The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-31 00:00:00

WITH IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:-

Lancaster and Preston Junction Railway (Acts
amendment; power to alter tolls, and for appointment
of officers).
Same (junction with the East Lancashire Railway in
Preston, and amendment of Acts).
Severn Navigation Improvement Commission.
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway and Edinburgh and
Glasgow -Union Canal (amalgamation, or sale, or lease of
the Union Canal to the railway company).
Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society (incorpo-
rating and conferring powers).
Kirkcaldy Harbour, Docks, Ferry, and Customs.
Lnnarkshire (East and West Line), and ; Glasgow
and Sbott's Turnpike Road (amendment of Acts).
ADJOURNED.—Windsor (Extension of the Windsor,
Staines, and South Western, Richmond to Windsor
v,ith power to the London and South-Western
Railway Company to subscribe.
COMMITTEE ROOM, NO. 22.
(Before Mr. MAY and assistants, Messrs. GUNNELL and
PALK.)
STANDING ORDERS COIIPLIFD WITH.

Lancashire and Yorshire Railway (Extension of
Ashton branch of Clitton, and abandonment of part of
Clifton branch extension, extension of time for purchase
of lands, regulation of capital, and amendment of Acta).
Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Rail-
way (Abandonment of part of line, extension to London
and North-Western, extension of time for purchase of
land, alteration of tolls, decrease of capital, and amend-
ment of Acts).
Same (power to sell or lease to the London and
North-Western, the Chester and Holyhead, or the
Shrewsbury and Chester Companies, or to amalgamate
therewith).
York, Newcastle, and Berwick (Barmouth and Ala_
mouth new branches, extension or time for branches,
power to subscribe to Sunderland Docks).
Sama (Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Carlisle, Railway,
lease and amalgamation).

Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-
Western Railway- Companies (Transfer of interest in the
Preston and Pyre Railway, Harbour, and Dock, and
for regulating management of undertaking).
Dublin Improvement.—This is an application for the
general improvement of the city of Dublin, as regards
drainage, sewerage, cleansing, and lighting, proposing
to appoint commissioners and a council who shall have
the power of levying rates not exceeding 11s. in the
pound for paving., lighting, and cleansing ; and not ex-
ceeding 6d. in the pound for sewerage, drainage, and
other objects ; also to enable them to raise a sum of
100,0001., and therewith to pay off another of 40,0001.
Proofs of non-compliance, not of a materially seri-
ous description, w ere adduced, and,
The Court adjourned at four o'clock.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.
LONDON AND GREENWICH.

Yesterday the usual half-yearly meeting of proprietors
was held at the Company's office, 10, Coleman-street;
Mr. Shadbolt in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN said before the accounts for the half•
year were laid before them, which was generally the
only business of the meeting, he was sorry to have to
report that since they last assembled together the com-
pany had sustained a loss of nearly 1,0001. from a frau-
dulent forgery of certificates committed by a young man
who had been four years in the company's service as a
clerk, and who had originally come to them strongly
recommended from the Blue-coat School. The youth
was very respectably connected, and had conducted him-
self very honestly and efficiently until his recent
misconduct was brought to light. The lad bad ab-
sconded, and was now supposed to have escaped to
America; but the directors had employed Forrester to
take the necessary steps to effect his apprehension. The
forgery had been perpetrated with a degree of ingenuity
that eluded the most careful supervision of the secre-
tary and the directors ; but the beard thought they had
now devised such measures as would preclude the com-
pany from being ever again made the victims of such
dishonesty. The loss thus occasioned would make no
difference in the dividend this year, because there were
ample fluids to meet it ; but it would, perhaps, be ne-
cessary to delay the increase of the future dividend, to
compensate for the defalcation. The directors greatly
regretted this circumstance, but with all the care in th•
world, forgeries could not be always guarded against.
Mr. WILSON (director) then submitted the profit and
loss account. It was as follows :

Dn.
To dividend of 3s. 9d. per share on
43,077/. original shares ... .. £8,076 18 9
To Interest—Bonds, 5,8321. 10s. ; Pre-
ference Shares, 5,5681. ...
To hall-year's annuity to Mr. Nash
To Property-tax
To expenses—Salaries and Directors'

remuneration, 2691. 10s. ; refit Vof
office, advertising, &c., 721. Os. 3d ...
Balance

