The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Dec. 21.
This being the day to which Parliament stood pro-
rogued, both Houses met about Twenty Minutes past
Three o'Clock. At Half-past Three the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Wharncliffe, and Lord Fitzgerald took their seats
on the Woolsack, as Lords Commissioners. Mr. Pul-
man, the Deputy-Usher of the Black Rod, was then di-
rected by their Lordships to summon the Commons to
the Bar, to hear her Majesty's Commission read for fur-
ther proroguing Parliament. Shortly afterwards Mr.
Henry Ley, Mr. Bellamy, jun., and several of the officers
of the House of Commons, appeared at the Bar.
The Commission was then read at the table by Mr.
Smith, and

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in her Majesty's name,
and by her command, declared the Parliament prorogued
to Thursday, the 3d of February, to be then holden for
the despatch of business.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.—Perverse practices breed perverse
doctrines. In France, where everything has
been done by Governments cor prevented from
being done), that everlasting meddling has
passed into system, and a whole school of eco-
nomists think centralisation the glory of their
country. Thus tyrannies become tenets; and
it is only in that shape they could survive
the demolition of absolute power, and the rise
of the dynasty of public opinion. It is truly
lamentable that any piece of misgovernment,
which has but lasted long enough, is sure to have
created a whole legion of false opinions, which
palliate and protract the reign of abuses to which
they owe their birth. Popuar doctrines of po-
litical economy in this country exhibit as many
absurd fallacies as those of France, from a si-
milar source. Our access to food, and our em-
ployment of capital, have been arbitrarily re-
stricted by law ; our labour has been
crippled of its power, because robbed of its
returns, and our political economists have quietly
accepted the phenomena produced by this abo-
minably artificial condition of things, as if they
were quite in the course of nature, and incident to
all advanced communities. It is much as if a mouse,
which some scientific tormentor had placed in
the exhausted receiver of an air-pump, should
proceed to theorise (if mice theorised, or had
leisure for it under such circumstances) on its
uncomfortable situation, and refer it to va-
rious general causes, which all mice are liable to
in an advanced state of society and civilisation ;
all the while, without the slightest reference to
the invisible process, which had deprived it of the
vital element, and must soon terminate its
'existence. If there were two mice in the scrape,
and if one of them was a " practical" mouse,
he might discover that want of room was the
palpable and obvious evil of the situation, and
that want of air was a mere theoretical fantastic
delusion. The practical mouse might therefore
propose emigration of one of them ; and if the
practical mouse happened to
.be " Yorkshire,"
as well as "practical, ' he would propose that
,he should emigrate for the relief of the other
.who was left.
STANDARD.—The Leaguers seem to be dis-
posed to go the length of the French Commu-
nists, and, indeed, something more—a bar's
length beyond our neighbours. The Communists,
as tar as we learn of them, ask no more than to
have all the land of the country confiscated,
with a view to an equal distribution among all the
people. This, however, is a modest proposal
compared with that of the Leaguers. The latter,
speaking by their organ, the Morning Chronicle,
intimate an expectation that the agricultural class
shall pay all the taxes, i. e. that not merely shall
all the land, upon the plan of the Communists,
be virtually confiscated, but that the capital and
labour of landowners and farmers shall be con-
fiscated with it; and the liberty of these serfs of
the soil, also, so far restrained that they must at
all risks make up the public expenditure. In
other words, the Leaguers require that more than
fifty millions of expenditure be paid out of about
thirty millions of rents of land, these rents being
subjected meanwhile to constant diminution by
the free import of foreign produce ; for the
proposed substitute of a land tribute for all
other taxes can in no way affect all the many
excellent arguments with which we are daily en-
tertained, to prove that increasing foreign im-
ports are absolutely necessary to support our ma-
nufacturing population. The project of paying
50 millions annually from a wasting fund, com-
mencing at about 30 millions, is one which we
:respectfully submit to the attention of the
proprietors of 700 or 800 millions of stock.
It is for them to consider how their di-
vidends, amounting to 27 millions annually,
:are to be provided for out of the 30 mil-
lions, after the army, navy, and other pub-
lic establishments are paid—establishments now
costing not much less than twenty millions. We
presume that the fundholders will not be well
satisfied to look for their interest to the minus
quantity. Let us, however, that we may not
be supposed to be trifling upon an imaginary
hypothesis, quote the very words of the or-
gan of the League :—" A heavy land-tax would
not be felt by industry, and land is the fit-
test of all subjects for taxation. In all coun-
tries but England the greater part of the ex-
penses of government are thrown, and very
properly thrown,_ upon the land." The pro-
pounder of this doctrine does not explain why
land is " the fittest of all subjects of taxation."
For ourselves we think that, in the matter of taxa-
tion, there is a very remarkable agreement of
expediency and right, and that the fittest subject
of taxation is always that from which taxes may
be most easily collected. The reference to other
countries would be of more value if we could find
that on the whole these other countries are
more happy, more free, or richer than ourselves,
or generally more prosperous; that the reverse
the truth seems to be au argument in favour
of the English scheme, under which, though
land is heavily enough taxed, it does not
bear the whole of the public burthen. The main
question is, however, after all, the practicability
of the new agrarian, or rather Helot, plan, by
which the agriculturists are to be made the
slaves of the community—the Decurions of the
lower empire, compelled to pay in taxes more
than the value of all their possessions phis the
value of all their labour. ,_ We humbly
hold the opinion that the Leaguemen
themselves cannot make thirty, fifty, and
that, if they should succeed, which is
not very likely, in carrying- their scheme into
execution, the fundholders must go to the
wall : in truth, from the first and throughout, the
fundholders have been the parties principally in
danger. Other classes, however, beside the
landholders and fundholders have, we submit, a
very considerable interest in a scheme for the
destruction of the chief purchasers and employers
throughout the country.

