The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-04 00:00:00

EVENING SUN

SECOND EDITION
OVERLAND MAIL.

TELEGRAPHIC DESPATCH.
The Indian mail arrived dt Malta on the 28
ulthno, and at Marseilles on the Ist instant.
It brings no news from China.

It appears that the Burmese had caused some
uneasiness to the Government, but that ample re-
pressive measures were taken at Calcutta.

Spanish Actives, in Madrid, were on the 26th,
31 cash offered.

DEATH OF THE COUNTESS OF

DURHA M.

We exceedingly regret to state that letters have been
received in town this morning, announcing the melan-
choly intelligence of the demise of the Countess of Dur-
ham. Her Ladyship died at Genoa, on Friday, the 26th
of November, from the effects of a violent cough and sore
throat of about fourteen days' duration. The deceased
lady was the eldest daughter of Earl Grey, and sister
to Lord Ilowick, and has left behind her sister to chil-
dren.

The Venerable Earl Grey, who is at present at Howicl
House, we regret to hear is suffering under severe indis
position.

The deceased was in the forty.fifth year of her age.

HER MAJESTY.
CEREMONY OF CHURCHING, PERFORMED THIS
MORNING.—This morning, shortly after twelve o'clock,
her Majesty and suite left Buckingham Palace
in four carriages, for the Chapel Royal, St.
James's, when her Majesty was churched. Divine
service was performed by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, assisted by the Bishop of London, the Sub-Dean
(Dr. Sleath), and the Rev. Dr. Wesley. There were
also present, his Royal Highness Prince Albert, the
Duchess of Kent, the Ladies in Waiting, Maids of
Honour, Viscount Hawarden, Lord George Lennox,
&c. We are happy to state that the Queen is in excel-
lent health.

THE AGNEWITES IN GLASGOW.
Yielding no toleration to the opinions of others, but en-
dea,Louring by every bigoted means to make others succumb
to their intolerant principles, the Glasgow Agnewites have
of late been striving, by every act in their power to shut up
the public news-room of the city, which from time imme-
morial has been open on Sundays as on other days of the
week, to its readers and subscribers. They had before
attempted this annoying and intermeddling system at the
Tontine Coffee-room, but on the calling together of the
subscribers of that establishment, the Agnewite proposal
was knockrd on the head by a majority of four to one.
Still bent on interrupting the peace of their neighbours,
they on Thursday last mustered their best strength, and
made every effort to cause the Royal Exchange Room at
Glasgow to keep shut up doors on Sunday,but their schemes
met with as total a defeat as in the former instance, and
in spite of the many shifts made use of by their
faction on the occasion, their resolution advo-
cating this most saintly observance of the Sabbath mas
nullified. and thrown out by an overwhelming majority,
and when on their demanding a division the opposite
sides parted, they were again :thoroughly discomfited by
a majority of three to one. The cant of Sunday legis-
lation has hereby received a blow from which it will not
speedily recover.

THE. FUNDS-(CLOSING PRICES.)
BRITISH FUNDS.
sank Stock 165 lndia Stock.
.. .. .247
3 per Cent Red. BBi 'Ditto Bonds 1 pm
3 per Cent Cons B9l ;Ditto Old Annuities ...
31 per Cent Red.. 9B Ditte New Annuities...
New 31 per Cent 99a Ex. Bills, 1,000/....2ad 12pm
New 5 per Cent — Ditto 5001 l2 put
Long Annuities toexpire Ditto Small. .
Jan 1860. ...... ... 12 7-16'Bank Stock for Acct —
Oct 1859 llndia Stock for Acct....
Jan. 1860.
FOREIGN FUNDS.
Austrian, 5 per cent.... Portuguese, 5 per cent.
Belg,ian, 5 per cent Ditto, New Ditto 33f
Brazilian 80nd5.......... Prussian, 5 per cent.
Buenos Ayres, 6 per ceit Russian, 5 per cent —
Chilian, b per cent..... Ditto, Metallic
Colombian, 6 per cent.. Spanish, 5 per cent 23i
Ditto, 1824 — Ditto, Deferred ll4
Danish, 3 per cent 79 French, 5 per cent. —f. —e.
Greek, 1825, 5 per cent Exchange —f. —c.
Mexican, 5 per cent.... French, 3 percent --f. —c
Ditto, 6 per cent, 1825 Dutch, 21 per cent 521
Peruvian.lB2s, 6 per et Ditto, 5 per cent.
SHARES.
Bristol and Exeter (60 paid) ... ...... ... .. 27
Great Western Railway( 65 paid) ..... ...... 410
Ditto New Shares (50 paid)
Ditto Fifth (4 paid)
.. 81
Gosport Junction Railway (50 pd)
London and Brighton (50 paid) 351
London and Blackwall Railway (25 paid) 9
Ditto New Shares ( paid) 4l 16s 8d
London and Birmingham (90)
Ditto Quarter Shares ( 5 paid) 221
Ditto Thirds (32 paid) 54

_
VICE-CHANCERY—(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His HONOUR disposed of several petitions and short
causes of no general importance.
TIILLOCH 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 impossibil;ty
of bringing it to a conclusion. The arguments of coml.
sel will be resumed on Monday, and we shall notice any
new points of interest which may arise din:ng the
hearing.

