The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-18 00:00:00

MEAT IVIARZETS.

-- ---
SOUTHALL, Nov. 17.—Prime Beasts and Sheep con►-
manded a steady sale, at an advance in the quotations
of 2d per 81bs. All other kinds of stock supported last
week's prices. Beef, from 3s 103 to 4s 10d; Mutton,
4s to 5s 2d ; Veal, 3s 10d to 4s 8d; and Pork, 4s to
4s 8d per Sibs, to sink the offal.
ROMFORD, Nov. 17.—We had a very firm trade this
morning, at very full prices. Beef from 3s 8d to 4s
10d; Mutton, 3s 8d to ss; Veal, 4s to 4s 6d; and Pork,
4s 2d to 4s 8d per Sibs; Suckling Calves, 20s to 28s;
Quarter-old Store Pigs, 20s to 245; and Milch Cows'
with their small Calf, 151 to 171 17s each.
LEWIS, Nov. 16.—Beef, from 4s to 5s ; mutton, 4s to
5s 2d ; Veal, 4s to 4s 4d ; and Pork, 4s to 4s 6d per
81bs. A moderate supply, and a fair demand.

COAL MARKE
Adair's Main l6s 6d
Bate's West Hartley 18s 6d
Buddle's W. Hartley 19s Od
Davison's Wes t Hartley 19s Od
Hasting's Hartley lBs 9d
Holywell Main ..... 18s 6d
New Tanfield l6s 6d
North Percy Hartley lBs 6d
Original Tanfield 16s Od
South Peareth
Tanfield Moor ..... 17s 6d
Townley l6s 9d
West Wylam
West Hartley
Wylam
Wall's End, &c
Bell and Brown l9s 9d
Bewicke and Co l9s 9d
Brown's Gas
Elm Park
Gosforth l9s 9d
Riddell's l9s 6d
Washington
Wharneliffe
152 arrival.

;T. - YESTE R DA Y.

Eden Main 205 3d
Belmont 2os 34
Braddyll's Hetton
East Hetton
Haswell 205 9d
Hetton
Keepier
Lambton
Leasingthorne
Murton
Russell's Hetton
.. . Shotten
Stewart's ..
Whitwell
Brancepeth Main
Adelaide Tees
South Durham 2os uu,,,,
Seymour Tees ......
Tees
West Cornforth
Whitworth -a 17s l
4
I ,Garesrield Coke . 25s
,Cowpen Hartley ...... . 195 ul
;Sidney's Hartley ......185 Chi
Is-136 sold.

CORN AVERAGES.

GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORE
For the Week ended Nov. 18, 1847, made up from the Returns of t
eg
his
Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and
per Imperial Quarter.
FBAs.
WHEAT. I BARLEY.' OATS. I 1
RYE. BEANS.
PRICE .. 53s 8d 32s 4d I 23s 4d 338 7d I 45s 8d 4*'
The Duties on Foreign Grain are now suspended.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir J. .WIGRA3I.)
SNOAD V. LARDNER.
This was the petition of William Miller, and
Louisa, his wife, praying for the discharge of an
order of the Court. It appeared that the plaintiffs, ha
the will of George Snoad, of Brookland, in the
county of Kent, who died in 1829, became entitled
to a sum of 7,500/. at the decease of the testators
widow. The defendant, John Haddock Lardner,
who was the surviving trustee of the testator's will,
married the widow Mrs. Snoad, and, in 1830, invested
the 7,500/. on the security of a mortgage on
a free-
hold estate, conveyed to him by Samuel Finn, the
owner, by an indenture of release of April, 1840,
subject to redemption on the pre-payment of the
sum of 7,5001., with interest at the rate of four per
cent. The money remained ever since invested,
the interest being applied in the payment
of an annuity of 300/. per annum to the defendant 'S
wife. By an order of the Court the in& nture of
mortgage and the title-deeds to the estate in question
had been deposited with the proper officer of the
court, but on the Bth of September, 1847, the de'
fendant, Mr. Lardner, presented a petition, stating
that John Finn, to whom the said estate had been
devised, in the month of November last contracted to
sell it to Sir Edward Knatchhull, and stated his In"
tcmtion to defendant to pay off the 7,5001. An order
was made in conformity with prayer of the defendant s
petition, and the money was invested at four per cent-
on certain property in the county of Sussex. The
present petition stated that when this order wss
made they understood that it would be submitted for
their counsel's approval, but when it was laid before the
said counsel, he not only refused to give his assent to i!,
but stated that it was informal and irregular, and that it
would, if acted upon, be prejudicial to the interests
of his clients. It was then discovered that the de:
fendant, Mr. Lardner, had obtained the title deeds of
the estate, &c., from the office of the Clerk of the
Records; and, though the petitioners were informed
that the defendant had received the 7,5001., and hl!d
.
been frequently applied to to pay it into court, he
had refused to do so, alleging that he had not re'
ceived the money.
His HONOUR delivered judgment this morning, an
directed that the order of the 10th of NovereYte,r
.
should be amended, not discharged, and that .111'
Lardner should pay the money into court. He would
give no costs.
(Before Sir J. L. K. BRUCE.)
SHACKLETON V. SUTCLIFFE.
This was a bill filed to enforce the purchase °f
an
estate. Pending the preparation of the deed of °on.
vevance, &c., the defendant gave notice to the plaids
tiff to the effect that he considered the title-deueifil
r
were defective, and must, therefore, refuse t° de•
the agreement. The defendant ;replied that the
,L.
fects in question were not of a nature to vitiate:
agreement in law, and offered to make the defendthwe'
compensation for the defects ; to which, however' the
latter did not accede, and refused to complete
purchase. d
said
His HONOUR delivered judgment to day, " con-
he considered the defects were of a nature n°,d not
templated in the agreement, and therefore shall „, at
compel the defendant to complete the agreenennptio
the same time acquitting the plaintiff of any intention
with
to act fraudulently. He would dismiss the bill with
costs, except those that had been incurred in: the
vouring to establish a charge of fraud again-
plaintiff.
QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY
(iin in Banco.
The Court gaveS judgment following in the following cases at
the sitting of the Court :
TUE QUEEN V. ANDREA. ho tried
Lord DENMAN said his Brother Coltman, coot,
the case, was satisfied with the verdict, and the rant
having well considered the case, could not g
rule.

