The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-22 00:00:00

T.I":".A.T k/IRIKS-2T3.

SOUTHALL, JAN. 2l.—Prime Beasts and Sh.cep w
in good request at lull prices. In other kinds of st
very little was doing. Beet, from 23 10d to 3s 1
Mutton, 3; 4d, to 4s 4d; Veal, 3a to 33 8d; Pork
Bi.l to 3s Sd per Ms, to sink the offals.
ROMFORD, JAN. 21.—Our market has ruled tolen.
firm, as iollows:—Beef from 2s 10,1 to 3s 10d; Mut;
3s 2d to 4s 4I; Veal, 3s to 3a 8d; Pork, 3a to 3s
per 81Os. Suckling Calve, 183 to 211; and quarter
store Pigs, 164 to 19a each. _

LEWES, JAN. 20.—The general demind is steady,
full prices. Bect; from 3s 2d to 4s; Mutton, 3s 4cl
4s 6d; Pork, 3s to 3s 6d per Sibs.

CORN AVERAGES

GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISII CORN
For the Week ended Jan. 15, 1852, made up from the Returnsof
Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and WI
per imperial Quarter.

_
I WHEAT. I BARLEY. I OATS. I RYE. I BEANS. I PEA.
PRICE .. ass 3d 21s Id lbs Id I 27s 5d I 27s 11d I 28s 1
DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.
WHEAT. BARLEY. I I
OATS. RYE. 1 BEANS. I PEA
1. Od Is Od Is Od is Od is Od Is
QUANTITIES OF GRAIN SOLD IN THE PAST WEEK.
Wheat, 116,669; Bar:ey, I 01014; Cats, 28,794; Rye, 205 ; B CI
6,367; Peas, 2,323 quarters.
C

HANCERY.—(TiIIs DAY.)
(Before the LORDS JUSTICES.)
EX PARTE CASTELLI IN RE CASTELLI (IN RANKRUP:CC
In this case an application was male yesterday
Mr. Cairns to set aside an adjudication of bankrupt
made by Mr. Commissioner Ilotreyd, as against Save
Castelli sod Giovanni Batista Guistiniani, the fort,
partners of the late Ca stelli, Guistiniani, and Co.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce was then of opinion i;1
there was a substantial issue of fact to be tried, and
CB3O stood over for the parties to arrange the term.
such issue.

This morning, after some discussion, it was arrant;
that the action should be One of trespass against t
petitioning creditors, to which they would plead 11
the plaintiffs were bankrupts at the time, by which t
cpestion would be raised. The question of trading
to be raised, and judgment not to be executed with .1
app4irg to the present Court.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
WYNNE V HEMINGWAY.
This action aruse out of the same transaction in
spect of which an action was tried a few days ego,
Guildhall, but the parties were reversed.
Mr. KNOWLES now applied for a rule so show ct
why the trial in the present action should not be P
poned until Monday next, on the ground that the
fendant would then be able to disprove the testime7
which was given at the former trial, and which indi3
the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, whn is
now plaintiff. The present action was on a hip
exchange for 2001, drawn by a person named Asp.c
on Hemingway, and handed to Wynne on his makil
loan to Hemingway for that amount, in respect of I
horse Elcho. Hemingway was committed for perj
in the learner action, but he had since obtained in f
mation which he believed would give a positive con ti
diction to the evidence adduced by Wynne.
The LORD CHIEF UARON inquired whether t
Learned Counsel was prepared to bring the money i
the court ?

Mr. IiNOWLES replied in the affirmaiive.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Take a rule; and if ;I
money is paid into court perhaps the opposite pal
granting rules unless
will be satisfied. I have always some reluctance
good grounds ate urged for d of
so, because generally rules seldom cost less than 15/.
Mr. Baron PARKE— That very much depends upon if
length of the affidavits.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Yes; but generally •
expense is very considerLble.—Rule granted.

SHERIFFS' COURT,-( THIS DA Il

(&fort, Mr. W. BURCHELL.)
ARCEIBUTT v. NICHoLsON AND ANOTHER.—IMPORT ST
QUESTP,N UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CONSOL LU
TION ACT.

