The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TIIIIRSPAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 26,

ings in obtaining an Act of incorporation; and that the
mere fact of his lx:ing a co-promoter was evidence to go
to a jury, that he had auth.)riseil the contracts
to be entered into, and insisted that if there
wore no other evidence than the mere fact of
the defendant hiving joined the provisional committee,
yet that that was sufficient evidence to go to a jury to
prove the liability of the defendant, and his being a
party to the contract, and that authority was given by
the defendant to every other provisional committeeman
of the same company, to bind him for any contract
connected with the Company, and that the solicitor in
the suit had the power to give ail orders, and thereby
bind the defendant. We think that no such consequence
follows as 'a matter of law. The mere fact of the
defendant being a provisional committeeman, such
agreement amounted to no more than a mere
promise on his part to the effect " I will
act with other persons for the purpose of
carrying forward some scheme," it may be in
a committee or in any other body who have taken upon
themselves to perform that duty subject to the approval
of the general body, the acts are to be confirmed by the
great body whom they propose to act for. The agree-
ment to he a committeeman is an agreement to carry out
a certain scheme under such circumstances as may have
given rise to the scheme. The objects of a provisional
committee may be various, it may be to establish
an hospital, or any other charitable institution,
to which persons are to subscribe, either for a charitable
motive or any other, it may be to establish a school, or
a place of meeting, in which the persons subscribing are
to have beneficial interest as shareholders. It may be
that a provisional committee is formed for the purpose of
obtaining an Act for the construction of a bridge, a
canal, or a raiiway. Whatever the object may be it
makes no difference in the relations of a member of the
committee, whatever be the object ho seeks to obtain,
and the legal consequences are the same in
all cases, and if the object of the party he
charitable or not charitable, according as it
is—if fer improper motives it may excite upon some
occasions improper prejudices in the minds of the jury
who may have to dispose of the facts of the case. Such
associations as provisional committees constitute, how-
ever, no agreement to share in the profit or loss of the
concern, which constitutes the real essence of partnership.
It would be absurd to suppose that such a relation was
meant to be made in any case in which a provisional
committeeman consented to act as such. Now, applying
these cases. in some cases there is evidence, beyond the
mere fact of the defendant being a member of tbe pro-
visional committee, there are some instances where the
question does not seem to rest upon the same grounds,
and where there is evidence that the defendant has not
only consented to act as a provisional committeeman,
but has actually authorised his name to be inserted in
the prospectus of the company. Now, in some of
these prospectuses there are certain persons described
as the acting committee, and in which there
appears also the names of the solicitor, and the
secretary to the company. In some prospectuses
it is stated what are the duties and functions,
and what the objects of the provisional com-
mittee; such prospectuses have, in many cases, been
circulated by the defendant's express consent, and the
jury would presume that if such prospectus were taken
to the plaintiff, and that it had been showed to him,
and that he had acted upon such prospectue in the per.
forrrance of his contract; and the question. therefore,
is, what inference should reasonably be drawn from the
contents of such a prospectus. This would of course de
pend entirely upon the terms of such prospectus, if it
stated the mere names of the committee, and nothing
more ; and if no light could be derived from it with
reference to the intentions of the committee, then it
does not alter the liability of the defendant, and he can-
not be responsible as a mere member of the committee;
and the publication of the fact cannot therefore alter his
position or relation. In some cases, however, there are
acting committees, who take the whole management of
the concern instead of the provisional commit.
tee. The functions of the provisional committee
having ceased, or in such cases it may mean that the
provisional committee have appointed an acting coin
mittee to act on their behalf, and to be their agent. In
that case the provisional committee would be clearly
liable for the acts of the acting committee. Again, do
such prospectuses mean where the solicitor or the se-
cretary's name is inserted, that such persons are regu
lady employed or appointed by the provisional cow-
mittee, or by the acting committee, on their behalf ?
Then, again, another question rises, what bu-
siness should attach to the solicitor or the
secretary in question. In all those cases the results
must depend upon the particular terms of each prospectus,
and the reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.
Now, applying these observations to the two cases which
have alone been argued before us, Reynell a. Lewis and
Wyld v. Hopkins, we are of opinion that in the
.first case there was some evidence to go to the
jury, we think that the manner in which the question
wai left to the jury was perfectly correct, but we think
there should have been a new trial upon payment o'
costs, but we think that a new trial should be had
in order that the jury may have the opportunity of
considering the facts of the case, according to
the view of the Court. In the case of " Wyld v. Hop-
kins," we entertain much doubt whether there was any
evidence to go to the jury; and we think, therefore,
that in the case of " Wyk' v. Hopkins," a new trial
should be had generally upon the whole merits of the
case.

