The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1841.

contracting debts which it appeared scarcely probable
they could ever pay. The cause of religion was deeply
injured by the forced suffering of the poor.
The CHAIRMAN said the small farmers in his neigh-
bourhood were totally unable to give employment to the
labouring population, being scarcely able to provide food
for their own families. Meat seldom appeared at their
tables from one end of the year to the other. Distress
grew worse and worse amongst the population, and un-
less speedy relief was afforded, the country would be
ruined.
The Rev. 0. THOMAS, Talsarn, said that the work-
ing people were in very great distress in his neighbour-
hood. The people in the parish where be resided were
actually starving. He knew an honest working man
who had nothing for his breakfast but the tea kaves
given him by his neighbours, and vegetables collected
from the fields. He knew a woman who had been
living last week on potatoe peel.—(Great sensation.)
Dr. OWEN OWEN ROBERTS, of Bangor, stated that
his avocation as a medical practitioner gave him abun-
dant opportunites of knowing the real condition of the
poor, and he could bear witness to the fact that their
distress was of the most heartrending character. In
the Bangor Union a poor woman, who had lain ill for
five weeks, had scarely any clothes during the time he
attended her. She bad only one shirt, which, having
washed, and having no fire wherewith to dry it, sbe was
obliged to put on whilst wet. She had no bed. She
was in a condition not fit to keep a pig in. Her misery
was horrible to look upon.
EVENING MEETING.—TIC public meeting of the
conference commenced at six o'clock, in the new Mar-
ket Hall. There was an unprecedented assemblage—
the galleries being so desely filled as to leave no sen-
sible line of demarcation between the members of the
conference and the auditors, and the entire area pre-
senting one mass of living beings extending even beyond
the precincts of the building. The proceedings excited
the highest interest, nod the various resolutions and ad-
dresses were received with enthusiastic approbation.
The chair, as in the preceding meetings, was taken by
G. Evans, Esq.
The Rev. Mr. MASSIE moved the first resolution—
" That one of the plain duties of the Christian
ministry is to denounce, as publicly and effectually as
possible, every measure injurious to the morals of the
community, and to the physical condition of the people."
The Rev. Gentleman supported the resolution in an
eloquent address. It was unanimously agreed to.
The Rev. John Prichard, of Llangollen, moved the
second resolution :
" That when such measures as are alluded to in the
foregoing resolution have received the sanction of the
Legislature, and are supported by the dominant party
in the State, they require a more emphatical and effec-
tive denunciation than can be given to them from the
pulpit ;" which was also carried.
The Rev. ELLIS HUGHES, of Holywell, moved the
third resolution :
" That a public conference of the Christian ministry,
for any particular district, without reference to deno-
mination or sect, appears to be the most expedient and
effective means fOr bringing the dictates of the Gospel
to bear publicly upon public evils."—Carried.
Colonel THOMPSON (who had arrived that evening
by the General Chasse a short time before) seconded
the resolution.
The number present is estimated at from 4 to 5,000.
THURSDAY.—FORENOON MEETING.—The meeting
was re-opened at the Guildhall by a hymn having been
sung, and a portion of Scripture read. A number
of Ministers bore testimony to the destitution of their
flocks.

The afternoon meeting was like that of the forenoon.
The Rev. Mr. MAssIE gave an account of the dis-
tress at Monteith.
At the evening meeting Colonel THOMPSON pro-
posed the fourth resolution, which was received with loud
acclamations. He stated that he was requested to move
and support, as he was best able, the following propo-
sition :
" That the present Corn-law is a public evil, and es-
sentially adverse to the plainest injunctions of Holy
Writ, opposed to the moral and physical welfare of the
people, and injurious to the religious interests of the
entire community."
The Rev. W. THOMAS, of Dwygyfylebi, seconded
the resolution which had been moved by Colonel
Thompson, which was agreed to.
The Rev. W. AMBRoSE, of Port Madoc, moved the
fifth resolution.
That a memorial to the Queen, and addresses to
the various religious communities of the northern por-
tion of the principality, embodying the substance and
spirit of the foregoing resolutions, be prepared and for-
warded on behalf of the conference, through the me-
dium of its committee."
This resolution was briefly seconded by the Rev. Mr.
Williams.
The Rev. E. EVANS, of Cefn Mawr, moved the sixth
resolution as follows :

" That the thanks of this meeting be presented to the
Committee of the Carnarvon Anti-Corn-law League
for their exertions, and to the inhabitants of the town
in general for their hospitality and co-operation in fa-
vour of this conference.'
The Rev. R.PAnny, of Conway, seconded the re-
solution.
Mr. BRYAN proposed the seventh resolution, as
follows :
" That the thanks of the meeting be given to Col.
Peyronet Thompson, and to the Rev. J. W. Massie,
for their kindness in responding to the invitation of the
Committee, by attending this conference."
The Rev. J. W. MAssIE, and Col. THOMPSON re-
turned thanks.

