The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-26 00:00:00

pab'€' of such conduct as that attributed to them. They had,
not the power to alter the time. Let them come quietly and
meet the Directors. lie would not advise them to postpone
the meeting. He would compromise his character by giving
bad advice, because a few gentlemen, who were labouring under
a mistake wished him to do so. The meeting well knew that
they could not have a majority in that meeting, as
but a small portion of the shareholders were present.
The Directors would have no packed meeting, they
would invite all to come, in order that the whole
particulars might be laid before them. They should
have ample financial and other statements.
A SHAREHOLDER--We shall be out of Court on the
31st of January, if we do not pay the call.
He did not mean to say that the Directors
would take an unfair advantage of the subscribers. Had
they the power, if he presented himself at the meeting, not
bringing a bankers' receipt for the said deposit, to refuse me
admission ?
Mr. BUSHE said the advice he would give to the Directors
would be this, that, scrip or no scrip, any man who had
signed the deed should be admitted.—(Hear, hear.)
The SHAREHOLDER said so far he was satisfied ; but the
Directors, it appeared, had the power to exclude those per-
sons who had not paid the second deposit. He, for prudence,
would go and pay up this call, but he should like to be put
in possession of this—he would do so without any improper
insinuation—was it incumbent on the shareholders to pay the
second call, according to the standing orders of the House of
Lords, prior to the Bill passing the Commons?
Mr. BUSHE said, with respect to the House of Lords, his
advice would be this—not to go into Parliament unless they
could carry the Bill through all its stages in both Houses.
After some remarks from Mr. Bushe, Mr. Finch, Mr. Mul-
lins, and Mr. Peacock, the resolution was then carried una-
nimously.
Resolutions empowering the meeting to take legal means
to stop the further expenditure, and censuring the conduct of
the solicitors, Messrs. Bushe and Mullins, were then passed,
and the meeting broke up.

had alluded to the meeting of the deputation with the
ehe
Directors, one of whom he knew personally, and
(Mr. Courtenay) only regretted that he allowed his judg-
ment to be influenced by the majority, for he elieved
that his own opinion was favourable to the sharelC dere.—
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Courtenay) had come to that mee.t-
ing to investigate their affairs, and he hoped to ;:ear thute
his opinion of the Company was altogether err roneous. He
repeated that he would be most happy
rove
Mrt.o Buhsihine
(solicitor to the Company) would pro
He told the
that he was altogether wrong.—(Hear.)
meeting
and thate
had he
held h ad
them pa thisth m
throughout
ugohr
held,money
the
yt for
p
thaen ce,hbareeceauhsee
hh ee
adoi Ltshoi n
mk
ut he
ha t
wt ho
dw
he
es
da res
thatpe c
ht aeb lhe oont irepraendy —t ( gee a
).f,
share, if he received a distinct the Directors to pay. up the additionalnet acpalleldogfe, a
that, in
ina
the
s hetvinednrtedopf onunotdsrewceoiuvlidngbe thre.etusrannecdtitoon
hoifm_Pa(rclihaemeersn.t),
He would rather trust,
s a body until at leindivi ast he had B got some exp the
Board itself a
one dual of the oard than
s inshad in-
tended no-
nteantid nation
to
of
tell their
th e
In affairs:what (Continuedhad
ourre
d cheers.urn)g
He e
sleep, but some gentlemen did not seem to carhie for the aic-
count. He was in the hands of the room, however, but he
had only intended to tell Mr. nshe, if h had time to listen,
what answer he had expectedß to haves received from the
Board of Directors.
Mr. our mesmeric
wait, if business is to be done but I
think your mesmeric sleep has nothing to do with it.
Mr. COURTENAN—WeII, he would pass that by. He
would abandon mesmerism, and confine himself to the
merits of the case.—(Loud cheering.) Gentlemen would
observe in the prospectus issued by the promoters of
that undertaking—in the nineteenth paragraph—there was
the following announcement :—" Subscribers will be held
liable only to the extent of the first deposit until the Act of
Parliament shall have been obtained, and afterwards only to
the amount of their subscriptions." Now, that was the
paragraph, and a most important one it was to the share-
laolders. But he would, in addition, call their attention to the let-
ter of application for shares. " To the Provisional Committee,
&c.—Gentlemen, I request you will allot me—so many shares—
and I hereby undertake to accept these shares, or so many
of them as you may allot to me on the terms of your pro-
spectus, to pay the deposit thereon, and to execute the Par-
lihmentary agreement when required." Was that not per-
fectly clear—in fact, could there be any mistake about it.
He knew that it was said that the additional deposit was
required to meet the standing orders of the House of Lords,
But he would ask Mr. Bushe if that prospectus was issued
Lbeofrodsre ; thanisdriefguitlawtaiosn,
haveaswodueltderaamkineadgaoinn
wbbyy tthhee
DHioruensteoorsf
did not withdraw that prospectus, and say to the public that
in consequence of this alteration they would be obliged to
alter the principle on which shares were to be allotted. That
would have been the straightforward and honest course. But
Mr. Bushe said they did not do that.