Letters from CM-
THE CHICHESTER BANK.--
cheater give the result of the meeting held there yester-
, bankers of that
day in the matter of Ridge and Co.
town. It was a preliminary meeting for the choice of
assignees and
proof of debts, and it appeared from a rough
statement made to the Commissioners, that the engage-
ments of the Bank were about 150,0001., to meet which
there were 54,0001. assets, made up of items, includin-
h and short bills in the house, securities, and surplus
pay
for separate estates. Glynn and Co. are
they expected to a
over 4,000/. as the surplus of the securities sold for
indemnification.
" We learn from Monaco," says the Moniteur
Parisien, " that the arrival of Florestan 1., successor of
the late Prince of Monaco, Honore was signalised
by regular emeutes of the population, which is composed
of 5,800 souls. These emeutes had for their object to ob-
tain the abolition of the monopoly in the supply of wheat,
n its grinding, and in the making of the bread necessary
th_e
for all the people. This monopoly, known under _
name of the exclusive, added to other regulations, used
to produce under the old Princes, and up to 1792, 60,000
francs a-year under the French Government, and up to
1813, 70,000 francs • and from 1814, under the reign of
Bonore V. it produced annually the sum of 370,000
francs. This is about 641. impost for each person, or
about double of what is paid in France. The Prince
caused it to be announced, on the 26th November, that
the exclusive was abolished, but that it would be replaced
by an entrance duty of 6f. per 100 kilogrammes on wheat,
by a ditty of 2f. 50c. on grinding in the mills of the
rince, and by a duty of 121. per 100 kilogrammes on
ikur- This ordonnance has by no means satisfied the
inhabitants, who see in it only another exclusive, under a
different form. A considerable reduction is demanded
by them, as also a reduction of the duty of 6f. 20c. per
hectolitre, imposed on wines imported from France, to-
gether with a diminution of the exit duty on the expor-
tation of oiL"
COMMON SENSE ABROAD.—The Commer-
cial Gazette of St. Petersburgh contains an article, writ-
ten by Consul garner, of Warsaw, who seeks to show
that those states of Europe, which are desirous of esta-
blishing their manufacturing prosperity, have every rea-
son to wish that no alteration may take lace in the
English Corn-laws. p
It is understood in the City that the subordinate
officers of the Board of Trade are making inquiries into
every department of business, with the view, it is sup-
posed, of submitting facts for' the consideration of the
Peel Cabinet. In Mark-lane they have been very busy ;
they have now turned their attention to the produce
markets and to the Customs departments.
BURNBRAE PRINTWORK DESTROYED BY
yIRE.--On Wednesday morning last, Burnbrae Print-
worvicinity of Milngavie, was completely des-
iro bar)
t) e work is not a very extensive con-
geriybo; iolar as we have heard, a good deal of pro-
perty has been destroyed. It is not known how the fire
originated, but it is believed that the cause of the catas-
trophe was accidental.—Glasgow Argus.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 21.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN
and a Special Jury.)
HUTTON AND OTHERS V. BARNET.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
It was then proposed to tender evidence of the loss
sustained, by reference to the accounts kept by the Cap-
tain ; but Lord Denman thought it would be better to
leave that matter to arbitration, taking the opinion of
the Jury as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to re-
cover or not. If the Jury was of opinion that the plain-
tiffs were entitled to recover, the damages could be very
properly referred.
Mr. KELLY then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
He could net view without indignation the attempt
making by the plaintiff to recover so exorbitant an
amount of damages. In the present case the defendant,
in the regular course of business, sold 400 muskets of a
particular description ordered, as he was prepared to
prove. The price paid for them was about 180 L, and of
that number somewhere about me hundred were returned
as being unsaleable, the value of which was between
401. and 501., and the plaintiffs instead of claiming the
difference in value between these muskets and sound ones,
which might be something between 10L and 20L—instead
of claiming the full value of the muskets sent back, they
ask the jury to give them a sum of nearly 700/. He be-
lieved the good sense of the jury would at once scout so
preposterous a doctrine as that the plaintiffs were to
be paid for the probable profits they might have
realized under certain circumstances. He would
now call their attention to the contract, and he
would be able to show them that the defendant had
committed no breach of contract whatever. He would
show, by the evidence of persons long connected with the
trade, that the defendant had executed the order accord-
ing to the usual and mercantile meaning attached to it.
The order did not specify any particular musket, and the
price being such as indicated an inferior description, the
defendant supplied the .quality answering to that price.
There were two classes of Tower guns, and when the
best quality was not specified, and the price, as he had
said, at least is. each below that at which they could be
sold, he would show that it was the custom to send the
inferior description.
Hampden S. Priddie—l am foreman to the defendant.
I have been so for ten years. He supplies the Ordnance
and East India Company, and is one of the largest con-
tractors in the trade. There are long aad short Tower
guns, and second-hand Towers. We send large quanti-
ties of guns to the African market, In 1838 the price of
second-hand Towers was 9s. to 9s. 6d., and the new ones
were 10s. We have frequently spliced the second-
hand guns below the tail-pipe. We have sent
many thousands of them to the African market, and never
heard a complaint of them till the present time. The
guns supplied to the plaintiffs' order, were second-hand
Towers. I inspected them all, and they were every one
sound as to the splice. We never supplied any
second-hand guns to the plaintiff before, but th e
price was lower than we had ever received from
him before. We have had transactions with the
plaintiff for a considerable period. I have no doubt
the guns sent back have been damaged by salt water.
When Tower guns were ordered for the African trade I
should not understand that new guns were required,
That would depend upon the price. We call the old.
Government stores second-hand Tower guns. I knew
the plaintiffs were engaged in the African trade,
but I did not know the guns were wanting for that trade.
The guns may be about 15 or 20 years old. As they are
now they are fit for no market.
George Lovell—l am Government Inspector of small
arms for the army, navy, and ordnance. The condemned
arms have been sold of late years. Many of the arms,
about 30 per cent. of those that have been 10 or 12 years
in the service, are spliced. That was authorised by Lord
Hill. Even regiments in warm climates have spliced
guns, and they stand very well. I examined some of
these returned guns. I should say the greater portion
have been wetted with salt water. The barrel and lock
of the Tower gun is certainly a much better article than
the new.

