The Sun. — London, England, 1841-11-25 00:00:00

NORNING SUN LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 24. LLOYD V. WEST.—JUDGMENT. Tile LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in this case, which was argued before his Lordship some time since. His Lordship said that in this case the will had been filed by Richard Lloyd against the personal re presentative of Martin Lloyd, who had obtained the as signment of a mortgage, and the object of the bill was to redeem that mortgage. The principal discussion on the question was with respect to a matter of fact as to whether the plaintiff had made out his title as heir-at law of Martin Lloyd. It was contended under the cir cumstances of the case that it was proper the de fendant should have the power of taking the opi nion of a jury in a Court of Law—that he should contest the question in a Court of Law. With re spect to the first question, the pedigree of the plaintiff, he claimed under Richard Lloyd, who mar ried Ann Lloyd at Chesterton. The ascending line from Martin Lloyd, appeared to his Lordship to be Clearly established ; the only point with respect to that line was, whether Samuel -Lloyd. the father of the in testate Samuel, the brother of William, was the son of William Lloyd of Chesterton. William Lloyd married Hannah Ingram, and it appeared to his Lordship, that there was sufficient evidence in the case to show that William and Samuel were the sons of Wil liam Lloyd, who married Hannah Ingrain. If anything were wanting to prove that, it was confirmed by the documents that had been brought forward in the case ; he therefore thought it was clear that the case had been made out in that respect, and that there was no necessity to resort to any of the evi denCe which had occasioned so much controversy at the bar, such as the wills, and sonic of the written docu• ments. With respect to the descending line that was more complicated ; his Lordship, after going at some conaiderable length into the evidence with respect to that line, stated his opinion clearly to be that both the as cending and descending lines were clearly proved by the documentary evidence that had been produced, and that there was no necessity whatever to resort, as had been ecsntended at the Bar, to the parole evidence. But, looking at the parole evidence, the case was strengthened, unless the witnesses had perjured themselves. It had, however, been said, that evidence had been given which opposed the parole evidence ; the Court had carefully considered that evideuce, and had come to a different result. On the whole, therefore, his Lordship was satis fied that the pedigree of the plaintiff had been clearly made out • and established. But then it was said the dei'endaut . was entitled to contest the claim of the plaintiff at law. Now, who was the de- fendant -Why, be was one of the personal - represe.itatives of the intestate, there was the mortgage outstanding, he knew of the claim of the present plain ; tiff, and knowing it he obtained an assignment of the mortgage. He said he did not do it to impede the claim, hut be knew of the claim, and,:he obtained an assign ment of the mortgage, which had the effect of impeding it. After he obtained the assignment, he gave notice to the tenants, who paid their rents to him because he had obtained possession of the mortgage. In his answer the defendant stated that he claimed the possession not as mort gagee, but as heir-apparent at law of the intestate; but he had given no evidence of the truth of that assertion. Such being the case, his Lordship could only con sider him in the light of a mortgagee, and as such he could. ha\ no right to. have a .trial at law. In such a case I,s the present the Court would not be justified in granting such a trial before the decree had been pronounced for the redemption of the mortgage; the adoption of such a course would, in his Lordship's opinion, be a most improper exercise of the authority of the Court, and would 'show a bad discretion on the part of the Judge who presided in it, and in addition to that it would create great expense. Such being the opinion of the Court what would be the s it ua ti on o f the defen dant ? His right, if he was entitled to a trial at law, "would not be bound by the Court decreeing the redemp tion of the mortgage; that was all it would decide in the present instance. The defendant.by that decree would have his principal and interest, repaid, and after that had been done, he Would still be in a situation to contest the claim of the plaintiff. The defenditnt might, if he had chosen, have had this question first decided at law, but the pedigree of the plaintiff having been established, this Court could not allow the defendant to have a trial at law before pronouncing a decree for the redemption of the mortgage. His Lordship must therefore pronounce that decree. The COURT, after disposing of a few unimportant lunatic petitions, proceeded with the further arguments On the part-heard appeals of Blundell v. Gladstone, Blundell v. Stoner, and Blundell v. Blundell, which occu pied his Lordship the remainder of the day. ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 23. THE SHEFFIELD CANAL COMPANY V. THE SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM RAILWAY COMPANY. This cause was resumed, the depositions were read, and Mr. Bacon was heard for the defendants, after which Mr. Pemberton replied. The correspondence on which the plaintiffs founded their prayer fur the investment in Government securi ties of a sum to secure them 1001. a year, took place in June, 1836, when the Railway Bill, w hi c h h a d p asse d the Commons, was in the House of Lords. The first letter was from Mr. Vickers, the Solicitor for the rail way, to - Mr. Wake, the Solicitor of the Canal Company. It was dated June 18, 1836, and stated that "in com pliance with the recommendation of the Committee, he, as Solicitor of the Railway Company, undertook that the'proprietors should enter into a covenant to pay the Canal Company 1004 per annum, the same to be applied eieliisively towards the repair of the Wicker." This letter wakanawered on the Monday following, June 20, by Wakt.,` Who submitted " that the matter must be arranged' by investment in the way he had suggested. The reply to this was, on Monday, June 20, 1836, when the solicitors for the Railway Company wrote to Wake, that they had no objection to meet his views by investing in the funds sufficient to raise the annual paymentproposed. It was alleged that before Wake replied to this letter he told Vickers that the investment ought te be made before the Bill proceeded to a third reading in the Lords, but that he would consult Lord Wharncliffe, which he ac cordingly did ; and then he, on the forenoon of the 21st of June, 1836, wrote to Vickers, " that he had had an interview with Lord Wharncliffe, and yielding to his Lordship's opinion, he, on behalf of the Sheffield Canal Company, accepted the engagement on the terms of the two documents." The plaintiffs then stated in their bill, that the Bill having passed without any opposition or. behalf of the Canal Company, and received the Royal assent on the 4th of July following, they relied upon the agreement, b u t did not apply to h ave it carried into execution until the 24th of April, 1838, when they wrote to the solicitors of the Railway Company, calling upon them to perform the engagement respecting the annuity of 100/. ; and they amain applied in J une , 1838, when their solicito r rece i ve d an answer, that if any contribution was to be made, it would be matter of con cession and not of right ; and on further application they received an answer that the Railroad Company did not consider themselves at all bound to make any contribu tion towards. the Wicker, in consequence of which the present bill was filed. The defendants, in their answer, said, that as the price of peace, and to remove all fur ther opposition, Vickers, on his own responsibility, wrote to Wake the letter of the 18th of June, 1836 ; that there wea an interview with Wake that evening, when Wake refused to accept the proposition made in it, and insisted that the annuity of 1001. a year should be paid to the plaintiffs for ever, and be paid to them generally and not eec!usively fur the repairs of the Wicker-l'oad, and that the payment should he pro vided for by an investment in the funds ;. Vickers refused to accede to these terms, and Wake said he should oppose the bringing up the report, to which Vickers replied, " Very well, we will fight it out." On Monday, June 20, 1836, Vickers received'from Wake a verbal message, to which an answer was returned, requesting communicatieas to be ade in writing, and in consequence Vicke rs received from Wake the letter of June 20, 1836, insis. upon an in vestment an d a declaration of trust b e f ore the bill was further proceeded with, or he would oppeze its furtherprogress, for he would see Lord Wharnc!iffe and the Duke of a nd stop the Report of th e C ommittee on the b N il urfolk, yo l u from being brought up ; on which - Vicke rs sa id , vexat i o usly nnreasonable. W e will not delay the B l i r ll e : There is an end to all arran gement. It seems we are to fjght it out to the very last. Be it so. We shall bring up the Report tce•night." The answer stated that there the meeting ended , and the proposal made by Vi c k ers to Wake was no loager open for W a k e ' s acceptance, and the defendants submitted it was not competent for Wake, after that meeting, to accept the p ro _ posit, and that the defendants were not bound by it On the following day , . the 21st of June, 183 6 , the Bill was reed a third time and passed, and it afterward s received the Royal assent. Wake then wrote the letter of the 21st of June, 1836 (" that he accepted the en gagenietit on the terms of the ta . a3 documents.") Vi c k ers saw Wake-that evening , and informed him, that his let ter was too late, and that the Bill had been passed. Wake positively refused, at the interview which took place be tween him and the defendant's solicitors at two o'clock on that 20th of June, to accept their proposals, and upon such refusal the whole treaty was at an end, and Wake was at liberty to oppose the Bill. The cause was argued at great length. It was urged for the defendants that the agreement had been entirely put an end to at the interview where Wake insisted upon the investment of the money and the declaration of trust, and Vickers told him "he was unreasonable ; there was an end to all arrangement ; we are to fight it out to the last ;" and that Wake's letter, written after- wards, accepting the engagement on the terms of the two documents, came too late. For the plaintiff it was argued that the main claim, the claim of the 1001. a year for the repairs of the road, was not in dispute, the difference arose only as to the manner in which that money was to be secured, and that the plaintiffs were upon the agreement clearly entitled to the annual payment of the 10U; and us to the second point, that Wake had accepted the agreement proposed between the solicitors, and had notified it s acceptance i n t i me , f or that the bill, when the report was brought up, and the third reading in the Lords was passed, had been sent up to the House of Commons for their concurrence to some amendments made by the Lords, so that Wake had full opportunity of opposing the Bill, if no agreement had been entered into. Lord,LSNCDALE said, this was a new point, and Mr. Kindersley might mention the case to-morrow after the unopposed petitions. Mr. KINDERSLEY said, if his Lordship would look at the pleadings, he would see there was no foundation for the last argument. WEDN ESDAY. P -1 .1.' , " .. ~..._ PANE V. HYDE. 