The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EvENTNer, JANTUART .12, .1847.

JOINT-STOCK BANKS.

Bank of Westmoreland, Kendal
Barnsley Banking Company, Barnsley
Bradford Banking Company, Bradford 47,379
Bilston District Banking Company, Wolver-
hampton
Bank of Whitehaven, Whitehaven
Bradford Commercial Banking Company, Brad-
ford
Burton, Uttoxeter, and Staffordshire Union
Banking Company, Burton-upon-Trent
Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Banking
Company, Chesterfield : .. 8,705
Cumberland Union Banking Company, Work-
ington . ..
Cheltenham and Gloucestershire Banking Com-
pany, Cheltenham
Coventry and Warwickshire Banking Company,
Coventry
Coventry Union Banking Company, Coventry 14,172
County of Gloucester Banking Company, Chel-
tenham
Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Company
Carlisle
Carlisle City and District Bank, Carlisle 19,678
Dudley and West Bromwich Banking Company,
Dudley
Derby and Derbyshire Banking Company, Derby 21,136
Darlington District Joint-Stock Banking Com-
pany, Darlington 22,459
East of England Bank, Norwich
Gloucestershire Banking Company, Gloucester 147,963
Halifax Joint-Stock Bank, Halifax . 16,799
Huddersfield Banking Company, Huddersfield.. 35,085
Hull Banking Company, Hull
Halifax Commercial Banking Company, Halifax 11,618
Halifax and Huddersfield Union Banking Com-
pany, Halifax
Helston Banking Company, Helston 1,460
Herefordshire Banking Company, Hereford 21,206
Knaresborough and Claro Banking Company,
Knaresborough 2.5,687
Kingsbridgo Joint-Stock Bank, Kingsbridge 4,100
Lancaster Banking Company, Lancaster 57.224
Leeds Banking Company, Leeds
Leicestershire Banking Company, Leicester
Lincoln and Lindsey Banking Company, Lincoln 48,102
Leamington Priors and Warwickshire Banking
Company, Leamington Priors
Leeds and. West Riding Banking Company,
Leeds -
Leeds Commercial Banking 'Company, Leeds 1,431
Ludlow and Tenbury Bank, Ludlow 9,430
Moore and Robinson's Nottinghamshire Bank-
ing Company, Nottingham 28,582
Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Banking
Company, Nottingham
Newcastle, Shields, and Sunderland Union Joint-

- Stock Banking Company, Newcastle 75016
National Provincial Bank of England, Birming-
ham, Head-office, 112, Bishopsgate-street,
London
North Wilts Banking Company, Melksham 58,920
Northamptonshire Union Bank, Northampton 80,686
Northamptonshire Banking Company, North-

ampton
North and South Wales Bank, Liverpool 57,495
Pares's Leicestashiro Banking Company, Lei-

54,394
- tester .
SS
ha de
ffid 1
ee
lwd o
Br tahn
ki
nßanking Company,B Company,Sd
stosnh eßffiaaednlkdl
Banking
Corn-r th. . 2 .
34;395258
Stamford, Spalding,e and Boston
mLe ra snegt : 49'54
7
328,198
Stuckey'
sPhinrYe'Bank, Ss
t Banking ma
n f oka rni nddg
port SomersetslreisßtoalnSko,
t Shropshireouarnbr:idsgtoeßankingandr r diiod
dCompany,ermi
ns
Kidderminster
r S
Bankinghiffna
11. .
Cm
. 0. .. . 45 96 :6 967 0
9
S
Sheffield and llallamshire Banking Company,
Sheffield
Sheffield and Rotherham Joint-Stock Banking
Company, Sh.ffield
Swaledale and Wensleydale Banking Company,
Richmond ..
... . 48,652
Stockton and Durham County Banking Com-
pany, Stockton
Storey and Thomas's Banking Company, Shaftesbury
.. .......... 9 901
,
Sheffield and Retferd Bank, Sheffield .
Suffolk Banking Company, Ipswich
pany, Wolverhampton...,. 35,63
Wakefield and Barnsley Union Bank, Wakefield 11,429
Whitehaven Joint-Stock Banking Company,
Whitehaven , ............................ 29,470
Warwick and Leumir:gton Banking Company,
Leamington
33,617
West of Englatiil aud South Wales District
1412103mM, ~ —,, 76,674

Average Ameuat
Wilts and Dorset Banking Company, Salisbury 64,846
West Riding Union Banking Company, Hud-
dersfield
Whitchurch and Ellesmere Banking Company,
Whitchurch
Worcester City and County Banking Company,
Worcester
York Union Banking Company, York 68,835
York City and County Banking Company, York 89,313
Yorkshire Banking Company, Leeds
P. DEANS, Registrar ft f Bank Returns.
Stamps and Taxes, Jan. 3, 1847.

