The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-30 00:00:00

DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN,

WrIEAT. 1 BARLEY. 1 OATS. i BYE. I BEANS. I PEAS.
7s Od 2s 6d 2s 6d 2s 6d 2s 6d 2s 6g

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(THIS DAY.)
The House sat to-day at eleven o'clock to hear ap-
peals. The Peers in attendance were the Lord Chan-
cellor, Lord Campbell, the Earl of Selkirk, Lord Blaney,
and the Bishop of Chester.
STIRLING V. MORAY AND OTHERS.
The arguments in this part-beard appeal were com-
menced on this day week, and resumed on Monday last,
and at the conclusion of the arguments on behalf of the
appellant, their Lordships postponed the further hearing
till to-day, in order to give their 'Lordships an
opportunity of considering whether they would
hear the Counsel for the respondents. The
case came before their Lordships upon an appeal
from the decree of the Court of Session, arising
out of a note of suspension presented to the Court
and appealed from by Lieut. Charles Holme Drummond
against William Moray Stirling, stating that he was
about to be proceeded against by the defendant, to re-
cover of him 5001. with interest from the year 1841, and
also to recover the principal sum of 250,480/. after the
decease of the said defendant, with interest also thereon
from 1842, until payment of the same, upon the ground
of :an alleged purchase of an estate of freehold called
Abercairney, sold by the defendant, on the 26th of
August, 1841, to Lieut. Drummond, to which estate the
vendor could not make a good and legal title as alleged
by the purchasers, whereupon he prayed of the Court of
Session to have a note of suspension passed without
caution or consignation. The vendor had set forth that
his title to.the estate consisted in being heir of tailzie,
and that as a purchaser might object to the vendor's want
of sufficient title, it was stipulated that until it should be
declared by a final judgment of the Court of Session or
of the House of Lords, in any action of declaration, that
Stirling had power to sell the lands, Stirling
should not be bound to infeft and seize Charles
H. Drummond in the lands which he had not
been found to be entitled to sell and dispose of.
It was also provided by the agreement for the sale, that
if it should be determined by such deed that Stirling
had not the power to sell the property, the sale should
be null and void. In consequence, Lieutenant Drum-
mond had undertaken to pay the stipulated sum of
250,9801. for the property, by means of instalments.
The purchaser claimed that the vendor had failed to de-
liver a valid and effectual disposition of the lands upon
his alleged inability to cut off the entail; in other words,
that there was a possibility of issue in tail yet to be
born. The Court of Session pronounced that "in the
suspension they suspend the letters simpliciter and decern,
and in the declaration find the pursuer not entitled to
obtain decree in the terms of the conclusion of his libel,
and assoilzie the defenders." From this decree the vendor
appealed upon the grounds that the clauses in the deed
of entail were insufficient to create a valid entail of the
Abercairney estate under the statute of 1685, not having
pointed out with certainty the conditions and provisions
the contravention of which would infer the nullity
and forfeiture of the rights of the heirs of entail in pos-
session.
The LORD CHANCELLOR this morning, at the sitting
of the House, gave judgment without hearing counsel
for the appellants, affirming the judgment of the Court
below, with costs.