DOWLING V. COWL.
This case was tried at Bristol.lNG
The Court granted
a rule to show cause.

GILES V. GROVES.

A rule.

EDWARDS V. COOPER.

No rule.

BEDFORD V. COOPER.

No rule.

HUMBLE v. HUNTER•

A rule.
rtE N•
DOE ON THE DEMISE OF ROBERTS V.
No rule.

NEWTON v. LIDNEARD;

A rule.
_TI_IE QUEEN V. JOSEPH SCHLESAGER. i been
Th e defendant, a railway engineer, who haa by•
convicthim in a trial to recover a bill for maps, Sc" Ben Gl'
years ago, was brought up from the Queen's
to receive the judgment of the Court.
Mr.CROMPTON prayed sentence upon the deferiali tn .
Wai
It appeared that he was employed by 5 raj the
company who ordered a number of maps Charing'
well-known house of Mr. James Wyld, of Clinrillre
cross, and that the defendant wrote on the in"„,
0 not -0
opposite a charge made for some maps
dered." At the trial he swore that the inaP3 tilt
question were ordered, and when the paper Was
e ~PO..
into his hand he swore as distinctly that the In'
ranread'
A was not in his handwriting. - A
A number of affidavits were handed in an' - d
That of the defendant stated that he had been fined
in his business, and had been confined in the Queetnhe
Bench four months in consequence—that %vile° Sur-
paper was put into his hand he was taken hl fell
prise, and not having seen it for some months le ace
ofinto an error, and that his wife, in conseatte
sank
his misfortunes and those proceediagsf ha
into ill health.
said Sir F. MESMER, who appeared for the defeoclarri:
the offence of which the prisoner had been been.
the
victed was not a premeditated one. He thought_rn.
Court, when it looked to the whole of the e11;u.„4
stances, to the long imprisonment of the defendant'
the ruin of his business, could not fail to Olni_d-eAr.
his case one deserving of its most merciful con!laetice
tion. He knew that such conduct polluted illtleir
at its very source, and that it was the duty ca lei of
Lordships frequently to make serious "OP

