The Sun. — London, England, 1841-12-15 00:00:00

MORNING STI N LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 14. NEILSON V. HARFORD. His LORDSHIP on entering Court proceeded to give judgment in this case. The motion was one to review an Injunction. The injunction had been dissolved by the late Lord Chancellor, the defendant undertaking to keep an account, and the plaintiff either to bring, or to pro ceed in, an action at law for the purpose of trying . the validity of the patent. The question had been since tried, and judgment had been entered in the Court of Exchequer. It was under those circum stances almost a matter of course that the injunc tion should be allowed, but some objections had been made on the part of the defendant. It had been stated, on his part, that the Learned Judge who tried the case, and who was one of the Judges of the Court where the question was finally decided, dissented from the opi nion of the rest of the Judges of the Court ; and it was also stated, on the part of the defendant, that, from the course which the proceedings took, he was deprived of the right of bringing a writ of error. Now, he did not find that the Learned Judge, to whom reference had been made, had dissented from the opinion of the rest of the Court. The Learned Judge had said undoubtedly that it was a case of great nicety, and that he en tertained doubts upon the question ; but he him himself delivered the judgment of the Court, and said in the course of delivering the judgment, that he could not see that the construction put by the Court upon the specification was wrong. It was also objected that the defendant was deprived, by the course of the proceedings, of his right to bring a writ of error. The facts of the case were these :—Towards the conclusion of the trial, the Learned Judges suggested, as a proper course to be pursued, that the facts should be stated in the shape of a special case, or that they should be put upon the record, in order that the case might necessarily go to the last resort. The Counsel for the plaintiff ac ceded to this suggestion. The Counsel, however, for the defendant, the late Attorney-General, finding that the opinion of the Learned Judge was with him, thought it more advantageous to adopt a different course ; and lie insisted that the verdict should be entered on the issue. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) thought that in pursuing such a course he waived any future right to a writ of error, and made his election to abide by the decision of the Court of Exchequer. His Lordship was the less disposed to depart from the usual course in cases of the kind, after having considered the judgment of the Court as competent with the specification ; and he thought the construction put upon the specification was a rea sonable construction. The plaintiff allowed the de fendant to use the patent by way of trial, for a certain period. He did use it for that period, and kept an account and rendered that account. He was allowed to make the trial with a view to his afterwards taking a license, and paying, if he thought proper, a cer tain allowance for the use of the patent. He did not take the license, but he afterwards continued to use the patent, and refused to render any further account ; in consequence of which notice was given to him to discon tinue to use the patent. After that notice it was clear that if be continued to use the patent, and he did con tinue, he was liable to be proceeded against ; and for these reasons his Lordship was of opinion that the in junction should be allowed. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE EARL OF STANFORD AND OTHERS. This was a bill filed by her Majesty's Attorney- General at the relation of several inhabitants of Man chester, for the purpose of obtaining a better ad ministration of the funds of the Manchester Free Grammar School, of which the defendants were trustees. The case had already been heard at length before the late Lord Chancellor, who delivered his judgment in the matter ; but a caveat having been entered against the decree, the case came before the Court to-day for re-hearing. It appears from the statement of Mr. BETHELL, who opened the case for the Attorney-General, that the in come of the school, which had been founded for the purpose of giving gratuitous instruction to the children of the poor of the neighbourhood of Manchester, amounted at present to more than 5,0001. The relators complained—first, that the entire revenue was not effectually devoted to the objects of the charity secondly, that it was not confined to those who were really the persons who should be benefited by it ; and, thirdly, they complained of the mode of electing the trustees of the fund. Not more than two hundred chil- dren were educated in the school; and of these a portion were the children of persons living in various parts of England, and residing at the houses of different masters of the school as borders, for the purpose of participat ing in the education, which the immense revenues of the establishment enabled the masters to give. Those boys were generally the children of men of property, and did not in any way come within the inten tions of the founder of the charity. Again, the trustees were elected almost exclusively from a class of persons who, though men of rank, and no doubt men of honourable intentions, were, from the very station which they filled, incapable of attending to such an institution, and unacquainted with the means of con verting the trust to the best use. In the year 1825 the Commissioners of Education laid before Parliament a Report, from which it appeared that the revenues of the school amounted at that time to upwards of 4,0001., while the expenses of the school were little more than 2,0001., n ith a balance, in addition, in the hands of the trustees of 11,0001. The Commissioners concluded their Report by recommending an extension of the system of education then adopted in the school, and that means should be taken to afford opportunity fur educating a greater number of children. No attempt had been ra..de to carry that recommendation into ef- feet until the year 1833, when an application had been made to the Court of Chancery, on the part of the trustees of the charity, for further powers to enable them to extend the system of edu cation contemplated by the original grant. The relators, however, complained of the nature of the powers thus granted, and stated that the charity was still diverted from its original destination. The address of Mr. BETnELL occupied the Court from an early hour in the morning until its rising, after three o'clock ; and the further arguments on the case were ordered to be resumed to-morrow. VICE CHAIV CELLORS' COURT, Dec. 14. (Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.) THE FISHMONGERS' COMPANY V. THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY. The further arguments in this case, which turned upon the interpretation of certain Acts of Parliament, were resumed this morning at considerable length. His lloNoun said it was evident that there was a blunder in the Act of Parliament, which professed to extend the powers of the Lords of the Treasury in rela tion to the purchase of certain tenements for the erection of the new Custom•house; and that those powers were not really extended by the terms of the Act. Under those circumstances he should make no order, and the Com pany would therefore be liable to the costs. (Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.) CLIFFORD V. TURRILL. The bill was filed for the specific performance of a parole an between the defendant and the plaintiff, by which the defendant an-reed to allow the plaintiff an annuity of 401. a year for life, and a house to live in worth 101. a year. The case was part heard on Satur day, and the arguments were concluded yesterday. Mr. Coo per and Mr. Tripp appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. bimphins on and Mr. an cCh dl ss for the de fendant. His lloNoun, in giving judgment this morning, said the plaintiff had proved a case entitling him to the speci fic performance of the agreement alleged in the bill. In the account to be taken between the parties, the annuity of 40/. a year was to be considered as commencing on the 22d of January 1840 ; and with respect to the other part of the agreement, the plaintiff was to have the option of having a house to live in of the value of lOta year, or that sum in money for his lif e . With regard to costs, the plaintiff having asked for more than he was entitled, and made charges against the defendant which he had not been able to sustain, his Honour said he was of opinion that he ought not to give costs up to the hearing of the cause. COCKBURN v. SINCLETO This was a suit in stituted by Dr. Cockburn , the Dean of York, against M r. Sin g leton, w ho had held the situa tion of his agent, an d another defendant of the na me o f Milner, for the purpos e of settin g aside tures of lease, dated the 29th August, 1835, on the te and Mi of lner. of fraud and misrepr esentation on h Singleton, and of collusion bet ween Singleton The bill also prayed an injunction, and certain accounts alleged to be unsettled between t he Dean and Mr. llts • - , 4 n gleton. Mr. COOPER opened the case for the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not thought it necessary to enter into any evidence in support of his case, and he could not, there fore, push the case beyond;an inquiry. It was contended by the defendant that the account had been settled as far back as 1835 ; but notwithstanding that, he trusted the Court would come to the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to an account. _ _ Mr. ABRAHAMS followed on the same side. The further hearing of the arguments was postponed till Monday next. (Before Vice-Chancellor IVIGRAm.) SLADE V. SLADE. The bill was filed for the administration of the estate of a lady named Anna Slade. It was filed by one of