The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-23 00:00:00

Mr. NORTHOUSE followed in a speech cf considerable
length, in the course of which he traced the quantities of
malt consumed and the amount of duty paid from the
year 1730 to the present time. lie stated, that in 1730,
when there was a population of only 5,687,993, the con-
sumption was 28,410,421 bushels, the duty being then
only 6d. per bushel, and the consumption five bushels
per head on the whole population. In 1780, the duty
was Is. 4d. per bushel; the population, 7,814,827; the
consumption, 30,805,100 bushels, or four bushels per
head. In 1828, the population was 13,249,508; duty,
2s. 7d.; and consumption, per head, two bushels two
gallons; while in 1845, with a population of 16,711,725,
the entire consumption was only 30,508,840 bushels, or
only one bushel six gallons 2-3ds per head. These
he considered proofs as strong as Holy Writ of the
effects of taxation, and the deterioration of the comforts
of the poor.
Mr. CULLY, of Cossey, then moved the following re-
solution:—" That this meeting form itself into a com-
mittee, with power to add to its numbers, as a branch
district of the Anti-Malt Tax Association," which was
carried unanimously; and a vote of thanks to the Chair-
man having been passed, the meeting separated.

LA ALT IN TELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT. October 22.
(Berure Mr. Under-Sheriff' BURCHELL.)
CANNON V. MYERS.

The plaintiff in this action is the landlady of the
White Horse, Ray-street, Clerkenwell, and the defendant
is a rag merchant and Government contractor. The
action was brought to recover the sum of 31. Os. Bd. for
ale, beer, &c., alleged to have been supplied by the
order of the defendant.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. WAKELING stated the plaintiff's case, from which
it appeared that in April last, the defendant had an ap-
peal at the Middlesex Sessions, and had a great many
witnesses on his behalf. On that occasion defendant
went to the plaintiff's house, and asked whether a room
had not been engaged by persons of the name of Nathan
and Lazarus for his (defendant's) witnesses? and on being
answered in the affirmative, he said his witnesses were
to have what they required, for which he would settle.
Miss Ellen Cannon was called, and gave evidence as
to the supply of the articles, and that defendant distinctly
gave the orders.
There were between thirty and forty witnesses.
After the case was over, defendant went and " stopped
the supplies." On the bill being given, he said he did
not believe so much had been supplied, and he would
not believe it if Mrs. Cannon swore till she was black in
the face, but he would go round to the witnesses, and if
their account agreed with it he would pay, but he had
never done so.

Frederick Miller was called, and also deposed to the
defendant having stopped the supply after the appeal,
and that he said he would call in a day or two and pay.
Mr. SIDNEY for the defendant, contended that
it was highly improbable such an unlimited order would
have been given, and said that Nathan and Lazarus
ought to have been called if they were clerks or agents
of the defendants.

Siviers, wine and commission agent, Stepney, wai
called, and swore that he went with defendant after the
appeal was over and saw Lazarus behind the bar, and
defendant was told that he had ordered what had been
supplied. Defendant said that Lazarus might pay, he
would pay what he had then, and they had refreshment
to the amount of 7s. The bill was tendered to de-
fendant, but ho would not pay.
Other witnesses were called, but,
The UNDER-SHERIFF said, all the witnesses went t)
prove the plaintiff's case, and as'ied whether Mr. S:dacy
intended to call Lazarus?

Mr. SIDNEY replied in the negative.
The Learned UNDER,SHEBIFF asked the jury whether
they entertained any doubt; iC not, it would be unneces-
sary for the plaintiff to reply?
The jury said they had not, and returned a verdict
for the amount claimed.
There were only four cases in the list, and the others
were not of the slightest interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
A poor man, named Richard Sherlock, applied to Sir
Petit. Laurie for advice under the-following eircum.
stances:—He said he had 'resided in the parish of St.
Mary Staining for nearly seven years; it would be seven
years about the middle of next January. That about a
year and nine months ago he and his wife, who is much
4filicted with fits, were removed to the parish of St.
Botolph, Aldersga!e, to which he belonged by payment
of rent and taxes for some years. From that period
until recently he had received 2s. and a 41b. loaf weekly;
but about a fortnight ago he was told by Mr. Roberts,
the relieving-officer of the East London Union, that it
would be the last time he should have to pay him, as
he had lived five years in the parish of St. Mary Stain-
ing, and he must now lay claim to that parish. Since
then he had seen Mr. Llewellyn, the vestry-clerk of St.
Mary Staining, and that gentleman had written to Mr.
Roberts, and he had been to and from one to the other,
but without effect, and he was now recommended by
Mr. Llewellyn to apply to the magistrate for his advice.
Sir I'. LAURIE said it seemed to him a great hardship
that a man should be driven from pillar to post in that
manner, and that there must be something very defective
in the poor-law to admit of such a course.

