The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-28 00:00:00

CORN AVERAGES.

GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN
For the Week ended May 23, 1846, made up from the Returns of the
Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and Wales
per Imperial Quarter.

({WHEAT. 128 s
BARLEY.'23s OATS. 134 s
RYE. 136 sI36s
BEANS. I
3 PEAS.
PRICE .. 553 5d , 8d 6d Od 43 6d
DUTY... 16s Od 9sloe Od 5s Od 9s 6d 7s 6d as Gd

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE WAITING.-JUDGMENT.

The Master of the Rolls sat with the Lord Chancellor to-
day, for the purpose of giving judgment in this case, which
our readers will recollect was argued some time since before
their Lordships upon the petition of several of the solicitors
of the Court, complaining of the course adopted in the office
of Master Lynch, of allowing the second clerk of that office
to perform the duties of first clerk. The Master of the Rolls
went at considerable length into the case, and concluded by
stating his decided opinion to be, that the course pursued
was highly irregular, and ought no longer to be continued.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was of the same opinion, and after
passing a high eulogium on the ability and assiduity of Mas-
ter Lynch, stated it to be the intention of their Lordships not
to make any order upon the petition, feeling convinced that
the intimation of their opinion to Master Lynch would be
quite sufficient to induce that valuable officer of the Court at
once to put a stop to the course of proceeding that had
hitherto prevailed in his office.
IN THE MATTER OF THE RECTOR OF LAMBETH.

The LORD CHANCELLOR declined making any order on
this petition, thinking that the subject of it was one that
ought to be referred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
GRAY V. THE LIVERPOOL AND BURY RAILWAY COMPANY.

In this case his Lordship directed an action to be brought.
In the other Equity Courts no case of any public interest
occurred. The House of Lords will not sit again upon ap-
peals till after the Whitsuntide recess.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
WILSON AND ANOTHER v. EVANS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, who were the
owners of a vessel, against the defendant, also a shipowner,
for damage sustained by the plaintiffs' vessel by a collision.
The cause was tried in last Hilary term, and a verdict given
for the plaintiffs. Since that period the master had been
called on to tax costs, and an order was made by Mr. Justice
Cresswell, at chambers, for the defendant to pay 2,5361. 155.,
as debt and. costs. Mr. Sergeant Byles now applied for a
rule to review the taxation of costs.
Amongst the witnesses
ue called
eneral for the
ilpshirelaintiff w
and thas Mr e
Jones (master of the barq G W),
expenses charged for his attendance were 1501. 4s. 2d , and
the Master, on taxation, allowed 971. 14s. 2d., being
2n7 stl . s
had
o
peri
ifBh4esdteofetnhdea
day for attendance from the sth of May,
March, 1846. The first intimation which
had of Captain Jones being detained in England for so long a
period, was on the total bill of costs for witnesses being sent
to him. The application was also to stay execution during
the reviewal of the costs.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN—On your application for costs, did
you state in your summonses your intention to apply for the
execution to'be stayed?
Mr. Sergeant BvnEs—Yes, m
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said that Lord.
that he was not aware that
i he had made any order 11) 'the CPA

Mr. Sergeant BYLES trusted that their Lordships would
grant both applications, for notice had been given to the
plaintiff that they were to be made.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—You can take a rule, but in
case it should be discharged, you will be in a worse condition
than before.

After some further discussion, the rule was extended to
stay execution.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
No case of sufficient importance to require a report occur-
red in this Court to-day.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY'.)
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
HUMPHREY V. CLIFFORD.

There were twenty-four causes set down for hearing this
morning, but the &Ave was the only one tried during the
morning.
The plaintiff in this action is a wine merchant, in Park-
street, Grosvenor-square, and the defendant is a licensed
victualler, in Great Marylebone-street. The claim was for
191. for ten dozen of port, alleged to be sold by the plaintiff to
the defendant. The delivery of the wine was proved, and
also that the defendant had tasted it and approved of it at
the price, 365. per dozen.
For the defence a host of witnesses were called to prove
that the defendant bad made the bargain with a person
named Jackson, to whom alone he was indebted. Jackson
was called, and swore that he got the wine on his own ac-
count, and that the plaintiff owed him money; and it was
further shown that the plaintiff had said that Jackson had
got the wine, and he (plaintiff) expected Jackson would do
him, so he would try to get it from, defendant.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said the question for the jury was,
whether defendant at the time considered he was dealing
with Jackson as an agent or principle.
The jury almost immediately gave a verdict for the de-
fendant.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

GROUP X.

The Committee of this group met to-day at twelve o'clock, in
Room No. 1 (House of Commons); present, Mr. Deedes (Chair-
man), Mr. Arkwright, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Farnham, and Mr. Vivian.
They proceeded to take the clauses of the

GLASGOW, AIRDRIE, MID MONKLAND
JUNCTION,

the preamble of which was, on Tuesday, declared to have been
proved.-

Mr. CRAWFURD, who appeared for the Messrs. Baird. petitioners
against the Bill, objected to the 38th clause, 'which provides for ena-
bling the Company to amalgamate with certain of the neighbouring
and connected lines. The Learned Gentleman rested on Mr. Wilson
Patten's resolution and order of the House of the 28th of April, re-
specting amalgamating lines. The Learned Gentleman was inter-
rupted by
The CHAIRMAN, who said that, as their was a Bill before Parlia-
ment to regulate the conditions of amalgamation in the case of the
lines referred to by the Learned Gentleman, this Committee would
not go into that question, or the question of tolls in the event of an
amalgamation. They would specially report upon the fact that
there is a clause to authorise amalgamation; and they would there
leave tie matter in the hands of the Committee upon that subject.
Mr. CRAWFURD submitted, that if this Committee did not go into
the question of tolls, and the Bill for amalgamation should be lost,
the proposed charges in the present Bill would be left untouched at
the exorbitant rates claimed by the promoters.
The CHAIRMAN said that it was not so. The Committee would go
into an examination of the rates proposed to be taken on this line, as
it stands by itself, without reference to what might be done in the
event of an amalgamation.
Mr. CRAWFURD then addressed himself to the detail of the rates,
arguing upon what he considered the exorbitance of the charges which
the promoters expected to enforce.
Mr. ANDREWS said the charges were on the same rates as those of
the existing lines of the district, but as there were some peculiar cir-
cumstances which induced him to think with the Hon. Chairman,
that some concessions would be made, it was the wish of the pro-
moters to meet the objections of the other side in a reasonable
manner.

beveral items were discussed with great earnestness, but eventu-
ally the parties agreed, and the rate claims as amended, by such con-
sent, were agreed to.
The other claims were gone through, and the Bill was passed.