The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-18 00:00:00

Mr. Pulslo.d, seca Lary to the Railway Company,
examined by Mr. Clarltson—He had once seen Wank
ebeques signed in the office. He thought it was on the
akli April. He sitmore sign five or six
blank cheques. To the best of his recollection Mr.
Stevenson was not present, and did not therefore sign
them.

The evidence taken on the previous day was then read
at length by the chief clerk, and some slight verbal
alterations made at the request of some of the witnesses.
The evidence of Mr. Stevenson, one of the directors,
ilaving been read over,
Mr.
, Clarkson requested that the cheques numbered 3,
▪ and 5, should be put into the witness's hand.
Witness—He had a cheque in his hand dated 20th
tlaY, for 100/. He did not recollect where he signed it.
,e had another dated the 22d May, which he thought he
I'gned at the board. He als) signed the last at the
board.
Mr. Clarkson requested that a mistake which was
made on the last day might be corrected. He was re-
Ported to have said, when asking Mr. Stevenson about
the blank cheques, " Now, Mr. Stevenson, be careful,
;;_bave seen the cheques." Now, what he did say was
cheques."
there were persons in Court who had seen the
He was sure that this mistake would be at
Once corrected.
Ur. Stevenson said that he certainly understood Mr.
Clarkson to say that he had himself seen the cheques.
Ur. Clarkson said, that as the remainder of the evi-
dence had reference only to the proceeds of this fraud,
;;e might be allowed at that moment to say, that when
40 asked the attendance of Mr. Whitmore, it was only
for the purpose of questioning him as to the practice of
Ding blank cheques. He understood that Mr. Whit-
Lggmore was a most respectable gentleman, and therefore he
ed leave to say that he did not impute to him any
cipation of any kind in this disgraceful transaction.
~!li The prisoner was fully committed, and the witnesses
trty in all) were boun
sessions, wd over to prosecute at the first
Central Criminal Courtwhich sit on Monday
Lett,

TRAMES HAVEN DOCK AND
RAILWAY COMPANY.—(THIS DAY.)
1,,A special general meeting of the proprietors of the
cn"aress Haven Dock and Railway Company was held
i; uaY, at the Company's offices, Basinghall-street, for
poeseP7Pose of empowering the directors to sell and dis-
utreettons
0. certain shares in the company, according to the
of the Act, the forfeiture of which shares was
half yearly general meeting on the 31st of August last.
the Shortly before two o'clock, James Esdaile, Esq., took
chair, and the minutes of last meeting having been
,tead and confirmed, a resolution, empowering the direc-
'ell to sell the forfeited shares was proposed, seconded,
414 unanimously agreed to, and the meeting broke up.

CITY REGISTRATION.
(THIS DAY.)
%This morning, at ten o'clock, Mr. Arnold resumed
e revision of the freemens' list in the Court of Com-
0n Pleas, Guildhall, beginniniug with the Innholders'
ltPany.
kr. Samuel Brown, the Conservative agent, withdrew
'uls objections to several names.
s„The name of Mr. Ridley, residing at Orwell, in Sus-
ite, Was struck off the list, although the claimant
tually carries on business in the City.
kill, Learned Barrister next took the list of the
hsl eians Company, from which three names were ex-
h u
"'led, the claimants not attending to answer the ob-
Jeetio„.
Needlemakers Company was next proceeded
but the cases of objection which were raised pre-
4ergted nothing of importance. Some names (on Con-
to defend
objections) were expunged, no one appearing
their retention on the list.
--/ANLEBONE REGISTRATION.
(THIS DAY.)
Ala he revision of the list of voters for the Borough of
ceatYlebone commenced this morning, at the Borough
114rullt House, Marylebone-lane, before the Revising
pster, D. C. Moylan, Esq.
4 Mr-
Conservative claims and objections were supported
te,,,'l4r- Greenwood, while the Free-trade party were
.4;"e'esented by Mr. Ivemy—we regret we can only say
jeetPl"sresented, for out of the number of claims and ob-
ono made in the istricts below detailed, not
Pat ;n from the Liberals, all having been either
ehiiri by the Tories, or made by the overseers, on paro-
t! or other technical grounds.
lee Vie following is a summary of the claims and oh-
-1"s, as put in by the Tory party:—
Alarylebone parish Objections 609; Claims 27
St. Pancras Objections 526; Claims 8
tilti?addington
liv„ Ing a total of objections lodged by the Conserva-
for43,gainst the Liberal voters, of 1,216 ; and 39 claims
here were a number of claims lodged by the several
fereseers but as a matter of course, they bore no re-
Atarne,e to the politics of the parties objected to. In
4,,..Y1eb0ne and Paddington parishes those claims
Cit.l),us!ited to 37, with no objections, and in St. Pancras
139 to 94, with 2 objections.
be to REVISING BARRISTER taking his seat on the
reap et;tlnd previous to the overseers handing in their
11,01cleCive,liats, he stated that it was his intention to
kxorcio:3 ‘-eurt by adjournment at the Vestry-room,
era, pa;.square, for the revision of the lists for St.
fPan-
After-it Monday next, at eleven o'clock.
'13r13:1, it e several lists had been handed in, in the usual
All so ;vas arrstiged that the objections to the list of
first, S Parish, amounting to 120, should be taken
tree 0f a" 0± Which, with the exception of eight, Mr.
ip E'LlWood, on the part of the Conservatives, succeeded
ob.eqablishing. None of the parties whose names were
ihleeted to appeared in support of their claims, and thus
t; the revision of the first list taken this day, the reps-
-r.,t.;:vas reduced by the names of 112 Liberals.
11,410 t the slightest point of importance, either legally or
ora matter of general interest, arose during the revision
te:eis list, which occupied the court up to the time of our
ltlg to press.
St

