The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-15 00:00:00

CORN AVERAGES.

For the Week ended Feb. 15.1848,1 made O
up from the Returns of the
IttsPeetors in the different Cities and Towns in Eagland and Wales
Per Imperial Quarter.
WHEAT. I '
BARLEY. OATS. I EEL. BEANS. I AS.
I•• 45s lid I 29s 3d 17s 3d 27s 2dl 30s Ild 33s Od
DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.
43 Z. 1 BAXLEY. I OATS. I RYE. I BEANS. I YEAS.
Is Od is Od Is Od Is Od Is ad

OUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)
The llouse sat again to-day for the purpose of hear-
ing Scotch appeals. The Peers present were the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Campbell, and the Earl of Eglintou.

BAIN AND OTHERS V. BLACK AND OTHERS.
This case came before their Lordships upon an appeal
of the members of the Free Church of Scotland from a
bdgment of the Court of Session, deciding that that
body had no interest in certain churches erected prior
~,t0 the disruption that had taken place in the Scotch
Qiurch. The appellants contended that all the parties
!unnected with the Scotch Church having assisted by
luntary contributions and otherwise in the erection of
the
churches, they were entitled to have the amount so
!cetributed by them returned, or to participate in the
use and benefit of the churches.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Dunlop appeared as counsel for the
and Mr. pnStuart Wortley and Mr. Gordon were
sintiffs,
support of the judgment of the Court below.
The case appears likely to occupy their Lordships
souse days.

RIV y COUNCIL.—(THIS DAY.)
tin he Judicial Committee of the Privy Council con-
st,cd their sitting to-day to hear appeals. Their Lord
.at in the council chamber, NV hitehall. The Lords
ot;feseut were Lord Brougham, Lord Langdale (Master
f Rolls), the Judge of the Admiralty Court, the
Ituancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall, and Sir Edward
413,.an; Their Lordships were occupied the whole
-lithg with the further arguments in the part-heard
...ke of

RIJRADHAN MOOKURJIA V. MUTHORANATII.
fr This case came before their Lordships upon appeal
°at the decision of Mr. Robertson, acting Judge of the
'curt of Sadder, in Bengal.
thit appeared that after several adjudications in favour of
a„e responden:s in the inferior courts in Bengal, on an
orlaieal to the Court of Sudder, upon the respective claims
so to
appellant, who asserted that he was the adopted
net Gunsham Moukurjia, whose property formed the
atter in dispute, and of the respondents, Muthoraneth
loci Others, sons of Goluk Chunder Mookurjia, also an
topted son of the testator, Mr. Robertson decided that
sue witnesses who were brought forword to prove the
tet of the adoption of Huradhan Mookurjia were
angers. gavde their in so unsatisf a
•
man tier that dependence couldence not be placedactor on the
r
ltY of their statements, and that the documents
?tea-need for the purpose of establishing his adoption
the decd ist on that had been alreadyCo i
given ne favour of the
leisPc'edents. The appellant now humbly submitted that
or Robertson's view of the evidence adduced on his
lialf was entirely erroneous, and stated that the face
re `"e adoption was proved by the presence of the Goo-
, 'ePurshita and brothers, relationg, and connexions,
1,1.14,1.137 the utmost publicity being given, and that the
tie -nseLludge was mistaken in supposing that the wit-
P aBsed ..:°3 deposed to the adoption of the appellant ap-
Tehere; '3 be strangers and inhabitants of other places.
banoeritrardians of the appellant while he was in his mi
Petitioned the Sudder Court tor a review of judg-
leant' but their prayer was rejected and they obtained
smvetilto appeal to her Majesty's. Council in England ;
nt., appellant, who had since attained his majority,
of thPraYed the Council to -reverse or alter the decision
apCourt of Sadder.
ltraNEa and Mr. MAIILE were Counsel for the
v_re lant, and arguedat great length yesterda, that he
itti4j adopted by Gunsham Mookurjia, with alt the usual
to' necessary forms and ceremonies in such cases in that
untry.
ant.•WIGRAM (with whom was Mr. Lloyd) appeared
the the respondents, and submitted that the witnesses for
fsetaPpellant were not worthy of credit, and that the
, of their being subordinates or strangers, when
o jeetable individuals, who would have had a greater
Itrnunity of knowin the facts, if true, which were
ancialPted to be proved gon the other side, could be called,
ci)uwern not called, was calculated to throw much suspi-
rn,°: his case.
4,o7l,arguments were not concluded when our of ter.
'dition went to press.

•
VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Vice-Chancellor of ENGLAND.)
The SHARPE V. ARBUTHNOT.
l eu,. further arguments in this part-heard motion oc-
wireiied his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England the
e inorning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
The HAWKINS V. JACKSON.
1141 arguments were resumed in this part-heard case,
claeopied the Court the whole morning,
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
BItALMONT V. RANKIN.
this e arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
rnorran—,
16 and occupied the Court the whole day.
irr e suit was instituted to establish a right under an
ship power of attorney from the owners of the
acg Miracle, consigned with a cargo of timber from St.
cargon's itself Brunswick, to Liverpool, and also to the
peered , free from any charge for freight. It ap-
04r that the defendants, Mackay and Co., who carried
uosiness at St. John's, built vessels in which they
botcaPed timber, and sent them to Liverpool, where
t, h_ip and cargo were sold. In February, 1841,
nuotendants, Mackay and Co., entered into an
;.r6a. gement with the plaintiffs, whereby it was agreed
tbai should become the agents of Mackay and Co.;
withina house should be establiAled in Glasgow
pitti,,,._six months by blackay and Co.; that the
"'""a 8110Uld grant thew an open credit, of which