's whs'a Petitfitt—by the plaintiffs for the transfer . ,-;0?th-eZ.-011-Ccertain fluid which they claimed under the '-', ill of William Spice.. who died on the 27th Jan. 1800. ','' Teitator made his will on the 4th Sept.l799, and thereby t-- , • „._ among :other bequests he gave certain funds to trustees i n trust in case Catheiine Paine should die unmarried; Ch i to assign 600/ Tlite.per Cent. Consols to Thomas Ed; w:rt mid G. ./I„..g!lye respe ctively , on condition that L....,--__ they should, respectively, within three years after his decease, pay such his trustees and executors all such sums of money as were due and owing from them or any of them to him at the time of his decease ; and in case of the death of any or either of them he gave the same sum to his or their children. Catherine Paine survived the testator, and died unmarried in 1840, but the above named legatees had not complied with the conditions mentioned in the will of the testator, the whole of the debts due from them to him at the time of his decease, not having been paid until six years afterwards. The question before the Court was whether, under these circumstances, the plaintiffs, who were the children of the legatees, were entitled to the legacies. Mr. KINDERSLEY, for the plaintiffs, argued th a t as there wad no limitation over upon non-compliance with the condition, the legatees were entitled, in equity, upon substantially performing it by payment of the sums due from them with inttrest. The Learned Gentleman cited several of the cases mentioned in Roper on Lega cies, i. 663, in support of his argument. Mr. PURVIS, on the same side, contended that whe ther the above named legatees were entitled or not, the plaintiffs were entitled as distinct legatees, and that the gift to the children was not subject to the condition of the payment of the debts within the time mentioned. Mr. PEMBERTON (with whom was Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Bevan) contended that the condition was a precedent con dition, and that unless it was performed the bequest could not take effect, either to the legatees named or to the chit-. dren. The MASTER of the ROLLS said he would give judg ment to-morrow. VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 24. (Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.) SALISBURY V. MORRICE. The further arguments in this part heard case were resumed this morning and occupied the Court the whole day. The argument not having concluded when his Honor rose, the case was ordered to stand over till Mon day, to-morrow (this day) being the last day of Term, on whichiloccasion the Court takes motions. (Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.) MILLER V COW. The arguments of Counsel in this case, which stood over from last week, to be spoke to on a question of law, to be referred to a Common Law Court, engaged his Honour the greater portion of the morning. His HONOUR referred the case (the facts of which have appeared in The Sun) to the Court of Common Pleas. PRENDERGAST V. TURTON. This was a bill filed to obtain a decree of nullity against a cancellation of shares held by the plaintiffs, in the United Hills Mining Company, and which had been, in a Court of the Directors of the Com pany, declared forfeited for non-payment of cer tain instalments demanded of the plaintiffs as shareholders. The cause was but part-heard when the Court rose. We reserve the facts till judgment is given. His HoNoua will take motions to-morrow. (Before Vice-Chancellor WIGHAM.) His IloNotra disposed of several unopposed petitions, which involved no feature of public interest. DUNCOMBE V. DAVIS. In this cause the bill was filed by Mr. Thomas Slingsby Duncombe. The circumstances out of which the suit arose were stated at great length. A bill bad been drawn by: 'Mr. Duticoinhe, and accepted by Lord Edward Thyme, on the 16th of April, 1834, and was given to a George Pownall, one of the defendants in the suit, to discount, but the bill alleged that it never was discounted by him. On the 16th of May, 1834, another bill was drawn by a person of the name of Wm. Read Knevitt, and accepted by Lord Edward Thynne for 3,000 L, which was also given to George Pownall to discount. This bill the plaintiff was induced to indorse. Lord Edward Thynne, for whose benefit it was drawn, after wards took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. The second bill was then delivered over to the plaintiff, and he received 60e/. in money, and pictures, and certain other articles, of the value of 200/. as a consideration for in dorsing it. On the 6th of August, 1834, Mr. Duncombe applied to Mr. Pownall to raise money for his own accom modation, and a bill was drawn upon him by George Pownall for 5001. Neither of the bills drawn were paid; and in the month of December, 1834, Mr. Pownall in duced the plaintiff to grant to him an annuity upon an estate of which he was tenant in remainder, in consi deration of his liability upon these several bills, and upon their delivery to him by the defendant Pownall, the defendant Davis claimed to be assignee under that annuity. The plaintiff stated that he had after wards discovered he had been deceived in these transactions, and that Mr. Pownall had never discounted the bills ; and that notice was imme diately given to Sir Samuel Scott and his partner, in whose hands the annuity deed was, that Davis had no legal claim in respect of it. The ob ject of the plaintiff in instituting the present suit was to have that deed entirely cancelled, and to have an examination of all the transactions. The cause now came before the Master on exceptions to the Master's report. The question was, whether, being examined to five,separate points, he was to be excused from answer ing part because he alleged that he could not answer the whole. His HONOUR, having heard the arguments of Counsel on both sides, said that upon the merits alone the plain tiff had a right to some answer from the defendant ; but as points of some difficulty had been raised at the bar, and as it was especially desirable now that there were four Courts of Chancery to observe a uniform prac tice, he would defer his decision until he had lcoked into the cases. The CounT rose shortly after three. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 24. THE QUEEN V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY CO3I• PANY. Lord DEsstAN gave judgment in this case which had been argued during the present term. It was a rule for a mandamus calling upon the defendants to impannel a Jury, and asses damages, for injury done to the land of a party immediately adjoining the railway. It appeared that the land had not been taken or used by the Com pany, and it was urged in the course of the argument that, as the land had not been taken or used for the pur poses of the railway, it did not come within the compen sation clauses of the Act of Parliament. Now, it ap peared that the Act of the 6th a nd 7th Willi am IV. gave the Company power to construct their railway without the assent of the landowners in its immediate neigh bourhood, and it was but reasonable and just that the owners and occupiers should ire compensated for any in jury that might be inflicted npon them by reason thereof. The Company were authorised to raise, lower, or alter, the highways, over or near which the railway passed, but it was also provided that they were to make full satisfac tion for any injury arising therefrom. It was urged, however, that the claim in the present case did not come within the meaning of the Act. Now, in the 36th section, the jury were empowered to con s id er; fi rst , the value of land taken; and, secondly, such other damage as might be done to the land not taken or used. It was for them to say whether the case now before them could fairly be said to come within the meaning of that clause. Now, it appeared that the clause contemplated some ulterior damage be) and the mere taking of the land, and that the present was one of these cases. It had been said that if the present rule was made absolute, injury inflicted in a remote degree upon property situated at a distance from the rail way would be made the subject of a claim for compensation. If these extreme cases often occurred the Court would know how to deal with them upon their merits, but in the present instance, the land being in the immediate neighbourhood of the railway, and having been injured and damaged by the lowering of the high way immediately adjoining, it appeared to them to come within the meaning of the compensation clause. The return, therefore, was insufficient, and the rule for a peremptory mandamus must be made absolute. CRIMINAL INFORMATION.-THE QUEEN V. JOHN SHEE HAN AND SIR JOHN 3IILLEY DOYLE: The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. War ren) appeared to show cause against the rule obtained in this case, calling upon the defendants to show cause why a criminal information should not be Sled against them for certain misdemeanors. His Learned Friend (the Solicitor-General) appeared for Sir John Doyle, and he appeared for Mr. Sheehan. He wished to know from the Court whether it would be more convenient to take the cases together? Lord DEN ALAN said they might be taken 'together, al though they might not h ave th e same resu lt. The dourt certainly did not think that there had been any joint act. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had sdme doubts whether his Learned Friend (Mr. Thesiger) meant to complain of certain libels. stehciLuoerid:EsmAN imagined that the complaint was, that autileeirr TheLt the de rnts a message had been sent to Sir Alexander Grant, in con of which a long correspondence took place, and postin g Sir defendant did what was considered equivalent to to tegeiSricru l A o4 . 7a G En r cy a e lt by publishing that correspondence, and imputingATT motives to Sir A. Grant. ? t E h N a f t ; R h A a Ld led would t o thatl 110 w p a u d b l i e c s a s ti h on in: a s n elf d in l e t n a t r ee appeared j e s c i l conduct thatould ,b had d e btereuns pursued ted, be boyf Sir A opinion,. G r t a h n a t , t he had no right whatever to call upon that Court for its that in protection. tite represent the town of Cambridge by the affidavit of Sir A. Grant, 1840, he was a candidate to r t i b dg e in Parliament ; that at that time Mr. Sheehan was r en t dteobenettjehciasrt t t ap peared on that occasion in the ofin reference Sir A.conceived Grant, paperparagraph, g , r a a n p d h d ce o sap r ssa. o r f aAg aweek t l o y paper called the Canibridge Indep O n the which hustings he he refe `worthy of repro ,, r m o si ni him. ratAet a libellous character. nounced the writer in language bation as that which had been appliel. whole affair might be fairly said to have tt h T e r h e e . There were some strong remarks respecting Grant, in connection with the slave trade, and whi c h ~ vere . re pelled in equally strong language by Sir A. Grant in a speech which was subsequently published. From that time it did not appear that Mr. Sheehan had ever made any attack upon Sir Alexander G rant, nor did it appear that down to the period of the last ge neral election Sir A. Grant had made any further com plaint. or had taken any further notice of what had oc curred in May, 1840. Sir A. Grant was, in June, 1841, again a candidate for the town of Cambridge, and a fl ag exhibiting •him as witnessing the flogging of a female slave (but with which it did not appear, nor was it in sinuated that Mr. Sheehan had any thing whatever to do) was paraded through the streets. That would appear to have roused in Sir Alexander Grant's mind the recollection of the paragraph which had appeared in the paper a year before. The result was, that Sir A. Grant made another public attack upon Mr. Sheehan, and insinuated that he was acquainted with his whole life, and would refer to it, but that he feared the legal consequences that might result therefrom. His conduct was denounced as ungentlemanly and black guardly, and h e was i n so many wor d s stigmatized as a pierjurer. Now, he apprehended, after having made such an attack, and in so unprovoked a manner upon Mr. Sheehan, Sir A. Grant had no right whatever to come to that Court and ask for its interference. At the end of a year, when the pro verb of "let bye-gones be bye-gones " would be sup- THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 245, 1841. posed to prevail between the parties, Sir A. Grant came out with a fresh attack upon Mr. Sheehan of the most unwarrantable nature. The result of that attack was that Mr. Sheehan addressed a note to Sir A. Grant, requiring an explanation of the charges he had made against him, and the reply was that Sir A. Grant would bold no communication with the party avowing himself the author of so ruffianly and scurrilous an attack as that of the 23d May, 1840. Sir A. Grant had a perfect right to'say that he treated Mr. Sheehan as a ruffian and a libeller, and would have nothing to do with him, but having taken that course he had no right to come to the Court of Queen's Bench and ask for its protection. He had no right to deal out language calculated to irritate and provoke, and then to come to that Court and complain of the result of that irritation. He could not come to that Court with success, unless he could show that there had been no act of his own to provoke the opposite party. But it did not rest there. Mr. Sheehan, irritated at the manner in which he htig been treated, put the matter into the hands of his friend Sir John Milley Doyle, and a communication was opened between that gentleman and Lord Granville So merset as the friend of Sir A. Grant, the whole o pf the circumstances connected with and surrounding which must clearly show any rational man that the object was to have an explanation, or the usual alternative of a hos tile meeting. The Learned Counsel here referred at some length to the correspondence that had taken place between the parties, for the purpose of showing that such an alteration was recognised throughout, and that the subsequent reference to Sir Henry Hardinge wqs with the same object. The part subsequently taken in the transaction by Sir John Doyle would be referred to by his friend the Solicitor-General, but he contended that the subsequent publication of the whole of the correspondence in the papers did not alter the relative position of the parties. It was clear that throughout Sir A. Grant was not averse to a hostile meeting, nor had ever given the other party any reason to suppose that such was the case. Sir A. Grant had never made any explanation or apology for the language he had used towards Mr. Sheehan ; and if the present proceeding was to be taken as the medium of a public apology, he trusted it would not be at the ex pense of his client, but that the rule would be discharged, and with costs. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on behalf of Sir John Milley Doyle, then addressed the Court. His arguments were in some sort a recapitulation of these urged by the Attorney-General. He relied more especially upon the apology which had been tendered to Lord Granville Somerset by Sir John Doyle, on behalf of Mr. Sheehan, in which he disclaimed any intention to cast any personal imputations upon the honour of Sir A. Grant, and which apology Lord Granville Somerset thought satisfactory in principle, but objected to some of the details. That at least was a proof that Mr. Sheehan was anxious to remove any impression that he had made a wanton attack upon Sir A. Grant. It was further to be observed, that notwithstanding the statement made from the hustings by Sir A. Grant with regard to his acquaintance with the history of Mr. Sheehan's life, that he had never attempted in his affidavit to justify that statement, and had made no allusion whatever to any act of Mr. Sheehan's life. It was clear also that throughout the whole of the negotia tion Sir Alexander Grant never once repudiated the idea of a hostile meeting but, on the contrary, Sir J. Doyle was led to believe, and he so stated in his affidavit, that until the matter had entirely terminated, the whole of Sir A Grant's conduct was such, and the affair was conducted on such a footing, as to lead to no other conclusion than that a hostile meeting was to be the result if satisfactory explanations were not given. He would ask their Lordships what was the object of the present application? It was not to prevent a breach of the peace, for that contingency was now at an end ; but it was, as he (Sir A. Grant) had himself distinctly stated, to put the public in possession of the whole facts of the case, and he apprehended that their Lordships would not entertain the application, having such an object: Now with regard to the letter addressed by Sir John Doyle to Mr. Sheehan, and which had been made the subject of complaint by Sir Alexander Grant, he would merely observe that that letter had not been published by him at all. He opposed the rule in the present case because he thought the conduct of the party applying was such as to disentitle him to the pro tection of the Court. First, by his publishing an attack upcn Mr. Sheehan's character, unjustifiable, and hitherto unjustified ; and secondly, because he had taken the question of a hostile meeting into his consideration, and had entertained the idea of resorting to such a course for the purpose of giving the opposite party satisfaction. On these grounds, therefore, he submitted that the rule ought to be discharged. Mr. E, JAMES followed oti the same side, and Mr. WARREN on behalf of Mr. Sheehan. Mr. THESIGER regretted that not less than five hours of the time of the Court should already have been occu pied on the present discussion. When he had applied to their Lordships for the rule he had endeavoured to bring all the circumstances of the case under their considera tion in the clearest and most impartial manner. His Learned Friend had, however, laboured to impress upon the Court that the conduct of Sir Alex ander Grant had been such as to deprive him of all right to the protection of the Court. He was not aware, however, that in cases in which language had been used calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, the Court had decided that the party so attacked should be deprived of its protection ; much less could he conceive how a party caUed in as the friend of the aggressor should take the quarrel into his own hands, and then turn round and say to the assailed party, that he had no right to protection from the laws of his country. He would now address himself to the question of provocation, and he thought the Court could not entertain a doubt that it was of the most serious and personal nature. Sir A. Grant's situation at the time the attack had been made on him was also very peculiar; he had been just returned, and, without knowing anything of the author, he expressed himself in strong terms of the conduct of the paper. In the mean time it would appear that Sir A. Grant had learned by a statement made in open Court, that Mr. Sheehan was the author of these observations, and on the occasion of the follow ing election the substance of these changes were em bodied in a flag in a very offensive manner, and Sir A. Grant, in a moment of excitement, had certainly ex pressed himself in very strong language of Mr. Sheehan. It had been said in the course of the discussion that in times of electioneering excitement expressions were not to be measured by the ordinary good rule of propriety, and that might well be applied to the remarks which Sir A. Grant addressed to a large meeting from the hustings. The letter of Mr. Sheehan requiring an explanation was said to be