The plaintiff in this action is the landlord of prey ill;
in ilalkin-terrlce, Belgrave-t pare, and the defeat lot
are the assignees of a bankrupt Lamed Wakefield. T'
action was brought to recover the value of ceirts
fixtures alleged to have been illegally seized by the d
fendants.
It ippeared that the bankrupts had obtained an c.rd
from the Court of Bankruptcy, under the Bankrupt,
Consolidation Act, which authorizes the assignee's
rake any goods and chattels on premises occupied hi'
bankrupt, and to sell the same tor the benefit of the'c
ditors with the consent of the owner.
Mr. EVANS, the plaintiff's couns.el, contended that t
Act did not give the assignees any right to sell fixttt t'
which certainly were not goods end chattels.
The clefeofridthitentpsrpowlet3ded h
es,
htutesed
suffered
of h
ed judgmentle Court rot
go
I
eu rde
eofef
afiaxatnutrse,sB.
Aid that the plait it ';
defaultthe
m entryr
. s a
ot oN
,thfeorsetihz
bad been a mortgagee in possession, under a bill of &sr
and the new Act gave a power to the Commissioners I
order the sale of any property left in the possession'
control of a bankrupt, by which the creditors or ti
public might be deluded Into the belief that it belooge
to the bankrupt, but the defendants had been advise
that they had no right to seiz,3 fixtures, except 611(
portions as were tenan'ts fixtures.
Mr. EVANS, in re-ply, submitted that by sufferio
judgment to go by default as to the fixtures, they bad 50
witted th6r liability for damages for the removal of I',
whole of the fixtures.
The jury gave a verdict for 261, the atim claimed by
the plaintiff.

This WEBSTER V. LYNE.
was an action brought on a mortgage for 3331.
There Was no defence, and the jury gave a verdict 0'
the amount.

PORPA V. ZUCCANI ADDIOR, &C.
This was an action brought to recovtr the earn 0
301. Defendant pleaded that he never was executor °1
the person named in the declaration.
who appeared
theapp defendantearedferthheatipnloaitntbieffe,nstt:
wasM notr. D U N C
materialAN
that
under a will, if it could be shown that he had in el
way interfered in the administration of the estate 011
effects of the deceased, and in thin case it could be seen
._
that the defendant had done so, and he was, therefor;
liable as he had not pleaded that he had administer
the whole of the estate.
„„ea
Defendant was called, and admitted that the der,- a
was his brother, and that ho had died at sea. De "ree
had been in partnership with another person, it°`*,
(witness) bad advanced money for that purpose, —1:
4•
after the death of his brother had wound up the P$ •
•
uership accounts, but he denied that he knew of ani
vate estate and effects of his brother.
Mr. DUNCAN said that ho would call the plaintiff.' go
Plaintiff was accordingly called, but could not de-
that there had been any property belonging to the
CO The in the hands of the defend.int. DOS
UNDER-SHERIFF said that defendant CO
be the administrator to the joint estate, and the. of
cluing therewith to arrange with the creditors dba
render him liable in this action.
Mr. DUNCAN said he had acted upon his instructions'
but after the evidence it was useless to proceed.
The jury gave a verdict for the defendant.

-
MANSION-HOUSE.—(THIS
Alderman Sir John Koy sat to-day for ther,,,iets
Mayor, and heard a summons taken out by Mr. ofi—,e.
Altred Temple, sharebroker, of No. 5, Royal Exchalliv
buildings, agn.ir.st Mr. Francis Worrell Stephens, I°„,s,.
broker, of No. 3 also irk the Royal Exchange-1A.107,v
Mr. Edward Hodgkinson, solicitor for the coolP,'"oc
ant, said that Mr. Stephens was a mambo: of the o'cre..
Exchange, and Mr. Temple, one well known as a sbsib",..
broker in the City. Some differences bad arise" nits
tween them upon monetary matters, and 13f1;%'
; were instituted both
it) the Court 01.0i3Ist
chcquer and in the Lord IMayer's Court. " last,
Tc.,napic was proceeding, on SaturdaY mber
between the hours of three and five, to see aiTeTifeci
of the Stock Exchange, he met Mr.;,Stephensf "cs-Able
the strongest expressions, of a most unwarrall"--

nature, cilling him a thief, and other words to the same
elf' et, but of such a kind that ho trusted he should be
excused from repeating them. This nII occurred in the
presence of three other gentlemen. For this ho sought
protection.

Mr. Temple stated that all the offensive expressscns
which Mr, ,Stephens was represented to have uttered
had been tit;ed;

Mr. Hodgkinsoa said, that since the occurrence of the
offence ho had, under Mr. Ternple'e instructions, written
to Mr. Stephens to request a written apology, but so tar
from that being given the insult had been aggravated by
repetition.' _

Sir JOHN KEY asked Mr. Stephens what reply he had
to make to this statement? Mr. Stephens admitted that
he had used the epithet of " thief." It was the custom
of members of the Stock Exchange to expre'si thereselvcs
in strong terms respecting the characters oViose:PV-
ties who they conceived were likely to injar_e ttiem.lves
or others.

Sir JOHN t EY to Mr. Temple—Were y:.tt ever con-
victed of " thieving?" Mr Temple (with a laugh)—
No, never, sir."
Sir JoaN KEY required Mr. Stephens t 3 enter into his
ovn recrognizance of 501. to keep the pease, and both
parties left the court.