The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-19 00:00:00

V..... . .
M. • 4.,.............-• S.
VI :e4l 1°(1 per Sibs by the carcase. Turkeys,. 7is
.t:),. 1. 2itss;
4e, 48 to 7s ; Ducks, is 63 to 2s 6(1; lame It DO
pl i° 281 Wild ditto, 10L1 to is 2d; Pigeons, Gd to 103
-tee; Surrey Fowls, 6e to 9- • ditto Chickens, 4s 6d tc:;16,.a.,•
km ,„ . a ,
.' liarti-dOOT Fowls, 2s 93 to 5s Gd per couple. Eggs,ea;
.I,i:
Ke, 133 to 17s per 100; Fresh Butter, Is to is 4dap l_i3 :
i,lessArits, 2s to 48 ; Partridges, Is to 2s ;. Harc4s,,.2 toi.ol4lsc.,
13rigsn, is 2d to Is 4d ; Woodcocks, is hd to.
3,(,1.G
Wild
hti 11 t° 2s; Snipes, is to 2s ; Teal, Gd to is •
8,, .
11 'O, Is 9d to 9s, Gd; over; Is to Is to
Widgeons, 9d to is I . and
per
from 2s 13 to Os 8(1; M NEWP on.T. uttn, 3s 6,1 to 4s 83
ell. 48 to 4s 83;
and Pork,-3s 10d to 4s lUd per Sibs.
razaaNsaivr.
lest ki cknds of Fish, the supply of which was small, was
' at very high rates.
Ileef ViTHITECHAPEL.
le
to 8, , from 2s 103 to 3.8 8(1; Mutton, 33 Sd to
14bss 8d; Veal,
4s 63; and Por, 3s 8d tc 4s 8d per 8 .
man.
ktoeryn.es of Wheaten =
Bread in the metro olis are from
°V;(1; of Household ditto, 7d to 81A(I perp4lbs loaf.
HIDE IMAM/CET.
tolariaritet Hides, 561 b to 641 b, 3d per lb ; do. 641 b to 721 b, 3d
loe; do. 721 h t( 801 b, 3d to 31„2d; do.Bolb to 881 b, 31/2d
ei. n
~ do. 88111 to 961 h, 41/.',3 to 5d1041b, 5d to
Polled
do. 961bitos
13s ;
kite' it
Skies, each, 4s 6d to Cs 6(1; Horn lIK e ~.
to a
9d ;
Seilto43 4d to 5s 6d; Kent and Half-breds, 4a 4
Nita, 2s 8d to Os 6d.
altillenstn.—Alladolriv IVlHally,l2Kl .5E51;05.41 Clover ditto,
Re 5! ; and Straw, 11 Bs.' to I/ 12s per; load.' A full
Cail'e BuPPIY, and a sluggish demand.
tit() ERIAND. —Meadow Hay,4l • Clover
13e 'l3l 8/ to 4118 s • and Straw,
tY but moderate, and trade rather dull.
1/ Ss Stir) tol
13s 'per load.
tlitt:lTEcitAPEL.—Meadow Hay, 21 5541; Clover
kotli /131 58 to 51 Os . and Straw, 1/ 8s to tol/ 12s per load.
-43' and Straw moved off lowly, at late rates.
btro iiitittton
~,,, CIRANCERY—(THIS DAY.)
~, f
-(41, teo.Ard Chancellor sat in the Old Hall, Lincoln's
dl
B
lmaitzY•
--10 N v. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN
Ili, RAILWAY.
blizitioseate eaßte before his Lordship by special per-
tinde L. to dr.
Sv i,, y for the purpose of discharging an order
I -11,:ua, Lordship the Master of the Rolls, a few
k"Pasi R-1, V Which he dissolved an injunction obtained
Lorthr4:33'._ the plaintiff restraining the London and
from lowering the
Zrellike-r,,:eArn Railway Company • the railway
er it
.--.r. at a particular part, and taking
footii -11,,Vslso ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of
ti.-ti Ari °lin-. e',,ilich h had given notice to extend,. the
'itti appeal The facts of the case out of which
se may The
the judgment of the Master of the Rolls
Ltitz -,,"Y oe thus stated :—An Act of Parliament
:3,llCehr.as6,ed for the making of a railway from Stafford
inT,J' toe railway was Commenced. The
Valley
,4siliva,'• leas usually -denominated was tLe Trent )
'Ott it --ici i,; but bein-
g fr Twards purchased by the Lon-
liViiel;'airininghani aliatilwa‘ y Company, it now goes
ik a lilatin,e of the I ondon and North Western Railway;
~._•lstfaneiiff, William' Breynton, being in possession o
Zili efles of land, used for brick-uniting, in the pima--
t'llY r -'rrnitage, on the line of the railway, the co.b .
