The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-21 00:00:00

" TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE GLOBE.

" SlR,—The following observations appoar in the lead-
ing article of the Globe newspaper of Friday last, with re.
ference to an application made to the Court of King's
Bench by Viscount Strangford in Nlichaelmas Term,
1828 :

" ' The affidavits in support of the application did not
satisfy the Court, and the Noble Lord took nothing by
his motion.'

" As his Lordship's solicitors on that occasion, we take
leave to set you right as to the grounds on which that ap-
plication was refused.
" The accompanying opinion of his Lordship's Cowie!
will fully explain the reason why fwtber proceedings
were discontinued in this case, and will also afford the
public an opportunity of !earning the opinion of two of the
most eminent lawyers of the day, that it was only on ac-
count of the non-observance of a technical rule, which it
was almost impossible to have observed, that the Court
refused to grant the information applied Li-.
" The observations in the Globe would lead to the sup-
position that it was on the merits of the case that the
Court had refused to comply with the application made by
Viscount Strangford.
" We have the honour to remain, Sir,
" Your obedient humble servants,
" PICKEItING, SMITH, and TOMPSON.

" Stone-buildings, Lincoln's Inn, Jan. 18, 1841.
" Copy of opinion cf Sir C. Wetherell and Sir N. C.
Tindal—in re Lord Strangford.
" We are of opinion, that after the decision of the
Court as to the insufficiency of the affidavit upon which
the rule to show cause was granted (and which deci-
sion we are free to confess was greatly to our surprise),
it will not be advisable to have recourse to further
proceedings. Indeed, the nature and description of the
paragraph originally printed in the Times newspaper
were such that we scarcely see how it was possible to frame
any affidavit which should operate as a denial of every
charge contained in it. All persons who understand the
nature of the case will perceive in a moment that it was
only on account of the non-observance of a technical rule,
which in the particular case it would have been almost
impossible to observe, that the Court refused to grant the
information.

" CHARLES WETHERELL.
N. C. TINDAL.
" Lincoln's Inn, Dec. 1, IS2ii."
(From the Standard.)

When it is difficult or impossible satisfactorily to
answer a question which has been proposed, it is no un-
common stratagem, to seem to reply by answering a ques-
tion which has not been proposed, or to offer a defence
against a charge unjustly assumed to be involved in the
tormenting interrogatory. We yesterday put a ques-
tion, which, as we believe, must, long before we or any
one else of the public had propounded it, have sadly
perplexed the Queen's Ministers, the question—Would
her Majesty's advisers dare in the Royal Speech to re-
fer to the Repeal sedition, or would they dare to pass
over that tremendous danger as undeserving the
notice of the Legislature ? This plain question, plainly
put, has provoked from the Morning Chronicle an angry
article, in which it is assumed that the Ministers are ac-
cused of having crested the Repeal sedition, and the at-
tempt is made to fasten the production of the mischief
upon Lord Stanley's Bill. Now this, u e submit, is
not answering our question. We did not charge
Ministers with having created the Repeal sedition ; in-
deed, we brought no charge of any kind, not even that
which we might have justly brought—the charge of
supinely neglecting the advance of the formidable
evil ; we merely inquired whether it was likoly
that Parliament would be expected to close the eye
upon it ? As to Lord Stanley's Bill, making even
the ridiculously false admission that the treasonable
movement is the effect of the Bill, still the Morning
Chronicle can make nothing of the admission in
reference to our question. If we are to accept the
doctrines of the Morning Chronicle, Ministers are only
to restrain sedition of their own making, or such as they,
according to their own taste and judgment, do not alto-
, gether dislike : but such is not the doctrine of the British
Constitution—by that Constitution Ministers are bound
to protect the institutions of the country whenever
threatened, or upon whatever provocation threatened.
True it is that her Majesty's present advisers have
a sufficiently heavy task in guarding against the con-
sequences of their own misconduct, and it is equally
true that they have a direct and a vital interest in
encouraging whatever may embarrass any mea-
sure that shall check the frauds, the corruptions, and
the prejudices of Irish elections ; but it ought not
to satisfy the nation to hear that Ministers
are too busy in staving off the effect of their political
crimes to give attention to an imminent peril, or too
deeply interested in the collateral purpose of a
sedition threatening the dismemberment of the em-
pire, to offer it to the notice of Parliament. What it
concerns the nation to know is, not the origin, but tho
existence of the danger—not the bearing which that
danger may have upon the interest of parties, but its
tendency to the ruin of the empire itself ; and if any
danger of great magnitude really threatens, it is surely
the duly of the executive—all other considerations laid
aside—to communicate the fact to the assembled Par-
liament. Will Ministers dare to do this, or will they
dare to leave it undone?