Mr. WALTER GRIFFTH returned his thanks to the
conference on behalf of the Anti-Corn-law League,
and proposed a vote of thanks to the chairman.
The conference then broke up.
The following is the memorial
TO HER MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY—We, your Ma-
jesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, being Christian minis-
ters of various denominations, representing numerous
congregations, and enjoying the sympathy and cordial
concurrence of many absent ministerial brethren resident
in the agricultural as vvell as the mining districts in North
Wales, have assembled in Carnarvon, during the Ist
and 2d days of December, 1841, to communicate our
experience and convictions relative to the operation of
the laws,which, by restricting the amount, and increasing
the price of food, providentially available for the inhabi-
tants of this land, repress the resources of the country,
and afflict the labouring people ; and are desirous to ap-
proach the throne and address to the ear of our beloved
Sovereign an expression of our sympathies in relation to
the deeply interesting position in which a merciful Pro-
vidence has placed your Majesty, as a mother and a
Queen ; and also to declare our sentiments in reference
to the laws which so widely affect the happiness of our
fellow-subjects.

The depression of trade, and the consequent poverty
and suffering of our people, prevent them and us from
mingling in festive celebrations on the occasion in which
the God of all mercies, in infinite goodness, has pre-
served the life of your Majesty, and bestowed on your
Majesty and your people a Prince destined, we hope
after many years, to become the ruler of ',tieso realms.
Yet we trust our expressions of congrmoi,tion will not
be deemed less loyal and affectionp:,e,"
assem-
bled to address your Majesty, while thus
y, eve bail the birth of your
Royal son as heir of our Ile
are reserved the highest :ave British kings, for whom
Sovereign honours belonging 'so
and descending by long here-
dthitiasraynscuiecnctespsrioinncipay_,
4irom the Second Edward, born in the
..enerable walls surround us. May the
castleprinc Prince whose
'oorn be long preserved, and made wise for
the government of his people, and be the source of con-
tinued comfort to his Royal and Illustrious parents.
I'd the midst of our warm and grateful feelings, ex-
cited by this auspicious event, and whilst cherishing the
most affectionate veneration for the person and dynasty,
and an ardent attachment to the throne of, your Ma-
jesty, we are solemnly conscious that we are met to
discharge an onerous and grievous duty in laying before
your Majesty our impressions and convictions as to the
character and operation of the Corn-laws. We are
surrounded by, and, in the discharge of our avocations,
come into daily contact with, multitudes who depend
on their industry for their honest maintenance ;
we witness their struggles and sympathise with them
in their sorrows and privations. But though language
be inadequate to describe the scenes of heart-rending,
wide spread, and ever deepening distress with which
our duty makes us painfully familiar, we are constrained
to attempt to convey to your Gracious Majesty in-
telligence of the fact that thousands of your loyal and
industrious subjects are in destitution, to a very great
extent, of the common necessaries of life ; and, besides
the prevalence of fevers and other diseases, suffer many
of the consequences of famine in a land of plenty. W e
venture respectfully, but confidently, to trace these
miseries to inadequate employment and low rate of
wages, which are not merely incidental to fluctuations
in trade, but are tl.e legitimate and necessary effects of
laws, which produce artificial scarcity and enhance the
price of bread, and, preventing the increase of labour
and commerce, lessen the remuneration of industry.
We have but too well accredited testimony regard'ing
other parts of your Majesty's empire to remain in
doubt whether others suffers as do our flocks and neigh-
hours in the Principality. We read of the teas of
thousands of skilful and willing craftsmen who subsist on
the scanty pittance of public charity, and the seasonable
epli
en
n ft
sufull
and
relianceit
h ou t debasea n
on
y
efforts and contributions of humane individuals—a kind
of momentary maintenance calculated to impoverish the
donors thepe
rfeelingsin
the
an en t
sympathybaen ndefie
atl
ntaod r at
pch
ate er
cer
onmt ofa
ni theun
rtey-
:
solici-
tude uniformly
who suffer, andetv,oirnctehde
hbaypyp•oinuerssMoale3s,toyurtopweaorpdise,thaoande
encouraged by your Queenly determination to " rule in
trii,geh
cteoonus
tsineustsi
Onal prerogatives vested in you, as our
" we humbly, yet earnestly, entreat that
t Chief Magistrate, may be so exerted, as to your wis-
dom may seem fit, in order that, at the earliest oppor-
tunity, the legal restrictions on the sale of articles of
om
haih all techee,Statutes
s;ot
afi
nbyloi
tsuhhree
drbeoaulfmon
r.„
ties
ioneeds d
aoff mayreae becuo
17e
lxvmpe uer
:glee dwr
rtr
your people.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 3.
The Lord Chancellor was occupied, during the whole
of the morning, with the hearing of lunatic petitions,
which offered no feature of public interest.

ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 3.

THE SHEFFIELD CANAL COMPANY V. THE SHEFFIELD

AND ROTHERHAM RAILWAY CO3IPANY.
The MASTER of the Thum gave judgment in this
case, which was argued in November last, and the facts
of which were fully reported in The Sun. His Lordship
said the suit arose out of an agreement founded on a
letter for the payment of an annuity of 100/. by the defen-
dants to the plaintiffs; and having recapitulated the facts
at length, and dwelt particularly on the declaration of the
agent of the defendants at his last interview on the subject.
with the agent of the plaintiffs that " they would fight it
out," his Lordship said that he was of opinion there
had been a waiver of the agreement by the agent of the
plaintiffs, which agreement could not therefore be re-
newed by his subsequently accepting it. The plaintiffs'
agent had rejected the offer of the 18th June, and could
nut bind defendants by it. On the 20th, the defendants
having conceded one point, were willing to renew the
contract, but this offer was rejected by the agent of the
plaintiffs, as the former had been, and it could not now
be converted into a binding agreement. Ile was of
opinion there never was a binding agreement, and the bill
must therefore be dismissed with costs.

WESTENRA v. GREGORY.
This suit was instituted by the plaintiff, Col. Westenra,
a younger son of Lord Rossmore, to charge the separate
estate of his late wife, with certain debts that had been
contracted by her during her coverture. A marriage
having been contemplated between the plaintiff and Lady
East, indentures of lease and release were executed on the
28th and 29th of March 1834, between Col. Westenra and
Lady East and the defendants, wherby she assigned to
the defendants all the estate she was entitled to under
the will of her late husband, to hold the same after the
solemnization of her marriage with the plaintiff, upon
such trusts as she should at any time thereafter
appoint ; and she also assigned a leasehold house in
Green-street, Grosvenor-square, and all other the lease-
hold estates and property in which she had any interest,
to the defendants, to hold the same as to the leasehold
estates, upon such trusts as she during her lifetime
should appoint, and after her death, at the discretion of
the trustees, to invest the moneys arising therefrom in
the funds, and to stand possessed of the same to such
uses as she should have appointed, and in default of ap-
pointment in trust for her next of kin, as if she had
died unmarried. The marriage took place on the
3lst of March, 1834, and Mrs. Westenra died on
the 17th of November, 1838, having made a will on
3d Feb. 1837, whereby she gave certain bequests to her
husband, and the residue of her property to her four
nieces, and appointed the defendants her executors, who
proved her will. After the death of Mrs. Westenra, it
appeared that the property she had directeoo be invested
for the benefit of her husband, realised 16,0001., and that
the debts remaining unpaid at the time of her decease,
amounted to about 4,0001., which the nieces, as the re-
siduary
legatees, objected to the payment of out of her '
separate estate. A bill was accordingly filed by the plain-
tiff, praying that an account might be taken of the separate
estate of Mrs. Westenra, and of the debts due from her
on account thereof, at the time of her decease, and that
the defendants might be directed to pay the same out of
her separate estates. _ _ _
- _

Mr. Pemberton and other Learned Counsel appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Turner and other Learned
Counsel for the defendants. And after some discussiP,i,,
at the suggestion of the Master of the hulls, it
ar-
ranged between them that the inquiry Prav'..o for b the
."'ruaster to state
bill should be made, with liberty for tic
special circumstances.

COURT, Dec. 3.
lIA-Nirc:e IL ORS'
the vIIANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
VICE
(Before C
HERRING V. CLOBERY.
This w, as an application, on the part of the plaintiff,
that ne might be discharged from the custody of the
Warden of the Fleet prison, and that the processes of
contempt, in the several attachments issued against him,
at the instance of the defendant, for the non-payment of
costs, might be stayed. It appeared that the costs in
question had been incurred by the plaintiff in a former
suit, which his Honour had decided against him, and
those costs not having been paid, he had been committed
for contempt. The decision, however, of his Honour
was now under appeal to the Lord Chancellor ; and
the plaintiff prayed that he might be discharged
front prison, for the purpose of enabling him to conduct
the appeal, while he offered security for his re-appearance,
in case it sheuld be decided against him.
The nature of the application having been stated by
Mr. ROMILLY for the plaintiff,
Mr. RICHARDS objected, for the defence, that the Court
could not entertain it, until the plaintiff had cleared him-
self from a contempt of Court, by paying the sum of
271. 11s. Id., the costs of a former application.
After some discussion the Court decided that the pre-
sent application could not be heard until the plaintiff had
cleared himself of the contempt. The money was then
paid in, His Honour observing that that looked more
like buginess than anything he had fur many a day seen
in that Court.