11•tteopuired about a rood and thirty-eight per,,C e_S
4614 the purof the railway : and on the 26th
t,,, .ast the poses agreement with him for
'a rateha., y entered into an
cote 4e thereof', and the price of the land, as well
isakto.Pensation for severarce and all other damages
4ttied tuY arbitration. By the agreement the lands were
1,4 °oast° Purchased by the company for the purposed
~.-‘Ttiet Noting their railway according to the plans an
st 4 representing the manner in which it was to be
tittlwatt'v.ted• After ' • rossing the plaintiff's ground, the
Zittitetejit on itoariccirozselcao
.old
ttouronipieike road, and then it
William Robinson,
tplltte4.ho°,.lll,,,the coraepeg)legh d on the 30th of Jnne last
-wt. f-- Ire Purchase,.no-f.
tititi.i_ ed for 70/so much of his land as they
htily the ,1ti1........ if they should.it
ampake the road pass
te„:_ii,Y on
,wp:eand.notralse .f t so yas to cross the
h took the latter
t 0,:.? ,he 8:,, i! 1 with it; but S
beroPwassy resole he Would pokt.. take less than 1001. The
road so as to pass
son A tht e railwa
tliat
ne,,, no
.iinstolf.l3:yraliltyvhiaellyßin` Railway Clauses Consolida-
sptief, road may
cana be constructed, so as
tkrya'• Act eontaaYi cross it on a level with it, unless the
p ss enactment to the con-
he Itl this easna thereanex- wasre such a clause in the
he% d Act, It appeared e
*11.., desirous _,.
.th t the plaintiff had himselfl
roada to pass under the rah' -
,4,4 4m
113;.,ual
allaying. the
iliern'ive dissatisfied,ifidavits to that effect. However, e
iete (144 Pass t and wished the Company to make
iiiii!ted. They e rearilwayaon_ level,_ as was originally
4 b,ittli for
4 eerifieuseedr,br and in September last he filed
f nmance of his agreemheincht,
want!,
tallae; fed ilea specific
day he performance
for an inunction, w
.11111be,i' wdh leave to apply in four, or five day The
l'tha't,°4 was to restrain the Company, their a;gents,
4ttia -1
and workmen from lowering or excavating the
tit' land road so as to interfere with or affect the plain-
A 1 the Bel 4 la any manner inconsistent with the provisions
241 i e'rerli, V-11 Rl (yA-et of Parliament, or the_.
q'se 2611.8ectionas tebye eieni rl%cfaerred to, or the agreement of
tra p-an: °I. Jul • 1846 in the planitiff 's biementicard.
,b'l el le-hn,tiff ha3vin moved to extend the injunction,
tliee--"ants moved to dissolve it; and both motions
"Ss hen to be heard. The motion to dissolve
,estfej'eell first, inasmuch as, if it was sue-
-4 jii! the plaintiff would then have no.locus. standi.
tettit,"Ster of the Rolls took time to. considerhis Judge-
et and in a few days his Lordship pronounced
It, that was now sought to be discharged.
ad
appellante ;
,444 IT. "oPer end Mr. Cooke I
mired...l.:Bethel!, Mr. Follett,. nwecteMr. Bazalgette ap.
tt.i`lu: b?,_ support the decision of and
Court below.
without calling upon the
tel
Lmti, crta.scELLort, ,
JadpBtl for the respondents to address
.the Court, gave
tinellt, refusing to grant the injunction„itanadostthse.reby
Aing the decision ot the Court below ss h
PARKER V. MORELL.
eta.th• elarther arguments in this part• heard appeal oo-
eled his Lordship the remainder of the morning.
Vle..
(Before ttlit AN cERy.—Cr HIS DAY.)
,rs:choewvv. g0LaL.V......17, 'CHANCELLOR of ENGLAJNuDD2E.
