The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-08 00:00:00

BOROUGH HOP.

We have to report continued firmness in the hop trade,
both English and foreign qualities being in fair average
request, at fully previous quotations.
6 12s „
The imports last
week amounted to 32 bales from Bremen, 115 from 13ou•
logne, 10 pockets and 17 bales froSomes
totAontBwer::
7
Mid and East Keats £6 Os to £9 lOs per cwt.
Weald of Kents 5 15s to 7 58
Sussex
Bavarian
ABemigeriaican n

------.

BOROUGH AND SPITALFIELDS.
Full average supplies of potatoes continue on sale. The
trade generally is in a sluggish state, and the quotations
have a drooping tendency. The imports from the conti-
nent are very small.

Yorkshire Regents 65s to 80s per ton.
Flukes Bss to 95s ~
Rocks
Perth, Forfar, and Fife Regents 60s to 753 ~
Rocks .......... 458 to 55s -
Kent and Essex Regents ...... 55s to 758 ~

Particulars. 1850. 1801 ( 1862. 1863. 1864.
-
Stock this day.— 34,832 72.005 ) 46.540 48.619 64.410
Price of Y.C. 68s6a to,, 60s 01 to 17s0d to '44s 9d to 4 sOd to
—s Od —s Od —s Od —s d 00s Od
Delivery last week 2,400 914 2,387 2,225 1,771
Ditto from June 1 63,164 1,965 93,874 60,817 53,446
Arrivals last week 05 415 419 77 560
Ditto from June 1 85,900 100,877 83,653 71,147 80,009
Price of Town.... 61s 9d , 60s 3d 48s 3d 46s Cd 43s Od

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day,)

COURT OF ERROR.
THE ALEXANDRA CASE.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SILLEM AND OTHERS.

Their lordships having intimated their intention of giving
judgment on the objection taken by Sir H. Cairns as to the
power of the court to hear this case in error from the Ex-
chequer—the court was densely crowded in every part.
On their lordships taking their seats,

Mr. Justice Mellor proceeded to give his decision in this
important case. After stating at some length his reasons
his lordship was of opinion that the court had no jurisdic-
tion to proceed in the matter.
Mr, Justice Blackburn was of the same opinion.

Mr. Justice Willes differed from the decision of the two
learned Judges who had just pronounced their opinion. It
was his opinion that the court had full power to deal with
questions submitted to it.
Mr, Justice Crompton said he was of opinion that the
26th section of the Queen's Remembrancer's Act, to make
rules and orders for assimilating the procedure ;in revenue
cases to the procedure in common law cases did not give
power to the Court of Exchequer to grant appeals in cases
on the revenue side of the court, and therefore he thought
the court had no jurisdiction in the matter now before it.
If the Act conferred the right of appeal it would most un-
questionably have stated it in express terms.
Mr. Justice Williams thought the court had jurisdiction
in the matter, and therefore it was open to officers of the
crown to take the steps they were now engaged in.
Chief Justice Erle said the 26th section of the Act gave
very large powers for making orders, and that being so he
thought the Court of Error had power to deal with the
question now submitted to them.
Chief Justice Cockburn said, after he had given
the best and most careful consideration to this im-
portant case, he was of opinion that the Coat
had no jurisdiction. Tho Legislature never could
have intended to hand over to the Court of Exchequer the
power of deciding whether they should grant appeals, It
was not conceivable that Parliament should have delegated
its functions to that Court, and as far as ho was concerned
there appeared to him no difficulty in the construction of the
26th section, and that further proceedings in the
matter by that Court would in effect be making
Parliament say that which it had not said, and do
that which it had not done. He regretted the opportunity
had now been lost of settling the law upon the point
in that court, but whatever had been the decision of their
lordships, he entertained no doubt that the matter would
havo been carried to the House of Lords as the highest
court of appelate jurisdiction ; and as it would now most
certainly bo taken there, it would be heard fully and de-
cided on its merits.
The motion for appeal was then dismissed.

The three Judges, it will be seen, who were in favour of
the appli cation made on the part of the Crown, were those
occupying seats on the bench in the Court of Common
Pleas whilst the four of a contrary opinion,; that the court
had no jurisdiction were the judges in the Court of Queen's
Bench.