The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY MORN IN

fully concurred in the resolution, that the Labour-rate Act
was not suited to the condition of the country ; and that
measures should be taken to supply the people with food,
and to enable them to cultivate the ground.
Lord FARNHAM proposed the next resolution. He said
no man in the country was more proud of the present
meeting than his Lordship.—(Cheers.) He said the people
had not seed, nor, was it in the country, had they even the
money to purchase it. In his county (Cavan) there were
27,000 men on the public works, yet the most unexampled
distress prevailed in the whole county. lie feared that the
next year would be worse.—(Hear, hear.) He was most
anxious to put an end to party and dissension, and com-
bine all parties in one compact body, for the good of Ire-
land.—(Loud cheers.)
That while we affirm that it is the clear and paramount
duty of the State to take care that provision be made for
the destitute, we regret that the means hitherto adopted for
that purpose have, on the one hand, proved incommensurate
with the evil ; and, on the other hand, have induced the ex-
penditure of vast sums of money upon useless or pernicious
works.
"That this most wasteful expenditure, tending, as it does,
to diminish our resources, and to increase the probabilities of
future famine, has not been the result of neglect on the part
of the resident proprietors of Ireland, but of an impolitic
and pernicious law, which they have been compelled to carry
into effect, notwithstanding repeated protests to the contrary.
"That though entirely acquiescing in the justice of im-
posing upon the land the repayment of all money advanced
for reproductive purposes, we solemnly protest, in the name
of the owners and occupiers of land in Irelanc, against the
principle of charging exclusively on their property, the
money which they have been forced to waste on unproductive
woi ks.
"That the destruction of the staple food of millions of our
fellow subjects cannot be considered in any other light than
that of an imperial calamity; and we claim it as our right,
that the burden arising from it, so far as it has been ex-
pended on unproductive works, shall fall on the empire 4
large, and not be thrown upon Ireland alone, much less upon
those classes iu Ireland which have suffered most severely
from it.
"That though considering the present Labour Rate Act
as a most mischievous measure, to be laid aside whenever
a better system can be introduced, yet in order to prevent
the continuance of the present waste of money, we call
upon the Legislature to amend that Act, by enabling such
proprietor to take upon himself his proportion of the
baronial assessment, to be expended in reproductive works
upon his own property, and thereby to discharge himself
from any further taxation in respect to that particular
assessment; and that the objects to which this taxation
shall be applied, should be extended to all permanent im-
provements of the land."
Several other speakers addressed the meeting, and at half-
past five adjourned.

LAW IN T FLLIGERCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 16.
FISHER V. OLIVER.
The arguments in this case having been conluded
to-day,
His LORDSHIP said he had not the least hesitation in
stating that he could not interfere in this matter unless
the plaintiff undertook to establish the validity of his
patent at law. That undertaking being made, he should
read the affidavits, and consider the propriety of grant-
ing an injunction to restrain the defendants from acting
so as to infringe the patent until the issue at law should
have been tried.

VICE-CHA NCE BY COURT, Jan. 16.

BALDWIN V. DAMER.

This"was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendants, who were twenty-two of the members form-
ing the provisional committee of a project, called the
Great Munster Railway, from receiving out of Court a
sum of 21,600/. ; or, if they should already have received
it, then to restrain them from employing it in paying off
tie liabilities of the company. The undertaking, which
has now been abandoned, was for the formation of a
railway from Tralee to Dublin. The advertisements
stated that the capital was to be divided into 22,000
shares, of 50/. each, and that a deposit of 21. 103. was to
Le paid upon each share. It appeared that the directors
had reserved to themselves 4,000 shares, that they had
also reserved 4,000 shares for general purposes, and 900
fur the solicitor to the company, 650 for the engineer,
and 300 for the secretary. They then contrived, by
selling 3,000 shares, and purchasing them again at a
premium, to raise the quotation in the market. The
bill charged the directors with gross misconduct,
and with having improperly managed the affairs of
the company. The defendants, in their affidavits, stated
that they had not any knowledge of these transactions,
but had offered every opportunity to the shareholders to
investigate the accounts, and it was contended that en in-
junction ought not to be granted to restrain them from
paying off the just debts and liabilities of the company.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, if the injunction had
been asked to restrain the defendants from improperly
dealing with the funds of the company, there might have
been some reason in it; but this was to restrain them
from applying the money in any manner whatever. It
was very possible that some of the directors had acted
wrong in the management of the affairs, but the funds
could not be disposed of without the sanction of all the
directors, amongst whom were some gentlemen of the
highest respectability. He did not think it right that so
sweeping an injunction should be granted, which would
include the innocent as well as the guilty, and it was evi-
dent that there were liabilities which ought to be dis-
charged; he should, therefore, refuse the injunction.

