The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-30 00:00:00

CHINA MARKETS.

HONGKONG, Oct. 10. EXCHANGES.-- Oriental Bank
Rates : On London, six months' sight, ss. 4d. ; one day's
sight, ss. 21d. On Bombay, 15 days' sight, 250 rs. per 100
dots. ; on Calcutta, 15 days' sight, 250 rs. per 100 dols.—
Mercantile Rates : On London, six mouths' sight, ss. 4d. to
ss. 6d. ; E.I.C. bills accepted, 245 to 254 ; English coins,
12 per cent. discount ; Co.'s rupees, 250 rs. per 100 dols.;
Mexican dollars 31; per cent. discount.
CANTON, Oct. 8. EXCHANGES. Bills on London,
ss. 4d. ; 0. B. Co.'s bills on Calcutta, 248 to 250 rs. ;
ditto ditto on Bombay, 248 to 25Q rs. ; East India Com-
pany's bills, 248 to 250 rs.
FREIGHTS. —PORT RATES.—England, 21. 10s. to 3/. ;
New York, 10 dols. for tea, &c., and 20 dols. silks ; San
Francisco, 15 dols. per ton of 40 cubic feet ; Bombay, 20
cents. per pecul ; Calcutta, according to the value of mer-
merchandise.

LAW COURTS.-LONDON.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS.

THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE SOUTH
YORKSHIRE AND RIVER DUN COMPANY.

Mr. BRAMIVELL stated that this was a writ of error from
the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, which had been
given in favour of the South Yorkshire Company. It ap-
peared that a deed had been made between these two com-
panies with regard to the toll to be paid by the plaintiffs in
error to the defendants for the passage of coal over the
defendants' railway. This was upon a very intricate fluctu-
ating principle. The learned counsel submitted that it was
now established law that these corporations were created for
a limited purpose and with limited powers, and an act done
by them beyond those purposes or powers was not only illegal
but was absolutely void ; and he contended that this was
an act in excess of the statutes which incorporated these
railways.
Sir F. KELLY, on the other side, would admit that the
cases laid down that no contract should be enforced, the
performance of which involved the violation of an act of
parliament, but he submitted that, if on a careful con-
sideration of this contract it,should be found to be a rea-
sonable, fair, and just contract, entered into deliberately by
these two railway companies, not by way of speculation,
but after experience of the traffic,—if the court should find
that it was not only reasonable and just, but had been deli-
berately entered into for the advantage of both companies,
the court would pause before it held such a contract to be
void. It was under this contract that such a rivalry had
been created to the old mode of supplying the metropolis
with coals, but the Great Northern Company were now
desirous of setting aside this contract, in order to fall back
upon an earlier one which was more in their favour. Was
it a fatal objection that the remuneration was uncertain in
amounts?

The arguments were not concluded when the court rose.

