The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-12 00:00:00

SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL.

Order for Committee read; Motion made and Question
proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair ;"
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That" to
the end of the Question, in order to add the words " this
House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into
the said Committee," instead thereof: Question put, " That
the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.'l
Tne House divided:—
MAJORITY—AYES, SI.
Acland, Sir T. Grosvenor, Lord R. Weeld, john
Alcocit, Thomas Hamilton, Lord C. Nichol', John
Ashley, Lord lkailicoat, G. J. Noel, G. J
Baillie, H. J. Heneage, G. H. Paget, Lord George
Ba,ikes, G Hervey, Lord A. Palmer, itoundell
Beresford, William Heywood, James Patten, J. W.
Bolder°, H. G. Hill, Lord E. Peel, 'tir Robert
Breinridge, Richard Hill, L-rd Marcus Powlett, Lord W.
Broml y, Robert IL .bhouse, T. B. Richards, Richard
Brotherton..loseph Hodgson, W. N. Russell, F. C.
Buxton, :sir E. Hood, Sir A. Rutherfurd, A.
Coles, H. U. Hope, A. Salwey, Colonel
Colvile, C. R. Hotham, Lord Sanders, George
D'Eyicourt, C. T. Howard, C W.G. Shell, R. L.
Dick. QuiLtiu Howard, Sir R. Stuart. Lord D.
Dodd, G. Johnstone, Sir J. Thicknesse. Ralph
Duff, G. S. Labouchere, iienry Thornhill, G.
buncombe, T. Lacy, 11. C. Tolleinache, F J.
Dondas, Sir D. Langston, J. H. Walpole, S. II
Elliot, J. E. Leonard, T. B. Watkins, Colonel
Fellowes, E. Lewis, 0 C. Welby, G. E.
Fitzpatrick J W. Lincoln, Earl of Witiouohy, sir D.
Gaskell. J. M. Lowther, Colonel Wilsoo, Matthew
Gladstone, W.•E. L vgon, General Worcester, Marquis
Goddard, A. L: Masterman, John Youug, Sir John
Greene, Thomas Miles, W.
Grenfell, C. P. Ni liier, IV. M. TELLERS.
Grearell, Charles W. Mostyn, B. M. Burrell, Sir C.
Grry, Sir George Mundy, William MackiunOn,..W. A.

MINORITY—NO.7.S, 6'.
Arkwright, G. F. x, W. J. Prime, Richard
Armstrong, R. B. Gibson, Thomas M. Itobart,s, T. J.
Benthick, Lord 11. Barris, Richard RornillY. Sir John
Berkeley, II F. nestle, Archibald Seymer. Henry Ker
Campbell, W. F. Hayter, W. G. Sham. It. D .
c...a, J. c).
tenrr. ..u.,......ama0r - ___ 0...w.t.„ J. iit.,..___
Chaplin. W. J. . syworth, Lawrence Spooner. R.
Clerk Sir G. Hornby John Strickland, Sir G.
Cobden, R. Jones, Captain Thompson, Colonel
Colebrooke, Sir T. Kershaw, James Thoruely, T.
Copeland, Alderman Lewisham, Vise. Villiers, Charles
Cubist, William Littleton, E. R. Vivian, J. E.
Davie, Sir H. Locke. Joseph Walmsley, Sir J.
Denison, J. E. Lockhart, W. Wawn, J. T.
Divett, Edward Lushington, Charley! Williams, John
Drummond, Henry Maiheson, Colonel Willyams, 11.
Duncan, Viscount Maule, Fox Wodehouse, E.
Duncan, George Mullings, J. R. Wynn, C. W.
Du Pre, C. G. Newdegate, N.
Evans, John Palmer, Robert TELLERS.
Floyer, John Parker. John Bright, John
Foley, J. 11. Plumptre, J. P. Roebuck, J. A.
1 Forster, Mathew Power, Dr.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, July 10.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord Chief
Justice DENMAN and a Common Jury.)
COOPER V. BLOXAM.

Mr. Martin. Q.C., and Mr. Bovill appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Ryland for the
defendant.

