The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-24 00:00:00

EVENING, JANUARY 24, 1812

PRICE OF SUGAR.

The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from returns made in the week ending Jan. 2),
1852, exclusive of Customs Duties paid or payable thereon
on the importation thereof into Great Britain :
From the British possessions in America 20s. 2id. per cwt
From the Mauritius ... 17s. Bd. „
From the East Indies .. 225. 54d. ~
Average price of the three foregoing de-
scriptions of sugar, jointly, computed as
above, and exclusive of duty ... 20s. 10d. „
By authority of Parliament,
HENRI' BICKNELL, Clerk of the Grocers' Company
Grocers'-hall, Jan. 23.

LAW IN TELLIGEN CE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 23.

'Sittings in Banco, before Lord CastraELL and Justices
PATTESON, COLIMIDON, and WIGHTAIANO

THE, MARQUIS OF SALISBURY V. THE GREAT NORTHERN

RAILWAY COMPANY.

In this case the plaintiff was tenant for life of certain
lands in the county of Hertford, to whom notice had been
given, on the 21st of May, 1851, that the lands in ques-
tion would be required for the purposes of the Great
Northern Railway. The company's Act was passed on
the 26th of June, 1846, and provided that the company's
powers for the compulsory purchase of land should not
be exercised after the expiration of five years after the
passing of the Act. That period, accordingly, expired
on the 26th of June, 1851. The notice that the lands
would be required bad been given on the 21st of May
preceding, and the company had taken all the steps
which were necessary to enable them to enter, but before
they had actually entered the 26th of June arrived, after
which date, according to the Act, the company's com-
pulsory power for purchasing land could not be exer-
cised. The company having expressed their intention
to enter and take possession of the lands, the plaintiff
applied to the Court of Chancery, by bill, for an injunc-
tion to restrain them from so doing, and that Court
directed this case to be stated for the opinion of this
Court, as to whether the company, in July, after the
time for the compulsory purchase had expired, had a
right to enter upon the lands comprised in their notice of
the 21st of May.
Mr. Bramwell, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Shapter), on
a previous day argued the case on the part of the
plaintiff. Mr. Phipson (with whom was Mr. H. Bill)
was now heard on the part of the company,
Mr. SHAPTER having replied,
Lord CAMPBELL said the case had been very fully and
ably argued, and, as the attention of the Court had fre-
quently been directed to these words contained in the
Act of Parliament, and the decisions which had been
pronounced upon them, he (Lord Campbell) thought the
Court might now, with safety and propriety, express
their opinion. The question was, whether the defend-
ants, in the month of July last, had the right to take
the lands comprised in their notice of the 21st of May
preceding. In deciding that question the Court must
look at the state of facts as they existed at that time,
1 viz., in July. Notice had been given by the company on
the 21st of May that the lands would be required, and
it was not disputed that all the proceedings required by
the 85th section to enable the company to enter and
take possession had been complied with. It was not
disputed that all these proceedings were perfectly
regular. But it appeared that the company had Ira,
entered before the period pointed out by the 27th section
of the special Act, which required that the powers
of the promoters of the undertaking for the compul-
sory purchase of lands should not be exercised after
the expiration of five years from the passing of the Act.
'the company tad nut catered before the expiration of
the five years. The question was whether they had a
right to enter. It had been already decided by the
Court, is " Doe dem. Armisted v. the North Staffordshire
Railway Company," that if the company had entered
within the time an action of ejectment could not be main-
tained to turn them out. The Court had now to con-
sider what was the effect of omitting to make such entry
before the expiration of the five years. The question
was whether the entry was one of the " compulsory
powers" which the Act said should not be exercised after
the five years. In his (Lord Campbell's) opinion, it was
not. The power of entry was the power of completing
the purchase, and was not a power of compulsory pur-
chase. The power of compulsory purchase had been
completed within the five years. From the peculiarity
of these transactions, it was sometimes necessary to use
words respecting them which did not properly belong
to them. There was no purchase nor any contract,
properly so called; but the Legislature placed the com-
pany in the same situation as if there had been. In
" Osborne's case" it had been decided that, so far '
as the landowner was concerned, he was in the same
position after receiving notice as if a contract
had been made for the purchase of the land, and
he could compel the company to complete the purchase,
though the five years had expired. The decision in that
case had been affirmed by the Court of Exchequer
Chamber, and it was held that the parties were placed in
the position of vendor and purchaser, and the vendor
could compel the company to go on and complete the
purchase. It might, however, have been the intention of
the Legislature that the rights of the parties should not
be reciprocal. There was, however, nothing in the Act
wast shownot
reciprocal
i
whole
Legislature
did not consider there was no purchase till
when h
transaction had been concluded, but that
created. In support of this view o _
the
majority
of the
the authority of Lord Cottenham and
1 as that of the
theand easwnotice
had been,given the relation of vendorcase
there
was
purchaser was
f
Court of Exchequer Chamber in England. Both upon
reason Court oafndSaeosstihoonriitny, Scotland
therefore, ,
as w
and take the land.
The other Judges having e o
he (Lord Campbell) was
of opinion that the company hcl a right to enter upon
expressed similar opinions,
was given for the defendants.
the judgment of the Court

