The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-21 00:00:00

DESTRUCTION OF A BREWERY

BY FIRE.

Yesterday morning, about two o'clock, a fire broke out
in the porter brewery of Mr. Emanuel Ellis, corner of
Wellington-street, Bevington-hill. Word of the occur-
rence was passed to the Fire-engine station, and Mr.
Hewitt with his usual promptitude repaired to the
scene. Notwithstanding the dispatch used, however,
on the arrival of the engines the flames had burst from
both door and windows, and also caught the roof of an
adjoining tavern kept ostensibly by a Mrs. Moore,
but virtually in connexion with the concern. Mr. '
Hewitt and the brigade under his command praise-
worthily exerted themselves, but, notwithstanding the
judicious play of the engines, and a copious supply of
water poured direct by the hose from the Green-lane
Works (owing to the inflammable character of the ma-
terial inside) the fire progressed, the roof fell in, and the
entire brewery was gutted. The roof and the northern
portion of the adjoining tavern also suffered considerable
damage; the bedding and furniture, however, suffered
less from the flames than from the water poured-in to
check .their progress. - Mr. Ellis, the 'owner of the
brewery, who built the premises, has for the last two
months been absent from town on account of illness, and
no- certain estimate of the stock in. the place at the
time of the occurrence can in consequence be made. It
must hate been heavy, however. ..1u addition to a large
stored stock, a large brewing: of ale made on Friday
flowed down the channel. The ofilce of Mr. Ellis was
in an upper portion of the brewery; His books and all
that it contained were totally destroyed. The premises i
are insured in the Atlas office, but whether the in-
surance extends to the stock or not, or what amount
may be even an approximation to the damage, we have
(from the causes stated) been unable to ascertain.
Vague allusions are made to a threatening letter lately
received from a discharged servant; but this apart, the
origin of the fire is (tor the present at least) totally
unknown.—Liverpool Albion of yesterday.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 20.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN v. CHARRITIE ♦ND OTHERS.

This was an information against the defendants for an
offence against the statutes which regulate the disposal
of the patronage allowed to the directors of the East
India Company. The late Sir W. Young was a di-
rector; and he and the defendant Charritie were charged
with having made the " office, place, and appointment"
of a cadet in the East India Company's service the sub-
ject of a corrupt bargain and sale. The case was tried
some time ago before Lord Denman, when the jury
found a verdict of guilty against Captain Charritie on
the first and second counts, namely—those which charged
him with directly receiving the money, and conspiring
with others to obtain it. A rule had since been obtained,
on behalf of Captain Charritie, to arrest the judgment, ca
the ground that the offence, as laid in the count on which
the conviction had taken place was not an offence within
the statutes.

The Attorney-General, Sir E. Thesiger, Sir D. Dun-
des, Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Forsyth ap-
peared to show cause against the rule, and contended
that a cadetship was an office, place, or appointment
within the meaning of the statutes, and that if not held
to be so, there would be an end to that check upon the
corrupt bargain and sale of offices which these statutes
had intended to afford, and without which there would
be the greatest public danger to the Indian Government.
They then went into a description of the mode in which
the appointment is made, and of the rights conferred by
the act of nomination, and contended th at the person
nominated became, on the nomination itse:', an officer of
the company.
Mr. CItoWD en -arid- Mr. WARREN; ire snrep.eit of the
rule, insisted that the mode of making the appointment
clearly showed that the cadetship was not an office. Tho
. director having a right to nominate wrote out a paper,
in which he declared that he nominated A B to a cadet-
ship, and then went on to declare that he had done
so from the belief that A 13 was fit to be a cadet.
The directors gave their formal approval to this
paper, which was den handed over to the person no-
minated, and with it he proceeded to India, but at his own
expense, and when there received a commission. This
showed that no office was conferred by the act of the
director in England. If the young man thought fit not
to go out, the company could not punish him; he would
merely lose his chance of getting -a commission ; nor
when he arrived there could he be punishable for any
offence committed by him as if committed by an officer
during the voyage. h tvds, therefore, plain, that all
which he obtained in England was a permission to re-
ceive a commission if he thought fit to go out to India,
and if the authorities there should, on his arrival, have
a vacant commission to bestow on him. The informa-
tion here pledged itself to the description of a cadetship
as a place, appointment, and office. It was no one of the
three ; and, therefore, without pressing -the argument
that on the firm of the count (which was in the conjunc-
tive) it ought to answer ell'the three dcscrip•ions, there
could be no doubt that it ought to answer one of them,
and, as it did not do so, the count could not be supported.
The Court took time to' consider the case.