The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-03 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PAPER.

RESOLUTIONS (with Amendments) intended to be pro-
posed in Committee on Trade of British Possessions
Abroad. ( Mr. LABOUCNER,E) :-
1. Resolved, That in lieu of the respective Duties of
71. 10i., of 151., of 201., and of 301. on every 100/. of the
value of certain of the articles specified in the 6chedule
contained in an Act of the third and fourth year of King
Will;am the Fourth, t) regulate the Trade of the British
Possessions abroad, there shall be paid on goods, wares.
and merchandizo not being the growth, production, or
manufacture of the United Kingdom, or of any of the
British Possessions in America, and imported by sea or by
inland carriage or navigation, a duty of 71. for every 100/.
of the value thereof, together with the amount of any Duty
levied at the same time upon goods, wares, and merchan-
dize the growth or production of the United Kingdom, or
of the British possessions.

2. Resolved, That, in lieu of the several Duties pay-
able under the said Act upon the following articles, nct
being the growth, production, or manufacture of the
United Kingdom, or of any of the British Possessions in
America imported or brought into any British Possession
by sea, there elan be paid the following Duties, viz.
_

£.s. d

Wheat Flour (except into Canada), the bar-
rel 0 2 0
Beef and Pork, salted (except into Canada),
thecwt 0 4 0
Wine of all sorts, whether in bottle or not,
for every 1001. of the value, in lieu of all
Duties now payable thereon, under the
Acts 4 Geo. 3, c. 15, and 3 and 4 Will. 4,
c. 59
The Bottles
Shinalcs (except into Canada), the 1000 No. 0 2 0
Oak Staves and Headings (except into Ca-
nada), the 1000 No.
Wood Hoops (except into Canada), the
1900 No.
Pine, and'other Lumber, ] inch think
(except into Canada), the 1000 feet 0 7 0
Now prohibited, but the prohibition whereon
is to case:—
Fish, driel or salted, the cwt
piAled, the batrcl 0 5 0
Together with the amount of any Duty levied at the
same time upon similar articles, tho produce of, or im-
ported from, the United Kirglom or the British Posses-
sions.

7 10 0
Free.

3. Resolved that Tea be permitted to be imported into
British North America by Inland Carriage or Navigation,
on payment of the Duty which may at that time be charge-
able upon Tea imported from the United Kingdom, to-
gether with ten pounds per centum on the amount of
such duty.
4. Resolved, That Rum, the produce of places within
the limits of the East India Company's Charter, and im-
ported into British North America, shall pay the same
duty as Rum the produce of places in the British West
Indies.

3. Resolved. That so much of the said Act as permi s
any sort f Craft. Food, and Victuals, except Spirits, and
any sort of Clashing and Implements and IlLterials fit and
necessary for the British Fisheries in America, to be im-
ported into tho plac at or from whence such Fishery is
carried on, Day free, shall be repcq,l,.,d, except so fir as
regards the following articles (that is to say), bread, flour,
pork, beef, bacon, butter, lard, cheese, rnolaiscs (the pro-
duce of the British Possessions), potatoes, oatmeal, pot
barley, Indian meal, pear, rice, salt, corkwood, cordage,
oakum, pitch, tar, resin, turpentine, varnish, spars, lumber,
oak staves, shingles, wood hoops, leather and leatherware,
and all sorts of tilling craft and bait, fishermen's clothing
and hosiery, which shall be delivered Duty free, for the
use of the Fisheries.
6. Resolved, That Goods, the produce or manuracture
of the Islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, or Sark, im-
ported. from such islands, be admitted into the British
Possessions in America upon the payment of the same
Duty as the like Goods the produce or manufacture of the
United Kingdom, or of any of the said Possessions.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, APRIL 2.

(Before Mr. Commissioner FONTILANQUE.
IN THE MATTER OF -- YOUNG.
_ _

The bankrupt was a banker in Smithfield, and amongst
the assets realised by Mr. Abbott, the official assignee to
the estate, was a sum of 1,0001., which was not divided.
This day Mr. Wilkinson, as solicitor for several credi-
tors, applied to his Honour to know what was to be done
in consequence of the " absence" of the said official as-
signee. The creditors under the bankrupt's estate had
already suffe ed severely, and it was too bad that they
should not have received such a dividend as the sum of

1,0001. would, if properly administered, have afforded to
them.

The Learned COMMISSIONER thought that the appoint-
ment of trade assignees was intended to look after the
proper division of the bankrupt's particular effect:, and if
they failed in the necessary vigilance which they should
have exercised, no blame could attach to the Court.