the next of kin against some others who administered the estate, an d a l s o parties in distribution as others next of kin. The defendants Pleaded in answer, that Anna, in March, 1839, a few days i after she came of age , h a d se ttl e d an accoun t wi th them, by which she agreed to accept 2,1401. as her share of the property. In the amended bill it was al leged that the defendants had taken advantage of Anna's ignorance of such proceedings ; that the property' of her father amounted to up wards of 50,000/., and that her share in that pro perty amounted to about 11,0001. To this bill the de tenetuts novr demurred, on the ground of multifarious ness, improperly mixine• up matters whi c h re l a t e d t o two sep arate estates. b Mr. Sutton Sharpe and Mr. Freeling appeared fur the defendants; Mr. T ee d and M r . Wilcock for the plaintiff: Thee question turn e d e n th e ru l es o f p l ea di ng i n equ i ty. ease was part-he ar d y es t er d a y, an d hi s H onour this morning overruled the demurrer, allowing six weeks time to answer. NEW ORDERS. ..... Elix V. B ELL. The arguments insl elusion. this case were b roug h t t o a con- His HoNoun, after intimating his i n t en ti on t o d e li v e r judgment on Thursday, made the following observations in reference to the Masters' Report in this case, and Masters' Reports generally, a s a ff ec t e d by the new orders. When the Court directed an inquiry before the Master, he Was requ i red to find facts upon which the Court might act ; a n d not merely to examine w it n esses and take depositions , . and the n sen d t h em to t h e Court to make such use of them as it could. If the evidence were sent up to the Court without any precise finding, it was impossible to say upon what ground the Court should proceed. The 48th of the new orders was in tended to guard against cases of that description. He had been informed that that order had been under stood by the asters as directing them merely to state what affidavits were filed, what statements of facts were carried on, and what witnesses were examined. That was certainly not the intention of Lord Cottenham. Before that order was framed the Masters might state depositions and states of facts, and draw conclusions from the evidence, and give the grounds of their judgment. There was nothing whatever in the order which pre vented the Master from finding that certain evidence had been laid before him, finding certain facts, and drawing his conclusion, and stating the reasons upon which they were founded. Having taken part in the suggestion of that order he could confidently say that Lord Cotten ham's view was that the Court derived no benefit from the Master finding depositions and affidavits, and that what the Court wanted was the Master's con clusion, judging for itself whether that conclu sion was borne out by the evidence. Th e 48th order, i t directed the Master not to state depositions or states of facts ; but it did not prohibit him from stating wills or deeds. The reason of the distinction was, that the . former were, while the latter were not, kept in the Master's office. The order was framed with the great est care, so as to leave the Master at liberty to do every thing except find the affidavits and other matters recited. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 14. (Sittings at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice IVlountirr and a Common Jury.) HAYWORTH V. BOURNE. This was an action upon a mortgage deed, brought by the plaintiff; a solicitor of Beckington in Somersetshire, against the defendant, a gardener at Frome. It appeared that the defendant obtained a sum of 1501. upon a mort gage of his premises in Warminster-road, and of that sum 50/. principal had been paid, with interest up to the 20th February 1836 ; and the present action was brought to recover the interest due from that date up to the present period, amounting to 261. odd. For the defendant it was shown that notice had been given to the plaintiff, that on the 20th February, 1836, the defendant was ready to pay up the principal due, amounting to 1001., and requiring the deeds to be de livered up. On that day the defendant and a friend waited upon the plaintiff with 1001. the balance admitted to be due, but the plaintiff refused to take it, stating that the deeds were in London, and that he would write for them, and have them sent down in a few days, adding that he would not expect to receive any interest after the 20th February. The money was afterwards placed by the defendant in the hands of his attorney, Mr. Whittaker, who called more than once upon the agents in London, who held the mortgage deed, and offered the money requiring the deed to be delivered up. The agents, however, refused to give up the deed until 1501. had been paid, and the 100/. waslodged in the Bank where it still remained. The action was now brought to recover the interest alleged to be due up to the present time. The Learned JUDGE observed that fortunately for the defendant in the present action, the only question to be submitted to them was one of damages. Although he might have tendered the principal sum due, if he fettered that tender with any conditions as to the validity of the deed, in strict law an action would be maintainable for the principal and interest, even if the party holding the deed had refused to deliver it up. He would repeat, however, that it was fortunate for the defendant that the question was one wholly for the consideration of the Jury, and they were to say, looking at the circumstances of the case, as stated by the witnesses, whether the plain tiff was or was not entitled to interest to the present time. The Jury immediately found a verdict for the de fendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 14. WHITE V. NICHOLSON. The defendant was executor to a person who had been tenant of the plaintiff, in the occupation of premises in Bath-street, Newgate-street, and this action was brought to recover damages for dilapidations occasioned not by reasonable wear and tear, but by the premises having been used in an "untenantlike and improper" manner by the occupant. The declaration set forth numerous particulars of dilapidation, breakage of window-glass, and improper removal of fixtures, besides a special breach of contract, in not restoring the premises in the same state as when the tenant entered upon them. The defence was generally not guilty, and Mr. Ser geant BOMPAS for the defendant insisted that it was to be inferred from the plaintiff's own evidence, that there had been no untenantlike conduct on the part of the de ceased, but that the alterations complained of, especially that of the ground floor, were made for the purpose of improvement, the plaintiff's own son having admitted in the witness-box that the change did not deteriorate the value of the premises. The Learned Sergeant also con tended that the window-panes to the value of 101. or 121. must have been broken whilst the house was unoccupied, after the termination of the testator's tenantcy. The LEARNED JUDGE, in summing up, left it to the Jury to say what part of the fixtures removed was such as the defendant was entitled to, in consideration of the sum paid for fixtures at the commencement of the tes tator's tenantcy. As the plaintiff had not put in evi dence the inventory of fixtures paid for by the deceased, the Jury must conjecture from the evidence and their own experience. There was one, however, a partition by which the cellar was divided into a counting-house and store, which seemed to be one, the tenant could have no right to remove. With respect to the alteration of the shop, or ground-floor, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a verdict, if the Jury were of opinion that the agree ment bound the tenant to restore the premises in the same state as he found them. But the amount of da mages must be regulated by their estimate of the amount of deterioration in the value of the premises, or of the inconvenience or expense to which the plaintiff might have been put by the alteration. It had been sworn by some of the witnesses that the alteration was an im provement, and that the plaintiff suffered neither loss nor inconvenience thereby. The Jury in a few minutes retnrned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Is. GRIFFITHS V. ROBERTS. The plaintiff had engaged with Mr. Lewis (the pub lisher) to complete, on copperplate, within a certain period, a series of views representing the Metropolis, as seen from the dome of St. Paul's. He engaged the de fendant to make the drawings for the purpose, but, in consequence of the tardiness with which those were fur nished, the plaintiff was unable to fulfil his contract, and accordingly brought this action to recover damages for the loss which he had thereby sustained. Mr. Justice ERSKINE, upon hearing the pleadings read, suggested the propriety of referring the matters in dispute to an arbitration. Mr. Sergeant TALFoURD, on the part of the defendant, expressed his concurrence with the opinion of the Court. Mr. Sergeant 111EuEwETHER, for the plaintiff, sub mitted that the question at issue turned upon matters of fact, which the Jury were competent to determine. The defendant had pleaded first—that he had used all due diligence ; and secondly, that his delay was occasioned by the visitation of God—namely, by illness, and on these pleas issue was joined. Huwever, after the case had occupied several hours, the suggestion of the Learned Judge was at length acted upon. The parties entered into an arrangement, and a juror was withdrawn. SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 14. An action was brought by Mr. Parry, a Magistrate and Coroner for the county of Flint, to recover of the defendant, Mr. Truman, who is a manufacturer at Man chester, damages for an assault committed at the late election for that place. The assault was of a very serious nature, and the facts, as stated by a con stable, were these : The plaintiff and defen dant were in the field where the polling-booth was, when some angry words, which were not heard by the witnesses, took place, and the defendant struck the plaintiff several blows, at least a dozen, with a stick, and caused a wouni in the temple, and knocked him down, and the defendant struck him several times afterwards. It was stated by the plaintiff's brother, who is a surgeon, that the plaintiff was still suffering from the violence. The only suppo sition was that the ill feeling which ran high between the plaintiff's party (the Hon. Mr. Mostyn's) and the defendant's had affected the latter to the above uncontrolable extent. Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury for the defendant, and expressed regret at the occurrence, but urged that the affair had been much exaggerated. The Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff—Damages 120 L EVANS V. BENNETT. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was an artist, against the defendant, a literary gentleman, to recoverr the sum of 161. for work and labour done. celebrity by li l N • THOMAS, in stating the plaintiff's case, said the defendant, Mr. T. L. Bennet, was a member of the Lin mean th e nSoeiet.ad a gentleman who had gained some he returned five of severalEn Histry. publication of several works on Natural to o er a loni , residence in the Island of Ceylon Island, in the gland, and published a work descrip tive in the natural history of the and illustrationdidwo of which the plaintiff was em ployedaiso i r engraver, to the amount claimed, and t p an n d eomposition. After twelve pages had been set a u so the plaintiff h c i l a letter from the defendant, ivseeveral lithographic engravings pecuniary resources failing stating, that owing t o him, and a new edition of s II mould be Cuvier's Ichthyology ngement and classifi cation appeared, in whichuituheehrarrann marked for the sum of 16/., yet more modern than what writu c e , wasthe work cation of the orders were discontinued. the plaintiff did not seek to recover l Although could t p h r e od under circumstances of the discoutinuaneoereafthan 71. 55., the work. The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver dict for the plaintiff —Damages. 7/. ss. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, D ec . 14. IN THE MATTER OF WM. HITCHCOCK, LINEN -APE R, OF REGENT-STREET, A BANKRUPT. The further examination of this bankrupt was re sumed this morning shortly after 11 o'clock. The room was, as on former examinations, crowded, and the greatest anxiety appeared to be excited to hear the state ments of the bankrupt. The bankrupt having been called in, Mr. A ' SITURST proceeded with his examination as fol lows :—What was the actual amount, Mr. Hitchcock, received by you from Mr. Christopher Leaf for the goods invoiced by you at 2,8001. am not certain as to the exact amouut, but I believe it to be 1,8501. On looking to my book I find it to be 1,7501 I should here state that Mr. C. Leaf claims to prove on my estate for a sum of 801, he having advanced that sum beyond the amount which the goods realised. Did he sell at those prices with your approbation ?—Yes. Now will you state what you did with the money, and the dates when you received it : first the dates when you received it ?--.On or about August 21, 5001 ; on or about August 24, 2501. ; on or about the 28th, 5001; on or about the 31st, 500 1. Now proceed to answer the first question, what you did with the money ?—The money was received in Be- THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1841. gent-street, mixed with other moneys, and applied to the general purposes of the trade, as shown in the cash-book. Now, as you have sworn that you sent out those goods for the purpose of being delivered to Cook and Glad stone, and as you do not disclose where the goods were, because Messrs. Cook and Gladstone would not reap any benefit from it, and as Cook and Gladstone had pre viously told you they would give you 2,5001. if you could get them out, and as that was the reason why you did not hand them over the money you received for the goods, what should you do with it? The bankrupt here stated that Ise did not think he had made such a statement yesterday, and requested that his examination of that day might be read. Mr. ASHURST having read the examination-- The bankrupt said, my reason for not paying the cash to Cook and Gladstone was, that it was a part of the ar rangement not to pay any cash, as I was requiring all the cash we could get to meet other engagements which were more pressing. Now state when that arrang ement was made with them, and what passed ?—Early in July, at one of the meetings in the library or drawing-room. Who was present ?—Messrs. Cook and Gladstone. Both ?—I believe so. Will you swear they were both present ?—I will. Now state what was said. —At that meeting, during the conversation relating to the 19,000/. I told them it would not be desirable for me to pay them any money, and that I could get them out better without it, to which they assented. Now tell me what they said ?—Very well, or words to that effect ; or we think so. Was that in the presence or hearing of the other ? Yes. I never did pay them any money subsequent to that understanding, although I was in business two months afterwards. Now you have stated that you began to dishonour your bills in July, and this conversation took place in July. Now did you not early in July receive several lawyers' letter threatening proceedings ?—Yes. Did you not dishonour your bills in August?—A part. State what part. Did you dishonour your bills on the 4th ?—I think not all. State what you paid and what you dishonoured on the 4th ?—The bankrupt said (after looking at the cash book), I am unable to state without the assistance of my clerk, what bills were paider what dishonoured, without having further time, and the clerk's assistance. As 1 perceive from my books that on the 4th of August I had paid an acceptance drawn by Johnson and Balmer for 64/. 145., and also an acceptance in favour of Landon for 141. 13s. 4d. Now lam not sure, without further in quiry and reference, whether we did not borrow apart of those monies wherewith to pay them. We paid an acceptance in favour of Wheeler and Co., on the 10th of August, for 161. ss. Our settling day was August 12th, and we paid most of our accounts then due, being in number twelve. Mr. ASHURST—Now just state the proportion that bears to the portion you dishonoured ?—A very small proportion. We paid as far as we had the funds to pay. During both months ?—Yes. Was not your brother George at this time liable for you to Mr. Pritchard, the brother of your solicitor ? What time do you refer to ? In July and August.—l think not. Not in both months ; I am not certain, but I can tell by reference to my books. Will not your cash-book enable you to state what sams you paid, and when, to Mr. Pritchard?—Yes, I am now looking for them. On the 9th of August we paid to Marsden and Pritchard 100/. ; on the 10th, 200 L to R. Pritchard; on the 18th, 2001. to R. Pritchard; on the 21st, 600/. to R. Pritchard, and interest, 3/. 175.; on the 24th to Marsden and Pritchard, under the name of Gandell, 3101. 19s. 2d. ; on the 28th, to R. Pritchard, 590/.; on the 31st, 412 L 6s. id., and 140/. to Marsden and Pritchard ; on the Ist September, W. Marsden, Si. Bs. That, I believe, is all ; no, I see that on the 24th of July there is 5201. paid to Marsden and Pritchard for Coster. Mr. ASHURST—GO back to the Ist of July. I see there are two sums paid to them of 301. and 701. The amount paid to Marsden and Pritchard on the 24th of July, per Coster, was paid to them, as my solicitors, to settle a debt with Mr. Burt, the solici tor of Coster. I think the 70/. and the 301. were given to them for the same purpose. I had given a Judge's order. which will account for my paying them in pre ference to other parties. That was to pay Coster. The next sum, August 9, is 1001., that was for Williams and Mottram's bill of costs. The balance in my favour, a small amount, was placed to my credit. What was the amount of that bill ?—I don't recollect, it was near 1001 The next item, August 10th, is a pay ment of 2001. made to R. Pritchard, gentleman, Syden ham, being a part payment on account of a bill which was over-due. The amount paid on the 18th was for the same purpose. Mr. AsuußsT—Did you pay it to Pritchard him self, or to Marsden and Pritchard ?—To Marsden and Pritchard. I am not quite sure whether all the payments were made to Marsden and Pritchard. The next sum, 6301., on the 23d of August, was also on account of a former bill, and another, both of which were over-due. August the 24th, 3101. 19s. 2d. was the amount which Marsden and Pritchard paid to Gandell and Co., bill-brokers. I think I had been obliged to give them also a Judge's order. On the 28th of August 5901. to R. Pritchard, as in part payment of two over-due bills before alluded to. August 31st 4121. Cs. 6d., that was for the same purpose. On the same day there was 1401. paid to Marsden andPritchard on account of law proceedings and debt to them. On the Ist Septem ber William Marsden, 8/. Ss.; that was on account of law costs to him on his separate account prior to the part nership of Marsden and Pritchard. That, I believe, ex plains all those amounts. Was not your brother George Hitchcock liable on your account to B. P. Pritchard for the money you say you paid to him' on the dates last mentioned ?—He was. When was the first demand in bankruptcy made upon you ?—I think it was made on July 29, by Ellis and Everington, for one hundred and odd pounds. The bankrupt, before making the above reply, said he did not understand what a demand in bankruptcy meant, and Mr. Ashurst said he would take that down, but he hoped the Commissioner would remember the statement of the bankrupt of his ignorance. Mr. Ashurst having explained the meaning of a demand in bankruptcy, the bankrupt gave the answer above reported. Did you pay that sum or bail it ?