couched in very mild and courteous terms, but its courtesy might be judged of from the circumstance of his denouncing the statements of Sir A. Grant as calumnious and disgraceful falsehoods. The result of that application was that Sir John Doyle appeared upon the scene, and it was considered advisable, in consequence of Sir John Doyle's rank and high character, to give him an interview. Now, it was clear that Sir A. Grant had done what every sensible man would give him credit for, having called in the assistance of a nobleman, whose character was above all suspicion, in order to be present at his interview with Sir John Doyle, and to act as his friend in the matter. Lord Granville Somerset, at the first interview, stated that he attended there with out any view whatever to any hostile meeting taking place between, the parties. It would appear from Sir John Doyle's affidavit that Sir A. Grant had expressed a wish to call in the advice of Sir 11. Hardinge, and that was taken by his Learned Friends to imply that there was to be a resort to a hostile meeting. It was evident also from Sir A. Grant's stipulation at the outset that his: object was to have the matter amicably arranged, because he insisted upon a retractation of the offensive charges originally brought against him by Mr. Sheehan. That explanation merely went the length of saying that they were not intended to hurt Sir A Grant's feelings, or to assail his private character, but left the charges themselves where they were before. That.not being consi dered sufficient, Lord GraiivaleSomerset's advice to Sir A. Grant was, to consult his legal adviser on the subject. Now, it was evident from that observation that there never was any intention to resort to hostile measures, although the subsequent reference to Sir H. Hardinge was to lead the Court to believe that the very contrary was the case. ' Lord DENMAN—Pray, when was the observations " My lion. and Gallant Friend Sir H. Hardinge, who is per perfectly au fait at these matters" used ? Mr. THESIGER said they were stated by Sir John Doyle to have been used by Sir A. Grant at the first interview. It must, of course, be presumed that these expressions were used, as they had not been contradicted, but he apprehended that they could not have been used in the sense ascribed to them by Sir John Doyle. It was said further, that the letter written by Sir A. Grant, in an swer to Sir J. Doyle's request to be referred to a friend to arrange a meeting, was an intimation that he had not quite abandoned the idea of such an alternative. That note was written at a late hour on Saturday night, and on the following Monday he gave Sir John Doyle a detail of the whole of the circumstances between the parties, intimating his intention to leave the matter in the han is of his legal advisers, and when matters had come to that point, Sir John Doyle, finding his hands tied up, insisted upon snaking the quarrel his own, and requesting to be referred to a friend within 24 hours. Now there had been no personal quarrel between Sir A. Grant and Sir John Doyle whatever ; but it would ap pear that the latter was determined to put himself in the breach, and to insist upon a hostile meeting. It was for their Lordships to say whether such a letter 14-as not calculated to provoke Sir A. Grant to a breach of the peace; but if that was not deemed suf ficient, th ere could be no question whatever as to the object of a. subsequent one, which Sir J. Doyle acknow ledged he had published along with the whole of the correspondot ce. In that letter he indulged in the must g - ratuito us insult of Sir A. Grant, stating that he Was asharcal of the apology, and afraid of the alterna tive. The 07)ject clearly was to cast an imputation upon the courage of Sir A. Grant, and to induce him to require am inn nediate meeting. It was for their Lord ships to ay w hether Sir John Doyle was justified in adopting such a course. He apprehended that with regard to Mr. She e h an , h e was implicated in every step of the prom*ediags taken by Sir John Doyle, and that with regard to the latter gentleman, his conduct was still less excusa b le, inasmuch as he had no personal concern in the transaction at all. He looked to .the decision of - the Court with some anxiety, because he was satisfied tha t it would be impossible to put a stop to a most inipro: per and illegal practice unless the Court would interfere in cases like the present. If Sir A. Grant had :responded to the call made by Mr. Sheehan, ho might 2 lave been placed at the bar as a person guilty of the hi; ;hest offence known to the law. He trusted that, after • looking carefully at all the circumstances of the case, • :he Court would come to the conclusion that Sir A. Gri int was, in the present instance, entitled to the l protection of the Court, and that they would deem it be their duty to make the rule absolute. The COURT said the matter was of so complicated a nature, that it would be necessary to look into the affida vits before they pronounced their decision. BAIL COUI?7, Nov 24. CRIMINAL INFORMATION.—THE QUEEN V. THE STAF FORDSHIRE GAZETTE. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD moved for a rule calling upon the printer of the Staffordshire Gazette, also upon a person named Stonyer, to show cause why criminal in formation should not be filed against them, tOr the pub lication of a libel, reflecting on the character of , Mr. Parker, a magistrate, residing in Staffordshire. The libel alluded to consisted of a, letter written to the Editor of that paper by Mr. Stonyer, imputing to Mr. Parker utter unfitness for the office of a magistrate, and stating the opinion of the writer that the Lord-Lieutenant must have been imposed upon when he inserted his name in the roll of Magistrates, and that he ought to be removed. The applicant had made all the affidavits necessary to entitle him to his rule.—Rule nisi granted. MANDAMUS.—THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR OF SUDBURY. Mr. BYLES move for a rule for a mandamus, calling on the Mayor of Sudbury to place the names of two persons on the Burgess Roll of the Borough. It ap peared that the Mayor had rejected the claims of these persons on account of some informality in giving notice of claim. Now he (Mr. Ryles) con tended that all such informalities and misnomers were cured by the interpretation clause of the Act.—Rule granted. QUO WARRANTO.—THE QUEEN V. GLUZE. Mr. V. LEE applied Or a rule fora quo warranto, calling on the defendant to show by what right he claimed to exercise the office of Town Councillor of the borough of Bridgnorth. At the late election for Town Councillors for Bridgnorth several can didates were equal on the poll, and the Mayor of Bridg north had, as returning-officer, given his casting-vote.for the defendant; and he had, consequently, been returned. Now, it appeared that there had been two polling booths erected, and that some persons who had voted at booth No. 1, ought. to have voted at booth No. 2, and, discover- ing such was the case, these persons had afterwards gone and voted again at booth No. 2, for the defendant, and that many persons had voted for property situated in one portion of Bridgnorth, whereas they appeared in the Burgess Roll as being qualified by other property than that stated in the voting paper.—Rule granted. IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION' BETWEEN WELSH AND THE GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY COM PANY. Mr. ADDISON moved for a rule to show cause why the award should not be set aside in this case; on the ground `that the arbitrators had exceeded their jurisdiction, by adjudicating upon matters that were not regularly before them, and also that they were too, late in giving their award.—Rule granted. Having disposed of the above cases; Mr. Justice Patte son left the Court at ten o'clock, and shortly afterwards Mr. Justice Wightman took his seat upon the bench. QUEEN V. THE CORPORATION OF HARWICH—MANDAMUS. Mr.. Burr moved for a rule nisi for a mandamus, or dering the Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Councillors to assess and award a sufficient amount of compen sation for the loss' 'of the offices of Town-Clerk, Clerk of the Peace, Coroner, and Solicitor of the borough of Harwich. It, appeared that the father of Mr. Chapman - had, in 1803,. been appointed Town Clerk and Coroner• O f. tie borough, and that he had sub sequently been appointed Clerk of the Peace and Solicitor to the borough. He had died in 1835, and the present applicant had been appointed to fill these offices, which he had held until the Municipal Cor poration Act passed, when he was reappointed to the office of ToWn Clerk, only because, by the provisions of that Act, the offices of Coroner and Clerk of the Peace had ceased. He had held the office of Town Clerk until the 9th of November, 1839, when he was re moved. He immediately made his claim for compen sation in the form required by the Act for all the offices, and the Council disallowed hi s c l a i m al together, on the ground that, looking at the tenure by which he held his offices, he had no claim whatever to compensation. Now, he submitted to the Court that under the 66th clause of the Act, he was clearly entitled to compensation. Application had been made to the Lords of the Treasury, and their. Lordships, instead of deciding the question of the amount due to Mr. Chap man for compensation, had gone into the question of law, which they were not competent to do, and had decided that, considering all the circumstances, Mr. Chapman was not entitled to compen sa ti on . N ow he submitted to the Court that the Lords of the Treasury had exceeded their jurisdiction in so deciding; but, as' a mandamus could not go, the proper course to pursue was to direct a mandamus to 'the Corporation of Harwich, directing them to assess the compensation.—Rule nisi granted. CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE " NORTHERN STAR."—THE QUEEN V. WHITE AND O'CONNER. