The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-25 00:00:00

BIRTHS IN THE WEEK.

Males 916
Females 872

Total
1,783

IADVERTHIMENT.I—Many thousand cures have been
effected without medicine, by Du Barry's Delicious Reva-
lenta Azabica Food, of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation
nervous, bilious, and liver complaints, paralysis, &c. We
quote* a few :—Cure No. 52,612.—Fr0m the Dowager
Countess of Castlestuart.—" Rosstrevor, County of Down,
Ireland, 9th December, 1854.—The Dowager Countess of
Castlestuart feels induced, in the interest of suffering hu-
manity, to state that Du Barry's excellent Revalenta Ara-
Noe Food has cured her, after all medicines had failed,
of indigestion, bile, great nervousness and irritability of
many years' tending. This Food deserves the confidence
of all sufferers, and may be considered a real blessing.
Inquiries will be cheerfully answered." Cure No. 7 ..
Of dyspepsia, from the Right Hon. the Lord Stuart de
Decies.—" I have derived considerable benefit from Du
Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food, and consider it due to
yourselves aid the public to authorise the publication of
these lines.—Stuart de Decies." Cure No. 32,836.—Fr0m
the Venerable Archdeacon of Russ.- "Three years exces-
sive nervousness, with painsin my neck and loft arm, and ge-
neral debility, which rendered my life very miserable, has
been radically remo red by Du Barry's health-restoring Food,
—Alex. Stuart, Archdeacon of Ross, Skibereen." Cure No.
4,208.—" Eight years' dyspepsia, nervousness, debility,
with cramps, spasms and nausea, have been effec
tually removed by Du Barry's delicious Food in a very
short time.—Rev. John IV. Flavell, Ridlington Rectory,
Norfolk." Cure No. 51,416.—" Fifty years' indescribable
agony from dyspepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, consti-
pation, flatulency, spasms, ickness at the stomach and vo-
mitings, have been removed by Du Barry's excellent FoL.I.
—Maria Jolly, Wortham, Ling, near Diss, Norfolk." Cure
No. 3,9o6.—Thirteen years' cough, indigestion, and gene
•
ral debility have been removed by Du Barry's excellent
Food.—James Potter, Athol-street, Perth."—ln canis-
ters, suitably packed for all climates, and with full instruc-
tions —llb., 2s. 9d.; 21b., 4s. 6d. ; 51b., lls. ;121b., 225. ;
super-refined, 11b., 6s. ; 21b., ne-; 51b., 225. ; 101 b., 335.
The 101 b. and 121 b., carriage free, on receipt of poet
office order. Barry du Barry and 7, Regent-
street, London ; Fortnum, Mason, and Co.,urveyors o
her Majesty, 182, Piccadilly ; also at 68, Co.,PCornhill ; 60.
Gracechurch-street ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 63 and 150,
Oxford-street ; 55, Charing-cross • 4 Cheapside ; and
Upperßakerttreette 4

LAW TUE LIGENCE.-April 24.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.

Their lordships sat as a committee for privileges; the
Lord Redesdate in the chair.

THE SOUTHESK PEERAGE.

This is a petition of Sir James Carnegie, of Southesk,
Kinnaird, and Pittarrow, Barnet, claiming the titles of
Earl of Southesk and Baron Carnegie, of Kinnaird and
Leuchars, who claims in succession to Ja,es, fifth Earl
of Soutbesk, who was attainted and his t:t'e forfeited, in
consequence of his having taken part in the rebellion of
1715 on behalf of the Pretender. The claimant is the
lineal descendant and heir male of David, the first Earl
of Southesk, who was created by patent Baron Carnegie
in 1616, and raised to the earldom in 1630. The case
has been several times before the house, and evidence of
lineage produced. The whole of the proofs of the pedi-
gree were now completed.
Their Lor,lships decided that the claim was made out,
so far as the pedigree was concerned ; but they held that
the attainder was a bar t.) the succession, that doctrine
having been laid down and acted on in the case of the
Earldom of Perth.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

THE CHAIRING-CROSS BRIDGE COMPANY V. MITCHELL.-

LIABILITY TO TAXES.
This was a writ of error from the judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench, which had given its decision in
favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs sued in respect
of a distress that had been levied, and an order was made
by Mr. Justice Coleridge that a question at law should
be raised as to whether the t.,11s of the bridge were liable
to be assessed to the land tax. From the case it appeared
that the defendant was the collector of the land tax, and
bad levied a distress for six years' arrears of laud tax,
amounting to 3651., on the tolls of the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs submitte that they were not liable to the land
tax, as the ground upon which the bridge was con-
structed had been redeemed from that tax.
Mr. Bramwell supported the case on behalf of the

Sir F. Thesiger represented the defendant, but was
not beard.