~ "-RUING LETTERS TO A
414 thin IcE.C---iNcELLon of ENGLAND, 011 taking his
the
II
Seaur "8"w v. Roll, had occasional) y favoured himl
on leaving affidavits of letters from Brussels. Yesterday
the
ett,4l.ving the Court, he found a printed letter from
on. %pir indivdual, in which he talked about the fraud, c a
he
and corruption of the bar, and in which also
at (lent was made that certain persons, among whom
of snei`:, e Vico-Chancellor) was one, were directors oto
tiety.`,T vthich was called "The Legal Insurance S-:
li,ilyth;„ Now, be begged to state that he had never had
libel "'g to do with that society, but as the letter was is
taake,the bar, he thought he could not do better than
the lettertaera a present of it. His Honour then handed
lir
of
d the to the registrar for the bar, to make such
It it asy might think fit.
thatl;44lllELL observed that the Court would recollect
laiek,,iv- Snow was unfortunately connected with that
,or,seula Scheme, called " The West Middlesex Insurance
-t-
(Before Vice• Chancellor Sir J. K. BRUCE).
Tll6 WORTH V. WILSON.
Prod was a motion on the part of the plaintiff for the
the action in
Court and restoration to her custody, of
thee: her infant children, who had been abducted by
tipo:e'enclant, who was their maternal grandmother. It
bad, fe "ared that the father and mother of these children
Itoa,_ r two months before his
.alemse, frequtenattett ae
(let an Catholic chapel, from which it seems h
theel/diust, who was a Protestant, was apprehensive thatand
!lb,
I would be brought up as Roman Catholics,
4 "all the occasion of their being on a visit with her at
111-4tillgs she removed them secretly toas
granted, which
London, where
had now reside. A habeas corpus
w
at te°eell served upon the servant of the defendant,
to Z r residence in Portland place, London, she refusing
th.,Ppear. It was contended in support of the motion,
n,,-; as there were no testamentary guardians, the Court
°7l 11.0 refuse the application.
here beintg stated on the part of the defendant, that it was
'.4tention to present a petition on the suit, .
Ills r.
day, Llobtoua directed the case to remain over till Mon-
Who 'iiite.,ting at the same time that he. would hold those
the. a' the children in their possession, answevabletfor
their Mita ri
e"oll when such was ordered by the Cour .
QUE

'EN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
In this &PINKS V. DARDELL.
yes' is case, which was reported in our late edition of
tiplerdaY, the verdict was entered for the plaintiff. Tht,
5e,,(111,g Was tantamount to a verdict for both.the. plaintiff
„„ti tlefendant, as the jury found for the plaintiff on one
w-utlat and for the defendant on another—but the verdict
48 so entered.
btsiLlE V. BAXTER AND OTHERS.—THE TILING AND
REIGATE RAILWAY.
Or- Crowder, Q.C., was for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Ileant Allen for the defendant
or his Was an action to recover 1101., being the balance
pi„:411 account for work and labour rendered by the
~Lane to the defendants under the following circum-
Dr 'es :—The plaintiff is a civil engineer, at
: sent engaged under the Government h:ce surveys, and in the autumn of last year
IteiWas engaged as the engineer of the Tring and
1)i gate Railway. The defendants, Messrs. Baxter,
%Mu, and Co., were the solicitors to the company,
able was only projected six weeks before the memor-
pie 30th of November, but finding they could not com-
et i; the reference-books by that day, they called the aid
listia,e Plaintiff into requisition, and he and a staff of 12
.rita were engaged for some days before the 30th
teat/blialing eight copies; the company were, therefore,
the ‘4,ecL to deposit the plans by the proper time, but as
tee Panic" had made speculators fearful, and money,
consequently," tight," the project fell to the ground, in
thequence of its promoters not being able to deposit
were requisite amount. The plaintiff and his assistants
Ivorh engaged almost night and day upon the
offit ` The assistants were employed at the
were of the plaintiff, in Abingdon street, and
char boarded by him during the period. Ile
e 'Red 2/. 2s. per day per man, a small sum the Learned
N'llitil3el said, considering the time and the great diafi e
wort experienced in getting persons to perform
th, • Ile charged 1471., but the defendants had charged
and e°lllPany 460/, for the work. lie had received 30/.
oai2 0/. had
been paid into court, thus reducing the
the_to 70/. The defendants denied the liability beyond
71°0te amount.
that defence was that the charge was exorbitant, and
Ja b ",! plaintiff had charged fór the work in a bill sent
howY null to the !committee of man,:gement. The case,
ever, had not concluded when we went to press.

EXCHEQUER.--(THIS I)AY.)
BARNARD V. COLLS.
