The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

fl g

The arguments, which were commenced yesterday,
having concluded,
His IToNourt said the time might come when it would
be his duty to refer the question hero raised to a court of
law, but he much doubted whether it wou'd be right to
-do so now. In strictness it could not be done. He
would, under all the circumstances, direct that the plain-
tiff should be at liberty to enter protest on the proceed-
ing, but should pay the sum demanded, with the in-
terest, without prejudice. On other paints that hail been
raised he would direct that the motion should stand over
for a week.

Bruce.
APPERBY V. PAGE.-4MPORTANT RAILWAY CASE.
This case came before the Court upon motion for an
order to inquire into the conduct &c., of the directors
of a defunct railway, called the Eastern Counties
Midland Railway, and for directions respecting a sum of
money paid into, and now in the Court, to the credit of
the above undertaking. In July, 1845, a project was
formed by the defendants to construct a railway from
the Northern and Eastern Counties Railway to .North-
ampton, through Fenny Compton, Stratford-upon-Avon,
to Worcester, and to form a direct communication with
the eastern and western counties of England. The
capital was to 1.);-, 500,0001, to be divided-into 60,000
shares, and a deposit of 1/. 7s. 6d. p-r share to be pail.
On the 25th of July the undertaking was registered, and
the deposit was inc.eased from the origll. inal sum of
7s. 6d. per share to 21. 12s. 6d. The deposits
had been paid on the faith of the whole of the
shares having been divided, bat it was subsequently
discovered that. only 35,000 shares had been allotted,
and that out of that number but 17,800 were accepted,
while the deposits on even some of these had not been
p lid. The defendants, who were aware of the circum-
stances of the company, notwithstanding the deficiency
in the capital, still prcceeded with the undertaking,ia-
earring all the expenses of survey, &c., and went to r-
-
liament, though quite unable to comply with the st Paand
ing orders for the passing of the, line. They
applied for a line from Cambridge to Weedon last
session, which passed through the House of Commons,
`,ut was rejected in the House of Lords. It was then
:.drawn, and the project is now abandoned ; 35,0001.
was paid into Court to the credit of the Cambridge and
Weedon line. The plaintiff contended that the directors
were not justified in prosecuting the undertaking after
the failure in complying with the standing orders of the
House of Commons, and consequently they were not
entitled to the expenses incurred.
The arguments having concluded,
His Hotiourt postponed his judgment.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
LEIGH V. EARL BALCARRAS.
This cause was put down by mistake for judgment

here is a statement made on his reputation. But none
of these proceedings were final—they allied to a course
of inquiry, solely to protect the person who was the
to
object of it, and the object of these proceedings was
point out the sources from which information was to be
derived., The Court was, therefore, of opinion, that the
second certificate was in itself good and sufficient ; and
he thought himself hound to go further, and to state that
if the Court should be of opinion that on the return the
party was still a dangerous lunatic—it would betray its
duty to the law and to every member of society if it were
to say "Set that person at large." The Court had no
power to set that certificate aside. Their only
power was to set the party at liberty. Wouldhey it be jus
tified in letting the party at large, though t might
be satisfied that the probability was that there would be
danger and mischief to life in such a course? And lie felt
himself bound to say that the liberation of an individual
would be an abuse of the very name of liberty, when his
liberation would only be hazardous to himself and others,
and those who had any interest in the wultare of these
unfortunate persons ought to be anxious that the re-
straint imposed upon them by the Act of Parliament
should continue.
The other Learned Judges expressed their entire con-
currence in these observations, and Mrs. Shuttleworth
was remanded back to her original custody.

