The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-19 00:00:00

Hell. What was there in the Articles on baptism
which showed that no room for private judgment was
left there ? They had been told that the doctrine of
the Church of England as well as of the Church of
Rome on the subject of baptism had been the same
for 1;500 years. The doctrine of the Church of Rome
wag explained by Archbishop Laurence to be that
the infant was considered to be in a middle state,
and it was a dispute among the members of that
Church whether grace was conferred by baptism. If
he were asked what was the state of an infant after
baptism, before the grace of God was given to him
—his answer was, that it was one of God's myteries,
into which he ought not to be anxious to inquire.
With respect to the argument used by his friend Mr.
Badeley that day, he was sure that their Lordships
would not expect him to follow that argument with.
out preparation ; indeed, anything short of a year's
preparation would bare been insufficient for that
purpose.
Lord LANGDALE said, at the conclusion of Mr.
Turner's reply, that their Lordships would take time
Ito consider this case, which was
_one of great im-
portance.

COURT OF QUEEIV'S BENCH, Dec. 13.

G 113113 V. LONDON AND NORTA•WESTERN RAILWAY•

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of ye:,t€ rday.)
It was then proposed to put in the receipts. Mr.
Watson objected, and they were ultimately rejected
as evidence. The witness then proved the receipt of
601. per annum, by half-yearly instalments of 30/.
each, during the time the plaintiff was in possession
of the stall. He understood from the late Mr. Long
that the money was for rent. In 1848, Captain Iluish
was the general manager of the company.
Mr. WATSON now objected that there was no evi-
dence of a devise of land, entitling the
plaintiff to pass and repass over the station,
as he claimed by his declaration. The
testimony which had been put in proved no such
right, but rather that the case was granted to the
plaintiff in consideration of 601. per annum to sell
newspapers and publications in tho station. He sub-
mitted therefor.: that the plaintiff ought to be non-
suited.
Mr. CHAMBEIRS, on the other side, insisied that the
declaration made no such claim. It did not aver
that the company devised land to the plaintiff,
ncr did the,, plaintiff claim any such right.
It declared simply that the company, in
consideration of a certain sum of money
to be paid in the way of rent, gave the plaintiff the
right of way over certain premises, and with a licence
to sell publications on a portiun of those premises ;
an I he submitted that, befure the defendants could
have deprived him of that right, they ought to have
given him a legal notice, determining the leave and
lic rice.

Mr. BRAMWELL, on the same side, insisted that
there was evidence to go to the jury of even a detni.e,
since it had been proved that the plaintiff held a stall
from the company under contract, which was a fixture
to the freehold.

The Learned JUDGE ruled that the evidence dis-
closed no cause of action such as that declared upon.
The plaintiff's declaration alleged that the company
devised a portion of the freehold, giving him a certain
estate in it, but he was of opinion that the evidence
faileti to establish any such claim or contract. The
next question raised by the declaration was, had the
defendant wrongfully converted the goods of the plain-
tiff. The evidence, so far from making out that count
distinctly proved that they had done no such thing,
inasmuch as on the night previous to the ejectment
the plaintiff was requested to remove his goods, and
he refused to do so.

Under the direction of the Court, thererore, a verdict
was taken for the plaintiff on the first and laq counts,
and for the defendant on all the other counts, with
leave to move the Court above for a new trial, or to
amend on declaration.

This decision, in point of fact, is tantamount to a
verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 18.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)

ILADCOCK AND ANOTHER V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by Messrs. Badcock,
who are bankers at Taunton, to recover from the
Great Western Railway Company 10500/., the value
of a box of specie which had been entrusted to them
for conveyance between Paddington and Taunton.
The pleas were, first, not guilty; second, denying
that the box and money were delivered to the de-
fendants to b 3 carried ; and' third, that the defendants
were discharged from liability by the Carriers' Act,
as no insurance was paid. To the third plea there was
a replication that the box and money were stolen by
one of the servants of the company.
Sir Frederick Thesiger and Mr. Hill appeared for
the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Hoggins
for the defendants.