Cross-examined--I should not send out spliced guns
as new ones to the regiments of the line, but I should
to the colonial militia and the secondary service. (The
witness was shown some guns, and he said that two had
their backs broken and two were doubtful.)
Re-examined—These broken backs might have oc-
curred four or five years ago by carelessness.
Mr. Foster—l have been extensively engaged in the
African trade, and in shipping guns. I have generally
purchased from the present defendant. For 95., in 1838,
I should say you must expect an inferior gun. I have
frequently sent out of late 9s. guns to the African mar-
ket. I have heard no complaints.
Cross-examined—l do not recollect any guns being re-
turned two years ago by Mr. G. Smith, of Akra, on the
coast of Africa, on account of their being spliced.
Mr. Lacy—l have carried on the gun trade thirty-five
years, and have shipped guns for every part of the world.
I know Tower guns. Many are spliced and second-hand.
I have shipped such guns for the coast of Africa.
Mr. T. Stewart said he had been in the cavalry, and
that spliced guns were used in the regiment.
Mr. Priddie recalled, said he had found six, eight, or
ten of the guns in Court with broken backs, but they had
not been sent in that state from his house.

Mr. TUESIGER replied.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and concluded by saying,
the question for the Jury was, whether or not the article
was a fit one fur the African market.

The Jury returned a verdict that 110 or 116 of these
guns were not fit for the market in question, which was,
of course a verdict for the plaintiff.
Lord DENMAN then said, with respect to the questipn
of damages, the Jury must take into consideration, be-
sides the price of these unfit guns, all the other losses
which the plaintiff had incurred in consequence of this
breach of contract, such as the crippling of his trade, ex-
penses of delay, &c.
The Jury returned 1021. Is. 3d. damages.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 21.
(Sittings in London, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Special Jury.)
LIBEL—PISANI V. LAWSON.

The defendant is the responsible printer. and publisher
of the Times newspaper, and the plaintiff brought this
action to recover damages for alleged libels published in
that Journal, and maliciously and injuriously reflecting
upon the character and conduct of the plaintiff as chief
Dragoman or Interpreter to the British Embassy at
Constantinople. The defendant pleaded, first not guilty,
and secondly a justification.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL, with whom was Mr. TAL-
FOURD, stated the case for the plaintiff. He premised
that a public Journalist had a perfect right in this coun-
try, freely to discuss and to comment upon the conduct
of public men in public matters, so long as they
abstained from specific charges which were false,
and from malicious attacks upon private character. Al-
though he disapproved of the coarse language, and the
vague and violent charges which were sometimes intro-
duced into those discussions, he had always recom-
mended, and always would recommend, that no notice
should be taken of writers who indulged in that way, un-
less they made some specific charge which admitted of
direct disproof. The libels of which the plaintiff now
complained conveyed distinct charges of incompetency,
dishonesty, and treachery on his part, in the discharge
of his duties as a dragoman to the British Embassy.
These libels were, to use epithets borrowed from the
language of the writer himself, " monstrous and
hideous." They appeared in the letters of the Times'
Correspondent at Constantinople, in March and April,
1837. The first article commenced with what professed
to be an exposition of injudicious and mis-