done by the plaintiff had been done without competent
authority—at any rate no ascent by the defendant was
proved.
Mr. Justice ERLE then summed up the evidence, and
remarked that there could be no doubt that Mr.
Parrott did cause the advertisements of the com-
pany to be inserted in th, newspapers, and
that he had paid for them to a much larger extent
than the sum which he sought would cover. The
Learned Counsel for the defence had raised a number of
objections, for which he had apologised to the jury, but
it was his bounden duty to protect his client in every
wey, and he hai shown con.Llerable learning and inge-
nuity in doing so. The question which was mainly for
th-ir consideration was, whether the defendant had
given sufficient authority to the provisional committee
to act in his absence. The mere tact of his being on the
provisional committee list would not render him liable,
but on the 24th of September a resolution was passed in
the defendant's presence, which would necessarily incur
the expense of advertising and the costs of the solicitor.
The defendant had in this case not been merely a dor-
mant committeeman, but he acted with the rest, and
therefore as being a member of a body, uniting to act
for one purp-se, he was to a certain extent liable. The
Learned Judge then recapitulated the evidence briefly,
and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 1,1001.

COURT OF EXCHEQUIER, Jan. 16.
BIDDER V. FITZGERALD.

In this cause, which was tried before the Lord Chief
Baron, at the last sittings at Westminster, as an unde-
fended cause, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was a country solicitor, and brought his
action to recover a sum of money, alleged to he due to
him for prolessional services rendered on behalf of the
Birmingham and Daventr);hJeupiircotvioilßnarlilew,ainyin,
tf t ewe .hic lt
tthhee dfetietrieti afit wastihejureyhegiting in their 'verdict the Lord
Chief Baron took occasion to remark upon the reckless
mode of their the verdict for a sum larger than
even that claimed by the plaintiff's counsel, and which
was not supported by the least evidence.
Mr. PEACOCK now moved to set that verdict aside.
The reason the cause was not defended arose from the
fact of the solicitor, who was instructed to defend the
cause, having left the country, and the brief which he
had prepared, and which had since been found in his
offices, had not been handed to any counsel.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—The jury seemed to have
been very greatly infected with the popular mania
against provisional committeemen, the verdict was a
most unaccountable one.--ltul© granted. •

GI JANUARY 18, 1

been assisted by the Association until they ascertained
their character, and they then declined to have any-
thing further to do with them. They were gross im-
postors, their characters the most disreputable, and were
not, in fact, entitled to the slightest sympathy. Their
conduct, he said, brought great shame and disgrace upon
their exiled country men, and he begged to take that
opportunity of saying that every One of those persons
who, like the prisoners, had themselves as
Poles, and solicited relict, were, to a man, impostors ;
for he was happy to say that every Pole of good cha
ratter was afforded sufficient from the funds of the So-
ciety—at the head of which were the highest people in
this country—to keep them from resorting to such a
mode of living, andihe therefore thus publicly wished to
warn the public against being imposed upon by such
persons. . . . . .

Mr. NORTON, after remarking upon the impudtmt
conduct of the prisoners, stintenc. d them to three
months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and added tint
he should take care to have thi2ir conviction returned to
and recorded at the Quarter Session<, so that if brought
up again on a similar offence they might be treated as
felons.