The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-16 00:00:00

BIRMINGHAM, DEC. 15.

..... _ .
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The Share Market to-day was ex-
ceedingly dull, and no list was issued. Two or three sales
were, however, effected—Birmingbani, Wolverhampton, and
Stour Valley, 31s. 3d. die.— Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver-
hampton, 131% dis.—Birmingham and Oxford, 3% dis.

Th© Irish Attorney-General (Mr. Moore) has
accepted the vacant seat on the Bench; this will ,rive
one of tne most consiste.t libeiill .2rotestatit. OA the bar,
Mr. Hatched, an advance step, as he will be the new
Solicitor-General.

This action was brought to recover the sum of
714/. 6s. 54., being the amount which the plaintiff
claimed as the balance due in respect of certain railway
shares purchased by the plaintiff for the defendant at
his request. It appeared that the plaintiff; who was a
stockbroker, had purchased a great many shares at
various times for the defendant, and that many of those
purchases had realised a profit. But ivhen the Cork and
Kilkenny and the Great Munster Railways came out,
the defendant himself applied for and obtained an
allotment of forty shares in each of those under-
takings, and obtained one hundred shares more of each
from a gentleman named Rose. The deposits upon
those shares were afterwards paid by the plaintiff,
who held them, at the request of the defendant, to
do the best he could with them. On the 3d of
July, 1845, the plaintiff sent in his account to the
defendant in a letter, in which he estimated the value of
those shares at 4901., and requested from the defendant
a note of hand for 3501. as a further security. He added,
that he would hold those shares till he received further
directions from the defendant, and regretted that the de-
fendant had purchased them contrary to his (plaintiff's)
advice. The note of hand was accordingly sent, and duly
paid ; but the defendant having been afterwards made
acquainted with the fact that some of those shares which
the plaintiff had said that he held for him hsd been sold
by the plaintiff at a profit of ten shillings per share, now
sought, under a plea of set-off, to have an allowance
made to him of the profit upon those shares. He fur-
ther pleaded that the note of hand for 3501. was obtained
by the fraud and covin of the plaintiff, and supported
the plea evidence that when, .in his letter of the 3d of
July, the plaintiff stated that he held those shares, he,
in tact, had sold them, and that he afterwards produced
other scrip in their place. The chief question then was,
whether the defendant had a right to the identical
shares which he had purchased, and as they had been
sold by the plaintiff at a profit, whether he (the defen-
dant) was entitled to set off that profit against the plain-
tiff's demand.

Mr. Barnes was called and examined by Mr. CRow-
DER—I am a jobber on the Stock Exchange. Formerly,
when we bought and sold scrip certificates we did not
take a note of the partichlar scrip certificates, but we
do so now. It was the: general practice not to do so,
but it is altered now. I. Was employed by Mr. Morley,
a director of the Great Munster Railway Company,
to purchase 1.000 shares in that company at about the
end of April. I bought 50 from the plaintiff at 78. 6d.
or 10s. premium. I afterwards asked the plaintiff, as a
personal favour, to lend me 100 shares, in order that I
might settle Mr. Morley's account. I did not notice
the particular numbers. I returned the same number
of the shares to the plaintiff in the month of May, but
I did not pay him anything for the loan. About the
same time I bought from 30 to 50 shares in the Cork
and Kilkenny Company from the plaintiff for Mr.
Morley.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I was
employed to " rig the market," as you call it. I had
letters of allotment from Mr. Morley to put into the
hands of bona fide holders. I was to have half a-crown
for every share I so disposed of. I gave some to the
plaintiff. I was employed by Mr. Morley, about a week
afterwards, to buy shares, and I bought back the shares
I gave away, and I got ls. 3d. for each share I pur-
chased back. I got 2s. 6d. for every share I gave away.
and ls. 3d. for every share I bought back. I got them
all back. My friends got from ss. to 10s. a share. The
plaintiff is a friend of mine.
Re-examined by Mr. CROWDER--4 am a member of
the committee of the Stock Exchange; and two years
ago I was High Sheriff of the county of Buckingham.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in addressing the jury,
commented in very strong terms upon the conduct of
the witness Barnes, who, though a member of the com-
mittee of the Stock Exchange, and High Sheriff of the
county of Buckingham, had confessed to having been
engaged in a transaction which reflected the utmost dis-
grace upon him. The public naturally looked with con-
fidence to gentlemen in his position, but he thought that
after this exposure, they would be less inclined to do so.
This was the friend of the plaintiff (noscifur a soeies),
whO, after having sold the defendant's shares at a pre-
mium of 10s. a share, had gone and purchased some
waste paper, for which he stow sought to make the de7,
fendant liable. He trusted the jury would, by giving
their verdict for the defendant, read a " great moral
lesson" to such gentlemen.
Mr. CROWDER, in reply, said the Learned Attorney Ge:
neral had read a great moral lesson, but a moral lesson was
all nonsense as regarded that case. The plaintiff had paid
the money for the defendant, and he was entitled to be
repaid. He had acted on the orders of the defendant,
and he would not have been justified in selling the shares
without the defendant's instructions. He contended
that it was of no consequence that the plaintiff had sold
the identical pieces of paper which bad belonged to the
defendant, for at that time one scrip certificate was eon-
sidered to be just as good as another.
Lord DENMAN here interposed, and said that he was
of opinion that the shares in question had not become
the property of the defendant, so as to entitle him to any
profit upon them.
A verdict was then given for the plaintiff—Damages,
7141.65.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL tendered a bill of excep-
ions to his Lordship's decision.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 15.
'Sitting Nisi Prius sat at Guildball, before the LOAD
CHIEF JUSTICE and Special Juries.)
COCKBURN AND ANOTHER U. ALEXANDER.