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved fOr'a rule to show ' cause why a criminal information should not be filed against George White, of Bromsgrove, for writing a false and scandalous libel, reflecting upon the charac ter of the Rev. C. A. Anstey, one of the Masters of Rugby School, and against Feargus O'Connor, the pro prietor and editor of the Northern, Star, for publishing the libel in that paper. The libel was contained in a letter addressed to the editor by George White, one of the defendants, and dated Bromsgrove, 30th Oct., and which imputed to die gentleman on whose behalf the application was made, conduct of a nature so atrocious, and so utterly base, that if it were -true ,it could not be charac terised in language too strong. The writer of the letter, after stating that as a proof that in this country there was one law for the- rich and another for the poor, said he would relate several instances of abomina tions committed by the parsons in the south of England, which clearly proved the rascality of the richer classes. The letter then went on to state that a certain poor hawker had, some time since, in consequence of his po verty, been obliged to send his wife and child home to her mother, at Rugby, and that she subsequently went into the workhouse, where she, unfortunatly, attracted the attention of a certain Rev. Gentleman, who was a mar ried man, and one of the head masters of Rugby School ; that the hawker, havingsubsequently become enabled to maintain his wife, applied to have her restored to him, but that the Rev. Gentleman, having determined to make her the victim of his improper desires, prevented her joining . her husband ; that the hawker then applied to the Guardians to discharge his wife and her child, and that on her discharge she was in veigled by the parson into his house ; that on the hawker threatening him with an action if he detained his wife, the parson discharged her from his own house and took another for her close to his own; and that he also induced the parish officers to make a claim against the hawker for 12/. 18s. 11d. for the maintenance of his wife, ' and that subsequently she had had a child by his Reverence ; that after this the parson had offered the hawker money to live with his wife again, which he had refused to do, and that the parson had taken her before a Magistrate to make her swear the child was her husband's, but that the Magis trate had refused to administer the oath to her; that in order to prevent the husband from taking proceedings, the parson had procured his imprisonment in Warwick gaol on one occasion for two months, on another for twelve months; thaw the hawker would enter into an action • against the parson, but he had no means; and the letter concluded by asking whether Mr. O'Connor would take up this case, which was an other instance of the manner in which the laws were worked by the rich to make, •the poor subservient to the gratifi,:ation of their beastly appetites. Now his affidavits went to show that the Reverend C. A. Anstey was the person alluded to in the libel; and the affidavit of the Reverend Gentleman and . his wife went to show that•some years since they had taken a person named Ann Fearon, who had been mar ried to an Irish hawker, and who had left her husband to live with her mother, in consequence of his in ability to support her, into their service as an occasional servant ; that she afterwards went to reside with her mother, and that Mrs. Anstey having heard that her husband had returned and was ill using her, to induce her to live with him, had gone, accom panied by Mr. Anstey, to the cottage of Ann Fearon's mother, and had found Fearon ill using her; that Mr. Anstey had remonstrated with him, and recom mended him to come and live quietly at Rugby, which Fearon said he could not do, as he owed the parish officers money; that thereupon Mr. Anstey had offered to speak to the parish officers on the subject, to induce them to take the money by instalments, which he had done, and had written to Fearon on the subject. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—Iie denies all the imputations. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—He does, my Lord. The Learned Attorney-General then proceeded to contend that it was a duty Mr. Anstey owed himself, the school, and his country to come forward and clear himself of those imputations, whi c h h a d been cast upon him merely for a political purp ose,—R u l e gr anted. CHURCH RATES.— MANDAMUS.-- THE QUEEN V. THE CRAPELWARDEN S Or VARIOUS "TOWNSHIPS OF THE I'ARISH OF BRADFORD, Mr. CRESSWELL applied on behalf of the Church wardens of the parish of Bradford, Yorkshire, for a rule calling upon the Chapelwardens of various townships in that parish to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, ordering them to proceed to collect and pay over to the Churchwardens certain proportions of a Church-rate, according to ancient custom. The parish of Bradford is divided into various townships to each of which chapelwardens are annually appointed a part of who se d uty is to collect the quota of Church rate payable by the township. A monition had been issued by the Ecelesiaitical Court of York for the making of a Ch urc h -rate for Bradford. The i n h a bi tants assembled in v es t ry, and the majority refused a rate, whoreupon the c h urchwardens and the m i nor i ty proceeded to make a rate. That rate the Churchwarden s h ad partially collected i n the township of Bradford, but the chapelwardens, who had had regular notice given to them, refused to do any thing towards collecting it. The Archdeacon's visita tion had since taken place the churchwardens and several of the chapelwardens had been selected, and against those of the chapelwardens who had been selected he app lied for the mandamus, because they had been already called on to collect the rate. Mr. Justice Wlc iermaN—Do 'you know of any in stance of this sort in which the Court has interfered? A mandamus will not lie to make a Church - rate. Mr. CRESSWELL—NO my Lord; but a mandamus will lie, calling up on the church Wardens to meet and consider one. It is, - know, the opinion of some high authorities in Doctors' Commons that the Court has the power to interfere in the present case. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—If there is any instance of the Court int er f er i ng in a similar case, you may ta k e a rule to show cause ; if there is not, you had better move before the full Court. MANDAMUS.-THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR AND ASSESSORS OF LICHFIELD, Mr. WHATELY moved for a rule for a, ,mandamus, calling upon the Mayor and assessors of Lichfield to re store the name of George Allen to the burgess roll. The defendants had struck his name oft the roll, on the ground of non-payment of what they chose to call a borough rate, which rate WAS, in fact, merely a paving rate, and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 24 , WALKER V. NEEDHAM. Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS this day showed cause agains the rule. The COURT were of opinion that the preponderance of former decisions was in favour of their Lordships' pre sent view, that the writ had been rightly issued. The Court had the power of issuing such writs to the Sheriffs to save time and expense in a case which seemed to in volve no question of law, and no intricate question of fact, and it was laid down by Lord Coke and other au thorities that in cases analogous to the present an action might be laid, either as one of debt or of detenue. As to the objection that the evidence of Roberts was improperly received. It did not appear that the verdict in the mate rial part was founded upon his testimony, and the evidence, on the whole, was conflicting. Their Lord ships saw no sufficient reason to disturb the verdict, and discharged the rule. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 24. ELTRDEGIN V. POTTER. The plaintiff in this case was the public officer of the Bank of Manchester, who had issued execution upon a warrant of attorney . for 20,0001. against the goods of the defendant. A motion to set the execution aside was ob tained by Mr. Erle, for the defendant, cause against which was shown by Mr. CRESSWELL, who said there were three firms trading under the name of Potter—viz., Richard Potter, G. and S. Potter, and Michael Potter and Co. The three firms banked with the Bank of Manchester, and all were considerably indebted to it. Michael Potter and Co. were calico printers, and in June last were in very bad credit. The firm was in such bad odour in the mercan tile world, that they were unable to obtain calico to carry on their business. An arrangement was entered into, under which one of the Proprietors of the Bank, who was a calico manufacturer, was to supply them with goods for printing, and a warrant of attorney was given as se security. The question in dispute was, whether the war rant of attorney covered the sums due to the bank when it was given, or whether it was only to cover sums to be advanced in fut ure . M r . Erie admitted that upon the affidavits filed upon the part of the bank, he would not support the rule, which was then discharged with costs. Mr. Cresswell then appeared for .the Sheriff, who was in possession of property which originally cost upwards of 40,0001. Mr. PLATT and Mr. WATsoN appeared for the assig nees of the defendants, and Mr. ERLE for the defendants. After a long consultation the Court allowed the parties a fortnight to conic to some arrangement for the sale of the property in any way that would be most for the be nefit of the estate. If in that period they could not agree, then the Sheriff was to sell and bring the nett proceeds into Court. POPPLETON V. WILLIAMSON. • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to set aside an award made in this case. Ho appeared for the plaintiff; who had brought an action against the defendants, who were varnish makers, for a nui sance, his property b e i ng d e t er i orate d by the works of the defendant. Before the late assizes the parties agreed that the cause, and all matters in difference be tween them, should be referred to arbitrators. The arbi trators were appointed in the month of July, and they made an appointment for a meeting to be held on the 3d of August. The plaintiff communicated with his at torney, who had so many engagements on hand that he could not attend to the matter for a fortnight from that period. The attorney wrote to the arbitrators to that effect, and asked for an adjournment during that period. He received no answer, and then he applied to the solicitor for the defendants, but was informed by him that he intended to press the arbitrators for a deci sion. He again wrote to the arbitrators, and they made an appointment for the 10th of August, and they said it should then be peremptory. The plaintiff's attorney again wrote to them to say he coud not attend, but they took