The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-17 00:00:00

BANKING D.

Proprietors 'capital.. 14,5T3,000
Rest -••••• • • • •• 3,091,222
Public deposits (in-
cluding" Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Sav-
ings-banks, and D-
ividend accounts). • 4,764,651
Other deposits •• • • 13,992,932
Seven day and other
Bllls•• •••••••• • • •• 1,162,545

£37,564,653

Dated the 15th day of April, 1

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 16.
(Sittings in Banco.)
MARKS V. HAMILTON.

This was a rule to increase the verdict obtained by
the plaintiff for 7001. by the addition of 1,2001. The
action was on a policy for a house and auction-room in
Oxford-street, and the furniture and goods therein, the
defendanti being the Sun Fire-office. At the trial be-
fore the Lord Chief Baron it appeared that the de-
fendants had reinstituted the house and auction-room,
and a verdict was taken, under the direction of the
Learned Judge, for the value of the goods and furniture
destroyed, subject to a reference to ascertain whether
anything more was due to the plaintiff in respect of the
premises reinstituted. The plaintiff, however, insisted
that, as the reinstitution had taken place after issue
joined, the defendant was not at liberty to enter upon
that Oefence, and this rule was subsequently obtained to
review the direction of :he Chief Baron on that point.
Mr. Creasy end Mr. Phinn now showed cause against
the rule, which was supported by Mr. Sergeant Shee,
Mr. Metcalfe, and Mr. Lush.
The COURT, at the conclusion of the argument, dis-
charged the rule, being of opinion that the defendants
were entitled to prove reinstitution at any time in re-
duction of damages. The amount of that reduction was
properly referred, but in the meantime the plaintiff was
entitled to received the 7001. found for him by the jury
as to the goods cud furniture, and a portion of costs,
though not all, as the reference might be against him,
and the costs of the defendant on that inquiry might be
sot off against those of the trial.

Mr. Sorgeant SUEE would accept 1501. on account o
the costs.

The Couur thought this to be a reasonable arrange-
ment, and the rule was discharged, on the understanding
that the defendants would at once pay 8501., to the
plaintiff,—Judgment accordingly.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, April 16.
(133fcre Mr. Commissioner LACY.)
IN RE EDWARD LAWRENCE LEVY.
This insolvent, an attorney, was opposed by Mr. Slee
and, Mr. Paterson; Mr. Cooke supported.
The principal point of inquiry in the case was the
disposal of the furniture by the insolvent iu October last
to his father for a sum of 6001., half of which was then
advanced, and the remainder on account of a prior debt.
After a long inquiry,
Mr. CooKE informed the Court that Mr. Levy, sen.,
was still willing to carry out a proposal already made to
and refused by the creditors, viz., to pay ss. in the pound
on all the debts, the creditors giving the insolvent a re-
lease, or to pay into court any sum which the Commis-
sioner might think right.
Mr. SLEE'S client wished for time to consider the
proposal,

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, April 16.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant• Judge, and a
Bench of Magistrates, at the Session E-house, Clerken-
well.)

The -Court sat to-day and heard appeals against the
refusal of the licensing justices to grant or renew licenses
for the sale of excisable liquors.
Joseph Henry English appealed against the refusal of
the justices of the Tower division to renew a license
(under the 9th George IV., chap. 61) to sell excisable
liquors in the house and premises called the Angel, Back-
road, Shadwell.

Mr. Clarkson appeared fur the applicant; Mr. Bodkin
for the respondents.
Mr. BOTiRTU saifi ho should show that the justices
were perfectly justified in refusing to renew the license
of this house, by calling witnesses to prove that it was
frequented by prostitutes of the lowest description, that
robberies had taken place there, and that there had
been every disposition to screen too parties, instead of
assisting the police to apprehend them.
Evidence to this effect having been adduced,
Mr. CLARKSON said that the application ho should
make to the Court would be of a nature only to enable
parties who had embarked money in the concern to be
guaranteed against loss. 'rho establishment had cost
2,500/., cf which only 5001. was the money of the appel-
lant himself, and the rest was advanced by friends and
relations. He proposed that these parties should provide
some person of unexceptionoble character to keep the
house, and that till then the license should remain in
the hands of the justices; otherwise those other parties,
by the withdrawal of the license, would be ruined
Appeal refused.
Charles Lindsay appealed against the refusal of the
justices of the divifion of St. d ames's, Westminster, to
grant a license to the house and premises situate at 12
and 13, Air-street, St. James's.
Mr. Ballantine appeared for the appellant, and Mr.
Bodkin for the respondent.
It appeared from the evidence that Mr. Lindsay was
desirous of keeping a second class hotel by obtaining a
license for these premises. He had been formerly in the
service of the Earls of Stair, Mansfield, and Ilchester,
as house steward, and the house, which is of some size,
and is now kept by him as a dining and:lodging-house, is
of the greatest respectability and conducted in a very
creditable way. Several witnesses stated that this de-
scription of accommodation was very much required,
and that the want of a liquor license there was a great
inconvenience. On the other hand, it was contended
that there was no necessity for any more hotels in the
neighbourhood.
The license was refused.
James Harrison appealed against the refusal of the
justices of the Tower division to grant license to a
house and premises situate in Mayfield-road, Dalston.
Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Parry were for the appellant,
and Mr. Bodkin for the respondents.
On the part of the appellant it was contended that
there was a necessity for a public-house in the neigh-
bourhood—the nearest being 165 yards off. The lease
of the premises was for fifty years; and the appellant,
who was a person of respectability, paid 2001. for the
lease, and had since expended 3001. on the premises.
Mr. BODKIN having been heard on the part of the
licensing justices,
The COURT confirmed their decision.

The following appeals were confirmed by consent:—
David Furminger Kennett, against the refusal of the jus-
tices of the Marylebone division, to renew a similar
license to the house and premises called the Princess
Amelia, Oxford-street, Marylebone; James York, against
the refusal of the justices of the Kensington division to
renew a similar license to the house and premises called
the Swan, near Fulham. bridge. And the following one
was dismissed, nobody appearing for the appellant:—
John William Hobbs Haynes, against the refusal of the
justices of the Finsbury division to grant a similar li-
cense to the house and premises called the Market Ta-
vern, at the principal entrance of the Islington Cattle
Market, Lower-road.