Mr. RomiLLy was again about to proceed with the ap-
plication, when

- Mr. RICHARDS observed that the plaintiff should fur-
ther clear himself of contempt of Court by the payment
of two different sums; the one amounting to 161., and the
other to 131.

These sums having been also paid in,
Mr. RomILLv again rose to address the Court, and
was again interrupted by
Mr. RICHARDS, who contended that the Court could
not entertain the application to discharge the prisoner
until he had paid the sum of 800/., the costs of the
former suit, in which his Honour had decided and
awarded against him. By the non-payment of that sum
he had been guilty of a contempt of Court, from which
he was bound, before he could take any proceedings
there, to clear himself. The plaintiff did not complain
that „ne attachment was wrung, or that it had been in-
formally executed ; and he could not, therefore, at pre-
sent, obtain its suspension.
Mr. ROMILLY said that the plaintiff did not wish to
evade the attachment, as he would give sufficient security
for his re-appearance in case the appeal to the Lord
Chancellor was decided against him. The plaintiff
would have been entitled to make the application to his
Honour at the time the bill of costs had been lodged ;
and he should not now suffer from having delayed
taking such a step.
His lloNoru said that it was a well-established rule
of Court, that proceedings on a decree should not be
stayed merely because an appeal had been lodged. If
the effect of the decree might be to place in jeopardy the
very thing at issue, that might be a reason why the
Court should interfere to stay proceedings. But he did
not see any grounds for such interference in the present
case ; and he should, therefore dismiss the application
with costs.

(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His HONOUR disposed of several petitions and short
causes of no general importance.

TULLOCH V. HARTLEY.
The bill was filed to have an account taken of an es-
tate in Jamaica. The facts are already before the pub-
lic. The cause came on for hearing before Lord Cot-
tenham, just before the commencement of the vacation,
when it was postponed on account of the impossibility
of bringing it to a conclusion. The arguments of Coun•
sel will be resumed on this day, and we shall notice shy
new points of interest which may arise during the
hearing.

_
(Befoe Vice-Chancellor IVIGRAm.)
LITTLE V. GRuiLLE.
Counsel. The cause i, points raised by
His HONOUR decided srs,ine of the
1 to be set down for further hear-
ing next week.,

TOMLIN V. TOMLIN.
Tne bill in this case was originally filed by John
Tomlin and Thomas Minter Tomlin, who each claimed
to be entitled to one-fourth of the residuary estate of a
lady of the name of Elizabeth Kelly.
Mr. Russell appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Sharp
for the defendant.
_ _

Mr. RUSSELL opened the case to the following effect:
—The principal SUM in' dispute was 60,0001., due from
Thomas Belcey to his sister Elizabeth at the time of his
death. Previous to that period Elizabeth and Mary
Belcey and their brother Thomas had lived together,
Thomas having the entire management of the sister's
affairs, and the whole disposition of their pro-
perty. Upon the death of Elizabeth, on the 19th
of December, 1838, administration of her estate
was granted to Mary and Thomas Belcey. In the return
made to the Stamp-office Thomas Belcey charged him-
self as having cash in his hands belonging to the de;
ceased testator, amounting to 50,6701. ; which sum, by
the expenses of probate, was reduced to 49,0001. Ilis
own and his sister's life-interest in it were valued upon
that calculation at 9,1401. 18s. 10d. There were a series
of accounts kept between himself and his sister
acknowledging her title to a moiety of the
bond for 50,0001. On the death of Elizabeth he de-
stroyed all the accounts relating to transactions between
himself and the deceased. Thomas Belcey died on the
3d of August, 1832, leaving by his will the whole of his
property to his sister for life, and after her death to
Robert Sacket Tornline. Mary Belcey died in 1835.
Letters of administration were taken out at 50,0001.,
by Robert Sacket and James Tomline, and pro-
bate duty paid for that amount. Shortly after Mary's
death, in a statement of account by Mr. Dearlmg,
who had acted as Solicitor fur the deceased and
her brother during their life, it was admitted that.
Thomas's estate was indebted to those of Eliz9teth and
Mary to the amount of 50,000/. Matter; stood thus in
them defend
us„nit:
Seplelaber, 1835. Nothing scely ed more easy than to
a',,,Just the claims of the par'iles severally interestedthe estate. After some delay,
however, it was su in
g-
tgietasttedthet?e'
counts. It Wr,d ti be some mistake in the aLt-
Contend that upon
the death of Eli-
ya' i Robert Sachet Tomlin,
• as, instead of dividing the debt equally,
beth T
had t, •, .en tom
the whole penalty of th bondor had taken
the ehule sum of 49,0001., as due from shimslf to the
estate of Elizabeth, when in fact only half that sum was
due ; although, in the accounts kept by him after the death
of Elizabeth, he gave credit to Mary for one half of the
bond. The Learned Counsel read a 'document, which was
put in, in the handwriting of Robert Sachet Tomlin, pur-
porting to be a copy of one formerly in the handwriting of
Thomas Belcey, stating that he had been mistaken in
his calculation of the bebt due from himself to his sister,
and that in consideration of those mistakes his sister
Mary had agreed to release him from all debts appear-
ing on the accounts. Shortly before his decease, it ap-
peared that the testator wished to increase his property,
and Mary, the trustee of the bond, whose duty it was
to enforce payment, had destroyed it. The account was
not questioned as between Mary Belcey and her .bro-
th A.. The whole defence rested upon the statement that
the testator had charged himself with the whole amount
or• the bond as due to Mary. The object of the suit was

