, with warmth—l do not wish to say anything of myself, but you are obliging me to do so; but, Sir, I was a distin guished artist. I do not doubt this, and I am sorry to see you in your present position. I am obliged to you, Sir; but, if the late Earl of Egre mont had been living, I should not have been here now. Now, tell me where you got that 7001.7—1 cannot say. You desired Messrs. Wigney to mark the items of those cheques of the Earl of Egremont paid into their hands for you 7—l did, that I might render the account to the bill filed in Chancery. Some items were received from Call and Co., and paid into Masterman and Co.?—Yes, I paid some of them myself into Masterman and Co. Here are two cheques of the 16th May, 1835, for 600/. Did you receive that from Lord Egremont ?—Yes. You have 500/. paid into your account at Wigney's. Was it out df the amount of the cheque ?—Yes ; I should suppose so from the date. Here is a cheque of the 9th November, 1836, for 2.0/. on Call and Company. Did you receive that also ? I have no recollection how I received that amount. Do you remember applying at that period to Lord Egremont to prevent you from being arrested ?—I do not recollect. Do not you recollect paying a sum of 8001. to a Mr. Stephens, and did not Lord Egremont give you the money to meet your debt to Stephens ?—I cannot recollect; but I remember I did owe a sum to Mr. Stephens in conse quence of an accommodation to a friend. Did you not, at the period in question, make an appli cation to Lord Egremont while he was sick in bed to re lease you from the claim ?—I do not think I ever did. I owed too much to Lord Egremont to make such an ap plication under such circumstances. Did you ever make such an application ?—I never did, to the best of my recollection ; but I will not pledge myself. Do you know Mrs. Greenfield ?—Yes ; she was the nurse attending on Lord Egremont. - Do you remember his Lordship having been raised up in his bed to sign a cheque for you 7—No ;I do not. Do you ever recollect having gone to Lord Egremont for assistance in tears ?—I remember his Lordship wrote to me to come to visit him on his birth-day if I expected to see him alive. That was, I believe, the 18th of Dec. 1836. Then perh aps I migbt have been in tears in con sequence of the state of his Lordship's health. But when I went in I found him up and sitting in his chair. I want to know whether you never appeared before his Lordship in tears on a very different account. Did you not appear before him on one occasion in tears, stating that you were about to be arrested in consequence of your having accommodated a friend?-1 have no recol lection of such a fact. Was he not propped up by a pillow on one occasion when he wrote you a cheque, and when he added— " Then when I am gone you will go to the dogs."— Never ; Ido not think Lord Egremont was capable of saying such a thing. I believe that when you brought the action, it was to recover the sum of 33,0071. 18s. ld.—Yes. In filing your bill did you give any credit for the re ceipt of any sum T—l believe I did. In the.bill filed against you we find you give credit for the receipt of 421. in 1833 ?—Yes. And I find no more credited to Lord Egremont in 1833 in the bill.--Yes ; that is the only sum. I gave a reply to th e bill filed by the advice of Mr. Merryman. I gave him every possible information ; but as Messrs. Call and Co. had refused to let me see their books I was unable to give such full information as I could have desired. Messrs Call and Co. refused to show me the cheques I had received without the permission of Colonel Wyndham. I wrote to Colonel Wyndham on the sub ject, but Mr. Charles Murray, who was the agent for Colonel Wyndham refused to give me access to the papers ; and that is the reason, I apprehend, why the 42/. formed the only sum for which I have given credit in 1833. I understand you had inspected certain cheques at Mr. Murray's with your solicitor ?—Yes. Look at this cheque of 1,0001., dated in 1833, and tell me whether you had not seen that cheque before you filed your bill ?—I will not venture to say I had or I had not. It might have been one of the cheques shown to me ; but I cannot swear. How does it happen that, in the schedule you filed in this Court, you give credit for 1,0001., which, in your an swer to the bill filed against you in Equity, you only gave credit for 42/. ?