chievous policy on the part of Lord Ponsonby, and
all preceding Ambassadors from this country to Turkey
in the choice of a medium of communication with the
Ottoman Porte. That was a fair and proper field of
discussion for a public journal, and, if the writer had
confined himself to it, without falsely attacking an in-
dividual, the plaintiff could have had no reason to com-
plain. But the article stated that the Peraotes, or
natives of the suburb Pera of Constantinople, were pro-
verbially ignorant, dishonest, and treacherous—who
made cunning and villany a trade ; that it was from
those persons the European States bad all formerly been
accustomed to choose their interpreters, but that of late
years only the English and the Russian Embassies con-
tinued to employ them. The writer argued that the
consequence was, that the interests of England were
sacrificed, and the secrets of our Embassy were sold to
Russia. In conclusion, the writer stated that he had the
means of producing facts to prove that the Peraotes, who
were then acting as the dragomans of our Ambassadors,
were incompetent and treacherous, and were sub-
servient to Russian interest, through the influ-
ence of their brothers and other relatives, who filled
similar situations in the employment of Russia.
In the article published in March, the plaintiff, already
clearly indicated in the former article, was expressly
n surpriseat. named,
l.n andtdhai
injurious
jet
nch
ruei
Gentleman,ined
The accused of ignorance and want of probity.
tion,lienoawrndeedel in conclusion, expressed his
defendant, having pleaded a justifica-
tion,
Cav oyunt Alexandlers
to offer any evidence in support of such
accusations. He then called—
Count Alexander of the 3sria,ni, who said he was keeper of
The plaintiff was his brother.
Embassy at Constantinople.
origin, but for some time settled
family was of Italian
and witness had been born. se at Plera, where plaintiff
pvreertearsoftethEeerfoamily hadan re
been, and some still were, inter
presentatives. Plaintiff's brother was in 1837 cpheief in-
terpreter to the Russian Embassy, and other relations
were in the same employment. There could be no doubt
that the articles in the Times pointed to his brother.
That was generally believed by those who read the Times
at Constantinople. He could not say how many, or how
few. 2 there were in that city who read the paper.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the defendant then ad-
dressed the Jury, contending that there was nothing
in either of the articles in question at all re-
flecting injuriously upon the plaintiff. The only pas-
sage which alluded to him directly. was the last in the
second article, wherein it was asserted that an English
gentleman succeeded in obtaining the firman for the
English navigation of the Euphrates, after theT That
was
had received a direct refusal from the Divan.
a mere statement of fact, conveying no imputation upon
the moral character of the plaintiff.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was for the Jury to
say whether they believed that the writer of the articles
in question had confined himself to the fair discussion of
a subject, undoubtedly of very great importance to this
country, or had maliciously made that discussion the
medium of injuring the character of the plaintiff
The Jury, without leaving the box, returned a -verdict
for the defendant.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Dec. 21.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAMES.)
LEWER v. RENTALL.
Mr. HIIDDLESTONE said this was an action brought
by the plaintiff, a furrier, to recover a balance of 12L
10s. 6d. for goods sold and delivered to Moses Rentall,
the defendant, a cap-maker. The defendant had
pleaded first, infancy ; next, payment ; and next, never