Mr. Wilkinson—That, your Honour, might be so ; but,
in this case, when a search was made at the office of the
Accountant-general, in consequence of the nc vspaper
reports, referring to the "retirement," or rather the
" abscondment " of Mr. Abbott, net even the mention of
the bankrupt's name was to be fuund in the books of this
(the bankrupt's) establishment.
The Learned Commissioner—The court is compara-
tively powerless in this respect. The Commissioners do
all they can in the furtherance of Lenefit to creditors,
through the appointment of " trade assignees," and it the)'
will not do their duty, the fault is with the creditors who
select there.
Mr. Wilkinson.—ln other courts the Learned Com-
missioners call for the banker's books of the official assig-
nees ; and wit( re they find that they have cash in hand of
the bankrupt's estates, of whica they are supposed to be
the protectors a 3 well as the administrators, to a larger
amount than 1001., they immediately direct the surplus to
be paid in to the Bank of England, to the account of the
Accountant-General, and thereby secure so much fur the
creditors.

The Learned COMMISSIONER.—I am always most an•
xious for the protection of creditors. It was the great
object of the establishment of this Court, but we can
exereise.the power given us by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Wilkinson.—Then I would submit to your Honour
that an alteration, and a speedy alteration too, should tako
place in the law; it is hard enough that creditors (as in
this case) who might have receivel five shillings in the
pounds upon their respective debts should now be left with-
out a single farthing, although the audit was declared for
September last.
The conversation then dropped.

MR. LAWRENCE'S BENEFIT.—On Monday
trxt Mr. Lawrence, treasurer of the Surrey Theatre, takes
his benefit at that house. He will have the assistance of
Mr. Paul Bedford, Mr. Stansbury, Mr. Wright, Mr. T.
Matthews, Miss Covency, and otter performers who are
disengaged on that evening in consequence of the closing
of the me' ropolitan theatres, together with the excellent
performers of this popular theatre. The entertainments
for the evening are well selected, and as theatrical amuse -
meat in Passion week is not very abundant, Mr. Lauren, o
is likely have as many visitors as he can accommodate
All who know his obliging manners and the atter&on he
pays to his duty at this establishment, say be cannot have
too many, and will be Lappy to render him every support.

PRICE sd.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

HOME ClRCUlT.—KrArasrox, Arita 2.
noss V. NORRIS—LIBEL.
This was an action for libel brought by the plaintiff
against the defendant, the publisher of the Railway
Times, for an account which appeared in that paper
on the subject of a Company called the Cornwall Har-
bour and Vieteria Railway Company, of which the
plaintiff had been the Secretary.
Mr. Tnesiger and Mr. Gurney were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Pratt. and Mr. Petersdorff for the defendant.
The defendant pleaded a justification and a variety
of other pleas.
Mr. THESIGER stated the case, and said that the
plaintff in 1833 had projected tie Company in ques-
tion, which was intended to open a more extended
Leans of communication with the West of England,
and the plaintiff was the Secretary ; the affair did turn
out a failure, and the plaintiff's circumstances did be-
come embarrassed, and he was arrested, and subse-
quently a report in cannection with the Company was
published in the Railway Times, in which the most
disgraceful con ;act was imputed to the plaintiff, and he
had no alternative but to bring the present action in
vindication of his character. Great difficulty had,
however, been thrown in his way by the Company
keeping back his books, 'which would have given im-
portant evidence in his behalf, but still he hoped to be
able to obtain that satisfaction at the hands of the
Jury to which he was entitled.
The sale of theipaper, containing the alleged libel, at
the office in Fleet-street, was theta proved ; and the
libel was read. It charged the plaintiff with peculation
of various kinds, and attributed the failure of the Cam-
party to his misconduct. As there was no proof ef pub-
lication in the county of Surrey, however, it was admit-
ted that, -avert the -general issue; tife- defendant must
have a verdict.. _
Mr. PLATT, on behalf of the defendant, then addressed
the Jury, and said that he should satisfy them th;it the
report was founded in truth, and that the plea of justi-
fication would, be supported by the evidence be should
adduce, and the Jury would feel themselves bound to
give a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT was then about to call his witnesses,
when a suggestion was made that the matter should be
settled by a juror being withdrawn, but a difficulty aris-
ing as to the question of costs, the evidence was gone
into.

Sit C. Lemon, M.P., identified a paper produced as
the handwriting of the plaintiff. This paper contained
a report of a preliminary meeting for the formation of
the Company in question, and represented that he (Sir
C. Lemon) had moved a resolution in approbation of
the Company. He was not present at any meeting, and
did not move any such resolu►ion.
Cross-examined—Had known the plaintiff before,
and, in the course of conversation, might have ex-
pressed his approval of the proposed plan. He, how-
ever, always said that he did not think it would make a
zood private speculation, and he forbade the use of his
name.

Mr. Ponsford deposed that he was one of the Di-
rectors of the Company in question. He also stated,
that on one occasion he gave the plaintiff a cheque for
32/. to pay the account of Mr. Barker, the adver-
tising agent, who never received the money, and
brought an action against the Company for the amount,
and obtained a verdict. He had also given the plain-
tiff a cheque for 311. for another tradesman, and this
sum was also never arconated for.
Cross•examined—Was aware that the prospectus
referred to had been circulated.
_ _

Mr. Cobb, the solicitor to the Company, proved
that he had brought an action against the pliintlf for
this sum, and recovered it ; and Ross subsequently
brought an action against the Company for an alleged
balance due to him, and he was nol,suited.
Mr. Barker proved that he never received the cheque
for 232/. from the plaintiff; and a clerk from Lad-
brook's Bank was examined to prove that the cheque
in question, and other of the Company's cheques, had
been paid into the Bank to the private account of the
plaintiff.

