The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-22 00:00:00

TION CANAL)

was resumed.

Mr. William Cubitt was called, and examined on the part of the
promoters. (At the time that Mr. Bawlinson concluded his case for
the promoters, he reserved the power of calling Mr. W. Cubitt.)
His evidence was chiefly in corroboration of that of Mr. B. Cubitt.

Sir John Hill, superintendent of the ;ICiiiillWtie;;ltineni at
Deptford, was called by Mr. POWER, on the part of the Bermondsey,
Rotherhithe, and Deptford-road trustees. He spoke to the very great
mischief that would result from the formation of a line crossing from
it on a level.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS (on the part of the Grand Surrey Canal
Company) then rose; and said that he did not at present propose to go
into the question of the merits of the Bill. He was not about to open
the case on the part of the Canal Company, but he was about to ask
the Committee for something like what in common law is called a
" nonsuit." He claimed this on these grounds:-Ist. By the 7th
and Bth Victoria, cap. 20, sec. 46, it was enacted that, whenever a
railway crossed a public road it must do so either by an arch over or
tunnel under such road, unless a special clause provided otherwise.
He had searched the Act through and could find no special clause so
providing, although it was proposed to cross Grove-lane
on a level.—(A laugh from Mr. Talbot) He (Mr. Sergeant
Wilkins) well understood his Learned Friend's laugh ;
for his friend always showed most philosophy in adversity, and
laughed more then than at any other time.—(Laughter.) The
Learned Counsel then objected to the interference with the right of
way in turning aside a certain road; and also to the interference
with the bed of the river, which he said was a necessarypart of the
erection of a coffer-dam for the purpose of sinking the piles on which
that part of the line that would be within the dock mast be built.
The Learned Counsel referred to the short-hand writer's notes of the
evidence of Mr. B. Cubitt to show that a coffer-dam would be ne-
cessary. Mr. Cubitt had that morning introduced " the„play of
Hamlet, the character of the Prince of Denmark
had not,i contem -
for he
had said, that in laying down the line he
i
plated the dock as a part of the undertak ng ; whereas, in
the Act, the dock was the sine qua non. The Learned Counsel
again referred to Mr. Cubit's evidence and also to the Bill.
Ile (Mr. Sergeant Wilkins) knew very well that there were no diffl•
cultics in the eyes of the engineers, for when Mr. Stephenson was
asked in another committee-room a few days ago whether he coull
make a tunnel under the Alps, he replied, " Under the Halps, non
why yes, ye could mak a tunnel under the world if you liked, its
merely a question o' pounds, shillings, and pence."—(A laugh.)
But though no difficulties in the eyes of an engineer, they were great
difficulties'in the eyes of lawyers.
Mr. TaLeor replied (on the part of the promoters) that though
there was no clause in the Bill that would empower the promoters
to pass Grove-road on a level, yet one could be easily introduced
all objections to the clauses which referred to the docks, and to i andliose
po:nts of the preamble that treated it as a part of the scheme, would
be obviated by striking out those portions.

Mr. POWElLreferredto the 81st and 82d standing orders, by which
Committees were empowered to strike out such parts of tbe preambles
{if Bills as were not paved., and 81101 clauses as would bgbauefurin
their results, but with this proviso, that the Bill must not be*
altered al to become a diatinet Bill frein that originally prevented.

Mr. PARKES, the Parliamentary agent, replied on the part of the
promoter, and
After a few words from Mr. Sergeant WILKINS,
The Committee ordered the room to be cleared. On our return
the case was ordered to proceed. _ _

Mr. Sergeant Miami then proceeded to eyamine Mr. Travers,
the secretary to the Grand Surrey Canal Company, who gave evi-
dence as the mischief that would result from the interruption of the
traffic on the canal by the bridge on which this railway would cress
it. This bridge would be but a few yards from a bridge on which
the main line of the London and Croydon Railway crossed the
canal. This was already a great obstruction.
Mr. Smith, the engineer to the Surrey Canal Company, gave similar
evidence at great length.
The examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of these
witnesses occupied the Committee up to four o'clock, when they ad-
journed till twelve to-morrow.

WHITEHAVEN AND FURNESS
JUNCTION RAILWA.Y.—SPECIAL MEETING.
A meeting of this Company was advertised for yesterday
at the Company's offices, 1, Guildhall-chambers, Basinghall-
street, in pursuance of the sessional orders of both Houses
of Parliament, but after waiting for a considerable length of
time the directors were obliged to adjourn the meeting to
some future day, in consequence of the non-attendance of
proprietors or scripholders.