(From the Courier.)
The chief thing complained of as a monopoly is that
of the coal trade ; and if there be one article more than
another which ought to he brought free from all the
charges incidental to such a state of things, to the door
of the consumer, it certainly is coals. We have been
blessed by Providence with extensive beds in differont
parts of the country of the most beautiful coal ; that
which lies under the counties of Durham and Northum-
berland being the acknowledged best. The insular posi-
lion of Great Britain brings with it humidity and fogs,
followed by catarrhs, rheumatism, and fever ; the hest
prevention, however, to these complaints is the social
habits of an Englishman's fireside, And where a good
blazing coal fire can be procured the vice must be
natural, and not acquired from necessity, that drives a
person to the gin-shop. But in this immense metro-
polis,
where the highest degree of luxury and the lowest
depths of misery are equally to be found, coals, the ar-
ticle most essential, and indeed the very foundation of
all our comforts, is the very dearest we have to pur-
chas and this evilis made doubly severe by the cir-
cumstance that they are made dear, especially, to the
metropolis. Take coals to any distant outport, the

freight is no greater than in London, the charges less,
and, in fact, they may be carried on to the West Indies
and sold at the ordinary London price.

MONEY MARKET and CITY NEW S

(TUESDAY EVENING.)
TlMES.—Attacks have been made from time to

time in this journal upon the principle, and still more
upon the practice, of the various loan societies which
have sprung up in the metropolis under the recent Act
of Parliament by which they are authorized and re4u-
lated. In doing so, many facts which are not to be
controverted were adduced to show that these socie-
ties are susceptible, at least, of great abuse ; that
they are a cover to great extortion, and oppress the
classes they were intended more especially to relieve.
These attacks have been felt, and are complained of,
as would naturally be anticipated, by the parties
suffering under them ; and as they hare a fair claim,
under such circumstances, to ha beard in their de-
fence in the same channel from which the attack
proceeded, it is proper to notice what the arguments
are which are set up by their defenders, i. e., the
parties interested in their behalf. A long letter, under
the signature of " Veritas," is as well calculated for
this purpose as any we have seen. The writer, after
adverting to the injury done to the loan societies by
the attacks referred to, denies that the Acts of 5 and U
William IV., by which they are authorised, were in-
tended merely to enable benevolent individuals to ad-
vance small temporary loans to the humbler class, while
he has no doubt that this was among the objects de-
signed. On the contrary,
its progress
that the altera•
tions the Bill underwent in progress through the
House prove that it was considered a trading, not a be-
nevolent measure—that is, one that would give an op-
portunity of assisting worthy persons at a small risk,
while those who wished to invest capital might find a
remunerating profit by advancing sums not above 151,
to persons who would prefer borrowing on the pay-
ment of a per tentage to receiving charitable aid
If 5 per cent. had been the maximum of interest
allowed, he says the law would hale been inope-
rative, and that in London, out of 120 enrolled
societies that existed in -Nue, 1840, with an aggre-
gate capital of 500,0001., only one—namely, the
" Friendly Loan Society"—was established on the
benevolent principle, the capital of which never
amo'snted to 3,0001., while even that sum could not be
employed, though the other societies had applications
beyond the power of their funds to supply. The in-
sufficiency of five per cent. profit to pay the working of
this society is considered by this writer as an argument
in favour of the increased rate, and be says that the
parties connected with it, who gave a great portion of
their labour gratuitously to save expense, hailed as a
great benefit the raising of interest under the:Aet.
Such means as were possessed by that society could
not, he thinks, have annihilated the old money-clubs,l
which have gradually died away since the establishment
of the present loan societies. As for the enormous
profits said to be made by loan societies, he considers
that competition with one another will be a sufficient
check to any excess of that kind. The large nomi-
nal rate charged by loan societies is, on the whole,
according to the statement of this writer, no more
than is counterbalanced by the risk of loss which
these societies run, and they are altogether use-
ful assistants to the poor, protecting them from
the grasping avarice of private money-lenders.
With respect to the arguments above stated, it is evi-
dent that they, in reality, amount to no more than to
show that a loan society, conducted on fair principles,
will be a good rather than an evil—a fact which can
hardly be denied, the only difficulty being the obtaining
of a guarantee that these fair principles will be adhered
to. It will be seen that competition is the only check
against extortion mentioned above, but it is hard to dis-
cover how that should operate more in the case of so-
cieties than in that of private individuals, the extortion
sof whom is admitted as one of the great cads against
which the societies are to afford protection. Societies,
it is well known, are not accustomed to be more scru-
pulous than individuals, where their interest is concerned,
and the doubt whether the removal of restriction on the
rate of interest, as far as regards sinall loans, does not
operate injuriously oil the poor, who, inexperienced in
money matters, would least of all pause to balance the
advantages offered by different lenders of money, seems
just as much to apply to societies as to private money
lenders.