---
I:earned Gentleman cited a number of other cases
vihich favoured his view of the case, and trusted the
Court would discharge the rule.
Lord DEN".AN suggested that the matter should go
before a master of the Court.
Mr. WurrEnuasT opposed the adoption of such a
course, as the defendant preferred to have the whole
matter brought before the Court, and as an investigation
before the master would be most expensive; besides he
anticipated that a private investigation would not be so
effectual as a solemn investigation before a judge and a
jury.
Mr. JAMES called the attention of the Court to the
fact that the defendant had become a bankrupt, and that
he had been examined before Mr. Commissioner Fon-
blanque, who had refused to certificate him on account
of his improper conduct. He apprehended that the
Court ought not to dismiss the rule until further inquiry
was made into the defendant's case.
Mr. WBITERIJRST explained that the money was lent
on a bill at two months, which became due on the 20th
of December, 1844. the title deeds being given to Mr.
Pell as security. The bill was not paid, and the pro.
perty to which the title deeds referred was put up to
auction, but an arrangement was made between Mr.
Pell and the defendant, by which he was to pay 101. a
month until the amount of the bill and some other debt,
amounting altogether to 1301., was settled, but the pay-
ments were stopped on account of the defendant becoming
a bankrupt. The defendant, in the whole transaction,
had acted as the attorney of Luke, who set forth in his
affidavit that he purchased the property referred to in
1803 ; that his name was feloniously entered in 1826,
and the title deeds stolen; that ho employed the defen-
dant to frame new ones, which he did ; that the pro-
perty was his (Luke's); and that the reason the deeds
were renewed was, in order that he might place them
with Thompson for 82/. 103., which he had agreed to
obtain for him for two months. Other affidavits set
forth that it was well known that the pro-
perty did not belong to Luke, but to a
person named Wyman, who only allowed him to occupy
it on account of his poverty ; that the defendant had
admitted that the deeds were fraudulent, and asked Mr.
Pell not to take proceedings against him, which it
appeared he indignantly denied. The Court should bear
in mind that Mr. Pell was a solicitor in the same town,
and that he did not take prooeedings until the defendant
became a bankrupt, and long after the circumstances
had taken place.
Mr. FLOOD followed on the same side, and urged in
support of the discharge of the rule that Mr. Bell did
not come into the Court with "clean hands" as he had
brought actions against Mr. Thompson, which increased
the 82/. to 126/., and when an arrangement was made
between them it was on the express understanding that, if
any interruption took place in the payment of the instal-
ment, his claim should be increased to 150/. The whole profit
made by the defendant, out of the transaction in which
Luke was engaged, was only 3/. 6s , a sum so insignifi-
cant, that it forbade the inference that a professional
man would destroy his character for it ; besides, Luke's
name was in the list of voters as proprietor of the land,
pretty strong evidence that he, and not Wyman, was the
proprietor.
Mr. ROBINSON submitted, in support of the rule, that
the defendant alone was to blame for not having before
now appealed to the proper tribunals if he could prove
his innocence. He cited cases to show that the Court
had interposed its authority, and struck solicitors off the
rolls some years after the offences with which they were
charged were committed, and held that this was a case
in which the Court should so interpose, because it was
incumbent on the Court to see that none but respectable
persons were allowed to practise in it.
Lord DENMAN stopped Mr. Robinson, and stated that
the Court considered the case ought to be remitted to
the master, before whom additional affidavits would be
necessary. The Court had given its opinion with
re' pect to the first objection in the case of " King," and
considered that the second with respect to time was not
tenable, inasmuch as the proceedings before the Com-
missioner of Bankruptcy justified the re-opening of the
matter.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 25.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTEsoti.)

THE QUEEN V. THE TREASURER OF THE COUNTY OF

CUNBERLAND.

Mr. MANISTY moved on the part of the Keeper of the
Queen's prison, for an order upon the treasurer of the
county of Cumberland, to pay a sum of money towards
the maintenance and relief of poor prisoners, as directed
by the Act 53d Geo. 111., chap. 113, sec. 2. By the 2:1
ection of that act, it was enacted that every treasurer of
every county mentioned in the Act should, on cr before
the Ist day of August, in each year, pay from the public
stA ck of such county, a c.rtain sum of money, according
to the terms mentioned by the Act to the treasurer of
the county of Surrey, to be applied to the relief of poor
prisoners in the Queen's prison. On reference to the
schedule of the Act,
.it would appear that the treasurer
of the county of Cumberland, was to pay 101. towards
the Queen's prison, and 51. towards the Fleet prison.
Then came the Act, 5 and 6 Victoria, chap. 22, by which
the Fleet prison was abolished, and section 8 of that Act
enacted that the money payable to the account of the
Fleet prison, should be paid to the Queen's prison. By
the 53d Geo. 111, it was also stated that in case of non-
payment, this Court, on the affidavit of the keeper of the
Queen's prison, shouli have the power to make an order
for the payment of the money. This was the first appli-
cation which had ever been made under the statute.

