The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-22 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 22, 1849

original resolution would be agreed to, and any new
charges reserved for the committee.
Mr. HANWICK declined to comply with this re-
quest.
Mr. KATE then proceeded to enter into some details
connected with the loans that the board of directors
had made to themselves and others, out of the
funds of the company, which it would be seen he had
collected from a Parliamentary return, and called upon
the auditors to give some explanation of the circum-
stances under which the loans were made. He con.
eluded by thating that at a meeting of the Manchester
shareholders—those whom he now represented—came
to the following resolution :—" That any investigation
to be satisfactory to the shareholders at large, as cal-
culated to re-establish confidence in the Board of Di-
rection, must be full, searching, and impartial, em-
bracing all the affairs of the company and ma-
nagement and proceedings of the directors, and
must be conducted by shareholders of known
and acknowledged character and station, wholly un-
connected with and uninfluenced by the directors,
tnd that the directors ought to pledge themselves to
give in person such information as may be required
if them, as well as to produce and show without any
reserve all Woks and accounts under their care and
control.

Mr. R. D. MANGLES' M.P., wished to say a few
words, and they should be but a very few as his time
was valuable. He had come there to investigate
charges of fraud against the directors, and he pro-
rested against all idea of their going into investigation
of the past policy of the company.
Mr. KAYE protested that neither he nor his friends
had made any charges of fraud against the directors.

Mr. R. D. MANGLES was not present at the last
meeting, but he certainly understood that the
charges were charges of fraud. Now the
chairman had admitted that his board had
fallen occasionally into error in prosecuting some of
their undertakings; but he asked at the same time
what other railway board in the kingdom had not
committed similar mistakes ? The Hon. Gentleman
might have gone further, and asked what body of
railway shareholders was there in the country that
had not fallen into error ? Why, he remembered the
day when the shareholders were loud in throwing
out taunts against the directors for not
proceeding fast enough with her schemes and
as for the advice that came from Manchester, let them
remember this that not a bankruptcy had taken
place of late years in the north which was not
attributable to the bankrupts having entered too
largely in railway speculations, and he therefore
could not help feeling that this advice came with a
bad taste from the Manchester proprietor.
A PROPRIETOR here rose to order, but before he
could utter a single word, the vast majority of
the meeting rose ed maw, and set up a
deafening cries of " Turn him out." The proprietor,
however, stood his ground for some time, but to no
purpose ; the yells and shouts ultimately beat him
down, and
Mr. MANGLES proceeded with his address, observ-
ing that the present policy of railway shareholders
reminded him forcibly of the conduct of a child, who,
when he ran up against a chair, turned round and
pummelled it. He protested against their entering upon
the sea •f general policy. The question must be
narrowed into a personal one, and in order to come
at once to it, the best thing they could do was to
agree, without further delay, to the original resolution.
Mr. Serjeant GAZELEE, amidst renewed confusion,
claimed the right to address the meeting, but it was
some time before he could obtain a hearing.
At length silence was restored, when the
Learned Sergeant was understood to say,
that both the sratement and the pamphlet
of the chairman were capable of refutation. He
would not, however, endeavour to enter upon it then,
but leave it for the committee to dispose of all the
questions that had been raised, either for or against
Lhe directors. Let it be distinctly understood what
the directors were charged with. Those who im-
pugned the past policy of the directors, did
not attribute the falling of in the receipts
to the carrying out of extension to the
south, but to their wasteful expenditure
upon the Waterloo-bridge, the Windsor and Brent-
rord and such like lines, and if the directors could
succeed in satisfying the minds •f the committee
upon the points connected with those lines he and
those who acted with him would be the first, not
only to support a vote of confidence in them, but to
vote each of them 2,0001. a yevr for life if the share-
holders so wished it.

The CHAIRMAN having heard patiently the state-
ments against him and his brother-directors, now
wished to explain to the meeting the animus which
had characterised the proceedings and actuated the
feelings of the committee appointed at the last meeting.
Mr. Kaye, not content with looking into his (the
chairman's) own private affairs as disclosed by the
books of the company, had the indelicacy to go to his
bankers and question them as to the cash balance he
nad in their hands on the occasion of their paying
to the company on his account a suns of 50,0001.—
(Shame.) But that was not all. He understood
that the committee entered upon a lengthened inves-
tigation upon the pass-systetn, but, not content with

the pass-book, they sent down an especial commission
to Basingstoke to examine the station-master there
upon the subject of his (the Chairman's) family pass-
ing olong the line tree.—Shame.) Now, he put it
to the meeting, were such men fit to govern this
company.