CHRONICLE.—It being true that the Bank Di-
rectors arc not legally responsible for their mismanage-
ment of the circulation since the last renewal of their
charter, and that they cannot be punished for having
departed from the contract with Parliament, under
which their privileges were then continued as a single
bank of issue,—it being undeniable that subsequent to
October 1833, we very seldom find the published ac-
counts of the Bank in unison with the principle on
which the Bank was bound to be guided in ordinary
times, with regard to its issues,—we must repeat our
question to the people of this country, and again ask if
the Bank of England should be rewarded by a
new lease of its privileges and profits, as the na-
tional bank of issue. Lord Althorp, " good easy
man," void of all suspicion himself, and judging of
others by himself, said, " I feel confident that per-
sons standing so prominent as the Bank Directors
will be as completely controlled by public opinion as if
they were acting under a legal responsibility." The
test of time and experience has shown that the
Bank Directors have made the observance of the con-
dition relied on by his Lordship the exception, in-
stead of their rule of managemeut. It is admitted
by Mr. Norman that it was deviated from in the
years 1836, 1837, and 1839 ; and he even declares that
it was not founded on a correct principle. That is
a separate point altogether. The question first to be
considered is, whether the Directors were justified
in departing from the declared rule? Mr. Norman
declares that it was necessary to depart from it on
account of adverse circumstances, and to render as-
sistance to commerce ; but the evidence adduced
would seem to prove that, after last renewal of
their charter the Directors were obliged, in order
to keep up the former rate of dividends, to enter upon a
course of action hostile to that which they were bcund
to observe, and for their observance of which they had
prevailed on Lord Althorp to stand forward in Parlia-
ment in the character of their surety. But while we
thus find that his Lordship has been completely deeeived
in his reliance upon the controlling influence of public
opinion, and that the publicity of accounts—lance, un-
satisfactory, and imperfect as that publicity is—has
proved that the Directors have most widely deviated
fram that which his Lordship considered to be a
" wholesome principle," we are not sanguine that any
legal responsibility, by means of penal clauses, would
be efficacious in obtaining better conduct for the
future ; nor is it expedient that the contract, bur-
dened by such safeguards, should bo renewed. The
governing machine itself must be reconstructed, and
subjected to the action of a now element of power.
Lord Althorp adduced one strange argument for doubt-
ting the efficacy of Government control, which was,
that in the years 1797, 1822, and 1825, when the Bank
was charged with mismanagement, the Directors had
acted with the cognizance of the Government. That
very fact proves the viciousness of the existing sys-
tem ; for we thus see that the currency of the coun-
try is conducted by two irresponsible parties—the
Crown and the Bank Directors ; the beautiful absurdity
being that the Bank, being a private corporation, is
not bound to account to the public, and that the Go-
vernment is in no way answerable for the conduct of
the Directors of the Bank, as they are not chosen by,
nor subject to, the interference of the Clown. Both of
the offending parties thus escape scot free from the con-
sequences of their misdeeds, and it is impossible to fix
the burden upon either. Although it is as clear as the
sun at noon-day that the Bank parlour acts in concert
with the Government, yet it is absurdly supposed by
the constitution of the Bank that the Directors and the
Government act entirely independent of each other ;
and yet we see that the Directors are justified in their
past errors, on the very ground that they were influ-
enced by the Minister. Tlis readers it imperative on the
Legislature to see that the Minister of the day, whether
Whig, Tory, or Radical, should be made responsible to
Parliament for his dealings with the Bank, and, for that
purpose, the Crown should have a controlling power in
the management of the Bank parlour. Sir Rokrt Peel
justly remarked on this subject, that "all depended on
commercial confidence." The sure way to produce
that confidence is to procure efficient Parliamentary
controul over those who arc entrusted with the power
of creating paper money, and to submit their transac-
tions to the test of frequent and full publicity. By
these means the country would obtain the benefit of
steadiness of prices, and the security attending the cir-
culation of a truly convertible paper currency. The
nation would soon place full confidence in such a sys-
tem, and thus the principle contended for by the Right
Honourable Baronet would be obtained. In cases of
great political excitement there might be sotne tre-
mor at first. In such circumstances it is impossible
to guard against results in all respects, but certainly,
if the people knew that the paper currency was as
good as gold ; that is, if they knew that they could get
gold in exchange for the asking, the extent of the
alarm would necessarily be limited, and if it happened
once, would never likely occur a second time. Lord
Sydenharn observed, "It was impossible that Vie
paper currency of any county could be made per-
fectly secure against periods of political alarm when
convertible into gold," because there was
no bank,
except the Bank of France, which did not circulate its
paper with a view to profit ; that is, no bank that re-
tained gold in its coffers to the full amount of its notes
in circulation. This leads to a consideration of the
very important question of the profits on issues derived
by the Bank of England and other banks of issue. But
is also bears upon the soundness of the principle for
which we have contended, namely, that to obtain con-
fidence in our paper money, the public must feel that
it is equivalent to, and, as such, is really and truly
convertible into gold. That is the true definition of
a sound national paper currency ; and, if that rule
were acted upon, political excitement would not