indebted. He, therefore, supposed that he should be
met by a defence of infancy, but how such a defence could
be sustained he was at a loss to imagine, fur the person
who had given the order was an old man with a long
beard. The learned Gentleman then called the follow-
ing witnesses :

Henry Watman—l live at No. 2, Osborne-place, Brick-
lane, and am a journeyman furrier, in plaintiff's employ.
I know the defendant, Moses Rentall. He is an old man,
with a long beard. He is between 60 and 70 years of
age. In 1839 defendant and his wife came to plaintiff's
shop, and gave an order for brown mock sables. I
cannot say the quantity. I cannot tell exactly what.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE—What was the quantity ?
Mr. PRICE—He has already said twice ho cannot
tell you.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE—What was the number of mock
sables?
Mr. PRICE—He has said several times he cannot
tell you.

Mr. HIIDDLESTONE—I must insist Only right to re-
peat the question.
Mr. Secondary JAMES—You cannot insist on what is
irregular, and it is decidedly irregular to put the same
question three times over. . .

Mr. HUDDLESTONE—I must insist on my right to con-
duct my examination in my own way, and if my witness
does not understand the question, I must repeat it, and
with due submission to the Court, I shall do so. I never
act irregularly or improperly.
Mr. Secondary JAMES—You are acting irregularly and
improperly now. It is a great waste of time.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE would, notwithstanding, with due
submission to the Court, insist on repeating his question.
The witness, in answer to the question, again stated
he could not tell. He then proved the delivery of cer-
tain quantities of lamb-skins and mock sables at the de-
fendant's residence, 22, Bell-lane, and a subsequent ap-
plication to the defendant's wife for payment, who pro-
mised to pay as soon as defendant should return.
Cross-examined by Mr. PRICE—Saw young Mr.
Moses Rentall on these occasions with his mother. Young
Mr. Rental! had frequently been in plaintiff's shop with
his mother. He appeared about eighteen. He lived in
Bell-lane. The mother and son lived together there.
Has seen the old gentleman there once ; that was in
1840. has never seen him anywhere except at plain-
tiff's and in Bell-lane. Cannot rightly say if the old
gentleman was living there ; the young gentleman was
living there.

