The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-06 00:00:00

ILAX IVI.A.RICETS.

SMITHFIELD. 21 103 to 31 123;
Clover ditto, 31 12s to 41 15s; and Straw, 11 76 to 11110
per load. A moderate supply, and a sluggish demand.
C UMBERLAND. —Meadow Hay, 2112 s to 3114 s ; Clover
ditto, 31 lOs to 4/ 128; and Straw, 1/ 8s to 11 12s pfr
load. Trade tolerably steady, at but little variation la
prices.
WHITECHAPEL.—Meadow Hay, 21 12s to 31 125;
Clover ditto, 31 lOs to 4/ 17s; and Straw, 11 6s to 11 11e
per load. Supply good, and trade dull.

COAL MARK E'

Adair's Main
Bate's West Hartley... 19s Od
Middle's W. Hartley 19s Od
Chester Main lBs 3d
Clavering's Tanfield 15s 9d
Hasting's Hartley l9s Od
Holywell Main ..... 18s Od
New Tanfield I 6s 6d
Ord's Redheugh
South Peareth
Tanfield Moor ..... 18s Od
Townley l6s 3d
West Wylam
Wylam
Wall's End, &c
Bewicke and Co l9s 3d
Gosforth l9s 3d
Medley
Riddell's l9s 3d
Eden Mali 2os Od
Belmont 2os Od
Braddyll's 'Jetfoil
98 arrival.

T.—YESTERDAY.
East Het ton
Haswell 205 9d
Hetton
Keepier
Lambton
Russell's Hetton
Shot ten
Stewart's
Whitwell
Caradoc
Cassop 2os au
Hudson's Hartlepool 195 9d
lieugh Hall
Kelloe 205 3d
Barrett
Cowndon Tees ...
3d
Seymoir Tees
Tees 205 6
Derwentwater Hartley 18s 64
W. Hartley Netherton 19s Od
Sidney's Hartley

Is-82 sold.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
CRAWFORD V. THE CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAIL'
WAY COMPANY.
This was a motion to dissolve an injunction re'
straining the defendants from infringing on any Pr:.
tion of the plaintiff's land not within the limits of
deviation of the company's undertaking. The quell;
tion turned upon the construction of the companY 6
Act of last session, empowering them to extend their
station, but it was contended that they were still
bound by the general Act, which restricted all devia•
tions from the deposited plans to one in four.
The case commenced late yesterday, and the argu-
ments were resumed this morning.
Nothing of any interest transpired in the other
equity courts.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
IS A DISLOCATION A BRUISE ?-MOORE V. LADEON._

Mr. KNOWLES, Q.C., applied fora rule in this case,
one of a novel nature, calling upon the plaintiff t?,
show cause why the verdicts he had obtained should
not be set aside, or a new trial had, on the ground 0.1
misdirection. The case was tried at the last Yorx.
Assizes, before the Lord Chief Baron. It was brought
to recover compensation in damages from the de'
fendant, a surgeon, for negligence in treating the
plaintiff for a dislocation, the declaration averring
that the defendant was employed by the plaintiff to
cure him of "certain wounds, fractures, bruises, eau.
plaints, mid disorders," and that the defendant disre'
garded his duty, and that, by his negligence, ~,thhae
defendant was greatly injured in his health. •""
evidence simply showed that the defendant was eiry
ployed to treat the plaintiff for a dislocated' 01133;
Now he submitted to his Lordship at the trial et:
there were no words in the declaration to show ti:
exact nature of the plaintiff's injury—nothing to sh°,oo
that he was suffering from a dislocation ; for instance, _
contended that a dislocation was not a fracture or ss!
bruise, but his Lordship, notwithstanding the oaf:
nature of the injury was not specified, directed
jury to find for the plaintiff. He submitted, there
fore, that there was nothing in the declaration i.. 0
met the case. A dislocation differed from a fractll'
or a braise, and "complaints and disorders" every:
body knew did not require surgical skill like 0a
applied to a wound. A wound was not a dislocatieuf
in a technical sense.
Lord DENMAN-A dislocation may or may„ not
es
include a wound in the regular technical sense. ye
it not include a bruise ? ja
Mr. KNOWLES—A dislocation is not a bruise.
this case there was no appearance of a bruise, and tee
alleged unskilfulness of the defendant arose from tu
injury not being apparent in the part.
Lord DENMAN-It was a strange blunder on thet
part of the pleader to omit the word " dislocation," t
I think, nevertheless, that the Chief Baron was
right in his direction of the jury.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
CORONERSHIP OF WIGAN—THE QUEEN ON THE rs'
SECUTION OF ROGERSON V. GRIMSHAW.
Mr. COWLING applied for a rule nisi calling ye.
the prosecutor to show cause why so much of tl.l`
judgments as awarded costs to be paid by the cli°4o
fendant in this case should not be set aside, and,ts.s
why the taxation of costs should not be stayed. This
was a proceeding in the nature of a quo warrant°, sr
the instance of Rogerson, who claimed to be cora.%
of the borough instead of the defendant, and tle'd
court decided in his favour. Rogerson commenced
the taxation of his costs, assuming that he was
titled to them under the statute of Anne, but th
Master deferred the taxation until the opinion of the
court had been taken in the matter. Mr. 135113;
Platt was applied to, and he recommended the
sent application to this court. He had therefor;
now to apply to his Lordship for a rule in at,
that the matter might be argued—whether the
prosecutor was entitled to costs or not. On the
authority of Corner, p. 158 and subsequent pages' id
contended that it was quite clear the prosecutor coohe
not receive costs. Lookin at the construction of t b
statute of Anne, s. 20, c. 5. The coroner of a bor°l3g.:
appointed under the provisions of the Municipal Cfhe
poration Act, was not a corporate officer within
meaning of the Act, although he might be one, 0"e
yet fill the office. It was true the statute of A°l3..ci
to which he had referred, said the Court might soca.% e
costs, and provided that a quo warranto should,iasTd
against any person who might usurp the ssin
office or franchises," but surely it could be held fr°
this that the defendant, who had considered him
entitled to hold the office, and had fairly contested the'
matter, should be called upon to pay the whole of
costs.
deal
Mr. Justice PATTESON said the case was
one for the consideration of the Court, and grtulte
the rule.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
ARMSTRONG v. CHRISTIANI.
This action was tried before Mr. Justice CoNOW
at the last assizes for the county of Surrey, an
verdict found for the plaintiff on all the issue!' the
was an action on a bill of exchange drawn by
defendant for the
Mr. M. CHAMBERS, with the permission 0-
Learned Judge, now moved that the verdict be or
°l!tr,
tered for the defendant on the 4th issue. The
question involved in the present application wase:he
reference to the notice of the non-payment " a
bill, which notice was delivered to the defendant, and
did not, as is usual in such cases, state by whom to
bill was accepted, and that it had been presentd, 11,,
payment refused. Several authorities were cited by
the Learned Counsel in support of his application.
at
The COURT was of opinion that the question
issue involved circumstances of such general cam,