The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-23 00:00:00

EAST INDIA HOUSE.

Wednesday a special general meeting of the proprietors
of East India stock was held at the India House, pur
suant to a public notice given as follows:—"The Court of
Directors of the East India Company do hereby give
notice, that a special general court of the Company will
be held at their house, in Leadenball-street, on Wed-
nesday, the 21st instant, at eleven in the forenoon, for
the purpose of submitting to the proprietors of East
India stock for confirmation a resolution passed unani-
mously by the general court this day, approving the
unanimous resolution of the Court of Directors of the
30th of June, 1847, granting to Major• General Sir G.
Pollock, G.C.8., an annuity. of I,ooot. upon the grounds
therein stated." The chair was taken by Mr. H. St.
George Tucker at the usual hour, and the minutes of
the last court were read.
The CHAIRNAN stated that various papers had been
presented to Parliament since the last court was held,
the titles of which would be read.
The Clerk read the heads of the papers referred to.
THE GRANT OF 1,0001. PER ANN CH TO SIR GEORGE
POLLOCK, G.C.B.

The CHAIRMAN stated that the court was made special
for the purpose of confirming a vote passed unanimously
at a former meeting., granting an annuity of 1,0001. per
annum to Major-General Sir George Pollock. upon the
grounds stated in the resolution of the Court of Directors.
Sir PETER LAURIE claimed a hearing, to make a state-
ment in favour of an
ENDOWMENT 07 A POLLOCK PRIZE AT ADDISCOMBE.
He expressed his regret t iat he was unavoidably pre-
vented attending the last court, when the proposed grant
was submitted to the proprietors; not that the proposal
required support, but to have seized the opportunity of
joining, as one of the oldest friends of Sir George Pol-
lock, in doing honour to his gallant friend; he would
not waste the time of the court in adverting to those
services, which wero so well expressed in the vote before
them. Sir George Pollock's career now belonged to
history, and he (Sir Peter Laurie) trusted that it might
please Providence to restore the health of his gallant
friend long to wear the laurels he had s) bravely won,
and long to enjoy this mark of the gratitude and respect
of the munificent service of the East India ' ) the
merchant an he
merchant sovereigns of India. He took that public' i
op-
portunity of thanking the Court of Directors for acceding
to the wish of the committee in India, appointed with
reference to the Pollock Prize, in accepting the office of
trustees of that fund, and including it amongst the prizes
presented at Addiscomb?. The fund, amounting to
11,000 rupees, was the result of subscriptions limited to
sums under 50 rupees, and lie hoped the court would be
rewarded by this prize assisting them in their exertions
to train up many a youth who, leaving England as Sir
George Pollock did, to work their way to fame with
only a clear head and a brave heart, may return to re-
ceive the thanks of his country and the affectionate
admiration of his friends.
The question having been put as to the grant to Sir
G. ponc,ek, it was confirmed unanimously, and with
much cheering.

Mr. LEWIS T:
Ex-RAJA OF SATTARA.
said that it having been positively stated
in Parliament that the Raja had had a fair trial, and as
it had been re-stated
by one of the leading journals of
conceived that that statement was a
gross misrepresentation,nd could easily be shown to
be so, he had been induced to give the present notice of
motion, in order that the truth of the statement might
be tested.
The notice is as follows:
" That the Raja of Sattarahaaving been deprived of
his throne, plundered of his
prrrhteya'rdarlil driven into
his defence
banishment, without having been
against the charges imputed to him, this
opinion that such a procedure .is repugnant to the Court
priis ofn
ciples of justice, whether moral,. social, or political; l•and-
that the honour, credit. and true interests of the British
Government, no less than the regard due to the rigts
of the natives of India, require that it should be re_
versed."
This notice was handed in, and the Court; on the ques-
tion adjourned.