no notice—they proceeded with the arbitration, although the plaintiff did not appear - either by himself; counsel, or witnesses ; neither were there any witnesses examined on the part of the defendant, yet they awarded that upon the payment of 9151. by the de fendants to the plaintiff; he should convey the property in question, consisting of three houses, with out-build ings, to them, whereas, only two years before, two of the houses had been valued at 1,000 ,guineas. He contended that the arbit rators . ,4 fic i misconducted themselves by proceeding with st) ,fl k _u . pll precipitancy. Although upon the face of the award it appeared as if the parties had been heard, the affidavit showed that nei ther upon the 3d or the 10th of August was either the plaintiff or any one for him present. It further appeared that the plaintiff vas induced to enter into the reference by one of the parties who was afterwards appointed as arbitrator for the defendant, and he was the party who had previously valued the property at 1,400/. Rule nisi granted. PAGE V. VINCENT. The defendant in this case was a shareholder in the Egremont Steam Packet Company at Liverpool. It was resolved at a meeting that some additional capital should be raised, to which he (defendant) refused to subscribe, and an action was brought against him by one of the creditors of the concern. On a former day, Mr. Cresswell obtained a rule nisi, calling upon Mr. Stone, an attorney, to show cause why he should not pay the casts incurred by him in that action, on the ground that it was brought at his instigation. Mr. KELLY now appeared to show cause. The rule had been granted upon what he must call a very rash affi davit made by the defendant, which contained many most unfounded imputations upon the character of Mr. Stone. He would feel it his duty to enter at some length into them, unless, as he expected would be the case, his Learned Friend would admit that his affi davit had been fully answered and his client mistaken. Mr. CRESSWELL—Of course each of them would do their duty and make as strong a case as possible on be half of their respective clients, and if the matter was to be gone into he would have as harsh things to say of the client of his Learned Friend. He at once admitted that he did not expect that the Court would make his rule absolute. The defendant had proceeded upon information he received, that Mr. Page knew nothing of the, bringing of the action ; he was also informed that that gentleman, partner of Mr. Graham, knew nothing of it ; but it now ap peared that, although he knew nothing of the bring ing of the action, he was afterwards informed of it, and had adopted the proceeding. That made an im portant alteration in the state of facts, and although Mr. Stone admitted that the action was brought at his insti gation on the part of other Shareholders, denying of course any fraudulent motives, he did not expect to make the rule absolute. Mr. KELLY did not admit the statement of his Learned Friend, but it would be better to abstain from discussing any of the matters unless all all were to be gone into. The action was not commenced without authority, and the other imputations thrown upon the character of Mr. Stone were equally unfounded. It was the se cretary to the Company who gave the instructions for bringing the action, and he carried the message from the Company, and not from any individual Director. Baron PARKE—The only question now is as to costs. ir. CRESSWELL—The Court were well aware that a case assumed a very different colour according as the affidavits ,are morn first or last. As he had no hope of making the rule absolute, he must leave theluestion of costs to the Court.—Bule discharged, with costs. QUEEN V. THE MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY. Mr. moved for a rule to discharge all the pro ceedings taken in this Court upon a deodand levied upon some of the property of the above Company. The in quisition of the Coroner's Jury had been quashed in the Queen's Bench ; his motion was, therefore, of course.— Rule granted. THE QUEEN V. HYLE. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL appeared to show cause against a rule obtained by Mr. Cresswell, for the purpose of setting aside an inquisition taken under commission issued, to inquire what amount of money the defendant was indebted to the Crown. The defendant appeared to be the Paymaster of the Cheshire Yeomanry Cavalry, and was found to be indebted to the Crown in the sum of 2,0861., for which sum an extent in chief had issued. The ground upon which the rule had been moved was that the evidence given before the Jury was upon affidavit and not viva voce. The Learned SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. WAD DINGTON contended that the inquisition had been taken in the usual manner. They had affidavits that the same course had been pursued during the last twenty years. If the Court were to lay it down as law that oral evidence must be given in all cases of Crown debtors, the Crown would be placed in a worse situation than any subject, and the proceeding by extent would be wholly useless, for the debtor of the Crown, would have a full know ledge of the steps about to be taken against him. It was true that there was a decision of the Court in 1822, adverse to their position, but it had always been consi dered as bad law, and had never been acted upon. Mr. CaEssWELL was about to support the rule, but it being half-past bur o'clock and very dark, the further hearing was postponed till to-morrow. POL ICE INTELLIGENCE. MARYLEB OiVE. On Tuesday a very respectably- dressed young man, who at the station-house described himself as Mr. Benjamin Vale, surgeon, Crawford -street, was placed at the bar before Mr. Rawlinson, charged with the following out rage upon a lady named Foley, and another female : Mrs. Foley stated that her husband was a solicitor, residing at No. 33, Dorset -street, and that on the previ ous night, about ten o'clock, as she was returning towards home along the New-road, accompanied by a young woman in the service of a lady whom she had been visiting in Milton-street, the prisoner and another young man rushed between them in a most rude manner, and struck both of them. She _asked the.prisoner how he dared th us to i nsu l t her, when he exclaimed, Pray who and what are you ?" and gave her a violent push. Being indignant at this treatment, she slapped his face, upon which he struck her again. She went on till she saw a constable, and on meeting one gave the prisoner into custody. She was merely stopping for a moment to applicable to only one portion of the borough. Upwards of seventy persons had been deprived of their franchise under these circumstances, and he trusted his Lordship would grant a rule to show cause.--Rule nisi granted. This was an action brought against the defendant, a boatbuilder, to compel him to give up and restore to the plaintiff a boat detained by him without just cause. The case was tried bore the Sheriff of Middlesex, and the Jury found for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Channell this term obtained a rule nisi fur a new trial, on the grounds, first, that the writ to the Sheriff was improperly issued, as to the jurisdic tion of the Sheriffs Court extending only to actions of debt, whereas the present action was brought as one of " detenue ;" secondly, that improper evidence was re ceived. The latter point was rested on the fact that a person named Roberts was admitted witness, and that the Jury found for the plaintiff• in the cause of action, on his evidence alone, whereas they found specially that he " was partner with Walker in the boat." give some silver to the servant to purchase some things for her mistress, when she met with the treatment she had mentioned. Ellen Davis, the servant in question, corroborated Mrs. Foley's evidence, adding that they (complainants) were both called by the vilest epithet by the prisoner and his friend. Mr. RAWLINSON (to the prisoner)—What is your an swer to this ? Prisoner—l was walking arm in arm with my friend, when we saw these two females stand ing in the middle of the path so as to prevent any one from passing along. My friend pushed the servant gently, and when spoken to about it, he denied having done it on purpose. I did not call any one a w —e, but he did. I merely told this lady (Mrs. Foley) that she was a pretty woman, when she flew into a great passion and slapped my face. Mr. Foley here stated that the prisoner had since the occurrence called at his house for the purpose of apolo gising, but he (Mr. Foley) refused to listen to anything of the kind, considering, as he did, that the outrage was one of such a kind as to deserve punishment. Mr. ItAwLussoN—l was at first inclined to put upon you the highest penalty, imagining that you were the person'you represented yourself to be ; but, as I find you are only a surgeon's assistant, instead of a surgeon, I shall fine you but 31. The penalty was paid. Mr. Trehearn, a master baker, residing in Cleveland street, Fitzroy-square, was charged on a warrant with having assaulted Mr. Nelson Jones, 11, Carburton street, and whose life, owing to the injury he received, is almost despaired of. The case was partly gone into about a month ago (three days after the occurrence), when, after the examination of ono or two witnesses, it was ordered that the warrant should stand over, in the expectation that Mr. Jones would on a future day be able to attend. A surgeon's certificate was, however, produced on Mon day, setting forth that the sufferer was in a dangerous condition, and in consequence thereof the Liefendant was desired to attend on Tuesday. The evidence given by Mrs. Jones and other wit nesses went to show, that on the 22d ult., she and her husband went to defendant's shop to purchase a loaf, and that some words having ensued respect inn- the weight of it, defendant seized hold of AL. Jones to eject him from the place. In en deavouring to prevent this, the latter laid hold of a glass door, and breaking one of the panes, his hand was severely.lacerated. He was forcibly dragged away by defendant, who thrust him violently into the road, when the back of his head came in contact with the wheel of a cart, which was standing by the door, and he had ever since been under medical treatment. For some time he was a patient in Middlesex Hospital, and was now so ill as to leave but little chance of his recovery. The testimony adduced on the part of the defence was to the effect that Mr. Jones, having called the defendant a liar, the latter took hold of him to re,nove him from the shop, when, being somewhat " fresh," he slipped down, and thus caused the injury complained of. Defendant was held to bail himself in 801., and two sureties in 40/. each for his appearance on Monday next, and Mr. RaWlinson expressed his intention of proceeding at the close of the Court to 11, Carburton-street, for the purpose of taking the unfortunate man's deposition w ith regard to the affair. HATTON-GARDEN. ROBBERY THROUGEI ;HUNGER.