to have it declared, that at the death of Elizabeth Eel-
cey, Thomas was indebted to her in the sum of 50,6701.,
the case of the plaintiff not being prejudiced in the
account to be taken by the act of Thomas Belcey,
in destroying the accounts of the debts due from himself
to the estate of his deCeased sister.

Mr. COLVILLE followed on the same side, and put in
a number of documents relating to the suit.
The arguments are to be resumed this day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 4.
DODSWORTH V. PARDY.

This was an action for an assault. The plaintiff is the
foreman of Messrs. Mayne, Read, and Co., wholesale
floor-cloth manufacturers, of the Dover-road. They
have also a warehouse in the Queen's Head-yard, Great
Queen-street, Lincoln's Inn-fields ; and in the month of
October last a lad, who was carrying some food to a
mastiff dog in the yard, passed close to the door of a
kennel in which a dog belonging to the defendant was
chained. The defendant's dog seized the meat and swal-
lowed it, and the defendant offered to pay the boy for it.
'The plaintiff, who was looking on, went up to the defend-
ant and asked him why he did not pay the boy for it.
The defendant walked into the kennel and shut the gate,
and the plaintiff asked him why he did not come out and
speak to him like a man, and applied to him the term
dog-stealer, The result was that the defendant struck
the plaintiff several blows in the face, blackened one of
his eyes, and injured his arm. It was for this assault
the action was brought. Several witnesses were exa-
mined for the plaintiff; who deposed to the above facts.
Mr. THESIGER, for the defendant, submitted that the-
plaintiff was entitled to a very small measure of da-
mages for the assault, because it was evident that he had •
brought the attack upon himself, by the insulting and
offensive expressions which he had applied to the de-
fendant, who was ready to make every reparation for
what his dog had done. It appeared to him that after
using the words " thief, cheat, and dog• stealer," the
plaintiff richly deserved the punishnient he had met
with. The assault could not, of course, be justified by
any expressions which might be used, but; in the present
instance, a very small amount of damages would meet
the justice of the case.

A servant of the defendant, who was stated to be the
proprietor of a canine depot for supplying noblemen
and gentlemen with sporting dogs, saw the assault,
which he said was provoked by the insulting language of
the plaintiff. He also stated that the plaintiff came back
in half an hour, and wanted the defendant to come out
and fight. He was a witness at Bow. street, in a case of
assault, in which Mr. Pardy was the defendant. Mr,
Pardy was fined 21.
William Stebbing saw the plaintiff squaring at the de-
fendant, and saying " Come out like a man,' before the
assault took place.
Another witness, named Thompson, heard the plaintiff
say, " Come out, you dog-stealer, and fight like a man."
Mr. JONES having replied, the Learned Judge summed
up, observing that the case might have been very easily
adjudicated before a Magistrate.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da,
mages 5/.
CO U