those who committed wilful and deliberate perjury,
but he confidently submitted that this was nut one of
these cases.
_ Mr. CROMPTON replied, his clients would he per-
fectly satisfiedwith the least measure of puni.hinent
which their Lordships might be inclined to inflict.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE characterised the offence
of which the defendant was found guilty as one which
the law regarded, and properly so, of the most serious
character. Unless they could depend upon the in-
ter...it—
, y of a witness when he entered the witness-
oor, after taking a solemn oath, society could not go
on. It was impossible to place implicit credence
laon anything stated by the defendant in his affidavit.
tie had an opportunity of making various memo-
randums at the trial, of comparing dates and papers,
and also of making various observations to lead him
to speak the truth, and therefore the Court could not
well credit his statement that he fell into an error of
judgment. Taking into consideration the whole of
the mitigating circumstances, the Court felt it its
duty to sentence him to two months' imprisonment
With hard labour in Cold Bath-fields.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
GOULDY V. DUNCOMDE, M.F.
The Court gave judgment in this case to-day.
Upon a former occasion Mr. Wiles applied to the
Court for a rule to have an order of Mr. Justice Wil-
liams' set aside, on the ground of the privilege
which the defendant claimed from arrest, he being at
the time he was so arrested a Member of the House
of Parliament. The Learned Counsel had in support
of his application contended that no such privilege
existed, the only protection which the House had
established for its Members being a convenient time to
allow of their coming to the meeting of Parliament.
The Court had looked through the whole of the
authorities upon the subject, and found that Black-
stone, in his "Commentaries," had laid it down that
the privilege extended for forty days after and forty
days before the assembling of Parliament. Bacon,
who had collected together all the authorities on the
same subject, also had the same period. There was
an old Irish statute, passed in the third year of
Edward IV., chap. 1, which expressly fixed the
period to which the privilege should extend to forty
days. The 4th Charles 11., passed in the year 1672,
also fixed the same period, and Jenkins, who pub-
lished a work in 1661, cites a case which occurred
some time in the reign of Charles I. " lleedes'
Journal" said that the period of forty days as a privi-
lege had existed for some centuries, and that twenty
days was within the limit allowed by law. In the
13th year of William 111. a statute was passed upon
the subject, but that did not contain any mention of
the number of days to which the privilege should
extend. The 4th George 111. cap. 21, sec. 1, fixed
the period at forty days, and that was further con-
firmed by an Act passed in the 24th of George 111.,
cap. 37, sec. 7. Looking, therefore, at the whole
of these Acts, there could be no doubt but that the
defendant was fully entitled to the privilege he had
claimed, and the application for the rule would there-
fore be discharged.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
Ty-day the Court heard cases of appeal from the
decisions of revising barristers.