destroy, nor even disturb to any great extent con-
fidence in such a system of paper money. "In
order," says the reporter on the Bank of France,
" that paper without any intrinsic value, and deriving
its worth only from the coin for which it is a substitute,
may have all the usefulness possible, it should be caps•
ble of procuring for its possessor at any moment the
coin which it represents." But he adds, the Bank
cannot always have at its disposal a capital sufficient to
cash all the notes which it has issued. If so it would
derive no advantage from its credit ; its shareholders
would have no interest in forming or continuing it.
" It is necessary that the perfect confidence inspired
by its paper should render some of its holders
disinclined to exchange it. Thus it will suffice, if
it be prepared at any moment to exchange that por-
tion which, probably, according to the ordinary
course of business, will be presented to it."
This shows that the partners of the Bank of
France are not excluded from profit from the issuing
department, but still they have not kept as much gold
in their coffers as they had notes in circulation. We
do not believe that this would be required to secure
confidence in the paper money of this country. If our
monetary system were placed again upon a sound basis
—the notes proportioned fairly to the bullion—varying,
too, in amount in the same ratio as the bullion, com-
bined with efficient Parliamentary control and publicity,
so as to satisfy the commercial and trading interests,
and to produce steadiness and uniformity, " the perfect
confidence" which would be thus spread abroad in the
nation would, under all circumstances, disincline a large
mass of the holders from wishing to exchange it for gold.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, .Lizr. 20.
BARNARD V. POMFRET.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, which came before the Court upon appeal
from the decision of the )Master of the Rolls. The
question in the case was, whether an executor, having
admitted assets to pay legacies, and being obliged
afterwards to apply those assets in payment of the
testator's debts, was bound to pay those legacies. The
Master of the Rolls decided that he was, and from that
decision the present appeal was brought. his Lord-
ship was clearly of opinion that the judgment of the
Court below was correct, and dismissed the appeal with
costs.

BUCKERIDGE V. GLASSE.

His Lot:Dm-11P also gave judgment in this case, re,
versing the decree of the Vice-Chancellor, which dis•
missed the bill with costs.

TAYLOR V. RUNDELL.

This case came before the Court upon appeal from
the decision of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor. The
bill was filed by the late Sir Herbert Taylor, and the
ether executors of his late Royal Highness the Duke of
York, calling upon the defendant to account for the
working of the mines of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia,
which were granted by George the Third to the Duke
of York, and who had leased them to the defendants,
who had termed a company for the purpose of working
them. The defendants put in their answer to the hill,
in which they stated their inability to give a full account
of the transaction, as the other members of the Com-
pany who had not been made parties, refused to give up
the books. To this answer exceptions were token for
insufficiency, and a reference was directed to the Master
to ascertain that fact. The Master reported the an-
swer sufficient, but to that report exceptions were taken
which were allowed by the Vice-Chancellor upon their
being argued before him, and from that decision the
present appeal was brought.
Mr. WAKEFIELD and Mr. WooD were counsel for
the appellant.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, without calling upon Mr.
Wigram, who was counsel for the respondents, ordered
the appeal to be dismissed, thereby upholding the deci-
sion of the Vice Chancellor.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JAN. 20.
EANNATYNE V. LEADEIt.
The further arguments in this case occupied the
Court the whole day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JAN. 20.
(Sqtings in Banco.)

