The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-18 00:00:00

those who committed wilful and deliberate perjury,
but he confidently submitted that this was not one of
these cases.
_ Mr. CROMPTON replied his clients would be per-
fectly satisfiedwith the least measure of punishment
which their Lordships :night be inclined to inflict.
Mr. Justice COLER:DGE characterised the offence
_ft' which the defendant was found guilty as one which
the law regarded, aid properly so, of the most serious!haracter. Unless they could depend upon the in-
tegrity of a witness when he entered the witness-
"s; after taking a solemn oath, society could not go
04. It was impossible to place implicit credence
Upon
anything stated by the defendant in his affidavit.
e had an opportunity of making various memo-
randums at the trial, of comparing dates and papers,
and also of making various observations to lead him
to speak the truth, and therefore the Court could not
well credit his statement that he fell into an error of
judgment. Taking into consideration the whole of
the mitigating circumstances, the Court felt it its
duty to sentence him to two months' imprisonment
with hard labour in Cold Bath-fields.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
GOULDY V. DUNCOMBE, M.P.
The Court gave judgment in this case to-day.
Upon a former occasion Mr. Willes applied to the
Court for a rule to have an order of Mr. Justice Wil-
liams' set aside, on the ground of the privilege
which the defendant claimed from arrest, he being at
the time he was so arrested a Member of the House
of Parliament. The Learned Counsel had in support
of his application contended that no such privilege
existed, the only protection which the House had
established for its Members being a convenient time to
allow of their coming to the meeting of Parliament.
The Court had looked through the whole of the
authorities upon the subject, and found that Black-
stone, in his " Commentaries," had laid it down that
the privilege extended for forty days after and forty
days before the assembling of Parliament. Bacon,
who had collected together all the authorities on the
same subject, also had the same period. There was
an old Irish statute, passed in the third year of
Edward IV., chap. 1, which expressly fixed the
Period to which the privilege should extend to forty
days. The 4th Charles 11., passed in the year 1672,
also fixed the same period, and Jenkins, who pub-
lished a work in 1661, cites a case which occurred
acme time in the reign of Charles I. " Deedes'
Journal" said that the period of forty days as a privi-
lege had existed for some centuries, and that twenty
days was within the limit allowed by law. In the
13th year of William 111. a statute was passed upon
the subject, but that did not contain any mention of
the number of days to which the privilege should
extend. The 4th George 111. cap. 21, sec. 1, fixed
the period at forty days, and that was further con-
firmed by an Act passed in the 24th of George 111.,
Cap. 37, sec. 7. Looking, therefore, at the whole
of these Acts, there could be no doubt but that the
defendant was fully entitled to the privilege he had
claimed, and the application fur the rule would there-
fore be discharged.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
11:0-day the Court heard cases of appeal from the
decisions of revising barristers.

