The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-24 00:00:00

IVEITZCIIAPEL.

Beef, from 2s 8J to 3s 8d; Mutton, 25 8d to 3s 10d;
Veal, 3s 4d to 4s Od; and Pork, 35 4d to 48 4d
per Blbs.

MELLIATGSGATE.

Salmon, is to is 3d per lb ; Turbots, 3s to 12$ ;
Brills, 2s to ss; Cod Fish, 3s Od to 7s; Whitings, 4d to
10d; Lobsters, 10d to 2s • Crabs, 4d to Is 9d each; Soles
6d to 2s per pair ; Eels, 9d to is per lb. ; Large
Haddocks, 9d to Is ; small ditto, 5d to 7d ,each ;
Crimp d Skate. 8d to 9d; and Prawns, 2s to 2s 6d pei Ib;
Shrimps, is 6d to 2s 9d per gallon ; Bloaters, is 4d to
Is 9d per dozen; Common Oysters, 9s to 14s; Scotch
Pearls, 16s to 20s ; and Best Natives, 42s to 62s per
bushel; Flounders, 9d to is per dozen.

BREAD.
The prices of Wheaten Bread in the Metropolis are
from 6id to 7d; of household ditto, 5d to 6d per Alba
loaf.

HIDE MARKET.
Market hides, 561 b to 641 b, led to lid; ditto, 641 b to
721 b, lid to 2d; ditto, 721 b to 801 b, 2d to 24d; ditto,
801 b to 881 b, 2id to 3d; ditto, 881 b to 961 b. 3d to 3d;
961 b to 1041 b, 311:1 to 34d; 1041 b to 11216, 4d to Od. Calf
Skins, light Is 6d to 3s, ditto full 5s 6d :o 6s; Horn Hides.
7s 6d; Polled Sheep, 3s 7d to 5s Id; Runts and Half-
breds 3s 2d to 4s; Downs, 2s 4d to 3s 4d.
HAY MAZKLTS.
SMITHFIELD.—Meadow Hay, 21 105 to 31 10s; Clover '
ditto, 31 Os to 41 10s; and Straw, 112 s to 1/ 6s per
load. Trade very dull, at our quotations.
CUMBERLAND.—Meadow Hay, 2110 s to 31 12s; Clover
ditto, 31 Os to 41 lbs ; and Straw, 1/ 2s to 1/ 7s per
load. Supply but moderate, and trade dull.
WHITECHAPEL. Meadow Hay, 21 8s to 31 108;
Clover, ditto, 31 Os to 4/ 12s; and Straw, 1/ is to 1/ 6i per
load. A full average supply, and a sluggish demand.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