Mr. Martin, Sergeant Bylei, and Mr. Wilde appeared
for the plaintiffs, and Sergeant Channell (with whom was
Mr. Bramwell) for the defendant.
This was an action for the recovery of freight charge-
able on the cargo of the ship Parkside, from Port Philip
and Sydney to the port of London. The charter-party
specified for " a full cargo of wool, tallow, hides, bark,
or other lawful merchandise," the bark not to exceed 50
tons in quantity, except in the event of a deficient cargo
of wool, when it might be increased to 100 tons, with an
increased rate of freight, and the tallow and hides not to
exceed 80 tons. The cargo actually brought by the
Parkside was 61 tons wool, 260 tons tallow, 144 tons
bark. 18 tons hides, two tons gum, three tons hoofs and
horns, 8,153 trenails, and 35 toes wood.
Mr. MARTIN and Sergeant BYLES, for the plaintiffs,
contended that there had been an infraction of the
charter-party, the quantity of tallow and bark being in
excess, end wool not having been shipped on board to
complete the cargo after the prescribed amount of other
commodities. The Learned Counsel also contended
that the freight to which their clients were entitled for
the articles in excess, and also for those not specified in
the charter• party, was the wool freight specified in the
charter-party. For the establishntent of this last posi-
tion Mr. Phillips, of the eminent ship-broking firm of
Messrs. Phillips and Tiplady, was put into the witness-
box, and asked whether the expression in the charter-
party, "or other lawful merchandise " had a known
technical meaning in the shipping trade.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE held that such a ques-
tion could not be put, the words referred to being per-
fectly plain and intelligible, and admitting of judicial
construction.
Mr. MARTIN then asked the witness, when a charter-
party was framed specifying a certain number of articles
to be paid for by a specified rate of freight, one greatly
predominating and the others limited in quantity, in the
event of other goods being led on board the vessel for
which no rate of freight was specified, what rate of
freight was paid for these latter goods according to the
custom of merchants ?
This question being also objected to,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE decided that it could not
be put.
Further evidence having been given, the plaintiffs'
case was closed, and
Sergeant CHANNELL, for the defendant, applied for his
Lordship's judgment on the terms of the charter-party.
doubt,ph
ai sr tcya ea,
He also submitted that there was no evidence to go to
the jury, and that the plaintiff had failed to make out
quotedher ilcontendedin support
ptmohraettr
of
wordsthfhatehhdei
se in the char ter-
In
do riioet
construction
nd
which
ienho
he put upon them " Moorson v. Page," 4 Camp., " Ir-
ving and Clegg," 1 Bing. N. C. 53, " Capper v.
5 Scott, 129. The Learned Sergeant also contendedoster
that the 3,0001. paid by the defendant to theplaintiffs
was amply sufficient to remunerate them under the terms
plaintiffat the current rat
of their charter-party, and that the defendant had acted
'
properly in estimating the freight of the unspecified
goods,The gum,couN
sCOUNSEL bones,
fe horns,r
the 6
replied that charter-
parties always defined the rate of freight, and that the
present instrument was to be construed by
the circumstances which surrounded it.