The following
1844 :
October iP. Laurie's motion,
is a memora_ntdhr in tonne 7tion with Sir
" That a gold medal anti a sum
iions r used), to be
(to be deter-
mined by the amount of subscriptions of money
called the Pollock Prize, be presented anD itallY to the
ddiscomhe,
most distinguished cadet ot the season, a A
Sit
Sit' George
to commemorate the name and services of b
Pollock- Books to be circulated in the thr,
eies to raise a fund for this purpose; no sub, to
miption
exceed fifty rupees. A he presiden-
committee of twenty.. litht mem-
bers, Colonel Forbes, chairman. February 13,1 h, 1847,
a General committee oeod f seven was appointed for E lag t. and, viz.,
IVI'L, Colonel Young, E. M. G rdon, Briga-
dier Frith, Colonel Irving, Henry Moore, E sq., and Sir
Peter Laurie, and request the Court to becot ye trustees.
The amount of subscriptions to the 3th of 1 Varch last
was 11,000 rupees. All these papers were tr sosmitted
to your Honourable Court, and on the 16th of Jo ne last
your s, ecretary stated that the Court would vidllin ply b -
come
LI listee3, and that as the public exam inam ins at
Addiscimbe are half-ye:rly, he suggests that the prizes
should he divided into two, and given to the twomost
distinguishod cadets."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, July 21.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. GIBBS.
This was an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor K. Bruce.
The information was filed at the instance of William
Frederick Rock and others, inhabitants of the parish of
St. Stephen's, Walbrook, in the city of London, to com-
pel the defendant, Mr. Alderman Gibbs, to account for
the moneys paid to him, or that had come into his hands
since the year 1823, as perpetual churchwarden of that
parish. The information also prayed the appointment
of a receiver, and that Gibbs be removed from his office
of trustee of the parish property. When the informa-
tion came before the Master of the Rolls, his Lordship
directed a reference to the Master, to inquire what sums
of money had been received by Alderman Gibbs from
1823 to 1843. and to allow as against the sums so
received all payments and disbursements en account of
the parish. In June, 1846, the Master made his re-
port, by which it appeared that Alderman Gibbs had
paid in that period 17,1361., and that he had
received 12,778/. in rents and profits from the
parochial estates. A sum of money had also
been received on account of rates, but on the whole
balance of the account 592/. appeared to be due to
Gibbs. A larger sum had been claimed by Gibbs, but
the Master disallowed 6101. which had been paid in costs.
After this result of the account-taking, the relators
abandoned any further proceedings; but on the matter
coming before the Vice-Chancellor on iurther directions,
his Honour ordered the costs of all the members of the
select vestry who had been made co-defendants, with the
exception of those of John Pelly Atkins, the alderman's
co-churchwarden. _ _ _

Mr. LLOYD and Mr. HUMPHREYS, for the defendant,
now argued that there was no just ground for such a de-
cision with respect to the costs. The information had
failed in all it sought to establish; the relators had aban-
doned all claim to relief. They even refused to ask that
the defendant might be removed, and it seemed very hard
under such circumstances to compel him to pay all the
costs of so much fruitless litigation.
Mr. BATES, on the other side, hoped his Lordship
would allow the appeal to stand over for a short time, as
his leader Mr. SRanston was engaged elsewhere.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said peremptorily, that it was
time it should be distinctly understood that no case
could stand over in that court in consequence of the ab-
sence of counsel.

Mr. BATES then contended that the whole of the pro-
ceedings had been caused by the neglect of the de-
fendant in rendering his account, and that the relators
had done a service to the parish, by the course they bad
adopted. The defendant in his answer denied that he
was bound to account to any one, except the members of
the select vestry.
His LORDSHIP saw no reason to be dissatisfied with
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. The defendant
had by his refusal to account or give any explanation
respecting the moneys in his hand, given rise to the
whole of the litigation. It was true that instead of
being a debtor of the parish he turned out to be a credi-
tor, but that fact could not be ascertained until the
account was taken, and any taking of such account the
defendant had pertinaciously resisted. It was no answer,
therefore, to the order fur the payment of costs that the
relators had not succeeded in establishing their charges
against the defendant, for if he had done his duty, by
accounting when called on to do so, these charges in all
probability would not have been made. His Lordship
therefore affirmed the order of the Court below, and dis-
, missed the appeal with costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT, July 22.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuncHELL.)
M`DOWALL v. PALMER.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
11/. 16s. on a bill of exchange.
The defendant pleaded that he did not accept the bill.
The plaintiffs are warehousemen in the City, and de-
fendant a farmer at Lakenheath, Norfolk. To prove
the plaintiff's case Mr. Fisher, a wine and spirit mer-
chant at Lynn, was called, and proved that he drew the
bill on the defendant, and the latter had, both before
and after the action was brought, admitted that he had
accepted the bill, but sail that he had put in a plea
by the advice of his attorney to get time, and the only
reason he had not paid was, that he had been very uu
fortunate with his crops for two or three years.
Mr. J. Jackson, of Lynn, also deposed, that to the best
of his belief the signature was that of the defendant.
Mr. PRENTIS said he could not make any defence
against such evidence as this, and he had been misled by
his brief, by which he was led to suppose that the bill
was accepted John Palmer, and defendant's name was
John William Palmer, but that being an error, he must
let the case go to do jury-.
The jury found for the amount claimed.
MASSON It. DODSON.

The plaintiff in thi, action is the landlord of the Fea-
thers public-house in Great Wild-street ; the defendant
is a bookseller in Fleet-street. The claim was for 51.
for money lent.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.

The plaintiff's attorney stated the case. In February
and March last year the defendant frequented the plain-
tiff's house ; and being a sporting character, was known
by the fancy name of " Walker." He would be able to
prove the loans of IL 10s. and 2L ; with respect to the
other sum there might be some difficulty, as although
witnesses could prove that other money was lent, they
could not speak to the precise amount.
Two witnesses named Ryan and Burke were called,
and proved the loan of 21. and 11. 10s., and that defend-
ant said Chatrey (a fighting man) was to have anything
he wanted, as there was no difference between them, and
he would repay plaintiff.
The UNDER-SHERIFF What is a fighting man ?
That is no profession, unless he is a soldier—that is the
only fighting man the law recognizes. The witness—
He is a pugilist, a friend of defendant. 11. was lent
after a concert.