SCARFS' V. SOULBY.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, the arguments in which were concluded a few days
since. The case came before his Lordship upon appeal
from the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor of England.
The facts of the case may be thus shortly stated :—John
Milner, who had been a woollendraper, in the Old
Jewry, and subsequently became a stockjobber, exe-
cuted an indenture in December, 1842, by which, after
acknowledging a cohabitation of several years with
Eliza Quilten, and that she had borne him four children
he stated that such cohabitation was discontinued; but
that, in consideration of past connexion, be covenanted to
provide her an annuity of 250 L, and for that purpose as-
signed to her two policies of insurance on his life for
sums exceeding 5,0001.; and he also undertook to keep
up the premiums. Milner died in 1846, and a bill
was filed by his creditors against his executors
and Mrs Quilten, alleging that Milner was insolvent,
and deeply indebted at the time he executed
the indenture, and praying that it be set aside Us a
fraud on the creditors. ahe executors, in their answer,
admitted there were not assets to pay the creditors, but
Mrs. Quilten asserted that Milner was not indebted or
embarrassed at the time of the assignment to her. Evi-
deeco was read both for and against the insolvency, and
the Vice-Chancellor came to the conclusion that to, be
indebted at all, although not insolvent or in embarrassed
circumstances, was sufficient to avoid a deed. made
without consideration to the prejudice of creditors, and
he therefore directed the policies to be made available
assets for the benefit of the creditors. His Lordship•
after going at some length into the case, ordered the
decision of the Court below to be reversed.
ANDREWS V. WALTEN.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which came before the Court only two days ago,
upon motion for the discharge of the plaintiff out of
custcdy. This cause has been before the Court in
various forms since 1830, and has been argued before
Lord Brougham and Lord Lyndhurst, and also repeatedly
before the present Lord Chancellor. The bill of the
plaintiff (who sues in forma pauperis) was dismissed in
1833, with costs, amounting to 1071. les. 2d., for the
non-payment of si hich en attachment was issued, and
the plaintiff arrested thereon, on the 15th Of
January, 1833. Two days afterwards, he, hoW•
ever, was discharged, is question of privilege arising,
as at the time' he wir.s taken into custody he was attend-
ing the Registrar of the Court with reference to certain
proceedings in the cause. In the month of March fol-
lowing he was again arrested for the same debt, and has
been in custody ever since, now sixteen years. The
point on which the present motion turned was whether,
as the defendant had himself discharged the plaintiff
from custody—he having made no application to the
Court for his discharge, on the ground of the irregu-
larity of his arrest—the discharge was not a complete
and final one. Many cases were cited at the bar in sup-
port of this position.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, this morning, in giving
judgment, went at considerable length into the case,
and ultimately decided that there was no ground what-
ever for the motion for the discharge of the plaintig
from custody.
Mr. M'QuEEN, who appeared as counsel for Mr•
Walten, said, that such being the judgment of the
Court, he was instructed, by his client, to make
proposition to Mr. Andrews. Hitherto his client had
offered to Mr. Andrews his release from custody,
on the condition that he would not annoy him by all
further legal proceedings; be had now to offer to Bir•
Andrews his unconditional release, and he did so, not on
the ground of any doubt as to the validity of his client e
claim, but solely from motives of humanity.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the proposal of
the defendant was highly creditable to him.
Mr. Andrews was then ordered to be discharged, and
left the court, not, as usual, in the custody of Allen the
tip, taff, but surrounded by his friends.
We believe that Mr. Andrews has been repeatedly
offered his discharge, but has refused to accept it, coo'
tending that be is legally entitle d to the same, and OW
to large damages for the imprisonment he has skied,'
undergone. The defendants in the suit have suffered
greatly from the long-continued litigation to which the!
have been subjected, and the expenses attendant thereon*
IN RE THE CORONER OF SALOP.
This case stood in the paper to be spoke to. 00
readers will recollect that yesterday, Mr. Cooper,
with whom was Mr. Kerslake, moved that 11.,
writ recently issued for the election of a coroner,
for one of' the districts of the county of Salop, might
be set aside. The reason was that the district being
very extensive, the magistrates had previously resoleed
that upon the death of the late coroner (Mr. Dickers) 1°
make an application to the Crown to divide the district*
Mr. Dickers died on the Bth inst., and already had Bowe
of the freeholders procured a writ to be issued for ell
election of a new coroner and the sheriff had fixed
Monday next for such election. Under these circa?
stances, as the magistrates had not yet had time to
11 make their applicaticn to the Crown, his Lordship 7.
asked to set aside the writ, or at any rate to stay the
execution of it until they had bad such an opportunity'
The Lord Chancellor stated yesterday, on the motie!
being made to him, that be considered the object oft
application was most praiseworthy, and he should be glai!
to comply with it if any precedent could be shown for such
a course. It, however, appeared to him, that the Wl'
was analogous to that issued for the election of a Mete:
ber of Parliament, and that after it had once issued 11"
had no control over it, unless there had been fraud 0
procuring it to be issued. No such fraud had been
alleged in the present case, aed surely it could not: b 0
said that the freeholders had not a right to have 1"
writ issued. With respect to the staying of the exeell;
Lion, the same difficulty arose—namely, that the Gre°
Seal had no longer any power over the writ, and it
therefore only a matter for the discretion of the shell
He regretted that the application must be refused.
On the case being called on this morning, he
Mr. COOPER said that after the intimation of irh
Court yesterday he must decline proceeding further I,ll'
the matter.
EX PARTE HARWOOD, RE HARWOOD.
The arguments in this bankrupt petition occupied tb°
Court the remainder or the morning.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Petitions and short causes, of no general inter'
occupied his Lordship the Master of the Rolls the wil°
morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE•CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.) hig
His Honour having disposed of the petitions on 7h-0
paper, proceeded to hear the further arguments in "rej
part-heard cause of "Allen v. Wilson," which occur
the Court the whole day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT 8aucr..),,0
His honour heard causes to-day ; but so case 01
least interest came before him during the morning.
(Were the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM )
TIDMAS v. THORNTON.— JUDGMENT. es
His lloNotrit gave' judgment to day in this ell
directing the costs to be paid out of the estate.
THOMPSON V. ROPER.—JUDGMENT.
His HoNotra also gave judgment in this case, "'-.1.05
was argued before him a few (Lys since. The suit„.„.
instituted for the specific performance of a een',.,`„c,,
by the plaintiff, the purchaser, against the defela',-01
the iendor, of certain portions of land. The eea"l,' o-
wns alleged to have arisen out of a correspoodeeOlepj
tween the parties. The effect of the contract was it,e of
the plaintiff to believe that the defendant had the tbe
the property. But subsequently to the contraei., of
latter had joined with his son, who was tenant in
titrtier'
the property, in re-settling it, by a voluntary ceu„rtaiti
upon his (the defendant's) wive and family in cv.bebe
proportions. By his answer the defendant stated ler
circumstances, and alleged that it was out of his P`,030
to fulfil the contract. Honour, after golog '"

On
10 te
hA
:cUlli

f the