In the case o f the East Lancashire v. the Lancashire and
Yorkshire, which stood for judgment in this court, is not
yet prepared.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov. 28.
"A CAPTAIN BOLD."—In Re RICHARD JOHN HICKS.—
This insolvent, who, under the name of Captain Hicks,
has lately become somewhat notorious in consequence of
certain proceedings at the Marylebone Police-court, and the
Middlesex sessions, had petitioned the court under the Pro-
tection Act, and was to have undergone his first examination
to-day.
Mr. LEWIS, the insolvent's attorney, said his client was not
present; but had sent an _affidavit which set forth that he
was in attendance upon the master of the rolls in Ireland,
and could not leave Dublin without rendering himself liable
to an attachment. A suit had been instituted to remove
him from the guardianship of his children.
Mr. SARGOOD said he appeared to oppose for three credi-
tors, and should ask the court not to renew the protection,
as it was a case in which, if the nowt had had all the cir-
stances before it at first, no protection would ever have been
granted.
The Chief COMMISSIONER looked at the schedule, and
found the insolvent described himself as a captain in the
Rotunda corps of cavalry, and agent to a paper-maker in
Dublin. The affidavit appeared to have been sworn on
Friday, and it stated that the matter in which he was con-
cerned stood for Saturday. He could have come over on
Saturday night, and returned this evening to Dublin.
Mr. LEWIS said there were executions out, and if the
court should think fit to withhold further protection the in-
solvent would be prevented from returning to Dublin.
Mr. SARGOOD stated the case of two of his clients, Messrs.
Stapleton and Jacobs, to be that their debts had been con-
tracted by fraud. Mr. Clement, the third opposing creditor,
was a schoolmaster with whom the insolvent placed three
of his sons at Midsummer, 1851, and removed them at
Christmas following without paying the bill of 441. Is. 6d.
The insolvent was arrested upon a capias, to which he put
in bail in the persons of Miss Figges, of the Aviary, Chel-
tenham, and Mr. Noble, of Oatland-house, near Ledbury.
Mr. Clement proceeded with an action which he had com-
menced, and the insolvent pleaded " Never indebted," but
did not appear at the trial, when a verdict was given for
the plaintiff for the full amount, the costs being taxed at
761. 10s. The insolvent then asked for time, and proposed
his mother-in-law (Mrs. Figges) as security, representing
her as a widow. That lady's guarantee was taken, and two
months' delay was allowed; but, no money being forth-
coming at the end of that period, an action was commenced
against Mrs. Figges ; whereupon the insolvent wrote to the
plaintiff's solicitor, stating that the lady was a married
woman, and would plead her coverture, which statement
induced the attorney to discontinue that action. Proceed-
ings were then taken against Miss Figges, under the bail-
bond, but she immediately left this country for Ireland.
The other bail (Mr. Noble) was also sued, who proved to
be an assistant at a school at Oatland-house, and was worth
nothing. Judgment having been obtained against him,
Noble took the benefit of the act at Hereford, and on Mr.
Clement's opposition, was remanded for six calendar months.
Since then, Noble's father had paid to Mr. Clement 801. to
obtain his son's release ; and that sum, after paying the
costs of the action against Noble, and of the opposition, left
a balance of the judgment debt still unsatisfied, and the costs
in the action against insolvent (76/.), of course, quite
untouched. In Noble's schedule it was stated that Dicks
gave him a written instrument purporting to be an assign-
ment of a bond for 5001., bearing 6 per cent. interest, and
also an assignment of some hoiseh.old furniture.
The learned COMMISSIONER remarked that that part of the
case did not bear against the insolvent, except that he ought
to be present to undergo examination.
Mr. Samuel, manager of the business of Mr. Jacobs,
umbrella and walking-cane dealer, in Cockspur-street, com-
plained that on the 20th of September last the insolvent
bought a Malacca cane for 305., giving in payment a
cheque on the National Bank of Ireland for £5., drawn in
favour of Captain Hicks by R. J. Hicks, and receiving the
difference.

Mr. Stapleton, a wine-merchant, produced two similar
cheques for £9 10s. and £l5, which he had cashed for the
insolvent, who represented the drawer to be his cousin, the
barrack-master at Nenagh, who was his agent, and trans-
mitted the cheques on account of rents which he received.
Upon the insolvent's trial at the Middlesex Sessions Captain
Joseph Hicks, the barrackmaster at Nenagh, was examined,
and denied all acquaintance with the insolvent.
As all the facts relating to the cases of Messrs. Jacobs
and Stapleton have been lately so fully before the public
(Ruins +I,P course of the proceedings before the magistrate
and at the MicklieseA. 2.. i mg. it is unnecessary to repeat
the details.

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER said the question at present
was, whether he should put off the case and enlarge the
protection. It was his dear
le whonpvpr preditnrs wiched to
always to hear them, although the insolvent
might not be present. He was not pledged to treat it as
evidence upon another occasion, unless the insolvent assented
to it. The insolvent would be entitled to ask the creditors
to come again, and cross-examine them, and give what
further evidence he chose, if he thought that upon any
future occasion he could prove he was not a common cheat
and a swindler, but at present he (the Chief Commissioner)
should not enlarge the protection.