By Mr. THOMAS—Some people called it a cock•and
hen club. It was frequented by sporting men and al
sorts.

On the part of the defendant Chaffey was called, and
swore that the money was lent to him, and that plaintiff
asked him for it, and witness said he would pay as soon
as he could.

Cross-examined—Sometimes wore defendant's livery
for a spree, and sometimes defendant wore his, but they
were never both in livery at the same time.—(Laughter.)
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that although the money
was given into the hands of Chaffey, if it was on defend-
ant's request he was liable, as for money lent to him, but
if the money was lent to Chaffey, and defendant after-
wards guaranteed to pay it, there must be a contract
proved.
The jury immediately found for the full amount.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 20.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN,
THE MEIFIELD MURDERS.
_

Yesterday morning the prisoner charged with these
offences, Patrick Reid, was put upon his trial on one of
the indictments—that for murdering Mr. James Wraith.
Great numbers of persons assembled about the court
long before the Learned Judge took his seat, at nine
o'clock, and the outside of the building, from the crowds
who had come to attend this trial, was a scene of bustle
throughout the whole of both yesterday and to-day.
The prisoner is stated in the calendar to be only 20
years of age, but he appears older. There is nothing in
his appearance to create a prejudice, bat rather the con-
trary. lie is of stout build, and to all appearance a
person of considerable bodily strength, with a counte-
nance more composed than with the generality of men
placed in such jeopardy. Both he and M`Cabe, the wit-
ness, are said to have come originally from Ireland. One
indictment charges Reid with the murder of Mr. James
Wraith, at Mirfield, on the 12th of last May. A second
indictment with the murder of Ann, the wife of James
Wraith, at the same time and place. The third with
the murder of Caroline Ellis, also at the same time and
place.
The Learned Judge having taken his seat yesterday
morning, Reid was called on to plead to the first of these
indictments, and pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Bliss, Mr. Overend, and Mr. Ingham appeared for
the prosecution, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr.
Seymour for the defence.
Mr. Blass stated the case to the jury. The Learned
Counsel said that the charge now against the prisoner
okfillehdavianugd wmilufrudlleyr,edandthose
wasthou that
t,
his
aitse . malice
Jameset' or e -
Wraith. Mr. Wraith was an old
1 man of about -8 years
of age, living, on the 12th of May last,at house
Wateroyd-hall, near to Mirfield, in this a
eountyH called
He
was
possessed of some little property, and had formerly beenl'
a gentleman's steward. The family, at the time of the
murder, consisted of but three persons, Mr. Wraith, his
wife, Ann Wraith, an old lady of 68, and a young
woman, their household servant, whose name was Caro-
line Ellis. Mr. Wraith had two step sons living, one at
Manchester and the other at Mirfield, and he also had
some great nephews living in his own neighbourhood. It
had been the custom in the family to dine between
twelve and one o'clock; and from the evidence it would
appear most probable that the attack made upon Mr.
and Mrs. Wraith and the servant must have been during
the time of the two former being at dinner in the parlour
of their house: There was a garden in front of the
house, and a yard at the back, and in that yard a well,
in which well, as the jury would have proved to them,
were discovered one of the instruments supposed to have
been used by those committing the murder, and a key,
which would be proved to lee that of the kitchen door of
the house. There were three apartments on the ground
floor of the house, two rooms looking to the front and a
kitchen to the back, besides a passage situate between
those two front rooms, and leading to a front door.
rat the other end of that passage, there was another
'l, which led into the kitchen, and from the kitchen
there was but one other door, and that led into the back
yard. and that door
was near one corner of the kitchen,
and near to the door leading to the yarJ. From the
passage, some stairs went
to the upper floor, and near
the top of the staircase there was a window commanding
I view of the outer do or of the kitchen, so that any one
who came to that door
out of the window might be seen by a person look-
ing above. A f
called Wateroyd-liue, ran close Afoot-path, from a lane
tray to the hack door would bet) by
the house, and the
by at foot-path. The
nearest neighbouring house
wa
n
The day on which the
cefe hundred yards
jered was Wedee.sday, the 12th of lastm 411 were mar-
day all three of the inmates were seen aty,hom on which
ri!ive. Before that, on Monday, the 10th, the
e and
le old
gentleman hail been to Wakefield market, and had I
then received some money, and he was on that day
seen to wear his best hat, which was missing on the
12th, and had not since been found. Ins step-son
had then seen him wearing that hat. On the 11th
he was seen to have some money in his pos.
session, and on the -
I`)th in the morning, his
step son also saw him in possession of a
sove-
reign, which he, deceased, happened to let fall as he
as counting some money. No money, however, had
w
been found after the perpetration of the murders, except-
ing one half-sovereign, and that was left in the pocket