The clerk to an engraver, named Sylverton, proved
that business had been done for the Company to the
amount of 31/. 65., and he never received a cheque for
that sum from the plaintiff.
Sir William Molesworth, whose name had also been
mentioned by the plaintiff, in the prospectus referred to,
as being connected with the Company, proved that he
had no connection with it, and never authorised his
name to be brought forward, neither did he ever move
or second any resolution approving of the objects of
the proposed Company.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, observed that no an-
swer appeared to lave:tie-4in given to the cafe made out
by ti e defendant, in reference to the cheques ; and, as
to what had been said about keeping back the Com-
pany's books, if the plaintiff thought they were essential
to make out his case, nothing could be easier than for
him to have given notice to produce them ; but this he
had not done. With regard to the prospectus that had
been alluded to, there could be no doubt that it was a
great fraud upon the public, by pretending to giva the
sanction and support of distinguished persons to a
scheme with which they were not in any way con-
nected. The libel in question certainly cast very
strong imputations upon the plaintiff, and which, if net
true, ought not to have been published ; but this was a
question for the Jury. If they thought the statement
had been justified, they would find for the defendant ;
but if not, they would then return a verdict for the
plaintiff, with such damages as they considered the jus-
tice of the case required.

The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a ver-
dict for the defendant upon all the issues.

DRUMMOND V. TIIE EARL OF ONSLOW.

This was an action of trespass, brought by the plain
tiff, the Lord of the Mane of Aldbury, against the
defendant. The care commenced before a Special
Jury on Thursday, and was not concluded until nearly
twelve o'clock at night.
The action was brought to establish the boundaries of
the two manors adjoining etch other, of which the
plaintiff
and the noble defendant were the lords. A
nurnlo•,,r of witnes7c,, chiefly very aged men, were exa-
mined, who deposed to various acts of ownership that
bad been exercised by the plaintiff and preceding lords
over the land in question ; and the Jury alternately
found for the plaintiff, with 0/. damage!.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Grow' Bass, the driver of omnibus 4,871, was sum-
moned to answer the complaint of an old man named
James Manby, whose life was placed in imminent dan-
ger by the racing propensities cf the defendant.
The complainant stated that he came into town on
Thursday in his cart, and was in Bishopsgate-street at
a little after five o'clock, when he saw the defendant
driving an omnibus down the street. Complainant en-
deavoured to get out of the way as speedily as he could
by driving up Sun-street, and called out to the driver,
but the omnibus dashed against the cart, and turned it
over, and it was a miracle that he was not killed. He
had grasped a lamp-post in endeavouring to save him-
self, and he was picked up and examined by a surgeon,
who found that no bones had been broken. The cart
was injured to the amount of 11. 19s. 6d.

The LORD MAYOR—Are you sure that the driver
must have seen you ? Complainant—Certainly. He
saw me long before he turned me over.

Mr. Booker, one of the parochial officers of Bishops-
gate, said that he happened to witness the transa-
tion, in which the driver was wholly to blame. It was
the practi,:e of omnibus drivers, notwithstanding all
that had been said and done about racing, to endanger
the lives of people constantly in Bishopsgate-street, by
contests of this kind. Two omnibuses genet ally started
at the same moment from the Flower Pot Inn, and off
they galbped, apparently careless of the mischief they
might de. In the present case, the driver of the, om-
nibus must have seen the complainant before he ap-
proached within twenty yards of hire ; and the old man
would probably have been killed, if he had not seized
the lamp post. Witness held up his hand to the driver,
as the omnibus bore down upon the cart.
Another person, who witnessed the occurrence, gave
similar evidence, and said that the defendant was in fault.

Henry Jordan, of Temple-street, Hackney-road, 1:-
censed victualler, stated that he was a passenger on the
outside of the omnibus, and plainly saw the occurrence.
The old man's cart was, as the omnibus was passing
along at the rate of ❑o more than the miles an hour,
going into Sun-street in a very careless sort of way,
and no effort seemed to be made to get out of the way
at all. Witness thought the man who drove the cart
was either half asleep or half drank. The driver of
the omnibus endeavoured to pull up, and was not at all
to blame.
William Wood, city policeman, No. 667, stated that
he saw what occurred from the corner of Sun-street,
and described the matter as the witnesses for the prose-
cution had described it. He was sure that if the old
man had fallen against the curb stone death would have
ensued. Witness had frequently given notice to the
drivers about the manner in which they drove, but it
was useless.

The Lord MAYOR said that the case was an exces-
sively gross one, and that he entertained not the slightest
doubt of the truth of the whole of the evidence for the
prosecution.
Defndan
andt— MY Lord, I have been driving these
18 years,
there never before was a complaint
e
against me.
The Lord MAYOR—You must pay the whole of the
damages, and compensate this poor man, or I shall in-
flict a heavy penalty upon you.