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 23.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE,)
IN RE WILLIAM NASH.

The bankrupt was a woollen-warehouseman, of Noble-
street. accounts, prepared by Mr. Maynard, extend
October, 1847, to December, 1851, and showed
re ,alts:—To creditors unsecured, 17,1571;
fromhtreseet .
liabili-
ties on biHs of exchange receivable, 11,3181 ; creditors
secured, 5,9291.; profits, 6,5121.; proceeds of shares in
the Rock Assurance Company, 4311. By property given
up, 412/.; bills receivable, good, 2,1891.; bills held by
creditors, 4,6271.; debts good, 490/ ; ditto in course of
liquidation, 5,7141.; partly secured, 5471.; howehold
furniture, 350/.; losses, 4,942/ ; trade expenses, 2,9421.;
domestic and personal expenses, 261/.; liquidation of
debts, 4,232/.

.i...AWRINCE supported.
Mr. LINKLATER, for the assignees, a
journment, in order to havo au opportunity of making
further inquiry.d&ed for an ad
Mr. LUCAS, for creditors to the amount of about
10,000/, made a similar application.
Mr. LAWRANCE consenting, the
Protection was renewed. case was adjourned.

a copy ;
" London, April 20, 1851.—Mr. Maltman Shaw.—
Dear Sir,—At your request, and for your satisfaction, I
beg to state that the matters relating to the manage-
ment of the business, after going through the accounts,
are perfectly satisfactory, and believe me, dear sir, yours
faithfully, " DAVID FRENCH."
He did not deny being liable to those of the creditors
whose debts were contracted during his partnership, to
the extent of about 8001. ; but he assumed all the liabili-
ties by virtue of a covonant given him by French.
Mr. Persoy Stace proved examining the books of the
firm, before Mr. Shaw leaving. and discovered him to be
a debtor in a sum amounting to between 3,0001. and
4,0001. Mr. Shaw, upon being made acquainted with
this, said, " Then your accounts are not worth a —."
The account was since reduced to 15,0001. or 16,0001.,
by deducting from it the result of a private account be-
tween Shaw and French, the balance of which was in
favour of the former.
Letters were produced as evidence of the existence of
Abel Wood, the acceptor of the bill in question.
Mr. LAWRANCE said that the house had been carried
on by Mr. French and his father for upwards of 50 years,
and was a most respec!ahle one; that there was no less
than 10.0001. of assets; that at the time of the failure
a large amount wasstanding in the bank to the credit of
Mr. French—more, in fact, than sufficient to pay Wood's
bill, upon which 2s. 6€l. is the pound had been paid by
Wood himself. The failure was attributable to the com-
petition which coal merchants had to sustain from the
railway companies.
Mr. BAGLEY submitted that Sands should receive a
first-class certificate. He bad brought into the concern
a capital of 5,0001., and, with the exception of 2,0001.
due to the firm on a promissory note, the debts would
be paid in full.
After some further discussion,
His HoNoun said he would look through the evidence,
and give judgment on Saturday week.
Judgment deferred accordingly.