The LORD Cum JUSTICE at this point suggested,
and the suggestion was adopted by both parties, that a
verdict should be taken for the plaintiff, subject to the
opinion of the Court as to the construction of the charter-
party; that the Court should have power to determine
the principles by which the freight should be calculated,
and that the amount thereof should afterwards be settled
by reference.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs accord-
ingly—Damages, 1,7601.

CONSISTORY COURT, Dec. 15.
DEANE AGAINST DEANE.

This was a suit for a divorce by reason of adultery by
Mr. Henry William Deane against Louisa Ann, his wife.
The parties were married at Calcutta, 13th January,
1840, and cohabited in various parts of India, two chil-
dren being the issue of the marriage. It appeared that
Mr. Deane was in the civil service of the East India
Company, and was stationed at Mozuffernagger; that
Mrs. Doane and one of the children being ill in 1843,
she went with them to Missouri in the Hills; and took
up their residence with Captain and Mrs. Bowles, the
latter being' a cousin of Mrs. Deane. Amongst the
visitors at Captain Bowles's were several officers of his
regiment, the 3d Light I 'ragoons, one of them being
Cornet Travers, and it appeared that Mrs. Deane left
the residence of Captain Bowles, and took up her

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT, York, Dec 14.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ParrasoN.)
At the sitting of the Court this morning, his Loan-
sun. intimated, that considering the state of the calendar
and that there was no probability of finishing in a week,
long cases had better be put off to the latter part of the
assizes, and appointed the Mirfield murder to be taken
on Monday next.
William Cele, aged 23, was charged with having, on
the 15th of July last, at Halifax, feloniously stolen a
horse, the property of William Muitt.
Mr. Boothby conducted the case for the prosecution ;
Mr. Overend defended the prisoner.
It appeared from the evidence that the prosecutor is a
livery-stable keeper at Halifax, and that on the 15th day
of July the prisoner came to his stables and wanted a
horse and gig to take him to Bradford. Not having one,
the prisoner went away, but returned shortly, saying that
a saddle horse would do as well. Accordingly the horse
in question was saddled, and without asking what the
hire would be the prisoner rode off, not to Bradford,
but to the Packhorse Inn yard at Leeds, where some
person looked at the horse with an idea of buying
it. It was then taken to the Palace-yard Inn, where the
ostler brought a Mr. Randall to look at it. He (Mr.
Randall) eventually purchased the horse for 51., and the
prisoner gave a receipt for the money. Mr. Randall,
who horses a coach at Wakefield, sent the horse to that
place. On the 16th of July prosecutor went with a
police-constable to Wakefield, and there, in Mr. Ran-
dall's stables, he found his horse.
Mr. OTEREND addressed the jury for the prisoner.
His LoansniP, in summing up, left it to the jury to
say whether, at the time when the prisoner took the
horse from the prosecutor's stables, ho intended to
steal it.

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Anthony Brown and John Brown were charged for
obtaining money from George Wilson and Joseph Ben-
son uader false pretences.
Mr. Pickering and Mr. Farrar conducted the case for
the prosecution ; Mr. Overend and Mr. Price defended
the prisoners.
It appeared that the prisoners are father and son, and
that the former had entered into a contract with the
prosecutors (who are contractors with the Riot and
West Yorkshire Railway) to cart permanent materials
to such parts of the line as they should be directed by
the storekeeper of the company, at the rate of 7s. 9d. a
ton. The storekeeper had to give tickets to the men
who should load the materials in the carts of the pri-
eooera, and on these tickets being produced at the pro-
secutor's office once a fortnight, the prisoners were paid
at the rate of 7s. 9d. a ton for the amount of materials
which the tickets should indicate had been carried. On
the 18th of May suspicions arose as to the genuineness
of the tickets, and the prosecutors wrote to the store-
keeper at York to send them an account of the goods de-
livered on their account. The storekeeper -sent an ac •
count for the fortnight between the 15th'and 27th of
May, and during that period no forged tickets had been
presented. At this time Joseph Brent, a bookkeeper in
the employ of the prosecutors, told the prisoner Anthony
Brown, that the account of the materials delivered to be
carted had been sent for, and a few days after this the
prisoner Anthony Brown left the neighbourhood, and
was afterwards apprehended at Boston in Lincolnshire.
Upon further inquiry it was discovered that 75 tickets,
showing that upwards of 500 tons had been delivered,
were not genuine. .
These being the facts relied on by the prosecution.
Mr. OVEREND took several technical objections,
which being overruled, he addressed the jury upon the
facts.