—I found. I had been mistaken on the subject, by comparing the-dates of the cheques with the entries in Wigney's book. Had you not Wigney's account at the time you filed your answer ?—I had not looked over the amount ; I cannot answer for the legal proceedings taken in my name. In your answer in the Equity Court, you admit the receipt of 1,000/. only, while, in your answer to the schedule filed in this Court, you admit the receipt of 2,260/. How do you account for that ?—I found out the additional sum by looking over Wigney's account. Mr. CooKE here objected to the course of examination pursued in inquiring into the correctness or incorrect ness of documents filed in Chancery, while the Court had only to deal with the bill filed in that Court. Mr. PLATT having contended that he had a perfect right to show that the insolvent had already been guilty, to say the least of it, of equivocation before another Court, The Comm decided that they could not then deal with the proceedings of the insolvent in anotheF cause. Examination continued by Mr. PLATT—I find from the pass-book that you had paid into your banker the sum of 2,1591, while your schedule acknowledges only 1,5001. Where did the remainder of the 2,159/. come from ?—I raised money by bills, and I received 8001. from Mr. Dodd. What did you do with the money you received from Mr. Dodd ?—I find I paid in 700/. at Masterman's in May, 1833, and that might have been part of the 8001. I received from Mr. Dodd. Might not the 700/. have been part of 1,0001. you re ceived at the very time from Lord Egremont ?—lt might have been. I cannot say from which source the 700/. came. Did you pay off the 800/., and, if so, how did you pay it ?—I gave Mr. Dodd a mortgage on my house for the debt, and Lord Egremont gave me the money to redeem the mortgage. Lord Egremont wrote me a cheque for 1,800/. I was then about to leave the room, when his Lordship said, " Hare you that cheque safe ?—take care of it." I then looked at the cheque, and finding it was for I,BOOL instead of 8001., which I had asked for, I told his Lordship so. He. said that did not matter, and asked me whether I was not satisfied. I said I wanted 800/. only for a specific purpose ; and he then threw the cheque into the fire, and wrote me one for 800/. Did you pay back the money to Lord Egremont ? No ; I never had an account with Lord Egremont. The money I received from him was for my subsistence. I observe you state in your schedule that you received from Lord Egremont the sum of ,2,260/. in 1834. How did you make up that amount ?—I made it up from my account with Wigney ; the cheques were produced to me with a memorandum on the back of them. I have no doubt my attorney will show the documents necessary to establish the account. Besides •Wignev's account there were the cheques which have been shown - me by Lord Egremont's executors. Can you specify what are the documents which en abled you to fix upon that particular sum of 2,260/. find here a cheque for 1,000/., and I have no doubt the remaining 1,260/. will be accounted for by the various documents now before the Court. Specify the particular documents from which you derived the information,-1- derived the information from the account with Wigney, and on compa rison of the dates of the cheques charged against me in the trial at Lewes. On referring to the dates I found I could account for the sum of 2,2601., having been received by me in 1834, because they were endorsed " payable to John Carew or bearer." I made out the account from the copy of the bill and the answer. How did you pay the sum of 1,0001. to Mr. Ferner ?—. I received 1,2001 from Lord Egremont, two of which were 5001. notes, with which I paid Ferner 1,0001. for ground to build on. That was a gift of Lord Egremont. I might have paid into my banker's the remaining 2001. I received also in the year 1834 the sum of 5001 from my profession. In the year 1835 it appears from your schedule that you received from Lord Egremont the sum of 1,3001. and from your profession 500/. ; then there was in addi tion a mortgage of 1,0001., with 2001. received for rent ; but it appears from your pass-book that you paid into your banker's duri-g the year the sum of 4,4251., leaving a sum of upwards of 1,4001. unaccounted for. Where did that sum come from ? Was it not received from Lord Egremont ?