—Bailed it. On the examination being read, the bankrupt stated that although he could not explain the affair relating to the bill in Court, he thought he might be able to do so to his assignees. Did Ellis and Everington ultimately get paid ?—I think not. Do you not know they did :not ?—I believe not. I recollect, they were hot paid. Was not another similar demand made upon you by Cheaper, Watson. and Jackson, on the .sth of August ? —I think there was. Is it not a fact ?—I do not recollect that individual demand, but I have no doubt but it is. Did you pay that, or bail it ?—As far as my recol lection serves, we paid them a part, and should have paid them the remainder, but f or th e s t e p s they took. Did you pay any part of that demand?—l believe we paid a part out of the sum demanded in bankruptcy. We did not pay any part of that. We bailed it. Who was your bail ?—My brother and Mr. Chris topher Leaf. Had Mr. C. Leaf also joined in bailing the first?—Yes. Is C. Leaf, of whom you are now speaking, the same Christopher Leaf to whom you invoiced goods 2,8001., and who sold them as you have stated for less than 1,800/ —Yes. I applied to Mr. Groucoff to become my bail hefore Mr. Leaf, not from any particular preference. Was not the next demand on the following day, Aug. 6, by Strutt and Sharp ?--I have no doubt of it. For how much ?—I do not recollect. I can see by my books.—(Having referred he answered)-1791. 15s. Did you pay that or bail it 7 —Bail it by the same parties, my brother and Christopher Leaf. Did not Feller and Co. make another demand in bankruptcy, August 9 ?—I have no doubt did they did. Was that bailed by the same parties ?—Yes. Did not Sheriff and Co. also demand ?—They did ; but to what amount or what date I do not recollect. Was that also bailed by the same parties ?—lt was, if it were bailed. You do not recollect how many bail bonds you signed? —I do not. Did Messrs. Rand and Co. make a deed about 14th August for 104/. or thereabouts ?—I believe they did, and that also, if bailed, was bailed by the same parties. Did not Cougton and Wild make a similar demand about 16th August ?—I think they did, and that was bailed, if bailed, by the same parties. 1)o you believe Sheriff and Co.'s was about the 7th of August ?—I have no recollection of dates. The bankrupt here explained that when he said part of Cheaper's debt was paid, he meant part of the origi nal debt, and not part of the sum demanded in bank- raptcy. Do you think that Sheriff and Gillett's demand was about 7th August?—l think it might have been. Were any of the sums so demanded paid by you ?—No. Have you any doubt they were all bailed by your brother and Christopher Leaf ?—I have none. Did not they and you go on bailing their demands, until Gth September last ?—I do not recollect the date. Do you not believe that the bails were put in on days ranging between 18th August and Gth September, both inclusive ?—I hare no recollection about it, but I think it will be easily seen by a reference to the Court of Bankruptcy. Where are those demands in bankruptcy ?—I should think they are with Marsden and Pritchard, or with my papers at the Official Assignee's. Have you no belief about the time you ceased to give bail ?—I have none. Ido not recollect to a month. _ Turn to - i - oti - r - i;OOk, - ana ;lien you received the proceeds of the goods sold by Christopher Leaf. — Aug. 21, 500/. ; 24th, 2501. ; 28th, 5001. ; 31st, 5001. Mr. Sole stated that the assignees were perfectly aware of these facts, and had consulted counsel upon them. He had, however, no wish to stop Mr. Ashurst. Mr. ASHURST then resumed the examination.—You have stated that on the 21st of August you received 5001. from C. Leaf, and that on the same day you paid R. Pritchard 600/. Did not the money received from C. Leaf go in part payment of that debt to Pritchard, for which your brother was liable ?—I should think it did. Was it or not ?—A part of the 500/. was used, the other part was paid to other creditors. How much was paid to other creditors ?-461. Us. Ed., or it might have been 1561. 12s. It is impossible to OS certain the exact disposal of the money, as a balance of 1101. Os. 4d. was in the hands of the clerk at night. You have stated that on or about the 28th August, you received 5001., and stated on same day paid 290/.7 R. P. Pritchard did n ot supply the money so last men- - The bankrupt made the following explanation : Aug. 24. I received 250/. for C. Leaf, which went in part payment to Gandell. Mr. ASHURST here interfered, and said that the ex planation might be an answer to his next question, but the bankrupt had been looking over what he had been writing, and was anticipating him. The bankrupt—Mr. Ashurst had originally written down 24th August, and finding that went elsewhere, he struck it out.(Applause and hissing.) Mr. ASHURST—None but linen r d ra p ers ' a pp ren ti ces would be guilty of such i mpropriety. Now, Sir, answer my question. You have stated that on or about the 28th of August you received 5001. for C. Leaf, and that on the same day you paid R. P. Pritchard, to whom your bro ther was liable, 590/. Did not the money received from C. Leaf supply a part of the money so mentioned. 3401 of the 500/. appears to have been part of the 590/. Was it a part of the 5901.?—1 should think it was. I have no doubt it was. I wish to add in explanation, Aug. 24, we received 2501 of C. Leaf and Co., which was disposed of in the payment of Gandell's bill and costs, on the same day, amount 310/. 19s. 2d. You have said that the 5001. received from C. Leaf on Aug. 28, appears to have been a p ar t o f th e 5901. p a id to R. P. Prichard was it a part of the 590/. paid to him ? I should think 3401 of the 5001. was. You believe it was a part ?—I do. You have said that in August 31, a sum of 3001 was received from C. Leaf, and that on the same day you paid R. P. Pritchard a sum of 412/. 6s. 6d. Was not that last sum paid to R. P. Pritchard out of the money last mentioned as on the same day received from C. Leaf ?—A part of it. How much ?—I should think about 340/. The rest was paid to others. Was not the whole amount paid to R. P. Pritchard bo tween Aug. 9 and 31, about 2,1061 ?—I think not. How much ?—About 2,0001., being the amount of the two dishonoured bills before alluded to. Did not that 2,000/. go to discharge a debt for which your brother George, who:gave the bill, was liable ?—Yes. Did you receive money for any of the goods which were sent from your premises from any other person except from C. Leaf ?—No, except a small amount from Shoolbred and Co., which I have before explained. Was not Messrs. Marsden and Pritchard the solicitors to your brother George 2—Yes, and to all my friends in town. Were they not also solicitors to the R. P. Pritchard, whose debt you were thus discharging ?—Yes. Were they not also your solicitors ?—Yes. Did not R. I'. Pritchard hold other securities than your brother's for the payment of his debt?—None, except in the bills of exchange. I swear that I recollect. Had he not at any time held any other securities for his debt?—Yes. What security had he held?—The lease of No. 116 house, being part of my premises in Regent-street. Anything else?—Nothing that I recollect or believe. When did that lease pass from him to your brother George?—Early in July, I think. It was previous to a bill becoming due. State when.—l cannot give a better answer than early in July. It was the same day on which the deeds-are dated. Were these deeds prepared ?—Yes. By whom?—Marsden and Pritchard. State when you arranged with R. P. Pritchard and your brother George to transfer those securities from Pritchard to your brother George?—l do not recollect the date, but I should think the latter end of June or the beginning of July. Which of them did you first see on the subject?—l do not recollect. Will you swear you do not remember ?—I will. Did you see them both in reference to transferring the lease from one to another ?—Yes. Where did you see your brother George on the sub ject ?—I should think in his country house. What did you say to him, or he to you on this subject, when you first saw him?—l told him that Mr. R. P. Pritchard had advanced to me the sum of 2,0004 and for which I had accepted two bills of exchange ; that one of them was coming due shortly, and that I had applied to Mr. R. P. Pritchard . for a re newal of them ; I had told Mr. R. P. Pritchard that I should be unable to pay it when it became ',due. I also told him that the second bill I should not be able to pay, and requested him to give me time to pay them. He declined to renew the first bill, or to wait for payment of either, and threatened to make me a bankrupt unless I paid the bills as they became due, or gave further security. I think I told him also that I had told Mr. R. P. Pritchard that I would ask my brother to be such security. What did you say respecting the debt of Mr. Pritch ard ?—I told him that Mr. Pritchard would not renew the bill, and threatened to make me a bankrupt. My brother refused to become my guarantee at first, but he did agree afterwards to guarantee the payment of the 2,0001. The lease was then given back to me, and I assigned it to my brother in consideration of his respon sibility to Cook and Pritchard. Now, when was this first interview ?—I have no re collection of the date, except that it was perhaps a fort night before the first bill which became due, which was July 22. The second was due Aug. 13. Then the first interview would be about the Bth of July?—lt was about a fortnight before the 22d July. Will you swear it was a fortnight before ?—No, I will not. I think it was so. I will swear it was about a fort night before. Was this all that passed between your brother and you at this interview?