7,83

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 11.
FISHER AND CROFTS V. OLIVER AND ATKINS.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendants, who were lace manufacturers, from using
the 'patented invention of the plaintiffs for an improve-
ment in the manufacture of lace. The invention, for
which the patent had been obtained in 1838, purported
to make ornamental lace at the same time with opaque
cloth, by means of additional warp threads, and was also
for making a description of lace called honeycomb. The
defendants, in their affidavits, contended that the inven-
tion, as far as it was practicable, had been in use prior to
the obtaining of the patent, and that in the other parts it
was too undefined to be ever susceptible of being re-
duced into practice, against both of which allegations
there were several affidavits from lace-machine owners,
lace manufacturers, and lace mechanics, &c.
The case for the plaintiff had not concluded at the
rising of the Court.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Jan. 11.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
EWARTS V. RENSIT.

This was a motion on the part of the plaintiffs for an
injunction to restrain the defendant from proceed-
ing upon a judgment which he had obtained
against them. The facts were as follow :—The plaintiffs,
who were extensive stockbrokers, carrying on business
in the City induced the defendant, a solicitor of the
court, to invest in Government securities a sum of
28,395/. In 1838 the defendant obtained judgment in
the Court of Exchequer against the plaintiffs for that
amount. In February, 1841, the debt was reduced to
13,3511., and the plaintiffs gave two -securities for
10,000/., as well as an assignment to the defendant of
debts due to him, the former of which had been paid, and
a portion of the latter, which reduced the debt to 2,095/.
and for the discharge of which the plaintiffs agreed to
pay 35/. a year each during their lifetime, and to make
their effects liable for the payment of the same after
their death. The defendant, in consequence of this ar-
rangement, agreed not to proceed with the judgment ;
but he admitted in his answer that he applied to a com-
mon law court for the issue of a scire facies on the
judgment he had obtained for the sum originally due to
him by the plaintiffs.
Mr. ROMILLY, who appeared in support of the motion,
occupied the greater part of the day in his address, and
His HONOUR deferred judgment till he had read the
answer. _

The remainder of the day was occupied in motions oi
no interest whatever.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BEIVCH, Jan. 11.
COKE V. SIR .---. TOMKIN.

This was tried before the Under-Sherriff in July last,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed. It was an action brought by the
plaintiff, who is the proprietor of the Oxford Chronicle,
against the defendant, as one of the members of the
provisional committee of the Oxford and High Wycombe
Junction Railway, to recover the amount of a bill in-
curred by advertising the prospectus of the company in
his newspaper.
A rule was subsequently obtained in the Bail Court
by Mr. Finn, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside on two grounds—
first, that the advertisements must be taken on the credit
of the solicitor of the company and not updn his prin-
cipals, and secondly, that if they could not be taken
upon his credit, that his principals were the managing
committee, and not the provisional committee, and that
the defendant was not a member of the managing com-
mittee, but of the provisional committee. The case now
came on for argument.
Mr. MAYNARD, who appeared for the plaintiff, admitted
that if any evidence had been adduced at the trial that the
committee had paid the solicitor for the advertise-
ments, or that the solicitor had charged the committee
for them, or that the defendant, or any other member
of the committee, were liable to the solicitor, and that the
plaintiffs must consequently look to the solicitor, and
not to the committee, the objection would have pos-
sessed some force; but it was wholly untenable, and was
raised at the last moment, when the plaintiffs attempted
to prove the liability of the provisional committee,
and, therefore, that the attorney was merely them.
agent, and could not be held liable. He quoted
a number of authorities in support of this view. There
was evidence that the defendant gave his
verbal consent to the placing of his name on the
committee, that he attended its meetings, and that the
newspapers containing the prospectus were at these
times lying on the table of the committee-room. The
case was properly left to the jury by the Under-Sheriff.
Mr Firm contended, on the other hand, that there was
no evidence adduced to show that the solicitor lad re-
ceived orders from the committee. Such orders were
' not usually given by a solicitor, but by the secretary,
who acted under, the directions of his Committee. He
had no authority to act in the way he did. Were
they, then, to be held liable for his acts? The
work was done after the 30th of November, and
after the appointment of a managing committee,
who took upon themselves the sole management of the
affairs of the company. A provisional committeeman
was simply a patron of a scheme, and not a person who
took an active part in the management of its affairs.
Although it was shown that the defendant did take his
part in the management of the affairs of the company in
its early stages, nothing of the kind was shown at the
advanced period, when the debt was incurred.
Lord DENMAN said, it appeared that the plaintiff had
notice that there was a managing committee, as the
names of such a committee appeared on the face of the
prospectus sent to him to print; they were struck out in
order to save expense, perhaps.
The COURT took time to consider the application, as
it was possible they might be called upon to pronounce
an opinion upon others of a similar nature during the
term.
The Court then rose.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
GUILDHALL.