—I do not think it was. I gave the best account I could of my receipts from Lord Egre mont. Will you swear that you did not receive from Lord Egremont, during the year 1835, upwards of 3,0001.? — I will not swear ; but I have given in my sch e d u l e th e fullest amount which I could. Did you receive - from Lord Egremont, in 1836, as stated in your schedule, the sum of 3,5004 and 3001. from your profession ?—I did. An v il yoti received in addition 2001. for rent, making in all 4,000/. But it appears from your pass-book that you had paid into your bankers during the year the sum of 5,8151., leaving a balance of 1,815/. unaccounted for. How do you answer for that ?—ln the year 1836, I had received bills of exchange to a considerable amount from Joseph Germaine, which made up the sum. I have some of those bills, I believe, now at home. I cannot, however, say what was the amount of the bills so discounted in 1836. Some letters were here read from the insolvent to the Earl of Egremont, acknowledging the receipt of certain sums of money, and the obligations under which his Lordship's kindness had placed the receiver. • Examination continued. Do you know a lady of the name of O'Keefe, residing at Southampton ?—No ; but I have heard of her. Did you ever write a:letter to her ?—No, never, to the best of my recollection. A letter was here read from the insolvent to Miss O'Keefe, requesting her to send him any letter she might have from Lord Egremont relating to an altar-piece to be erected in the Roman Catholic Chapel of Brighton. The executors of Lord Egremont refused the insolvent any remuneration for the work unless he could produce some document showing that he had been commissioned by his Lordship to execute it. The insolvent acknowledged that he had written the letter, although the fact had escaped his memory. It was merely an application for any document which the lady might possess, for the purpose of showing that he had Lord Egremout's order to erect the altar-piece at his expense. A letter was then read from Lord Egremont, printed in the newspapers of the day, in which his Lordship de nied that he had ever given anything, or that he should ever give anything, towards the decoration of any Roman Catholic Chapel ; and stating that he had no connection with the erections of the altar-piece of the Chapel at Brighton. Tile insolvent stated that the letter had been written by Lord Egremont, for the purpose of discountenancing a report that he was at the time about to become a Ro. man Catholic. Several letters were then read from Lord Egremont to the insolvent relating to the works of the latter, and more particularly a monument to the late Mr. Huskisson. The answer to the bill having been read, Mr. cooKE said he presumed that the answer was re ceived, not merely to show that such a proceeding took place in Chancery, but that would be made evidence in this case, and taken as an examination of Mr. Carew there. The CHIEF COMMISSIONER—I presume that is so. Mr. PLATT—Subject to any falsification. Mr. Nicnoixs said it was then half•pastfive, and asked the Learned Commissioner to adjourn the Court. The case was then adjourned till Wednesday next. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. On Saturday a young man, named William Hutchings, was brought up, charged by a Baker, named Archibald Charles, with having defrauded him of two shillings, by means of a pass for two to the boxes and two to the gallery of the Haymarket Theatre. The complainant said that the prisoner, in offering the tickets for sale to him, mentioned that they would admit on any night from the 9th to the 18th of December, with the excep tion of Monday night, which was specified on the back of the ticket. Alderman WILSON (who presided on the occasion) asked whether the signature to each of the tickets was meant to be that of Mr. WOster, the proprietor 2—The complainant said he could nit niitke out the name. The ALDERMAN, upon examining the ticket, said it was impossible to say what name was upon them. The policeman, who attends the theatre, produced several other tickets, which were handed to him by per sons who had presented them at the doors of the theatre, and were, of course, refused admission. Mr. George Smith, cheque-taker at the Haymarket Theatre, stated that the orders were not genuine, and that within the last week about 200 such had