LONDONDERRY-and ENNISKILLEN
R AILWAY.—SPECI AL MEETING.
A special meeting of this company took plaee yesterday, in
compliance with the sessional orders of both Houses of Par-
liament; Mr. George Frith in the chair.
The SECRTARY having read the advertisement convening
the meeting,
The CHAIRMAN said, that the subject of the present Bill
had been discussed at a former meeting, and they were
now only assembled to comply with the orders of the Houses
of Parliament. The whole number of shares belonging to the
Company was 10,000, consequently 3,334 would be a sufficient
number to constitute the meeting legally, but he was very
happy to state that he had received proof of 3,397 assenting
to the carrying on their Bill in Parliament.
• A SHAREHOLDER desired to know if the deposits had been
paid upon those?
The CHAIRMAN was uncertain upon that point, and the
meeting adjourned to this day week, in order' to ascertain
the point.

PROVINCIAL BANK OF IRELAND.

GENERAL ANNUAL MEETING.
A general annual meeting of the proprietors of this Com-
pany, pursuant to the deed of settlement, was held yesterday
at the offices of the society, 42, Old Broad-street.
Mr. Aliston took the chair at half-past twelve o'clock.

The Szcnternay then read the advertisement calling the
meeting.
The CHAIRMAN said it was the first time he had ever pre-.
sided over such an assembly as that before him, and he
therefore trusted he would be excused if he should make any
mistake. He had to propose that the four following gentle-
men be elected as directors for the ensuing year :—Edward
Fletcher, Thomas Masterman, G. R. Robinson, and John
Young, Esqs.
The resolution was unanimously agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN said, as they were all men of business, and
did not require many words from him, he would therefore
call upon the Secretary to read the report.
The SECRETARY then read the report, which stated the
satisfactory prospects of the Company. There was a surplus
fund of 14,0001.
An HoN. PROPRIETOR wished to know if the directors
intended to give an extra bonus this year? They had done
so before with a much less surplus fund.
The CHAIRMAN said that the directors were as fond of
bonuses as the proprietors, but as the Company had esta
blished four extra branches, they did not deem it prudent to
do so. They had gained the confidence of the public, and they
should be careful not to lose it. Their surplus fund was their
rock of safety.—(Hear, hear.)
Captain J. L. LEWIS said, as a stranger, having heard the
report read, which he considered most satisfactory,he wished
to know what was the amount of salary they had given to
their retiring secretary ?
The CHAIRMAN said that his full salary was 1,2001., and
they had given him for his excelent services a pension of
1,0001.
An Holy. PROPRIETOR begged to express the confidence
he had in the board of directors, and to state that he con-
sidered their course as quite correct in not giving a bonus,
for when bonuses were given the shares were apt to go down
in the market.—(Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN then moved that the report read to the
meeting be adopted, printed, and circulated, which was carried
unanimously.
An HoN. PROPRIETOR wished, before the meeting sepa-
rated, to move a vote of thanks: to their late secretary. It
was to his exertions that they. owed the present excellent
arrangements of the Company, in so much that the Company
was looked upon by others as a model, and was often quoted
as an example.
The motion having been seconded, it was passed unani-
mously.
A vote of thanks was then passed to the Chairman, and
the meeting separated.
e

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
PRIVY COUNCIL, May 21.
The Judicial Committee 3f the Privy Council con-
tinued their sitting to-day. The Lords present were,
the Lord President (the Duke of Buccleuch), Mr. Baron
Parke, the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, and the
Judge of the Prerogative Court (Sir Herbert Jenner
Fust).
WILLIAMS AND OTHERS V. CHAPMAN AND OTHERS.