LAPSLAY V. GRIERSON.
The further arguments in this appeal occupied their
Lordships the remainder of the morning.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAN
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff,BURCHELL.)
COLLINS V. LEWIS.
This was an action to recover the sum of 31. 15s. 41d
for bricklayer's work. Defendant is a lady residing in
Grosvenor-place. The work was proved to have been
done in October, 1846, but the witnesses could not speak
to having seen the defendant, but understood in the
neighbourhood of the house where the work was done
(Prospect Cottage, Brompton), that it was kept by a
Mrs. Lewis. There was only a man and woman servant
in the house, and on the account being applied for, the
servant said Mrs. Lewis was out of town.
The collector of taxes was called, and proved that the
premises were rated in the name of Emily Lewis.
On the part of the defendant, a Mr.Bolten, anattorney,
was called, and deposed that the lease of the cottage was
assigned to him in March, 1846, and that the persons re-
siding in the house were his servants. He saw plaintiff, and
gave orders for the work, and afterwards told him that the
bill was made out in the wrong name as " Mr. Lewis,"
his name was Bolden, and offered 31. 10s. He d
mortgaged the agreement for the assignment.
James Beckett proved that he was servant to the last
witness, and who sent him to get a bricklayer to do
some work at the cottage, and he went to plaintiff. Mrs.
Lewis was not living there at that time, or up to March,
when Mr. Bolden let the house. He was formerly in
the service of Mrs. Lewis, but was not transferred with
the lease.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Tnomss contended that the tradesmen were not
cognizant of the transfer; and Mr. Bolden had been in the
habit of visiting the defendant for fifteen years, and
occasionally residing at the house for days.
The jury retired for some time, and on their return
gave a verdict for plaintiff.
ELLIOTT V. FINDEN.
This was an action to recover the sum of 161.55. 10d.,
on a bill of exchange. The defendant pleaded that he
did not accept, but evidence was adduced to prove that
defendant had admitted the fact. A verdict was given
for the defendant.
There were three other cases undefended, each of
which was for under 201, but being writs of error four
days are allowed to apply to the Court above to deprive
the plaintiffs of costs.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS.DAY.) •
Mary Ann Burton, the wife of a respectable trades-
man, was indicted for stealing a parcel from an omnibus.
A conductor, named Evans, deposed that the prisoner
was riding in his omnibus on the 27th of February, and
got •ut at the corner of North Audley-street. Just as
the vehicle was moving on, he missed a parcel out of the
left hand corner. He ran after the prisoner, and asked
her whether she had taken a parcel. She said she had
not. He pulled her cloak aside and found the missed
parcel under her arm. She was then given into custody.
Mr. Clarkson cross-examined the witness, and elicited
from him that this was the first time he had stated that
the prisoner denied having taken a parcel out of the
omnibus. The cross-examination showed some further
diserepaneies of no very material importance. The
prisoner had a parcel of ber own.
The jury intimated a wish to stop the case, but as we
understand, Mr. Clarkson requeoed that he should be
allowed to proceed. He called several respectable wit-
nesses, who gave the prisoner a high character
.fer in-
tegrity and propriety.
The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of
Not guilty.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)
BODMIN.
The Bodinin Election Committee re-assembled this
morning; Mr. Hamilton in the chair.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGUAM was engaged the whole of the
morning in replying to the arguments advanced yester-
day by Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, against the allegation of
the sitting Members that the Committee possessed the
power and authority to decide whether the recog-
nizancos put in by the petitioners and certified by the
examiner were good or bad in form,
At the close of his address the room was cleared, and
the Committee having consulted fur a few minutes,
Strangers were re-admitted, when
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had come to the
following resolution :
"That it is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee
to decide the validity or invalidity of the recognizances."
Mr. WORDSWORTH said, since the decision the Com-
mittee came to yesterday not to adjourn till Mr. Stuart
Wortley's Bill had been passed into a law, that measure
had undergone an important alteration, which gave the
Committee the jurisdiction they had just decided they
did not possess ; and he must, therefore, protest on be-
half of Mr. Wyld against the petition being proceeded
with until that Bill had been disposed of.
Mr. Sergeant KINOLAKE then opened the case against
Mr. Wyld. as one of want of qualification. It would
be shown that Mr. Wyld did not possess landed pro-
perty that yielded him 3001. per annum. The Hon.
Gentleman represented his qualification to consist of
lands and hereditaments, in the parish of St. James,
Westminster, and in Stockport, in Cheshire; and as
notice to produce the title deeds had been given to the
Hon. Gentleman, the onus of proving his qualification
must rest upon him. In the event of Mr. Wyld failing
to establish his qualification, he should be prepared with
negative evidence to prov that Mr. Wyld did not possess
any property either in the parish of St. James, West-
minster, in the county of Middlesex, or in Stockport.