The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-24 00:00:00

LEEDS, APRIL 22.

STOCK EXCLIANGE.—The sale.; are—Eastern Counties, York Ex-
tension, 175 6d, p.—York and North Midland Extension, 175 x, p.—
Ditto, East and West Riding, 7% p.—East Lancashire, No. 2 (late
Accrington), 12s. 6d. dis. —Great Grimsby and Sheffield, Quarter
Shares 7s. 6d. dis.—Ditto, Extensions, 20s. dis.—Huddersfield and
Manchester, 2 dis.—Huddersfield and Sheffield, 21. 1 Is. ad. p.—
Leeds and Bradford, 24% p.—Leeds and Dewsbury, 1% p.—Leeds
and Thirsk, 514 dis.—North British, Half Shares, 2U p.—Ditto, New
Carlisle Branch, 10s. p.—Ambergate, Nottingham, and Boston, 275.
dis.—Birkenhead, Chester, Mold, &c., 28s. dis.—Bradford, Wakefield,
and Midland, 225. dis.—Buckinghamshire (late Rugby), 18s. dis.—
Chelmsford and Bury, 175.6 d. dis.—Direct Northern, 235. 6d.—Grand
Union, 16s. 6d. dis.—Great Eastern and Western, 265. dis.—Lincoln,
York, and Leeds, 20s. dis.— London and York, 225.5 d. dis.—London
and Manchester (Rem.), 345. dis.—Manchester, Buxton, Matlock,
and Midland, Is. dis.—Northumberland and Lancashire Junction,
18s. 61. dis.—North Western, Bs. 6d. dis. —Rugby and Huntingdon,
19s. dis.—South Midlands, ss. dis.—Welsh Midlands, 255. dis.—West
Riding Union, 31. U.—York and Carlisle, 30s. dis.

HULL, APRIL 52.
SToCE ExcHANGE.—The resolutions laid on the table of the House
by Sir It. Peel are anxiously looked for ; so far as his speech deve-
lopes the measure, it has given general satisfaction. Not much
business doing to-day. The sales are—Hull and Selby (10 per cent.
guaranteed), 10034—York and North Midland, East anti West Hid-
ing, B%—Blackburn, Darwen, and Bolton, 2%—North British, Car-
lisle, Ms.—Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle, 33s.—Hull and Barnsley
Junction, 225. 9d. —Leicester and Tamwerth, `ol.—Liverpool and
Leeds, 2%—London and York, 28s. 6d.-11agby and Huntingdon, 235.
—Shrewsbury and Hereford (Great Western line), 285.—Yorkshire
and Glasgow Union, 21s.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, APRIL 22.
STOCK Ex'cuarios. —The only sale is—Glasgow, Dumfries, and
Carlisle, 16s. dia.

~„4 SHEFFIELD, Aram 22.
...STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Caledonian, 5% —Grimsby and
Sheffield, Extension, 1 - Ditto, Quarter Shares, 15s.—Derby and
Gainsborough, 13s. —Sheffield, Buxton, Leek, Potteries, and Crewe,
12s. 6d. dis.

ply tjlely
alleged to have occurred in the Strandap Theatre. to whit was
The case was then adjourned to this day week.
THE QUERN AT THE PROSECUTION OF JAMES LEES AN)

CO. V. JOHN HINT.
This was an application for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should not be granted against the de-
fendant.
It appeared, from the statement of the Attorney-General,
that the plaintiff's were extensive cotton-mill owners, in
the town of Oldham, and the defendant was a printer living
in the same town ; the plaintiffs had carried on the
business of cotton-spinners for about forty years, and
had given continual employment to a large number
° that th
of men. That defendant had printed and published
a pamphlet in which the plaintiffs were held up to public
odium as belonging to a class of employers, who gave work
tehirusme men which hdiicdharcecgeu
titla wwoerrekmd
designated
oughtated b3ii.otth
et (,),oudhl,
ori, and
t
of "Nobstick." The consequences of the circulation of this
pamphlet were, that the plaintiffs were deprived of many of
their workmen and had found it very difficult to carry on
their business.—Rule granted.

BAIL COURT, April 26.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
The Court was occupied during the early part of the
morning in disposing of motions, none of which presented
any feature of public interest.
The Court afterwards sat at Nisi Prius, but there was no
case of sufficient importance to call for a report.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 23.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BOWLBY V. BELL.

_.
__ __-
Mr. Serjeant CISANNI. LL moved fora rale for a new trial in
this case, which was tried at the last York Assizes, before
Mr. Justice Coleridge. The action arose out of the sale of
railway shares. The plaintiff is a sharebroker at Hull, and
the defendant a merchant of Liverpool, both of them mem-
bers of the Stock Exchange at Hull. The plaintiff was
employed by the defendant to sell five shares in the Grimsby
and Sheffield Railway. They were in consequence sold to one
Richardson. The defendant neglected to transfer the shares,
and the plaintiff was unable to complete the contract to the
purchaser. In consequence of the purchase not being
mg p theaid Stock
to
Richardson, Exchange,
com-
pleted, Richardson bought other shares, at a higher price,
upon the plaintiff for the difference in price, 'e 'rich was paid.
Subsequently the plaintiff brought the action for money paid
for the defendant's use, and a verdict was obtained for 811.10 x.
was written by defendant in which be said, "I caution you
not to pay any money on my account." leeanittere
Several points
were reserved at the trial on which to move.. A.
Panredvio inusPutrosutahnece
of
n a
money rule
bein ofrule was
moved for in the Exchequer, and granted ; but it being dis-
covered to be the wrong Court the rule was annulled, and the
rule now sought for in the present Court.—Rule nisi grAntio

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 23.
(Sittings in Banco.)
GATHERCOLE, CLERK, V. MIALL.