--Daniel Bennett, ragged half-famished boy, about 14 years of age, was placed at the bar, charged by Mr. William Arnold, baker, of No. 32, High Holborn, with having stolen a pound of bread. It appeared in evidence, that in the morning, about eleven o'clock, the prisoner entered the shop of the pro secutor and asked his daughter for a half-penny bun, and whilst her back was turned to take it from the win dow, the prisoner snatched a pound of bread from the counter and ran off with it. lle was instantly pursued, and at some distance from the shop he was taken, de vouring the bread ravenously, when he was given into the custody of Smith, 151 E, who took him to the station-house. Smith here stated, that when the prisoner was taken, he cried, and said, " If you were as hungry as I was, you would have done the same." In answer to questions from the bench, the prisoner, in tears, said that his mother was dead, and his father had deserted him, and he was quite friendless. He was a native of Chippenham, in Wiltshire, and had been in London three weeks looking after work, but could get none, and he had been o bli ge d t o wan d er a b out an d b eg. He had not had anything to eat for a length of time, when hunger drove him to steal the bread. He had slept in the streets for nights together, and the night pre vious he procured a ticket, and slept at Marylebone Poor-house, Peckham. Mr. COMBE said it was evident that the prisoner was in great distress, and his having devoured the bread the moment after he had stolen it was a proof of his hunger at the time, and he could not think of punishing him under such circumstances. Mr. Arnold said that his only object in bringing him before the Magistrate was to get him, if possible, relieved. The prisoner said he was anxious to go to sea, but he had no friends to get him there: he had applied, but they refused him, as he had never been a voyage. Mr. COMI3E thought it x fit case to send to the work house, and he ordered Smith to take him to the work house of St. Andrew, tiolborn, and George the Martyr, with his request that he might be received and some thing done for him, and he:was discharged from the felony. _ _ _ The prisoner seemed grateful, and left the Court with the officer. BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK. MEETING TO CONGRATULATE THE QUEEN ON THE BIRTH OF AN HEIR APPARENT. A public meeting of the inhabitants of the Borough of Southwark was held on Tuesday, at the Town-hall, to con gratulate her Majesty on the birth of an heir apparent to the Throne. The requisition to the High Bailiff to con vene the meeting was signed by upwards of 200 of the most influential inhabitants of the borough. Amongst the gentlemen present we observed Alderman Hum phery, M.P., Benjamin Wood, Esq„ M.P., Mr. Apsley Pellatt, Arthur Barclay, Esq., William Wilson, Esq., Emanuel Cooper, Esq., J. Q. Harris, Esq., M.P., Perkins, Esq., Curling, Esq., &c. The chair was taken by John Holmes, Esq., the High Bailiff. The requisition convening the meeting was then read. The HIGH BAILIFF then addressed the meeting, and after alluding to the unexampled height of greatness and of glory which this country attained to under the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and also to the distinguishing character. istic of the reign of Queen Anne, which had been termed the " Augustan age of England," he observed that it had been reserved for the present times to produce a youth ful Sovereign who combined in her own character all the virtues of the woman and all the excellences of the Queen ; whose conduct, whether we regarded her as a daughter, a wife, a mother, or the ruler of this great empire, had shone with untarnished lustre, and on which the finger of envy and calumny had been unable to fix a stain.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. PERKINS moved the first resolution, expressive of thanks to Almighty God, for the safe delivery of her Majesty. Mr. APSLEY PELLATT seconded the motion. It was then agreed to. A resolution to the effect that an Address of Congra tulation on the birth of a Prince, heir to the Throne of Britain, be presented to her Majesty, was also carried. Mr. JOHN MEYNARD moved as an amendment that the following addition to be made to the address :—" At the same time, we cannot but acquaint your Majesty that thousaads of virtuous and modest women, your Ma jesty's subjects, are passing the like natural extremities upon beds of straw, without even a pillow whereon to lay their heads—that starvation and misery arc pervad ing the whole length and breadth of the land, and we attribute this state of things to class legislation, and therefore pray your Majesty to instruct your Ministers to pass a law that every male twenty-one years of age, untainted with crime, may have a vote in the election of representatives in the Commons House of Parliament." There must be some great cause for all this misery, and they had a right to approach the throne, and respectfully represent to her Majesty the distressed state of the ma jority of her loyal subjects.—(Hear, hear.) To read them even was enough to make their blood run cold in their veins, and what must it . be to endure them?—(Hear.) In his humble opinion the cause of all this misery was the class legislation of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Meynard then alluded to the conduct and enormous sala ries of the clergy of the Established Church. Mr. ARTHUR BARCLAY rose to order. He was not insensible of the distress pervading the kingdom, nor of the sufferings of his fellow -countrymen.—(Crie s of " Sit down," " Chair," " Order," &c.) Amidst great confusion, Mr. W. WILSON rose to order ; the remarks of Mr. Meynard were quite appropriate to the subject.— (Cheers.) If they admitted the amendment they must also listen to the reasons urged in support of it.—(Cheers.) Mr. MEYNARD continued. Me denied that he was heard by courtesy, and if he had been out of order the High Bailiff would have told him so, which he had not yet done.—(Cheers.) The statements he had made were, no doubt, painful to the ears of Mr. Barclay and his friends, but how much more painful must they be to him (Mr. Meynard), who saw so much more of the ex treme distress which his fellow-men were labouring under ?—(Cheers.) Was there anythingwrong in snak ing it known to their beloved Queen ? Did Queen Anne or Queen Elizabeth ever object to their subjects coming to them under such circumstances ? He felt satisfied that Queen Victoria would also listen to their representation. Dr. BEDFORD said that "out of the fulness of the heart the mouth would speak." Arthur Barclay and his friends sh ou ld b e taug h t to feel the necessity of the change for which they prayed in the amendment. It was a great privilege to approach the throne, and they could not use it better than by exhibiting to her Majesty a true picture of the suffering and misery in which the country was involved. He cordially seconded the amend ment.—(Cheers.) Mr. HILLOCK saw no reason for the interruption of Mr. Barclay. The working men only wanted to get a living, which would benefit that gentleman, for they would then be able to drink a little more of his beer.— (Cheers.) For twenty years he had been a rate-payer in the borough. but now, in spite of his utmost efforts, , he was corning to the state of a pauper. He could now only get two day's work in the week, and he had a whole family of children, and had not wherewithal to get the'.n a dinner.—(Hear, hear.) He was no Chartist, but a Corn-law repealer ; and the reason of that was, that, as he passed along . the streets he observed the tradesmen at their doors, with their hands in their pockets, and nothing to do. They need not go Marylebone, or cofu l rom d .n take own Mr. Barclay brewery, any where else, for scenes of destitutioneas distant rhe ; for r 4 o a p nd lac s e h s o o w nly a him f initmice,s , equally sta r tli n g. --(Hear, hear.) He trusted they wou ld l et the amend ment pass for the benefit of the' working elas sva . Th e poor had no objection to let them (the Tories) live ; but it was right that they should also let,. others live. Mr. BLACKIKORE (a working-man) said. that it was impossible for fathers of starving families to stand by in silence. He was astonished that the conduct of gentle- MORNING SUN P _ e men present should endeavour to stifle the cries of _ poor. Let them turn their eyes to the state of the country, and they would at once see that theattetaig was vain. —(Loud cheers.) As a working man, be the ir declare that all sustenance wa-z banished fe°lll the dwellings.—(Hear, hear.) It was time to' atOos e • t r.: selves, and they would lie dormant no 10nge.,70-,Ti mendous cheers.) They would insist upon their ra t er. making better laws, laws which would permit the w °01• ing classes to exist ; an d h e called upon the two ilooc": able Members of th e H ouse of Commons presen t to sta t e to her Majesty what they then heard, that she teig take measures for the mitigation of their sufferings' 41' their fervent prayer should be that her .Majesty 11 4 1 . 1 .: long be spared to the nation, and that future genera m igh e her blessed.—( Thamendment was then Chcers. ) put from [the chair, and . 11 the show of hands e tken The HIGH BAIL b IFF ing sai a d, I' am of opinion that the amendment is carried. This announcement was received with tremendl cheering and waving of hats in the body a the When the applause bad somewhat subsided, „A Mr. MEYNARD moved that the address be pre her Majesty by the High Bailiff, John Holme , t q ,, " Benjamin Wood, Esq., M.P., Alderman Humpherf, M.P., Dr. Bedford, and William Wilson, Egg' n ip' The resolution, being seconded, was agreed td mously. dig° Alderman lIUMPHERY M.P., mov ed a vote r to the High Bailiff. the 03 (4i°14 1,1 BENJAMIN WOOD, Esq., M.P., seconded wool. and, in doing so, expres se d his hope that his hes, „It" ~- -b le be so far restored by n ex t session that he sho oo to attend to his duty in Parliament.