The Sun. — London, England, 1842-01-22 00:00:00

MORNING- SU N SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. GLOBE.—Public attention has recently, by certain flagrant cases, been directed to the state of the Bank rupt Laws ; but the real causes of the evils complained of are but little understood. The two recent cases which have attracted public notice possess this feature in .common—that the farts complained of are made knOwn by the statements of the bankrupts them selves. It will be asked ho w is this ? How is it that parties its the situation of bankrupts, before a public Court, should be induced to expose their own dishonesty, or irregular proceedings ? An answer to these questions will show the faulty state of the law. By the law, or practice in bankruptcy, the Court takes cognizance of the conduct of the bankrupt only ofter the issuing of the commission, or fiat. No matter bow irregular or evon frandul.nt may have been the post conduct of the h.--al:ruW b* fin but confoon to the bankrupt ?au), and g:. aup effects, or appear to do so, the law in this Court cannot touch' hilt: A man in iosOlveet circumstance!, therefore, consulting a solicitor in what. is called sharp practice, may be supposed to say to him,—" I have been a great rogue. I hale incurred debts which I could not pay, and had no prospect ;of paying. I have given preference to my friends and relations, and I have wasted my creditors' property in estravappce and riotous living. What shall I do ?" The answer of a lawyer of the de scription in question would be, " Nothing more easy : say you have been a rogue ; state, or admit, that you have done all these things, but that you are now ready 1 to give up all that is left to your creditors ; do this, and nobody can touch you ; your creditors may com plain—your assignees may make a show of opposition --the Commissioner, perhaps, will look grave, and throw out a hope that such conduct will not prevent you getting your certificate; but there the matter will end—nobody will, or can, prevent your passing your last examination, and all will be well in the end." The refusal of a certificate ie, in such a case, the only remedy left to the creditors ; but a certifi cate is generally granted to interest or importunity. The remedy to this evil will be found in giving the- Court of Bankruptcy power to inquire into and take cognisance of the previous conduct of the bankrupt, and the means by which, before the issuing of the fist, he obtained credit. Whatever defects may appertain to ihe " Insolvent Court," that Court exercises with greit advantage to the community a power like this re ferred to, bring enabled to remand and punish parties who have obtained credit fraudulently and knowingly without. the means of payment—a power not possessed by ,the Court of Bankruptcy-. STANDARD.—The affair of the Creole, the au thenticated United Stales report of which we gave yesterday, is likely to open a new question witathe Republican - Government, and one which from its novelty, as well as from the different views of the -Con dition of Slaves - entertained by England and the States, may lead to perplexed negotiations ; other- , wise the matter seems to be plain enough. If we assume, as in England we are bound to Mi st me , that a slave has a right to vindicate his liberty by all means—by force if necessary—it is quite clear that the British authorities have acted as it was their duty to act ; or that, if they have erred, it is in favouring too much the claims of the slave-owners. It 'is, however, perhaps too much to expect that Aniericanr, accustomed to treat slaves as mere pro perty, will acquiesce in the free man's view of the affair. Stilt, on the lowest ground, it is d;fficult to see bow the British authorities could take a different course from that which they took, without assuming the character of keepers of slaves for our American kintmen. A vessel arrives at a British port, under the- command of a body of negroes, exercising complete Control over the ship and crew. The majority in command, in common with the origi nal commander and crew, claim the intervention of the British Governor at a time when there can, be no question that the latter were perfectly powerless, - and at. the mercy of the negroes. The British Governor grants this intervention to the extent of placing on board a guard for the protection of the crew, the. vessel, -and her cargo ; and all thise are so ,effectually protected 'that they ultimately arrive in safety at their port of destination. About seventy - of. the slaves, however, against whom no charge of:any kind is made, use the oppoitunity to employ their liberty. - Neither the law of England, nor , of any flee country, nor the law of nations, would - permit the Britialf Government to obstruct thew.. These men and women came to the British port . sisluntarilY,'and they carne as perfectly free as any persons whom they, found there ; for they bad been previously emancipated by the gallantry of their more active friends. To coerce them would have been in fact to reduce them a second time to a state of slavery. This the British Government could not do directly by its own instruments ; and what it could not do directly by f i ts own , instruments, it could not do indirectly, by comaivanee at a war to be made in a British port, by American citizens, upon strangers seeking hospitality. COU R lElt —lt will be remembered that, according to accounts from Havannab received some time ago, via the United Suites, Mr. Turnbull, the British Consul, had been arrested by the Spanish authorities of Matanzas, an important town aria port lying east of Ilavarmah. The charge against him, rathir vaguEly stlted, was that he was found tampering with the negroes of a dantation in khe vicinity of that place, and exciting them to insur rection or insubordination, - With a view, so far as could be understood, of procuring their release and transfer ence to Jamaica. The correspondence of the Post and Herald of this morning from Madrid confirms the extra ordinary fact of this arrest, without however throwingany additional light on the subject. The Herald thus refers to the affair .—" The Havannah Correspondence states that Mr. Turnbull, our Consul, had been arrested at Ma tanzas; where he had gone on business, and brought in custody to the former city on a charge of having at tempted to prevail on, some slaves to mutiny against their owners. If true, this is a serious -business, one which may bring about serious differences between the two Governments. Another disagreeable occurrence is likewise stated, stately, that an English boat laden with. contraband . goods, being closely pursued by the revenue cruisers, attempted to take shelter under the protection of our receiving ship there, but that she! was nevertheless captured." The Post pithily remarks, that " Our correspondent fears that a mis. understanding will be occasioned between this coun try end Spain on the subject of the arrest of Mr. Turn bull, •our Consul at Cuba, charged with an attempt to provoke some slaves to mutiny. Mr. Turnbull was appointed by the Whigs. He is a most indiscreet emancipationist ; and it was like sending a firebrand to the Havannah." We are entirely of accord with our Contemporary. ,Ic would have been difficult to select a mote imprudent and hot-headed functionary than Mr. Tuinbull, for a post eminently requiring the union - of a cool and conciliatory deportment with strength of mind - and firmness of principle. Numerous have been the complaints and the remonstrances lodged at the Foreign-office, during the time of Lord Palmerston at least, against the conduct and proceedings of this person since his appointment, not only by the authori. ties of Cuba and the Spanish Government, but, as we have reason to believe, by British residents in Havannab a l so . We were giv,pn to understand some time since that 93 impressed was his Lordship with the force of these combined representations, as to have intimated his willingness to satisfy the Spanish Government by his recall. MONEY MARKET and CITY NEWS. • FROM; THE MORNING - PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. CHRONICLE.---The Commissioners appointed to examine into the way in which business has been con ducted in the Exchequer Bill department, and to pro vide a remedy against frauds in future, are busily en -gaged, we- hear, in their investigation, and have had some of the holders of the spurious or impounded paper under examination.... Their proceedings are conducted with great secrecy. ; They carry 'on their labours with as much mystery as il.they were engaged in illicit prac tices-themselves. We .must admit, however, that their examinations are properly enough conducted in private; but we see no reason why the parties examined. should consider themselves obliged to keep all to themselves. We can account for. their qnietness only in one way, which is, that the line of examination pursued by the Commissidners has been of a searching, comprehensive, aril satisfactory charaeter,. bringing home to the minds of those before them a conviction that they intended to present a complete and, full report of all the facts and, circumstances of the case, so as to bring out with no reserve the clear and bona fide character of the transac tiops under which the innocent holders advanced their money on the impounded biW, tlts leaving no particle of doubt in the Minds of Parliainent and of the public, of the entire equity and perfect justice of their case. The present.calm, which, on th,eiaear approach of the meeting (A — Parliament, has succeeded to the endless articles which daily graced the columns of our Contemporaries for a series of weekson this 'subject is certainly remarkable. ITER, ALID.