THE QUEEN V. THUS. IIoPKINS AND THE CONIHISsION
ERS OF TIIE BOSTON COURT OF REQUESTS.

In this case a rule had been obtained calling upon
the defendants to show cause why a writ of mandamus
should not issue, directed to them, commanding them
to deliver to Meaben Stamelan, who had been duly
elected Clerk of the Commissioners, certain books and
papers, which he was entitled to hold by virtue of his
offine.

Sir F. POLLOCK now appeared to show cause against
the return. The return which had been made to the
writ by the Commissioners was, that they had no power
or control over any papers or documents connected with
the office of Clerk of:the Court of Requests, and there-
fore they could not deliver up the same. The return
of Mr. Hopkins was to the effect that by the provisions
of the Act 47 Geo. 111., the Mayor and Aldermen,
under the old Municipal Act, and not the Town Coun-
cil, under the new Act, were the proper persons to ap-
point to the office of Clerk of the Court of Requests ;
that Mr. Stamelan had been appointed by the latter,
and that at the time of his appointment he (Mr. Sta-
melan) was a Councillor of the borough, and by virtue
thereof incapacited from filling the office of Clerk of the
Court of Requests ; that he ( Hopkins) had been duly
nominated and appointed by a majority of the Alder-
men, and by virtue of his office claimed to retain these
documents. There were two points for the considera-
tion of the Court. First, it being admitted that the
Town Council elected Mr. Stamelan, and that the
Mayor and Aldermen elected Mr. Hopkins, the ques.
tion was, which of these two elections was the valid one.
The other question was, whether Mr. Stamelan at the
time of his appointment, being a Councillor, was in a con-
dition to be elected to the office of Clerk of the Court of
Requests. The Learned Counsel, after referring to se-
veral authorities on the subject, submitted that the return
made by Mr. Hopkins was bad and insufficient, and that
a peremptory mandamus to compel the delivery of the
books and papers, ought to go.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT took a preliminary objec-
tion to the rule on the ground that the whole of the
facts had not been disclosed to the Court at the time
the application was made. It was clear from what
had now been stated, that it was an attempt to decide
the right to a disputed election, both parties claiming
to have been duly elected ; and the Court would at once
see that that was a proceeding which could not be done
by mandamus.
The COURT was of opinion that the objection was
good.—Rule discharged.

THE QUEEN V. THE MOST NOBLE ARTHUR DUKE OF
WELLINGTON, CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

OXFORD.

Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK had yesterday brought
under the notice of Mr. Justice Williams a motion of
rather an unusual nature, and had by him been re-
ferred to the full Court. It was an application for
a writ of prohibition, directed to the authorities of the
University of Oxford to restrain them from proceeding
further in a suit instituted in that Court against the
plaintiff in a certain case, and his attorney. lie was sa-
tisfied that when the facts of the case came to be fully
examined by the Court, although the application might
be a novel one, their Lordships would be of opinion
that the Chancellor's Court of Oxford, in order to relieve
themselves of the difficulty of claiming cognizance, had as-
sumed a jurisdiction to which they had no claim whatever.
The affidavits disclosed that Mr. Taylor was employed
by a tradesman named Barnes to commence an action
against an undergraduate of Worcester College, Ox-
ford. On the 22d of February last he issued the writ,
and on the 27th he was served with a process or citation
from the Chancellor's Court of the University of Ox-
ford, to appear before the Vice-Chancellor of the Court
on the 28th instant, to answer certain charges of having
infringed the statutes and privileges of the College in
having issued the writ. With great deference to the
authorities of the College, although the noble and learned
personage at its head knew nothing of the matter, or
much less than their Lordships at present did, he sub-
mitted that they had no jurisdiction whatever to take so
extraordinary and unheard of a course. He (Sir F.
Pollock) had had the honour of being for many years
Commissary of the Chancellor's Court of Cambridge
and although the Court claimed jurisdiction in certain
cases where one or both of the parties were members of
the University they had never arrogated to themselves
so extraordinary a power as the facts disclosed
in the present case exhibited to their Lordships.
Mr. Taylor did not appear, and he was ordered to stay
all proceedings in the cause, and to pay the costs. A
similar citation was served upon the plaintiff, who had
actually been arrested under a warrant, and compelled
to pay the money. There was at the present moment
a warrant against Mr. Taylor to arrest him for the costs
in the Chancellor's Court. He trusted the Court would
not put Mr. Taylor to the cost and inconvenience of ap-
plying for a writ of habeas corpus, or of bringing an action
for money had and received. He considered that al-
most as a right he was entitled to apply for prohibition,
the Court certainly having no legal jurisdiction to take
such a step. How could the Chancellor of the Uni-
ver.iity of Oxford have any power to punish an attorney
for merely discharging his duty in suing cut the regular
process of a superior Court, the Court of Queen's
Bench. He trusted, under these circumstances, the
Court would grant him the rule.
COURT—Take a rule.
THE QUEEN V. TIIE BRISTOL DOCK COMPANY.
This was a mandamus directed to the defendants,
and commanding there to make certain repairs in a
navigable cut or canal, pursuant to the provisions of
the Act 43 Geo. 111., c. 140.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now submitted to the
Court that the return made to the writ by the defend-
ants was bad. The defendants were authorised under
the provisions of the Act to make a new cut for the
river Avon, and they were to keep the cut, with the
banks thereof in proper repair. The mandatory part
of the writ was to mend the banks of the new course,
but to that they gave no direct answer—they merely
referred to the depth and bottom of the new course and
th© inclination of the aides, which, they maintained,