Mr. Justice iI'ATTESON-As it is the first application,
you may have a rule nisi for an order. The rule should
be absolute.

WAITE V. HARDING.
In this cause, which was tried before Mr. Baron Platt
a'; the Middlesex sittings at Nisi Prius, a verdict for 501.
was returned for the plaintiff, for a series of assaults
committed upon the plaintiff, who was a process server.
Mr. K.NowLF.s a few dais since obtained a rule nit.i
for a new trial, on the ground (.f surprise.
exAmnEus and another Learned Gentleman har-
ing been heard against the rule, and Mr. KNOWLES in
support of it,
The COURT ordered the rule to he discharged.
BUSINESS; OF THE COURT.—The clerk of the court
gave notice, that on Saturday next the Court would pro-
ceed to give judgment in ail the causes now standing for
judgment on the new trial paper.

FAULKNER V. WALLER.

Mr. Mu. moved for a rule to show cause why the
proceedings in this action should not be stayed until
after an indictment, which was now pending in the
Central Criminal Court, should hive been tried. The
Learned Counsel stated that the defendant in this case
was an inspector of the City police, and in the month
of March last the two plaintiffs were given into custody
upon a charge of forging railway scrip. When they were
taken to the police-station a very considerable quantity
of paper, in the form of railway scrip, was found upon
th( m, and also the sum of 1,025/. in notes.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Do you mean genuine notes?
Mr. HILL said that the notes were genuine Bank of
England notes. These persons were taken before the
magistrates, and were remanded from time to
time, until, in the month of June, they
were committed to take their trial upon the
charge of forgery. The Bank noes and railway
scrip were handed over to the defendant, as being one of
the inspectors, to be produced upon the trial. Mr.
Alderman Gibbs made that order. The trial was post-
poned, for some reason, until the month of October, and
during the interval the plaintiffs were admitted to bail.
At the October sessions the plaintiff Faulkner surren-
dered to take his trial, but the other plaintiff; Fabian,
did not surrender, and his recognisances were estreated.
Faulkner was acquitted, but the Learned Judge, after
the trial, directed that 3601. should be paid out of the
1,0251. to the prosecutor, as he was enabled to identify
that much of the notes as his own. The police were at
present in search of Fabian, but Faulkner had com
menced an action against the inspector to recover the
railway scrip and the remaining bank-notes, both of
which it would be absolutely necessary to produce on
the trial of Fabian, should he be taken. Under these
circumstances, he (Mr. Hill) was intrusted to apply for
an order to stay proceedings in the action until Fabian
was tried.—Application granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 25.
LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEEMEN.
REYNELL V. LEWIS.
WYLD V. HOPKINS.