Thisvthhoe
sp
tl a ih
en
pt ir
oft p
rtihe e..
tor of the Noncoriformist newspaper, and was tried at the late
assizes at Cambridge before Mr. Baron Parke, when a ver-
dict was given for the plaintiff—damages 2001. The circum-
Re. M wr.G as
aathnearce
inst
t
tistances of the case, it may be remembered, were the composi-
tion and publication of certain severe strictures in the
Nonconformist newspaper, relative to observations made in a
charity sermon by the reverend plaintiff in the parish church
of Chatteris, 'in the Isle of Ely, to the effect that he would
exclude Dissenters from a participation in the fluids of the
charity, on the ground of their not belonging to the Church
of Christ. The facts have been so recently and so fully re-
ported in The Sun that it will not be necessary now to give
a detailed report of them.
Sir THOMAS WiLDE moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had on the
ground of the admission of evidence which ought not to
have been admitted, and of misdirection. The Learned
Counsel adverted at great length to the evidence sub-
mitted at the trial, respecting the copy of the paper
which was submitted to the jury not being the same
as that sent down to the reading-room at Chatteris,
and contended that this circumstance invalidated the
evidence altogether, for the paper sent to the
reading-room ought to have been produced. He also
condemned the doctrine laid down by the Learned Judge
(Parke) at the trial, that a sermon preached by a minister
to his congregation was not a legitimate subject for
pul,lic comment, for if that was the case it would
be conceding a privilege to clergymen which was not given
to judges, advocates, or any other public men, and would be
a refusal to the public to take notice of any remarks which
might materially affect their interests. Public charity
was of the very last importance, and the public,
bad a right to inquire into and observe upon anything that
had a reference to it. And when, as in the present case,
an attempt was made by a clergyman to exclude Dtssentere
from participation in charitable funds, ort the ground of
their religious principles, he contended that sectarianism
was a legitimate subject for public comment.
The enunciation of the contrary doctrine to
the jury before whom the case was tried was a misdirection,
and alone afforded grounds for granting the present motion.
Under all the circumstances, he submitted that he showed
sufficient grounds why the Court should grant the rule.
The LORD Cum.. BARON said that everything that affected
the public might be commented on, provided only that tiuth
was made the basis and justice the superstructure of the ob-
servations. He thought that a sermon made by a pastor to
his congsegation was a fair subject for comment, but
it must be commented on with truth and justice.
With regard to the sermon referred to the remarks of Baron
Parke could not have elected the issue, as the sermon had
not been given in evidence. lie was of opinion also that the
evidence submitted to the jury was evidence which ought to
have been admitted. He, therefore, thought the rule should
be refused.
Barons ALsidtsaNt and ROLFE concurred ini opinion
with the Lord Chief Baron relative to the admission of
evidence and did not think sufficient ground had been shown
for a new trial.
Mr. Baron PARKE reiterated the opinion which he ex
pressed on the trial in reference to a sermon preached by
a clergyman to his congregation not being a legitimate sub-
ject for comment. If the sermon was printed the case would
be different.
The rule was accordingly refused.
This case excited great interest, every part of the Court
being filled with persons desirous to hear the result of the
application.

SHERIFFS' COURT, April 23.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
NEWMAN v. JONNSTONE.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
13/. Bs. 3d. for money had and received by tJ'e defendant, to
and for the use of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was formerly
the landlord of the City Arms, Mill _wall, Stepney, and the
defendant is an appraiser. Tin defendant pleaded a set-off
to the amount of 14L 12a,
The facts of the Case were these :--In January last the
plaintiff let his Louse to a person named Vince, who re-
tained this kum of 231. to meet any demand for rates, but it
was", 'ultimately found that there was only 9/. 16s. due, and
the balance was handed over to a person named Hunter, who,
it was alleged on the part of the plaintiff, was clerk to the
defendant.

A person named Gray, who described himself as
a process-server, was called to prove an admission.
He deposed that he never saw the defendant but
when he served the writ, on which occasion defendant
said he had had the money, but had a set-off to a larger
amount, and would defend the action. On the part of the
defendant it was elicited from Hunter, that he was originally
employed by the plaintiff, but has be had not taken out his
license, he had called in the defendant to complete the busi-
ness. 'Witness had been employed on a previous occasion,
and on the present plaintiff said he was so well satisfied
that he would give him 101, and gave him an I. 0. U. for
5/. After the whole of the business had been transacted,
plaintiff sent witness to receive the balance for him, and he
witness stopped the 10/. and offered the difference. The
defendant never had anything to do with the
money. He (witness) had commenced an action to recover
the 101, and defendant had also brought an action for the
amount now claimed, as a set-off for negotiating with the
brewers, Messrs. Reid and Co.—the affairs having been
thrown into Chancery.
Mr. THO3IAS addressed the jury for the defendant, con-
tendingatdefendanthveeadmitted
w
that he had received the money, especially after Hunter bad
so positively admitted that he had kept the money up to the
hohadthbraotui t g
present time.
The Learned UNDER-SHER/FT, in summing up, said the lLtry
were bound to take such admissions with great eautiolL The
witness Gray was in the habit of serving writs, but never
made any note of conversations. The question, therefore,
brought an an n °ate in
non the
for leash
its probableclaim coutlid'a have
was, whether he had imported the words as to the defendant's
having received the money into the conversation? To a
certain extent he was confirmed by the set-off pleaded, but
which it had not attempted to be made out, the defendant
relying on the plea that he had not received the money, which
plea was supported, principally by the witness Hunter.
The jury consulted for a short time, and then gave a Ira-
diet for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
[AD.