DELIVERY OF NOTICES OF APPEAL.
On the case of Palmer -v. Allen being called on to
be heard,
An objection was taken by Mr. Sergeant
,25YleS to the notice of appeal, which, under the 64th
section of the Act was required to be delivered ten
tlaYs previous to the day appointed by the Court for
hearing of appeals, which was the 11th of November,
alt nd the notice was not delivered until the 3d.
appeared, however, that the decision of the revising
uarrister was not given until the afternoon of the
30th of October, and it was urged that there was not
sufficient time to obtain the consent of the parties to
the appeal by the Ist of November.
idleti affidavit was put in on behalf of the appellant
ging certain reasons why his signature to the ap-
Peal could not be obtained before the 3d.
The COURT decided that there was not reasonable
tinae
quired bto deliver the notice within the period re-
y the Act ; and the case oughe
t to be heard.
Subsequently the hearing of th case was ad-
Journed by consent, until a future day.
This
APPELLANT V. COTTON RESPONDENT.
5.L4.,h,13 was an appeal against the decision of Mr.
rot
untn, the Revising Barrister for Worcestershire, who
ained the name of William Cotton upon the re-
gister for the borough of Bewedly.
and
aPpeared that the respondent occupied a wharf
shed in Bridge-street, Bewdly. The shed
13,,,t3°°d against a wooden paling, which was the
undary of the wharf, and was supported by six
?sts fixed in the ground and covered with tarpauling.
shw.,,° sides of it were closed in with boarding. The
et:' was used for the purpose of depositing articles
Is/Inflected with the occupation of the wharf. A Mr.
ark-, who occupied a part of the wharf, was allowed
. P.,lsee hoops and poles into the shed, for which
riviiege
he paid a rent. The Revising Barrister
Orided that this was a building within the meaning
tai the 37 section of 6 Viet., c. 18, and therefore re-
loters. ned the name of William Cotton upon the list of
0011% GRAY, on the part of the appellant, who had
WJected to the name of Mr. Cotton, submitted that it
was not a building contemplated by the Act.
dent rag rgeant BytEs, who appeared for the respon-
Til not heard in reply.
feu ° CRIEP JUSTICE said the Revising Barrister
the that it was a building within the meaning of
was Act, and unless the Court were of opinion that it
A clause
a building, his decision must be confirmed.
A lease of the Act described what buildings were
i2,6nellided within its provisions and among others
stivvrehouses;”
and the question was, would the
goods,eaeease to be a warehouse if used for the deposit of
bee to
it was open at the sides ? He appre-
iLen,ded that it would not. There was nothing in the
tuil'a.tidlng ben.ient of the barristers which preve
• nted this
connected %n th
eing considered analogous to a warehouse
the the enjoyment of the wharf. He was,
refore of opinion that the decision of the barrister
!..at correct, and that it ought to be affirmed.
ip other judges concurred with the Chief Justice
thopinion, and the appeal was accordingly
dismissed.
co st
Ms
otr t. Se
rgeant BYLES requested the Court to allow
he respondent.
_The CHIEF JUSTICE said it was laid down in the
"'•‘•'% that where the respondent was not heard no costs :
were to be allowed.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
IN (Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
RE THING, READING, AND BASINGSTOKE RAILWAY
COMPANY.
Tn'day was appointed for a final dividend under
the fiat issued against the Tring, Reading, and Ba-
aingstoke Railway Company.
tor At the last meeting it was agreed that the credi-
s should be paid in full, with interest, and the fiat
superseded, and the respective interests of the direc-
tors and shareholders
Pally wound up, and general affairs of the com-
Mr. LAWRENCE now appeared on behalf of the
nssignees, to apply for a further adjournment for two
Months, the late solicitors to the company not having
had ffi tau men time to make out their bills against the
company, Mr. Everile having been suffering under
severe illness. Mr. Lawrence said, some delay must
take place, as legal proceedings were pending against-
persons indebted to the company.
There being no opposition, his Horioiat granted
the application.
A few proofs were put in, but no points of interest
arose during the proceedings.
SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff B MICHELL.)
WILTON V. LAVINE.
Val
This was an action to recover the sum of 51., the
*ueof a pointer dog. The plaintiff is a dealer in
Porting dogs, and sent down the dog to defendant by
an order given through a friend of the latter, who
11°W, however, denied the contract.
Mr. Ainslie, of Nassau-street, proved giving the
order to plaintiff, and understood the dog had been
gent; he did not see it, and therefore could not tell
the value. He afterwards saw defendant, who said
that he had received a dog from plaintiff, but that it
fell ill soon after he got it, and it was of no use to him,
5,1).(1 he would have something taken off the price, 51.
Witness spoke to plaintiff, who, however, would not
make any abatement, and said that it was a good dog,
and had cost him a great deal of money, and was quite
Well when it was sent.
The TJNDER- SHERIFF said that, although the de-
fendant had denied the contract, it was clear he
oehnlyad
accepted the dog at the price claimed, as be
Mked for an abatement.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed. The other cases were not of the slightest interest,
411c1 were undefended.

BOW-STREET.--(THIS DAY.)
John Cooke was charged with assaulting Edward
White, a cab-driver, and breaking the window of
his cab.
The prisoner, it appeared, was one of those persons
known as "bucks" or " touters." Last night he was
noting as waterman on the Spotted Dog rank, in the
Strand, and put a fare into the second cab, coin-
whPlain ant's being the first. Complainant asked him
yhe did so ? and he replied that he should do
at he chose, and if he (complainant) was "cheeky"
he should not have a fare all night. After that, he
Went up to the cab and thrust his fist through the
Window. He then turned upon him, dragge
Oft the box, and beat him violently. A Policeman
cattle up at the time and rescued complainant from
the prisoner taking the latter in charge."
IiALL expressed his surprise at the prisoner
being allowed to act as waterman with impunity.

The complainants said that the regular watermen
of the stand left at eight o'clock every night, when
their place was supplied by " touters." One of the
watermen remained at the watering house, but he
never attended to the cabs.

Mr. HALL sent a message to the Hackney-carriage
Office, and Mr. Fitch, one of the clerks, attended. His
worship repeated the above statement to him, and re-
quested him to see that better order was enforced at
this rank.
Mr. Fitch said it should be attended to.

Mr. HALL ordered the prisoner to pay ls. Bd. for
the damage done to the window, or be imprisoned for
five days, arid 40s. for the assault, or be imprisoned
for fourteen days.
The two watermen attached to the rank attended
in the course of the afternoon to contradict the state-
ment of White. They said the stand was never left
for a moment unattended, either by day or by night.
Mr. HALL said that if the facts were as stated by
White, it was very disgraceful to the watermen. He
had nothing more to say on the subject.