—A morning paper (the Chronicle) has thought proper to state, and the statement has been re iterated with more confidence still by its Radical evening double, - that " th6:East India Company, having to make a large contract of elcith for . its troops (we have heard to as large an aitiount as 700;000/) has given the order to Belgian or Prussian manufacturers, because it can get . cloth from them l 5 per cent, cheaper than from English .nutnufaeturerk4." This statement is pretty pinch upon .a :par with thee". rough iec " rubbish of a story which the 6/he invented one day, for the sake of swallowing its ( -. el'n foolish falsehoods the next. The , falsehood, - for such it dou btl e ss is, in tli!. one case as i n t h e other; will -hoviever serve the turn for the time calculated, that is 'for' the full twenty-four hours' start whi c h it will have :UnContradic ted,. in the` country, where at Anti-Corn -law met , n . ti it cannot fail to, in the more ext raor di nary nrY , i• .request, as all the standing old fallacies are worn down to the stumps. .A SIGNIFICANT RETORT. —A young lady, one night at a party was much annoyed by the imperti nent remarks of a coxcomb who sat near her. At length, becoming tired and vexed, she turned towards him with an. ang r y countenance, and said, " pleased, Sir, to tT , O2e your impudence." The hoggish fellow was asto . Mr!.%to so sudden a febuke, and could only reply, "Pray, ." not eat me." "Bein no fear," she replied, " I am a Jewess." LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CLIANCERY. Jan. 21. WARD V. ALSAGER. TheSolicitor-General concluded his reply in this case Am', and the Lord Chancellor postponed his judgment. ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 21. WILSON V. TUNSTALL. The further arguments in this case were resumed this morning. His LORDBIIIP, in giving his opinion upon this case, after recapitulating the circumstances, said that although there might be a breach of the injunction, yet it did not follow that he must commit the'defendant for that breach. That Court had as much regard as .any Court in the kingdom to the liberty of the subject, and it had also re gard to the feelings of the subject, and was slow in ink posing any sort of hardship. It was admitted by the Learned Counsel for the defendant that he had the oil in question for the same purpose as , that for' • which it had been used by the plaintiff, and his Lordship then felt, from what ned appeared in the de fendant's affidavits, that he determined still to do so. He would not state his opinion then as_ to whether there had been a breach of the injunction, but give time to the defendant, in order that he might make further affida- j vits as to what he intended to do hereafter. He would ' therefore wish this case to stand over till next term,, in order to give the defendant time to make such affidavits, and his Lordship would then he better able to judge of the case. VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 21. (Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.) COCKBURN V. RAPHAEL. 'This case came before the Court' on a petition put in by the defendant, Mr. Alexander Raphael, praying that it might be referred to the Master to take an account of the funds oft a oertain charity, and that the funds of the charity might be administered in this country, and placed under the jurisdiction of this Court. It appeared that Mr. John Raphael, the father of the petitioner, a 'Roman Catholic, but of Jewish origin, had died in India, and left by his will a certain fund, which • was to be devoted to the establishment of a school, or schools for educating Armenian youths in the Roman Catholic religion. By a former decree of the Court of Chancery, it was or dered, in conformity with a report of the Master, that the principal school should be established at Venice, as being the place best suited for carrying into effect the objects of the charity. A school was consequently es tablished in that city of the description con templated by the testator ; and it was conducted by the abbot and monks of St. Lazarus. The'present petitioner had got a power of attorney to receive the funds from the Accountant-General, which he after wards transmitted to the monks, for whom he acted as agent in, this,country. The petitioner after some time thought he bad reason to suspect that these funds had been improperly administered ; and he complained in particular that the monks had given no account of certain sums transmitted by them to Constantinople. It was on these accounts that he had come to the Court with the present application. It was stated on the other hand for the defence that the sums transmitted to Constanti nople were devoteh to the maintenance of a branch-school established in that city. Accounts were also put in for the purpose of showing that the funds had been admi nistered with the greatest possible economy. A further objection. was taken to the application of the petitioner, on the ground that the Court could not interfere with the administrator of a charity established by a former order of the Court of Chancery in a foreign country. The case had not been brought to a conclusion at the rising of the Court, and the further arguments were post poned till to-morrow.- (Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.) RUSSELL V. BUCHANAN. In this cause the plaintiffs were Mrs. E. S. Russell, the testator's widow, and her five infant children, who were beneficially interested under the settlement executed on the marriage of Mrs. Russell with her husband. The defendants, Buchanan and Nicolls, were the trustees un der the settlement. Mr. WIGRAM, for the plaintiffs stated that the bill rayed that a dividend of 168 L which had been received by the defendant Buchanan, should be paid into Court, and that the interest thereon, together with that of the sum of 10,0001., the trust-fund now stand ing to the credit of the Accountant-General' in Court should be paid to the plaintiffs, who claimed to be entitled thereto according to the provisions of the truct-deed. Mr. COOPER, who appeared for the defendant Bu chanan, admitted the receipt of the dividend by his client, but' stated that' certain sums of money. were • due to him by the. plaintiff. Mrs. Rtts sell, whose brother he was, and 'for whom he had transacted business in the capacity of solicitor; and those bills of costs he put as a set off against the divi dends- received. His llosoua decreed a reference to the Master, to inquire whether there was any debt due from one party to the other; in respect of the matters men tioned at either side—the payments of the dividends to be made to the widow until further order of the Court— and the Master to take whatever accounts might be found necessary between the parties, and to state special cir cumstances. (Before Vice-Chancellor WICRAM.) WILKINSON V. PAGE. This case stood over from yesterday. It was a motion and cross-motion, to set aside an award made by Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, in reference to matters in dispute between the parties, who had been in partnership for a ' short time as attorneys. The following are the facts of the case:--The City Solicitor, Mr. Pearson, on his ap pointment to that office, sold one-half share in the firm in which he was a partner to the defendant, Mr. Page, for 1,5001. ; 750 L was paid at the time, and a bill of ex change given for the remainder. Disagreements sub ' sequently arose between Mr. Williamson and Mr. Page ; the-former complaining that Mr. Page had incorrectly represented himselfas notary public, and the latter that the profits accruing- from the business, had been repre sented to him as 1,500/. a year, whereas, in truth, they did not amount to more than half that sum. A billwas filed by Mr. Williamson for the dissolution of partnership, which by the articles was to continue ten years. The defend ant,.in his answer, insisted that fraud and deception had been practised upon him, and the parties agreed to refer the matter to arbitration.. The arbitrator awarded that Mr: Wilkinson should pay Mr. Page 7001. on the Ist of January instant. Mr. Wilkinson moved to set aside the award,. on 'the ground that the sum in question was a matter of account, and that the matters referred to the arbitrator had been left untouched. Mr. Sharp and Mr. Anderson appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Wood for the defendant. The. hearing was concluded this morning, but his Hoxoutt.deferred his judgment. . COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH, Jan. 21. WATERS V. THE EARL OF TIIANET. The'Cotriu gave judgment in this case, which was an action upon two bills of exchange drawn in 1801 at three months' date, and accepted by the defendant. Pre viously- to the bills . becoming due. the defendant gave a written promise to the plaintiff to pay the bills when he was of ability to do so, and in consideration of not ,being then pressed for payment, undertook riot to avail himself of the statute of, limitations. In 1835 .the defendant succeeded to-the title and estates of the Earl of Thanet, but the plaintiff being_abroad, was not made aware of it for seven or eight years afterwards. At the trial the defendant pleaded the statute of limita tions, and the Jury found a verdict, for ,the plaintiff for the amount claimed. A rule for. a nonsuit was subsequently obtained on' the ground that the statute of. limitations began to run from the time the defendant was of ability to pay. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiff, that the right of action did not accrue until a demand was made. The defendant in the present case was of ability to pay in 1825, • but it was argued that the plaintiff did not know of it till within six years before the action was brought. As a general rule, it might be assumed that the knowledge of a debtor's ability was locked up in his own breast ; but there was generally; some evidence from outward appearances which would lead the creditor to infer his circumstances. Where a debtor promised to pay when able, the cre ditor must be supposed to be on the watch. The period, however, from which that must be com puted was. the time when the fact took place, and not the time when the creditor became acquainted with it. For theserreasons the Court was of opinion that the de fendant was entitled to the nonsuit claimed by him on account of the action not being brought before the ex piration of six years after the defendant became of ability to pay.—Judgment for the defendant. GREEN v. MURRAY. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of 6001., being the value of a Metropolitan Wood Paving Share. The ease was tried before Lord Denman at the sittings after last term, and the plaintiff nonsuited on the ground that no demand had been made by the plaintiff before bringing his action. A rule to set aside the nonsuit and for a new trial was subsequently obtained by Mr. Warren, on the ground that no previous demand was necessary in a case like the present. The COURT was of _opinion that the duty cast upon the defendant, was not like the duty cast upon a person to pay a sum of money, for that was what all persons ought to do when indebted. It might be extremely in convenient to transfer a share, or other matter of that description, at any time, and the demand was, in the opinion of the Court, a necessary part of the • plaintiff's case. In the present case; the demand was not for the transfer of the share, but for the payment of its value in money, in consequence of its being sold. The rule, therefore, for a new trial must be discharged. LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.--HINTON V. DIBBIN AND OTHERS. The COURT also gave.judgment in this case. It was an action brought to recover the value of a quantity of silk which had been entrusted to the defendants, as common carriers for hire, and which had been lost by their - negligence. The plea was that the defendants %ere carriers after the passing of the Act Ist Wil. IV. C. 68, and that, in pursuance of the provisions of that Act, they had caused a public notice to be affixed in their office, that certain excepted goods therein enume rated, being above the value of IN., should pay an in creased rate of carriage—that the silk in question was one of these excepted articles, was above the value of 101., and that there was no engagement to pay the in creased charge. In the replication it was stated that the defendants, as common carriers, had been guilty of gross negligence. To that there was a rejoinder that the goods had been delivered by the defendants to their ser vants in the ordinary . course of business, and that they had been lost by their servants while under their care, and negativing any want of care on the part of the de fendants. To that the plaintiff had demurred. The question in the case was; whether, since the passing of the Act Will. IV., carriers were liable for goods lost from gross negligence on their part without notice and without payment of the increased rate having been made. In the declaration the expression was misfea [ sance, but th a t was d ropped in the re7 -:leation, and negli gence' substituted. In deciding upon the present -case, THE SUN; LONTDON - -SAT U TWAY, JANUAR Y' - 22, 1842: which was the first that had occurred. since the Act came into operation, the Court. must be guided by its language and by the state of the law at the time it was passed. In all the cases that had been decided in the Courts previously can jars were held Halite for the loss of goods beyond the Value pf 10/., where they had been guilty of gross negligence. In the 'case of Wylde v. Pickford, reported in the third volume of "Law Jour nal," 392, it was said that some uncertainty existed as to the cases that were taken out of the notice required to be given, and it was concluded in the case of Bodmin 17. Bennett, that the notice was intended to protect the; carrier from extraordinary events,• and not from the effect of the want of due and ordinary care ; while in other cases it was urged that the carriers were not by. the notice prOtected from the consequences" of misfea sance. In a case before Lord Ellenborough it had been held that the notice exempted the carrier from the conse quence of his negliOnce, but not where there bad been a want of ordinary cure, the want of such care being described to be such care. as a prudent man would take of his own property. The weight of authorities, then, was in favour of the doctrine that in order to render the carrier liable, it was not necessary to prove a total aban donment of the goods, but enough to prove ordinary neg ligence. The result of the decisions in all these cases appeared to be that, supposing the protection of the car rier to have been the object of the Legislature, there was a great deal of doubt and uncertainty to be removed, and - the Court saw no reason why a more limited con struction should be put upon the Act than its title im plied. • The Act, which was for the removal of doubts and the better protection of carriers, was absolute in its protection, and without reservation of those cases where there was an intimation of the contents of the packages and of the value of the goods contained therein. It was further contended that no carrier was liable for the loss of any property beyond the vial% of 101, unless, at the time of its being de liveiTd at his warehouse, the value and nature of such . property was declared, and such increased rate of pay ment made and accepted - by the party receiving such property. The . Learned Judge then referred to the various sections of the Act which bore upon the question before the Court. On the whole, the Court was of opinion that the lan guage of the first section was clear and unam biguous, 'and without any exception, and none could ~V, , fair be implied from any of the other provisions it con tain ; and it held . thstt the carrier was free from Habib, -as to all the articles 'enumerated, unless notice ,was given, 'and the increased payment made and accepted. The - Act, then, had ' the effect of removing great doubt , and difficulty, • which had previously existed as to the liability of the carrier. In the present case the Court was unfettered by any 'authority in putting their construction upon the Act, and-they were of opinion that in this ease the defendants. were not liable for the loss that had occurred, and their judgment must therefore be for the defendants. MILLWARD V. HIBBERT. This was an action upon a policy of insurance to re cover the value of a quantity of pigs which had been thrown overboard in a voyage from Waterford to Lon don. The defendant pleaded that the pigs having been placed upon the deck, had thereby impeded the naviga tion of the vessel, awl 4hat the shipowner was not entitled to recover their value. To that the , plaintiff had demurred. The Court in pronouncing its judgment, observed, that there might be valid reasons for stowing goods of a certain description on deck, such for instance as timber and lire cattle, and they might be so stowed as not to interfere with the navigation of the vessel. The danger of the crew , being tempted to throw them overboard when the vessel was in distress was quite insufficient to bar the plaintiff's right to recover. Mitch would depend upon usage, which in the present case was in favour of the plaintiff; and it' seemed to the Court that the mere fact of stowing the goods on deck, without assigning that they had been improperly so stowed, was not suffi cient to exempt the defendant from his-liability. Having referred to several authorities on the subject, the Court observed that, in their opinion, the plea had been pro perly demurred to, and their judgment must be for the plaintiff BAIL COURT, Jan. 21. EX PARTE BARNARD CAVANAGH. '. JAMES was heard this morning in support of the rule for bringing up the body of Barnard Cavanagh by writ of habeas corpus, in reply to the Solicitor-General and Mr. Cowling, who were yesterday heard against the rule. The Learned Counsel submitted that It was the • form of commitment' only that the Court could adjudicate on, as that was the only docu ment of which the Court had cognizance, and that, inas much as that commitment was bad upon the face of it, the writ of habeas must issue to bring up the man. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS-It ought to go to the gaoler. It was yesterday stated that it was to the Magistrate the rule was directed. Mr. JAMES said that it was quite a _mistake on the_ part of , his Learned Friend to imagine any such thing. It was directed to the gaoler, and as a matter of courtesy a copy had been served on the corn mitting Magistrate, and he had chosen to appear. He would subinit, that the only document which would in form either the Court or the prisoner of the cause of offence for what he was committed was the commitment. It was in fact well known that in such cases the conviction was seldom drawn up at all, unless appealed against, and then it was drawn up after the grounds of appeal became known, and he ought to meet those grounds. The corn mitment was the only document to which the prisoner could look for information ; and, therefore, it was the only document to which the Court could look on the return to the habeas. When a prisoner was in custody, he had a right, under the Habeas Corpus Act, to demand from the gaoler a copy of the commitment, and that was the only means he had of knowing why he was detained in custody. A copy of the conviction was not furnished to the gaoler, and in all cases of a return to a writ of habea,s corpus the gaoler had invariably returned the commitment as the authority under which the prisoner was detained in cus tody. He knew nothing of the conviction which when drawn up at'all was returned to the Quar ter Sessions, and not given to the gaoler. Now in all the cases to which . he had alluded, when •he moved for the rule, it bad been laid down that a com mitment in execution must specify, with the same accu racy tie an indictment, the character of the offence for which the individual was Committed. The cakes of com mitments by the House of Commons for contempt, to which allusion had been made yesterday, had been de cided upon a totally different principle; but even in those instances the writ of habeas had been granted, and on the return to the writ when the goaler showed that the commitment was by the House of Commons for contempt, the Court decided that that was sufficient, as the House of Commons was competent to determine what was or what was not a contempt of its authority. But the writ of habeas was granted evenin those cases. In fact it was the subject's right ex debits