The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-26 00:00:00

AND DO LIKEWISE ! !

A more animating scene has been displayed in this burgh
than bas occurred within the memory of the oldest inhabitant.
The people having learned that the Town Council had for-
warded to Parliament a petition in favour of the existing Corn-
laws, they got up placards for a meeting at the shore on the
evening of Tuesday last. At mid-day the town's drummer
was sent his rounds to intimate the meeting, but he was
ordered off the street by one of the Magistrates. This was
quite enough. Alen were seen running to unfurl the Reform
banners, and the instrumental band was soon at the head cf the
throng. On their arrival at the place of meeting they were
hailed by a thousand voices ; but an imposing cortege came
upon their heels—Sir George Warrender, Sir A. Maitland,
and Captain Hay, of Belton, followed by two or three Magis-
trates and Committees, and a few of the neighbouring farmers.
Mr. A. AlEsTori, shoemaker, was called to the chair. He
concluded his address in these terms: —" 1 am a non-elector
and I appeal to all of my class if it is not time to look to our-
selves, when we, sitting perhaps with a half-ted family, see
houses opened, wherein the elect(); s are bartering away our
dearest rights and interests for a poisonous and intoxicating
draught, or perhaps the old cast-off coat of a nobleman ! !"
Mr. C. S. SAWERS moved the first resolution; seconded by
James Wilson, Esq., Belhaven.
Sir G. WARRENDER then called for a hearing, saying he
had a counter-motion to submit. Way was made for him,
and after trying in vain to convince the people that a free trade
in corn would greatly reduce their wages, he put Lis amend-
ment, which not one of his friends kid the courage or sense to
second.
The resolutions were then put and carried amidst the most
deafening cheers.
Ali.. JOHN RENNIE, farmer, Oxwellmaiiss, moved the second
and last resolution. He said, in answer to Sir George, " There
are no separate interests, all must prosper or none. We can-
not have too much food for our people. All corn-exporting
countries are the poorest, as instance Poland and Ireland. The
latter sends us plenty of corn, but the people must come over
here to eat it. Give us (said Air. Rennie) a free and unfettered
trade, and we fear not to compete with any eirn-growing
try in the world."
Everything passed off satisfactorily (except to the Tories);
but the good folks of the burgh will not soon forget the scene
they witnessed.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 25.
The House sat this morning to hear Scotch appeals. The
Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Scar-
borough, and the Earl of Beauchamp.
HILL V. THE EARL OF HADDINGTON.
This case came before the Court upon appeal from the de
cision of the Lord Ordinary. The only question in the case
was, whether under a post-nuptial contract, a sum of 3,00 C/.,
vested absolutely in a lady of the name of Houston, and by such
vesting passed to her representatives. The Lord Ordinary de-
cided that it did, and from that decision the present appeal
was brought.
Mr. B. Andrews and Mr. Anderson appeared as counsel for
the appellant ; and the Lord-Advocate and Sir William Follett
were counsel for the respondents.

PRIVY COUNCIL, May 25.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-day at
the Council Chamber, Whitehall, for the purpose of hearing
the remainder of the arguments in the important case of Sir
M. Wood and others v. Goodlake and others.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL proceeded to reply on behalf of
the parties who claimed under the codicil, and had not con-
cluded when we went to press. The speech of the Learned
Gentleman will conclude therarguments in the case, which have
already occupied ten or twelve days.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, May 25.
CROTTY V. PRICE .AND ANOTHER.

Mr. PLATT moved in this case, which was tried before Mr.
Justice Whiteman at the last Guildhall sittings, and in which
a verdict was had for the plaintiff tar 7201., for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial
had, on the ground of misdirection, and that certain facts had
come to the defendant's knowledge at a time when he could
not adduce evidence to support them. It was an action of
assumpsit upon three bills of exchange, dated December, 1639,
and January, 1840, drawn by one Atkinson, an attorney, upon
Price and Telfer, the two defendants, and accepted by them.
The defendant Price suffered judgment to go by default, and
the defendant Teller pleaded first that he had never accepted
the bills, and then he pleaded that he and Price were partners
for executing certain works for the Birmingham, Bristol, aid
Thames Junction Railway Company, on which contract only
they were partners. That after the execution of the works
the partnership terminated, and that the bills in question were
accepted by Price without the knowledge, privity, or authority
of Telfer, and for the private purposes of Price alone. On the
trial the deed of partnership was put in, and it contained a die-
tinct clause that no bills were to be accepted by either of the
partners on account of both, without the consent of the other
in writing, and no such consent was proved. For the plaintiff
a witness was called, who proved that he had received a bill
from Price for 67/. 145., accepted in the same manner as the
bills in question, and which Telfer paid, and it was alleged that
from that circumstance the plaintiff, Crotty, might have pre-
sumed that Price had authority to accept bills on account of
the partnership. Now he (Mr. Platt) submitted that there
was no evidence of authority whatever—
Lord DENMANiiIIt is not the payment of one bill evi-
dence, prima facie, of authority ?
Mr. PLATT said, if there had been a general partnership
that might be sufficient, but in the present case the only
evidence of partnership was the deed, which of itself contained
a clause negativing the presumption of authority. But lie did
not rely upon that atone—he had affidavits to show that a gross
fraud had been practised upon the defendant Telfer, who, in
his affidavit, deposed that on the day of the trial Price, who
was then a prisoner in the Queen's Bench, sent for him, and
told him that he had been advised to accept those bibs, and
although they bore date in December, 1839, and January, 1640,
they were not drawn, nor had they any existence, before June,
1840, long after the partnership had been dissolved. 'I he
Learned Counsel was proceeding to state some further facts,
when _ _ _ _

Lord DENMAN said he thought a sufficient case of fraud had
been stated to entitle him to the rule.
THE QUEEN .V. THE BRISTOL DOCK COMPANY.

The Court gave judgment in this case which was an applica-
tion for a mandamus against the defendants. The writ recited
that the Company was created by a local Act, the 43d George
iii., chap. 140, for improving the port and harbour of Bristol
by the performanceof certain works, and for making and main-
taining a new cut or channel from the river Avon at Redriff,
and keeping it at a certain width and depth, and the sides of a
certain Lclination, as near as circumstances would admit of.
The 30th section of the Act required the Company to make
and maintain these works, and the writ, after reciting the en-
actment, alleged that certain parts of the south bank and the
sides thereof had become broken down and out of repair—that
the inclination of the sides and the depth of the channel had been
altered to the injury of the navigation. It then enjoined the de-
fendants to repair and maintain the said sides of the south bank.
The return of the Company was that they were riot holism to
maintain the said sides of the south bank, and that as near as cir-
cumstances admitted thereof they had maintained the channel
of the full depth and breadth required by the Act. It ev3s
urged in the course of the argument that the writ could not issue
to the Company because it only enjoined them to do that for
the omission of which they would be liable to be indicted, but
that objection was not entitled to any weight because those who
obtained an Act of Parliament for executing great public
works were bound to fulfil all the duties entailed upon them,
and although the omission might occasion a nuisance, it did
not dispense with the interference of that Court. It appeared
to them that the return was insufficient because the defendants
merely denied their liability, although the south bank appeared
to be a part of the channel which they were bound to repair.
The Court, therefore, was of opinion that the peremptory
mandamus must go.