Mr. "Teague, the chief clerk, said this was only one of
an immense number of such eases that had arisen upon
the construction of the late Poor Removal Apt. It was
provided by the Act that a person who had been resident
in any parish for five years should be irremovable to his
place of settlement, and that no order should be grarted
for the removal of any pauper from a parish in which he
had resided for five years " next before the application"
for the order. Many of the large metropolitan parishes
have, in consequence of this Act, discontinued the greater
part of their out-door relief, and have thus thrown the
onus of relief upon the parish in which the pauper had
been resident for fire years, or removing them again.
where they have not been so resident; for the time du: mg
which a pauper received relief from any parish was to be
excluded from the computation.
Sir P. LAURIE said he thought it would be, well to call
the attention of the Poor-law Commissioners to the sub-
ject, and get them to set the matter at rest.
Mr. Teague said ho feared that a great deal of the
present hardship had been. oc msionetl by the construe-
lion which the Commissioners had put upon the Act,
and might be mainly attributed to a circular letter which
had been recently addressed to the boards of guardians
by Mr. Lumley, the assistant-secretary, wherein it was
said that the ground which had existed for non-resident
relief would now be removed. It was quite evident that
barrister,
the intention of the Commissioners was to drive the poor
(.(dtjt.h. Teague further stated that
awaye
pr saesn t li muchdb eae
s
n recentlypossible
in
the construction of the Act, as
into the workhouseemsliaaKtrittl
and he had felt that
atlw;hi iicetd,l:l,ebetetNlirpl.oaorrseuectaia-sci(ellitli)ey(i
ri(mr
similar
et
yn t
any pen iod of relief was to be excluded from the compu-
tation of the five years, and yet that period would in
terrene between the residence and the application for a
new order; and therefore it might be urged that five
years residence would not be " next before the applica-
tion," as the Act required. In that case the counFel
.dvi,ed that the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench
should be taken as soon as possible; and in the case now
before Sir P. Laurie he could see no better course than
f
parish, if they thought fit, to
raise the question ()I appeal.
Sir P. LAURIE said he was quite of opinion that out-
door relief, instead
Thebeing driving the poor into the work-
houses had the effect of depriving them of their energy
and independence of character, and tended to reduce
them to a state of continual pauperism. Next to a man
out of a gaol a master was usually most averse to a man
out of a workhouse, while he thought the worse of no
man who was obliged to receive a little out door relief.
The out-door relief should be extended for the sake of
the rate-payers as much as for the feelings and reputa-
tion of the poor. It might be sometimes abused, but
that was not a reason for its abolition. It was the duty
of the Poor-law Commissioners to see that none were
placed in danger of starvation, and the poor could not
wait till the law was amended.

He gave Sherlock ss. from the poor-box, and advised
him to apply to the parish in which he resided, to be
relieved or passed.
RAII AY SNARES.-A young man named Stokes, a
solicitor's clerk, ,pplied for advice under the fdllowing
circumstances:—llis father died immediately after the
railway panic, and he was found to have in his posses-
sion 600 shares in the Kentish Coast Railway, upon
which 1/. 7s. 6d. had been paid, and which he had bought
at five-eighths premium, so that he had invested 1,200/
The company did not apply for a Bill, and the directors
had advertised to return 11 per share on genuine scrip;
but they repudiated complainant's scrip as spurious, be-
cause it was not signed by any of the directors. It was
signed by the secretary, Mr. Richards.
Sir P. LAURIE asked if that was the same person who
figured as a witness in a forgery case of shares? The
applicant :Aid it was. lie was now in France. He
produced a proqaectus.
Sir P. LAURIE said there were several respectable
names amongst the provisional committee, and he held
that a promoter was liable to the shareholders for re-
payment where the scheme altogether failed.
The applicant said he did not know who to sue, as
the name of the secretary only appeared on his scrip.
Sir P. LAURIE said it was not difficult to make these
companies account as bankrupts, and he recommended
the applicant to seek the advice of Mr. Spackman, of
Moorgate-street, who appeared to be well versed in
winding up companies, as appeared by the newspapers.
The applicant begged to mention another case. He
t
was at the time a stockbroker's clerk, and another broker
persuadedhimto buy 100 Lynn shares. He paid him
501. down, 2321. more on the settling day, having lost by
he transaction. It subsequently transpired that his
friend had bought only 56 instead of 100 shares, and had
raid one-half per cent. les's than he said, cheating him of
the difference.
As it was a
he could not inter'ere.
he concern Sir P. LAURIE thought

Geerge Stoddurt man of good appearance and
, a young
THAMES.
addresi, late head.shopman to Mr. David Bonallier, linen-
draper and silkmercer,
of No. 4, Northumberland-place,
Commercial-road Stepney,' was brought before Mr. Bro-
derip, ( n remand,
charge with stealing cash and goods
to the amount of 4001.
Mr. Pelham conducted the prosecution. Mr. Fearnley
defended the prisoner, who is very respectably connected.
His father is captain of a merchant-ship called the I ago,
trading between London and the north.
It appeared that the prisoner had been in the prose-
cutor's employ four years, and had commenced at a sa-
lary of of 25/. per annum, which had been increased last
year to 351. The greatest confidence had been placed in
the prisoner. During the summer he obtained six
weeks' leave of absence, and married a young lady of
high respectability in Sunderland, %here he proposed es- I
tablishing himself iu business. In the course of the last