The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-14 00:00:00

tion, the judicious writer, the Times of the 28th
ultimo, observes:—

" That legislation ,ron such a matter might, as ;is
usually the case, lead only to intolerable vexations,
is very probable; but a remedy is nevertheless ne-
cessary; and, if there be no other means, the con-
sumers should adopt it for themselves, by purchas-
ing all coffee in an unground state—a plan
which would be altogether effectual, were it not im-
practicable in the case of the very poor. Even, how-
ever, if chicory were proved to be the most wholesome
and agreeable article in existence, it would still seem
hard, that it should be in the power of any dealer
legally to foist it upon those who de not ask for chicory,
but for coffee, and who part with their money in the full
belief that coffee has been served to them."
In conclusion, we would observe, that amid the
praiseworthy efforts making in all quarters to foster
a more elevated standard of public morals, the sub-
stitution of coffee instead of alcoholic fluids, whether
in the form of ardent spirits, or our diurnal beer,
has been attended with decidedly good effects. But
we must not blink the matter, when we say that
the wretched, warm, dirty-coloured water (for it
scarcely deserves any other term) doled out in na•
merous coffee•houses, under the name of coffee,
cannot but materially injure the cause ; and the
pledge-taker (for he evidently proclaims by his
former propensities that he was sensible to the de-
lights of a stimulant) revokes his oath in a moody
fit, and returns to his old habits. We say this from
melancholy experience in not a few instances ; and we
trust that some means will, ere long, be devised by the
Legislature to secure the berry in its original purity
for the consumer, and guard its own exchequer against
the frauds of the unprincipled dealer.—Medical Times.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, March 13.
The House sat again to•day for the purpose of hearing
Scotch appeals; The Peers in attendance were the
Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and
the Bishop of Hereford.

EWAN AND CO., V. SMITH AND CO.
The arguments on this appeal, which were commenced
yesterday, were resumed and concluded to-day. The
case came before their Lordships upon an appeal
from an interlocutor of the Court of Session upon a
question of great importance to merchants, and upon
which eight of the Scotch judges differed from the other
five. The question arose in this way. The respondents,
who are merchants in Glasgow, had the disposal of forty-
two hogsheads of sugar, which arrived at Greenock in
July, 1843, per the ship St. Mary, from Jamaica. They
sold these sugars on the 15th of August, 1843, to Messrs.
Bowie and Co., also merchants in Glasgow. The sugars
were then in the bonded warehouse of Little and
Co., in Greenock, in the name of James Alexander, who
was the agent there of the respondents. The sugars
having been weighed, an invoice of them, together with
an order of delivery on Alexander, was delivered by the
respondents to Bowie and Co., to whom also was de.
livered at the same time for acceptance a bill at four
months for the amount. Messrs. Bowie and Co. did not
accept or return- the bill, nor did they pay any part of the
price; they did not transmit or intimate to Alexander
the note or order on him to deliver the sugars to
them, nor take any steps to get them. Bowie and Co.
stopped payment on the 25th of September, and were put
under sequestration—declared bankrupts—next day.
The respondents wrote on the 25th to their agent,
Alexander, at Greenock, informing him of the failure
of Buwie and Co., and desiring him "to take steps
to secure the sugars lately sold to them, ex St.
Mary, if they are still in the warehouse." Alexsn-
der, acting on these instructions, had the sugar re-
moved on the 27th September from Little's ware-
houre to Kerr's warehouse, in Greenock, and in-
formed Kerr that be bad removed them thither on
account of the respondents, and that he (Kerr) was not
to deliver them to anyone without his (Alexander's)
order, as their agent. It appeared that Bowie and Co.
sold large quantities of sugar, including these forty-two
hogsheads, to the appellants, who are also merchants in
Glasgow. These on the 25th of September, the day on
which Bowie and Co. stopped payment, sent the note of
delivery given to the latter by the respondents in
August to Alexander to deliver the sugars. In his
absence his clerk wrote this note, dated that day (25th
September): "Deliver to the order of Messrs. Ewan
and Co., this date, forty-two hogsheads of sugar, ex St.
Mary," not addressed to any person. Nothing was done
on that note, and the question then arose whether the
respondents were entitled to reclaim or stop the goods,
the vendors, Bowie and Co., having failed to pay for
them, or to accept the bill for the price. The sheriff of
simo efnrtoinitletdh.e aTphpeelLord Ordi•
appellants, held
tßheantfrtehwe,reosnpoanpdeevtittisonwetoreh
nary was of the same opinion. The first division of the
Court of Session was divided in opinion, in which case
they took the opinion of the other Judges. The result
was that eight Judges, including the Lord Ordinary,
affirmed his judgment against five dissentients, and from
that decision the present appeal was brought.
Mr. TURNER and Mr. ANDERSON were heard yester-
day for the appellants, and contended that the note of
delivery from the respondents to. Bowie and Co., trans-
ferred the right in the sugars to them and to the appel-
lants, as their subvendees. That note, with the invoice
delivered with it, was negotiable, like a bill of lading.
They cited numerous cases from the English as well as
the Scotch courts, and having closed their arguments at
four o'clock, the further hearing was adjourned.
The Attorney-General and Mr. Blackburn (of the
Scotch bar) were counsel for the respondents.
Mr. TURNER, on behalf of the appellants, replied, and
Their LORDSHIPS deferred giving judgment till
Thusrday.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CII?C ClT.—Maidstone, March 13.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN.)
Charles AL&ton, a boy, twelve years old, was indicted
for feloniously and maliciously setting fire to a stack of
straw, the property of James Russell, with intent to in-
jure him.