It appeared that the box, which contained 1,2001.
in gold, and 3001. in silver, was sent, in the month of
January, 1848, by Messrs. Ransom, the London
bankers, to the Paddington station, for the purpose of
being transmitted to the plaintiffs. One of Messrs.
Ransom's clerks had the box booked at the station,
paying the ordinary charge of twopence, and then
saw it placed in a compartment of a passengers'
carriage, which was set aside for parcels and pack-
ages. 'When the train arrived at Bristol it was
discovered that the lower panelling dividing the
luggage compartment from the passenger compart-
ment had been cut through, and that the lid of the
box had been taken off and the contents
.abstracted.
Experiments were afterwards made which showed
clearly that it was impossible for any one on the passen-
ger side to have forced the !panelling underneath
the seat, or to have broken open the box, and suspicion
consequently fell upon a person named Billings, who
was the guard of the train, and who had charge of the
parcels compartment, and he was given into custody,
but there being no direct evidence against him, he
was acquitted, and the company immediately dis-
charged him from their service. The supposition that
Billings committed the robbery was strengthened a
short time afterwards by his buying for 1201. the
lease and goodwill of a public-house, upon which he
spent a considerable sum in repairs. It appeared
that Billings, previous to his being employed by the
company, had been an omnibus conductor and a po-
liceman.
Several witnesses were called on the part of the
plaintiffs, and they all agreed in thinking that the box
had been opened, and the panelling forced on the
luggage-side of the partition.
(The case had not concluded at the rising of the
Court.)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COUI?71
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
William Hickey, 28, labourer, was indicted for the
manslaughter of William earthy, by stabbing him
with a knife.

Mr. Ballantine defended the prisoner.
The facts of the case have been recently given in
the police reports. It appeared that on the Gth of
June the prisoner and the deceased quarrelled and
fought, and upon the former getting the worst off in
the struggle, he was observed to draw a knife from
his pocket and to stab the deceased on the left side,
and he then ran away and succeeded in making his
escape. The deceased was taken to the University
Hospital, where he remained for three weeks, and
was then discharged, apparently cured. He subse-
quently enlisted into the army, and soon afterwards
he was found to be suffering from some disease of
the lungs, and he died on the 12th November. The
surgeons who were examined stated that the imme-
diate cause of death was an abscess in the lungs, but
they at the same time expressed a confident opinion
that this abscess was the result of the wound that had
been originally inflicted by the prisoner.
Mr. BALLANTINE made an ingenious address to the
jury for the prisoner, and endeavoured to show that
they would not be.justified in convicting him of felo-
niously killing the deceased by stabbing him, when
the evidence made out that the death was caused by
an abscess on the lungs.
The COMMON SERGEANT told the jury that, not-
withstanding the able address of the Learned Counsel,
if they should be of opinion that the evidence made
out that the abscess, which no doubt was the actual
cause of death, was consequent upon the wound in-
flicted by the prisoner, he would be, in law, amenable
to the charge of manslaughter just as much as if the
death had followed upon the wound itself.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The COMMON-SERGEANT, in passing sentence, said
that this nn English practice of using the knife must
be repressed by severe punishment. There was no
end of such cases in every calendar, and he oonsidered
they were a disgrace to the country, and so far as he
was concerned, he determined to put a stop to them.
He then sentenced the prisoner to transportation for
seven years.
Johanna Brown, 21, a tall masculine Irishwoman,
and Margaret Forbes, 18, were indicted for the
capital offence of robbery upon William Williams.
The indictment alleged that at the time of the rob-
bery the prisoners cut and wounded the prosecutor.
It appeared that the prosecutor met Brown in
Westminster, and accompanied her to a notorious
brothel in Castle. court, where they were joined by
the other woman, and on his refusal to comply with
their demands for money, they made a most mur-
derous attack upon him with a Tyler and cut his head
open, and inflicted severe injury upon him, and at
the sane time robbed him of a halfcrown and some
other money.

The jury- found both prisoners Guilty.
The COMMON SERGEANT said it was a very serious
off Lace, and he had no alternative but to order judg-
merit of death to be recorded against them.
The prisoner Brown upon hearing this began to
bellow most stoutly, and as she left the dock she
shrieked out, " Oh, shall Ibe hanged—am I going
to be hanged ?"