Upon entering the Court, the LORD CHIEF BARON pro-
ceeded to give judgment in these cases, as follows :
In these cases which have lately been argued before
us we think the plaintiffs seek to fix upon the defendants
the liability of contracts, expressed or implied, and the
question for the decision of the Court is, whether such
contract was made by the defendant himself, or his
agent, with the plaintiff, or his agent. This is a flues
tion of fact for the consideration of the jury, from the
evidence before them, and it will be for the plain-
tiff to produce the proof in all these cases,
in order to show that the defendant had en-
tered into such contract, expressed or implied
expressly by making a contract with the plaintiff; im-
plied by giving the order to him under such circum-
stances as would warrant the plaintiff in concluding, by
reasonable inference, that he was liable ; and if the con-
tract is not proved to be made with the defendant per-
sonally it must be proved to be made with an authorised
agent on his behalf. In the case of a number of actions
brought against provisional committeemen it often
happens that the contract is made by a third party, and
in such cases the point to be decided is, whether such
third person was the agent for the defendant for the
purpose of making such contracts, and whether the
plaintiff entered into the contract as such. Again, the
order may be conveyed by an express authority on the
part of the defendant with such third person to make
such contract on his behalf, but he may not give him a
a general authority to make general contracts on his
behalf, or it may be enough to show that a general rule
exists. In point of law, this would be sufficient to prove
the affirmative on the part of the plaintiff, as, for
instance, in the case of a partner, when their
relations are complete, one becomes, in law,
the agent of the other in all purposes, which are
necessary for their mutual interests, or the relation of
husband and wife, in which the law considers that the
husband makes his wife the agent, and in all cases the
husband is bound by such contract. This agency may
be constituted by the immediate action of the parties,
that is, by merely giving authority to the agent, or re-
presenting any relation to exist between the parties
similar to that which the law recognises and makes, or
by representing the defendant to the plaintiff as the
party making the contract, and that such third person
.1,13 hi; recognised agent, or that he had relations to
create him such ; and if the plaintiff really makes the
contract upon the faith of the defendant's representa-
tions, the defendant is then made the party to such
contract, and the represewatives of authority upon the
part of the third parts pro ad hoc, assumes that the re-
lations of agent are established between them. These
reeresentations may be made direct to the plaintiff, or
wide so public as to have reached him, or it may be
made by word or by actual contraet. In all such cases
it will be for the jury to find upon the evidence with the
assistance of the judge who may try the case. There are
Few, if any, of the cases which have come before us in
which the contract is entered into directly by the de-
fendant, but they have been enti red into by other par-
ties. In one case it was attempted to be proved by a
conversation in which the defendant expressed his entire
satisfaction at the expenditure which had been going on,
he said the expenses were moderate, and that was evi-
dence to go to the jury, and entitled to more
or less weight according to the circumstances of
the case. But the chief point of Mr. Martin's argu-
nt was, that the relation of a provisional committee-
man constituted an association or quasi copartnership,
in which he was an agent for all the purposes, andliab le
for all the expenses incident to the preliminry proceed-

fendants vexatiously pleaded non-acceptance, without
having the slightest ground of defence.
A verdict was given in each case fur the plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CLEreKENWELL.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL C?)URT.
OLD COURT.

Joseph Jokes was indicted for forging an order upon
the Bank of England, for the transfer of 3/. 10s. Bank
Stock, the property of George Edwards and his rile, of
Ebury-street, Pimlico.
Mr. Clarkson was retained for the prosecution ; Mr.
Prendergast defended the prisoner.
George Clifden, one of the Bank clerks, testified to
the stock standing in the name of the prosecutor pre-
vious to the transfer.
Mr. S smuel Stephen Lowe, a clerk in the Lone An-
nuities Transfer-office, witnessed the transfer on the
of January last.
George Edwards, a retired coachman, of Ebury- street,
Pimlico, deposed that his wife, whose name before her
marriage was Sarah Swift, and himself, purchased the
long annuities in question on the 6th April, 1840. This
stock he had never given authority to any one to dispose
of in any way, and on the production of the Bank book
declared that the signature in it was not his. He denied
that the letter purporting to give the authority, which
was also produced, was his, and said he knew nothing
whatever of the transfer until he heard of it through a
communication from his daughter.
Cross-examined by Mr. PRENDERGAST—Cannot read
or write. The four first years after their marriage they
had lived together, but since that period they had been
separated, and had not received a letter from her for
more than three ears. He had given his wife the
money from time to time to be taken care of, but what
afterwards became of it he was not able to tell, though
he believed it was to be put into the Bank.
Mr. Thomas Crumpton, a stockbroker—Occasionally
officiated for Mr. Baillie, another stockbroker/ who hat
an office on the same floor with himself in Lothbury. In
January, 1842, he had transferred 31. 10s. Long Annuities
for that gentleman, at the desire of a person whom he
believed to be the prisoner. He had sold the stock to
Mr. Clement Smith, a stockbroker, and paid the
money over to the person who represented himself as
George Edwards, the owner.
The Learned JUDGE reproved the witness for his want
of caution In identifying a person at the Bank whom he
had never seen before that time.
Carlton Anthony Goring, now a private in the 31st
Regiment, stated, that in 1842 he was clerk to Mr.
Baillie, whose business Mr. Compton was in the habit
of transacting when he was away from London. He
' confirmed Mr. Compton's evidence, and identified the
prisoner, and also the paper which he had produced, as
being Mr. Edwards' authority to her husband to sell
the stock.
Charlotte Arnold identified the writing of the pri-
soner. She had known him as Henry Clark.
Mr. James Hunter, of 34, Bloomsbury-street, had
known the prisoner under the name of Henry Hitch-
cock Barrow. The document produced, purporting to
be the authority of Mrs. Edwards, WAS decidedly the
prisoner's writing.
Mr. George Cowldrey, a goldbeater, of Eccleston-
street, Clerkenwell, stated, that he had known Edwards
and his wife, the latter for twenty years. Knew the
prisoner in January 1842. The la,t time witness saw
him was on his apprehension on the 9th of September
last, when Mrs. Edwards was with him, and they gave
their names as Mr. and Mrs. Jones. He had seen Mrs.
Edwards in 1845, when he went with her to Mr.
Peppercorn's, a stockbroker, to purchase some
stock ; and, in consequence of what passed
then the Bank porter was sent for, with whom Mrs.
Edwards communicated, and to whom she gave a de-
scription of the prisoner. After that witness and Mrs.
Edwards went to Mr. Baillie's office, and told that gen-
tleman what had passed. Mr. Edwards immediately
afterwards went to the Bank. On the 4th or sth August
he saw her again at his own house, in company with the
prisoner at the bar, when she introduced him as her
husband, under the name of Joseph Jones. Witness
then immediately recognised the prisoner as the man
who had, some years fore, called with a message from
Mrs. Edwards, and who then represented himself as
Mr. Handley's servant, of Newark. Some conversation
then ensued on the prisoner's change of name. At that
time he saw a gold watch in the prisoner's possession,
which he knew belonged to George Edwards. Mrs.
Edwards at that time told him that her first husband
hal been dead for twa years, and showed him a ring on
her finger, which she said prisoner had put on. He
identified the handwriting of the prisoner. The autho-
rity was then put in and read.
Mr. PRENDERGAST addressed the jury on behalf of
the prisoner, who found him Guilty.
He was sentenced to be transported for life.