justicire. The question was, was the offence as set forth in the commitment a sufficient ground for detaining the prisoner in custody or not? It was set forth that he, the said Barnard Cavanagh was committed as a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of the statute of George IV., for that he, the said Bernard Cavanagh, had gone about to levy chari table contributioni under false pretences. Now, he sub mitted that the prisoner had committed no offence within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. Cavanagh had gone to exhibit himself as an object of public curiosity. He had not gone about from door to door, seek ing to levy charitable contributions. He had not gone about at all ; he had taken a room in an hotel at Reading, and issued placards stating that he could abstain from food for five years, and of all those who went to see him and paid their sixpence for so doing not one could venture to swear that he had paid his money from motives of charity. It might be per fectly true that he had been guilty of deception, but that did not bring him within the meaning of the Vagrant Act. They might if they had chosen have indicted him as a cheat, and then he would have been put upon his defence, and would have been forced to negative the pretence. If this commitment was good, because he had pretended to do that which he did not do, and that those who bad paid money to see him, were to be taken to give him money from motives of charity, there was no knowing to what the principle might lead. There was a gentleman some time since exhibited himself at the Adelphi as a man who could permit himself to be shot at with a real gun, really loaded, without injury. This, of course,was phy sically impossible, and it might be as welleOn tended that the prices of admission to see him were charitable contribu tions. No one would be safe. Mr. Macready advertised that on a certain night he would appear as Macbeth. It was well known, of course, that he was not really Mac beth ; and it might be as well contended that he had levied charitable contributions, under false pre tences, by taking money at the doors of his theatre, as that Cavanagh had done so. The money paid by the persons who came to see Cavanagh were no more charitable contributions than the money paid at the pit door of the Opera. The persons who had paid their money had had their quid pro quo—they had paid to see the man who professed he could abstain from food for five years, and they had seen him. Accord ing to the Act, solicitation is necessary to constitute the gist of the offence. Now, in this case there had been no sort of solicitation, nor anything done to excite feelings of charity. It might as well be pretended that a person pretending he had the power to repeal a parti cular Act of Parliament, it being well known that no single individual could possess such power, and who, un der pretence of procuring such repeal, should levy eon tributions, was levying contributions within the meaning of the Act. It was utterly absurd to put any such construction , upon the words of the Act. The opinion of Lord Tenterden, reported in 7 Berne well and Cresswell, p. 669, was decided on the point that every committal in execution should distinctly show the nature of the offence. In De Gronbel's case, in Lord Raymond's Reports, it was distinctly laid down, that " the cause of-commitment must be certain, to the end that the party may know why he suffered, and how he may regain his liberty." And it was but rea sonable it should be so. The Sessions might not take place for three months, the man would have suffered his punishment before his appeal could be heard, and it was a great hardship upon persons in the prisoner's situation that the conviction was never drawn up until after the grounds of appeal were known, and then the Magistrates generally had it drawn up by some profes sional person in town with a view specially to meet the grounds of the appeal. If persons thus situated were not entitled to their habeas corpus, it would amount to a practical abrogation of the Habeas Corpus Act. Suppose the commitment had set forth that he bad been committed for wearing a brown coat, or for eating without a silver fork. If the Court were to refuse a habeas corpus, the man would have no remedy. He therefore contended, that inasmuch as there could be no pretence for saying that the prisoner had gone about collecting alms or charitable contributions within the meaning of the Act, and inasmuch as the commitment did not show that any sufficient offence had been com nutted, the commitment was bad upon the, face of it ; and that therefore the rule must be made absolute. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS did not feel himself called upon to adjudicate finally in this case, inasmuch as if the writ Were to go the matter would again be solemnly argued on the return to it. Now, on the authority of the case, the King v. Brown, it appeared clearly that the Court would and did • look in cases of summary conviction of this nature, to : see if the offence as set forth was sufficient to warrant the committal. In that case Brown had been commited as a rogue and vaga bond, because he had in possession various implements for housebreaking. Ile was brought up by habeas, and it was argued that the commitment was bad, inasmuch as it did not state that Brown was in pos session of those instruments at the time of his appre hension: In giving judgment in this case, Lord Kenyon had said that he yielded with great reluctance to the ob jection, and that was quite sufficient to show that it was not sufficient for commitments of this nature, to set forth that the party . had been committed as a rogue and vagabond, for if that had been suf ficient, Brown would not have been discharged. and as it seemed exceedingly equivocal and doubtful whether the conduct of Cavanagh could be construed into a gOing about to gather alms or collect charitable contributions, he was_ of opinion that the writ must go. Rule absolute. CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE " HAMPSHIRE INDEPENDENT."—THE QUEEN V. HARMER. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved, on behalf of Mr. Dickson, the Mayer of Southampton, for a rule, calling upon the defendant, the proprietor of the Ranaprkire Independent newspaper, to show cause why a criminal information should not be filed against him for the publication of a series of para graphs reflecting upon the character of the applicant, Mr. Dickson who was of Conservative politics, had been elected Mayor the 9th November, and on the llth had announced a meeting for the purpose of addressing her Majesty, to congratulate her on the birth of a Prince of Wales. At that meeting some persons had thought proper to bring politics under consideration, and an adjournment had been moved ; that motion had been submitted to the meeting, by the Mayor as Chairman and had by him been decided in accordance with what he believed to be the decision of the majority. That de cision had not met with the approbation of the defendant, who had, week after, week, published in his paper. a series of paragraphs, imputing to. Mr. Dickson that he had lent himself to be the tool of a party, and had been actuated solely by party motives in coming to the decision to which he had come on the occasion referred to. On the first occasion he had taken no notice of the paragraph ; as he considered it merely an ebulition of disappointment,. but the continued attacks were seriously affecting his efficiency as a Magistrate, and, therefore, he applied to' his Court for protection. Mr. Justice WlLLums—Take a rule. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I may as well state that the object of the Mayor in making this application is merely to restrain this series of attacks, and to get the protection ofthe Court, so as to enable him to exercise the functions 6f his office in such a manner as to be be neficial to l his falow-citizens. Mr. Justice WILLIAms—How far that may be satis factory I ciftinot say. I hope it may lead to some satis factory result. MANDAMUS-THE QIUEEN TOWN COUNCIL OF HARWICH. Mr. GURNEY applied fur a rule for a mandamus direct ing the Town Council of Harwich to swear in Mr. An thony Cox as Mayor of that borough. At the last elec tion for Mayor, Mr. Hart and Mr. Cox were the candi dates, and Mr. Hart had the majority of votes; but pre vious to the election notice had been given to the voters that Mr. Hart was not qualified, he not being an Alder man, which he claimed to be, and that consequently all the votes for him would be thrown away. Sinoe then application had been made for a quo warranto, calling on Mr. Hart to show by what authority he claimed to exercise the office of Alderman, and judgment Of ouster had been obtained against him. Under those circumstances Mr. Cox was the only legal candidate for, -the office of Mayor, and therefore he now applied for a rule nisi fora mandamus calling on the Corporation to swear him in.—Application.granted. THE QUEEN V.' "THE BRIGHTON GAZETTE."-CRIMINAL INFORMATION. Mr. PLATT moved for a rule calling on the proprietors of the Brighton Gazette to show cause why a criminal in formation should not be filed against them for the pub lication .of an article of a libellous character, reflecting on the character of two of the Brighton Magistrates. Mr. Justice WILLIAMS referred the Learned Counsel to the full Court, and:observed that, as it was one of the highest functions the Court could exercise, he thought the full Court by far the most proper place in which to make all such applications. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, an. 21. BELCHER V. CAPPER. This is an action on a policy of insurance. The Court was occupied the whole ef the day, and part of Wednes day, in hearing the arguments on demurrer to the repli cation. The argument was wholly destitute of popular interest. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 21. IN RE THE BANKRUPTCY OF Mr3L HITCHCOCK. The adjourned examination of the above bankrupt was resumed this morning. Mr. IiUMFREY wished to ask the official assignee whether he had not asked for information from the bank rupt, which had been furnished ? Mr. GROOM said he had required further informa tion from the bankrupt—the answer was that he declined to give any information except in open Court. Mr. MARDON said the official assignee only asked for information connected with the statements made in that Court. lie had given all theinformation in his power to those who were, in fact, the assignees of the credi tors. Mr. Cook was not in reality an assignee. The whole of the figures respecting the balance had been as fully explained as it was in the power of the bankrupt. Mr. HUMFREY denied this statement. Mr. GROOM said he certainly was of opinion that further information was required. He was not satisfied with that which had been furnished. Mr. 1-lumFaEv appealed to the Court to force - the bankrupt to furnish the official assignee with all the in formation he required, or adjourn the examination until it was done. The COMMISSIONER said as some of the requisitions of the official assignee had been complied with, and others not, let the official assignee ' give another requisition in writing, and it must be complied with. He was com pelled to give proper information to all his assignees by the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The Bankrupt.said, after his examination on Monday, he called several times on Mr. Groom for any fresh re quisition, but :none was given, except one from Mr. Cook. He declined to give any information to Mr. Cook singly. He had not gone to Mr. Groom's to sort his books and papers, because the whole of his books and papers were seized. He folind some were missing, and therefore he would rather not meddle with them, unless he was compelled, so that it would not be possible for any one to say that he had taken away any of the letters or papers. The examination was thesi resumed. By Mr. are you residing now ?-- No. 7, Cumberland-place, New-road. • What servants have you ?—A maid of all-work and a boy. What do you pay a-week for those lodgings ?-21. 10s., being furnished. You spoke of having given Cook and Gladstone 61. per cent. interest, and 11 per cent. commission. Were you not paying to Mr. Glaister a larger commission and the same interest ?—Yes ; and here I wish to explain. In March, 1839, I was discounting bills with Cook and Gladstone. When Mr. Cook, on one occasion, declined to discount the bills which I then tendered, and sug gested that I should discount them somewhere else in the market ; and in the conversation which took place then, Mr. Cook asked me if I discounted with Mr. Glaister. This conversation also occurred prior to that time, I believe. Now, finding I could not get the bills dis counted with Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, to the extent that I required, I called upon Mr. Glaister, and he of fered to discount my bills for the next year at a fixed price, viz., per cent. commission, and 5 per cent. in terest. I le would do this if I got my brother's security for 1,000/. as against loss. I obtained and gave him that security. He commencedliseounting, and continued to do so for several months,. at the rate agreed upon. He, however, subsequently increased that commission to 2 per cent., then to 21 afterwards 2/, and then 3. When I paid the 3 per cent. Mr. Glaister told me he would not charge beyond the bargained price again. On the 27th November, 1839, I went again to Mr. Glaister with about 750/. worth of bills. After trying me to see if I needed the money at that moment, and in reply to which I said I must have the money or stop, he took ad vantage of my necessity and charged me 5 per cent. commission, although he admitted at the same time that the bargain was for I, and he then held security. I was obliged on that day to get the money, and, therefore, I consented to pay his demand. I, however, told him then that in consequence of his Jewish conduct lo would never enter his place again, and never did for that pur pose. I believe I shall be able to show on the cross-exa tion of Cook and Gladstone's— Mr. HUMFREY objected to such language from a bank rupt. He had better take care what he said. Witness —I have good reason to believe, indeed Mr. Cook has twice told me so, that Mr. Glaister was con sulting with him during that period, and I believe that Cook and Gladstone assisted him in discounting my bills, and derived part of the profit from them. I never paid Mr. Glaister or any other person such exorbitant interest as I was then drawn into pay—viz., 5 per cent. commission and 6 per cent. interest. Did you discount bills with any other person than Mr. Cook and Mr. Glaister ? —Yes. , With whom sinc e 1839 ?—Messrs. Coster and Co.; Messrs. Eales and C o M e ssrs. Llewellyn and Co., I think, and Mr. Stephens, bill-broker. Any one else ?—Th ose are a ll I recollect. What did yo u pay to M essrs . Eales and Co., interest and commis s i on — t h e h i g h est ?—I canno t tell without reference to my discount papers. (They were handed to him.) On J une 3 d , 1840, the interest, 5 per cent ; commission, 11 per cent.; the bill near l y four mo nths. That will, up on the ;hole, be as nearly as possible 10 per cent.?—Ye s ;it is 101 per cent. nearl y . Now, turn to another of Messrs. E ales'?—l do n ot find any more of Eal es ' h ere. Now, then, tu rn to L lewe ll yn paid no commission to them at any time. What was the interest ?—Five per cent. per annum. Now, turn to Steph ens Ther e are none of S tep h ens ' s here. ; w h a t did "you pay him ? What was the highest you paid Stephens at any time? —Here is one of Stephens's of March, 7th ; the interest is 3 per cent, commission 11 per cent. Have you ever paid as high as 4 per cent, commission and 6 per cent, interest ?—No. What was the average ?--About 1 per cent., and 5 par cent. interest. That was about the average I aid Ste phens. I discounted with Bradbury and Castles, and I they never charged me one farthing commission for the same class of paper a I discounted with Messrs. Cook. Now, will you swear that you have never paid Ste phens more than 5 per cent. interest 7—Certainly not ; although I believe such to be the fact. Will you swear you never paid him more than one per cent. commission 7—Certainly not, although I be lieve that to be the average which I paid to him. I was discounting with Castle and Co. at the same time as was with Messrs. Cook, and to the former I paid no commission. Have you not discounted with Messrs. Cook at as low a rate as five per cent. and Three-eighths commission ? —I believe I have, but only to a small amount. Have you not also paid - them one-half per cent. com mission ?—I do not recollect, but I have no doubt I may have done so to a small amount. Have you not the amount of 700 L ?—I cannot answer that question without seeing My ledger. Did you not discount with Cook and Co., in June, 1840, SOO/. atfiveper cent. and three-oigliths commission? —I do not recollect, nor can a reference to this book assist me. Turn to the tickets. Look for amounts 4131. 16s. 2d. and 4851.—1 do not believe I ever discounted any such bills with any person in London. From June, 1840, to June, 1841, will you swear that you ever paid Cook and Co. more than one per cent. com mission. I advise you to be careful : that is the year before you failed I—l believe I discounted very little with them in that period. I will not swear that I ever paid them more during that time. Will you swear that you paid so much as one per cent. duringthat period, with only one exception ?—On the 29th May I discounted four bills ; 551. 65., 36 days to run ; 27/. 65., 91 days ; upon them the commission was one per cent. Now, with that one exception, is there any other occasion during those periods on which so much as 1 per cent. was charged ?—The papers are all dated, therefore I cannot say. You say you did not discount much with them during that period. Now did you not discount upwards of 3,700/. between June 1840 and the same period in 1841? —I have no doubt I did, but that was small in pro portion to former dealings. A long examination was gone into with respect to discount transactions, in order to show that during the period above named, Cook and Co. had not charged more than 3/. Bs. at times, and never more than 1 per cent. as commission, but it turned out that half per cent. commission had been paid upon bills having 24 days and 28 days to run. Re-examined by Mr. MARDON—What security did Messrs. Eales'and Co. hold at the time they discounted for you ?—No security whatever. Did Messrs. Cook and Co. hold any, and what security at the time they were discounting for you ? Between June 40, and June 41, they did hold security ; they held the lease of 114, Regent-street, my brothers security for 7,0001., the lease of 118, Regent-street. Eales' bill for 8631., making together 14,500/. What amount of Cook's debt was unsecured in Jan. 1841 ?—I owed them then 18,022/. 17s. Bd. I had seeuri• ties in their hands to the amount of 10,7001., leaving a balance unsecured of 7,382/. 17s. Bd. You have stated that at the time of the fiat you owed them 19,829/. 10s. What amount of securities did they then hold ?—Securities to the amount of 15,832/. 9s. 9d., leaving a balance then unsecured of 3,997/. ls. 3d. By this you will observe that the securities had increased upwards of 3,466/. 16s. 5d., although the account was a little larger. Can you state what you owed them in May ?-21,7401. That is without interest due on the 7,000/. Can you state the average rate of interest and com mission paid by you upon the ,bills discounted by Cook and Co., between June 1840 and 1841 ?—I cannot, but I believe the interest per annum to be about IQ to 12 per cent. This, however, I Can explain more fully by having time and referring to the discount papers. You have Stated that Ni r. Cook knew you were dis counting bills with Mr. Glaister. Was Mr. Glaister a clerk in their employ before that period ?