.11V sOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan, 23.
(Before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS.)
BREACHES OF TRUST BY A STOCICEROREEO—IN BE
ALFRED BAYLEY.
_ _ _

This insolvent, of Lothbury, stockbroker and railway
share dealer, applied to be discharged from prison.
Mr. Dowse opposed for Mr. Corbin Robert Corbin, a
farmer at Christchurch, Hampshire, and Mr. Parnell for
a Mr. Freer. A female, named Susan Piper, appeared
in person. Mr. Cooke supported.
The complaint on the part of the opposing creditors
was, that the insolvent had committed breaches of trust
against them. It appeared that he was a bankrupt in
1842, and obtained his certificate; he now owed 4631.,
and had 5071. owing to him, which were all bad debts on
railway speculations. In 1838 he was employed as stock-
broker to invest between 3001. and 4001, for Mr. Corbin,
and had a power of attorney to receive the dividends, as
he resided in the country, and he was requested to in-
vest the dividends with the principal. He now admitted
that from 1842 to 1851 he received the dividends, and
did not invest them, but applied them to his own uses.
He had received, according to his own showing, 921.
Bs. 9d. in dividends, which he had not invested. Last
year Mr. Corbin gave instructions that the principal
and accumulations should be sold out, and it was then
discovered that for nine years the dividends had not
been invested. Mr. Corbin sued the insolvent, and he
was now in prison at his suit. It was stated that Mr.
Corbin was not in court to give evidence. Mr. Freer
gave the insolvent in 1824, 241. to invest for him in the
funds; he discovered when he went to the Bank for his
dividends that the money had not been invested. He
complained to the insolvent, and he had paid him at dif-
ferent times 9/. off the originll sum.
Mr. Commissioner Pinwales said there was a clear
breach of trust with respect to Freer, but the question
was whether the subsequent payments had not condoned
the offence.
A receipt for the money was put in, having an official
appearance.
Mr. CuMMISSIOHer PHILLIPS inspected the document,
and said its appearance was likely to lull an inexpe-
rienced person to sleep.
Mr. Freer said he was aware when he received the
money from the insolvent, that the money bad not been
invested; he received the 91., not for interest, but QS a
part of the principal.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS intim! el that the sum
had been converted into a debt; at all events, the breach
of trust had been condoned.
Susan Piper claimed 6/. 10s, the balance of 101. given
to the insolvent in 1846 to invest in the Funds. She
was a servant at Eton College at the time. She was now