The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of
Queen's Bench.
Judgment affirmed.

COURT HOUSE, NEWINGTON.
THE QUEEN V. HAZELWOOD AND OTHERS.

This indictment against the defendant, Mr. Hazel
woc,d, the chairman of the Iron Steam Boat Company,
and the superintendent of the Citizen Steam Boat Com-
pany, and one of the servants of the latter company, for
misdemeanour, in having erected a steam-boat pier
under the first arch of London-bridge, and thereby, as
was alleged, impeded the free navigation of the river,
was again proceeded with yesterday before &Ir. Baron
Platt and a special jury.
It will be remembered that the matter was partially
inquired into at Kingston a fortnight ago, and upon
a representation that there was a probability that
some amicable arrangement might be made between
the parties the case was adjourned until to-day. It
appears that some negotiations have since taken place
with a view to obviate the necessity of any further
proceedings, but they failed in effecting the object, acid
the case for the prosecution was now proceeded with.
Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. Lush appeared for the
prosecution ; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.O , Mr. Ballantine,
and Mr. Bovill were counsel for the defendants.
Upon the former Occasion it appeared that the prose-
cution was instituted by Mr. Fenning, the proprietor of
Fenning 's-wharf, and it was alleged that not only
was the business of his establishment impeded by the
erection of the pier in question, but that in consequence
of its being placed there the water-way of the river
was interfered with, and wherries were prevented
from setting down passengers at the stairs • and that
owing to the tide setting very strongly under this
arch, when it was at flood, it was impossible to avoid
getting foul of the dummy which formed the pier,
and that serious accidents had nearly taken place upon
several occasions To day evidence of a similar character
was adduced, and several watermen, and other re_rsons
connected with river pursuits, were called to show that
the pier was an obstruction to the river highway.
Mr. Fenning, the proprietor of Fenning's-wharf, was
examined, and he stated that property to the amount of
a million and a half per annum was landed there, and
also that the pier was a great obstruction to vessel,, and
that it frequently happened that barges, by the force of
the tide, were swung athwart the dummy, and it was
necessary to emply ten or twelve men with the crane to
remove them. He said that he paid 1.6001. a year rent
for the wharf, and the erection of the pier had occasioned
him a great deal of additional expense. He also proved
that on two former occasions a similar pier had been
erected, and the City authorities ordered them to be im-
mediately removed, and once the whole of the pier was
forcibly towed away by a steamer, by the orders of the
harbour master.

Sir John Rennie, the architect of the bridge, was also
examined, and he stated that the erection cost nearly a
million of money, and he said it was a great object both
for sanitary purposes, and also on account of the great
traffic upon the river, to have the arches as wide as pos-
sible, and to give as much water way .as could be ot-
tained, and he expressed his opinion that the pier in
question was a decided obstruction to the navigation of
the river.

Mr. Chambers, at the clone of the case for the prose-
cution, made an able address to the jury on behalf of the
defendants, and he surged that the evidence rather went
to support the supposition that Mr. Penning had sus-
tained some private injury by the erection of this pier
than that it was any real obstruction to the public navi-
gation of the river, and he called a number of witnesses
—among whom was air. Saunders, the water-bailiff—all
of whom said that in their opinion the pier did not in•
terfere with the navigation of the river, and some of
them went on to say, that in their opinion the pier was
rather an advantage than otherwise to those who wished
to go to the different wharves in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Baron Platt went over 'the whole of the evidence
with a good deal of minuteness, and the jury, alter deli-
berating for nearly an hour; returned a verdict of guilty.
The effect of this verdict, if it should stand, will be
that the pier in question must be removed.