The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-15 00:00:00

COAL IJARKE'

.-YESTERDAY.

Adair's Main ......... 18s 6d' Eden Main 205 04
Huddle's W. Hartley 20s 6d Belmont 225 Od
Catr's Hartley
Chester Main 2os Od Haswell
235 Od
Dipton Tanfield ...... ... 165 OdHetton .. 235 04
llasting's Hartley 2os 6,1 Lambton
Holywell Main ........ 22. Od,Russell's Hetton
New Tanfield l7s OdSterv.art's
North Pontop . . l6s 6dWhitwell
Ord's Redheugh
Original Pontop ..... 18. Od'Hudson's Hartlepool 2ls 6d
Original Tanfield
liavensworth's Pelaw. 17s Od Kelloe
South Moor Hartley... 175 Od!Adelaide Tees
Tanefield Moor
West Hartley
West Wyl am
‘Vylam
Wall's End, &c. West Hetton 2ls 04
Bewicke and Co 2ls 6d Woodefield lBs 04
Brown's Gas . l7s Od Whitworth l9s Od
Killingworth 2lB 3d'Derwentwater Hartley 905 Od
Ramsay
Wh,rncliffe ...... ..-.. 21s 6d Snapethorpe

Arrivals, 441 sold, 189.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to• day in his Court at
Westminster, at eleven o'clock.

MAITLAND v. BACKHOUSE.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, in which the arguments were concluded
yesterday. The case came before his Lordship upon
an appeal motion from the judgment of the Vice..
Chancellor of England granting an injunction re-
straining the defendants, who are bankers at Bishop
Auckland, from suing the plaintiff in a court of law
for 5,0001. The facts of the case may be thus shortly
stated :—The bill was filed by Miss E. J. Maitland,
to restrain Messrs. Backhou.-e and Co., bankers of
Bishop Auckland, in the eounty of Durham, from
suing her in respect of a promissory note for 5,000/,
which she had endorsed. Miss Maitland had been a
ward of the court, and entitled to a large fortune. In
November, 1844, she came of age, and being then in
the house of Mr. Donald Maclean, the late Member
for Oxford, who had married her aunt, she under his
directions, opened an account with the London and
Westminster Bank, after bring put in possession of a
sum of 83,000/. Maclean was at that time residing
near Bishop Auckland, and kept an account with
the defendant. The bill alleged that Maclean had
transactions with Messrs. Bolekow and Vaughan,
ironmasters in the neighbourhood, and that
he made an arrangement with them to pro-
cure Miss Maitland's endorsement on a promissory
note for 5,0001., and to deliver it to be negociated.
The bill further alleged that Miss Maitland, on the
9th of March, 1846, was induced to endorse a note for
5,000/., under the influence of Maclean, and knowing
he was already largely indebted to her. In the course
of their business Bolekow and Vaughan paid this
note into the bank of Messrs. Backhouse. In June,
1846, Maclean became bankrupt, and Messrs. Back-
house then commenced an action on the note. The
bill charged that the defendants • were acting for
Bolekow and Vaughan, that they had not in reality
discounted the note or given credit for it in their
books. The defendants by their answer affirmed that
they had discounted the note, charging 861. for
interest. They produced their books to prove it, and
denied that they had any knowledge of the influence
Maclean exercised over the plaintiff, being merely
informed that she was a lady of fortune. The Vice-
Chancellor thought the facts of the case raised sus-
picion, and that there ought to be further inquiry,
and he therefore granted the injunction.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment to-
day, went at some considerable length into the facts
of the case, and, in conclusion, stated his opinion to
be that the Vice-Chancellor of England had come to
a right decision, and ordered his judgment to be
affirmed, at the same time directing the costs of the
application to be costs in the cause.
fr. CAIIN wished to remind his Lordship of the
statement in the answer of the defendants, that the
plaintiff was residing out of the judgment of the
Court, and that the greater portion of her property
had been lost to her in consequence of the acts of her
uncle-in-law, Mr. Maclean.
The Court then proceeded to hear cause petitions.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE CASE OF MR. WILLIAM CODBSTT•

It will be recollected that the indefatigable Mrs.
Cobbett made an application to this Court a day or
two ago for a habeas corpus to bring up her husband;
in order that he might be discharged, on the ground
that his further incarceration in the Queen's Prison
is unlawful. The Court having promised to give
judgment this morning, Mrs. Cobbett appeared on the
floor of the court, and after the first motion had been
disposed of,
Lord DENBIAN said, the application to the Court in
this ca.e was to the effect, that according to the terms
of the Act of the 2d Victoria, c. 17, the further detention
of Mr. Cobbett was unlawful. He had been confined as
a prisoner of the first class, and it was contended
that he ought to have been confined in the prison
only as a debtor, and not subjected to the restraint
placed upon fraudulent debtors. Now, whether his
imprisonment was according to the provisions of the
Act or not the Court did not think it right to give
an opinion, or to make any inquiry into the matter,
because it had only power to commit or discharge,
and not to define the nature of the imprisonment, and
it was admitted that he was in lawful custody, and
if he were in lawful custody the Court could only
remand hitn if he were brought up. Under these
circumstances they could not grunt the application....
Application refused.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
IN RE SNOWBALL. _ _

1•••
Mr. CROMPTON moved for a writ of certiorari to
remove certain proceedings into this court. He
made the motion under the following circumstances :
—Mr. Snowball formerly held an office in one of the
Liverpool sewage boards, but by a recent Act of
Parliament, passed for the general improvement of
the town of Liverpool, the powers vested in these
sanitary boards were transferred to the corporation
of the borough, and of course the situation which Mr.
Snowball held was abolished. The Act, however,
provided that all parties who sustained loss by th•
annulation of their offices should be entitled
to compensation either in the shape of an annuity,
or a vote of a sum of money, the option resting with
the party sustaining the loss. Under this prevision,
Mr. Snowball elected to take an annuity, but upon
his case coming before the Recorder of the borough,
whom the Act appointed to assess the compensation, it
was decided that instead of an annuity, Mr. Snowball
should be awarded 3,4001. in full satisfaction for his
loss of office. The writ of certiorari now moved for
was to have the proceedings which had been instituted
before the Recorder, in this as well as five other
•