The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-28 00:00:00

SIDNEY SUSSEX COLLEGE.

The Rev. Robert Cooke, B.A. (1845), to the curacy o:
Brenzett, Kent.

The Rev. Thomas Nunn, B.A. (1825), to the assistant-
curacy of Goudhurst, Kent.
The Rev. F. Forsyth Thomson, B.A. (1846), to the
curacy of Betshanger, Kent.

THE TITHE COMMISSIONERS

REPORT.
The following is the annual report of the Tithe Com-
missioners for England and Wales to her Majesty's
principal Secretary of State for the Home Department,_
pursuant to the Act 6 and 7 Wm. IV., c. 71:—

Tithe Commission-office, May 22, 1847.
Sir,—lt is our duty to report to you the progress of
the commutation of tithes in England and Wales, to the
close of the year 1846.
We have received notices that voluntary proceedings
have commenced in 9,627 tithe districts, of these notices
four were received during the year 1846.
We have received 7,044 agreements, and confirmed
6,749, of these 13 have been received and 45 confirmed
during the year 1846. _ _

6,072 notices for making awards have been issued, of
which 583 were issued during the year 1846.
We have received 4,470 drafts of compulsory awards,
and confirmed 3,878; of these, 554 have been received,
and 502 have been confirmed, during the year 1846.
We have received 9,565 apportionments, and con-
firmed6o2lln
r096:62r2,6):,:etd;i
tithe
eud o
districts,
r n fatthheeseya,es 5a
will
Ishb4a ve been received, and
e 6. seen from the above
statement, the rent-charges to be hereafter paid, have
been finally established by confirmed agreements
or con-
firmed awards.
We have in our possessions agreements and drafts of
awards as yet unconfirmed, which will include 887 addi-
tional tithe districts, and make a total, when completed,
of 11,514 districts in which the tithes will have been
commuted.

We have to repeat the assurances which we have
happily been able to give in all our former reports, that
the processes of commutation are going on, on the whole,
tranquilly and satisfactorily.
We have adverted, in three former reports, to the
state of the law under what is called Lord Tenterden's
Act.

We have to express our deep regret that the law re-
mains as uncertain as ever. While this uncertainty con-
tinues, it is impossible to adjudicate with any justice to
the parties in very many cases which await our decision,
and in which proceedings are necessarily suspended.
After our preliminary adjudications some litigation in
the superior courts and some cases of contested and pro-
tracted apportionments will assuredly follow. We have
repeatedly explained and lamented the very serious
delays which must thus result from the continued post-
ponement of any rile, either legislative or judicial, which
we can apply to these cases.
(Signed) T. WENTWORTH BULLER.
RICHARD JONES.
To the Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Bart.

MADAGASCAR.—There appears to be little chance
of any opening of the trade of Madagascar by tho Queen
of that island. The rumour circulated in town through
the journals a few days ago, that the authorities at
Tamatave had announced that it was probable that the
trade would be opened next year, is incorrect. Captai❑
Labury, of the Charles Heddle, touched there on his
way to West Coast for a cargo of oxen. He was refused
any oxen there, and ho learned that the Europeans at
that place were badly treated and under the strictest
surveillance. A Malgache, one of the Administration,
having openly shown a desire to renew connexion with
the Europeans, had been condemned by the Queen to be
burnt alive, but he avoided this cruel death by swallow-
i❑g poison. Malgache women who had in their posses-
sion merchandize formerly belonging to the traders who
had been expelled, and who were accused of having kept
up a correspondence with them, were publicly sold to
slavery.—Mauricien.

We read in the Constitutionnel :—" A
.person
named C-, a gilder on copper, residing in Paris, lost
his son not long since, and had him buried at Belleville.
The death of the boy caused him the greatest affliction,
and he often went to visit the tomb. Two days back
his wife received a letter from the husband, declaring
that he was tired of life, and that his body would be
found on the tomb. The wife hastened to the cemetery,
and, finding it shut, supplicated the keeper to admit
her. The man refused, declaring that he had taken his
round and had seen nothing. She then went to the
commissary, and, on showing the letter, got an order of
admittance. The keeper still refused, and it was only
the next day that she could enter the cemetery. The
husband was found stretched on the tomb, expiring. He
had stabbed himself in various places with a poniard. He
breathed his last shortly after."
The failure of Messrs. Sewell and Co. is under-
stood to amount to about 50,0001., and the assets are
not expected to yield a very favourable result. The
late rapid decline in sugar, of which the firm were
large holders, appears to have been the cause of the
stoppage.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, June 26.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
HOGGART V. THE CROYDON CANAL COMPANY.

