The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-02 00:00:00

A 4,

Madras, the whole of which went off heavily, and only
partly sold at a decline of 6d to Is on the Bengal,
and Is to 2s on the Madras ; the British Plantation
and the Mauritius were chiefly withdrawn, holders not being
inclined to submit to the reduction. The quantity of British
Plantation landed last week at the East and West India
Docks was 1,317 hhds 154 trcs 341 brls, and there were taken
for home consumption 766 hhds 47 trcs 352 brls. The stock
in the same places is 3,326 hhds 321 trcs 853 brls.
COMIC-880 bags Ceylon, consisting of fine ord British
Plantation kind, realised very full prices, viz., 59s to 69s for
fine ord grey, and 74s per cwt for pea berry.
Item.—The quantity landed last week at the East and
West India Docks, was 137 puns 5 hhds. There were taken for
home consumption 110 puns 45 hhds; and exported 107 puns
22 hhds. The stock in the same places is 9,667 puns 1,086
hhds.
TALLOW.—P. Y. C. is Rs 3d per cwt on the spot and
Town 53s per cwt.
TEA.—The market is steady, and the deliveries are in-
creasing.
TonAcco.—During the past month prices generally bare
remained steady, and holders do not submit to a further
reduction. The sales have been large, viz., 1,750 hhds.
HOLT- Y.)

iSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DA
The House of Lords sat to-day for the first time this
session to hear appeals. The Peers present were the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Breugham, and the Bishop of St. Asaph.
COLE V. SEWELL.
This case came before their Lordships upon appeal from
the decision of the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Sir E.
Sugden) dismissing the bill filed by the plaintiff for the
purpose of a partition and allotment to him of an estate
called Daly or Quansbury, situate in the county of Galway.
The case, which is one purely depending upon dry points of
law, appears likely to occupy their Lordships a day or two.
Mr. Turner and Mr. Malins appear for the appellant, and
Mr. Tinney and Mr. Shapter are counsel for the respondent.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in his
Court in Lincoln's Inn to-day, and heard motions, but no case
of any interest occurred during the morning.

COURT OF REVIEW.---(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir J. K. Baum)
His Honour sat to-day in Lincoln's Inn-fields, and was
occupied in hearing bankrupt petitions.
AVERSTER V. ACRAMAN.
This was an appeal from the decision of the Commissioners
of Bankruptcy, and praying to be permitted to claim for a
larger sum than was granted against the estate of the bank-
rupt.
Mr. Russell and another Learned Gentleman appeared in
support of Mr. Swanston and Mr. Selwyn against the petition.
The 'case was of no general interest, and his HONOUR
confirmed the decision, dismissing the petition with coats.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr. Justice
ERLE and Common Juries,)
COUNSEL AND THEIR CLIENTS.—BENNETT V. HARTIL AND 00.
This case was the second in the list, and was called on im•
mediately after the sitting of the Court., the record in the first
case having been withdrawn. An unexpected difficulty,
however, occurred, as Mr. Peacock, who had been retained
for the plaintiff; was not in attendance to conduct his case.
After waiting for a short time,
Mr. Justice ERLE intimated that if the case was not pro-
ceeded with, either the record would have to be withdrawn,
or the plaintiff non-suited. lie suggested that the attorney
should instruct another counsel.
The attorney had no brief; it was in Mr. Peacock's pos •
session. He was, however, proceeding to instruct Mr. Pig-
gott, when
Mr. Peacock entered with his brief.
Mr. Justice Eata said—" Mr. Peacock, every cause in
the list is the first in the mind of a practical man."
Mr. PEACOCK proceeded to open the case.
Mr. Justice ERLE—CaII your first witness.
Mr. PEACOCK (who was reading from his brief) said he
was opening his client's case.
Mr. Justice ERLE said he was reading his brief verbatim.
Mr. PEACOCK then called his first witness, and having
examined her, he placed his brief in the hands of Mr. Ball,
and withdrew for the purpose, no doubt, of transacting
business in some of the other courts.
The case itself was only of the ordinary kind. It was an
issue under the Interpleader Act, to try to whom a quan-
tity of furniture deposited in two houses, situated at 40 and
39, Green-street, Grosvenor-square, one
of which is known
as Talbot's Hotel. The plaintiff had been the conductor
of the Exeter Hotel, in the Strand, and the defendants are
wholesale ironmongers at Dudley, in Staffordshire. The fur-
niture in question was contended to have belonged to a Mr.
Thompson, who also carried on the business of an ironmonger
in South Molton-street, Oxford-street, and that in Islay,
1845, it, with some plate, which was subsequently stolen, was
sold to the plaintiff for a considerable sum. An inventory of
the articles, and a receipt, bearing the signature of both
Thompson and his wife, were produced.
A witness proved the signing of the receipt, and the pay-
ment of 3801.
In August last year, the defendant levied a distress on the
goods for 56/. 15s. as the goods of Thompson. The whole of
the property was valued at more than 6001.
Mr. Knowles and 11Ir. Miller were for the defendants, on
whose behalf it was contended that the assignment was col-
lusive, and was made for the purpose of cheating Thompson's
creditors, when he found himself in an embarrassed condi-
tion. The goods had remained in the possession of, and had
been used by, the Thompsons for a considerable time after the
alleged sale.
Mr. Justice EaLE commented upon the frequency of frau-
dulent transfers, or transfers by creditors for the purpose of
meeting their creditors with a bill of sale or an assignment,
when they adopted ulterior measures, and so neutralizing
their levy, and left it to the jury to say whether, in this case.
there had or had not been a transfer of this nature. He said
it was a remarkable and suspicious fact, that the plaintiff had
never exercised or put forth any right of ownership over the
property until a distraint was put in.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendants.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
(THIS DAY.)
Sittings in Error, before Lord Chief Justice WILDE, Mr.
Baron PARKE, Mr. Baron ALDERSON, Mr. Baron Boum.,
Mr. Baron PLAIT, Mr. Justice MAULE, and Mr. Justice
WILLIAMS.)

HOWARD V. GOSSETT.
The Court gave judgment in this cause, reversing the de-
cision of the court! below. The Court were of opinion that
the warrant issued by the Speaker of the House of Commons
was valid, and that, the plaintiff in error the Sergeant-at-
Arms (Sir W. Gossett), was justified in acting upon the same.
The verdict must therefore be entered for the defendant.