EXCHEQUE4.-(11-11S DAY.)
HUNTINGTON V. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY

COMPANY.
In this case, which was tried at Warwick, the plaintiff
sought to recover compensation for the loss of a quan-
tity of pearl-shell, which ho had forwarded by the Com-
pany in question. It a.ppeared.tliat, through the negli
genes of the Company's servants, a gross fraud had been
committed upon the plaintiff ; the goods had by some
means been abstracted, and a quantity of rubbish sub-
stituted. The jury at the trial futtud a verdict for the
plaintiff.
Mr. HILL now moved for a rule, calling upon the
Master to review his taxation in the cause. The verdict
originally returned for the plaintiff was subsequently
set aside on the ground . that it was contrary to evidence,
and a new trial was ordered to be had ; upon this
trial fresh counsel were engaged, and a verdict was
again returned for the plaintiff. But the Master had
only allowed the costs of the second trial ; and the
question which was now sought to be referred back to
the Master was, whether the costs of the former trial
should not be allowed. He contended that unless such
a course were adopted, a large and powerful company
like the Grand Junction would be always able to make
success too dear, and thus deter parties from suing them,
on the ground that they had better lose 201. than go
to law.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—That is merely reading
you a practical lesson, Mr. Hill.
Mr. HILL—I always understood that the successful
party had their costs.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Not always.
Mr. HlLL—Then I suppose it is a mere fiction that
the losing party pays the costs.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—That may be so.
Mr. HlLL—Then I contend, my Lord, that, although
it may be law, it is not justice ; and the result of such a
course will be, to enable the rich to say to the poor—
" Although we have committed an act of injustice
towards you, you had better not go to law with us, for
you will have to pay the costs."
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—There will always be d ifficul-
ties connected with going to law.
After considerable argument, the Court refused to
grant the rule.—Rule refused.
PETERS V. DOBSON.
In this action, which was tried at Guildhall last Thurs-
day, before the Sheriff of London, the plaintiff sought
to recover the sum of 101. 17s. Gd. for goods sold and de-
livered. The defendant pleaded that the goods were not
according to order, that the credit had not expired upon
which the goods were sold, and lastly, non acceptance of
the goods under the statute of frauds. A verdict was
returned for the plaintiff, with leave to enter a nonsuit,
or to move for a new trial. •
Mr. PRENTICE accordingly now moved for leave to
enter a nonsuit upon the first of the grounds above
named. It appeared from the evidence given on the
trial that the plaintiff's traveller called upon the de-
fendant, and asked for an order for some goods, after a
short time defendant gave him an order, and some goods
were sent the same evening. Defendant looked at them,
and considering them not of the same quality as ordered
by him, returned them to the plaintiff before twelve
o'clock on the next day, and upon the same evening they
were again brought back teethe house of the defendant ;
„upon their arrival the defendant said he would have no-
thing to do with them, and threw them out into the
street, where they were picked up by a policeman and
conveyed by him to the station-house, where they still
remained. Upon those grounds, it was now contended
that this did not amount to an acceptance of the goods
under the statute of frauds.
.Upon the other grounds
it was contended that the verdict was against evidence.
The COURT—Take a rule to show cause.
The Court having disposed of a number of unimportant
motions, proceeded with the cases set down on the new
trial paper. The first case taken was that of
PITT AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES, U. CLEGG AND EXECUTORS.
This was a case tried at Chester at the last assizes,
before Mr. Justice Williams. It was now sought to set
aside the verdict then entered for the plaintiff.
The point raised for the consideration of the Court
was one of considerable importance, viz., whether the
liability of a banker to pay the money deposited with
him by his customers, after the expiration of six years,
was at all affected by the statute of limitations.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. WELSBY were
heard at great length fur' the .defendant, and contended
that the relation between: the banker and the depositor
was simply that of debtor and creditor, and that the
obligation of the banker to honour the cheques of the
depositor was simply a long-established and general
usage, but that such usage did not at all affect their
respective relations to each other.
Mr. Chiltern, Mr. Townsend, and Mr. Egerton were
heard upon the opposite side, and contended that the
defendant could not possibly plead the statute of
imitations.
The COU LIT took time to consider.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

CLAIULI V. SDIITH.