Mr. Locke, M.P., the former engineer of the com-
pany, amidst some confusion protested that the
statement of the chairman was unfounded. He had
sat on the committee referred to, and he
had no hesitation in stating that the
statement he had just made as to the
pass system was entirely unfounded. The fact was
there had been whisperings out of doors as to the
manner in which the chairman distributed his passes,
and the investigation referred to by him was insti-
tuted by himself, and at his own request, to get rid of
the insinuations that were indulged in out of doors.—
(Hear, hear.) Now with regard to the immediate
question under discussion, he would at once
state that he did not believe the resolu-
tion moved from the chair would be pro-
ductive of no good, nor would it result in clearing
the characters of the directors. He was free to
admit, with the Chairman, that he had frequently
advised policies that had proved most suicidal ; and
with the same frankness he would confess that he
had no confidence in the existing board. He did
not mean to impute to them any misconduct—
they had been only guilty of errors of judgment,
like himself, but in the altered circumstances of the
time and the undertaking, they are not fit men to
manage this groat company. Who: be wanted was a
thorough change; but no personal inquiry of this
sort could produce that change ; and if the directors,
for whom ee entertained the highest respect, were
really desirous of receiving the confidence of thcia
'shareholders, and the respect of the world, they would
at once adopt the course hehad suggested.
The CHAIRMAN accepted the explanation of the
Hon. Gentleman, and expressed his deep regret at
hav:ng misunderstood the matter relating to passes .
After some further discussion,

Captain MOORSONE, who stated that he represented
34,0001. worth of stock, announced his intention to
vote against the original resolution, believing with
Mr. Lock, that the only method to establish the
stability of the company was a thorough change in
the system of management.
Mr. HAYES was at a loss to know what charges
had been made against the directors. He certainly
had heard none, and he, therefore, could see no reason
for enquiry.
Mr. SMITH replied, that at the last meeting the
directors were charged with mis-appropriating the
funds of the company during the panic, and that was
the charge to be enquired into.
Mr. BAKER, who was accused of making this
charge, repudiated any thing of the sort. He made
no charge, he simply asked the Chairman, at the last
meeting, whether it was true or not that such and
such snms had been appropriated in such and such a
manner.

Mr. Under-sheriff WIRE supported the original
resolution, believing that the directors would come
out of the inquiry with clean hands.
After some further discussion, the amendment was
negatived, and the original resolution carried by a
large majority.
The re• election of the committee was then entered
upon and proceeding when our reporter left.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Nisi I'rius, at
_Guildhall, before the LORD

- -
CHIEF BARON and a Common Jury.)
The Court was occupied during the greater portion or
the day with the case of "Johnson v. Boulcott," which
possessed no feature of interest, the only question lacing
as to 1611, which it was alleged belonged to a bankrupt
estate. The Learned Judge thought there was no evi-
d?nce to go to the jury, and accordingly a verdict under
his direction was found for the defendant.

ASPREY v. DELAHIY .
The plaintiff was an attorney and solicitor, carrying
on business at Furnival's Inn, and the defendant was a
gentleman residing in Hertfordshire, and the action was
brought to recover 3001. upon a mortgage dated 25th
November, 1842, and interest, at the rate of 51. per cent.
The defence was that the deed was for 4001., while, in
reality. the debt was only 3001.; and this being so, it was
contended flat the deed was a corrupt bargain and con-
trivar ee to t‘ et more than 5/. per cent. interest, and thus
to avoid the oper pion of the usury law.
The CHIEF BARoN in summing up, said there could
be no doubt that interest above 5 per cent. was illegal
where the security was upon land, but the present deed
was free from any defect whatever and no evidence had
been given of usury, therefore their verdict ought to be
for the plaintiff.
The Jury accordingly returned a verdict for the
Vaintiff 3001. debt, and 1051. interest.
Mr. Yira. son appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cham-
bers for the defendant.