—He was six or seven years ago. This finished s tie examination of the bankrupt. Mr. MARDow then called Mr, Warwick, in order to corroborate the bankrupt in respect of the references given by him, to Cook and Co. Mr. HUMFREY objected. Such an inquiry was wholly irrelevant to the question before the Court, which was the balance-sheet of the bankrupt. He admitted that Messrs. Cook and Co. had undoubted faith in the bank rupt until a certain period, and they had spoken highly of him down to July, 1841, most conscientiously ; but whether they had done so or not was a matter that was wholly beside the question which was before the Court for adjudication. He was merely anxious to save time. He would call Messrs. Cook and Gladstone, but it would be to the balance-sheet. Mr. BUTT said he appeared for the assignees, Messrs. Brown and Llewellyn, and he must object to the course his Learned Friend was pursuing. Let the witnesses be called, and then the objection would be in time. Mr. HUMFREY said his Learned Friend appeared nominally for the assignees,but in reality for the bankrupt. Mr. BUTT denied the statement. His Learned Friend had no right to say anything of the kind. Mr. IlumFnEy charged those for whom his Learned Friend appeared, to be the friends of the bankrupt, and they were doing all in their power in his favour. He would oppose, generally, the calling of any witnesses for the purpose of proving that which he admitted, that his clients had spoken well of the bankrupt down to July, 1841. lle would, however, strongly oppose the admis sion of the letter from Mr. Wheeler, which it was pro posed to offer in evidence. He would much like to see that person in the box, for since that inquiry had com menced he had been to Cook and Co., and said, " I don't want to say anything against you—have you 'anything to offer me." Such a man- must be produced, or his letter altogether excluded. But he submitted that the proposed inquiry was wholly irrelevant to the proceed ings before the Court. - Mr. MAkDoN said a very onerous duty had been cast upon him by the manner in which Mr. Ashurst had con ducted the examination. The whole question now re solved into one of the credit to be given to the bankrupt —therefore he wanted to produce evidence in corrobora tion of his statement. Unless he was allowed to do that he would not be able to do justice to his client. The COMMISSIONER did not think it irrelevant, but he would not shut out the evidence. Mr. Warwick, of the firm of Ovington and Warwick, examined by Mr. MARDON.—He was referred twice to Mr. Cook by the bankrupt. He went on the 16th March, and then he saw Mr. Cook, senior. He said he had been referred to him, and he presumed upon their old friend ship, that he should give such a reference as would en able him either to go on or close the account. Mr. Cook spoke in the most flattering manner of the bankrupt— that he did business with him to a very large, amount, and had the most perfect confidence in him, and that in all his dealings he had never detected him in a false hood—that his account was many thousands. He asked Mr. Cook as to his property. Mr. Cook said the last time the balance-sheet was shown him, he showed a ba lance of between 3,000/. and 4,000/. Witness told him that he had no confidence in him. He had lent him 1,0001, and as his buyer was repeatedly in their house, his account might become too large. He said " I hear you hold the lease as security ; do you hold any other security ?" He answered, " The s ecuri ti e s we hold would not cover one-third of our liabilities." He then asked him had he inquired into Hitchcock's affairs, in respect of Eales, and whether there was any accommodation be tween them. Mr. Cook said he had investigated into the matter, and there was no foundation for the report. He asked as to the amount of their own account, and very particularly as to the fact of whether they, Cook and Co., held any other security besides the lease, that being the question that he went to get answered. Ile made a memorandum of the matter at the time, which was as follows :—" Mr. Cook has closely in vestigated the affairs of Wm. Hitchcock, and there was no bill between him and Eales that value was not given for. Mr. Cook's account is very large ; he holds the lease, and that is the only security. Their account is some thousands." And they, upon this, sold him goods to the amount of 1,400/. to open his new shop with. In consequence of the reference they sold the bankrupt goods, and they were now creditors to the amount of 5601. lie was again referred to Mr. Cook in August last, but did not go. Mr. Cook called upon him on the Ist of January last, and stated that he understood wit ness was to be subpoenaed to give evidence in the matter of William Hitchcock, and he wished to see his (wit ness's) reference-book ; but it was refused. On being told what would be the nature of his evidence if he was called, and that if he had informed witness of the fact that he held so many securities, they would not have been a creditor for a single shilling, he said both Mr. Gladstone and himself had always answered the question as to securities, that it would not cover above one-third of their debt. He said he never intended to deceive witness, and would rather have had his right hand cut off than have deceived any one. Witness asked why he did not inform him of the joint note he held. He said, had he done so, he (witness) would not have trusted him. Mr. Wheeler had not been subpoenaed, because he was now at the Isle of Wight. Mr. Smith was calfed, but his solicitor objected to his being examined, because he was going to take proceedings against Messrs. Cook and Gladstone,. and his being ex amined now might prejudice him in another Court. Mr. HI:WILEY 'again admitted that his clients had spoken well of the bankrupt up to July, 1841. Where was the use of calling witnesses to prove an admitted fact? Mr. MARDON submitted that he was entitled to exa mine the witness, in order to show that Cook and Co. gave references long after they knew the bankrupt was insolvent. The COM3IISSIONER thought they were onlywasting time. What h a d t h e quest i on o f Cook and Co.. giving references to other parties to do with (liee question, if the bankrupt had given true answers in reference to his balance-sheet He would not examine Mr. Smith. Mr. BUTT said those parties for whom he appeared were only anxious that the Commissioner should elicit the truth of a case which did no credit to any of the par ties concerned in it. Mr. MARDON said his case was closed. Mr. Hu3lFaEv desired it to be clearly understood that after he had commenced his case he would object to Mr. Mardon calling any more witnesses, and the bankrupt's statements might be confirmed by his brother and his shopmen. MARDON declined to call them, and the further hearing of the case was adjourned till Wednesday next. JANUARY 20. THE BANKRUPTCY OF WRIGHT AND CO., LATE BANKERS OF HEN RIETTA - STREET, COVENT-GARDEN. -IN RE BIDDULPH WRIGHT AND co. This day was appointed for the declaration of a divi dend upon the joint -estate of the bankrupts, and also upon the separate estate of Biddulph Wright. A num ber of creditors were in attendance, and several additional proofs were admitted without any opposition. At the last sitting Mr. Dixon (the barrister) was heard at some length in support of a claim made by th e joint estate against the separate estate of Mr. John Wright for the sum of 125,0001. 13s. 11d., the whole of which he had improperly drawn from the bank, and used for his own purposes. The Learned Gentleman this day re sumed his argument, and cited, in support of it, the case of ex parte Fordyce, reported in Mr. Carter's Trea tise upon the bankrupt law. Mr. 13Aosit.e.wE objected that the rule of law was quite clear in these cases, which said that if there was no " concealment" in the books of the partners that sums were drawn out by one partner, however improperly he might have used the sums so drawn, then the partnership was • clearly liable ; but the books of the partnership, which must be supposed to be accessible to all of them. not only contained the account of the sums so drawn, but also the interest charged upon them, and there being neither " fraud nor concealment," the whole of the part ners were liable. 4 Mr. litxoN having been heard in reply, and a further conversation between the Learned Gentlemen having ensued, Mr. Commissioner lloLtiovp said there .could be no doubt in this case. The joint estate could not • prove against the separate estate, unless in cases of fraud being committed by one of the partners in abstracting moneys from the partnership without their knowledge or consent ; or in cases of fraud,, without their adoption of that partner's conduct by some subsequent re cognition of it. In this case regular entries had been made of all the sums of -money drawn out of the partnership funds by John Wright, for a period of nearly four yeart and a half before the, bankruptcy. In 1837 he drew out upon his separate account about 36,0061; in 1838, 29,0001.; in 1839, 31,000 L; in 1840, 30,9001.; and in the month or so before the issue of the fiat nearly 4,700 L All this appeared upon the face of their ac counts, and however bad the case might appear to be, the joint estate could not be allowed to prove against the separate estate, according to the principle laid down in the case ex-parte Smith, reported in 4 Deans and Chitty, p. 169,.and other cases. The claim was disallowed. Mr." Hamilton said that the assignees, though ex tremely anxious to declare a dividend, were unable to do so, either upon the joint or separate estate, although they hoped very speedily to be enabled to do so upon both. The Learned CommissiollEit asked what the amount of the dividend was likely to be now ?—The official assignee said that he had 60,0001. assets in hand upon the joint estate, but out of that sum at least 25,000/. would be re quired to pay ss. in the pound upon the new proofs already admitted, and certain, other claims which were still unsettled. Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD—CaIi you pay ss. in the pound upon the separate estate ? The O ffi cial Assignee--No, Si; ; nor half that sum. Several creditors — thought, it would be desirable that some dividend, if it were only a shilling in the pound, should be now declared/upon the separate estate. A somewhat lengthened conversation ensued, the result of which was, that ss. in the pound was directed to be paid, so as to equalise the new and old proofs, and Is. 6d. in the pound upon the separate estate (as we un derstood) of Mr. Biddulph Wright. ARCHES' COURT, Jan. 20. REED I'. EVERALL AND CRESSWELL. This is an appeal from the Consistory Court of Nor wich, in a suit for subtraction of Church -rate, promoted by the Churchwardens of King's Lynn. The party pro ceeded against gave in a defensive allegation, which was rejected by the Court below. He subsequently offered another allegation, stating as new matter, that when he had been summoned before the Magistrates for the amount of rate due, neither the rate itself nor a copy of it had been produced by the Churchwardens, and conse quently that no legal claim f or th e ra t e h a d been made. The Judge of the Court of Norwich rejected that alle gation on the ground that, as the former allegation had been rejected, a fresh allegation containing new aver ments, was not admissible. Against this decision an appeal had been brought and was now heard. This was the point at issue, but the whole case was involved in great obscurity. Dr. Addams appeared for the appellant, and Dr. Hag gard for the churchwardens. Sir HERBERT JENNER said that as this point had been taken up by the party proceeded against, he was bound to consider it, and he thought it was worthy of attention. The position which Keed occupied seemed anomalous. He stated no grounds on which he opposed the validity of the rate, and yet he went before the Magistrate and the Ecclesiastical, Court, refusing to pay it. But as there appeared to be some informalities in the mode of proceed ing, the case ought not to be dismissed at once, and the allegation must be admitted. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 21. IN THE MATTER OF JOHN RANGELEY. The insolvent, whose case had been previously inves tigated before the Court, and was reported in 2he Sun, came up again for judgment this morning. He was de scribed as enffineer to the Patent Safety Rotation Com pany, and the inventor and patentee of certain improve ments in railway locomotion. The COURT ordered' him to be discharged. IN RE HICRMAN. The insolvent was a jeiveller and silversmith, carry ing on business under the firm of Hickman and Turner. It appeared that, the insolvent bought the good: will in certain premises and stock in trade from the opposing creditor, for 750/. which eventually turned out to be a bad speculation, and having offered to rescind the bar gain, which was refused by the opposing creditor, -he caused himself to be arrested by a friend, when he filed his petition, and gave up his property, in order that an equal.dividend might be made amongst the creditors.— Discharged. IN THE MATTER OF JOHN REED ROBERTB. The insolvent was a surgeon in the Royal Navy, and applied on his petition to be discharged, which was sup ported by Mr. Woodroffe, and opposed on behalf of cer tain creditors in Plymouth by Mr. Cooke. He had retired from the Navy many years ago on 104/. annual half-pay, and commenced practising his profession in Frankfort-street, Plymouth. his present liabilities amounted to 1,2001., of which there were out standini, debts to the amount of 2351., which would • be available to his creditors. He also had been entitled to a reversionary life interest in some property in Chelsea, after the death of his mother and aunt. In 1837 he was elected town councillor of Plymouth, the qualification required for which was 1,0001. above all debts or de mands, but since that time he had suffered some severe losses by a speculation in which he entered into to start a newspaper in Plymouth. Mr. COOKE applied - to have at least 17/. 4s. a year ap propriated to the creditors, Mr. COmmissioner BOWMAN said the sum was so small as to be totally useless to the body of the creditors, and as the insolvent, had three children, with his mother and aunt (the latter of whom 'was blind), who sacrificed their property for him, he could not make any order on the subject. Mr. WOODROFFE said there was an " order " presented to the insolvent as a mark of respect by the Portuguese Government, the stones of which were found to be coun terfeit—(he supposed the jeweller who made it tricked the Government)—and there was also a beautiful snuff box presented to him by the workmen on the Plymouth Breakwater, in return for many acts of professional kindness which he had conferred upon them. These articles, with same others, had been handed ; to Mr. Cafe, the auctioneer of that ourt, and their ultimate value was found to be less than-81. Mr. 000 RE said he was instructed by the creditors to state that Mr. Roberts should not be deprived of testimo nials so honourable to him. ..... He_ was then ordered to be discharged. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. A well-dressed man, named John Harvey, was brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with having robbed Mr. Brown, of Aldermanbury, of a diamond pin, worth about 71., on the day Prince Albert laid the first stone of the Royal Exchange. The prisoner had been remanded from Tuesday, in the hope that sufficient evi dence might be produced against the thief, who was de scribed as a desperate character. Mr. Brown stated, that, as his wife and he were in Cornhill, near the Sun Fire-office, a mob got about them. He endeavoured to pass, and the prisoner, raising his arm against witness's face, said that he also wanted to get forward, pulled the pin out of witness's shirt, and rushed across the street. , There were two persons with the prisoner, evidently belqnging to the gang. A gentle man, who saw what occurred, immediately told witness that he had lost his pin, and pointed at the prisoner as the person who had stolen it. Witness then ran after and seized the prisoner, who struck and kicked, and made a most desperate resistance, but was unable to get away. The LORD MAYOR said the prisoner had been at the bar before. The prisoner—Never my Lord, I was never appre hended before in my life. My solicitor can tell you that —(A laugh.) The prisoner's Solicitor—l believe him to be a re spectable poor man. The LORD MAYOR—Oh, yes ! I have no doubt that he is one of what are called the swell mob. I know his face, and shall ask the gaoler about him. Gooch (the turnkey of the Compter) was then called, and asked whether he knew anything of the prisoner. " Know him, my Lord ! Certainly I do. He has been in that, spot before, and is well known as the companion of notorious thieves." It was stated that Mr. Brown, who is a very strong man, completely overpowered the prisoner, although in the midst of a set of thieves. The gentleman who saw the pin taken, not having attended the first examina tion, the prosecutor,ianxious to get such a ruffian punished, put an advertisement in the papers requesting his ap pearance—nobody answered his call. The LORD MAYOR asked whether the prosecutor could swear that he saw the pin taken himself ? Mr. Brown— I cannot. I missed it, however, the instant I was told it was gone. The prisoner's solicitor submitted that there was no case at all against his client. Mr. Brown—For the sake of public justice, I hope he may be punished in some way or other. It is not on ac count of the pin lost, but on account of the public, that I have pursued this inquiry so actively. The LORD MAYOR—I shall send him to prison for three months at any rate, and the public are much in debted to the prosecutor. Mr. Paine (of Deptford) Said, that after he had just stepped out of an omnibus, a gang of fellows, of which he believed the prisoner to be one, surrounded, and kicked, and robbed him of a sovereign and a half, and tried to get his watch. They endeavoured to trip him up, and knocked his hat off three times. There appeared to be great fury in the thieves in Cornhill. A clothesman, named Lazarus Walters, who keeps a clothes' shop near the Old Clothes'-market in Cutler street, and was said to be in goo d c i rcumstances, was charged by Mr. Tyrrell, the S o li c i tor to t h e Commis sioner of Sewerp, for having violated the Act of Parlia ment, by obstructing the way in Cutler -street, in offering his goods for sale. The constable said he had frequently cautioned the defendant against the practice, but without effect. The offence having been clearly proved, MORNING SUN Mr. Tyrrell called for the infliction of the highest penalty of 51., as the defendant wtt,,s prosperous, and kept a shop in-which he was not satisfied to do business, but followed the example of the most indigent dealers. The LORD MAYOR—I shall fine him 21. now , but if ever he offend again in this way, I shall fine him 51. The penalty was paid. GUILDHALL. A respectable-looking lad, about fourteen years: , °{ age, was charged with robbing his employer, :lira - Thomas Wylder, a tobacconist, carrying on business in Goswell-street-road. • From the statement of the prosecutor, it appeared that the prisoner's father had been in his employment for Many years prior to his death, a t w hi c h ti me he left large and helpless family, of which the prisoner WAS th e eldest, and, in consequence of the hih character h is father bore, he took him into his employment , and place ( ' the utmost confidence in him. Having missed vario us sums of money frem the till, his suspicions at length fel i on the prisoner, when some marked money in the drawer , which was soon afterwards missed, was found upon kin' At the recommendation of the prosecutor the prisoner was diKharged, after a severe reprimand from th e Alderman. Several poor creatures, who were in a state of th e utmost destitution, were brought before the Bench, some on the charge of mendicancy, and others for breaking lamps, for the purpose of obtaining food and shelter in the station-house. A few of those whose health and strength seemed most impaired, got tickets of admission to the Hospital, and the remainder were committed for various short terms of imprisonMent. MARLBOROUGH-STREET. Henry Smith, alias Godfrey, was Wolglit up for r e ` examination on a charge of having been f o und in th ° drawing-room of the