-RT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 3,
WILLIAMSON, D.D. V. COLLIER, M.D.
Mr. Scfgeala ANDREWS (with whom were Mr. Ser-
gea7..i, Stocks and Mr. P. Williams), stated that the ac-
tion was brought by Dr. Williamson, the headmaster of
Westminster School, to recover 421. from the defendant,
Dr. Collier, a physician living in Spring-gardens, for
the education of his two sons at that school. It appeared
that Westminster School consisted of a number of boys,
a certain portion being on the foundation, and the other
what were called home boarders. The terms on which
home-boarders were received were ten guineas as an en-
trance fee, and fifteen guineas a year, nayable half-
yearly. The schooling of the dgendanes sons com-
menced in 1838, and the payments went on regularly un-
til Midsummer, 1839. The amount now sought to be
obtained consisted of the sum of 31/. 10,. for the school-
ing of the, two boys from Midsummer, 1839, to Midsum-
mer, 1840, 101. 10s., the entrance fee of one of
the boys, which, for the convenience of Dr. Collier, was
not paid at the time of entrance, but allowed to stand
over. In September, 1840, Dr. Collier took his sons
away from the school without assigning any reason, and
afterwards refused to pay the amount that was due. He
(Mr. Sergeant Andrews) was surprised to find this ac-
tion defended. He had looked upon it as an undefended
action ; for Dr. Collier having paid for the early portion
of the schooling of his sons had admitted the principle
of the demand. In addition to that, he bad subsequently
sent a check for the sum now claimed, stating that it was
post-dated, and giving a reason for his having post-dated
it. He should, however, call evidence to prove the jus-
tice of the demand, and then the plaintiff would be en-
titled, in the absence of any evidence to rebut it, to the
full amount of the claim.
The following witnesses were then called The Rev. Mr. Bentale—l am one of the ushers of
Westminster School, and have been so between thirteen
and fourteen years. Dr. Williamson is the head master.
Ten guineas are paid on the entrance of each boy into,
Westminster School ; seven guineas and a half are paid
half:yearly, by what are called home-boarders. I was
educated at Westminster School. Dr. Williamson was a
Fellow of Trinity College. There are four masters at
Westminster at present. The number has been reduced.
Mr. Preston, the second master, managed the pecuniary
concerns of the school in respect of the home. boarders.
He is dead. The two sons of the defendant attended
the school, but lived at home,

