The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-10 00:00:00

STEVENS V. KEELING.

Mr. CROWDER now moved to set aside the verdict,
pursuant to leave reserved at the trial.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Nov. 9.
(Sittings in Error, before Lord Chief Justice Wilde,
Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr.
Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Maule, Mr. Justice
Coltman, and Mr. Justice Cresswell.)
BARON DE BODE V. REG.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to set aside a
writ of error brought by the late Baron de Bode. The
Learned Counsel contended that the present plaintiff,
being administrator to the late plaintiff in error, could
not carry on the proceedings under that writ, that it
was not competent for him to do so except upon a
writ of scire facias, and that such writ could not be
obtained except upon the fiat previously obtained
from the Attorney-General, or that without obtain-
ing this fiat from the Attorney-General the only
course left open to the plaintiff would be to apply to
the House of Lords.
The COURT granted the order.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 9.
(Sittings in Banco.)
JOLL V. DOWNES.
In this case, which was tried before Mr. Justice
Williams at the last sittings after Trinity Term, and
a verdict found for the plaintiff for 2001.,
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL moved for a rule to show
cause why there should not be a new trial, on the ground
that the verdict was against the bulk of the evidence.
The action was brought to recover the amount due
to the plaintiff, who is an engineer, for work done in
surveying and mapping a projected line of railway,
called the Canterbury and Herne Bay Railway, of
which the defendant was a director. The principal point
upon which he founded his application was with re-
ference to the mode in which the plaintiff's charges
were to be liquidated. It was proved at the trial by
the solicitor to the company that the plaintiff agreed
to make the survey on the understanding that he was
to be paid out of the deposits received, and not to
look to the directors for payment.
The COURT granted a rule.
The LORD MAYOR—Shortly after half-past two
o'clock, a procession, headed by the Mace-bearer
and Sword-bearer, and consisting of the Lord Mayor
Elect, the late Lord Mayor, the Sheriffs, the Recorder,
and several members of the Courts of Aldermen and
Common Council entered the court, and after bowing
to the Bench, the Recorder advanced and, addressing
their Lordships, said—l am desired, by the Right
Hon. the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of the City of
London, to request the honour of your Lordships'
company at an entertainment to be given this day at
the Guildhall in the City.
Their Lordships then bowed, and the procession
immediately retired.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
The mayoralty of Sir George Carroll, which has
been distinguished by great activity, zeal, and punc-
tuality, closed with his Lordship's adjudication on
some cases connected with the desertion of seamen at
foreign ports, a subject frequently brought before the
Chief Magistrate's notice under the new Registration
Act, the operation of which is said to be producing
great advantage to the owners of ships. His Lord-
ship also took the opportunity of making
from
to
the foreign lotteries, with solicitations from the agents
or pretended agents of which the English, Irish, and
Scotch public have been for a considerable time
harassed ; and to the conduct of the City police
during his year of office.
John Wood, a seaman, was charged by Mr. Cole-
man, clerk to the Registrar of Seamen, with having
deserted the Boyne, at Baltimore, in May, 1847,
having signed articles in London for the voyage to
North America and back, at the usual rate of wages,
viz., 3/. per month.
Mr. Phillipps, of the firm of Phillipps and Tip-
lady, owner of the Boyne, produced the ship's arti-
cles, on which were endorsed the particulars of the
desertion of Wood at Baltimore, by the British Con-
sul there.

The prisoner was committed for thirty days.
I John William Rose was charged by Mr.
Coleman with having deserted the Sherwood,
in London, having received W. in advance
of wages, intended by the owners to be laid
out in the purchase of the necessary clothes, &c.,
for the voyage, but which was expended, as usual
amongst fellows of vagabond propensities, in dissipation
of the grossest kind, the prisoner having been too
drunk to join the vessel when she was leaving dock.
The prisoner said that all that had been said against
him was true enough.
He was sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment.
John Mudge was convicted of desertion from the
Acadia, at Pugwash, upon the evidence of Mr. Cole-
man, confirmed by that of Mr. Walton, of Newman's-
court, the owner of the vessel.
Mr. Coleman, upon the part of the Registrar-
General of Seamen in the port of London, begged to
thank his Lordship for the very prompt and efficient
adjudication rendered during the mayoralty in the
numerous cases brought under his Lordship's notice.
He trusted that the extra duties thus imposed upon
the Chief Magistrate of the City would prove but tem-
porary. He believed that such would be the result
of the vigorous measures adopted by his Lordship,
who had, since the Act came into operation, some
months ago, disposed of 380 cases in such a manner as
would produce a powerful effect upon the service.
The LORD MAYOR said he regretted that his expe-
rience of seamen since his accession to the office of