IRELAND.
(FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT.)
DUBLIN, FRIDAY EVENING.—There has been a
fierce discussion in the corporation these two days, on
a motion of Mr. Reynolds, M P., for the reduction of
the town-clerk's salary from 5001. to 2501. per annum
—that functionary at the same time to give up
his entire attention to the business of the
office. This would be putting on the screw
to some purpose, for Mr. Ford, the town-
clerk, who holds no less than eight situations, gets
the business of town clerkship performed for 1001. a-
year, and pockets the other 4001. The "discussion"
to-day approximated very closely to a pugilistic
contest—five or six members essaying to speak
at a time, and all sorts of pugilistic gestures
exhibited by the disputants. Of course, Mr.
Reynold's motion will be defeated for this
reason he is a director of the Hibernian Bank,
to which establishment there are but very few of their
honours indebted for accommodation.

The Protection movement is still reaching. At a
meeting called for Tuesday by the landlords of Long
ford, and presided over by the High Sheriff, a son of
Baron Lefroy, one of the judges, the assembled mag-
nates were completely foiled by an amendment pro-
posed by a gentleman named Fleming, to the follow-
ing effect :
" Resolved,—That the first and most important step
towards enabling all classes of the community to meet
the difficulty of the preseet times rests with the landlords
of the country, who, by a prtnipt and sufficient reduction
of their rents, combined with the privilege to their te-
nents of a long and secure tenure, can at once promote
the improvement of their own estates, the employment
of the labouring population, and the welfare of all."
This amendment, which was received with im
mense cheering, was seconded by the Rey. Mr
M‘Gayer ; and tho alternative being given to Mr
Lefroy to put it or leave the chair, he adopted the
latter course, when it was carried with tremendous
acclamation, all the Protectionist landlords quitting
the Court-house. The truth of the matter is, the
farmers of Ireland are 'willing enough to go with the
landlords in an attempt to re-imposela tribute on the
manufacturing industry of England ; but they must
have a qutd pro quo, and that to such an extent as
would involve the loss of many landlords' rights of
reversion. Thus selfishneas combats with selfishness ;
and the bitterness between both parties is becoming
daily more intense. The tone of some Liberal
journals which had been wavering, has become far
more firm against any food-tax, from the events of
the past week ; and even those which had declared for
" some protection," give it up as hopeless, and revert
to the only other mode of relieving Ireland a
sweeping reduction of the rack-rents.
Amongst the reverses of fortune which improvidence
and bad times have produced, there is scarcely one
more striking than the case of a western peer whose
ancestor came to this country under William the
Thirh, and whose magnificent mansion, built at an
expense of some one hundred and !twenty thousand,
now stands tenantless, except by the keepers of
a receiver. The late owner is about to emi-
grate to Australia ; and I understand so
reduced is this once princely family, that the
young ladies have been compelled to enter other
houses as governesses, &c. Another instance is that
of a baronet, ostensible owner of a large property,
being a poor-law collector on his own (formerly)
estate, and another baronet is acting, at this moment,
as turnkey in Cork gaol.
THE FUNDS, DEC. 21.—Three per Cent. Consols,
for opening, 161 * ; Three-and-a-Quarter per Cent.
Stock, 961; Hibernian! Bank, 25; Dublin and Belfast
Junction Railway, si; Great Southern and Western,
30; Mining Company of Ireland, 5; Dublin and Belfast
Junction, si; Midland Great Western Railway and
Royal Canal, 23f.

to her chargeability she swore that she was the wife
of Mark Smith, and was married to him in Sculcoates
church. This was disproved, and Mark Smith him-
self swore that he was never married to her.