—That is the substance—all that I re collect. You will not swear it is the substance of the whole ? I will not ; it is all I recollect. When did you see him a second time on this subject? —I can scarcely recollect ; it was a day or two. Where did you see him the second time P—l don't recollect. Will you swear it was not at Marsden and Pritchard's? —I will. What passed at that interview 7—l do not recollect. Do you recollect any other interview with your bro ther on this subject ?—No. Will you swear that ?—Yes. Am I not to believe that I am on my oath in all I am saying. Mr. AssurisT—Oh yes ; but you are not to suppose I believe all you are swearing. ---(A laugh.) You have said that at the first interview your brother refused to become your guarantee, and that you cannot recollect what took place at any other interview when the lease was passed to him. Do you mean to adhere to that statement ? The bankrupt appealed to the Learned Commissioner. He had said that at a subsequent interview his brother had agreed to become security for the 2,0004 but he did not recollect what passed. The question was an impro per one, because it assumed facts opposed to the evi dence formerly given. Mr. ASHURST amended the question. You have said you cannot recollect what had passed at any other inter view than the first, although the leases transferring your property were signed by you both. Do you adhere to that statement ? The bankrupt appealed to the Commmissioner again ; the question was a most intricate one . The COMMISSIONER ruled that the question was a pro per one, and ought to be answered. The question was repeated several times.—l do not recollect anythinc , that occurred at any of these inter views be3ond what I have already stated. Do you adhere to the answers already given ?—I do, certainly. When did you afterwards see Mr. Pritchard on the subject of the transfer of the lease to your brother ?—I don't recollect. State as near as you can.—l should think ten days or a fortnight previous to the first bill arriving at maturity. 'Will you swear it was as long as that ?—I will not ; but I think it was. Where did you see him ?—Either in Mr. Pritchard's room or Mr. Marsden's room ; I don't recollect which. Was any one present besides you and him?—l do not recollect, but I think not. Who proposed the intended arrangement between you? —I did. How came you two to meet there, when the room be longed to neither of you ?—I had met Mr. 12. P. Prit chard there for a twelvemonth previously. Do you mean that your meeting was accidental?—Oc casionally—sometimes on business. On similar business —on renewing a bill. Was the meeting between Mr. R. P. Pritchard and your brother respecting the leases accidental, or the re sult of a previous appointment ?—I think of a previous appointment. When I found I could not pay the bill when it should become due, I believe I left word at Mars- den and Pritchard's clerk's office that when Mr. R. I Pritchard came to town, I wanted to speak to him. I believe this would be the way in which the first inter view was brought about, and which led to the second ; . , bnt I don't recollect distinctly. What did you say in respect of the proposed arrange ment ?—I said I thought 1 could get my brother's gua rantee for the payment of the 2,0001., if he would give me time. He consented, and gave me the time. Was this all that passed at the first interview be tween you and Mr. R. P. Pritchard 7—That is the sub- stance Of the conversation, and all that I recollect. Will you swear that that is the substance of all that passed ?—Yes, or I would not already have sworn it. Did you meet Mr. R. P. Pritchard again on the sub ject ?—I cannot recollect ; I think I did. Do you remember that there was a second interview i —Yes. What passed then ?—I cannot be sure of what took place at that particular interview, but I believe I told him that my brother had agreed to guarantee the 2,000 i. ; and I expected, if my brother did so guarantee, the lease, which he then held, should be given back to me. He consented to this arrangement. Who gave the instructions for the preparation of the deeds P—l did. When cannot say ; but I should think a few days prior to the bill becoming due. It might have been a fortnight. To whom ?--To Marsden. Seeing that you were dishonouring all your other bills, what made you so anxious to save Mr. Pritchard, you at the time receiving lawyer's letters from all your other creditors ? —ln order to complete the arrange ments entered into with Cook and Gladstone. Was that your only reason ?—No. State any other reasons which influenced you ?—lf I did not pay the bills as they became due, or give security, I would have been made a bankrupt. Were these the only reasons inducing you to secure his debt a fortnight before the first bill became due ? —No. State what further reasons you had?—Because I thought if I got the lease before referred to out of Mr. B. P. Pritchard's hands, that I should then be able to assign that lease to my brother, as he had often asked me, and which I h a d prom i se d t o do. I also thought that by giving th e guarantee o f m y brother for a s um which I should b e a bl e to pay o ff; I might expect my brother to be a se cur i ty for me aga i n . It being now past four o'clock, the further examination was adjourned till eleven o'clock to-morrow. A Jos, " FOR A DUCAT 1"-Mr. Bodkin, M.P. for Rochester, had an interview with Sir James Graham, at the Home-office, on Saturday.—Court Cir cular. Bodkin is a ra t, an d i s therefore sure to find fa vour with " brother" Graham. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT OLD COURT. Susan Hilton, aged 35, was convicted of stealing 5/. Os. 2d., the property of Henry Herring, her master, in his dwelling-house, and one purse, the property of Margaret Watkins. The prisoner had been servant to the prosecutor, who missed the money named from a drawer in his house. Several sovereigns were seen in the possession of the prisoner, and she was given into custody, when she con fessed having committed the robbery. Mr. Ward, R. A., gave the prisoner an excellent cha racter for honesty, as she had lived with him as servant for some time. She was at times singular in her man ner, which led to the belief that she was at times flighty. The brother of the prisoner stated that she had been afflicted with brain fever. The sentence was respited till the next Sessions, in order to make further inquiries respecting the prisoner. Jose Joetquint Gonzalves Basto, aged 35, and described as a merchant, was indicted for stealing eight warrants, or orders, of a Foreign State, the property of Antonio de Silva, the Financial Agent to the Portuguese Govern ment. Mr, Phillips and Mr. Bodkin were instructed on behalf of the prosecution, and Mr. Clarkson, with whom was Mr. Payne, conducted the prisoner's defence. Mr. PHILLIPS having briefly addressed the Jury, called witnesses. (It is needless to give the evidence, as it has already appeared in The Sun in the Mansion-house reports.) When the case for the prosecution was closed, Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Jury upon the facts of the case, and commented upon the absence of the indivi dual Campbell, who, he said, could have explained all the circumstances of the transaction. lie said that he should satisfy the Jury that the prisoner had borne a most honourable character, and he trusted that they would not stamp him as a felon for ever for such a transaction as had that day been detailed in evidence. The Portuguese Consul, Mr. Stone, of the firm of Stone and Co., the bankers, and other highly respectable witnesses, were then examined, and they gave the pri soner an excellent character for respectability and ho nourable conduct. The RECORDER having summed up, the Jury, after deliberating for a minute, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The prisoner was then indicted for stealing two orders for the delivery of a quantity of wine, the property of Messrs. Pinto and Co. A lengthened examination of witnesses followed, bui it was destitute of public interest, and at last the Re• corder stopped the case, and said he was of opinion that the charge had not been made out. - The Jury expressed their opinion that the circum stances of the case only amounted to debt. Mr. PHILLIPS said that if the Jury entertained this opinion it would be useless to proceed further. The Jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Mr. CLARKSON said he felt it due to the prisoner to state that he had a respectable auctioneer in attendance, who would have proved that the prisoner had negotiated a loan with him, and that he would have received money on the Monday to an amount much more than sufficient to have enabled him to pay the whole sum due to the pro secutor. NEW COURT. Geo. Ston, aged 29, was indicted for stealing a comb, and a foreign coin of the value of one shilling, the pro • perty of Allied Lovell, his master, and Herbert White, aged 18, was indicted for receiving the some, knowing it to have been stolen. The prisoner Ston pleaded Guilty. Evidence was then shown against the other prisoner, from which it appeared than Ston had been an appren tice to a cheesemonger. His master suspected him a short time before his apprehension of several defalca tions. White, being a constant companion of Ston's, he also was suspected, and both were given into custody. White's boxes were searched, and the coin named in the indictment was found. On his being charged with receiv ing goods with a guilty knowledge, he admitted that he was aware of Ston being in the habit of robbing his master, but he had no connection with him in that re spect. - The COMMON SERGEANT having summed up, the Jury said they did not consider there was sufficient evidence, and acquitted the prisoner. The same prisoners were again indicted, the one with stealing, and the other receiving, nibs. weight of cheese, the property of the same prosecutor. Ston pleaded Guilty to this charge, and the other prisoner was acquitted on the same ground. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. Charles Higgins, a drover, in the employment of Mr. James Lethbury, home lamb and Welsh mutton sales man of Whitechapel, was charged with having driven a bullock into the shop of Mr. Isaacs, a broker. The complainant stated that his shop was unfortunately in the way from Smithfield to Whitechapel, and in such a position that, on cattle-driving days, people found it necessary often to run into it to avoid the contact with bulls and bullocks. The defendant had upon the occa sion which gave rise to the complaint, three bullocks under his care, and whether from negligent driving or other cause, in walked one of them to the shop, to the great terror of the females of the family, and, after whisking about his tail, overturned a writing-table, a wash-hand stand, and other pieces of furniture. The in jury done by the unexpected visit amounted to 41., a very small damage considering the value of the articles on the premises, and the bulk and careless character of ,the animal. The LORD MAYOR asked whether it was not the prac tice of the shopkeepers in that vicinity to keep their shops closed at a certain time on market days, on account of the probability that bullocks would just as soon walk into a shop as into a stable or shambles ? Mr. Lethbury said that those who knew any thing of the vagaries that entered a bullock's head, generally exercised that very commendable vigilance. He had been nearly fifty years an inhabitant of Whitechapel, and he had seen bullocks in very extraordinary situations. They often took it into their heads to walk up narrow flights of stairs, and when all attempts to get them down failed, they turned about, unwieldy as they were, and moved down stairs, doing no harm, but just spitting round upon those who felt alarm. Some years ago, one of the bullocks in Newgate-market took a fancy to exa mine Alderman Crowder's printing-office, and up stairs he trudged to the top of the house, to the terror of the poor old compositors ; but when he saw what a fright he caused, he turned round, and performing a very uncere monious office amongst the type, bundled down again to their great relief.—(Laughter.) The defendant said that Mr. Isaacs at first stated that the damage done was to the amount of no more than 31., and for his part he did not believe that the bullock had done any at all, for he walked in as quietly as if the shop was his own home, and if he dirtied the place a bit, every one " knowed" that bullocks' dirt was clean dirt.—(A laugh.) Mr. Hobler said it was altogether out of the question that a bullock, however quiet and manageable, could pay a visit to a shop of polished mahogany furniture without doing mischief. The LORD MAYOR—I am sure that Mr. Lethbury will pay any fair demand for damage. Mr. Lethbury—Certainly, my Lord. I shall, a . _ though the bullock that called to see the gentleman's family did not belong to me. The fact is, I don't think the drover could pay all the attention that was necessary to the beasts, for he had to take care of a great curiosity at the time—a thorough-bred Leicester sheep, five years old, with five legs and eight feet, and weighing 197 pounds, which I have now at home, and which plays about as if it had no incumbrance whatever. The salesman and broker then retired and compro mised the matter. THE TREADMILL APPLIED IN CASES OF ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.—A woman, who had some months ago been brought up on a charge of having attempted to destroy herself by walking into the Thames, was charged before Sir Peter Laurie for disorderly conduct, which he did not think it necessary to punish, as she had been locked up in the Compter all night. Sir P. LAURIE said he considered it to be his duty to say a few words upon the course which he had adopted with respect to persons who made attempts, or pretended to make attempts, upon their own lives. The attempts, or pretended attempts, to commit suicide, had for some time been greatly on the increase, and in the months of September and October five individuals had been charged at the Mansion-house, and twenty-five had been charged at Guildhall, under circumstances of the kind. At the beginning of November, under the impression that so revolting an offence should be checked by a little wholesome severity, he sent a man from the Mansion-house to 13ridewell to be kept at hard labour for having cut himself in the neck on account of poverty and idleness, and a day or two after he committed a woman for the felony of attempting self-destruction, to the Central Criminal Court. The example he thus set was followed by Sir Chapman Mar shall, who committed a man for trial for attempting to drown himself. The two latter persons pleaded guilty, and the Recorder, as it was the first offence either was known to have committed, sentenced each to no more than 14 days' imprisonment. Now the e&ct of this mode .of treating the class of persons to whom he alluded was admirable. From the moment the City Magistrates showed a determination to punish attempts to commit suicide as other felonies were punished, the mania ceased altogether, and not one charge had been made in the City during the gloomy month of November and the miserable days of December which had already passed away. Mr. Hobler observed, that several desperate impostors had made money by the experiment of tumbling into the Thames. The infliction of imprisonment and hard labour for the offence would certainly check the practice as far as pretenders were concerned, whatever effect it might have on those who seriously wished to get rid of life. The result, for the last four or six weeks, cer tainly showed that the great majority of those who were charged were impostors. Sir P. LAURIE—The Judges and the Recorder highly approve of the plan of treating the sort of delusion, of which I have spoken, and I shall certainly follow it up. Every man and woman brought before me for jumping, or trying to jump into the river, shall most positively walk off to Newgate ; and lam very much mistaken if the Judges do not henceforward inflict upon such of fenders very heavy punishments. 1 3 WORSHIP-STREET. SINGULAR CASE OF HIGIIIVAY ROBBE ne Jones, a young journeyman weaver, was charged on sus picion of having violently assaulted Mr. John Warren Green, a trinlming-manufacturer, and stolen from his person a parcel, containing thirty-nine pieces of silk-cord, value 51. The prosecutor stated at about eleven o'clock on Sa turday night he was returning home to his residence in Quaker -street, Spitalfields, carrying the parcel under his arm, and he had nearly reached his own door, when he suddenly received a violent blow on the back of the head that felled him to the ground and rendered him in sensible. He did not see the person of his assailant, nor was he aware that any one was near him until he received the blow. On recovering his senses he found that his parcel was gone, and that ho was under the care of a . policeman and another person, who assisted him to his place of abode. He obtained no tidings relative to the transaction until the following after noon, when the prisoner called at his house and said that he had a quantity of silk cord for sale, at the same time producing two pieces, which he immediately identi fied as part of the property of which he had been robbed. He was enabled positively to swear to it in consequence of its having two knots at each end of it which he had himself tied in a very peculiar way. Upon asking the prisoner to whom the property belonged, the latter said that he had been commissioned to sell it by a person who had 29 more pieces for sale, and that he wanted 21. for the lot. Witness then said that he would purchase the lot at the required price, and he desired the priscner to return back for the remainder, and he would give him ss. for his trouble. The prisoner accordingly withdrew, but he returned soon afterwards and said that he could not find the man who had employed him to sell the property; upon which witness sent for Sergeant Peakle, of the H division, and gave the prisoner into custody. Sergeant Peakle stated that after apprehending the prisoner, he questioned him on the subject, and he said that the man by whom he was employed to sell the cord was an entire stranger to him, and that he appointed to meet him in an adjoining street, but on going there he was unable to find him. Police-constable Trew, of the II division, said that he had known the prisoner for at least five. years to be an associate of notorious thieves ; that he had been confined in the House of Correction upon a summary committal, and had been twice tried for felony, and once convicted, at the Old Bailey. A person, who gave his name Daniel Scavington, and who said that he was a weaver, contradicted the asser tion of the officer that the prisoner had been convicted at the Old Bailey. He attended at the prisoner's trial for the purpose of giving him a character, and the jury acquitted him. He was well acquainted with the pri soner, and knew him to be a hard-working industrious young man. Mary Evans, the wife of a beer-shop keeper, attended with a view of proving an alibi, but her evidence was entirely nugatory. Mr. BROUGHTON said that he should remand the pri soner on the charge ; but as he was inclined to believe, from the remarkable circumstance of his having offered the property for sale to the prosecutor himself, that he was an accessory after the fact rather than a principal, he should take bail for his appearance. The prisoner was remanded until Saturday next. THE MARKETS.-YESTERDAY. COLONIAL MARKET. There was little business done, and prices suffered little alteration. B. P. Sugar in slow demand. Low to fine yellow, 635. to 735., and brown, 545. to 625. 