This was an appeal from the sentence pronounced by
the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in a cause of
damage, civil and maritime, arising out of the total loss
of the brig Parana and her cargo, together with the
master and five of the crew, in a collision with the Iron
Duke steamer, brought by the respondents (the owners
of the brig) against the appellants, trustees of the City
of Dublin Steam Packet Company.
The facts were as follows :—The Parana, a new brig
of 200 tons burthen, was navigated by a master and ten
hands, and with her cargo was worth about 17,0001.
The Iron Duke is a steamer, belonging to the City of
Dublin Steam-packet Company, of 600 tons burthen,
having engines of great power, her ordinary speed being
from twelve to fourteen knots an hour. She carries the
mail between Liverpool and Kingstown, and on the night
of the collision had 70 passengers on board. The
Parana left Liverpool the 9th of September, 1844, bound
to Montreal. Shortly before two o'clock, A.M.,of the
10th of September, the steamer's lights were rst seen
from the brig, about three miles . distant off her star -
board bow. As the .steamer rapidly approached, the
mate of the brig held the binnacle light over the weather
quarter, and hailed, but no notice was taken, and the
Iron Duke ran into the Parana, which went down almo: t
instantly, and with cargo and other property.
The arguments were commenced yesterday, and re-
sumed, but not concluded to-day.
The Solicitor-General and Dr. Addams appeared for
the appellants, and the Queen's Advocate, Sir Thomas
Wilde, and Dr. Haggart were counsel for the re-
spondents.
The further arguments in the case were postponed to
a future day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Frederick Steinberger, clerk to Mr. Tate, solicitor, of
Basinghall-street, was brought before Sir Peter Laurie,
upon the charge of having forged a cheque for 1001.,
upon the London Joint-stock Bank.!
Mr. Bush, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, solicitors
to the Committee of Bankers for the; prevention of for-
geries and frauds, attended for the prosecutor, and Mr.
Hobler appeared for tne prisoner.
Mr. J. W. Nutter, cashier of the London Joint-stock
Bank, stated that between three and four o'clock on the
13th of May, the cheque produced for 1001. was pre•
sented by the prisoner across the counter for payment,
and witness suspected that something about it was incor-
rect, and asked him to go into an anti-room ; that one
of the managers asked for whom he presented the
cheque, to which he replied that he was a clerk to Mr.
Tate, and that he presented the eheque for a friend ;
that upon being asked who that friend was, be said he
did not know, but that he was a young man like himself,
only rather shorter ; and that the prisoner was therefore
detained, and Mr. Tate was sent for.

Mr. William Tate said the prisoner bad been his
clerk about nine months, and that the writing on the
cheque was, he had no doubt, in the prisoner's hand-
writing. He added that he had never authorised the
prisoner to fill up that or any other cheque ; that he
had been in the habit of sending the prisoner to the
banking-house with his pass-book, and almost invariably
for the purpose or getting his cheques changed ; that he
found there had been a cheque taken out of his cheque-
book, and the cheque produced bore the same number as
the missing one, viz., 20,928, that he constantly kept
his cheque-book in a drawer, which was locked, and that
the drawer must have been opened to obtain it, andthat
the prisoner must have known the place of concealment.
The witness, in cross•examination by Mr. Hobler,
said that he knew nothing of the cheque in question
until the 13th inst.

The prisoner was committed for trial at the Centra
Criminal Court.

EXTRAC RDINARY CASE.— William George Wallis, the
secretary to the Tower Hamlets Loan Society, held of
late in St. Mary Axe, having been summoned to answer
the complaint of a foreigner, named Otto Brunges, who
had deposited in the hand of that individual, as an officer
of the society, the sum of 65/., upon which interest was
to have been paid.
Sir PETER LAURIE called on the case.
Mr. King, who appeared as solicitor for Mr. Wallis
on a former occasion, in which a complaint was made
against the Secretary to the Tower Hamlets Loan So-
ciety, begged leave to hand to the Alderman the folloW
ing notice, which occasioned no small degme of sur-
prise :
" To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor of London, and
all other her Majesty's justices of the peace of the said
city :
" Take notice that, by virtue of the summons granted
upon the complaint of one Otto Brunges, I duly attended
the same on Thursday last, the 14th day of 2'layintsht.e,
and there objected to your Lordship, or any other of her
Majesty's justices of the said City of London, entertain-
ing the complaint of the said Otto Brunges, upon
ground that the loan society mentioned or referred to
in the said summons, and to which it was alleged that I
was the secretary, was not an enrolled society, and that
your Lordship and the said justices of the said City had
no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter of the said
complaint by reason thereof. Now I hereby give you,
the said Lord Mayor of the said City of London, and
each of you the said justices of the said City of London,
notice, that you have no jurisdiction whatever to hear
and determine the said complaint ; and I hereby require
anda
nd each
herebyand every
further
you,there
therein,
g iyvoeu
youn ot tonotice adjudicatetuat in
the event of your granting any warrant against me, for
not appearing to the said summons this day, upon the
hearing thereof by adjournment, or of your taking any
proceedings whatever against me, in the matter of the
said
complaint, contrary to the notice, I shall hold you,
and every of you, personally liable and responsible to me
for any damage which I may sustain by reason thereof.
Dated this 21st day of May, 1846.
W. G. WALLIS.
Witness, Charles W. King, 40, St. Mary Axe, at-
torney for the said William George Wallis.
Sir PETER LAURIE, upon hearing the paper read,
observed that he never recollected any occasion upon
which a magistrate was served with - a written notice.
denying his jurisdiction.