The policeman said he had ascertained that the pri-
soner, young as he was. had been in the habit of visiting
the house in Henrietta-street for a considerable time.

The prisoner was fully committed to take his trial.
SOUTHWARK.
A case, which excited considerable interest, and which
was adjourned over from the previous day, came on for
hearing, in the shape of a summons against Miss Emily
Mitchell, for assaulting and obstructing two persons, one
a tipstaff of the Common Pleas, and the other the officer
of the Queen's Bench prison, in the performance of their
duty.
Mr. Ballantine appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
J. 11. Parry for the defendant. Mr. Sturgeon, also a
barrister, attended to watch the proceedings on the part
of a gentleman named Herring, interested in the case,
and an inmate of the above prison.
The complainants' statements in support of the charge
were to the following effect :—On the morning of the
19th inst. they were employed in conveying Mr. Herring
by a habeas from the Queen's Bench Prison to the
Arches' Court, Doctors'-commons, where he was a party
in a cause. When they got outside the walls of the
Bench, Mr. Herring was joined by Miss Emily Mitchell,
and they all proceeded together to their destination. On
their return to the prison, when they got to the corner
of Holland-street, Biackfriars-road, the tipstaff and
his colleague insisted that the person they had
in custody should go down Holland-street, and by
that route to the Bench. This, however, was
resisted by the defendant, who urged Mr.
Herring not to proceed in that direction, but to
go down the road. The latter, acting under the in-
fluence of that advice, expressed his intention not to pro-
ceed the way the officers wished, and a cab was called
off the stand, in which it was intended to place Mr. Her-
ring. When the vehicle drove up for that purpose, Miss
Mitchell placed herself at the door so as to preclude the
possibility of placing Mr. Herring within it, and she at
the same time collected a crowd by her extraordinary
conduct, and, as alleged by the officers, she threw such
rash impediments in the way, that they were under ap-
prehensions at the time that the mob, excited by her
behaviour, would have attempted a rescue, and enabled
the g ntleman they had in custody to make his escape,
he at the time being under heavy liabilities as a debtor
in the Queen's Bench. At length, however, and after a
gentleman was called to render assistance, Mr. Herring,
finding matters assuming rather a serious aspect, got
into the cab with the defendant, accompanied by the
officers, and was safely lodged in his old quarters. For
the obstruction that ensued on the occasion, originating
in the conduct manifested by the defendant, the authori-
ties of the Queen's Bench Prison considered it requisite
to bring the circumstances under the consideration of
the magistrate, in order that those officers, having an
important duty to perform, should not be obstructed in
the manner above described, but protected in the due and
proper execution of it.
Mr. Parry stated that he had several witnesses in at-
tendance to disprove the statements made by the com-
plaining parties, and whose testimony would thereby
show that it was a trumpery charge altogether, and got
up with a view of persecuting the parties, particularly
Mr. Herring, who had somehow rendered himself ob-
noxious to the prison authorities—that, in point of fact,
that gentleman had actions now pending for assaults
committed upon him by officers of the prison in which
he was incarcerated. The Learned Gentleman then
proceeded to cross-examine the tipstaff and the Queen's
Bench officer as to whether they were not influenced by
ill-feelings against Mr. Herring to adopt the present
proceedings against the defendant. The officers, how-
ever, denied that such was the fact, and Mr. Parry was
about to call forward the witnesses for the defence, when
The MAGISTRATE suggested, that as a case of common
assault was made out against the defendant, he should
therefore adjudge her to enter into her own recognisance
of 201. to appear to answer the charge at the sessions,
that when the case was regularly before a jury the de-
fendant could then have all the advantage of her wit-
nesses' testimony in her behalf.
The magistrate's suggestion was agreed to by Mr.
Parry, but his client expressed her disappointment, say-
ing that she was convinced, if her witnesses were
heard, the magistrate would decide the case by dismissing
it at once, without sending it before another tribunal.
An application was afterwards made by Mr. Sturgeon,
ou the behalf of Mr. Herring, calling upon the magis
