The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-27 00:00:00

COLONIAL.

SUGAR.—The market for British Plantation continues
heavy, and the sales are only 240 hhds, at rather easier
rates for the lower qualities. 4,530 bags Bengal mostly
sold at rather lower rates; low to fine white Benares,
' 37s 6d to 425; low to very fine yellow date kind,
34s 6d to 425, and good to fine white crystal-
ized 42s to 45s 6d. 2,355 bags Madras were
offered, but only 300 sold at 29s to 33s for low
brown to low yellow. 160 barrels 140 hhds St. Croix
mostly sold at 39s to 43s 6d, being very full prices.
The quantity of British Plantation landed last week at
the East and West India Docks was 909 hhds, 133,tierces,
62 barrels; there were taken for home consumption,
1,474 hhds, 136 tierces, 247 barrels. The stock in the
same place is 16,064 hhds, 3,336 tierces, 4,723 barrels.
COFFEE.—A small parcel of Plantation and Native
Ceylon (the latter of old import) sold readily at full
prices ; 250 cases Tellicherry brought 51s to 56s 6d,
being rather dearer.
Rurs.—The quantity landed last week at the East and
West India Docks was 34 puns, 27 hhds; there were
taken for home consumption 272 puns, 49 hbds, and ex-
ported 26 puns, 23 hhds. The stuck in the same places
is 22,696 puns, 2,111 hhds.

TALLow.—P.Y.C. is 37s Gd per cwt on the spot, and
Town 39s a
TEL.—The market is firm.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to-day in his court, Lin-
coln's-inn. It is not usual generally for the Equity
Courts to sit after the last day of term till the first Seal,
but the Lord Chancellor, anxious to dispose of the arrear
of appeals caused by his late indisposition, has deter-
mined to sit during the whole week. At present there
are nearly seventy appeals set down for hearing.
THE SHREWSBURY AND CHESTER. RAILWAY COMPANY V.
THE CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY COMPANY,
THE BIRKENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, AND CHESHIRE
JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, AND THE LONDON AND
NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
In this case, yesterday, a motion was made before the
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce for an injuction to restrain
the defendants frum interfering with or obstructing the
station accommodation of the Shrewsbury and Chester
Railway Company, at the joint station at Chester, and
from doing any act restricting them in the enjoyment of
such complete station accommodation as was necessary
for their traffic, and from preventing or precluding the
plaintiffs, their servants, and clerks, or the joint servants
and clerks of the defendants and plaintiffs, from booking
at the joint station, and in the ordinary joint booking
office which had hitherto been used, and in the ordinary
or usual manner, either goods or passengers, beyond the
limits of the plaintiffs' railway, whether to Wolverhamp-
ton or otherwise; and from in any manner interfering
with the plaintiffs' through traffic, and from preventing
the access of any omnibus or other vehicle duly autho-
rised by the plaintiffs to carry their
. passengers either to
or from their railway, or to or from Birkenhead, or to
or from other places; and from confining or limiting the
right of access to the said joint station to vehicles
licensed only to ply within the city of Chester, or from
otherwise:interfering with:such accommodation and rights
as under the circumstances aforesaid the plaintiffs
were entitled to with the usual directions. Mr. Ma -
lins and Mr. Giffard were the counsel for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Russell, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Willcock, Mr. Follett,
Mr. Birkbeck, and Mr. Glasse, appeared for the three
companies, the defendants, and
applied that the motion
might stand over, the affidavits, in part, having only been
filed on Saturday, and the counsel for the plaintiffs
asking that some arrangement, in the meantime, for
the management of the joint station, might be made.
The Vice-Chancellor allowed the motion to stand
over until Monday, but said he thought that he ought
not to interfere without allowing the defendants an
opportunity of filing affidavits.
This morning, at the sitting of the Court,
Mr. Mums renewed his motion before this branch
of the court, and
The LORD CHANCELLOR granted an interim order for
the injunction, thereby in effect reversing the judgment
of the Court below.

CHAMBEES V. SIGGERS.
The arguments in this appeal occupiod the Court the
remainder of the morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour sat to-day, and hoard bankrupt petitions
and motions, but nothing of any interest came
before him.
None of the other Equity Courts will sit till Monday,
with the exception of the Lord-Chancellor's.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Mr. Justice WIGHTNAN
and Common Juries.)
SKELLORN V. LEVY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a person
in the employment of an upholsterer named Halford, in
the Strand, to recover compensation in damages from
the defendant, Mr. Morrice Levy, a " wine merchant,"
living at 25, Norfolk-street, for having caused him
to have been given iato custody, on a charge of feloey,
which was, according to the case of the plaintiff, utterly
without foundation. It appeared that on the 24th of
April last the plaintiff was employed at the house of the
defendant to take up and carry away a carpet, and to do
some other work. On his leaving, the defendant dis-
covered that a chest of drawers had been broken open,
and that a gold watch and jewellery stated to be of the
value altogether of 4001., had been stolen, which
he assumed to have been carried away in the
carpet. Suspicion naturally attached to the
plaintiff, and he was take into custody, in which
ho remained all night, and was taken before
Mr. Henry, at Bow-street, the next morning ; but the
defendant being beyond the specified time with his wit-
nesses, he was discharged. He was ,again, however,
given into custody, but, on the charge being investigated
by Mr. Hall, he was again discharged. None of the
property was found on the plaintiff, or at his house in
Clerltenwell ; but it was endeavoured to be shown that
the marks on the drawers corresponded with the size and
shape of the hammer with which the plaintiff had been
at work. It was on the other hand shown that several
persons were at work in the house at the time the rob-
bery was supposed to have taken place.
Mr. WA.TSON' who appeared for the defendant, briefly
addressed the Court in his behalf. He held that the
defendant had done no more than would be done by any
of them if they were placed in a similar position. The
defendant, in the course he had adopted, disobeyed not
simply a private but a public duty, from which it would
not have been well, upon any consideration, for
a good citizen to shrink. It could not •be
denied that some suspicion attached to the
plaintiff. As the defendant had not pleaded justification
he contended that since the plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover some compensation, that it would be of the most
moderate amount.
Mr. M. Chambers was for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice VirrIGHTMAN summed up the case, and left
it to the jury to say the amount of compensation to
which the plaintiff was entitled.
The jury expressed a wish to retire, when it was
found that a juryman, named Welby, who had been
challenged, had remained in the box.
An unexpected difficulty teeing thus thrown in the
way of the settlement of the case, the Learned Judge,
after some discussion, was appealed to as to what should
be done in this emtrensity.
Mr. Justice WIGHTRIAN said he should discharge the

jury.
in order, however, to avoid expense, it was agreQd
between the parties that a verdict should be taken with
consent.
The jury, after much deliberation, gave a verdict for
the plaintiff for 211.