were in proper repair, and as nearly of the required
width and slope as circumstances permitted. The gra-
vamen of the complaint was that the banks were out
of repair, and no answer being given thereto, he sub-
mitted that the return was bad and insufficient, and
that the peremptory mandamus must go.
Sir F. PoLLocic, for the defendants, submitted that
the Court was not in the habit of granting mandamuses
whenever the party had any other specific remedy. In
a case like the present, where there were merely re-
pairs to be done, the proper course was to appeal to a
Jury. Here the defendant bad made a navigable
canal or cut in lieu of the old one, and if any parties had
suffered by that, they could indite the defendants. He
submitted that they had done every thing required by
the Act—that the return was a full and satisfactory
answer to the mandamus, and therefore the rule ought
to be discharged.
The COURT said it did not appear from the argu-
ments that the return went a great way to answer the
complaint, hut it was a point requiring further consi-
deration —Judgment deferred.

COURT OF .EXCHEQUER, JAN. 20.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HUMPHREYS V. O'CONNELL.

This was an actio❑ upon a bill of exchange, to the
declaration in which the defendant had pleaded that the
bill in question had been given in consideration of two
other hills of exchange which formed part of three
bills given to cover certain monies lost at a certain game
of chance called French Hazard ; they were given
for an illegal considcratioi, and therefore the
action could not be maintained. The plaintiff's replica-
tion was de injuria, to which the defendant specially de-
murred.

WILLis appeared in support of the demurrer,
and cited a number of cases in order to show that the
plaintiff had no right to recover upon bills given for
such a consideration.

Mr. HENDERSON was about to argue on the other
side when he was stopped by,
The COURT, who said the rule of law did not apply
in the present ease. The defendant went too far, he
denied his liability to any one.
Judgment for the plaintiff.

BAIL COUR7, JAN. 20.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
MS LORDSHIP heard several motions in the early
part of this morning, but they were all of them devoid
of every feature of public interest.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
ALEXANDER V. LINGFORD.

This case, which was an action on a bill of exchange
for 8001., had been specially fixed for eleven o'clock
this day. When the Jury had gone into the box, and
the case was called on, it appeared that neither of the
counsel for the plaintiff were present.
On the plaintiff's attorney being asked what gentle-
men he had instructed, he replied that he had given
briefs to Mr. Platt and Mr. Wightman.
On inquiry it appeared that Mr. Wightman was at
that moment engaged in speaking in another Court, and
that Mr. Platt bad not been seen about the Courts
during the morning.
The Attorney then said that he had, since the case
had been called on, given a brief to Mr. Pctersdorff,
who shortly after entered the Court, and proceeded with
the case.

Mr. Riciimtus and Mr. HUMPHREY appeared for
the defence, which was that the defendant's signature
as endorser was a forgery. Considerable laughter was
excited during the course of the trial by the cross-exa-
mination of the accepter's brother, from which it ap-
peared that the accepter was living either with the
drawer of the bill or her mother—that he was exten-
sively engaged in bill transactions—that he had not
been living as a gentleman, but in the style of a gentle-
man, for the last three years, upon nothing.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.