The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-06 00:00:00

LORD MAIDSTONE AGAIN.

Lord Maidstone is in divine wrath with the Times
for' garbling a MSS." with which he favoured us on
the evening of Thursday lest, and which we published
in our impression of yesterday. Our defence is
simply this :—No such sentence as that he alleges us
to have omitted ever existed in Lord Maidstone's first
letter. We have his manuscript before us. One of
his letters bears date November 4th—this is the one
we published yesterday—the other November sth—
and this second one we publish to-day. Both letters
are written in the same sprawling school-boy hand,
and at the passage in dispute no possibility of mis-
take exists. We affirm distinctly that Lord Maid-
stone is in error ; that he has forgotten what he did
write, or that he imagines he sszote what he never did
write. The touching and dignified passage he now
claims about the Scotchman and Englishmin, and the
relative pretensions of Mr. Macaulay and Lord Maid-
stone, is an afterthought, and wrs never inserted in
the letter he sent to The Times. We have what he
calls " a MSS." safe in our possession for the inspec-
tion of any person whom it may concern, end we
shall be content to leave the dispute which has arisen
between this very silly nobleman and ourselves to the
decision of any Arson in the possession of the faculty
of sight.
The rest of Lord Maidstone's let* is beneath notice

bacasireAtiffe-beetreoraPoth*. ." eAtion
him we cannot part with him w ortt
advice. He is now ciclely verge on fortieth
year. We entreat him to believe tor the world is not
in a conspiracy to put down ability and talent. If Mr.
Macaulay had been the fool, and Lord Maidstone
the man of genius, we should have known it ore this.
The verdict bas gone the other way. When Mr.
Macaulay's name is mentioned, the mind instantly
recurs to many noble wiltings which will last as
long as the English language shall endure. When
Lord Maidstone's name is brought before the public,
the few who know such a person exists may remem-
ber with a smile certain stupid doggerel, and a silly
speech which has run the gauntlet of the newspapers
like the poor Duke of Norfolk's curry powder. Lord
Maidstone will do well to desist from bringing his
own name too strongly into contrast with that of Mr.
Macaulay.— Times.

RAILWAY RETURNS.

