The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

THE BUN.,

mongers, Bishop Au&land, Durham, Feb. 5—T. Savage
butcher, Nunney, S.mersetshire, Feb. 5.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. Peacock and T. Lewis, carpenters, Shrewsbury—J.
Davison and D. Lister, millers, Bradford, Yorkshire—W.
Wright and G. Guest, button manufacturers, Manchester—
J. A. Iliggins, F. Higgins, and C. M. R. Chamberlain, solici-
tors, LNlburv, Heretbrdshire (so far as regards J. A. lug-
gins)—G. Greer J. W. Greer, and T. Druitt, Lurgan—R.
-..'cott, W. H. Evens, and R. J. Scott, brewers. Plymouth—R.
Mathews and C. Vaisey, oilmen, Hungerford-street, Strand—
T. Powell and T. Abbott,'grocers, Warrington, Lancashire—
J. Barlow and W. Harrison, candlestick manufacturers, Bir-
mingham—W. G. H. Taunton and 11. Wood, patent wind-
lass manufacturers, Liverpool—W. A. Brown and G. Aikin,
stock brokers, Liverpool—R. Rickman and R. Rickman,
jun., millers, Organford-mills, Dsrsetshire—H. Gome and J.
Reeves, silver chasers, Castle-street, Leicester-square—J.
Morton, J. Stammers, and G. Morton, coal merchants, Mil-
bank-street, Westminster—W. and J. Evans, tailors, Duke-
street, Grosvenor-square—J. and J. E. Upton, attorneys,
Leeds—J. Hough and J. Hemsworth, painters, Gainsborough
—C. Rucastle and C. Jackson, wine merchants. Penrith—G.
Larpent, W. Bell, A. Wilkinson, and J. M. Smith, China
(so far as regards G. Larpent)—R. Walker and B. Hanson,
spinners, Eugion-bridge, Yorkshire—AV. W. and E. C. Ber-
ridge, ironmongers, New Windsor—W. Franklin and A. W.
G. Dow, sailmakers, Liverpool—R. Kirk and J. Todd, mer-
chants, Liverpool.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
J. G. Dunbar, merchant, Cullen, Jan. 20 and Feb. 10, at
one, at Watson's Hotel, Cullen.
William Leask, ship owner, Aberdeen, Jan. 21 and Feb. 15,
at twelve, at the Lemon-tree Tavern, Aberdeen.
PRICE OF SUGAR.

The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed
from the returns made in the week ending January 12,
1847, is 335. 10d. per cwt.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Jan. 15.
(Before Sir J. WIG R A M.)
MARSH V. KINGDOM.
This was a suit for the purpose of enforcing the
specific performance of a contract to deliver to the
plaintiff a lease for 96 years of certain houses in West-
bourne-terrace.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jun. 15.
The Court took the special paper to-day.
ST. PANCRAS.—SCUDDING V. LORANT.
This case occupied the Court the greater part of the
day. The point at issue between the parties was,
whether a rate, made by the vestry of St. Pancras,
for the relief of the poor, on the 12th day of
August, 1839, but which was not completed until the
subsequent 14th of September, was a legal rate or not
within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. The
plaintiff, and several other ratepayers, refused to pay
the rate, on the ground that it could not be enforced, as
some alterations took place in the vestry between these
periods, and they were consequently subjected to a dis-
traint. Believing the rate to L. invalid, the plantiff brought
an action to recover compensation in damages for the
injury he had in consequence sustained, but principally
with the view of deciding whether the rate was valid or
invalid. The jury considered it was valid, and gave a
verdict for the parish, thus confirming its legality. A
rule calling upon defendants to show cause why a new
trial should not be had was subsequently obtained
on the ground that the rate was invalid,
inasmuch as it was stated to be a rate made on the 12th
of August, whereas it was virtually not made until the
14th of September; that it was not signed, in accordance
with the Act, by the vestrymen by whom it was made,
and was never allowed by the justices. The vestry-
book alone had been signed, but not until the 14th, the
rate being set forth as one made on the 12th of August.
Mr. PEACOCK was now heard at great length in sup-
port of the rule.
Mr. WATSON followed on the other side, and con-
tended that the rate was really made on the 12th of
August, although the lists of ratepayers though
persons vt ere employed -at them from day to day—
were not completed until the 14th of September,
when it was signed. The Act did not mean that at
one single meeting all the parties were to come and sign
the books and make them perfect at that one meeting.
Though some alterations did take place between the
periods mentioned, there was a sufficient number re-
maining of the old vestrymen to make the rate. If the
proceeding was confined to one day, the making of a rate
at all would often become abortive, because the task
could not be performed in a day.
Mr. PEACOCK replied.
The COURT intimated that it would consider the
matter.

The Court will resume the special paper on Tuesday
next.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 15.