His LORDSHIP said, if the jury could rely on the
evidence of Mark Smith they must find the prisoner
guilty.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and she was
sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
This case concluded the business of this court.
NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr. Justice
WILLIAMS).
William Hanson was indicted for perjury, for
having sworn at the last winter assizes at York, in a
prosecution against five men, named West, Leigh-
towler, Clifford, Hall, and Jowett, charged with a
highway robbery upon him, that he had not said
" that he could not swear to any of:the parties that
robbed him " to two policemen, named Routh and
Wright immediately after the robbery; and that he
had not said that the men that robbed him had blue
smocks on, and he could not identify them.
Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Shaw prosecuted, and Mr.
hardy defended the prisoner.
It appeared that the prisoner had prosecuted the
five men named in the indictment for a highway rob-
bery, at the last winter assizes, committed upon him
very early in the morning of the 25th of July; and
after a great many witnesses had been examined on
their behalf they vi ere convicted and sentenced to be
transported for ten years. On that trial the prisoner
swore that he had never said to two constables, to
whom he made a complaint immediately after the rob-
bery, "that the men who robbed him were dressed in blue
smocks, and he could not identify them." Wit-
nesses were called to prove that he said this at the
trial ; and one of the constables was called to prove
that he had used those words after the robbery. The
witnesses, however, differed so much in their account
of what took place at the trial, and also as to what
the prisoner had said after the robbery, that the
counsel for the prosecution said there was so much
discrepancy in the evidence that they could not go on
with the case.

Mr. HALM', on the part of the prisoner, thought
it right to say that he was prepared with evidence to
show that the prisoner was materially confirmed in
the statement which he had made at the trial.

His LORDSHIP, in directing the jury to acquit the
prisoner, said, the case turned on the recollection of
conversations, and the very witnesses called to prove
the conversations contradicted each other, and also
gave totally different accounts of what had happened
at the trial. This case showed how dangerous it was
in this, and also in other cases, to act conclusively on
the reports of conversations.

- •
The jury immediately Acquitted the prisoner.
This case concluded the assizes.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Dec. 21.

(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant• Judge, and
a Bench of Magistrates.)

William Squires and William Weehes wore in-
dicted for an assault committed upon a gentleman
named Hardwick.

Mr. Parry conducted the case for the prosecution.
It appeared that the prosecutor is a gentleman who
is extensively engaged as a shipper of goods to the
colonies, and lives at N 0.12, South-street, Finsbury. In
the course of the last month the prosecutor entered
into an arrangement to buy two pianofortes from the
defendant Squires for the sum of 461. One of these
instruments only was delivered in due course of the
agreement on Saturday, the 24th ult, ; and for that
the prosecutor at once gave the defendant a cheque
for 231. The second, however, was not delivered
until late in the evening of the following Saturday,
but on its being tried by a professional friend of the
prosecutor it was found to be of a very inferior
character. Upon this discovery being made, the
prosecutor called upon the defendant Squirts, and
told him to fetch the instrument away, as he would
not keep it at any price. He also desired that
he would give him the average price of the two, so
that he might at once pay him any difference there
might be in the price of the pianoforte which had
been in the first instance delivered and the amount of
231. which he had already paid for it. Squires ac-
cordingly put the average at 251. for the bettermost
instrument, and 211. for the inferior one ; but he at
the same time said that he would fit up another,
which should be of an equally good quality with the
first, the prosecutor offering to make up the differ-
ence by paying in the whole 4sl. instead of 461. as
originally agreed upon. Thus they parted, with the
understanding that Squires was to send for the in-
ferior instrument. Accordingly, on the 3d of the
present month, Squires, in company with the other
defendant, Weekes, proceeded to the house of the
prosecutor. Weekes is the proprietor of some vans,
and had conveyed the pianoes to the prosecutor's.
When the two defendants had entered the house,
the prosecutor, having been called down stairs, pointed
out to them the inferior instrument us that which was
to be removed. After they had taken that out of the
house the defendants commenced making preparations
for the purpose of taking the other one also, where-
upon the prosecutor interfered, remarking that that
pianoforte suited him, and, as he had paid 231. towards
its value on the delivery, he should keep it. Squires
would appear at once to have flown into a rage, tx-
i claiming that as he was to take one he would take
both; he laid hold of the prosecutor by the coat-col-
lar and swung him round to Weekes, who then held
him by the collar with both hands until the defendant,
with the assistance of four or five other persons, had
managed to accomplish the removal. In consequence
of the noise which was made, a Mrs. Pettifer, to whom
the house in question belonged, came into the room
where this scene was being enacted, when, seeing the
prosecutor in the rough handling of the defendant
Weekes, she went up and told the latter that he
ought to be ashamed of himself for his conduct.
Weekes, instead of expressing any symptoms of re-
gret, said that if she had been swindled out of her
property she would have adopted just the same steps
for its recovery as those which they were acting upon.
Several witnesses were called in support of the case
for the prosecution, all of whom spoke in the most
positive and distinct terms as to the violence of the
treatment the prosecutor had received from the two
defendants.