6d. per cwt. In Mauritius and Bengal few sales made privately, and the public aution of the latter went off quietly, at previous rates. Coffee very dull, and prices on the de cline. Cocoa in very limited request, and prices in clined to give way. Prices of Rice a shade lower. Spices almost without demand, except Cassia, which being scarce is held for high prices. TEA MARKET. Prices a shade firmer, and more disposition was evinced to make purchases. Almost the whole of the breaks bought in at the late auctions have been sold at the buying in prices. Company's Congou in demand at ls. 94d. to ls. 9id..per lb., cash. TALLOW MARKET. Prices firm, and a steady bnsiness done • fine Yellow Candle worth 48s. to 48s. 3d. ; and for delivery in the spring 48s. 9d. was asked. WHITECHAPEL HAY MARKET. The supply was good ; fine qualities met with ready buyers at the present prices, and the middling and ordi nary sorts were more in demand. Clo ve r, 3/ to 5l 13s ; Hay, 2/ to 4/8s ; Straw, 11 8s to 1112 s. (From the London Mercantile Journal of December 14.) SUGAR.—For West India Muscovado Sugar the market has continued firm, and a fair business has been done; both the grocers and refiners have continued to purchase steadily, and the transactions would no doubt have been more extended had the show of samples exhibited a better assortment. There was less demand to-clay for British Plantation Sugar, but holders were firm, and obtained the rates of last week, except a public sale of 113 hhds and trcs Bar badoes, at which prices declined 6d per cwt ; middling to fine sold at 66s 6d to 73s per cwt. The private sales were only 100 hhds and trcs. MAURITIUS.—OnIy 47 bags of this description have been offered by public auction, which sold at 54s to 55s for low foxy brown. Privately scarcely any business has been done, and prices are little better than nominal. EAST INDlA.—White qualities of Bengal continue scarce, and buyers are unwilling to pay the prices asked. Yellow and Khaur descriptions at easier rates; fine white 75s 6d good middling and good white at 70s to 735, middling greyish white at 65s to 665, soft bright yellow at 62s 6d to 635, low and middlin g bright yellow 54s to 58s 6d, fine dry brown in chests 535, damp foxy brown 50s, and ordinary brown 42s to 45s 6d per cwt. Manilla, low middling dry grey at 17s 6d, damp ditto 16s 6d, middling dry brown at 15s to 15s 6d, one lot 16s, damp ditto 14s 6d to 15s, and washed at 13s 6d to 14s per cwt. At public sale 1,440 bags Bengal went at a reduction on former rates of is to is 6d per cwt; good white sold at 67s to 68s per cwt. FOREIGN.-The market is looking rather firmer; brown and yellow Bahia at 17s, whites 19s to 23s for low to good quality. REFINED.-For refined goods this week stiffer rates paid ; standard lumps 81s 6d to 82s, and brown 74s to 795. In Treacle 27s 6d to 34s paid for low to fine. Bas tards 42s to 58s, and Pieces good to fine at 71s to 765. Bonded Crushed Sugar at 28s 6d to 28s 9d, and 29s is mostly demanded by refiners. MOLASSES.—The demand for West India has been good this week, at higher prices for the fine qualities. Fine Antigua and Barbadoes have realised 30s, middling St Vincents 265, and fair Dominica 25s per cwt. COFFEE.—The market for home consumption descrip tions continues in a dull state with declining prices ; but, as most of the importers still show a reluctance to realize, the reduction is very gradual. Jamaica, fine middling went at 130 s to 1325, good and fine ordinary at 70s to 96s ; Demerara, fine fine ordinary unclean at 725, and ordinary at 55s to 61s per cwt. Ceylon at 81s to 94s for fine ord and superior B.P. sort, and 65s to 66s for low good ord; ord 66s to 66s 6d per cwt. In Mocha no sales worth reporting, have taken place in the absence of public sales. All other kinds of East India and Cape descriptions of Coffee must be quoted 2s to 3s per cwt. lower, with a dull sale. La Guayra at 41s Gd to 42s for good ordinary, and about 500 bags Malabar sort at 52s per cwt There was no public sale to-day, and privately the operations were extremely limited, but the offers of lower rates were rejected. COCOA.—For West India descriptions, prices are still depressed ; at 41s to 42s for good fair red, at 35s 6d to 37s 6d for fair dull red, and at 35s for ord dull red. TEA.—The same dulness that has pervaded the market for some weeks past is continued, and a further slight re duction has taken place in prices. There was a fair demand to-day for Tea to supply both town and country orders, and holders were firm ; Company's Congou is 9-1-cl to 1s 91c1 per lb. The deli veries keep large. CASSIA LlGNEA.—Another large parcel having been pressed upon the market, a further reduction of Is to 2s per cwt has taken place in the value of the article. NUTMEGS.—There is a fair request, and prices are steady. 18 casks from the Cape offered at public sale went at 3s 9d for fair first quality. GINGER.—East India continues in very limited request, and prices remain very low ; .fine Bengal may be had at 17s to 18s per cwt. PEPPER.—The market is dull, and a part only of 500 bags Malabar sold at 31-c1 to nd for fair quality, being the full value. RICE.—A small parcel of low Bengal at public sale sold at 8s to 9s per cwt. FRUIT. —The demand continues brisk for all descrip. tions. SPIRITS.—The Rum market continues quiet, but as the holders do not press sales, prices are sup ported. The transactions of the week are confined to a few small parcels, comprising Demerara of good quality, 31 to 34 overproof at 3s 8d to 3s 10d, and proof East India at Is 31d to Is 4d per gallon. The nominal price of proof Leeward is Is 10d per gallon. In consequence of the prices of Brandy in France having opened about 3d per gallon higher than was anticipated, this market has become firmer, and a fair business has been done at an improvement of Id to 2d per gallon, with a prospect of still higher prices. Ge neva m steady request at 2s to 2s hi for export, and at 2s 6d to 2s 9d fur home use. British Corn Spirits in de mand at 10s 4d per gallon. Oms.---In the early part of the week some parcels of common Fish Oils were pressing on the market by the merchants, which created a flatness, and depressed prices ; they have, however, been all cleared off, con sequently the market has become firm. In Sperm Oil prices remit' as before quoted. Linseed Oil was dull of sale early last week, and the price fell to 35s 6d, but few sellers can now be found below 36s 9d or 37s per cwt. on the spot. Rape Oil rather firmer. Arrivals of new Olive Oil have caused a depression- in the value of the articl e , an d t h e mar k et i s qu i et. Galt poli at 781 per tun. Cocoa Nut Oil firm ; fine Ceylon fetches 40s and 40s 6d, duty paid. Palm Oil at former prices. TALLOW.—The advanced prices of Russian Tallow no ticed last week have been maintained; the latest price paid for fine yellow Candle on the spot was 48s, at which there are steady buyers, and for delivery up to the end of the year 47s 9d would be accepted. For deli very in the spring months the nominal figure is 48s 6d per cwt. South American Tallow at fair prices, from 43s to 46s 6d for low to good quality. Tallow is not quite so much in demand, but prices are steady. P. Y. C. on the spot 48s. per cwt. [ADVERTISEMENT.] HOLLOWAY'S OINTMENT AND PILLS,--AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE.—Mrs. Fry, of Trafalgar-street, Walworth, was on the 16th of April last admitt e d to Guy's Hospital, as a patient, with a bad leg of five years' standing, it was nearly as hard as bone, with nine ul cers and frightfully swollen. Not deriving the least benefit from the treatment in the hospital, she left on the 16th of May. On the 18th of October she was brought in a cart to Professor Holloway's Establishment, with her leg wrapped in a blanket. In five weeks it was radically cured by means of the Ointment and Pill s, w hi ch are sold at the Proprietor systablishme n t, 2 44, Strand, near ' Temple-bar, where advice may be had grat i s, and sold by every respectable chemist through ou t t h e ki ngdom, in pots and boxes , a t ls. lid., 2s. 9d., 4s. 6d., Ils., 225., and 335. each. THE CONCOCTED ADDRESSES TO THE TORT LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.—It should be borne in mind, that in every instance o f an a dd ress to Earl de Grey, from any part of Irel an d , w hi c h has yet been pre sented, the parties are the old Orangemen and task masters of the people. It is important to remember this plain act. MORNING SUN PORTUGAL. at Csl' At midnight on Sunday the Margaret arns e da tes , mouth from Spain and Portugal, with the ion s The following is from a Lisbon corresponden t ' 7 l vvbi C ,!, LISBON, DEC. 7 .—The departure of the nIs I A ' a esrl/ ought to have gone yesterday, has been deillY e " fee o r 24 hours, owing to the non-arrival of the stea m the south in time to take it. Eng ' 101' The Montrose steamer, with the mail fromciae , only came in this morning, being t w o days f v d er to lv 9r l consequence of the tremendous ga les she u9trian ,f against nearly the whole passage. The is-, r u t e re m ' nister, Baron Mareschal, arrived by hen " . „ - ived b e d — „, that the Nuncio, Monsignor Capuccini, bad s ' ! "i s last week, proved false. He is not yet here, h u " expected. of 15 per In the recent decree, abolishing the preraill. forc io „ cent. (differential duties) on the duties 1 1 Pr A tbat tie goods imported in English vessels, it was ste t- vrOc ee i . abolition was to take place (as regarded t hegoo ds pu b ing from ports in Europe) three months after herefore cation of the decree. The term allowed Wili,letque!ti'"e3 expire on the 18th of January, 1842 ; and c lol3 now is, whether the premium can continue to he t c iore e upon goods imported within that period, but 119 In t! 1 „ at the Custom-house until afte r its expiration•specisiu solution of this question the British merchants e %% 031 are much concerned. The Finance Minister, the net: several of them have applied, has answered ? n u bis ti ee r tive; but I understand that, not satisfied w ith f the pt sion, they propose soliciting the intervention 0- of tish Government in their trehalf. JO se On Thursday last the instalment due on the to the Duke of Wellington