Mr. WATSON moved for a rule nisi for the discharge
of the defendant from custody, on the ground that he
had been committed under an erroneous construction of
the Bankruptcy Act, The prisoner, a bankrupt, had
obtained his certificate, but a judgment against him
having previously burn obtained in the Court of Queen's
Bench, on Saturday last, an application was made to
Mr. Justice Erle by the plaintiff; founded on affidavits,
setting forth that the bankrupt had been in the habit
of gambling, by which he had got into his difficulties,
and prao ing that under the circumstances the Learned
Judge might order bis committal. He was in con-
sequence ordered into custody, as it was alleged the cer-
tificate of bankruptcy did not bar the authority of the
Court, The present application was on two grounds—
first, that the judge had mistaken the true construction
of the Act; and, second, that the defendant was prepared
by affidavits to deny the charge of gambling.
The COURT thought it was a very proper question for
consideration, and would grant the rule nisi.

BANKRUPTCY,—(THIS DAY.)
KING
mVilDmAalrnl,S
This defendant was a .
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
in Crown-street, St.
Giles's, and
summoned under the Small Debts Act,
to show cause why he did not pay the sum of 31.15. debts,
and 41. 18s. 3d. costs.
.Mr. T. B. HUGHES appeared as counsel for the de-
fendant, and said that this was the second time that the
defendant had been summoned. In the first case he was
summoned as David Davis, in which name judgment had
been issued against him ; he was now summoned as
Daniel Davis. This was evidently wrong, and he had
to submit that the Learned Commissioner had no power
to act on a sumtnons clearly issued against a party not
on the record or judgment paper.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that the defendant
had appeared and admitted himself to be the party, and
therefore he thought that he was empowered under the
words of the Act " to summon and examine such person
indebted."
Mr. HuattEs said, that if his Honour considered the
position of the Sheriff in such a case, it would probably
determine his opinion, it was clear that no Sheriff would
levy on the goods of David, the execution being against
those of
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he should try the
question by making an order.
Mr. HtronEs said the Sheriff would deb at his peril d
.
The defendant was willing topay the , but woul
not pay the costs of a action which had been continued
for the sake of costs, after information had been given of
the error.
The Learned COMbIISSIONER considered this a fair
offer, and, as it was rejected, refused to make any order.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
Daniel Davis was placed at the bar charged with
causing the death of Mark Colville, by carelessly driving.
The deceased was a porter in Hungerford market, and it
appeared that on Friday evening last, he was crossing
Whitehall-place with a load on his back, when the pri-
soner, who was driving a ginger beer cart in Whitehall,
suddenly turning knocked him down, and the wheels
passed over his head. He died since of the injuries, and
the prisoner had been remanded from Saturday to await
the result of the coroner's inquest.
An inspector of police now informed the magistrate
that the coroner's jury had returned a verdict of Acci-
dental death, the evidence in favour of the prisoner
having satisfied them that he was not at all to blame.
He was accordingly discharged ; but before leaving the
Court, he requested the magistrate would accept from
him a sovereign to be applied at his worship's discretion
for the use of the unfortunate man's widow.
Mr. JARDINE considered the considerate conduct of
Davis highly creditable to him, and he (Mr. Jardine)
would willingly take charge of his bounty, and see that
it was properly applied. He would not allow the woman
io receive the money in one sum at once, but would give
it her as she wanted it.

MARLBRO'-STREET—(T HIS DAY.)
David Clary was charged with an assault upon an old
woman, and also upon the police.
Betty Martin, the complainant, who lives in Seven
Dials, said the defendant was a lodger at her house.
Last night there had been some riot on the Dials, in
which .the prisoner took part. The complainant went
up to him, and asked, " what is the matter ?" She
said to him, " you know best," and without anoth4r ob-
servation on either side, the defendant kicked her vio-
lently in the abdomen, and attempted to repeat the
assault.
Police-constable 85, said he attempted to take the pri-
soner, who said he was sorry he had not killed the old
woman. He resisted, and struck police-constable 95 a
• severe blow la the face with his 104 fist ; be struggled