married.
Mr. COOKE objected to her evidence.
Mr. Comraiseioner PHILLIPS declared that ho should
receive her evidence under the new Act. He was satis-
fied that the Legislature intended wives to be witnesses.
Mr. CooKE remarked that the Lord Chancellor had
expressed a different opinion.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS could not see how an ob-
jection, or the want of an objection, could make any
difference in the examination of a wife. Several learned
judges had allowed wives to be examined as witnesses,
and he should do so until an alteration was made either
in the law itself or in the practice of the superior courts.
The complainant stated that she gave the insolvent
201. to invest in the Funds, and did not know that it was
not invested until s year and a half afterwards. When
she found it out the insolvent told her he was very sorry
and would give it to her back. She had received dif-
ferent sums from him.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS said the case was similar
to Freer's. He could not see how there was an existing
breach of trust on which the poor woman could require
a judgment.
Mr. Dowses contended that he had established a clear
case of a breach of trust. The insolvent was required
to invest the dividends for Mrs. Corbin, but for nine
s own
years had received them and applied them to his
uses.
Mr. PARNELL was heard on the part of Freer, urging
that notwithstandiug the receipt of money,
still a clear breach of trust by the there was
re-
spect to the balance. insolvent with
Mr. CooKE for the insolvent, was proceeding to con-
tend that the case of Mr. Corbin was not proved; that
he had not been called.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS said he tiae,of opinion
that it was cle 4rly proved; but if
attendance of that creditor Mr. Cooke desired the
case might be adjourned.
d the
Mr. CooKE declined au adjournment. Alter an
opinion so expressed niet would be useless for him to ad-
dress the Court.
Mr
• Commission Commissioner PHILLIPS begged the Learned
address the Court.
Mr. C02°,1" was heard for the insolvent. After the
money paid to the two other complainants there could
oe no ease for a breach of trust.
Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS gave judgment.
observed that the insolvent was opposed by three diffe-
rent parti,,s on grounds savouring of fraud, all of which
had been clearly and abundantly proved; but in two of
the cases, from peculiar circumstances, the legal grounds
were net established, and therefore the Ceurt wool i
such e
e r nc
circum-
stance c u nonly give a judgment as far as they we re
un-
der the diteretionary clause. Perhaps u
stance would be of little advantage to him, as the other
case of 'Mr. Corbin wee? so clearly made out, possessing
no mitigation, that the Court was bound to give an ade-
quate judgment for the breach of trust committed The
nuture of the offence was the cruelles i
t to he magined—
that of breach of trust. Although he was saved-
_ from
the penalty in two instances, no one could doubt that the
case of the poor woman wh') had saved her hard earnings
was a cruel one-. Breaches 0,
_whether
commitiel by a rust were flags ant cases
rerson who was required by ,
a friend t
a dying man as his children, or by a person
in his station, who had deluded the parties by a receipt
having the appearance of a document from the Bank.
His Honour concluded an impressive address to the in-
solvent by gdjUdgiug him to an imprisonment, under

(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.) the discretionary clause, of six months, and for twelve
IN RE FRENCH AND SANDS. calendar months at the suit of Mr. Corbin, for contracting
These bankrupts, coal merchants of the Coal Exchange his debt by means of a breach of trust.
and of Chatham, came up on the question of certificate,
supported by Mr. Lawrence. The balance-sheet ex-
tended only over four months, end showed these re-
sults:—Unsecured creditors, 9.3134; creditors secured,
2,2581.; liabilities, 32,900/. The assets were returned—
good debts, 5.573/. (of which 4,2201. has been collected);
property expected to realise 1,4021.; property held by
creditors, 2,6951. The profits had been 1,2844; capital
of French, 13,0001.; ditto of Sands, 3,000/4 trade ex-
penses, 4,2371.; drawn out by French, 5081.; by Sande,
123/.; losses by bad debts, 4,954/.
It appeared from the report of the official assignee
that the bankrupts had only been in partnership since
May, 1851. Sands had brought in 3,0001. The capital
of French consisted principally of bills, some of which
had turned out to be bad.
Mr. Lawrance supported French.
Mr. Cumpton said that the assignees were satisfied
with the bankrupts' conduct since their bankruptcy.
They had given every possible assistance to the estate,
and he did not oppose.
Mr. BAGLEY (who supported Sands) stated that he
opposed French on behalt of the London Joint-Stock
Bank, who had discounted bills for French at the ordi-
nary rate of interest, believing them to be regular trade
bills, a large amount of which bills were in the hands of
the bank shortly before the bankruptcy. French bad
been summoned to this court in August, when he paid
8001.; but at the date of the failure the bank held 1,4951.
of dishonoured bills; one of which, it appeared, had
been obtained from a clerk of the bankrupts, named
Shaw, who, he alleged, had embezzled 1,6001., which the
bankrupt French had thought proper to treat as a debt,
accepting Shaw's bill for the amount, and still employ-
ing him.
It appeared from the examination of French that
Shaw had been in his service about a year. He never
acknowledged Shaw as a partner, and did not consider
that they had had partnership transactions after April,
when the discovery of the embezzlement (as alleged) had
been proved. A deed of dissolution was signed. He
did not know that it contained a release of all his claims
on Shaw—be would not swear that it did not.
Mr. CIIMPTON said he had seen the deed, and it did
contain a release.
Mr. Shaw, who was voluntarily examined by Mr.
Bagley, said he was manager of the London business,
with one-half the profits. He had been connected with
the firm of French, Son, and Co., from August,lBso, till
April, 1851. Upon dissolving partnership, at French's
request, he gave witness a letter stating that he had no
further claim upon him. At that time he was not in-
debted to French a sixpence, neither was he at the date
of the bill, the 26th of July. The bill Mr. French said
he had received from him he never saw betore. The bill
referred to purported to be drawn upon Mr. Abel Wood,
whom he never saw, by Mr. Baxter, of the Nettles-
worth colliery. Was not in the habit of getting bills
from Mr. Baxter to get discounted. Upon being
charged with a deficiency on the face of the accounts to
the amount of 4,000/, witness wished to go through the
accounts, and an accountant was called in. He then
received a letter from French, of which the following is