This bill was filed for the purpose of obtaining a dis-
tribution of the residue of a sum of money paid for the
purchase of a canal by the Croydon Railway Company.
The original sum contracted to be paid by the company
was 40,2501., which was to be applied, first, in paying
off the liabilities of the Canal Company, and then the
residue to be paid to the shareholders. This bill was
filed to have the distribution effected.
The COURT decided that there must be a reference to
the Master, to ascertain what liabilities of the company
were unpaid previous to a distribution of the surplus.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 26.
POTEZ V. GLOSSOP.

This was an action by the endorser of two bills of
exchange against the acceptor, to recover the sum of
5001.

Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr. Chambers, Mr. Muller,
and Mr. George Pollock were counsel for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Humphrey, and Sir John Bay-
ley for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant is a clergyman of the
Church of England, and holds the living of West Dean,
Salisbury. Having occasion several months ago for
pecuniary assistance, he referred to the advertisements
in the daily papers, in August, 1846, and found the fol.
lowing in the Morning Herald ;

" PERSONAL SECURITY.—A smn exceeding 10,0001.
is ready immediately to be advanced in sums of not less
than 100/., nor more than 2,0001. to one individual. The
borrower must be of known consequence and solidity,
and no personal application can be noticed. Communi-
cations to be made, in writing only, in the first instance,
to J. R., 300, Oxford-street.
He immediately answered the advertisement, stating the
circumstances which induced him to ask for a loan, and
a correspondence ensued between the parties, the letters
to the defendent being signed "J. P. Gardiner." The
result of the correspondence was the defendant's going
to London and having an interview with Gardiner.
Preliminaries being then finally arranged, the defendant
gave Gardiner two acceptance, amounting to 5001., pay-
able at four months after date, in order that Gardiner
might get them discounted for him. Gardiner, in ex-
change for the bills, gave the defendant his receipt for
them, which stated that he held them for the purpose of
obtaining a discount upon them. The defendant then
went away, in full expectation of having his money
on the following day, when Gardiner would have pro-
cured it from his bankers. For that purpose he called
upon Gardiner, at his office in Fludyer. street, West-
minster, but his visit ended in disappointment, which
Gardiner made up for by saying that he intended, in a
few days, going down to Southampton, when he would
bring the amount with him. With that assurance
the defendant left town, and according to pre-
vious arrangement, sent his carriage to meet Gar-
diner at Southampton on the appointed day. In the
meantime, however, he received a letter from that per-
son, saying that he had been prevented from leaving
town, but would beg to appoint the following Saturday.
In the meantime two other letters reached the defendant's
house, one of which was from Gardiner, desiring him
to answer in the affirmative any gentleman writing from
his bankers to ascertain the authenticity of the accept.
ances he had given. The other was from a person
named Gadderer, of 23, Craven-street, Strand, who now
for the first time appeared in the transaction, and re-
quested the information alluded to in Gardiner's letter.
When the letters arrived the defendant was from home,
but Mrs. Glossop opened them, and wrote to Gadderer,
stating the bills had been left with Gardiner to be dis-
counted, but as yet not one shilling had been received
for them. This reply was employed by Gardiner, in a
subsequent letter, that of the sth of September, to ac-
count for his not going to Southampton as he promised,
as well as for his having failed to procure the advances on
the bills. Gardiner said also, that his bankers in refusing
to discount defendant's bills, had observed that they
bad 13,0001. worth of similar bills already in their
hands. Although Gardiner made a point of swear-
ing that the bills had not been out of his hands,
it would seem that he and Gadderer had been