been pre sented at the doors and rejected. Alderman Wilson (to the complainant)—lt is odd that you should have supposed that you could get an or der for two to the boxes of such a theatre as the Hay market for a shilling. The complainant said he did not entertain the least suspicion of the genuineness of the order, and he knew that admission to many theatres was, now-a-days, ex tremely cheap. Alderman WILSON—This is a clear case of obtaining money under false pretences. Mr. Hobler—No doubt of it. I dare say if the pri soner is remanded we shall have a crowd of persons here to claim acquaintance with him. The Complainant—The prisoner must have known all about the deception, for he offered me 30s. to let him off, and said that if I did not allow him to go he should certainly be transported. Mr. Smith said it had been ascertained at the theatre that a great many false admissions of the kind had been disposed of in the following manner: —A person who stated himself to be employed to go round to the tobacco and fruit-shops, and other premises in which theatre bills were exhibited, to see that all was right with the display, pulled out some of these admissions and handed them to the several parties, saying that he was authorised by the proprietor to supply them as a premium for their atten tion to the interests of the theatre ; the shopkeepers were of course much pleased at the compliment, and the pre tended messenger then appealed to them for a little remu neration for his trouble, and generally received a shilling at each place. Ald. WILSON said that the plan was very ingenious, and a sure one. Ile should remand the prisoner till Tues- ORNING SUN day, and he hoped that a proper exr °sure N l ' ollld tale place. John Roberts, a G d-IILDHAL L ooking youth, wa3 el" r oea figwith attempting self-destruction by casting himse lf ° i ce -- the wall of Blackfriars .bridge on Friday evening. to lice-constable 304 stated that a gentleman pointed o ut 0 him a person who had leaped over the parapet wall lc the shelf on the centre of the bridge. He ran, and sc o l o the help of a passer-by, dragged him from situation. The prisoner was either half drunk o r e s, cited, and said he meant to have drowned hinaself. He a lad of good character, and his master was in attendance'' The landlord of the Queen's Head, Water-lane, stated that the prisoner was his servant as pot-bey and wati and he was a remarkably civil and honest lad. Be "- his full confidence, and was generally respected. Alderman KELLY—What could have led to this Os, attempt ? Witness—l have since learned that'd night (Friday) he was drinking in the tap-room . his father, a man I have long known , and that some lin , his peril 1, pleasant words passed between them. His father is very honest man, and lives in Green-street. Alderman KELLv—Young man, what have you to saY Prisoner—My father found fault with me without cause:, Words brought on words, and I went with the intention e` drowning myself. Alderman KELLY—Perhaps, you only did it to fright e . n your father, when he should happen to hear of it ? P ry soner— No, Sir. first Alderman KELLY—WeII, if you were resolv ed at - to destroy your life, what mad e you desist ? Prisoner After I got over the wall I reflected a little. veur Alderman KELLY—As you well might, when , "Y h iolt own account, you were abo u t t o l aunc h from th e " . . 0 0 Are of time into the gulph whi c h l ea d s t o e ternity ! glad that you were baffled in your attempt 't Yes, Yes Sir. CotO The master interposed again, an d implored th e C a pe not eselille not to commit the prisone r . H e h o p e d that would correct his folly. H e b e li eve d him to be a g b ; lad ; and if the Magistr a t e pl ease d, h e would ta ke home with him. A better servant he never had. Q . o oa Alderman KELLY (to the pri soner )—You have, a h ` ou se master. He is a kind-hearted man ; and if h is it is was not a respectable one, I sh ou ld know of it , in my ward. Go hom e w ith hi m , an d reflect upon to ; might have been your conditi on and be thankt io ill'nc Ged for preserving you from the commission en d o f an ° t i of which you could not hav e re p en t e d. The Inas te servant then left the Court. MARLB OROIIG H. S TREE 7'. ress Eliza Hubbard, a decently dressed young w°a 33ll ,'„, charged with shop-lifting. It a pp eare d that be!,, e , j et seven and eight o'clock on Frid a y eve ning the prl , $3, went into the shop of Mr. King, of . 