Lord Mayor was such as to give him a very unfa-
vourable opinion of the state of honourable feeling
amongst them. He had found that they were in the
habit of signing articles in London at the usual rate
of wages at the port, which articles, upon their
arrival at foreign ports where wages were high, they
did not hesitate to violate, to the serious injury of
the shipowners in England, from whom they were
both before and afterwards glad to seek employment.
lie trusted that his honourable successor in the office
_e the
would embrace every opportunity of carrying out the
Qberebe wehthe the
provisions of the Act of Parliament in which the
meetintroductionthatvigilanceofodfestehretioAnAct
erpeasswedouladt
tend to suppress a system so injurious tippinginterest.o the sh

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved in this case for a
rule calling upon the defendant to show cause why the
order to have this case tried by a special jury
should not be set aside and a fresh order made.
The cause was appointed to be tried before the
Lord Chief Baron, and it appeared that upon
calling the special jurors only five of them
were present, and the defendant would not consent to
have the case tried by that number. It was the
usual custom in such cases that upon a fresh appoint-
ment being made for the trial, the same special jurors
who were previously summoned should constitute
the jury, but since the period of their being first sum-
moned it had been ascertained that several of them
had died, and some were excused upon various
grounds. Under these circumstances, therefore, it
was necessary that the original rule should be set
aside, and a fresh order made by the Court upon the
subject.—Rule granted.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WALLER V. BISHOP.

This was an action tried before the Lord Chief
Baron, at London ; the verdict passed for the plaintiff,
for the sum of 3,9251. 17s. 3d.

It appeared that the action was brought by the
plaintiff, a stockbroker, to recover the above sum of
money, being the amount of certain shares purchased
by the plaintiff for the defendant in the projected Dutch
Hanoverian Railway, and also for charges on account
of the shares being " held over" for him, that is to
say, the account days, when the purchase should be
completed, were carried over on brokerage and com-
mission, the amount of which was about 1,4001. It
was alleged that the plaintiff was connected
with the above-named projected railway, being
a member of the provisional committee of that
scheme. It further appeared that there was
an intention on the part of the directors of that
company to purchase a considerable number of shares
for the purpose of reducing the number then in the
market, the currency of which would bring what
was then thought to be a good project to an unde-
served failure. This process was one technically
termed "rigging the market," and the Lord Chief
Baron upon the trial expressed a strong opinion that,
"when carried to a great extent, might be regarded
as a swindling transaction." In this case, however, the
arrangement appeared to be suggested by an honour-
able desire to prevent the effect of a great panic, and
the shares falling to a ruinous discount. An ar-
rangement was come to by the directors to carry out
their views, whereby each director should employ his
own broker, and make his purchases individually ;
and a resolution was passed by the board, on the 3d
of December, to prevent any of the directors being
bound by the purchases of the other, except
in such cases as should be agreed upon by
the whole body of the directors. The pre-
sent action arose out of purchases of shares in con-
sequence of that arrangement, and the evidence
on the part of the plaintiff consisted chiefly of a
variety of "bought notes," and orders given by a
Mr. Caryalho and a Mr. Ogle, who were connected
with the company. The Learned Counsel now con-
tended that there was no evidence to fix the defendant
with the orders in question, and that all that made
against him upon the trial was a recognition subse-
quently, as distinguished from order previously.
The COURT stated that they were of opinion that the
rule ought to be granted generally, for the reduction
of the damages, or a new trial, with liberty to move
afterwards for arrest of judgment.