trate to compel the two complainants to enter into bail
to keep the peace, as he was really afraid of them, and
that they threw every obstacle in his way, and, by ths it
conduct. tried to persecute him in every possible way.
Mr. SECKER, however, refused the application, and
Miss Nlitchell having entered into the required surety,
was then discharged.
WORSHIP-STREET.
A young man, named Edward Blundell, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Bingham, charged with creating a
disturbance in the street, and assaulting police constable
Montford, 210 K, in the execution of his duty.
The constable stated, that while on duty in Globe-
lane, Mile-end, at half-past one o'clock that morning, the
defendent passed by in company of several other persons,
one of whom accused him of improper conduct with a
woman, and asked him if he considered that to be his
duly. He desired them to go home and not create a dis-
turbance. when one of the party uttered an exclamation
" to give it him," and the defendant immediately struck
him a violent blow, and knocked him down, in which
position he was also kicked by one of them. On re •
covering his feet he drew out his truncheon to defend
himself, and the defendant ran off, but was ultimately
captured, and, after considerable resistance, conveyed to
the station.
When called upon for his answer, the defendant em-
phatically denied the charge, and stated that he had nu-
merous witnesses in attendance who would prove that,
having detected the policeman in an act of gross impro-
priety, and threatened to report him, he forestalled their
intention by taking him into custody, in the hope of escap-
ing the consequences of his own misconduct.
The defendant then called his sister-in-law, Mrs. Isa-
bella Blundell, the wife of a plumber in Chester-place,
Bethnal-green, who stated, that after spending the
evening with a family party, she was returning ;home
with several of her relatives, and was about to bid them
good night within a few doors of her own residence,
when they heard voices down a dark entry adjoining.
On looking down the court she directed her husband's
attention to the constable and a woman, who were stand-
ing there, and observed to her husband, that it was a po-
liceman; on which the first witness instantly turned round,
and, adjusting his dress, which was in a disordered state,
asked her what business it was of hers, if he were a
policeman, and, assailing her with a most infamous
epithet, told her he would serve her in the same way.
Her brother-in-law then intimated to the constable that
he should wait until the sergeant came up, in order to
point out the woman to him, when the woman instantly
' darted out of the entry and disappeared. They then
told him that they should take his number and report
him to his superiors, when the officer immediately pulled
out his truncheon, and after flourishing it about like a
madman, made a rush at her sister-in-law, who had just
come out with an infant in her arms to learn the cause
of the uproar, and knocked her and the child down with
such violence, that after trampling upon them he over-
balanced himself, and fell forward upon his hands. On
recovering his feet the constable, who appeared to he in
a state of great excitement, then commenced springing
his rattle, and on the arrival of another officer charged
the defendant with assaulting him, and he was forthwith
carried off to the station house. Both the infant and its
mother had sustained great injury from the violence to
which they had been subjected, and the latter, who had
been confined to her bed nearly ever since, was unable
to attend and give evidence.
John Blundell, the husband of the last witness, and
George Delaforce, the defendant's brother-in-law, de-
scribed the transaction in similar terms to those of the
last witness, and positively denied that the defendant, or
any of the party, had either assaulted the officer or
offered him any other provocation than threatening to
report him for using such gross language to their female
relative when she directed their attention to the im
proper conduct of their accuser.
On being asked by the magistrate if he wished to offer
any remarks in reference to the inculpatory statements
he had just heard, the constable declared that he had not
been in company with any woman at the time spoken of,
and that the whole of the testimony against him was
entirely false.
In reply to the magistrate it was stated that the officer
was a married man, and had always been considered a
steady one, but that he had only been about nine or ten
months in the force ; and
Mr. BINGFIAM, without any observation, immediately
ordered the defendant to be discharged.
HAMMERSMITH.