~.......... ._____
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 30.
MAGGIONI V. DELAFIELD.
It will be remembered that a few days since, perhaps
ten, a,report of this case appeared in our colums under
the head of " Sheriffs' Court." The action was brought
to recover flip sum of 1051. for salary alleged to be due,
,and for money due for work and labour to the plaintiff,
in the capacity of foreign correspondent and inter-
preter in respect to the claim for salary, and in the
capaeity of translator, adapter, and writer ofthe
libretti of operas produced at the Royal Italian Opera,
lessee
n of which the defendant became the
Il the month of August, 1847, as the work and labour
It
The defendant allowed judgment togo by default.s
was proved upon inquiry, that when the negotiations
were progressing between the defendant and Signori
Persiani and Galetti, and Mr. Beale, that the latter
placed before him several engagements which had been
made with the different artistes and others, and amongst
them was that of the present plaintiff. The defendant
unddrtook to stand in the shoes, as it were, of the then
lessees, and to take all the contracts they had entered
into upon his own shoulders. The plaintiff was to have
$0!. per annum to conduct the foreign correspondence,
and to act, if necessary, as an interpreter, and was also
to be paid Si. for each libretto to be translated, or adapted,
or might write, for the establishment. The action
was bropght for one year's salary, whilst the remainder
orllbe ellEm was for work and labour. The jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, 1951.
Mr. Kennedy; some days since, obtained a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
a new inquiry be had, or the damages reduced by a de-
duction of the 801. awarded for salary, on the ground
that there bad not been any evidence of the existence of
a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and
for a misdirection of the Under-Sheriff who had presided
at the inquiry.
Mrs E. Jesus now appeared to show cause, and con-
tended that a written contract, seeing that the engage-
ment had only been by the season and not by the year,
was not requisite, and that the fact of the defendant
having had no specific engagement with the plain-
tiff read over and explained to him, and then his
having taken it upon his, own shoulders was abundant
proof of the contract.
Mr. KENNEDY was about to offer arguments in sup-
pqd, of the rule, but
—Mfr. Baron ROLFE said it s unnecessary to trouble
the Learned Gentleman, for has quite clear that there
e
must be proof, under the stat of frauds, of a written
agreement. The rule would, therefore, be made abso-
lute. unless the parties could agree upoa terms.
Bule absolute.
CONSISTORY COURT, Jan. 30.

XII.Es sr. CHILTON, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF MILES.
This was a suit of nullity of marriage by reason of
bigamy, brought by Captain George F. W. Miles against
,jeavinia Jane Mason Chilton, otherwise Miles. The
Mel, which has been admitted, pleaded that a marriage
took place between the party proceeded against and Mr.
Harrison Chilton in December, 1844; that on the sth of
April, 1847, she contracted a de facto marriage with
Captain Miles, Mr. Chilton, her husband, being then I
still living. In response to the libel, the party proceeded
against brought in an allegation, which now stood for
admission, and likewise offered an allegation of faculties,
in order to obtain an allotment of alimony pending the
suit. The admission of the former allegation and the re-
ception of the httenr were opposed. To make the grounds
of opposition intelligible, it is necrsary to state the
leading facts pleaded, although the averments are en-
tirely ex parte. The responsive allegation set forth that
in January, 1845, being then a minor, she was residing
with her husband at Liverpool, when she was induced
ley the earnest entreaties of Captain Miles, an officer
of the 2d Hussars, to leave her husband, and on the
sth of Febrpary she went to live with him, he being
then quarttred at the barracks at Coventry ; that in the
oild of 1845, or beginning of 1846, Captain Miles pro-
posed that she should be legally divorced from Mr. Chil-
ton, and married to him, and, by intervention of a
common friend of Mr. Chilton and Captain Miles, steps
were taken for that purpose, the latter providing. funds,
and a suit was commenced by Mr. Chilton against his
wife in this court, at the expense of Captain Miles, to
°burin a-divorce on the ground of her adultery, the cita-
tion in that Alit being served upon the wife in February,
1846, whilst she was residing with Captain Miles ; but
this suit yas dismissed for want of prosecution ; but
she was ieformed by Captain Miles that a sentence of
divorce had been obtained, and she was free to marry
again ; that Captain Miles, in January, 1847, endea-
voured to obtain a license for their marriage in England;
but finding an impediment in the terms of the affidavit,
carried her in his yacht to Jersey, where by virtue of
a license obtained from the Dean of Jersey, they were
married on the sth of April, 1847, she fully believ-
ing that she was then legally and effectually divorced
from Mr. Chilton, and able to marry again, and they
lived and cohabited together as man and wife until Jaly,
1847. _ _