Tliis was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PRICE said, undoubtedly there was a Mr. Myers
Rentall, an old man with a long beard, but he had never
anything to do with these transactions. The defendant in
this record was Moses Rentall, the young man ; he had
been served with the process ; he was a fur-dealer ; he
was the defendant in this record, and he (Mr. Price)
should prove he was an infant.

Dr. Louis Ashenheim was present when the ceremony
of circumcision was performed on Moses Rentall in the
year 1824. It was performed in due time, and by the
Jewish religion it must be performed within eight days
of the birth of the child. Witness knows old Mr. Rentall.
He is a teacher of Hebrew, and a Rabbi of the Syna-
gogue; and has never been in trade to witness's knowledge.
Mr. PRICE then called Mr. Myers Rentall, and a vene-
rable patriarchal looking individual, with a long white
beard reaching to his waist, entered the box.
MT. HUDDLESTONE objected to the examination of the
person tendered as a witness, inasmuch as he was the
defendant on the record.

The witness Watman, on being recalled, and having
Mr. Myers Rentall pointed out to him, said, that is the
man that gave the order. _ _

Mr. PRICE contended that the old man was a compe-
tent witness ; he was not the defendant, he had never
been served with the process. Mr. Moses Rentall had
been served, had appeared to the service, and was, there-
fore, the defendant.

Mr. Secondary JAMES must refuse to examine Myers
Rental!, as it appeared from Watman's evidence that he
was the defendant. He would, however, make a note on
the subject, and give Mr. Price leave to move.
Mr. Cohen was called to prove that old Mr. Rental!
had never dealt in furs.

Mr. Secondary JAMES—That has nothing to do with
the question. I have already decided that the old gentle-
man is the defendant.

Mrs. Rentall, the mother of Mr. Moses Rentall, jun.,
was then tendered as a witness, objected to, and rejected
on the same grounds.
Mr. lIUDDLESTONE, in reply, expressed his regret at
having been, during the progress of the case, led away
by his feelings to give utterance to expressions for
which he was exceedingly sorry, and for which he
begged to apologise to the Court.
The Learned SECONDARY acknowledged the apology of
Mr. iluddleston, when

Mr. PRICE tendered young Moses Rents,ll (a beardless
youth) as a witness.

Mr. HUDDLESTONE objected.
Mr. Secondary JAMES would admit the witness, but
would make a note of the objection.
The witness then said that Mr. Myers Rentall did not
live with him, and had never dealt in fur in his life. That
he (witness) was a fur-dealer, that he had ordered the
goods in question of plaintiff, and that he had sometimes
sent his mother to give his orders to plaintiff The bill
produced in plaintiff's hand-writing had been sent to wit-
ness from plaintiff's shop. Witness had purchased lamb
skins and mock sables of plaintiff, and had paid plaintiff
money on account of these transactions. Had sent the
money by his mother while he was travelling about the
country with furs. Had agreed to pay plaintiff 2s. 6d.
a week for the debt. Had stopped because he hail no
money, and thus this action had been brought against him.
Cross-examined—l am 17;3- years of age. I cannot
say how many times I went to plaintiff alone. My
mother did nct always accompany me.
Mr. Secondary JAMES—Were you served with a copy
of a writ in this action ?—I was. It was left at my
father's house and given to me because it was in my
name.—The copy of the writ was then produced.
Mr. HUDDLESTONE in reply, said—He would put it
to the Jury whether they had ever heard of a more im-
pudent attempt to cheat a plaintiff out of his money than
the defence set up to this action.
Mr. Secondary JAMES having summed up,
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages
121. 10s. 6d.

MAYBERRY V. LORD WM. PAGET, M.P.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
101 10s. for work and labour done, to which the noble
defendant pleaded that he was not indebted to the
amount claimed, and that a tender had been made and
refused.