His Loartszar having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Anthony
Brown, there being no case against the other prisoner.
John Terry was indicted for forgery of a savings-bank
receipt at Beverley.
Mr. Otter and Mr. Burton appeared for the prosecu-
tion; the prisoner was undefended.
It appeared that a person named Reuben Clubley
had placed 151. in the East Riding Sayings-bank, from
which he got a deposit book. He kept his deposit book
in an unlocked chest at home; be himself had never
been to the savings- bank, ao that his person was un-
known to the clerks. On the 27th of September the
prisoner went to the bank with Clubley's deposit book,
said he was Reuben Clubley, and drew 11. on account.
The secretary filled up a receipt with Reuben Clubley's
name at the bottom, to which the prisoner affixed his
mark. On cross-examination by the prisoner, it ap-
peared that Clubley's mother had previously, without
her son's authority, gone to the bank with his deposit
book, and received money,
for which she gave a forged
receipt. Since the apprehension of the prisoner, Mrs.
Clubley left her son's house, where she had formerly re-
sided, and a warrant for her apprehension on a charge
of forgery had been issued against her.
The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he had acted
at the request of Mrs. Clubley and had appropriated no
part of the money to his own use.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended
him to mercy.
Sentence—Six months'
imprisonment.

Liverpool, Dec. 14.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERsoN.)
Jumes Murray was indicted for the manslaughter of
Martin Molloy.
Mr. Monk conducted the prosecution. The prisoner
WAS not defended by counsel.
It appeared that a number of persons on the evening
when this occurrence took place, being Sunday, had
been drinking at a public-house in Prescot. They were
chiefly Irish, and in the course of the evening a feud
arose between the Shannons and the Molloys. The
candle in the room was put out, and a scene of much
n
confusions and violence ensued. The party poured Con-
fusedly down the stairs into the street, where the dis-
turbance was continued. The prisoner made his ap-
pearance with a poker, and, being of the Shannon
faction, called out lustily for any one of the opposite
faction to fight him. The deceased, Martin Molloy,
was standing at the corner of the street with a stick,
when the prisoner came up, having
hand, and struck the deceased on the poker still in his
the head, inflicting a
wound a little behind the left ear, and producing a frac-
ture of the skull and concussion of the brain, of the
effects of which the man finally died.
For the defence several witnesses were called, who
sought to prove great provocation on the part of the
" faction" to which the prisoner was opposed, and that
the act was committed by the accused in self-defence.
Their evidence, however, was so contradictory and in-
consistent as to be utterly discredited by the jury.
The prisoner was convicted; and
passing sentence, said, that he could
noltiliosoLpk°ußposliP' n
upon the In
but as being an aggravation of
the offence. It was impossible but that the prisoner
must have been perfectly aware that the case for the
Theadd uc
oiffnegnce itself was a very
defence was founded upon perjured evidence; and, in
u
such evidence must
take
serious one. The prisoner had begun by violating
the Sabbath, and had ended by causing the death of a
sh cases,
the consequences. the p erson
fellow-creature. These faction fights, which were so
common in the other country, it wasnecessary to repress.
The prisoner's countrymen, though nationally possessed
of abundant virtues, were, ae a people, too easily excited,
and it was necessary in these cases
and ases
impart,
enforce upon them
a proper respect for the l ,
if possible,
some of the phlegm and w
unexcitable habits of their
English neighboura. He would mark the case by a
sentence of consider_
able severity.—To be imprisoned
two years.

