The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-10 00:00:00

self, send to Paris some one on whose judgment and
taste you can rely. With a little wind and a bright sun
the effect is more beautiful than anything of the kind I
have ever seen—l will not except the six rainbows at
Terni—perhaps Mr. Barry may have sail it. I send a
copy of this to Sir R. Peel ; but my appeal is to you,
not to him, because I know he dislikes being approached
upon any subject except through the proper official
channel. Yours, sincerely,
F. W. TRENCH.
To the Earl of Lincoln, &c.

LAW ISTELLIGENCE.
SECONDARIES" COURT, April 9.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)

THE GUANO TRADE.-HILL AND ANOTHER V. SUGHRUE.

This was an action to recover damages for the breach
of a contract on a charter party, in which judgment was
suffered by default. The present proceeding was a
writ of inquiry to assess the damages.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q C., and Mr. Lush were for the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Hoggins for the de-
fendants.

The evidence showed that the plaintiffs are merchants
in Rood-lane, and the defendant a shipowner. In Sep-
tember, 1844, a charter party contract was made between
the parties for a cargo of guano, in the ship Seffings,
from Ichaboe, West Africa, at 41. 15s. a ton, provided
it was delivered in London by the following April, or at
41. Its. 6d. a ton if delivered after that period. The
vessel reached Ichaboe in January, 1845. There were
300 ships on the same errand, and 3,000 men at work.
The best guano pits had been exhausted, and the cap-
tain could only procure fifty tons of an inferior quality,
the tonnage of the vessel being 522. He went to Male-
gars, Saldanah Bay, where he got a cargo, and arrived
at Hull in September last. Before his arrival, however,
the defendant had made an agreement with other par-
ties, and sold the cargo at 5L a ton. The price in April
was 51. a ton, and in September 71. 103.
The case for the plaintiff was, that they were entitled
to the price of the guano in September, and not the April
price. For the defence it was said the defendant could
not fulfil the contract.

The Learned SECONDARY left the case to the jury to
assess the damages.
The jury retired at a little before two, and came into
Court at six o'clock. They assessed the damages at 500/.

SHERIFFS' COURT, April 9.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCMILL, and a Common
Jury).

LASILETT V. M`CANN.-A UNIVERSAL RAILWAY DIRECTOR.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to re•
cover of the defendant the sum of 91 44. 6d. for services
rendered.

To this the defendant pleaded, first, that he was never
indebted ; and secondly, a " set off."
Mr. PARRY said, the plaintiff was a medical gentle-
man, and brought the present action to recover the sum
of 91. 4s. 6d. for his services as an assistant to the de-
fendant, Mr. M`Cann, the well-known surgeon of Par-
liament-street, Westminster. In the latter part of the
year 1843 the plaintiff entered the service of the de-
fendant, with the understanding that he was to receive a
salary of 201. for the first year, 251. for the second ; and
301. for the third. On the 13th of January last a
quarrel took place between them, which led to a separa-
tion, there being then due to the plaintiff a balance
amounting to 9/. 4s. 6d.
Henry John Crawford, clerk to plaintiff's attorney,
stated that he served the defendant with the writ in the
action, and told him that the claim was for one quarter
and three weeks' salary from the 11th of September,
1845, until the Ist of January, 1846. Mr. M`Cann com-
plained that Mr. Laskett had detained a book belonging
to him, and that he would not pay him a farthing until
it was returned.

Mr. J. Hawkins was present in August, 1843, when
Mr. Laskett engaged with Mr. M`Cann. The agree-
ment was, that he should have 201. the first year, and 5/.
per annum increase afterwards, if he suited.
Cross-examined by Mr. HQCGINS—CouId not remem-
ber exactly whether there was a written agreement.
He might have signed one, but it was so long ago, he
could not swear that he had.

Mr. HOGGINS here produced a document, and asked
the witness if he had ever seen it before? The witness
said that it now occurred to him that he had signed a
written document; the one produced was the same. His
own signature left no doubt upon his mind.—(Laughter.)
It had been executed at the time, but it was only an
agreement for the first year. It was afterwards arranged
by a verbal agreement that plaintiff was to receive a
progressive salary.
Mr. HOGGINS addressed the jury for the defendant,
contending that the document which had been put i❑
proved beyond a doubt that the plaintiff had engaged to
serve the defendant for 201. per annum. He would ad-
mit that tue defendant had paid the plaintiff 51. more
than the salary for the second year. It was not done in
the fulfilment of any agreement between them, but as a
gratuity bestowed for attention to business. There had
been other transactions between the plaintiff and de-
fendant, upon which the second plea was founded. In
the year 1845 Mr. M'Cann was a "provisional director"
of the Madrid and Valentia Railway; which the plain-
tiff being aware of, applied to the defendant for an allot-
ment of shares. Mr. M'Cann told him that he could
not grant them, but that he could, if he wished, write
to the committee. The plaintiff did so, and received an
allotment of ten shares, on which a deposit of 21. per
share was to be paid within a certain time, at the bank-
ing-house of Messrs. Forbes. To pay this deposit,
the plaintiff having no money, the defendant kindly lent
him 201., which was the set-off he should now estab-
lish.