Francis Smith, an Irishman, wai brought up for fina,
examination before Mr. T. Paynter, the sitting magis-
trate, on a charge of having stabbed with intent to mur-
der another Irishman named Redmond Rory.
The evidence taken at the previous examinations in
the case has already appeared in The Sun. The offence
was committed on the night of Sunday, the 27th of
June, 1841, in Penning's-buildings, a colony of Irish in
the High-street, Kensington ; immediately after which
the prisoner absconded.
He was now fully committed to Newgate to take his
trial on the charge.

THE lIADDINGTON BURGHS.-011 Friday last it
was officially announced in Haddington, that at the first
general election the opponent to Mr. Balfour of Whit-
tingham, the present representative of that district of
burgh; is to be either Lord John Hay, brother to the
Marquis of Tweeddale, or Lord Melgund, eldest son of
the Earl of Minto.—Ross-shire Advertiser.

IMPORTATION OF VENlSON.—Venison, imported
whole from Hamburgh, was offering in Hull shambles on
Tuesday at 6d. per lb. for foreparts, and is. for haunches.

MARKET NEWS—(YESTERDAY.)
conahr-Exciusava E.

Thomas Whitehall, whose head scarcely could 'be seen ' Although the arrivals cf English Wheat since Monday
above the bar, and who stated his age to be only 15 have been moderately good, the show of samples of that article
years, was charged with robbing his e:nployer. Mr. here, this morning, was small. The demand, therefore,
Thomas Dobell, linendraper, 38. r-elther-lane, Holborn, . was very steady, at fully the improved currencies obtained
Police•constable 153 N stated that last night about
. offn last market- day, and at which a good clearance was
twelve o'clock as he was passing the door of a brothel n
eevcetretdh.elesTshtehisaaalute for
yr it was
free
f_ breign Wheat was good;
orm,iLt extremedoio
in Henrietta-street, Shoreditch, he saw the prisoner, In Corn under locknexttonothig was
ho had a large bundle with him, standing inside, talking high pretensions of the importers. Maltingg'aningto the
v.
grinding
to a female. , Discovering him to be an apprentice of Batley was quite as dear, with a steady inquiry. In Malt,
Mr. Dobell's, he went up and asked him what he was only a moderate business was Join; at late rates. Oats,
doing in such a place at that hour, and also what he had Beans, Peas, and Flour supported previous figures.
in the bundle. The prisoner replied that he was taking • ARRIVALS.
the parcel to a lady at Lansdown-terrace, but not be- Wheat. Barley.
En -ril h
Having the story the constable took him back to Mr. Eri:hs
.. :: :: :' 1,410 qrs.
7$Q
0 qrs.
Dobell, when the property was found to have been stolen Foreign .....: 50 4,110
from the stock. Malt, qrs.
Mr. Dobell said he was knocked up out of his bed ViTITITECHAPEX.
We had a full atvheeratgeisupply of Meat on sale to-day.
that morning by the constable, who inquired after the
toe was3s heavy, on somewhat easier
Generally speaking,
apprentice, when he said he was in bed, as he had no Beef, from 2s 6drat terms.6d; Mutton 3s 4d to 4.s 6d ;
idea he was in the habit of getting up after all the rest Veal, 3s 4d to 4s 6d; and Pork, 3s 4d to 4s 8d per lb, by the
had retired, and letting himself out with a second stre-t- carcase.
door key, of which he had possessed himself. Mr.
Dobell identified the property, which consisted of table-
cloths, napkins, and other articles, although he found
that the private mark of the firm had been partly effaced
I with some kind of acid.