residence of Mr. Richard Bendel , of No. 8, New Burlington-street. oof Mr. HARDWICK inquired whethe r th ere was any Pr of the prisoner having been convicted of felony. William Horsford, the head constable employed by the Mendicity Society, stat e d, th a t i n O c t. 1826, the Pr' soner was convicted at the Old Bailey of an extensile, robbery in Bond-street, and sentenced to seven years, transportation, but which was commuted to five year s imprisonment on board the hulks. He had previously been known to the police as a desperate burglar, and ile" mediately on his liberation returned to his evil courses. Edward Jones, one of the ushers of Marylebone Pollee Court, identified the prisoner as having been convicted at that Court, on the • Ist May, 1841, of robbing hi' ready-furnished lodgings, and sentenced to two months imprisonment in the Ho use o f C orrect i on. H e h a d sou' sequently been charged with robbing a gentleinsd! , house in Dorset-square, but the evidence was insufficient to convict him. He Was considered to be one of the 'DOS expert and daring thieves that infested the metropolis. • The M.scitsTRATE convicted him under the Police Ate!: and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment " I _`'' hard labour. WORSHIP-STREET. Jeremiah Kelly, a tall athletic man, was brought bet° Mr. Broughton upon a charge of having violently saulted his wife, a woman of diminutive stature, who "7 several years older than the prisoner. From the evidence of the complainant (whose face Wal. disfigured with bruises) it app eare d that a t t h e ttwe of her marriage with the prisoner, she was in very conlibl t : able circumstances, but h e soon squan d ere d awa y te little property in riot and debauchery, and since P er means became exhausted, he h a d b een i n t h e habit o f behaving in the most brutal manner towards her. ,9 1 ! Wednesday night he retu rne d h ome i n suc h a drulW" state that he was incapable of ill-using her as ho rot a ' riably did under s u ch c i rcums t ances ; b ut h e awo ke a, an early hour in the mo rn i ng , an d commence d a attack upon her, tearing the hair out of her head, n 6„ swearing that he would mur d er h er . H e a f te rweT7 kicked her out of bed, and on her calling out for a 0 ti ll 1 ante he seized hold of her throat, and corapresscd it e she, was almost strangled. The only mo ti ve h e ass ign for his brutal conduct was, that she was too old and in ° ugly for him, and he was resolved to get rid of her. La Other witnesses confirmed the ma in f ac t s s t a t e d by tr complainant ; when the Magistrate ordered the prisone r to pay a fine of 505., or be committed f or s i x weeks to "th e House of Correction. LAMBETH-STREET. On Thursday a respectably-dressed and modest-looki n g female applied to Mr. Henry for his assistance under the following somewhat singular circumstances. The applicant stated that she had had the misfortune to have had an illegitimate child to a gentleman, wolf; her latterly applying to the father to do something '`,) his boy, he told h e r th a t h e h a d some considerab le doubts, from his advanced age, whether the child wag his ; but if the applicant would swear that he was lu: father, he would at o n ce a d opt t h e ch i ld, an d make -- handsome settlement on the boy by will. Mr. HENRY replied he had not th 6 power of admie; tering a voluntary oath, but would endeavour, under tit peculiar circumstances, to h ave t h e a bj ect of the °P,i plicant accomplished in another wa y. The Leare e „ Magistrate then directed an officer to go for the reliArill officer of the hamlet of Mile-end Old-t own , an d in a sh' ir time Mr. Seabon made his appearance. Mr. Henry el plained the matter to him, and Mr. Seabon, who is re markable for his kindness and humanity in the discha r g ° of his disagreeable duties, at onc e consented to put t he ko case in a train which would oblige the applic a nt legacy swear to the father of her child. At this juncture of the proceedings a jolly-looking old fellow elbowed his way thr oug h th e crow d i n t h e Cow" and presenting himself 'opposite to Mr. Henry, gave the Magistrate to understand in rather a low tone o f voic ° that lie was the individual to whom the honour of 1 3 !,.; rentage was alleged., and said that all h e wante d wa s have some scruples which he entertained in the , matte r set at rest, having had some misgivings arising from e" advanced age. Mr. HENRY told him Mr. Seabon would do wh et vr ro n u e r; cessary in the matter, and the old gentleman left the with his frail companion in the utmost good humour' UNION -HALL. tio o nr n ,‘ T ,el h e ur e s h d a a r y g -, ed tw w o it l'o b u r n e g ak m in e g n, a i g n a s a . l s a t m a tpe, with hdae viel stitu of being taken into custody and committed to gso rather than be starving about the streets. It was given in evidence that the d e f en dants int,e lY e , tionally smashed a gas-lamp in th e p resence of a pall e t° man, who took them into custody and conveyed thou the station-house. The prisoners' account of themselves was, that tk e i t b had come up from Hertfordshir e t o l oo k a ft er work, i .;. not succeeding, they were reduc e d t o the gre atest ",, 1 tress ; had pledged all but what they h a d on their bac' A i t which was scanty covering for such weather, and tb hunger prompted them to commit an offence to be taae be into custody, for that a gaol' was preferable to starving about the streets. The Magistrate having given directions that f°l l , might be given to the poor fellows, who seemed mu to in want of it, then committed th em f or a few d a ys " prison, in order to pass them to their native place. GREENWICH POLICE. • lit On Thursday, Mr. G rove, a f ter d i sposing of the 111&, charges, inquired of Harris, one of the officers of .1 - 0 Court, how th e p oor man V ezey, who was broughtat, this office on Saturday, fared ?—Harris replied - ,_,.tP po agreeably to the Magistrate's di rec ti ons , h e had f o r Vezey, under his care, and supplied him with money victuals to relieve his pressing necelsities. .He also P t aided him with a lodging, but he got so ill on Sun&Y 0 to be obliged to keep his bed. Mr. GnovE remarked that if the poor fellow died the parish officers would have something to answer for. or Mr. Warman, the relieving-officer, shortly after 1 ,,,A tered the office, and in reference to th e case sa id he Il e visited the man, whom he found unable to sit up hi . sent one of the medicgl officers to see him, and fro him report he thought the better pl an wou ld b e to send into the house at once. Mr. GROVE said he' had just received a letter front the Poor.law Commissioners, inquiring if the report th ir, appeared in the newspapers was correct. lie Grove) had ordered a copy of the depositions in the case to be sent, as a matt er o f courtesy , to t h e B o ar' Guardians, and in the event of their neglecting t o talc- 0 any notice of the matter, it was his det erm i na tion t . rt have reported it to the Poor-law Commi ss i oners . '„ had, however, fallen under their notice ; f or th ere wea l ; report of any such case in any paper, how ever h um ble j j ,, might be, but what the Poor-law Commissioners to ° notice of, and with regard to the one in queetion had instructed his clerk to say th a t it was as co rrect 6 6 such a report could be. Mr. Grove further said tht e after the office was closed on Saturday, Mr. Strongerr ti ; i relieving officer of Greenwich, on which parish V 1 he had a settled claim, was applied to to take him low house, but he refused to do so. Mr.' Warman said that was not the c as e with him' • He had used his judgment in the ma tt er , accor di n g t° 4 directions given by the Poor-l aw C omm i ss i oners to lieving officers, and although V ezey did not b e l ong to % district, he felt it his duty to send him into the house. - Here the conversation terminated. SILVER TEA SERVICES.—A. B. SAVO and Suns, Manufacturing Silversmith, No. 14, Cornhill,Ll, don, opposite the Rank of E ng l an d, su b m i t t h e pr i ces of t 0 following SILVER TEA and COFFEE SERVICES. ' a d Cottage Pattern is plain, s t an di ng on s h e ll f ee t, the tee *.,t o coffee-pots with a flower orn a m en t on th e lid s . The 1 4 1 1 . % : 68 Pattern is richly embossed with flowers and s c ro ll s . The IDP' of either is new and elegant COTTAGE PATTERN. I ICING'S PATTERN. a. g. Strong Silver Tea-p0t..... 12 0 Strong Silver Teapot ...... 12 10 Ditto Sugar Basin 616 Ditto Sugar Basin 1 1 0 Ditto Milk Ewer. 410 Ditto CreamEWer,b, 0 Ditto Co ff ee-pot. 15 0 Ditto Coffee.pot. ,, ', Complete £3B 6 Comeete ......... A variety of upwards of fifty Tea an d Coffee Services f elt be seen in the Show-rooms, where may be selected every s t , p , t o of Silver requisite for the sideboard or plate .chest. PamP P of prices, illustrated with sketches of the various articles , g ra f t, and forwarded postage free to any part of the kingdom. its B. SAVOR and SONS, No. 9, Cornhill, London, 0 1 1 P °1 the Bank of England. BIRTHS. On the 7th inst., at Rome, the lady of George Russell Ni l°. Es On q., o the 20th inst., in Upper Wobu rn -pl ace , Mrs. Ite"" of a syn. MARRIED. " A rto On the 13th inst., _at St. George's Church, Hanover-sq.; th Thomas..l. Pettan, Esq., to Marg..ret, youngest daughter 0' late Richard Waring, EN., of Belfast. sq 11 ' On the 19th inst., at Newton V a le n ce, H an to, the as p Farquharson, Vicar of Tarrant Monkton, Dorset s hire, to t' riet Maynard, eldest daughter of the Rev. T. hnow. DIED. sing' On the 17th inst., at his house at Hawkhills, near El, at e. wold, Jona!han Walker, Esq., late of Verham, nea r Rotherantlo, On the I4th inst., at Woodhall, near Asking, C rine wife of the Rev. J. S. Wood. J o et On the 14th inst., at St. Helier's, Jersey, Elisabeth wife of Captain Hector Downie, Fi rs t W est India Regoliez London: Printed and Publi s h e d b y MURDO Youri i nd , No. 112, Stran.:, at 7'he Suit O ffi ce, No. 112, Stra p G, the County of Middlesex, Saturday, January 22, lE4g* LI; Sol i DI Su ~T E '~cic 4• t,„ t „ Pro t . ( %tit, in lie 1 ,7 6 3,1 . 60A Sa W ev 1 .......... °Lb 1; . . 4.t e , S RA, 1' u r , kti• kit;