in close communication upon the subject of this business.
On the 17th the defendant came to London, and asked
Gardiner for his bills or for the money, when the latter
said he he was going into the City to have them cashed,
and that if he would meet him at Garraway's, at half-
past three o'clock, he would hand him over the proceeds.
The defendant kept his appointment; but Gardiner, as
might have been expected, did not make his appearance.
He next called in Craven-street upon Gadderer, whom
he did not see, and by whom he was requested to call
by-and-by for the money. He called, but never again
saw him. Gardiner he happened to meet, who told him
that he had been disappointed in his expectations of dis-
counting the bills, but that he would once more try what
could be done by applying to a friend of his, a banker
in Leeds. This resource also failing, the defendant
instructed his attorneys, who inserted an advertisement,
cautioning the public against the bills he had given, which
he described as having been obtained by fraud from the
Rev. Mr. Glossop, and referring all applications
relative to them to Messrs. Bush and Mullins, of St.
Mildred's-court. Gardiner then wrote to the de-
fendant, to say, that he, too, should put the matter
into the hands of his attorneys. Neither the bills
nor the money ever made their appearance. On Sep-
tember 30th, a letter was received from Messrs. Tucker
and Co., solicitors, complaining on behalf of the plaintiff,
(whom they called Potosi) of the publication of the cau-
tion. Messrs. Bush and Mullins wrote back for the
address of this lady, which they then heard was at 23,
Craven-street. They afterwards discovered that she
kept a lodging-house, and that Gadderer was one of her
lodgers. Upon the bills arriving at maturity, it turned
out that they were not in the hands of the plaintiff at all,
but in those of a party whose name appeared as an
endorsee, but the name of the plaintiff did not appear
upon them. They were endorsed by Gardiner, Gad-
darer, and Lawrence Levy. One bill had got into the
hands of a person named Jones, who was said to be the
father of the attorney for the plaintiff in this action.
Levy had endorsed one of the bills to Jones,
and he held the other. He had a brother an at-
torney, named Lewis, and when the bill becarae
due, Levy's was presented by Lewis for payment.
Young and Valings were refused permission to see the
bill, and declined to pay it; the ether bill was also re-
fused, and hence the present action. Gardiner at length
handed the bills to one T. Holbrook Coyle, a person well
known in bill transactions, and from him they passed to
Gadderer, who ultimately obtained their discount by
Levy. When they were fliscouuted by Levy not a word,
Was said about' the plaintiff, for then he would have
taken care that her name was attached to them, as she
was represented to have a considerable sum in the funds,
and a house full of furniture. Before the bills became
due, Gardiner wrote to defendant to remind him of the
fact, and begged him to say whether he would be able to
meet them, as it might be necessary to arrange for their
renewal. The question upon that state of facts would
be, whether Gadderer was not the sole party to this
transaction, and that the plaintiff was in no way con-
cerned. After the dishonour of the bills, Levy went to
Gadderer and said that he did not choose to be mixed
up in the affair by bringing an action upon them, as he
was led to suppose that there might be proceedings taken,
charging a conspiracy, and therefore he must have the
money returned. Gadderer, upon the representation,
found the sum, and gave it to Levy. The Learned
Counsel for the defendant, in adverting to the evidence
which would be given by Mr. Deane, a solicitor, with 'a
view to show that, in point of fact, the plaintiff was not
concerned, said that Gadderer would be shown to be the
n, and could not, therefore, be called
real principal in the business. The defendant had not
had a single shilling,
adjourned
been
the
farther bu
upon to pay.the amount of the bills. The evidence Of
Deane cercienly did go to that extent but the defend-
aand
ne il
di setp
hartehareianrgdtwillhe:nhits day.heCourt rose,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