At me
this
rile cause, which was part heard yesterday, the
teared
fY•Greneral, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Cleasby ap-
or the plaefendant. M Mintiff r. . Chambers andlr. Mr.
rtunivell for the d

This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to re-
cover the sum 0f'457/., alleged to be due under the fol-
laN% irtg circumit mces :
It appeared that the defendant was formerly the
proprietor of the Rainbow Tavern, Fleet-street, which
was subsequently taken by Mr. Isaac Argent, who was,
prior to that, a waiter at the tavern. This person con-
ducted the business of the tavern for several years, until,
in tht, year 1844, he became a bankrupt. The plaintiff
proved to a large amount under the bankruptcy, but for
the present amount, due to him as a balance upon some
wine transactions, he preferred to bring his action against
the defendant on the ground that he was a partner ►with

the bankrupt.
In support of the plaintiff's case a number of wit-
nesses were called, to prove that defendant sometimes
gave orders for goods for the use of the tavern.
On the part of the defendant Mr. M. CHAMBERS con-
tended that there was rot the least ground for the pre-
sent action. The plaintiff was not in business at present;
he formerly carri :d on business as a wine merchant in
New Broad street. Mr. Argent, the la.e proprietor of
the Rainbow Tavern, had been in the habit of discounting
bills to a large amount for the present plaintiff; these
rho
extended over a long period of years.
rho defendant in the present action made an agreement
to let the business of the Rainbow Tavern
to Mr. Argent at the rate of 101. per week, but the
business was to be carried on as formerly under the
name of Coils, and there was a further condition in the
agreement preventing Mr. Argent from discounting,
accepting, or endorsing any bills of exchange without
the previous consent had and obtained of the present
defendant. The defendant never ordered the wine, the
payment of which was now sought; never knew of its
delivery, and, further, the account was kept in the books
of the plaintiff in the name of Argent only, the invoice
was made out in his name, and beyond all that, the
plaintiff knew perfectly that Coils had given up all con-
nexion whatever with the tavern; there was not, there•
fore, the slightest ground for bringing the present action
against the defendant.
Mr. Isaac Argent was then called, who stated that he
was the brother-in-law of the defendant, who formerly
waited at the Rainbow Tavern; had been in the habit of
discounting bills for the plaintiff and others to a very
large mount.
By the LORD CHIEF BARON—He had formerly been
in business, and had saved a considerable sum of money.
By Mr. BRAMWELL—Purchased the Rainbow Tavern,
and carried it on from the time of taking possession
until his bankruptcy, in 1844. Defendant had nothing
whatever to do with the business; he never slept in the
house once in a twelvemonth; he resided in the
country, and upon every occasion when he came to town
he used to come to the Rainbow Tavern. He always
paid for everything he had in the same manner as any
other customer. lie did so to encourage witness. The
plaintiff, and his clerk, Mr. Hayes, used to come very
frequently to witness, and request him to purchase wine
of him. He said that he could not purchase his wine,
as he was bound by his agreement not to do so, without
the consent of the defendant. At the time of his bank-
ruptcy, defendant obtained execution against him, and
took possession of the tavern ; since that time he had
been living as a waiter at the tavern, having no other
interest whatever in the business.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY GENERAL—Re-
ceived a letter a short time since from Mr. Hayes,
threatening to bring the present action against Coils.
Had offered to pay 100/. out of his own pocket to
plaintiff, rather than have the affair brought up again.
The name of Cells was kept over the door; the license
was in hia name, though, previous to his bankruptcy, the
name of witness had been joined in the license.
By a juror—Defendant knew nothing whatever of the
wine having been sent by the plaintiff.
Several other witnesses were then called, and
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied.
The LORD CHIEF BARON, in summing up, said that
in his opinion, the agreement between the parties was
nothing more than an agreement to let the busi-
ness a kind of agreement totally new to
him, which he believed altogether unprecedented,
and, in his opinion, was altogether a fraud upon the re-
venue snd police laws applicable to taverns; and, there-
fore, so far as the agreement itself was relied upon as a
defence, it etas clearly altogether null and void,
With respect to another part of the agree-
ment, namely, that part by which he was to
receive 10/. per week, if the jury were of opinion
that such a sum was to be considered as a portion of the
profits of the business, then the lessor was clearly liable;
it was nothing more nor less than a partnership. The
lessee had no powers whatever to discharge a servant or
order wine without the consent of the lessor, and he was
not at all surprised at the disastrous results which had
occurred to Mr. Argent at least. The defendant had
named 10/. a week for six years, and 50/. a year for six
years, which amounted to the large sum of 3,440/., and
then he stepped in and took possession of all again. The
jury, under all the circumstances, would consider whether
the defendant had really parted with his interest in the
business, and if so, whether the plaintiff knew of his
having done so ; if they were of that opinion it would
be their duty to return a verdict for the defendant.
The jury retired, and, after a short absence, returned
into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, ,
457/. 6s. 2d.