T -dCONDARIES'.—(THIS DAY.)
tlet
this
Court did not sit to-day, no causes baring been
own for trial.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner SHEPHERD.)
IN RE HARE.
e bankrupt in this case had carried on business as
Cp ra-draper, in New-street, Dorset-square, and came
1,`,31. his certificate.
tllttr• Cooke appeared on behalf of the assignees,to urge
kre tile case should be adjourned, under the following
141claistances :—lt appears that he was indebted to
rY creditors in the sum of 2,2081., but the whole of
to °Perty had been swept away under an assignment
~atla brother. The bankrupt left London in March
toib" a plea of extreme ill-health, and said he was
ll'ov6 to Paris, which, however, he did not, but left a
t'srp`r of attorney with a person named Snellgarde, to
Or t? °a the business, and the latter had applied some
An se assets, and the brother had sold off everything.
Ltentetion was brought to try the validity of the assign-
and is still pending.
LUCAS, for the bankrupt, submitted that he ought
f° be held responsible for the conduct of Snellgarde.
the he Leartned COMMISSIONER said the person holding
151$113.(1wer of attorney could only legally do what his
'pal could do.
144 r• LUCAS continued—That the bankrupt had been
ItoZeri precarious state, and his friends, thinking, he
tho.t die, insisted on his seeing them secured ; but at
1, tittle he thought himself solvent.
Learned CommtssioNEß said that, unless it could
tht bewn there was a very great degree of ignorance,
Clio ankrupt was the person in the wrong; he had given
tee 44,4signment, intending it to be acted on. He did not
t)ot,'"at a creditor who held the assignment acted wrong,
Pr thwould he say now that there was fraud en the part
ee.,.e bankrupt, ,but' there
were good grounds for ac-
,/,'Llag to Mr. Cooke's application.
EtfC"-ie certificate was then adjourned till the sittings
et next term.
AA

LACE COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. CORRIE.)
NOTING % GLEN V. ROGERS.
Lis or EXCHANGE.—This was an action
recover the sum of 411. 3s. 3d. on a bill of exchange
-41 V. O. U., and ss. for noting, and 3s. for interest.
441_ r. LOCKE, for the plaintiff, said it would only be
ti,
Th-esaar very todic put in the bill and note to entitle the plain-
' to t.
e L
hot be
maearned JUDGE said the charge for noting could
I,de.
LOCKE said that he should be able to prove that
111 defendant had promised to pay that amount in con-
t_eration that time was given, and therefore it could be
varbovered under the account stated.
it ~.4110 Learned JUDGE said it was a special contract, and
• ita.would be much better not to take it.
ter. LOCKE said he must press his right to it. It was
.1,1%ed in all the superior courts.
tio,"e Learned JUDGE said that this was new in prac-
c_ta him, and he did not see the justice of allowing it.
vahis'a an expense incurred for the plaintiff's own ad-
ge*
r• LOCKE said the bankers had noted it for greater
uritA Y:
to Witness was then called, and proved the promise
143'.
the he Learned JUDGE said he would leave the case to
Irtm Jury, but mu,t tell them that, in his opinion, there
wh_ a special Contract. The jury would, however, say
~Pier they considered he was entitled.
tte'ae full jury, after about five minutes, gave a verdict for
amount.

1111 REY SESSIONS.—(THIS DAY.)
I.tliza6etk Green, Mary flollands, Jane Biggs, Maria
44,44 Ellen Johnson, and Ellen Sullivan, were indicted
the having unlawfully committed a riot and breach of
Pdeace at St. John's workhouse, Southwark.
ilfiara Armitage, porter to the above workhouse,
x,o‘ed that on the eveniflg of the 19th of August, the
tinttl"'s 'Ward was in a complete state of rebellion. Ho
ered it at the time, and found the prisoners foremost
the eating the disturbance. On remonstrating with
lamthey defied his interference, and used such disgust-
seilaztrid threatening language that' he was compelled to
Tofor the police and give the prisoners into custody.
The
be:witness further added, that the prisoners were
rror to the inmates of the house, arid had frequently
kan Punished for their misbehaviour. They were in-
Piaee, of the hc,use, and had on many occasions been
too " in situations by the guardians, but owing to their
too
Misconduct had been discharged.
before prisoners behaved in a very indecorous manner
adducte Bench, and denied the whole of the evidence
ihcl against them.
Viet enerumAN asked whether they had been eon-
-1%4 On any previous occasion ?—Witness replied