SALES OF SHARES AND SCRIP.—LAMOND V. DF.VAL.
This was an action to recover the sum of 791., the
price of certain scrip sold to the defendant.
Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Bram•
well appeared for the defendant.
Mr. OGLE stated that the plaintiffs, Messrs. Lamond,
were very large share-brokers in the city of London, and
they occasionally held large sales of shares in the Hall
of Commerce, Threadneedle-street. These shares were
not only belonging, to different persons wishing to sell
them, but some of them belonged to Messrs. Lamond.
On the 7th of August last a sale was held, and the de-
fendant made his appearance and bid for several lots.
There were ten East Indian shares at twenty shillings,
and two lots of others, making in all 791. Some ques-
tion afterwards arose as to the sale, and the only ques-
tion the jury would have to try was whether the de-
fendant did or did not purchase the shares.
Mr. Kitchen, the clerk to the auctioneer, stated that
he remembered the sale on the 7th of August. The de-
fendant was there and purchased three lots of shares,
which came to 791. The money was not paid, nor was
there any offer of payment for some time after.
By Mr. BRAMWELL—One of the rules of the place is
that all shares bid for are forfeited if payment is not
made on the day following. Neither the deposit nor
purchase-money was paid. Is aware that Messrs.
Lamond afterwards sold these shares, and they came to
the sum of Letween GIL and 651. These shares had
risen very much in price before the end of the year.
The defendant afterwards came to Messrs. Lamond
and said that if the shares were delivered to him, he
would pav for them at once. The shares had then been
sold. When the defendant bid for them witness wrote
down his name. The conditions of sale were read out
before the auction began.
By Mr. OGLE—The defendant came and offered to
take the shares on the same day that they rose in the
market. Had no communication with the defendant
before entering his name as the highest bidder for the
shares.

After some further evidence of no material weight,
Mr. OGLE said that he had closed his case.

Mr. BRAMWELL said that no case had been made out.
It had been held that the entry by the auctioneer of the
name of the highest bidder in his book was a written
agreement, and that agreement had not been produced.
He also objected that the present case came within the
Statute of Frauds, as the shares were not legal shares,
and legally transferable.
Mr. Justice ERLE here recalled Mr. Kitchen, who
stated that none of these shares were in companies au-
thorised by Act of Parliament. They were, however,
well known in the market.

Mr. Justice ERLE said that they did not then come
under the Statute of Frauds.

Mr. BRA3IWELL then objected that the property was
improperly described as " shares" in the declaration,
when it was merely certificates of scrip. Besides any
ten East Indian shares would have done for the de-
fendant; there were no specific shares set apart for him,
and therefore until the specific property was described by
its numbers, or delivered, it was no sale.

Mr. Justice ERLE asked Mr. Kitchen whether, in sell-
ing the ten shares in the Ea;t Indian Railway Company,
any particular ten were alluded to, or whether the deli-
very of any ten shares in the company would meet the
bargain.
The witness replied that any ten would have done.
Mr. BRAMWELL then objected, that on their own ad-
mission the plaintiffs had- realised 63/. 10s. on the subse-
quent sale of the shares, and yet they brought their
action for the whole sum of 79/. If the action for goods
sold and delivered could be maintained, the plaintiffs
could recover the whole sum ; and if they got their ver-
dict the defendant had no means of recovering the sum
of 631. I.os. which they had received for the sale of the
shares. They were only entitled by right to 151. los.
Mr. Justice ERLE said, that on all the points but the
last he was against Mr. Bramwell. It was clear that
there was no accounts stated before action, and therefore
the action could not be maintained. Besides, there was
an offer to pay the 79/. on the delivery of the shares.
He thought, therefore, that the plaintiffs should be non-
suited, giving Mr. Ogle leave to move for a verdict for
791., or 1.51. 10s., as the Court should deem fit.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 15.
LAMB V. LAMBERT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the pro-
priezor of the Sunday Times newspaper, to recover from
the defendant the sum of 271. for advertisements inserted
in the Sunday Times, appertaining to the Jamaica
Northern, Southern, and Eastern Connecting Railway, of
which the defendant was one of the managing committee.
The verdict passed for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.
Mr. HUMFREY now moved to set the verdict aside, on
the ground that there was no evidence that the order
which was given by Mr. Orlando Agoilar, the secretary
of the company, was given on behalf of the company.
The COURT thought that there was evidence to go to
the jury upon the fact, and refused to grant the rule.

the trial, to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that there
was no didetic,, to show that the deceased was of un-
sound mind at the time of his entering upon the contract.
Mr'. Baron PARKE—A departure has recently been
made from the old rule, which prevented any person
pleading lunacy as the grounds of non-liability ; but it
must be set out in the declaration that the plaintiff was
known to bo of unsound mind.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—There is no doubt but that
the contract was perfectly fair and honourable, and, for
a person in the situation of the purchaser, was highly
desirable and advantageous.