- (Befere Vice-Chancellor WIGRem.)
LITTLE V. GREVILLE.
His HONOUR decided some of the points raised by
Counsel. The cause is to be set down for further hel.r-
ing next week.

TOMLIN V. TOMLIN.
The 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 surer in dispute was 5,0001., 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 expensee of probate was reduced to 49,0001. His
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 amounts relatino, to transactisns between
himself and the deceased. Thomasb 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 Tomline. Mary Belcey died in 1835 ;
letters of administration were taken out at 50,0001.,
by Robert Sacket and James Tomline and
probate duty paid for that amount. Shortly after
mary's death, in a statement by IT Darling,
lin
who had acted as Solicitor for the Idecneaseeda: ant
his brother during their life it
Thomas's estate was indebted to
those wasa admittedbe th thatc,
Matters stoodlz thus in
Mary to the amount of 50,0004
September, 1835 ; nothing seemed more easy than to
adjust the claims of the parties severally interested in
the estate. After some delay, however, it was sug-
gested by the defendant, Robert Socket Tomlin,
that there' must be some mistake in the ac-
zabeth, Thomas, instead of dividing the debt equall
had taken the whole penalty of the bond, or had
tak en
the whole sum of 49,0004 as due from himself 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 tile handwriting of Robert Sachet Towline, pur-
porting to be a copy of one formerly in the handwriting of
Thomas Belcey, stating that he had been mistaken in
counts. It was contended that upon the death of Eli-
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 bntween Mary Belcey and her bro-
ther. The whole defence rested upon the statement that
the testator had charged himself with the whole amount
of the bond as due to Alary. The object of the suit was
to have it declared, that at the death of Elizabeth Bel-
cey Thomas was indebted to her in the sum of 50,670/.,
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 on Monday.

- ATAL ACCIDENT FROM THE FLOODS.—
TnRl-1"1 PtASONS DROWNED.—The recent weather has
caused a general rising of the waters in all parts of the
country. A most distressing accident took place last night
at Coleford, near Crediton, the particulars of which, as
far as we can gather them at present, are as follow:—The
Rev. H. A. Hughes, of Zeal Monacharum, with his lady,
his son, and a servant, were proceeding on the road
homeward in an open carriage, but the rising of the
wagewalrg having made the road impassable, the carriage
swept away by the force of the torrent, and the whole of the party with the exception of the Rev. Gentle-
man himself were unfortunately drowned. A millright's
shop adjoining Coleford, was also swept away by the force
of the stream. These particulars we deeply regret to state
are but too true, and what renders the accident still more
melancholy is, that the life of the Rev. Gentleman is
despaired of, in consequence of the shock he has received,
and his anguish of mind. The Rev. Mr. Hughes is a Ma-
gistrate of the county, and curate of Clannaborough.
We hear that the bodies of the deceased persons have
been found.— Western Luminary.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Dec. 3.
BLUNDELL V. BLUNDELL.
The further arguments in this part-heard appeal occu•
pied the Lord Chancellor the whole day, and his Lord•
ship postponed his judgment.