ROLLS COURT.—Nov. 5.
tHENDERSON V. KUM:MAD.
The Master of the RAls shortly reviewed the material
points and facts of this case. The suit had been insti-
tuted by the legal representative of the Union Bank of
Scotland against the Patent Woollen Cloth Company at
Leeds and the Dobah Sugar Company, for recovery of
7561., being the amount of certain dividends on 150
intros in the Patent Woollen Company, paid over by the
latter to the Dobah Sugar Company, us well as a sum of
3781., the produce of dividends upon shares of the Patent
Woollen Company, attached by, and not paid over to,
the Dobah Sugar Company. The plaintiffs, the Union
Bank, claimed to have a prior right. Their claim was
founded on the fact that Mr Hay, in October, 1846, had
applied to the bank to advance to him 4,1211, upon his
deposit of 150 shares in the Patent Woollen Company.
A promissory note to that amount was then given, which,
on arriving at maturity, was not honoured, though 600/.
had since been paid on it. In 11148, Hay, on departing
for India, gave as a further security to his creditors (the
bankers) a power of attorney to sell all his shares.
Subsequently a dividend on these shares was declared
for the years 1849 and 1850, amounting to 756/.
Mr Hay at the time was indebted to the Dobah
sugar company; and of the directors of that company
two were also directors of the Patent Woollen Company.
The Sugar Company, in June, 1850, attached the divi-
dend in the Lord Mayor's Court, and in July judgment
was had against the garnishees, and the money was paid
to the sugar company. Of these proceedings the bank-
ing company were not apprised until April, 1851, when
a further dividend of 3781. had been declared. Another
attachment thereupon issued, though no judgment had
been obtained upon it. The Union Bank of Scotland
Obtained an injunction-to restrain -any farther
meats of such dividends to the Dobah Sugar Company.
Then arose the question—Who was realty entitled co
the proceeds of these shares? The plaintiffs required
that the 150 shares should be sold, and the proceeds
paid over to the plaintiffs, and that the woollen com-
pany should be made good the 7561. dividends on these
shares, paid by it to the Dobah Sugar Company, and be
restrained from paying any further such dividends to
that company ; also, that a receiver be appointed. His
Honour said that on these facts it appeared that the
plaintiffs had a preferable claim to the claim of the
Dobah Company, though that company's conduct in
these transactions was quite justifiable. The judgment
of the Court, therefore, was that the bill be dismissed as
against the directors of the Dobah Sugar Company, so
far as related to the 756/. Upon their diseziming all
interest in other matters in question in this case all
proceedings against that company were to be stayed.
His Honour decreed that the sum of 3781., and any
other dividends that are due on Hay's shares in the
woollen company, should be paid to the plaintiffs, and
subsequently that the shares be sold with the usual di-
rections. The costs of the woollen company to be paid
by the plaintiffs, who shall add them to their own costs
of suit.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER..—Nov. 5.
DUFF r. GANT.
Mr. James moved for a new trial in this case, on the
ground of misdirection on the part of Mr. Baron M.ertin,
before whom the cause was tried. The action was brought
on a bill of exchange, which the defendant had aceepteel
as surety for one F. C. Knight, who had borrowed a sum
of money of an insurance company of which the plaintiff
Is director, at the same time effecting an insurance en
his own life for a sum exceeding the money he borrowed.
The defendant pleaded that F. C. Knight had died
since the policy was executed, and that the plaintiff had
agreed and was now erabled to deduct the amount of
the bill sued on from the money to be paid on account
Of the policy. To this the plaintiff replied that the policy
was vitiated by reason of F. C. Knight having untruly
and fraudulently answered one of the questions put to
him by the ofioe, and upon the true answeting of which
-he validity of the policy was made dependent. The ques-
tion yeas this:—" Are you aware of having any disorder
tending to shorten life, or any other circumstence making
the insurance more than usually hazardous?" to which
Knight answered that he knew of none. It was alleged
that he ought to have disclosed the fact that hie mother
had died insane, and that his brother had been insane.
The policy was effected on the 22nd of May, 1850.
Knight was found drownded on the 13th of May, 1851.
under circumstances which excited the suspicion that
he had committed suicide. It appeared that th© day
before Knight applied to the plaintiff's office ho had
applied to another insurance office, when he was ex-
pressly asked whether any of his family had been insane,
when he correctly answered that his mother and brother
had been so afflicted. The alleged misdirection consisted
in this—that the learned judge left it to the jury to say
whether Knight, in answering the question, had sup-
pressed the facts of his mother's and brother's insanity,
knowing that they were material; whereas the question
ought to have been, simply, whether Knight had Sup-
pressed the facts, and whether they were material.
The Lord Chief Baron—l think the direction was
right. Is a man is asked point blank whether a fact
exists—as, whether he has been insane—he is bound to
answer it correctly, though it may appear to him imma-
terial; but if he is asked whether he is aware of any fact
having a tendency to shorten life, his opinion is appealed
to, and he may conscientieusly think, as I believe most
people do, that insanity does not shorten life. A man
might well be unaware that insanity in his family was a
material fact. The medical profession are not agreed
upon the subject of gout. I remember a saying that if
Peter inherits his father's estate, he will inherit his
father's gout, tut not otherwise.
Baron Alderson—lf Knight had been asked, "Are
aware of having any disorder?" ho is bound to answer it,
whether the disorder be of importance or not; but when
you add to that, " having a tendency to shot-Len life, or
to make the assurance hazardous," ho is only bound to
disclose such matters as he himself thinks come within
this description.
Rule refused.

:BAIL COURT.—Nov. 5.

THE QUEEN V. HAMP AND OTHERS. .- THE &DIGHTON