Oats Flour.
30 qrs. I 1,230 As
150 I --
870 I

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS.
BRISTOL, NOVEMBER 24.
STOCK ExclitANGE.--Tlie sales are-Bristol and Exeter,
Sl-Birmingham and Oxford Junction, 8% p.-Caledonian,
New, 2/. 6s. M.-Leeds and Thirsk, New, 514-Midland,
New, 31 14 -D it to, Birmingham and Derby, Cl, 3s. 9d.-Ditto,
Bristol and Gloucester, 50-North Staftbrdshire, p.-
West Riding Union, IX p.
LIVERPOOL, NOVEMBER 24.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Chester and Birken-
head, 201. Shares, % p.-Eastern Counties, 22:14-Edinburgh
and Glasgow, 76-Lancaster and Preston, Quarter Shares,
14'4-London and North-Western, 1931/2-Ditto, Quarters,
New, 13 p.-Ditto, Fifths, 1614 p.-Ditto, Quarters (G. J.),
203/ p.-Midland, New, 4% p.-North Union (B), 152-
South-Eastern and Dover, New, No. 4,11 s. 3d. p.-York
and Newcastle, Preference. 5% p.-York and Selby, Pre-
terenc,, 9% p.-Caledonian, Halves, 14 dis.-East Lanca-
shire, 5 p.-Ditto, New, No. 2, ex add. sh. 41-lt p.-Great
Grimsby and Sheffield, 4 dis.-Ditto, Quarters, 34 dis. -
Ditto, Extension, 11/ dis.-Huddersfield Canal and Railway,
ex int., 514 p.-Ditto, Extension, 1% p.-Leeds and Dews-
bury, 12 p.-Ditto, Branches (blue), 8 p.-Ditto, 'Extensions
(green), 2 p.-Leeds and Thirsk, 21 dis.-Ditto, New, 14
dis. -Ambergate and Eastern Junction, % p.-Birkenhead,
Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction, 1% p.-Birmingham and
Oxford Junction, 6% p.-Fleetwood, Preston, and West
Riding, % dis.-Newry and Warrenpoint, 174 p.-North
Staffordshire, 3% p.-North-Western, Bs. 9d. p.-Shrewsbury
and Hereford, % dis.-Shrewsbury and Birmingham (A),
114 p.-West Riding Union; 11/ p.-Goole and Doncaster,
% p.-Dutch Rhenish, 11/s dis.-Demerara, 1 p.-Glasgow
and Dumfries, par.
MANCHESTER, NOVEMBER 24.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Ambergate, Notting-
ham, and Boston, 3-16 p.- Churnet and Blythe, 14 dis.-
Eastern Counties York Extension, 1 11-16 p.-East Lanca-
shire, 4% p.-Ditto, No. 1, New, 4 5-16 p.-Ditto, No. 2
(late Liverpool, Ormskirk, &c.), 414 p.-East Lincolnshire,
1,4 p.-Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding, 14 dis.-Great
Grimsby and Sheffield Extension. 1% dis.-Great Grimsby
and Dock Extension, 2% dis.-Huddersfield and Manchester
Railway and Canal, 5% p.-Ditto, Thirds, 13/4 p.-Leeds,
Dewsbury, and Manchester, 123/ .p.-Ditto, Branches (blue),
71/ p.-Ditto, Extension (green), 1% p.-Liverpool, Man-
chester, and Newcastle Junction, 14 dis.-London, Man-
chester, and Birmingham, 74-Ditto, Quarters (C), p.
-London and York, 5-16 dis.-Manchester and Leeds,
Fifths, 5 p.-Manchester, Midland, and Grimsby, 21s. dis.-
.danchester and Southampton, 1,4 dis.-North Staffordshire,
3 9-16 p.-North-Western, 9-16 p.-Oldham Alliance, 1
1-16 p.-Preston and Wyre, 33%-Scottish Midland, 1 p.
-Sheffie:d and Manchester, Quarters, No. 3, vi dis.-
Shrewsbury and Herefordshire, 7s. dis.-Shropshire Union,
7-16 dk-South Staffordshire _Junction, 15-16 p.-West
Riding Union, 1% p.-Wharfdele (late North-Eastern), %
dis.-York and Carlisle, 1% p.
LEEDS, NOVEMBER 24.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-East Lancashire, No. 1,
New, 4% c. p.-Ditto, No. 2 (late Liverpool, Ormskirk,
&c.), 4 p.-East and West Yorkshire, 15s. dis.-Hudders-
field and Manchester, 5% p.-Huddersfield and Sheffield,
p.-Leeds and Dewsbury, 12% p.-Ditto, Branches, 73/4
p.-Ditto, Extensions, 1% p.-Leeds and Thirsk, 1% dis.-
Ditto, New, 2s. 6d. dis.-Malton and Driffield Junction, 20s.
p.-Manchester and Leeds, 10.-North British, Thirds, 535.
6.1. p.-Ditto, Quarters (late Caprlisle Branch), 2% p.-Ditto,
Extensions (scrip), 20s. p.-North Staffordshire, 3% p.-
York and Newcastle, Preference, 4% p.-Leicester and Bed-
ford, 6s. dis.-North-Western, Bs. p.-Sheffield, Rotherham,
and Goole, 2s. 6d. p.-Shropshire Union, 10s. dis.-West
Riding Union, 31. 12s.
SHEFFIELD, NOVEMBER 24.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Ambergate, Notting-
ham, and Boston, % p. -Great Grimsby and Sheffield, 3%
dis.-North Staffordshire, 3% dis.-North-Western, Bs. 6d.
p.--Sheffield and Lincoln, 16s. dis.-Manchester, Sheffield,
and Midland, 21. Bs. dis.-South Yorkshire Coal Railway,
% dis.