The prosecutor in this case is a farmer at Horton
Kirby, and it appeared that the fire in question occurred
on the 6th November in last year, the day when it will
be remembered, owing to the sth falling on a Sunday, the
commemoration. of, the Gunpowder Plot was celebrated.
The only actual evidence against the prisoner was that
he was seen near the place about the time the fire
broke out,

Sir Percival Dyke, the magistrate who committed the
prisoner, proved his signature to the depositions, and
also that be gave the prisoner the formal caution re-
quired by the late Act of Parliament before he made a
statement which was then given in evidence.
Mr. Russell, the prosecutor, proved that 80 loads of
straw were consumed by the fire.

In cross-examination he said that, when the prisoner
was under examination upon the charge, some questions
were put to him by the magistrate, and among others
he was asked if he had not set the stack on fire ?
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN asked the witness if he was
sure the magistrate put such a question as this to the
prisoner?
The witness replied that he forgot whether the
magistrate put the question, but he certainly was ques-
tioned while under examination.
The prisoner's statement was then read. It was to
the following effect :—I did it with a lucifei. I got the
lucifer from home. I don't know why I did it. I am
sorry I did it. I never thought of doing it before that
morning. I carry lucifers because the men some-
times want one to light their pipes with. I struck the
lucifer against the quick, and set fire to the stack un-
derneath.
Mr. ADDISON, in addressing the jury for the prisoner,
upon the proceeding that had
a child like the prisoner,
proceeded
which he said was quite repugnant to the spirit of Eng-
lish law. The Learned Counsel concluded his address by
cneaeddoed adopted
octom qumeeantitoning
calling upon the jury, under these circumstances, to
dismiss the statement in question entirely from their
mind, and as their was nothing else against the prisoner,
they would then feel it their duty to return a verdict of
Not Guilty.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN, in summing up, said, with
regard to the observations that had been made as to the
prisoner being questioned while under examination, un-
doubtedly if a magistrate were to put questions to such a
child to induce him to make a confession, it would not only
be a dereliction of duty in that capacity, but also as a man;
but he must remark that there was no evidence of the ma-
gistrate having so acted, and, on the contrary, the witness
said he could not recollect who put the questions. The
Learned Judge then explained to the jury that a person
under seven year 3 of ago was altogether irresponsible,
but between that age and fourteen a person might
convicted of this or any other offence, if the jury should
be of opinion that he possessed what the law described
as a mischievous discretion, or that he had understand-
ing enough to be aware of the mischievous nature of
the act he was committing, and its dangerous conse-
quences.
Tho jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
of Not Guilty, and the Learned Judge gave directions
that the prisoner should be at once placed in the charge
of his father, who was in waiting to receive him.
Alfred Humphrey, 18, and Idea Ellis, 18, were con-
victed of feloniously setting fire to a barn, containing a
large quantity of wheat, oat', and barley, amounting in
value to more than 5001•, the property of Edward
Monekton, and were sentenced to bo transported for
fifteen years.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT:—Bedford.
The assizes terminated here with the conviction of
Thomas Docherill, George Clerk, and ttilliam Clerk, for
a murderous assault on two policemen who endeavoured
to take them on a charge of felony.
Dockerill was transported for life, and the two others
for fifteen years each.
Mr. Baron RoLrJ directed the attention of the jury
with great care to the possibility of the witnesses being
deceived as to the person of the prisoner William, and
as it is understood that the two others have confessed
and exonerated him. his case will be further considered.

OXFORD CIRCUI I.— (afford, March 12.
, Business began this morning at ten o'clock, Alr.Justice
Coltman presiding in the Nisi Prius Court, and Mr.
Baron Platt in the Crown Court•
There was an entry of 27 causes, of which seven were
for special juries. The calendar contained the names of
195 prisoners, of whom three were charged with murder,
one with attempting to murder, four with manslaughter,
and 14 with cutting and wounding.

DOUGLAS V. DOUGLAS.
Mr. Sergeant Tallourd and Mr. Grey were counsel
for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Wade for
the defendant.
This was an action of slander, for calling the plaintiff
a thief, and saying he had robbed a person who for-
merly
employed him. Tho parties wore first cousins,
and also married two sisters. but carried on the same
sort of business, drapers, at Walsall. At the opening
of the case, a compromise was suggested, but as the de-
fendant denied having used the language attributed 'to
him he would not apologise, everal witnesses swore to