The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-06 00:00:00

SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were read a second time, and
ordered to be committed t—Argyle Canal—Newbart (or
Gravenor's) Estate—Paterson's Estate—Pickernell's
Estate—Wingfield's (or St. Aubyn's) Estate.
YORK AND NEW CASTLE RAILWAY.

On the motion of Mr. HUDSON the report on the
York and Newcastle Railway (Main Line Improvement,
&c.) was further considered and agreed to.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

The Lords' Amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—
Boston, Stamford, and Birmingham Railway (Wisbech
to Sutton-bridge, &c.)
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (Burntisland Pier,
&c.)
Kilmarnock Police and Improvement.
Midland Railway (Erewash Valley, &c.)
HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.

The House then resolved itselfinto a Committee of
Supply, and Lord Morpeth moved a resolution autho-
rising the Treasury to make certain advances.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK would oppose the mo-

lion unless the Noble Lord would state the sum required.
Lord MORPETII could not state the exact sum re-
quired. The course pursued by the Government was
the usual cue. _ _

Mr. HUDSON opposed the resolution, and would
divide the House upon it if he stood alone, unless some
specific sum were mentioned.
After some observations from the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER,

Mr. BANKES considered a subject like the present
ought not to be discussed at the present time, and he
would vote for the adoption of any course that would
postpone the vote.
Mr. HUME supported the resolution. Nothing was
more likely to lessen the pour-rates than to improve the
sanatory cnudition of towns. There could be no doubt
the provisions of the Bill would have that effect, and he
thought, therefore, that the House ought to do nothing
to weaken the effects of the Bill.

Captain PECHELL supported the resolution, be-
cause it world do away with the supposition that his
constituents would be saddled with the expense of in-
spectors and other officers. His constituents were in
favour of the Bill, provided they were not to be saddled
with expenses.
Mr. SPOONER would be compelled to vote against
the motion of his Right Honourable Friend the
Lord Mayor of York if he persevered with it.
Mr. G. PALMER opposed the resolution.
Mr. HENLEY also opposed the resolution.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK proposed to limit the
expenditure to 20,0001.
The Earl of LINCOLN supported the proposal of
Lord G. Bentinck. Although he did not think it would
rtmedy the evils complained of in the Government
measure. He was sure that the sum to be granted by
the Treasury ought not to exceed 20,0001.
Lord MORPETH thought that, if the suggestion of
the Noble Lord was adopted, it might have the effect of
limiting the usefulness of the Bill.
Mr. lIUNIE objected to the naming of a specific sum,
because he was sure if a certain sum was named the
commissioners would spend the whole of it. He was
content to leave the matter in the uunas of the lxo-

After some observations from Mr. W. MILES,

Strangers wrre ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, the resolution being agreed to without it.
The house then resumed, and the report on the reso-
lution was ordered to be received to-morrow.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on
the Health of Towns Bill.

On the 20th clause being proposed,
Captain PECHELL objected to the latter part of
the clause with respect to the election of commissioners.
Mr. HUDSON still entertained the strongest ob-
jections to the Bill, because corporate towns were
bound to accept its provisions, while towns
that were not corporate were not. He had
no doubt, if the constituents of the Honourable
and Gallant Member for Brighton were compelled to
accept of the provisions of the Bill, he would be found
in opposit4on to it.
After some discussion, the clause, with some verbal
amendments, was agreed to, and ordered to stand part
of the Bill.

On clause 21 being proposed,
Captain PECIIELL moved the following amendment:
—Tnat after the word " electing," the following words
should be inserted:—" the said town commissioners
every ratepayer shall have and be entitled to give one
vote and no more in respect of the property for which he
is qualified to vote at such election, and that for the pur-
pose of conducting the election."
(LEFT SITTING.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(MONDAY).

(Sittings at Niai Prius, at Guildhall, before the Lord

CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
M'GREGOR V. KNIGHT.—CASE OF RIGHT OF WAY.

This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages for false imprisonment. The declaration stated
that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff, and seized and
laid hold of him, and caused him to be taken through
divers public streets to a police-station, where he
was detained a considerable time, and then
liberated on bail ; that he was taken before a
magistrate next morning, when the charge made against
him by the defendant was dismissed. It stated further,
that his feelings were in consequence greatly hurt, and
his business interrupted. The defendant pleaded Not
Guilty, and that the plaintiff broke and entered premises
which belonged to him, and that he in consequence was
justified in the course he had adopted.
Tlie Attorney-General, Mr. Knowles, Q.C., and Mr.
Miller were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Martin, Q.C.,
and Mr. Phipson were for the defendant.
The ArronsEir- GENERAL stated the case, on the part
of the plaintiff, to the jury. He said he looked upon this
case against the defendant, which was an action for false
imprisonment, as one of a very serious character; it was
a case which the plaintiff was compelled to bring into
Court, but he (the Attorney-General) confessed that be
should have been far better satisfied if the defendant,
instead of allowing the plaintiff to proceed as he had
been compelled to do, it he had stated that he had re-
gretted his conduct, and had made ax ample apology for
it Ho (the Attorney-General) thought that he ought
to have done so, and he was sure that the jury, when he
had stated the case to them, would be of the same
opinion. Mr.sMcGregor was a gentleman carrying on a
very large business as a wholesale woollen-warehouse-
man, at 150, Cheapside. He had carried on busi-
ness for several years, and was a gentleman very much
respected. The defendant, Mr. Knight, carried on
likewise a very largo business, in partnership with
another gentleman, as ironmongers in Foster-lane,
Cheapside. Ho believed he succeeded his father in that
business, and he now carried on a business of great
respectability ; but, unfortnnately, he had given way to
his temper with respect to what he supposed he had a
right to, and had done that which, on reflection, be
certainly could not fail to regret. The premises occupied
byMr.McGregor. opened behind into a plane formerlycalled
Sun-court, but now known as Black Lion-court,
which opened into Foster-lane. The defendant, Mr.
Knight, and his partner, occupied premises opening into
the court, as also did other parties.—(The Learned
Counsel here explained the model of, the premises, and
handed in plans to the Court.) The court, as he had
said, opened into Foster-lane. It would be necessary to
state the respective rights of the parties, and to explain
how Mr. M‘Gregor felt it his duty to act when he found
the defendant disputing his right of way. As far back
as living memory could go, this passage or court had
been used by the occupiers of these premises without
interruption for a considerable number of years. The
court was enclosed at the end with large doors—the
door on the right hand being only fastened by a large
clasp—that on the left being the door through which
access to the court was obtained, and upon the
door-post on the left hand side there were
bells with the names of the different occupiers
of the premises painted upon them, in order that when
the doors were closed for the night, the residents might
be communicated with ; and no one had ever doubted
the rights of the parties to have at all times egress and
ingress through the court into Foster-lane. Some time
ago certain repairs were made and new doors were put
up. The lower part was boarded and the rest paved, for
the convenience of the occupiers, and the expense was
divided between Messrs. Brown, the then occupier of
the premises now held by Messrs. Clarke, fur-
riers, by the plaintiff, and Messrs. Knight, whp