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
Al A NSION-HOUS E.
Mr. Francis W. Stevens, of the Stock Exehar Ige, was
on Thursday summoned before Sir John Key for having
used language towards the complainant calcu hated to
lead to a breach of the peace, iu the presence, i d other
persons, in the neighhourhcod of that building.
Mr. James Alfred Temple, who stated that b .0 was a
commission-agent, was sworn.
The defendant produced the card of the corn) slainant,
to show that the latter had appeared in the cha :actor of
a sworn broker, without having any claim to t Ire privi-
lege conferred by the Court of Aldermen.
Sir JOHN KEY stated that the pretence allu, led to by
the defendant was one relating to which a r sagistrate
had no jurisdiction, and that in another trib anal such
matter was recognised and subjected to heav 7 punish-
ment It was, therefore, necessary to prod lad in the
usu3l course with the evidence in support of the com-
plaint.
The complainant then said that on the a fternoon 'of
Saturday as he was passing through Hermit ss-passa ge,
near the Stock Exchange, he saw the defends nt on one
side of the passage, and for the purpose of prevaating
any meeting between them passed over to the other
side. The defendant, however, approacl red him,
looked rudely into his face, took bold 1. of the
front of his coat, acted unwarrantly in other • respects,
and used the most opprobrious and offensive langusg°
towards him. The language consisted of epithets,
amongst which was " You are a thief," and it was ac-
companied with threats, of which some opin ion might
be formed from the fact that the defendant de :dared the
intention with an oath to knock his teeth lowa his
throat and tar his face if be dared to appear near the
place again. The complainant assured the Alderman
that all he wished was to be protected from insult, so
that he might pursue his avocation without int srruption.
The defendant said he readily admitted th at be had
used language imputing dishonesty to the cot splainant,
but he certainly felt a perfect justification in adopting
the use of the words, as the complainant had a cted in so
gross a manner in certain share transactions as to be
handed over by the Court of Aldermen to the legal at-
tentions of the City solicitor, who was at thi present
moment dealing with the case. The defeni lant here
produced a newspaper which he said contained t t full and
true account of the Stock Exchange transaction a
Sir JOHN Ksir said that the course stated to 1 rave been
pursued by the complainant upon the occssior r. alluded
to could not justify the conduct of the defendant ; who, if
he bad matter of complaint of any kind, might I L ave ap-
pealed to a tribunal qualified to exercise the re equisite
authority and give the necessary redress.
The defendant was then required to enter into, his own
recognisance for the sum of 501. to keep the 1? eace to•
wards the complainant for the space of three t calendar
months.

BANK OF ENGLAND.
(From last night's Gazette.)
An Account, pursuant to the Act 7th and Bth of Victoria, cap. 32 for
the Week ending on Saturday, the 17th day of Janus., 7, 1852,
ISSUE DEPARTMENT.

Notes Issued •....... 31,151,175

431,151,175

Dated the 22d day of January,

BANSING D
Proprietors 'capital 14,553,000
nest •••••• • • • • • 3,247,702
Public deposits (in-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Sav-
ings-banks, and Di-

vidend accounts).. 4,715,153
Other deposits ...• •• 11,656,776
Seven day and other

1,17!,745

525,344,;576

Dated the 22d day of January, 1