The defendants, however, in their defence, denied
that the slightest violence had been used in the affair ;
indeed they asserted that the prosecutor had not only
pointed out the instruments to them, but that he had
stood by and looked on as they were removing them.
Trey then called two sons of Squires, and one of his
apprentices, who maintained that there had not been
any violence shown towards the prosecutor, but that,
on the contrary, he had himself taken up a piece of
iron, with which he had threatened to strike one of
the defendants.

The Learned JUDGE having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against both
of the defendants.

The Learned JUDGE said that this was a very
serious case in itself, but it had been rendered doubly
so by Squires having put his own sons into the
witness-box for the express purpose of their com-
mitting wilful perjury. There were many matters to
be taken into consideration, and therefore he should
respite the sentence until a future session, and in the
mean time something must be done by Squires in
respect of the money which the prosecutor bad paid
for one of the instruments.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Sir P. Laurie called at the justice-room in the
course of the morning, to state that he had received
a very pressing letter from a poor man at Dundee,
who was anxious to ascertain the ftte of a missing
brother, and Sir Peter would feel obliged if any one
would take the trouble to give him any information
on the subject. The brother had heard that such a
person bad been found drowned in the Thames about
six months ago, but the newspaper file had been
searched in ♦ain. The name of the missing person
was James Petrie, and, though a gilder by trade, he
was reduced to selling newspapers about railway
stations when he was last beard of. He is represented
as being a man of middle stature, and thin, and as
having rather reddish whiskers, blue eyes, a some-
what elongated face, with a nose three inches long,
and rather thick and prominent, especially towards
the point.
Mr. Alderman HUNTER begged to announce the
receipt of 20/. in aid of the poor-box of Guildhall
police-office, the annual donation of the Goldsmiths'
Company, and requested an acknowledgment through
the public press.

THAMES.
James Dailey, a fish hawker, was brought before
Mr. Ingham, as he was about to leave the bench,
charged with assaulting Police-constable Charles
Rowbery, 347 K, in a most brutal manner. The
prisoner and the policeman appeared to have been
engaged iu a severe conflict, and were covered with
mud.

Rowbery stated, that about halt past two that
afternoon he saw the prisoner in the Broadway,
Stratford, Essex, very drunk and disorderly, and sur-
rounded by a crowd of turbulent characters. Witness
said to him, " Dssey, go home." The prisoner im-
mediately seized him by the collar, threw him on
his back_ in a heap of mud, and fell upon him,
exclaiming, " You --, you tried to rob me on
Saturday night. I wish it was dark for your sake;
if it was, I -would servr you as one of your
was served twelve months' ago."

The prisoner, in his defence, said he 'was drink-
ing at the Angel public-house, and went out in front
of the place .with a pint pot in his hand, when the
poli.43eman interfered, and said, "If you don't drink
the porter very quickly, I shall lock you up ;" ar,d, be-
cause he would not swallow his porter immedHely,
laid hold of him. The prisoner then called the ma-
gistrate's attention to the state of his clothes, which
were torn, and to the bruises on his face.
Mr. INGHA3I—I have no doubt those 17ave been
caused by your own violence.

James Brown, 308 K, said he was called upon to
extricate Rowbery, who was in the prisoner's grasp.
Dasey was kneeling upon Rowbery, and had hold of
his throat, and was punching him as hard as he was
able. Be heard the prisoner say he would have
Rowber)'s life.
Waller, the messenger of the court, said that while
he was an inspector of the K division the prisoner
savagely assaulted two police-constables, bit one on
the thigh, which he severely lacerated, and kicked
the other on the mouth after he had knocked him
down. For this offence the prisoner was committed
to prison for one mouth by the Ilford Bench.

INGUAM said it was perfectly clear the priso-
ner was a most brutal ruffian, accustomed to such
outrages as these, and the expression he made use of
to Rowbc.ry, that if he caught him in the dark he
would do for him, required no explanation. He
should not be doing his duty to the public if he did
not pass a very severe sentence on such a vagabond
as the prisoner. He should order him to pay a fine of
305., and in default of payment commit him to the
flowe of Correction at Ilford for 14 days.
The prisoner was sent away to gaol.