Mr. Thomas Andrew Rush, a clerk in tke banking-
house of Drummond and Co., produced two checks,
drawn by Dr. Collier, in favour of the Rev. Mr. Preston,
the second master of Westminster School, one for 261.
55., and the other for 15/. 15s. The witness also iden-
tified the handwriting of Dr. Collier. .
The following letter was then read from Dr. Collier
to the Rev. Mr. Preston :
" Reverend Sir—l enclose you a check for 42Z I hope
when Dr. Williamson and yourself consider the matter,
you will discover that my pertinacitlin sending my boys
in the face of what I have suffered, is to be explained by
my devoted attachment to the ancient institutions of my
country, and that, apart from any compliments or civili-
ties from myself, I may expect your watchful attention
to them.—l am, Reverend Sir, &c.
" P.S. I have taken the liberty to date my check next
month, as I told you, on their first entrance, that the
,portion of my income set apart for that purpose comes
due about such period. I have settled bill, and if
any further be forthcoming, I shall, on your recommen-
dation, be happy to attend to it."
This having closed the plaintiff's case,
Mr. Sergeant SHEE submitted that the plaintiff must
be nonsuited, as there was nothing to show that Dr. Wil-
liamson was the proper party to bring the action. Dr.
Williamson was merely the head-master of the school.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE thought the head-master
was the proper person to recover, and asked the Learned
Counsel how he proposed to get over the letter which
the defendant had written, containing a check for the
claim which he now disputed.
Mr. Sergeant SDEE hoped he should have no difficulty
in respect of that letter, and proceeded to address the
Jury for the defendant. He personally should not have
been sorry if he could have stopped this inquiry into a
very painful case, by taking advantage of what certainly
appeared to him a valid legal objection. His Lordship
had, however, over-ruled the obje„zon, and he must
therefore proceed with the case, and at once te.ll- them,
that the ground on which Dr. Collier, by the advice en
his friends, and under a strong sense of duty, resisted
this claim) did not depend upon any technicality, but upon
t plain, broad, intelligible pritleittle, that hn trtisted the
jurymen, as parents of families, would understand and
approve of. It gave him (Mr. Sergeant Shee)the greatest
possible pleasure that in stating what Dr. Collier thought
to be a case of gross neglect on the part of the masters of
Westminster flahool, it would not be necessary for him
to cast the smallest reflection upon the personal character
of Dr. Williamson, who held as high a character as any
one could hold as a clergyman of the Church of England,
a gentleman, and a scholar. He did not desire to throw
the least discredit on Dr. Williamson's right to that high
character, nor to suggest that he had done anything per-
sonally
.that derogated from it. But Dr. Collier did,
with pain and grief, and without any vindictive feelings,
complain that Dr. Williamsou, following the high pur-
suits he did, and with that high character, had alto.
gether neglected the education of children committed
to his care ; that their health had suffered from that
neglect, and that, _either from the injury to their health,
or the want of proper attention to their instruction,
his boys had learnt nothing, and made no progress at
all in their studies ; but, on the contrary, that they had
contracted habits of which Dr. Collier entirely disap-
proved, and which had been contracted, cot under the
eye of Dr. Williamson, but in the immediate vicinity of
his house, in the precincts of the school; and in the hours
of recreation had been subjected to systematic ill-treat-
ment on the part of the elder boys, by which their health
had been injured, and they rendered incapable of
prosecuting their studies. This question was not one of
money but wholly one of principle with Dr, Collier. He
complained that when the masters were informed of the
ill-treatment his sons were subjected to they paid no at-
tention to the complaint, and that his sons, although
they were well advanced in the Latin language when they
entered Westnfinster School, knew nothing about it
when they lefi. Both the boys had delicate
constitutions, particularly the younger, and when Dr.
Collier first took them to school, he called the attention
of Dr. Williamson to the fact; and, besides, the younger
had suffered from a fractured skull, and would conse-
quently require peculiar attention. Dr. Williamson pro-
mised that every attention should be paid,to them : in-
stead of that, hmp- "
tem
- • ever, from the first to the last, a sys-
the grossest ill-treatment and actual cruelty on
the part of the elder boys had been permitted by the
master to be pursued towards these two boys. He should
prove that frequent complaints were made by the younger
boy to Dr. Williamson of his having been ill-
treated by the elder boys ; and that while Dr. William-
son, instead of interfering, as head-master he ought, to
oared the bad habits of those undisciplined youths, dis-
couraged all such application by telling him not to come
to him with such complaints. So great was the cruelty
practised towards the younger boy, that he had a perfect
horror of returning to the school •, and, after the Christ-
mas vacation in 1839, when he had left his futho,o.
for the purpose of going to the school, instead of going
there he rap away, and remained from school and home
for upwardl of a week. The effect of the ltr tm on the elder boy was still more remarkable, and ifealieheandt
died from it, it would not have been, as he (I\ir. Sergeant
Shea) was in a condition to prove, the first boy that had
died at Westminster School under similar circumstances.
But on one occasion the elder boy went home to his
father's house in Spring-gardens dangerously ill, suffer-
ing from a concussion of the brain, in consequence of a
brutal and unmanly kick by an elder boy. on his tem-
ple. Dr. Collier, finding that his son's health
was •seriously injured, and that they made no
intellectual improvement, determined to remove them
from the school, and in September, 1840, he took them
away. It had been stated by his Learned Friend that
the ten guineas entrance fee for the younger boy had
not been paid at the time of entrance, to suit Dr. Colliee6

arrangement. But it was, in fact, in consequence of an
agreement which he had entered into with the Rev. Mr.
Preston that that money should not be paid until it was
seen whether the boy could, being in a delicate state of
health, make a footing in school. Such were the circum-
stanscs of the case ; and he (Mr. Sergeant Shea) trusted
that, notwithstanding the letter of the defendant, the
Jury would feel he was properly, from a feeling of duty
and justice, defending this action, and give a verdict in
his favour.