Mr. J. H. J. Roberts, assistant to Mr. M'Cann, said
he knew the plaintiff, and recollected his haring an
allotment of shares in the " Madrid and Valentia Rail-
way." The plaintiff told him that Mr. ?I'Cann had
given him the money to pay for them, and he hoped they
would soon be at a premium.—(Laughter.)
Mr. PARRY—Was Mr. M'Cann provisional director of
more than one railway ? Witness—l believe he was a
director of a great number of railways. -

Mr. PARRY —Then he was a sort of universal railway
director ?—(A laugh.) Witness—l believe so.
Mr. PARRY—There was a great deal of business dme
in the railway line at the defendant's surgery, I believe ?
Witness—There was.

Mr. Paaßs—Has not the plaintiff written letters on
railway matters for Mr. M'Cann ? Witness—Yes.

Mr.'PAhar —Did he not sit up until three o'clock in
the morning conducting Mr. M'Cann's railway business ?
Witness—Sometimes.

Mr. PARRY—How many railways was Mr. M‘Cann a
director of ? Was he a director of ten ? Witness—
More.

Mr. PARRY—Twenty ? Witness—More than twenty.
Mr. PARRY—Have you not written letters for Mr.
M`Cann ? Witness—l have.

Mr. PARRY—Then you have been " stagging it ?"
(Laughter) Witness—A little.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. PARRY—Now, on your oath, has not Mr. M'Cann
instructed you to write in your own name for shares in
various speculations ? Witness—He has not. I have
written in his name, but not in my own.
Mr. PARRY—Are you not aware that the 201. was
given the plaintiff for extra services ? Witness—l be-
lieve it was ; the plaintiff has told me so.
Re examined—The plaintiff has sat up more than
once. I think defendant had about two hundred shares
in the Madrid and Valentia Railway Company. Mr.
M'Cann has got plaintiff's shares. •He gave them to him
as security for the 20/, plaintiff to have the profits.
Mr. H. T. Forbin, clerk to Messrs. Forbyn, bankers,
said that the plaintiff came to the banking-house on the
15th of October last, and presented a cheque for 201. as
a deposit on ten shares in the Madrid and Valentia Rail-
way Company. Witness said to him, "You are a fortu-
nate fellow to get an allotment "—(Laughter)—" and
Mr. M'Cann to give You the money to pay for them."
The plaintiff said, " Yes, he was." He also presented a
cheque for 5001. as payment for Mr. M•Cann's shares.
A.tr. PARRY having replied,
The jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the sum claimed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

BREAKING THE WINDoWS OF SIR JAMES GRAHAM.
—Mary Stuart, of No. .184, Kent-street, was brought
before Mr. Hardwick, charged with having wilfully
broken two squar ,s of glass in a window of the residence
of Sir James Graham, No. 31, Hill-street, Berkeley-
square.
Webb, the porter to Sir James Graham, said the de-
fendant called that morning at the house, and said she
wanted to see Sir James Graham. She was told to go
to the Home-office, but she replied she had been there
until she was tired, and she would not go again. She
then walked away, declaring she would have her re-
venge. She then deliberately pulled a stone out of her
pocket and smashed two panes of glass in the hall win-
dow. The stone was thrown with force, and passed very
close to the head of Sir James's valet, who was writing
in the hall. The damage done was about Bs.
Mr. IlanDwlca called on the defendant to explain the
reason of her conduct.

Tne defendant, a middle-aged woman, respectably
dressed, with great composure said—l am the grand-
daughter of Charles Stuart, who fought the battle of
Culloden in 1745. In 1828 I was (employed as lady's
maid in the family of the Marquis of Winchester. My
royal birth was discovered, and an application was made
to Government on my behalf. Seventeen years ago I
made application for assistance to Government, but I
could get nothing done, and I was prevented from taking
another situation. George IV. paid attention to my
claim to royal birth, but did nothing for me. In 1841,
when the present Ministerial party came in, I applied to
Lady Annabella Ramaden, but she insulted my birth,
and would not assist me i❑ getting a situation. My title
has been examined by the Marquis of Queensberry, who
has seen the writing and the arms of my ancestor James
IL I applied also to the King of Hanover, and his
Majesty promised to make application to Government
on account of my birth, but he has done nothing. lam
now reduced to the greatest destitution and distress, and
I had no other resource than to apply to Sir J. Graham.
Mr. HARDwicx—Why did you apply to Sir James
Graham in particular ? Defendant—Because he is Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department. I have
written to hins, but he wrote to inquire whether I was
really the granddaughter of Charles Stuart or out of my
senses. The Lord Mayor has got my testimonials, and
between them all lam deprived of an opportunity of
getting any living. I do not know what lam to do,
unless it is to go into the workhouse.
Mr. HARDWICK—Ana why not ? Defendant—On
account of my age. As to my birth don't think any-
thing of that. I only want to get my living, and it's very
hard I am prevented from doing so.
Mr. HARDWICK—You must not attempt to gain your
object by breaking windows.
Defendant—Why does not Sir James Graham give
me an answer ? I have applied at the Home-office, and
can get no attention paid to me.
Mr. HARDWICK, taking into consideration the obvious
incoherence of the defendant's manner and language, said,