ROLLS' COURT, Dec. 3.
TANNER V. ELWORTHY.
The bill was filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of
obtaining the declaration of the Court that certain lease-
hold estates were the subject of a settlement made Octo-
ber 11, 1783, and a cross bill was filed by the plaintiff
to obtain a contrary declaration. In the year 1733, the
estates in question were possessed by Andrew Elworthy,
the grandfather of the defendant, and were estates that
had been for a long period granted on lease. It appeared
from the statements of the defendant, and from the evi-
dence, that these leases all contained covenants for re-
newal, and were f....0m time to time renewed, sometimes
by surrender of the original life, and sometimes by
granting a reversionary life to the lessee. On the mar-
riage of Richard Elworthy, the son of the lessee, the
property was assigned to trustees to the use of Richard
Elworthy for his life, with remainder to his wife for her
life, with remainder over to such children as Richard
Elworthy should appoint, and in default of appointment
to the children of the marriage in equal shares. In this
assignment there was no provision made for the general
renewal of the leases, or for obtaining reversionary leases,
but there was a provision by which the trustees were
enabled to surrender the existing lease and to have a new
life substituted for that of Andrew Elworthy. Richard
Elworthy made his will on the 17th of July, 1801, at
which time he had freehold property, was possessed of
such interest as he was entitled to ender the settlement,
and had procured to himself a grant of the reversionary
interest. He was also in possession of other leasehold
property which he held for the term of 200 years. By
this will he gave a sum of 1,0001. to trustees for the use
of his daughter, and then " all his freehold and lease-
hold estates" to his son Richard Elworthy, the defen-
dant, and in the commencement of it he referred to the
settlement, and stated that he concurred in it. Testator
died in June, 1805, and the defendant attained his ma-
jority in 1808, but did not claim, nor had his trustees
claimed for him, possession of the leasehold estates,
which were held by the widow until her death, when a
moiety of the estates was claimed by the defendant, who
had married the daughter of the testator, and filed a bill
on the 27th Feb., 1839, to establish his right. On the
21st June following, the defendant put is his answer,
and thereby insisted that the leases in question were not
subject to the settlement.
Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Girdleston, and Mr. Teed ap-
peared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Turner and Mr. Clarke
for the defendant.
The MASTER of the Routs said, that by the marriage
settlement a partial and temporary interest was given to
the testator ; and the first question was, whether, hav-
ing such interest, be could procure to himself a grant
of the reversionary interest for his own benefit. Ac-
cording to the general Tale of the Court, it was admitted
he cc :1d not, but it was said that rule did not
apply in this case, because their was a special contract
providing for surrender, during the life of Andrew
Elworthy. He was of opinion there was nothing in the
settlement that tended to any such construction, but that
the interest acquired by Richard Elworthy, the testator,
must be considered as acquired by him as a trustee, for
the purpose of appointment. The next question was,
whether he had not exercised that appointment by
his will, and he was of opinion that he had not.
He was also of opinion that there was no
plausible argument in support of a case of election, and
that the conduct of the parties showed that they under-
stood their interest in the property. He must therefore
declare that the plaintiff was entitled to an equal moiety
of the property in question. He thought also that the
cross bill was totally unnecessary, and that the defendant
must therefore pay the costs of both. An account must
be taken of the sums received and expended, and the
costs of the trustees paid out of the funds.

VICE CHANCELLORS' COURT, Dec. 3.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wlonest.)
LITTLE V. GREVILLE.
The hearing of this cause was resumed to-day, and ad.
journed till to-morrow, to hear the reply of the Counse,
for the plaintiff.
No other case involving any public interest came be-
fore the Court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 3.
SMITH V. GROOM AND OTHERS.
This was an action to recover certain property, pur-
suant to the terms of a deed executed by a person named
Wyatt, in favour of the plaintiff. The case occupied
several hours, but contained no point of anypublic interest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUE R, Dec. 3.
ADAMS V. GARRARD.

This was another Special Jury case. Tho plaintiff was
the administrator of the late Mr. Adams, the wharfinger,
of Holland-street, who sought to recover the sum of
8001., a balance of account her late husband had against
the defendant, as one of the partners of the late Limerick
Marble Company, for his services as their agent in its
sale, for wharfage, &c. The evidence was mere matter
of fICCOV at, and totally uninteresting.
For the defence, many of the letters written to the
partners in the Company by Mr. Adams, in order to show
that he was the person who took the initiatory in forming
the Company, and that had it succeeded, and had he lived,
he was to have been a Shareholder, and either Manager
or Secretary—in fact, that he was to intents and pur-
poses a partner, and some witnesses spoke to admissions
made by I-'m that he was to be merely a commission
agent, and receive a commission, which was undefined,
upon the value he sold.

The Jury found for the Plaintiff—Damages 3901.105. 6d.

PHILIPS V. SCHOLFIELD.

(The plaintiffs in this case sought to recover 391. 18s.
upon a bill of exchange, which was given by the defendant
in payment of two pipes of wine.
Mr. CROWDER expected that would have been as un-
defended cause. As it was defended it was his duty to
lay the case before the Jury. The plaintiffs were wine-
merchants at Bristol ; they had an agent named Smith,
who sold the wine to the defendant, through a person
named Lewes. The bill was drawn by the plaintiffs,
and given to Lewes by Smith to get it accepted. Lewes
brought him the acceptance and said, " We have altered
the date from the 13th to the 23d, because the wine did
not arrive so soon as we expected." Smith said it made
no difference, and took the bill. Now the defendant de-
nied his acceptance, because of the alteration made
either by himself or his agent.
Smith was called, and proved these facts.
Mr. HumFaEv then called Lewes, who said the wit-
ness Smith employed him to sell wine for him at 21 per
cent. commission. He sold some to the defendant at
Kingston. He enclosed the acceptance to him, and
received it back dated the 13th. The wine
had not arrived when he received the bill from
the defendant; he therefore kept it in his possession till
it did. He altered the date two or three days before he
handed it over to Smith. The defendant did not know
of the alteration. When he first took the bill from
Smith, he asked him whether there would be any objec-
tion to alter the bill, as the wine had not arrived, and
Smith said " No."

