The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-09 00:00:00

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the second reading of
this bill, which he explained was to remedy the defect in
the present law on the subject, by which no appeal is
allowed in convictions under 40s. The more immediate
cause of his bringing in this bill was a case of injustice
which had taken place in 1850, in the North of England,
in which the magistrate had made the penalty 11. 19s 6d,
in order that there might be no power of appeal. Other
cases had also come to his notice, some in the metro-
polis, which convinced him that, the power of appeal
ought to be altered.
Sir G. GREY defended the conduct of the magistrates
in the case alluded to by the hon. member for Finsbury.
With regard to the bill, he thought there was no neces-
sity for it.
Mr. FITZROY opposed the bill on the ground that
the case to warrant it had not been made out. Persons
convicted under chic act were in a much better situation
with regard to the right of appeal than any other. He
should, therefore, ask the house to reject this bill.
(LEFT SITTING.)

ELECTION COMMITTEES-(THIS DAY.)

DERBY.

At the sitting of the committee this morning,
Mr. M. Smith announced to the committee that Mr.
liorsfall had determined to drop all opposition to this
petition, and withdraw himself from the representation
of Derby. The petition against Mr. Bass would also be
withdrawn.

Mr. Horsfall was then examined, and gave a most
emphatic denial to any knowledge of improper practices
during the election. He had given his party clearly to
understand that he would not sanction any illegal ex-
penses. He had transmitted 8001. to Derby, and out of
that 5791. had been paid for his expenses. He had re-
ceived the balance.

Mr. Fanshaw, the agent of Mr. Horsfall, was ex-
amined to a similar effect. He had drawn 5791. on ac-
count of Mr. Horsfall, to discharge his election expenses ;
all the expenses were legal. He had no knowledge of
any improper practices at the election.
The room was then cleared, and the committee was
then deliberating on its resolutions when our report
left.

SECONDARIES' COURT.-(TJJIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
TROST V. WISCOMBE.-A BILL TRANSACTION.

This was an action to recover the sum of 51., the ba-
lance due on a bill of exchange of which the efendant
was the acceptor.
Defendant pleaded payment of 81., and paid 2/. 10s.
into Court on account of balance and interest.
Mr. Chidley, Gresham-square, appeared for defendant
in support of the plea, and called him to prove the pay-
ment of 1/. to a person named Clarke, who held the bill,
and two similar sums to the plaintiff, and subsequently
51., the latter sum being indorsed on the back of the bill.
He denied that he had paid the 3/. for time from month
to month.
Mr. Anderson, for the plaintiff, said he approached
the case with considerable difficulty, for he should have
to call the plaintiff, who would most positively contra-
dict the defendant. He should also call a gentleman
named Massey, who was a perfectly disinterested party,
and who would in the main confirm the plaintiff, and it
would then appear that the 31. was paid to induce the
plaintiff to hold the bill over, as defendant was pressed.
Plaintiff was not the holderof the bill at the time it became
due, having paid it away to Clarke, but subsequently
took it u Mr. Anderson contendedat a party could
not at onep.
time give a bonus to obtain time, ar
and then
plead it as part payment.
The plaintiff was called, and gave evidence that two
or three days before the bill became due he told defen-
dant he did not hold it, but it was in the hands of
Clarke, and introduced defendant to him. He saw de-
fendant shortly after, and the latter said that he had
settled with him to hold the bill over for a month, and
had paid him 1/. to do so. Defendant afterwards paid
him 11. for a further delay of a month, and another 11.
for a similar purpose. He admitted also the receipt of
Si. on account, but denied that he had ever agreed to
take payment by instalments, and that the 3/. was paid
on that account.

Mr. Henry Massey, an attorney at Edmonton, where
all the parties reside, said that he was instructed by
plaintiff to apply for payment, and he did so and
threatened proceedings unless the money was paid
before 12 o'clock the next day. He had spoken to
defendant previously on the subject, as defendant was
his client.

The 'Secondary said, that nothing said to witness as
defendant's professional adviser ought to be given in
evidence.

Witness, in, cross-examination, denied that defendant
ever told him anything about the payment of the 31.,
but he said that he did not care about the proceedings
as he should go through.
Mr. Chidley replied, and commented on the fact that,
supposing the plaintiff to have spoken the truth, the de-
fendant was paying 120 per cent. by way of bonus, lie
did not believe that the, jury would for a moment give
credence to such evidence, but that they would at once
give a verdict for defendant.
The Learned Secondary said that money was a mar-
ketable commodity; and if persons would be foolish
enough to "pay exorbitantly for it, they must abide by
their bargain. The question for the jury was, whether
the W. had been paid as a bonus or on account of the

A juror asked what the bill was given for, and what
.....arke gave for it? and was answered that it was for
goods sold and work done. Clarke gave 91.
The jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict for
the defendant.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF SOLDIERS IN FRANCE. -- In
order to enhance the value of the new military medal,
the Emperor has decided that every soldier wearing the
medal shall be entitled to marks of respect from sentinels
of his own rank not so decorated. This mark of respect
is to consist in standing at attention, whether with arms
ported or grounded. Sub-officers and corporals having
the medal, are to receive regular military salutes from
soldiers. On the decease of any sub-officer, brigadier,
or soldier, decorated with the medal, he shall be entitled
to funeral honours from a quarter of a detachment. No
corporal, brigadier, or soldier can be cashiered except by
the minister at war. These new regulations are analo-
gous to those now applicable to military members of the
Legion of Honour,