DELIVERY OF NOTICES OF APPEAL.
On the case of Palmer v. Allen being called on to
be heard,
An objection was taken by Mr. Sergeant
Byles to the notice of appeal, which, u
section of the Act was required to bender the 64th
delivered ten
daya previous to the day appointed by the Court for
hearing of appeals, which was the 11th of November,
and the notice was not delivered until the 3d.
It appeared, however, that the decision of the revising
barrister was not given until the afternoon of the
39th of October, and it was urged that there was not
'sufficient time to obtain the consent of the parties to
the appeal by the Ist of November.
An affidavit was put in on behalf of the appellant
alleging certain reasons why his signature to the ap-
Peal could not be obtained before the 3d.
The COURT decided that there was not reasonable
time to deliver the notice within the period re-
quired by the Act; and the case ought to be heard.
Subsequently the hearing of the case was ad-
jaUrned by consent, until a future day.
WATSON APPELLANT V. COTTON RESPONDENT.
This was an appeal against the decision of Mr.
Smith, the Revising Barrister for Worcestershire, who
retained the name of William Cotton upon the re-
gister for the borough of Bewedly.
It appeared that the respondent occupied a wharf
and shed in Bridge-street, Bewdly. The shed
!stood against a wooden paling, which was the
boundary of the wharf, and was supported by six
posts fixed in the ground and covered with tarpauling.
Two sides of it were closed in with boarding. The
shed was used for the purpose of depositing articles
connected with the occupation of the wharf. A Mr.
Marks, who occupied a part of the wharf, was allowed
to place hoops and poles into the shed, for which
privilege he paid a rent. The Revising Barrister
decided that this was a building within the meaning
of the 37 section of 6 Viet., c. 18, and therefore re-
tained the name of William Cotton upon the list of
voters.
Mr. GRAY, on the part of the appellant, who had
objected to the name of Mr. Cotton,
submitted that it
was not a building contemplated by the Act.
Mr. Sergeant Birtts, who appe
dent, was not heard in reply.ared for the respon-
The CHIEF JUSTICE said the
found that it was a building within the meaning of
the Act, and Unless the Court were of opinion that it
Was not a building, his decision must be confirmed.
A clause of the Act described what buildings were
i wncluded within its provisions and among others
" are houses;" and the question was, would the
gshea cease to be a warehouse if used for the deposit of
oods, because it was open at the sides ? e
re-
ended that it would not. There was nothing a ippn the
statement of the barristers which prevented this
building being considered analogous to a warehouse
connected with the enjoyment of the wharf. He was,
therefore, of opinion that the decision of the barrister
Was correct, and that it ought to be affirmed.
The other judges concurred with the Chief Justice
in that opinion, and the appeal was accordingly
dismissed.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES requested the Court to allow
costs to the respondent.
The Cans. JUSTICE said it was laid down in the
Act, that where the respondent was not heard no costs
Were to be allowed.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
124 RE TRING, READING, AND BASINGSTOKE RAILWAY
COMPANY.
To-day was appointed for a final dividend under
the fiat issued against the Tring, Reading, and Ba-
singstoke Railway Company.
At the last meeting it was agreed that the credi-
tors should be paid in full, with interest, and the fiat
superseded, and the respective interests of the direc-
tors and shareholders and general affairs of the com-
pany wound up.
Mr. LAWRENCE now appeared on behalf of the
assignees, to apply for a further adjournment for two
months, the late solicitors to the company not having
had sufficient time to make out their bills against the
company, Mr. Everile having been suffering under
severe illness. Mr. Lawrence said, some delay must
take place, as legal proceedings were pending against
persons indebted to the company.
There being no opposition, his HONOUR granted
the application.
A few proofs were put in, but no points of interest
arose during the proceedings.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—( THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
WILTON V. LATINE.

This was an action to recover the sum of 51, the
value of a pointer dog. The plaintiff is a dealer in
sporting dogs, and sent down the dog to defendant by
an order given through a friend of the latter, who
now, however, denied the contract.
dr. Ainslie, of Nassau-street, proved giving the
order to plaintiff, and understood the dog had been
sent; he did not see it, and therefore could not tell
the value. He afterwards saw defendant, who said
that he had received a dog from plaintiff, but that it
fell ill soon after he got it, and it was of no use to him,
and he would have something taken off the price, 5/.
Witness spoke to plaintiff, who, however, would not
make any abatement, and said that it was a good dog,
and had cost him a great deal of money, and was quite
well when it was sent.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that, although the de-
fendant had denied the contract, it was clear he had
accepted the dog at the price claimed, as he only
asked for an abatement.
The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.
The other cases were not of the slightest interest,
and were undefended.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
John Cooke was charged with assaulting Edward
White, a cab-driver, and breaking the window of
his. cab.
The prisoner, it appeared, was one of those persons
known as " bucks" or " touters." Last night he was
acting as Waterman on the Spotted Dog rank, in the
Strand, and put a fare into the second cab, com-
plainant's being the first. Complainant asked him
Why he did so? and he replied that he should do
what he chose, and if he (complainant) was "cheeky "
he should not have a fare all night. After that, he
went up to the cab and thrust his fist through the
Window. He then turned upon him, dragged him
off the box, and beat him violently. A policeman
Came up at the time and rescued complainant from
the prisoner, taking the latter in charge.
Dir. HALL expressed his surprise at the prisoner
being allowed to act as waterman with impunity.