Mrs. S. Brown deposed that in the month of August,
1839, she was chambermaid at the Custom-house Hotel.
She recollected Lord Wm. Paget coming to the house
with his son, who was lame, who, when he went away,
walked upon crutches ; the child used to call his Lord-
ship papa. Witness was acquainted with the plaintiff,
and saw him several times at the Hotel in his professional
capacity. Lord Wm. Paget and his son remained at the
Hotel four or five days. The plaintiff visited the child
three times the first day, and twice each succeeding day.
Lord Wm. Paget appeared exceedingly anxious for the
child's recovery.
Dr. R. Rowley deposed that the usual fee given to a
consulting surgeon was a guinea each visit, he had re-
ceived that fee. Sir Benjamin Brodie and Mr. Callaway
were paid that sum for their visits.
Mr. JAMBS—We want to know from you, what in
your opinion would be a fair remuneration to the plain-
tiff for his attendance, as there is no bill of particulars to
guide either the Court or the Jury ? Doctor Rowley—
If the medical man acted both as an apothecary and sur-
geon, he is allowed, if he practises as the latter, two
guineas for visits by the College of Physicians, indepen-
dent of the medicine which he may supply.
Mr. JAMES—What would be a fair charge for the
plaintiff to make for each visit ? Doctor Rowley—He
should think 10s. 6d. each visit to be a fair charge.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. PRICE addressed the Jury on behalf of defendant.
His Lordship, he said, had all along been anxious to pay
what was a just and reasonable demand, but all the
answer he could obtain to this request was the demand
of 10 guineas. Send us in a bill of particulars, to this
the same answer was returned, pay 10 guineas ; and it
was solely on account of this exorbitant demand being
made that his Lordship was unable to pay for the atten-
dance on his child. A very handsome sum had been
offered but refused.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 41. 4s.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Dec. 21.
IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER LEVI NEWTON.
The examination of the bankrupt, which had been
adjourned from yesterday, was again resumed to-day at
two o'clock, at which time the Court was crowded by
persons anxious to hear the result.

Upon being sworn, he underwent a long examination
by Mr. Clarkson with respect to an item which appeared
in his books, to the following effect :—" Paid to J. L.
the sum of 4371." This sum was the exact amount ne-
cessary to close an account, but the bankrupt swore that
he never saw that item before, neither did he order it to
be written.

Mr. Edward Herbert deposed that he was in the em-
ployment of the bankrupt, who distinctly ordered him to
.vrite down that particular item ; and upon asking who
J. L. was, he replied, " Never mind, write what I tell
you."

Mr. CLARKSON then proceeded3o examine the bank-
rupt with respect to certain erasures which were in the
cheque-book and ledger, and which the Learned Counsel
contended were done to defraud his creditors. It ap-
peared that he had consigned goods to the value of
1.6001 to his nephew Lewis Arie, who was residing in
Kingston, Jamaica ; and although the account, as entered
in his books, showed a balance of 894/. remaining due,
yet the bankrupt wrote:the word closed at the foot of the
account. In explanation, he said he was not yet aware
whether the goods had been sold at a profit or a loss, as
he had received no advice from his nephew yet.
A conversation then took place between the Court and
the Counsel, and, finally, the case was ordered to stand
over till to-morrow.

IN THE MATTER OF ROWLAND MITCHELL, OF LIME-

STREET, MERCHANT. •
The bankrupt has been the principal, and now the
surviving partner of the house of William Rowland,
Samnel Mitchell, and Co., and filled the situation of Di-
rector of the Bank of England, and Director and Chair
man of various Companies. The principal creditors are
branches of his own family, to the extent of 200,0001;
Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co., 57,0001., who are covered
by securities on valuable West India estates. The cre-
ditors increased amount to 292,3501. 4s. 3d., and those
holding security to 93,3971. 13s. Bd. The debts,
&c., to
the estate ate 27,1801. 4s. Id., and mortgage debts
30,5691. ; property given up to assignees, principally in
West India estates, 76,4161. ; and the property held by
creditors, 83,416 L 10s. Id.
Mr. WIGHTE then handed in the balance-sheet, and
the assignees having expressed their satisfaction in the
accounts, the bankrupt passed his final examination.

Another slight shock of earthquake was felt at
Bugey, near Lyons, on the 9th inst.