The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-23 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS.

At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basingball-street.
B. Jones, draper, City-road, July 18, at twelve—W. Youell,
brewer, Cranbrook, Kent, July 13, at two.
In the Country.
R. Sword, draper, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, July 15, at half-
past ten, at the Newcaitle-upon-Tyne District Court—H.
G. Gibson, chemist, Newcastle- upon-Tyne, July 13, at
twelve, at the Newcastle-upon. Tyne District Court—J.
Buckley, J. Buckley, and H. Buckley, cotton manufacturers,
Manchester, July 15, at twelve, at the Manchester District
Court—John Buckley, cotton manufacturer, Manchester,
July 15, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court—G.
and J. Barton, copper roller manufacturers, Manchester,
July 14, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—C.
Edmonstene, bleacher, Over Darwen, Lancashire, July 14, at
eleven, at the Manchester District Court—N. J. Earle,
grocer, Falmouth, July 21, at eleven, at the Exeter District
Court—R. Loosemore, scrivener, Tiverton, Devonshire,
July 14, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court—l. Pidwell,
ironmonger, Falmouth, July 15, at one, at the Exeter Dis-
trict Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
Syred, market gardener, Bloomfield-road, Paddington,
July 14—W. Fugler, Manchester warehousetnan, Lawrence-
lane, Cheapside, July 13—J. Watkins, licensed victualler,
Wandsworth-road, July 13—J. W. Fielder, lace-merchant,
Thavies Inn, Holborn-hill, July 13—C. R. Sauerbrey, ship
owner, Fenchurch-street, July 14—G. Teil and B. M'Kenzie
Ronald, merchants, Old Jewry-chambers, City, July 14—J.
Williams, carpenter, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, July 15
—R. Sword, draper, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, July 15—J.
Prince, grocer, Coxhoe, Durham, July 13—S. Groom, auc-
tioneer, Whitchurch, Shropshire, July 27—S. Withnall and
W. Cartwright, dyers, Birtle with Bamford, Lancashire,
July 15—H. W. King, cabinet maker, Oldham, Lancashire,
July 13—R. M'Kim, merchant, Liverpool, July 13—. T. Gar-
ratt, licensed victualler, Islington, July 13—J. Dalton,
grocer, Wandsworth, July 13—J. P. Burdett, grocer, Ut-
toxeter, Staffordshire, July 13—W. H. Lovatt, factor, Wol-
verhampton, July 13.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

R. W. Henderson and G. Graham, tailors, Great Vine-
street—J. Allaway and G. T. Davis, upholsterers, Reading
—E. T. Carlyon and P. Cock, attorneys, Truro, Cornwall—
T. Hatton, J. Clayton, and H. W. thirst, printers, King-street,
Covent-garden—H. Cryer, R. Lewis, and W. Edge, slate
merchants, Southport, Lancashire—S. Donaldson, J. Lam-
bert, and G. H. Donaldson, merchants, City (so far as re-
gards S. Donaldson )—C. and G. Middleton, warehousemen,
Norwich—W. Bruce, S. Blackburn, and T. Blackburn, jun.,
wool merchants, Liverpool—J. Haslam and H. Roberts,
bleachers, Tottington, Lancashire—T. L. Walker and J. A.
Noble, sail makers, Wapping—W. A. Fisher and A. Slater,
wharfingers, Seething-lane, City—H. Draper and G. H.
Child, brewers, Oxford-street—R. N. Bacon, W. Kinnebrook,
and D. Kinnebrook, printers, Norwich—F. Richards and H.
Campkin, law stationers, Castle street, Holborn.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 22.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the CHIEF BARON and a
Special Jury.)

HOBSON V. FEARGUS O'CONNOR.
This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages for literary assistance rendered by the plaintiff in
the character of editor to the Northern Star.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted, and
that the plaintiff had neglected his duties.
Sir F. Thesiger (with Mr. Hoggins) conducted the
case for the plaintiff; and Mr. W. H. Watson and Mr.
Prentice appeared for the defendant.
The defendant is well known as being the proprietor
paper
was, a weekly paper called the Northern Star. That
was, until the latter part of the year 1844, published in
Leeds. The plaintiff formerly was a bookseller and
printer in Leeds, but eventually became the editor of
this newspaper. Towards the latter end of 1844 the de-
fendant, conceiving either that it would be more conve-
nient or more advantageous for the publication to take
place in London, thereupon made arrangements, which
were afterwards carried out, for the removal of the pub-
lication of the paper to London. One of those arrange-
ments of course had reference to the
d!)laintiff as the
it appeared editor; and, from the evidence, that the defen-
dant, prior to the removal of the concern, stated, not only
to the plaintiff himself, but to others, thanLis salary would
be raised to 312/. per annum, or 61.
per week, as a com-
pensation for the loss and inconveniencehemight suffer in
consequence of the abandonment of his private business,
and the breaking up of his establishment at Leeds. The
plaintiff, too, was a member of the town-council of Leeds,
and the defendant said be should be at liberty to go
down to attend the meetings of that body. This pri-
vilege the plaintiff accordingly repeatedly availed him-
self of, but on each occasion he forwarded leading
of
articles upon the topics the day for insertion, and it
was admitted by the witnesses that in no instance bad
the publication of the paper been delayed by his ab- '
sence. In the month of September, 1845, the defendant
took a tour through Belgium, with a view, as it was
statepdo,otfo dismakeianage inquiries, not merely into the state of
the to that country, but also into the

general position of agricultural matters. He started on.
the 23d of September, and on the 28th of the same
month the plaintiff quitted town for five weeks, during
which time he was attending to au almanac which he
had in preparation. He did not return to town until
two or three days after the defendant, and the conse-
quence was that in a few days the defendant dismissed
him for neglect of duty. The action was therefore
brought for the remainder of the twelve months' salary,
upon the ground that no notice had been given, and
therefore that, as it was a yearly hiring, the plaintiff
was entitled to payment for so much of the year as was
not expired at the period of his dismissal without notice.
A nur. g
nber of entlemen connected with the press were
examined, to show that in every case, except where tho
engagement was a "sessional engagement,
would terminate with the session, or where there was
not a special arrangement to the contrary, the custom
was a yearly hiring, with three or six months' notice, to
expire at the end of the twelve months. when it
The jury eventually found a verdict for the plaintiff,
with damages for 781., or three months' notice.

I