1• 1 . „ice Martin's-court, and while bargaining about t" e c f o yell of some combs, she was observed to secrete 3 01 5 small tortoise-shell braid combs under h er pr obs She was taxed with the theft, and th e ',;bleti taken from her, and Mr. King not wishing to be tr° - but with a prosecution turned her out of his sb, ° ,,P' pro . directed one of his shopmen to watch her. °cuegsr ceeded straight to the shop of Mr. Nichols is 'd s tlO tin's -street, and was observed to handle some g,, °° being were hanging within side the shop door. 'A i we re arrested several articles belonging to Mr found on her.-Remanded. n Y• ) THE MARKETS.-(SATUR"" NEWGATE AND LEADENILAL L ; h- e trade All sorts of meat was in rather s hort suppl.r , ° l3te`i was brisk, and prices advanced f u ll 2d. per st,": Vs; Bs. 4d. to 4s. 4d. ; Mutton 3s. 4d, to 4s. 2" t i one oi 4s. 4d. to ss. 4d. ; Pork, 4s. 4d. t o ss. 4d. P er s'done ar 81b. In Poultry and Game a good business Was former rates, the supplies were large. WHITECHAPEL MARKET. prices The supply was good, and demand moderate-, s d. to as follow :-Beef, 2s. Bd. to 4s. 2d. ; Mutton, s d, to o w IL 4s. 2d. ; Veal, 4s. to ss. 4d. ; Pork, 3s. Clover, 31. to 5L 13s. ; Hay, 21. to 41. 8 5 . ; s°l • lOs. to a. 14s. TEA MARKET. u Is: °1 A small business was don e; Company's Cong?l,os.- cash, but common Free Tra e could not be P" , • under is. 9id. per lb. TALLOW MARKET. • es ° l ri A fair demand for Russian Tallow,",and Prl c ehe o at 48s. 2d. on the spot, but for delivery 1 1 1 ) t° ;9s. of the year 48s. was wanted ; for spring mon ths RICE MARKET. I er, °5. A fair demand for B enga l, an d prices are fir° to 30' to 12s. for low, and good white Carolina 03. per cwt. INDIGO MARKET. on t ile The market dull, and prices of East In" — decline. f SPIRIT MARKET. fee Le i e l w u - m ards is du ll and prices advance. 9oldsatole,iasnidodp;rißcersanondy tl.raleedte:linfae;rrsale, WOOL MARKET. of r JAI, 311 A fair demand for both English and prices fully supported. METAL MARKET. L • iron fire Spelter held firmly, at 401., on the, sP°" and Lead more in request. • COUNTRY CORN Al 1 I S :--- ------- ARKE .. raj Wheat. Barley. Oats. 8eD 6 .... ........- -- 6, 5. 4 1 Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to s. s. to s. 's. t 0 ,;.; 30 .... Abingdon 5B 73 30 :Ai 24 3'l 40 '' ..... ...• Andover 6) 70 33 3t V 5 27 •'''' ..... 41 tembnry MI CS 32 40 24 33 nty 40 4 2 ~,„ Basi gstoke 60 72 32 37 24 t 8 42 4 6 sg , Cirenc-ster 6O 10 ; , 2 :'5 24 :5 40 4 ' l 40 ~.. 8 (3oven try — 64 32 33 24 .RI 34 -- 1 ... ..• ttaventry )2rby 64 '75 33 38 23 28 - 35' - 4 ,31 44 41 Howden ~, 38 .., fiungerford 46 '7 29 37 25 30 40 ' -.- 4 1 Halton Mai •en head 54 Si 32 35 26 31 .40 „ 4 ••••• .... Nottingham 60 76 28 32 *A -28 41 46 •••• ~.. Wan tage 63 78 30 31 30 32 36 -"' 4° Warwick Winchester 74 36 21) „„'''' 41 -_, d York 'sB 67 30 36 19 24 • ~, 0 s. . 5 d . 6 6 J. ' 0 Per Bushel s.d. s. d. s.d. s. d. s. s. d. S. A , 7 0 6 ~ Birmingham 7 0 86 36 46 36 40 , ,' „./. 10 3 . HULL CORN MARX 1. "655. ''','; 665. Wheat, Whit( (per Quarter) .................... os. 6 ,.. . to. Red .............................. .• 603. 64 , 5 : As. Foreign ............ • .......................... 90s. •='' 0. Barley, Malting , ............. . ... 2Ss. _7,l' r3O. Grinding ......................... : .......... ,05.2 , 2.4. s. .! * . . Oats, British ................................ .... ...... itis. ' F ,,,, (" 42.0, Foreign (in bond) ...... . ......... .. ......... i 135 '''.; MA* Beans ............................................. ... . ..... 3 45. ‘3,1-,,,-,:40;, • • 6/5. 655• . 665• ads. 64 co. 605. 6 0 4 ,.. :,3s• 40. J'' )• 3 -• ,a• 30. '2 9 ' ' 0 .''); . `21. , • Os. -- ' fils. lgs• .li.s. s 4° ! . 535• Beans ' '' Ms. s '.'.'' to, Pease, Grey _ ___ ........................ ",, 3e,s. „ s• Blue and White.............................. , N - .. b u s ".' . 5 4) .; 01 4 Linseed .... s. to • , a ,. Flour (per sack) ......... —.. .................. . ...... 1. 9 it. aw Rapeseed per 10 quartcrs) ..... . ........... ...... - 7 1 .. eel. WAKEFIELD CORN MA, hi lt) 64 ''' " is 6 , 3 : Wneat, Red, Norfolk and Suffolk --s• - ' 3 '',,,, tils• f. ,, 1 e 1 - --- -- Lin. and Cam. -s. 58 '' ‘, NA. "- , ice , ...