In consequence of the exciting presentments recently
made by Dr. Lynch, and the inquest of the ward of
Farringdon Without, to the Lord Mayor, and also to
the Common Council, respecting the dangerously foul
state of the cesspools, and the accumulations of filth in
the cellars of many houses in that ward, the Commis-
sioners of Sewers have bestirred themselves, and com-
menced proceedings against some of the landlords. The
houses are found to be generally those which are wholly
let out in separate rooms to different families, the land-
lord living elsewhere, determined to get the greatest
possible rent with the least possible expenditure, and
utterly regardless of the sickness and distress suffered
by the residents in the house in consequence of the
exhalations from the overflowing or uncovered filth.
Mr. Tyrrell, the Remembrancer, appeared on behalf
of the Commissioners of Sewers, and Mr. Attwood
Smith for the inquest.
Mr. Tyrrell stated that the Commissioners had insti-
tuted these proceedings under the Cholera Act, 9 Vic.,
cap. 96, which empowered them, upon receiving the
certificate of two medical gentlemen that there was in
any house or other place an accumulation of noxious
matter of any kind, or any foul privy or cesspool, to
make complaint to the magistrate, and cause the owner
of the house to be summoned, and an order made that
ho should abate the nuisance within forty-eight hours.
In default of his obeying this direction, the order re-
quired the Commissioners to enter the premises and
abate the nuisance at the charge of the landlord. A Mr.
Gower had been summoned in respect to some foul
privies in his houses in Harp-alley, and in Churchyard-
court, Harp•alley. He had promised to remove the evil
as speedily as practicable, and as the parochial authori-
ties, represented by Mr. Smith, were content, he had
assented to the summons being adjourned for a fortnight.
Mr. Alderman MUSGROVE assented.
Mr. Kirkwood, a pawnbrocker, in Brick-lane, Old-
street, then appeared on his summons for permitting an
accumulation of noxious matters to remain in the cellar
of his house, No. 10, Crown-court, Fleet-street, and
also for suffering the cesspool to overflow and become
foul.

Mr. Kirkwood said ho had very recently purchased
the freehold. lie had not seen the state of the place,
and would readily remove all ground of complaint if time
were given.
Mr. Tyrrell said as Mr. Kirkwood met the complaint
in this way he had no objection to allow him the same
time as Mr. Gower.

Mr. AlderWan—M USGROVE said ho would take that
opportunity of saying a few words, as the rate-payers
had been charged with shamefully disregarding the
sanatory condition of the'poor. As the chairman of the
Commission of Sewers for the Tower Hamlets, and a
commissioner of the Holborn and Finsbury divi-
sion, he had a practical knowledge of the sub•
ject, and he would affirm that if the Legisla-
ture would intrust the Commissioners of St,wers
with the authority to compel the owners of
houses to make underground drains to the great sewers
constructed by the Commissioners, the grievance might
be entirely removed without the interference of Govern-

ment or any of the Government Commissioners. He
could vouch that, particularly within the last three
years, the most anxious attention and vast sums of
money had been devoted to making proper sewers in the
thoroughfares, but they could not persuade-or compel
the owners of houses to open a communication with those
sewers at their own expense, and particularly the owners
of houses in courts. The public local burdens were
quite heavy enough without adding charges that clearly
belonged to private individuals. In Whitechapel there
were a vast number of instances of residents along the
great outlets refusing to incur the expense of making a
communication to the sewer, but they expected their
property to be improved at the expense of the public.
Mr. Edwards, of Vauxhall-walk, was then called.
He had been summoned for suffering foul cesspools to
exist in his three houses, Nos. 26, 27, and 28, Poppin's-
court, Fleet-street. These are let out to separate
lodgers.
Mr. Tyrell said there was now a sewer down the
centre of the court, but some of the landlords would not
incur the expense of opening a communication with it.
He produced the certificate of Dr. Lynch and Mr. Day,
that there were foul cesspools in these houses which were
dangerous to the public health.
Mr. Edwards did not appear.
Roe, the City officer, proved the service of three sum-
monses on Mr. Edwards, who said he should not attend,
and that he should commence actions of trespass against
those who had taken the liberty of entering his house.
Mr. Hutchinson, of Farringdon-street, a surgeon, said
this gentleman had threatened to turn out any lodger
who dared to make the least complaint about the stench
from the cesspools to the parochial authorities.
Mr. Alderman MuscnoTt said that was in keeping
with what he said to the officer. He was satisfied with
the evidence, and made an order for the cleansing of the
cesspools within twenty-four hours.