The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-23 00:00:00

8 ATEMENT OF TALLOW SHIPPING AT ST. PET ERSTIVRG

FOR THE SEASON.
1863. 186?.
Tallow despatched from Cronstadt Casks. Casks.
to Oct. 28, 0. S. (estimated at 25
poods to the cask) 72,512 63,060 78,484
377 5,351
lu ships loading and lighters ll6

1861.
Casks

Total loaded off from St. Petersburg,
Oct. 30, U.S 7:.),818 63,377 83,835
Do. after this date

Total at the close of the navigation
London ....
Liverpool
Bristol
Other English ports
Ireland l7B 200 576
Scotland
Germany 13,301 13,400 12,355
France

63,879 83,835
55,197 39,000 52,695

Total.

.... 72,512 63,000 78,484

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Bramwell, Chan-
nel], and Pigott.)
THE CASE OF THE ALEXANDRA.

THE QUEEN V. SILLIM AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF THE

ALEXANDRA.

The Attorney General, the. Solicitor General, the Queen's
Advocate, Mr. Locke, Q.C., and Mr. T. Jones were for the
plaintiffs, Sir Hugh Cairns, Q.C., Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., Mr.
Mellish, Q.C,, and Mr. Kempley were for the defendants.
The arguments in this case on the question as to whether
there should be a new trial, were resumed this morning, for
the sixth day.
The Queen's Advocate commenced his argument this
morning. He stated that, in accordance with a canon
of law, penal statutes shonld be construed in such a man-
ner as that the meaning of the words of the Act were not
to be so narrowed as to defeat the public policy of the
Act, and the evident intention of the L9gislature ; so
they were not to narrow the seventh section, under which
these proceedings were taken, in such a way as to frustrate
the object the legislation had in view. The statute was
essentially a preventative statute, and so far from desiring
to wait, before taking action, until the mischief had
been done, it stopped it at the very first opportunity.
and to omit this characteristic of the Act you take away
one of the most important keys to its practise. The learned
advocate objected to the quotation from Vattel as an autbo-
tity on international law in this case, for this reason,
Vattel was a Swiss, and as large numbers of men were
continually being enlisted, and conveyed from his country
to serve as soldiers for foreign Powers, he devotes one part
of his work to a defence of that proceeding. Vattel
therefore wrote with a certain bias, and was not to be
depended upon in reference to this question. Adverting
to the words "fit out," "furnish," "equip," and " arm,"
he claimed that the axiom should be accepted, that it must
not be presumed that those words were synonymous and
superfluous.
The case was proceeding when we went to press,

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)

IN RE COLONEL WAUGII.--,7IIDOMENT ON APPLICATION
FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.

His Honour to-day proceeded to give judgment on the
application of this bankrupt for release from custody. The
arguments in the case were fully reported a few days since.
His Honour now said that he had conferred with Mr. Com-
missioner Holroyd, who concurred with him that, in mak-
ing an unconditional order of discharge, it would raise a
conflicting jurisdiction with the Court from which the writ
of copies was issued, and on which the bankrupt was ar-
rested, and required to find bail to the amount of £50,000.
His Honour considered the detention of the bankrupt with-
out the detaining creditors taking any steps to try the
case was an act of great oppression and injustice, and he
. thought it probable that on the altered statement of the
circumstances and the delay of the detaining creditors in
prosecuting their suit, the court from which the writ was
issued or a judge would alter or vary their order. Mi.
Commissioner Holroyd concurred in the view, and also
suggested that as the detaining creditors were the official
managers of the estate which were being wound up in
Chancery, the Chief Clerk would, on the case being fully
laid before him, make an order for the discontinuance of
the action, but after either or both applications had been
made, and the opinion of the court above obtained, Colonel
Waugh might, if necessary, apply again to this court.
He would, however, suggest to the assignee to consider
whether there was anything to justify them in lending
themselves to the assistance of the detaining creditor in
keeping Coldnel Waugh in custody, and whether it was
beneficial to the creditors when the assignees tacitly ad-
mitted that they did not think that the action could be suc-
cessful. He would put it whether it was quite fair and just
to do so when the accountant had made an affidavit that the
accounts required the personal attention of the bankrupt,
which could not be rendered in prison.
Mr. Linklater said that the assignees had no personal
feeling in the matter, all they wished to do was to protect
the interest of the general body of creditors ; he therefore
would, on their behalf, act on the suggestion of the Court,
and withdraw their opposition to the bankrupt's release.
Mr. Sargood (for Colonel Waugh) then urged that the
question of jurisdiction of the Court was avoided, for Mr.
Linklater conceded that the release of the bankrupt would
be advantageous to the creditors.
His Honour said Mr. Linklater had not said that, or i
would have been different.
Mr. Linklater said he could only say he was willing to
act on the suggestion by the Court.
Mr. Sargood then submitted that instead of sending Col.
Waugh to two superior courts, the Queen's Bench and
Chancery, and then bringing him back here, when the
question of jurisdiction might be again raised, the Court
might order a release, and the detaining creditors might
appeal to the Lord Chancellor, when both the question of
jurisdiction and the facts would be raised.
• Mr. Bazley opposed, but
His Honour said he would further consider the matter,
and give his final judgment on Wednesday.