Mr Bovia, in the absence of Mr. Martin, stated the
case to the jury, and said this action was brought to re-
cover certain penalties which the defendant had incurred
under the Stock Jobbing Act, the 7th George 11., c. 8.
The Bth section of the Act imposed a penalty of 500/
ehstessh.oeuld sell any stock of which he
negotiated . and
a then
contracten lcr enacted thatr
tthe
ei f
salean y
brokeruwpanany
oyr a personcatgueanl shouldy wP
of any such stock, knowing that the seller Iva, not actu-
ally possessed of the same, he should be liable' to
nalty of 100/. for each offence, one half to go to the ciittePee" n
and the other half to the person who should sue for the
same. The defendant was now sued for having acted as
an agent in violation of his section of the Act. The de-
claration contained several counts, setting out several dis-
tinct transactions to a large amount, which the defendant
had negotiated for a person named the Rev Robert
Cooper, the brother of the present plaintiff. The
defendant was not a member of the Stock Exchange, but
was one of a class of persons who were called " alliga-
tors." These p'raons exercised their vocation in the
vicinity of the Exchange, and, like alligators, they some-
'lmes preyed upon their victim ; but whether the de-
fendant was an "alligator" in this sense would be seen
ny the evidence. The Rev. Robert Cooper was a clerk
in holy ord,irs, and formerly held a curacy in Wiltshire,
nu*, he had been completely ruined by the course into
which the defendant had led him. He had either paid
or given s.eurity to the defendant to the extent of
4,0001. arid had given up his curacy. The triends of the
Rev. Mr. Cooper filed a bill in Chancery against the de-
fendant, the object of which was to make him disgorge
some of the money which he had rec.ived, and t stop
the circulation of certain bill, to the amount of 1,0001.,
which Ir. Cooper bad accepted. In the bill in Chan-
cery the defendant wa. &Aced when, and from whom he
had purchased certain st A, to which he had answered
that tis answer would expose him to penalties under the
Stock Jo bing Act He could not, th. refute, complain
of the prevent proceedings, which had been instituted by
the friends of Mr. Gayer, who telt ha' he was bound to
corn- into the witin.-as box and state the w h of the facts.

The Rev Rub.-rt (J ..per was tha-n exmoined by Mr.
M Bata, in the year 1846 I bec4tne acqusieted
.i,h the & fendant. I was introduced to him by Mr.
Youngmichtel. The defendant was an agent. He bad
the seat of an office at No 6, Spread Eagle court, near
Threadneedle-street. The offico b.-loinced to Mr. West,
who afterwards gate it up to Mr. Crook. Soon after I
was introduced to the defendant I had transactions with
him in buying and selling stock. That began in the year
1847. Claims were made from time to time for diffe-
rences, which he said I owed him. The result was, I
gave several bills of exchange in respect of the alleged
differences. (The bills of exchange were here called for
by the plaintiff, but not produced by the defendant.)
The amount of differences was about 1,5001. I paid the
defendant some amount in cash; that was about 4001.
In December, 1848, I was in London; I was not at that
time possessed of 60,0001. consols. I never had any con-
sols. I should say the defendant was aware of that. I
gave the order by word of mouth, in the efface, I believe.
I ordered him to sell 60,000/. stock. He left the office,
and was absent about ten minutes. On his return ho
gave me the contract. This is the document. It is in
the defendant's handwriting. (The paper was then put
in and read as follows :

" London, Dec. 29, 1848.
" Sold for the Rev. Robert Cooper 60,0001. Consols, at
88k, for the 16th of December.
" WILLIAM BLoxAm.")
On the 2d of January I gave him an order to sell more
stock. The amount then was 20,000/. I had no Con-
sols. The defendant left the office, and on his return he
gave me a contract. This is it:—(The paper was then
put in and 'read, as follows:

" Slid for the Rev. Robert Cooper 20,000/. Console, at
88i. for the 16th of J towtry. `6 W. B.")
" London, Jan. I, 1849.
I had an Console. It was a mere time bargain. I had
to pay the ditf,rence on the 16th. On the '23d of Ja-
nuary I gave the defendant an order to buy; that was in
his office, or somewhere about. He
gave me this paper
as the advice note of the buying.—(The bought note for
50,0004 was here read.) On the same day I gave him
directions to buy 80,000/. Consols. The defendant af-
terwards gave roe memorandum of the difference.—
(1 he I,.2.ritudutti as here put. in and read, staling
the witness's 1036 to be 6904 153.) No transfer was made
of stook.