—lt was finally arranged that the verdict should be
made special in the case by consent of the parties.

CROCKFORD V. LORD MAIDSTONE.

Mr. JAMES moved in this cause for a new trial, on the
ground of misdirection of the Learned Judge who tried
the case.

The action was brought by the executors of Mr.
Crockford to recover a considerable sum of money from
the defendant, Lord Maidstone, for entrance fees and
subscriptions to the club-rooms established by the late
Mr. Crockford.

The defendant pleaded to a portion of the declaration
that the house in question was a common gaming-house.
The Lord Chief Baron, who tried the cause, not being
of that opinion, so directed the jury, and the jury, in
consequence, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. It was
now contended that there was evidence to show that this
was a common gaming.house within the meaning of the
Act.—Eule granted.

COURT OF COMMOIV PLEAS, Jan. 15.

NEWTON AND WIFE V. BOODLE AND OTHERS.-ALLEGED

TRESPASS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

In this case, which has arisen out of certain proceed-
ings in Cheltenham regarding Admiral Rickett's pro-
perty, a rule was obtained by the plaintiffs last term, to
show cause why a verdict of guilty should not be en-
tered against Mr. Norman, one of the defendants ;
and why the judgment entered in last Michaelmas term
should not be set aside, a term's notice not having been
given. The plaintiff complained that the late Lord
Chief Justice had improperly withheld the evidence ad-
duced against the defendant Norman from going to the
jury, and that a bill of exceptions, taken by the plaintiff,
had not been sealed before the death of the Learned
Judge. The action was for the alleged false imprison-
ment of Mrs. Newton, who had been taken on a writ.
The defendants are Mr. Wroe, the registered proprietor
of the Cheltenhant Examiner; Mr. Norman, said to be
the editor ; and their law agents, Messrs. Boodle and
Lawcott ; and the proceedings arose out of a previous
action, "Newton v. Norman," for an alleged libel in the
newspaper respecting the claims of Mrs. Newton to
Admiral Rickett's property, in which a verdict went for
the defendant. A writ for the costs was issued, on
which Mrs. Newton was arrested ; hence the present
action, which was tried on the 20th of February,
1845. To the declaration not guilty and a
justification were pleaded. A verdict of not
guilty was given on behalf of Norman, and with regard
to the other three, though the trespass was proved, a
verdict of justification was returned in -their favour.
After some other proceedings for delay on the part of
the plaintiff, judgment against him was signed on Nov.
14th last, hence the rule fixed for argument to day.
Mr. Sergeant TALFou an was heard at some length
against the rule, contending there was not a tittle
of evidence against Mr. Norman, and that with regard
to the other point, the regular course of practice had
been strictly adhered to. The rule should therefore be
discharged.
Mr. Sergeant CUANNELL followed on the same side.
Mr. NEWTON, who conducted his own case, replied
in avery long speech. _ _ _

The -LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the rule came before
the Court under peculiar circumstances. It appeared
on the trial that the Lord Chief Justice had ruled that
there was no evidence for the jury against Norman. A
bill of exceptions was tendered against the decision
of the Judge, and also for the non-production
of the writ, or evidence of the writ, on which the
alledged trespass had taken place. A note of the
exceptions was handed to the Judge, and subsequently
the sealing of the bill founded on these notes was de-
layed, from the original notes having been mislaid, and
from some other circumstances that had arisen. Shortly
after this the Lord Chief Justice died, but before the bill
of exceptions had been closed. This was a matter the
present Court had not the power to remedy. On a
former occasion a motion on this head had been dis-
charged, but that substantial justice might be done the
rule in the present form was allowed. Having now gone
into the points raised by the present application, and
having gone over the notes of the late Lord Chief Justice,
he was of opinion that there was no evidence whatever to
fix Norman, and-he considered the ruling of the late Chief
Justice on that head quite correct. On this ground, as
well as on the others stated, he considered the rule
should be discharged.
The rest of their Lordships concurred.
Rule accordingly discharged.

JUDGES' CHAMB ERS, Jan. 15.
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
THE DUKE CHARLES OF BRUNSWICK V. VALLANCE.