tiinodni.cteirdhfeorpfroirsgoninegr
name of
rece
dx4Ducathaihlaweensygp7er
0, wsweewiert h intent to defraud
wanisdhinthge
(Before Mr. Justice CoLTXAN.)
and John
ohuttering n L owe
aacnbodni ldf
perlsiorn.
Aoifonthke
to prisoner
let a
Dawson by Mr. Atkinson.
Lowe was defended by Mr. Polio:el::
public-house in Manchester, and application was made
to him by a rrson of the uame of Pybus to take it off
his hands. The prisoner Lowe was apparently
It appeared that Mr. Bailey
assisting
in the negotiation, and on the sum for which the house
was to be transferred being finally agreed upon, a meet-
ing took place between the parties at which Dawson, was
present. At this meeting Lowe produced a bill purport-
ing to Ibe drawn by one William Archer open Lowe.
Ho was asked who Archer was, and said it was a person
at Leeds or Huddersfield, to whom he had sold some
goods. Pybus finally took the bill, which was for 181.
odd, and paid Lowe the balance, which he put in his
pocket. It appeared from the testimony of Pybus that
he had known Lowe for some time; haters they had been
employed together as French•polish, and after-
wards in mowing hay. Lowe suggested to him that
he should take a public-house, and promised to
assist him in procuring one, and after some considera-
tion, that of Mr. Bailey was fixed on. He said, before
they went down to Mr. Bailey s, when he, Lowe, and
Dawson was present, .that Lowe wrote something on a
piece of paper, be did not see what, and then asked
him (Pybus) to write on a piece of paper which he had
folded up. Lowe asked him to write the words,
" William Archer," and he did so accordingly. Lowe
L looked at it, 611 d said he,wrote every good hand. The:wit.

John Smith was indicted for cutting and wounding
Richard Taylor with intent to do so him some grievous
bodily harm.
It appeared that on the evening in question the pri-
soner and the prosecutor were drinking in a beerhouse,
kept by a person of the name of Brownhill, at Aintree.
They had some high words, and the prosecutor finally
knocked the prisoner's cap off. No further violence at
that time took place, and the prosecutor got up to leave.
He was standing some little distance from the prisoner,
when the latter took something out of his pocket and
rushed at him. The prosecutor was thrust into a
corner, and a scuffle took place, in the course of which.
the prosecutor found himself wounded in the side. He-
accused the prisoner of having stabbed him, and in a few
seconds the blood began to pour from his person down
upon the floor. The prisoner said, " Thou art nothing
the worse," and left the house. A medical man was
sent for, who found the prosecutor very faint from loss
of blood, and on examining his person found he was
wounded in the left side, the wound penetrating into the
abdomen, and he had also a wound on the thigh, reaching
to the sheath of the femoral artery. He was for some
time in a very precarious state.
Verdict, Guilty.
To be imprisoned nine calendar months.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

The case of William Newton Allnutt (continued from our
Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. BILLANTINE addressed the jury for the prisoner,
resting his defence mainly upon the ground of insanity.
He called Dr. Edward Henry Payne, brother-in-law
and medical attendant of the prisoner's father,
who, the witness stated, was subject to disease
of the brain, and died quite raving mad.
Other members of the father's family were
subject to affections of the brain. From his obser-
vation of the prisoner, and knowledge of his habits and
constitution he considered him partially insane, and he
believed he would become more so. Mr. Croucber, sur-
geon to the county gaol of Derby, had attended the pri-
soner, and confirmed the opinions of the last witness.
Dr. Dewsbery, of Clapton, had also attended the pri-
soner, and was of the same opinion. Dr. Conolly of
Hanwell concurred is the views of those witnesses.

Mr.:RYLAND replied.
Baron ROLFE summed up, and the jury, after deliber-
ating twenty minutes, returned at six o clock a verdict
of " Guilty," with an earnest recommendation to mercy
on account of his tender age.
Mr. Baron RoLFE ordered sentence of death to be
recorded, with an intimation that the recommendation
would be attended to, but that the prisoner must be pre-
pared to pass the remainder of his life in ignominy and
toil.