The Jury considered Lawes as the agent of the de,
fendant, and found for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 3,
BALMAN V. GILMAN.

The plaintiffs are Parliamentary agents, and
the defendants solicitors at Norwich. The lat-
ter, acting on behalf of the Commissioners for
Paving and Lighting that city, employed the plain-
tiffs to conduct a Bill through Parliament for
amending and enlarging the local Act, by which the
commission is constituted. The Bill was thrown out in
consequence of the standing orders of the House of
Lords not having been complied with, and this action
was brought to recover the costs of the agents.
The defence was, that the Bill was lost through the
negligence of the plaintiffs, and that they were therefore
entitled to no remuneration.
The case occupied the whole day, the time being
chiefly taken up in reading documents relating to the
forms of Parliament, and the several stages of the Bill
in question.
The Jury at length found for the plaintiff, 421.
WILLIAMSON, D.D. V. COLLIER, M.D.

.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS (with whom were Mr. Ser-
geant 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 Jiving 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, payable half-
obtained
yeesnrelyea The schooling of the d3fendant'-s sons corn-
till, _ in 1838, and the payments went on regularly un-
.d
til AT, maim
e
consisted
of the 1839.Tshuemo amountf3lt ionso.wfosrotuhgehstchtoooble
eons .
rig of the two boys from Midsummer, 1839, to Midsum-
mer, 1840, los., the entrance fee of one of
the boas, which'
timef or theof ceonntvr
ae
na
ei een, e
be
notf
aDllro.wCeodllitenr,stwanads
onvoetr.p
paid
at the September 1840, Dr. Collier took his sons
away from the school without assigning any reason, and
(Mr. Sergeant AndrePwaYs the amount that was due. He
uspurPonrii
afterwards refused to
ac-
tion defended. lie had looked surprised e cal
as
toan findundefended this
action Collier hay'
of the schooling of his sonisnghapird for the early portion
a
of the demand. In addition to that,
the principle
sent a check for the sum now el ' ,ed estati had subsequently
post-dated, and giving a reason for his' havingn that it was
it. He should, however, call evidence to
post-dated
prove th '
tice of the demand, and then the plaintiff e jus-
would be e
titled, in the absence of any evidence to rebut n-
it, to the
full amount of the claim.
The following witnesses were then called :
The Rev. Mr. Bentalc—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.
lie is dead. The two sons of the defendant attended
the school, but lived at home.
Mr. Thomas Andrew Rush, a clerk in the banking-
house of Drummond and Co., produced two checks,
drawn by Dr. Collier, in favour of the Rev. Mr. Preston,
the second master ofi Westminster School, one for 26L
55., and the otter for 151. 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 f0r421. I hope 1
when Dr. Williamson and yourself •
consider the matter, 1

you will discover that my pertinacity in 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 SEER 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 ease, by taking advantage of what certainly
appeared to him a valid legal objection. His Lordship
had, however, over-ruled the objection, and he must
therefore proceed with the case, and at once tell them
that the ground on which Dr. Collier, by the advice of
his friends, and under a strong sense of duty, resisted
this claim, did not depend upon any technicality, but upon
a plain, broad, intelligible principle, that he trusted 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 School, 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. Williamson, 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, not 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 Westminster School, knew nothing about it
when they left. 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, however, from the first to the last, a sys-
tem of 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
correct 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 father's house
for the purpose of going to the school, instead of going
there he ran away, and remained from school and home
for upwards of a week. The effect of the ill-treatment
on the elder boy was still more remarkable, and if he had
died from it, it would not have been, as he (Mr. 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. Collier's
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-
stanses 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 tkat 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 ether 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
Fasti, and then I was put into the Greek Delectus, the
first book of the Aneid, 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 any thing
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 Dr. Williamson, 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 bad 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 hare 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.
Mr. Gray—l livo 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 Loan CLILEF 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 payable by
in the pound on the joint
estate, 205. in the Pound on the separate estate of J.
Wells, 153. in the Pondu on the separate estate of E.
Whitmore, 20s. in pound on the separate estate of
F. Whitmore,band 65. in the pound on the separate es-
tate of J. Wells, jun. his 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 tune to pay their engagements, of any dividends