This was an action brought by the Duke of Brunswick
against his former solicitor for recovery of a moiety of
the costs incurred iu the joint defence of the Duke and
his attorney to the action brought against them by
Barnard Gregory for the alleged conspiracy to hiss and
hoot him from the stage of Covent-garden Theatre iu
February 1843.
It appeared that the defendant had obtained an order
of Mr. Justice Coleridge for the plaintiff to deliver to the
defendant the particulars of his claim in the present
action, with dates, &c., and as is usual, restraining the
Deice from proceeding with this action until such parti-
culars were given. A vague statement claiming 6001. as
the moiety, was delivered by the Duke, and the declara-
tion in the action accompanied the statement.
The present was an application to set aside the decla-
ration for irregularity, the same having been delivered
in defiance of the order of Mr. Justice Coleridge, the
statement of alleged claim being insufficient.
An order was made by Mr. Justice ERLE to set aside
the declaration for irregularity with costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

THE RAILWAY CASE.—Mr. P. Scanlan, Mr. IV.
Killick, Mr. 11. Flight, again appeared before the Lord
Mayor for further examination upon the charge of having
conspired to defraud Mr. Margetson, of Aldermanbury,
of 100/., by borrowing that sum of him upon the security
of Direct Lincoln, East Retford, and Sheffield Junction
Railway Shares. Mr. Humphrey appeared upon the part
of Mr. Margetson, the complainant; Mr. Duncan, the
barrister, upon the part of Mr. Scanlan, and Mr. Ballan-
tine for Mr. Killick and Mr. Knight.
Before the case was proceeded with, Mr. J. B. Shuttle-
worth, of No. 33, East Cheap, one of the provisional com •
mittee, who had been summoned, and examined as a wit-
ness on the prece ling examination, appeared before his
Lordship to complain, he said, of a false and libellous
imputation made upon that occasion. After he had left
the justice-room against his character.
Mr. Duncan (for Mr. Scanlan) objected to allow any
innovation upon the usual course of proceeding, to be
made by one person.
The LORD MAYOR said he understood that Mr. Shut-
tleworth's object was to defend himself against a false
accusation brought against him in his absence, and
which he felt bound, in common justice to himself, to
contradict.
Mr. Duncan said he considered the application of Mr.
Shuttleworth to be heard was entirely against the com-
mon practice, and submitted that what that gentleman
had to say might in some degree prejudice the defen-
dants.. He, therefore, should persevere in opposing the
interruption to the case, which after having been once
called upon, ought to be allowed to proceed without
being at all interfered with.
The LORD MAYOR said he certainly should take the
liberty to exercise his discretion upon such an occasion,
and could not see how the natural desire to correct a
calumnious misrepresentation could prejudice person s
by whom it had not been made.
Mr. Shuttleworth thanked the Lord Mayor, and said
the gross calumny of which ho complained was, that
Mr. Bevan, the secretary to the company, had said in
the justice room, that he (Mr. Shuttleworth) had
" fraudulently drawn cheques to defraud the committee of
the Stock Exchange." Here Mr. Shuttleworth pro;
duced before his Lordship five cheques, which he had
signed in conjunction with two other members
of the committee, dated in January and February
1846, and solemnly assured his Lordship that
he had never signed any other cheques for, or
in connexion with, the company ; that application
was not made to the Stock Exchange to fix a
settling day until in the month of June following ; that
the charge made by Mr. Bevan was entirely false ; and
that the false imputation having appeared in the news-
papers, he felt it absolutely necessary to put himself
right with his friends and the public by as publicly
giving the most unqualified denial to the statement, con-
vinced that however inconsiderate he had been in con-
necting himself with the company, no imputation could
justly be fastened upon his honour or integrity during
the period of 32 years in which he had carried on busi-
ness in the city of London.
The LORD MAYOR said he believed at the moment the
secretary made the statement that there was no truth
whatever in it, and he expressed his
disapprobation of
the conduct of the secretary in speaking so injuriously
of Mr. Shuttleworth after that gentleman had left the
Justice-room. His Lordship added that 31r. Shuttle-
worth was known to him to be a man of high respecta-
bility, and he was sere that the press would be glad to
remcve the impression which this false statement was
calculated to make.
Mr. Ballantine then addressed the Lord Mayor.
The Learned Council stated, that he believed the case
was about to be closed agreeable to all parties. It would
be admitted by Mr. Margetson, that the defendants had
shown every Willingness to return the money which had
been borrowed upon the shares, and that gentleman was,
he believed, ready to accept the offer and abandon all
further proceedings. Mr. Humphrey, the solicitor to Mr.
liirgetson, was aware that there were legal difficulties in
this case, which, it there were grounds of charging moral
offence:; against the defendants, would be likely to
be insurmountable. If, under these circumstances, the
Lord Mayor presented no obstacle, the complainant
would not proceed further, and the immediate restitution
to which his clients considered Mr. Margetson entitled,
should be made. His Lordship had, no doubt, performed
his duty in investigating the subject of dispute, and had
executed the task in a manner which placed both parties
under obligations to him. In all probability it would be
considered a failure of justice that all parties should be
released from further responsibility of attendance, and
that the defendant; should be relieved from the charge.
Mr. Duncan said he fully agreed with the Learned
Counsel in what had been stated as to the performance
of the part which the Lord Mayor had found it neces-
sary
client,ytotake upon himself; in the course of the painful
transactions. All he would say as to Doctor Scanlan,
was, that that gentleman felt himself alto.