„. ; ;Ss. ,,,. an 0 3, --- Yorkshire White ---- Foreign, fted --s. 645. to i2riss. glue :32, .... s. 6 5 3 , to L is. tin q 5 4. ------------ White 2 s s . to •, 3 :., 4. tinecy, Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk 3os. to " 0 tioe* , , , , -- -- Lincolnshire —.-- Yorkshire Wold . os. to 3 ',: Cot e 4 25, - Foreign 3Bs, tO ..";. 60 „,,,,, Beans, New ---- Old .... s . to 7,„ . ono „. 3 ,, Oats, Potato .... 8 . to :•,"' five ` - e , —.--- Poland ''''' to mss . - Sip° b.ealingFriezland and Small 12d. ShGlling „Iss 1to; 9 . / 40 P p 40. " n g. OS. Malt ing Rapeseed CORNWALL MARKETS', (Calculated at 24 gallons to the bushel./ ..., , OA" J Wheat. I 13a1 . 1 ,d. to 1 :, 1,, s. d. to r. d. s , d. to s. d• ...... 0 . :1 i:, fruro ll 7 5 ' Helstene --. 0 3 t c ) , St. Austell 0 So —0 3 8 0 3 " Bodmin 0 88— 0 4 4 --- 0 e t Liskeard 0 76 0 36 : 0 , 2 4 4 Launceston - 0 3 ~.. 9 6 a v Camel ford 6 6 7 E 3 0 ' 0 Penzance 7 8 8 4 —n 40." _ al,' e,'l' . PATENT LEVER SILVER Wszi, t b,_ 11, 4 —E. J. DENT, 82, Strand , Chronometer, .",; e s c V --,:: Clock Maker, by special appontment to her 1 " - gers IS Queen and his Royal High ness - Prince Albert, o ffers ASSORTMENT of these superiorly constructed Wi.L er &O m "' at 61. 6s. each. They have double-bottorned fist t o e erfil fr o t jewelled (six holes) movements, and continue t ° WO whilst being wound, with other modern rnoyementstsge sti performance guaranteed. Their particular 2 ,1° 1 esfe r , / :0 strength. moderate price, capability of bearing of repers7, motion without derangement, and small expense 0 ' exits'if they meet with injury. Gold cases from 8/. to 104 82, Strand, three doors west of Cecil-street. h i Ce lr T PATENT LEVER WATCHES. ---":;,01%;;$ rated construction (the most accurate on which at. the I s nir be made) is now offered at the following prices, jewe lled to 1°- • improvements, i. e. the detached esc pernent, iew c „', to holes, hand to mark the seconds, and laintaining P"— tinue going while winding up. 0 se SILVER CASES. With double-bottomed ca es, ca" one d ......... E 6 lu 6 With hunting cases, capped ...... ... 6 A , e 0 GOLD CASES. Size for Ladies, with elegant gold dia1.....E12, 'l 4 0 Ditto, in double-backed cases •• i'l , 3 0 Size for Gentlemen, enamelled dial ......... 13 ' 0 17 1 7 of a u Tti ct r o h n l s et o , n C w on hi t c a h in e Ditto, Watches i x n t g r a ful l observationssai r z e e , m c a a d p e p r, e e d withs p . . e . o . t it nb • i thep . ;_,.::aw r i, o i d e ro .„ i c n onA g s o tp l r d and silver cases, and a variety of sketches °' w ill b . signs, which have just been comp leted in gold awes, to I% letter do or o sent, gratis and postage free, on appli cation by Cox Savory, Watchmaker, 47,Corithll, London , ° ye° o r e o s o n e o t h t , e L l o 4 w t l e t r i nst., s o t r . w , from Gracechurch- street yori'' joli of On the 14th inst IV • - Dalston, the Esq., ~ at avarino-terrace , C. Frodsha a fe d a o u f g il h i t e r. r. of o°l' In, of a daughter. On the 15th 1 tthe ins t., wile of Mr. J ames SaviYer' the lane, Ch ' capsule, of a son. are , On the 17th inst., in Holles-street, Cavendish-sqe lady of Dr. C. J. B. Williams, of a sou. otohde, o, wi fe BIRTH S . Samuel Smith, Lieut.-Col. George Macdonald has pointed Governor of Sierra Leone. MARRIED. Job° On the 15th inst., at Great Burstead, by the Ref. do e, solicitor, tJoohilniaßryobtiniesononorGa,ibeisdoens,t odfauCgohpttehraollf CDoeunrtzlieLt.A°ll7ol. Billericay, Esq., R.M., and one of her Majesty's Justic g Peace for the county of Essex. „ oh Tais morning, the 18th inst., at Moberly Chapel , 1611 n - yea i 1:13 , the Rev. Robert Philip, the Rev. J. T. Norfolk, to Harriett Louisa, youngest daughter ' Ovenden, Esq., of Dalston, Middlesex. Gene ral DIED. t- On the 16th of December, at Woolwich, Lieutenan so, George William Phipps, of the Royal Engineers, aged 0 , r i e ute o t. On the 16th ult., at Montreal, Anna, wife of l, Wigner,;,Georie Colonel Eden, Deputy Adjutant- General. On the 14th inst., at Leamington, Cecilia, youngest 1:100-' ter of J. Thomson, Esq., of Primrose, near Clitheroe. ,or On the 14th inst., at Woolwich, Rose F iott, the Wife 0 ' ...o'i tain Piercy Been, Royal Artillery. ---oJ London : Printed and Published by MURDO IW ILN 1. 11 No. 112, Stran,l, at The Sus Office, No. . A 112. St ra i ° the County of Middlesex, Monday , December 20 6 ~8 ` a t t 1 s ti