—(Cheers) a the The vote of thanks was carried by acclamatio u r meeting separated. THE MARKETS —YESTERP', CORN EXCHANGE. if o rido 6 There has not been muc h Corn fresh in situ* boo Every article of the trade dull at last quotatiPt s ,taloor factors were not disposed to take less prices. trade is still heavy. NEWGATE AND L EADEN - IV L' All kinds of meat were i n good demand, s he , 4 7, 1 ; SP large, and pric es una lt ere d. B ee f 3s. t 04 5 ., Ass: lOci, to 45., Ve a l 3s. Bd. to 4s. Bd. Pork 3s. Bd. ;s;appli and ss. 4d. per s t one o f 81b. 'There was a goo `' d rice ° of Game and P ou lt r y, th e d eman d was goOdif a 5 1 ; ° as previously quoted. Eggs in good demand to Bs. 6d. per 120. COLONIAL MARKET. j te e, Prices were sustained for most kinds of Pry" b 0 a fair demand pr eva il e d f rom t h e Homo TracNoorsi shippers were c au ti ous i n th e i r p ro ceedings,. TY as Ugl a r. were small. For hom e use Raw and 81 „„' met with a good demand, an d f u ll rates we n ' 1;gly , for standard lumps. Coffee was taken slsalrtriO' home use at 675. to 70s. Ri ce difficult of sale, as 0.0 lower rates taken. The Spice market dull, Lignea cheaper. TEA MARKET. „ gr i The biddings were dull at the public, syi, e , r jAP l small part found buyers, hut th e ra tes Of • sustained. Company's Congou, i s . 9d. "., TALLOW MARKET. Prices were sustained, and a fair P.Y. Candle on the spot 475. 9d. per 0 14 COAL MARKET. 3 Ships arrived since last market . 00 11 P d. .... ;n 11 • g Adair's t t dell, Hobson Sz Co. Hartley 17 Walls End Russ is • 4 . Buddle's West Hartley l9 0 W a ll s End St`"- - Chan ''' ette Main ......... 18 0 South Pelton I I.lolyweil Ma.n lB 6 Walls End C 30° ,4;:001. ,.. 11 New Tanfield Moor - • 14 6 Walls End ria r " -- 1 , 0 West Hartley ....... 11 0 W l• 16 6I Walls End Oa"' ris.4;'ts L P -d , Walls End Clark and Co. l7 Walls End Clennel I W.lls "'nd l)elaval Walls End Killingworth l 9 W. E. 13raddyll'sHotton ... 21 9 Walls End Hetton 2l 9 Walls End --e jjc W a lls End Clartneo i e „.. , s, ti Walls End Eve n° • reei.lll Walls End Sero"r ..." I ' Wal s End legs •••••:pie. Howard's Netherton , t ' ls l . ll' A' e r i 0 1 From lb 325 Wheat,perbarroPei stare ..... 20 0 0 9 218 Bere ........ l6 stole l5 0 0 317 Barley l6 stnuc...... 16 ' i , f a 476 O a ts 0 Flour, per cwt 8 stone..." ° u . ... NO 312 Oatmeal 3 stone." • • ... 19 P Sold to Bakers only. 9.5 0 l a* di 9,110 Cwt. 10 0 r s.l ..... - Average price of Wheat and ...........„. lour 56. likl• P e od to rii.o l - Fusu• ! from 224. Od- 19.' 0e °4 Receipts of Flour, 13,437 1 „ ~..,""""'•: f ro m 03s- ai , t o 1 ' Bales of Do. 10,1116.1r r e t : r r . ... s e :. front 1 " " Quarter!. Loal.4ii & P 11. I: mod.,, Cor Bassi). 0 1 0 Wheat (per 204.)15s Ud. tu 38.. 6 A.I Oats 'per 145 t... 7 ,..," .- 0 .- CORK M A R ii K a E l ' i rS Qu .— E N t u e • rn . 2°.. 1 . ..0. •,1 5‘.° Barley (per 165t.)12 0 sti 0 11. lorr (per cwt 1...i,' Oatmeal (per cwt.)..„ ..... .. it.. Od to 1 3 . 5 4d ° 7 0 NI Beef, 61. to 7d.—Mutton, .... to flit...Vea l ' r ID. Pork, 49d. to sd.—Fresh Buttes, Ild. to 12d Pe PRICE OF BUTTER. To th e C' To the Merchants. ...... nest 20allty• •. ••••••••••••••... 924,..•••••••••••..... ..... .... deemSeC 0000000000000000 "...sm.. 58 • ...........""*" ~.• Third ••• 000000000 ••• 000000 ...... &.) .............. 0!. Fourth ..".. 000000 .•........... i• 74 „„ —0...... ~„,,....• .. - .. ....---- . Fifth .......... •••••••• t 6 ............0 .... Sixth ... ..." 50 -- IRISH MARKETS. , DUBLIN MARKET NOTE for the VVcek 36 16 g o 0 , IS 14 utit r i so A RlCE'Md. ,l4v * 2° 'we. 0 , CLONMELL M. II i Per s. d. t, New Butter B4 oto BO 0 Hides tit ) "'"'rei C Oatmeal - 0 12 6 BacostP a e w ..." •... -. 0 : . ',,,, Rendered Lard - 0 52 9 Heads.: 5" : "... .."" I 0 - Per Ba 4 0 4. ' f1eur,5ec00d.........- 0 44 0 i rfr m - ',. ~ .rd r....«••'' • 0 ..2 0l --* j ib**"......"0il 0 ' a Sere d2O 0 - Per O li t a llZ4 7"44. ........2 " ... —ll I: KILKENNY MARKETS. C kt ' I Is RITETS....... " • 11 1041 Wheat dnr barrel)2B9. Od. to 355. Od. Beet 'ler i t e t . ..-- it 0 15 (I Po .... " 4 " . 4 ' . .i Barley Butte:C ' B F a l a o c t ur n ( wieg i • e r ,s b c: a .v g .t ) . ). :710 2 0 00 1 :3 0 1 1 85 ) 0 00 i lbt. r e" : rik t .n it : r ".... 1 1: : °I4: 11 -1: - 4 ' '-'1 ; 1 ..; .........,..... • i n a 10 Coals .. 7 5 1 0 0 42 1 26 wait Pota t p oe it s tp ,pgri :":ll : ' A?' . '' STATE T --- 1°44". YlGATlON.—Business of all descriptions PRP" ( OF TRA D E COMMERCOP "" tb n inoti' w .. l ,l • • it: beveeernydNesc'eleinkinags in n vi p n r t i e c r e a a p li p t r h o r a o c l l tg es h . th e e ei g e ir r , 11 __.00....j05e:5!,,, 'cal low, within a mere trifle, as it has woollen trade continues to exhibit the ser e ho s shell' of e m all p eas t s o ,t m itnh s rt o eh t ee d )i i le s oa t p r re e s. ss and decay which It r -pglan_ .,.4 l " a .of I s t v h Y Wholeodu tfioorneos forests i t r w o ne colonial the national industry have determine d 1° c i 0/9 " r T ni rate ; l e i e i v r i o n n g - nit that t t e ir snoncienasietnir i „,.. i.shiitit . 1;: sent time, piled around port, quite unsaleable, except at the inns , .. l ine l'ar and the value of shipping continues t°, dec t be pri, ce bli ' t - thi fi me v '-five Be p rr ue may r n s c w e n ib : i f . s ki ,ieem : ; ,. o e. i f ig u, s t ),er slice. , P it i - r ; under the two-fold influence of the fall ' ll , l "„ f irts-', An t el ' timber and of ruinously low freights to allr hese troMi , world. Painful as it is to see and to state b ' n not d oe,, it it is absolutely necessary that they s hould t i a t it w an - oi mentioned but freely discussed, for, unless,, ,, a d a pts and, unless the discussion is followed bY t '' ' the w- b P community appropriate but rem distressedies, ruin.nothing e preo u e r x e t u a doi o P b e fore , 0 . _, mercantile and manufacturing interests iS i ji r 10 0 g gi l l to retail traders of every description, hau l ; s to ° l° ► r reached the labouring classes, and threatens ~,,, isle,' p• and po or J er , V the shopkeepers in embarrassment c . ustel life.' the e th l a u l x l u t r h i c es c:os c s o e n s v N e v n h i o en t c ts e - e s cl , to an d be their Liverpool Times. r , e y ti 14 b 1 : r i THE NEW COURTS OF ;Cl ec li esis7e- V 6l i:'" 6 ' COLN'S INN.—These Courts, designed for the rt salt e : cellors Wigram and Bruce, have in the sh° for . Wol eight weeks been completed and rendered fi; d i n g _ A ig t. diate „occupation. The exterior of the leastbel sitailee brick, plain and unassuming, without the of alS t Lor i .. at architectural display. The entrances Brefoolo, dimensions and well calculated to afford eve r l. er oal 64 ,00' ingress and egress, and also to secure good let. : te rior Sr,:plai , • munication between the Courts. The ' n ,i t he 'fel . commodious, light, and convenient, an' ,„,, 0 a A ce? ' though neat, unostentatious decorations I . . - ith ~, ; pleasing effect. The tables, &c. , are covered vi, oo oow ' more° u ro ntit.t r , crimson cloth, the curtains of drab though far from gaudy, the whole presents 1 fi l e I T ' i pearance. On Sunda the Lord Chancellor, 00 000' Chancellors, and several ' friends, inspected 1118 0 bf th e !! ' and were pleased to express their approbation the ef' i ; , cellence of their construction, as well as ° I. (ge ss ot ordinary expedition with which the builderstio thor. Cubitt) had. completed them. It is underL 01l sittings will take place there for the first La -- • , about the 2d of December. Or/ the I,' , . The conversation-house at Baden 11 1 14 I - 0 0 - - ~rei ng-tables were closed on the 31st ult. "Ike, and .-,0 strangers who visited Baden, between May ' w ere _ an ' al her 31, amounted to 22,089. Among thes e the GT 0( 0 Princes, with their suites, 4,631 natives of .' r i t ins:.o., Duchy of Baden, 5,178 Germans, 97 gel l o g,, - 0,0 0 . 51 7 , r Bohemians, 3,556 English, 5,650 French, 81 D ane 476 Dutch, 282 Belgians, 753 Swiss, 81 aDv a i Ii Swedes and Norwegians, 178 Italians, 35 , ' 12 Portuguese, 5 Greeks, 5 Moldavian*, 'll' Po l es' ' E Americans, 6 Asiatics, and 8 Africans, .„ 5 Artt 0 :. SILVER TEA SERVICES.—A- ii., - ,,t11111 lif and Suns, Manufacturing Silversmith, Nil• 14 . s' °- ao'''':lo don, opposite the Bank of England, submit the fri,, g - 0: - • a following SILVER TEA and COFFEE SERV , t he go, di Cottage Pattern is plain, standing on shell feetoi , „„'t - • ~ POPe coffee-pots with a flower ornament en the lids. ;ibis O h Pattern is richly embossed with flowers and scrolls. of either is new and elegant : .. 0 .71. g 0* COTTAGE PATTERN. I ~,,,,G . , rAT. x 0 - X 5 19 . Strong Silver Tea-p0t.....12 O Stroh g Silver Teart,.....' o I 0 Ditto Sugar Basin 616 Ditte Sugar ''' .-1 r 6 " a Ditto Milk Ewer. 410 Ditto eatiO le 5 - Cr ..t ..1 ~ Ditto Coffee-pot. 15 0 Ditto Cdfe e l - -/ 0 --.._ Complete A variety of upwards of fifty Tea be seen in the Show-rooms, where may be selected s'plph.!•, of Silver requisite for the sideboard or plate-ehest. ,f l " o ",g,T r i of prices , illustrated with sketches of the various arti1:,,, 0 .- -- i t ,, and forwarded postage free to any Corn } elf. the ki o ilD - o ppef i r . •' . the Bank of England. 3t5 6 13 . SAVORY and SONS, No. 9, ll Landoll, Co a m nd pl ca ete i.e.; ............................... , , ~:~~ ----- --_______!------ , iset :: BIRTHS. ti, t ile On the 21st inst., at Sutton-place, near GuildfoLialor.o 'of P. A. Browne, Esq., of Devonshire - place , of a " - va l e fl On the 21st inst., at Withycombe, near Exmouth, of John H. Doyle, Esq., of a daughter. , ff e t .6 oo4 On tho 21st inst., at the Philanthropic, St. o f `-ic°°, sOli• . the lady of the Rev. S. Turner, resident chaplain, ,,,eknae On the 22d inst., Mrs. W. Bradshaw, Well- street, P of a son. 1 . &0, MA RBLFC.D. On the 22d inst., at St. George's, Hanover so Barry Thomas, 61st Regiment, to Catherine r•P'_'„t. _., daughter of the late Major G. Colcltugh, 3 " ----- DIED. ea ' C " On the 20th inst., Rosa Mary, the wife of 3D:. Bic h .'' . bett, jun., of Northumbeiland=street, Strand.. .., - . ,A, On the 15th inst., , at OpOrto, G.-M.. Roche r, rA,.,q' s , e %,.P" On the 19th inst., at Dolnore, near Cuckf eld, ou xniral Sir John Wells G. C. B. aged 78. London : Printed and Published byl"lj:B.- l° ' l° DOII q "(hi' u''l l No. 112, Strand, at 'The Sum Oilier. So. -'‘,s Stra° ' PO' the County of Middlesex, Thursday, I* ov alba `