A number of witnesses were then called, being the
tutors and ushers of the boys, who spoke of the deficiency
of their progress.
Master F. Collier—l am the son of Dr. Collier, who
resides in Spring-gardens, and has a country-house at
Chiswick. In 1838 I lost my mother. Previously to
that time I had been instructed by my father and the
two last witnesses. I learned from them the rudiments
of the Latin grammar. My father afterwards took me
and my brother George to the Rev. Mr. Preston, at
Westminster School. When we joined the school we
slept at home. We were placed in the petit school, super-
intended by Mr. Preston. My father told Dr.
"Williamson that my brother had fractured his skull,
which rendered his intellects rather weak, and
requested he might be taken care of, and not placed with
the other boys. Dr. Williamson promised to take
care of him. Dr. Williamson said it was optional whether
we had private tutors or not, and agreed that my father
might act as such when we were at home. I generally
occupied the first place, and my brother was mostly
nearly last. We learnt the Delectus, Clarke's Exer-
cises, and the Westminster Latin Grammar. After-
wards we were put into Ovid's Metamorphoses and
Fa:ti, and then I was put into the Greek Delectus, the
first book of the ./Eneid, and Ovid's Epistles. I was in
them when I left. My brother was not. We had no in-
struction in arithmetic. We had instruction in the cate-
chism. We mixed with the boys in the hours of recrea-
tion. There is a practice called bullying among the boys.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—The plaintiff is entitled
to the payment of the bill, unless you can show anything
wrong on his part. Why did not the boys go to their
father's house in the hours of recreation ? The Wit-
ness--We were obliged, my Lord, to remain. We were
ordered to attend the places of recreation by the senior
boys, and they were authorised by the' master. My
younger brother was ill-treated hundreds of times. The
ill-treatment was, they came behind him and knocked
him down and struck him with the handles of the rods.
I have frequently been struck by a key and knocked over
the forms for fun. A 'boy of eighteen did that. I and my
brother have complained frequently to D r.William son, and
he has told us to go about our business. Once I was walking
up College-street, going home to breakfast, and a boy came
behind me, knocked my head, and ran away. I was
laid up two or three days from sickness. I complained
to Mr. Preston, but nothing was done. My brother has
complained to Dr. Williamson, and Dr. Williamson told
him to go about his business ; if he heard any more
about it he would flog him himself. I remember a boy
named Emery dying. I have seen him receive blows
and kicks. My brother, in consequence of the ill treat-
ment, could not do his lesson, and it made the school so
hateful to him he could not bear to go there. After the
holidays, in 1839, my brother, instead of going to school
ran away. An objection was made to my father being pri-
vate tutor because our exercises were without mistake.
When I left Westminster school I am sure I did not know
Latin so well as when I went. Before we went we
had read the Delectus through, and other books, but we
could not read them when we left the school. My father
took us away in March, 1840. He complained of habits
such as smoking and drinking, which we had acquired.
He complained to Mr. Preston. Other boys at the
school smoked and drank. Ido not know whether it
was known to Mr. Preston, but if it was it was taken no
notice of.

George Collier examined—l am fourteen years of age.
Before I went to Westminster School I had fractured
my skull. No care was taken of me, but I was ill-Used
by the boys, and when I complained to Dr. Williamson,
he told me not to come bothering him. I ran away.
Mr. Emery—ln 1839 I had a son at Westminster
School. He is dead. I complained to Dr. Williamson
of the general system in the school. Dr. Williamson
complained to me of my son's negligence. I said it was
unknown to me. I saw Dr. Williamson after my son's
death. I told him my child was dead. He appeared
surprised. I said you must have known it. He was re-
quested to go and give him spiritual consolation, but he
did not. I also told him it was a pity the boys were al-
lowed to go on as they did. He treated it in a light way,
and I told him that as a Christian and a minister he ought
to pay attention to such things. My son died of an in-
jury he received in the school.

Sir. Gray—l live in Smith-street. Young Emery died
in my house. Before his death I wrote to Dr. William-
son, but received no answer. Young Emery was never
well after a pugilistic contest in which he was engaged.
The case for the defendant being closed, the jury im-
mediately said they were perfectly ready to give their
verdict, and would give it now if his Lordship could re-
ceive it.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked if it was in favour of
the plaintiff ?
The Foreman said it was ; and, on the intimation of
his Lordship that they could find it then, immediately
returned a verdict for the sum claimed.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 3.
WHITMORE, WELLS, AND CO.'S BANKRUPTCY.

In this case, the dividends declared the other day are
found to run in the following proportions, and will be
announced as payable by the official assignee in the
course of a few days :-4S. in the pound on the joint
estate; 20s. in the pound on the separate estate of J.
Wells, 15s. in the pound on the separate estate of E.
Whitmore, 20s. in the pound on the separate estate of
F. Whitmore, and 6s. in the pound en the separate es-
tate of J. Wells, jun. It is impossible to hazard any opi-
nion as to the ultimate dividends, the outstanding assets
consisting of securities not yet arrived at maturity, of par.
ties seeking time to pay their engagements, of any dividends
payable by Messrs. Daintry, Ryle, and Co., of Manchester,
and of the surplus of the separate estates of Messrs. J.
Wells, sen., and F. Whitmore. Should the hopes of the
assignees in respect to these be realised, the creditors will
probably receive a further and better dividend.

GARRY AND CURTIS'S BANKRUPTCY.

A second dividend was declared to the creditors under
this bankruptcy to-day, the parties to which were en-
gaged in the Baltic trade. The junior partner has filled
the chair of the'Bank of England, and was for a long
period one of the Directors of that establishment. The
dividend is expected to amount to between 6d. and 7d.,
and will, with the former dividend declared (2s. 2d.),
make a total dividend of 2s. Bd. and a fraction, announced
payable by this estate. The creditors will receive notice
of the time of payment in regular course.