and others, was tenders parties acting on behalf of the claimants, for e r te t st t liea; some of them agreed to receive the m oney' at exchange current in Lisbon, others, and aln ° ,leirs the agent of Rothschild, insisted upon getting to pr°,l the London course of exchange, endorsed urrinakelint, missory notes by their p r i nc ip a l, to whomth,,.' a t 9 ; Lord Beresford had negoti a t e d them. The a „ f , 1,0 13 ,„ haps acted properly in o b e yi ng his instructioils o l rig ht ; so Messrs. Rothschild, who certainly hav en a sat ° , ° 00 compel the Portuguese G ov ernment to P a y c i t y. Lisbon at the exchange c urre nt in a foreign i 40001! . practice in regard to bills of exchange drawn 19, upon . Lisbon has been this—for instance!, drso Lisbon owes B in London 1,000 milreis ; eisichting: for as many pounds sterling as are equal at ti le d P a m current in London, to a thousand milreis, til ed th t o it, because as he is not called upon to p 1 terial • • .00 12 Did the amount in milreis which he owes, it 151 ,,, be. , he him what the nominal amount in sterlin't r 9;. ' t place „"-• here the case is widely different. In the business, in London, was not an "exchange" l , r ; - , 11 1, the ,'" o f term which only applies to transactions in lv" . '" con' , of one country is given for a bill d ra wn for the p ot another country. The obligati ons g i v en by th : t tl guese Government were not bills of exchange, , Ij cer' / promissory notes for sums in sterling pay a bl e ofv, il 0 11i '1 day in Lisbon, and the G o ve r n men t i s , th er ef°'" : 'lad' obliged to pay that amount in st er li ng a t i ts va/u, r e h ' e reis in Lisbon on the day when it becomes due. • 1 0 00 11 ; missory notes negotiated to Messrs. Rothschild , - 1 , 0 0 0 .0 " were for so many pounds sterling, and it 'v ss , n ot sterling they gave for them, and, therefore , it W„aree operation of exchange. On the occasion er % . y r ea° ll l - ; instalment the Portuguese Government w° s 3 00 0/. bY to submit to the imposition, and lost ab °°l l, -- ild may P er e but it has become wiser now. Mr. 13°tilse (a differePe one r haps say that he looked to the re-cseh all ,Le °f ! of 3f per cent.) for his profit on the s " ha ve nt,; -- Coolt he made ; but with that the Portugues e ; i ota do : he must look to the parties frorn • 1 the notes. last I learn that Rothschild's agent has 9t but unwed to receive the money at the Lisbon exolla n 'a e ' protest. is fo r Her Majesty's brig Espoir s a iled froi n brig land on the sth inst. Vrit ish rt• i A boy aged fifteen belonging to tlle a this Europa, drowned hi mse lf on F r iday la — 1 His naive was James Walker. mit Ser [ADVERTISEMENT.] " PERSONAL COMFORT."--The presi o e ffec; son being that in which the utilities and g r3t „ e ii reoq„, it s of " Rowland's Kalydor" become equally el j A rh to tic o t that of summer, we strenuously recon3inenucincleovAi, persons who suffer from the baneful effect' p ot tro ° `'to weather on a tender and delicate skin. It S n - d e nei its nary efficacy in allaying all irritability' aped Ono inflammation of the skin, is no less esteem t he c jie peculiar virtues in enhancing the beautYof stionP plexion ; and, as a toilet appendage, is of unclue safety, efficacy, and of unri va lled elegance. life r ea IS PHRENOTYPICS.—Mr. C. lecture on Monday on Ph ren otypics at t he 's,lr. 5; Institution, Westminster, t o a crowded ro om. the fra. 5, hams commenced by reading a brief essay e ll an d 01 , 11 0 of memory and the advantage of mnemonics, of, „, trated his theory by the examination of sev e t a ti eti ° .,'J pupils. The lecture seemed to give general s l ‘`: - e 0 The auditory were principally composed of 13°1 ;„'d of indirect satire on the lecture, as we se troubled '- troubled with short memories. DIES , A C 01 PATENT LEVER SILVER 1v"., 7 :t e ba —E. J. DENT, 82, Strand, Chronometer, „7"-icestl Clock ss Queen M a a n k d e r h , special s by ßoyal H i a g p h pAi s n s t appointment Princet f lr b r_ iert : v cor le d 6: ASSORTMENT of these superiorly constructe d •Iyer Too at 6/. 6s. each. They have double bottomed flat to per,c" jewelled (six holes) movements, and - continuo col'ot whilst being wound, with other modern movem e % - f . sge g „ o l ,l performance guaranteed. Their particular ad Bch es`-ties strength. moderate price, capability of bearing In u r epor l ' i ./ motion without derangement, and small expense of o tto• if they meet with injury. Gold cases from 8/. to 1 01 ' 82, Strand, three doors west of Cecil-street. MAit GOLD WATCHES, LONDON-m, 1,0: ; T. COX SAVORY, Watchmaker, Ns. 47, Corn b ;',iec ti° "oi seven doors from Gracechurch-street, submits for oolo tbs very large STOCK of GOLD WATCHES, tr nieg on which are carefully examined by experienced w°r^nce. premises, and each is warranted for correct performs SIZE FOR LADIES. Fine Vertical Watches, jewelled, in engine-turned/AO 10 gold case:‘, and gold dials, warranted ... . .....••''' ° Fine Vertical Watches, jew e lled, with double-backs - ble-backe- 1: 1 I e ngine-turned gold eases and gold dials, warrani64 Patent detached Lever W a t c h es jewelled in far 0 holes with double-backed gold cases and gold dials' 14 14 warranted ................. ..................... SIZE FOR GENTLEMEN' „ Patent detached Lever Watch es , j ew elled it' . 4 0 holes, seconds, and doubl e -b ac k e d gold cases , v i "" - 13 j" Patent detached t e d o l ll e e t ds a : c a h lss e e, d emo, L anrd e rs v : e n rW duu a . ..... ................................. ° six holes, seconds, doublc.beaCkcedPPegoldj cases an" a 1. Patent detached Lever Watches, .ca-p-peZiewelled 0 acked gold c ases 21 t o gold dials, wa rran t e d ............ .......... • boo, Either of the G en tl emen ' s W a t c h es may be had in g °l" cases, for 3/. 3s each extra. ,oge. MB. Second-hand Watches ' purchased in eleu the 16th of Octo ber, Fry O e n r, of a daughter. BIRTH S. G• h o t f er a . Cumberbath Es . her Ma' 'V' - C l a t t P On the 16th ult • ,at Constantinople, the lady se , ° hal f 0 1 er e " ° l aFudlaleur, :auggh.er. i n at Madras, the lady of gai t° jesty s ice- onsu ir, On g the 1 lth inst., Eaton-place,the lady Bel' o f the Clia t° Mundy, On the 11th inst., at Bayswater, the lady of Frederic Esq., of a daughter. lec e ' On of a son. the 11th inst., Mrs. W. Oldersliaw, Can onburr P 0 On the 12th inst. , at St. Ann's-hill, Wandsworth, S ri ' Y i ,: Bell, of a daughter. f Ni r ' On the 12th inst., at Torrington .square, the wife a oo d ' , John Prichard, Esq. of a daughter. r s ... On the 12th inst., at Hamilton-terrace, St. Mrs. Richard Winter, of a daughter. MARRIED. willislll On the 11th inst., at St. Margare t's, CanterburY o , t ~ t h e l a Mount, Esq., of that city, to Grace, eld est daughter W. Beake, Esq., of Supperton, Kent. i f D I E D. t we's t , h E i x n e s t t e ., r. Jersey, On the ith inst., at Teignmouth, Stanley Bullock, 54.' a at St. Helier's, St o . S n id he ll 9 Afajer R teh° Ogilvie Aleriton, late of the Bomb army. On the 10th inst., at Barnes-terace Mrs. IVI. MundaY. ------' O,-, . _____________— --- -- ..,riN, . No. 112, Strand, at The Su* Office, No. 112' London : Printed Published by MURDO I'' oh solo, the County of Middlesex, Wedneada y,Dece i nber 15, PUSEYITES BUYING THE PR a : t be We have, in days gone by, marvelled muc h d apparent zeal with which the Times and p ost ' g' be several other jour na l s i n t own an d country, upheld the cause of Puseyi s m. It did, i n d e ed, appear to to. t) 0 a very remarkable and puzzling fact, that, Wl' h small a hold on the people at large, this new sect 9 10 0 have the support of, comparatively speaking, s° g r lut number of the writers for the public press. wbc " murder will out." " The riddle is now re ad ' London Standard has turned Queen's evidence , a nd as '' it . lets the oat out o f th e bag " informs us how t Puseyttes buy the golden opinions" of mankind ::71, ke " We have said a b ove th a t we have reason to w9ase and suspect ' Dr. Pusey's party—we alluded to thew, reasons, in justice to the party, as a warning that s ill may be prejudiced. In ju s ti c e t o ourselves , we here now say what these reasons a r e . For years wo. haos been persecuted with letters blaming our neutra l ". t the Tract controversy, and angrily remonstrating a . g 3l° u _f the opposition which w e h a v e g i ven to the doctrwes.e the Tracts, as often as we have been compelled to ot ie t them—all these letters, whether fawning or 4 0 ° 1 '1: have,. without a single exception, appealed to o ur Pe' e ' d, ° fle d wiry interests ; bribes have not been direclY but bribes have been not less plainly int irf ' ate d . threats, too, have been held out not less liberal )}'' 6 ei f , in one word, we will say that in a long and Pr ettY r ot tensive experience of the relations between t he Ai P' e b. and the public, we have never seen anything a PP r , m - g to the efforts that h ave b een made to aor r " ., r t ts'e Standard to the views of this particular party. cannot think well of a party resorting t o such Ime ans p . ec o Here are pretty doi ngs a ll ege d ag ainst the by Apostles, who were t o t a k e th e Christian so riu f e ss storm. Did the early Fathers, for whom they p ro tect such a reverence, buy converts, or have they a d°P e it this novel fashion of evangelizing mankind from it v , habit of doing things as T or i es ? Be this a s to va lae co, the public will now, a t a ll even t s , k no w what set upon the Puseyite e ff us i ons w hich ador n the o ill lumns of so many of the newspapers. T h q h die merely regard them as b oug ht p u ffs, over sr.b' e j, r ge word "Advertisement" ought to be written in • n g 5 5 letters. We th an k th e St an d ar d f or thus ca rr)l for . behind the scenes. What valuable and nt' mation could these editors of the Tor y papers „1:135 0 if they would all, in like manner, begin to tell • le,' parlour secrets of their faction.—Liverpool Clirolue I P in rc