Henry Standard— P;;;;e,aCFcent looking man,
was charged with wilfully breaking a pane of glass,
value 213., at the shop of Messrs. Bailey and Ritchie,
drapers, St. Paul's Churchyard, about noon yesterday.
Mr. Low, a member of the Common Council, stated
that he was passing, and he saw the prisoner take the
stone from his pocket, place himself before the pane. and
hurl it through with great violence. He was taken into
the shop, and, in answer to the inquiry why he d.d it,
he stated that was his business.
Mr. Bailey proved tho amount of damage. He had
never given offence to the prisoner, and he was paying
about 25L a 3 ear towards the rate for the relief of the
poor.

Sir P. LAURIE, looking at a piece of the glass, which
was three-eighths of an inch in thickness, said it was
very creditable to Mr. Bailey that in using such large
squares he had such very substantial glass, so that per-
sons falling or striking against it by accident were not
likely to break it.
Mr. Bailey said, when tradesmen went to the expense
of putting in elegant shopfronts they had no idea that
they would be likely to be broken malignantly by per-
sons who had received no provocation. If imprisonment
or relief were required, and the same purpose would be
answered by breaking a public lamp or a Is. 6d. square
of glass, it could not be anticipated that any one would
break a 201. square in preference, and inflict such a loss
on an innocent person. Such vagabonds oueht to be
transported.

Sir P. LAURIE agreed that the Legislature must pro-
vide some other punishment for this growing offence.
He asked the prisoner if he knew Mr. Bailey? Tla,e
prisoner said he did not.
Sir P. LAURIE asked what trade he was? The pri-
soner answered, a shoemaker.

Sir P. LAURIE asked if he followed that trade? The
prisoner said he did.
Sir P. LAURIE observed that he did not look like a
distressed man; and asked why he broke Mr. Bailey's
window? The prisoner replied, that as it was his first
act it was necessary that his previous character should
be established before he accounted for his conduct, tsnd
he would refer to Messrs. Cowie and Co., in the Poultry,
Messrs. Ashley, St. Mary-at-Rill, and Mr. Roper, at
Bermondsey, for all of whom he had travelled at the
same time, up to March last. lie wished these persous
to be brought forward to speak to his character.
Sir P. LAURIE said, he might assume they would
speak to his honesty or anything else, and tDld him to
proceed to state tho motive that led him to break ,Nir.
Bailey's window.

The prisoner said he should explain nothing till 'his
character was established. He lived at No. 13, Russitll-
- Brixton-road.

Sir P. LAURIE sent to Messsrs. Cowie's, and one of the
firm soon attended, who said the prisoner had travelled
for them, but his letters from the countryraised a strong
doubt of his sanity, and he was therefore recalled and
discharged.
Sir P. LAURIE said he thought from the first the pri-
soner was insane ; he should, therefere, now remand
him, that the prison surgeon might report on the st s.-te
of his mind, and that means should be taken to put him
under the proper restraint if he were insane. fie de-
sired the prisoner to explain his motives fully to a gen-
tleman who would call and ask him some questions.
The prisoner, who smiled when he heard he was sup-
posed to be insane, was then removed.
WORSHIP-STREE 7.

A well-dressed man, named Austin Montroser ..itated
to be a returned transport, was placed at the bar 'before
Mr. Broughton, charged with having burglarious?), en-
tered the premises of Mr. Joseph Berdoe, an extunsive
clothier in Goswell-street-road, and stolen property to
the amount of upwards of 300/., and also on suspicion
of having broken into the house of Messrs. llufhts,r,u and
Westaway, tailors in the City-road, and stolen cloth and
other property of nearly the same value.
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Berdoe that on
the night of the 23d of November last his premises
were entered by some burglars from the rear, and: a
large quantity of cloth and fancy goods to the above
amount carried away. Ile immediately gave informa-
tion to the police, and, in consequence of a communi-
cation he had received that morning from Sergeant
Brannan, he repaired to the shop of a pawnbroker in the
Hackney-road, where a cloak and other articles of dress
were exhibited to him, which he immediately recog-
nized as having formed a small part of the produce of
the burglary upon his premises. He could uuhesi-..