Dr. ADDAMS and Dr. R. PHILLIMORE contended. that
the responsive allegation was inadmissible, inasmuch as
the facts alleged therein, if proved, were no bar to a suit
to annul a marriage void under the statute. As to the
averment that she was deceived and imposed upon, it
appeared that she signed her name at the second mar-
riage as " Lavinia Jane Mason Chilton, spinster,"
knowing that she was not a spinster. With regard to
the allegation of faculties, there had been no case of
nullity of marriage, in which, where the wife admitted
the bigamy, as she virtually did in this case, alimony had
been allotted.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE and Dr. HARDING, for the
de facto wife, argued that, where there was a fact of
marriage, it was a general rule that the wife was en-
titled to be alirnentad by the husband; the only excep-
tion to the rule being. where the wife had a competent
income of her own. The responsive allegations could
not be rejected without
.allowing a man to take advan-
tage of his own wrong, which was contrary to every
principle of the law of contracts. Captain Miles had,
according to the wife's plea., seduced her from her hus-
band, and deceived her into a marriage with him, and,
under such circumstances, he was not entitled to appear
as a plaintiff, or to have the remedy he sought.
Dr. LUSILINGTON said, with regard to the allegation
of faculties, he had not the slightest doubt it ought to
be received, unless the facts pleaded in the responsive
allegation barred the other party from proceeding per-
small exceptione. The doctrine, however, that mar-
riage was a contract in which a party could not obtain
redress for a fraud of which he was cognizant had never
been recognised in these courts in matrimonial suits. If
he were to admit this allegation, he must in every case
open the door to an examination of the whole of the facts
and circumstances under which a second marriage took
place, and refuse a remedy to every party proceeding,
husband or wife, who should be proved to have been
cognisant of the invalidity of that marriage at the time.
Suppose he were to admit this allegation and refuse
to pronounce this marriage null and void, and sup-
pose the wife should bring a suit for the restitution
of conjugal rights, .could he refuse to entertain
that suit, or was ha to compel the party now pro-
ceeding to live with a woman who was not his
w)fe? It would throw the whole marital relations into
cotnplete epnfusion. Admitting the facts pleaded in the
resozsiyas allegation to bear the construction put upon
the bjrfohnsel, he was clearly of opinion that they
could nneaffee judgment he had to pronounce; and,
twin g of that eon, he was bound in duty to reject that
all'Eption. respect to the allegation of faculties,
the principle was, that where a fact of marriage was al-
leged or proved, alimony pendente lite followed as a
matter of course in all cases, except %here the wife had
a provision of her own. He, therefore, rejected the al-
legation in the prinoipal cause, and received the allega-
tion of faculties.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
George Philcoz, a young man of respectable appear-
sive, was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.
Ball4ntine and Mr. Parry prosecuted; Mr. Pren-
dprgast was for the defence.
Mr. BALLANTINE, in opening the case for the prose,
cution, said, that the indictment was preferred by a gen-
tleman named Edward Jones under these circumstances:
—ln the course of last year a person named William
Smith brought the prosecutor a bill of exchange for
as/ 103., endorsed by another person named Henry
James Shaw, and he discounted the bill. When it ar-
rived at maturity it was not paid, and legal proceedings
were taken against Shaw to recover the amount. In
the course of the proceedings the prosecutor had reason
to believe that the defendant in the action intended to
leave the country, and he, in consequence, took the steps
directed by the law to prevent him from doing so,
and made an affidavit before one of the learned
detailing the facts upon which the supposition
judges,
was founded. Smith,
who was the drawer of the bill,
also made an affidavit, rteosucltus,ato'adsy
.thaStoona
capias issued and Shaw wasand thetaken in
.
after this had taken place
the present defendant,
Philcox, who was Shaw's brother-in-law, made
S.D. affidavit in which among other matters, he stated
14th of October and
that Smith called upon him on the
on the Gth of November, and on the first occasion he
said that Mr. Jones authorised him to offer him a sove-
reign if he would swear that Shaw intended to go to
America, and on the second he repeated the offer, and
increased the sum he first mentioned to 51., and, upon
this affidavit being made, Shaw was ordered to be dis-
charged. It was upon these statements that the allega-
tion of perjury was founded, and the question in the
case was, whether the defendant had wilfully and cor-
ruptly made these statements or not.
Pormsl goof having been adduced showing the ex-
istence of the original suit against Shaw, and that the
defendant was duly sworn before Mr. Justice Cresswell,
and that hie made the statements in his affidavit which
formed the subject of the present inquiry,
William Smith, the drawer of the bill was examined,
and ho swore positively that he never made any such
offer as that represented by the defendant, and that he
did not even see him on the days to which he had re-
ferred in his affidavit.

Mr. PRENDERCIA.ST then cross-examined the witness,
who gave rather an extraordinary account of the tran.
action. He at first said that the bill was drawn by him-
self aqd accepted by his father to meet some demands
upon Shaw, WI he afterwards said that it was drawn to
raise money' for himself and Shaw to carry on business
together, and Shaw, on that account, put his name to it
as endorser. He described himself as a carpenter, and
Bed that at this time ho was in difficulties, and the bill
was an accommodation bill. He also said that he saw
Shaw pas Isis name to the bill, bat he denied that he
ve hlsnlielf-,a-crown for doing so. He took the bill to
Mr, Jones, siiid he discounted it for him, and when he
Mil took him the bill he gave him 151., and he was also
to have a clock. as part of the consideration. He was to
give 61. 10s. for the clock, and that sum was deducted
from the amount of the bill, but be said he never had
the clock, which was still in Mr. Jones's possession, and
ho gave Shaw 64 2e. 6d. out of the 151. The witness