Mr. BusHE--You did not ask me a single question en the
subject; certainly I did not answer one. Some other gentle-
man did so, but not you.
Mr. COURTENAT was sorry to find Mr. Bushe's memory so
defective. He did ask Mr. Bushe, if, when the letters
of allotment were issued, the Directors had put in a
notification of the alteration they intended to make,
and the terms on which shares were to be granted, and he
understood that gentleman to reply, No. He (Mr. Cour-
tenay) had not the honour of being an original shareholder,
but others could tell him if such a notification had been
made.—(Cries of " No, certainly not.") But Mr. Bushe
stated that he had teld thousands of shareholders of the in-
tended alteration. .
Mr. BuSHE—I stated that I had informed gentlemen who
held shares to the amount of some thousands.
Mr. CounTENAY maintained that the Provisional Directors
and the Solicitor to the Company were bound in honour to
give notice of the alteration, and the terms on which they
meant to allot the shares. They were bound to state the
extent of the alteration, and leave it to the applicants to
take up their shares or not, as they might think proper. Had
they adopted this line of conduct, there would have been
no necessity for that meeting.—(Cheers.) They did not,
however, do so, but they made this other call, in order, as
they stated, to comply with the standing orders of the House
of Lords. He might be wrong in the impression he enter-
tained, but lie imagined that until they received the sanction
of the Commons, there was no necessity for raising this
money —( Hear, hear)—that was, if the deposits were
fully paid. If they had received the affirmation of
the House of Commons, he was sure that no
shareholder in that room would hesitate to pay up the beg-
garly additional pound that was required of him. He
maintained that the respectable position of the Company
could only be maintained by the solicitor giving a full and
explicit explanation of the affairs of the Company—(Cheers)
—and he called upon him, therefore, to state the number
of shares originally allotted, with the number allotted
to the promoters of the line.—(Hear, hear.) There were
88 names on the Provisional Committee and 71 of these
were locally interested, who, if the line paid only 2 per cent.,
would perhaps advantage by the transit of natural or arti-
ficial produce for their own lands to a much greater extent.
The speaker then, at great length, contended that by their
present proceedings the committee were ruining the scheme.
That in the market, and he had authority for say-
ing so, the shares would not bring 2s. 6d., and
ls. 3d. of that would be absorbed by the broker's charges.
If these questions were answered in a satisfactory manner,
if their affairs could bear investigation, no man of sense could
doubt that instead of their line being at 7-Bths discount, it
would be at least at par if not at a premium, and such meet-
ings asked lately taken place at Glasgow and Edinburgh
would bTavoided. The Directors could not deny that the
table was groaning with letters of inquiry from the share-
holders.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BUSHE—Their table is inundated with scrip.
Mr. CourerEsrax—You may hold the scrip, for you will not
get the money.—(Hear, hea.r) When they waited on the
Directors there was a great looking for scrip in cupboards,
but no sections, no traffic tables were produced.
A SHAREHOLDER said, amidst the utmost confusion, that
he considered the speaker was occupying too much time in
his address.—(Cries of " No, no ;" " Yes, yes ;" and " Go
on.")
Mr. COURTENAY said he was entitled to be heard to the
end.—(Hear, hear.) The studied mystification of the Di-
rectors, their steady refusal to give the information sought, and
their experience of railway projects, justified the shareholders
in the course they were pursuing. Let them also look to the
number of banks daily failing, a list of which appeared in the
Times of that morning. With these feelings he was perfectly
justified in proposing the following resolution :
" That, under the circumstances now detailed, this meet-
is of opinion that it is not expedient to pay the second de-
posit, and that such payment be resisted."—(Cheers.)
Mr. &SHE asked if he would be allowed to address the
meeting before the resolution was passed or after ?—(Cries of
" After," "Before.")
Mr. COURTENAY said when he and others saw the Direc-
tors whose names they could not obtain' they refused to
guarantee that those shareholders who did not pay the
second deposit would be entitled to be present at the meeting
on the 31st.
Mr. Busuir., in reply to a question, said he attended in his
official capacity, by the express desire of the Board, and out
of respect to the meeting.—(Hear, hear.)
Capt. BACK having seconded the motion,
Mr. BUsHE proceeded to address the meeting. He said,
whether the gentleman who had addressed the meeting
was an original shareholder or not, he should meet with every
attention from him as the solicitor of the Company. lie did
not now intend to follow him into detail, but would deal with
the more prominent features of this address. He (Mr. Bushe)
his father and grandfather, had been long connected with
the City, which was a sufficient guarantee of his
respectability. lie certainly felt proud to be asso-
ciated with the gentlemen who composed the Board,
If they wished to know who they were, let them ask in the
City, or at the Bank of England.—(Hisses.) They had acted
like men of honour and of business, and with every desire to
promote the interests of the Company; and if they had not
obtained the respect of the shareholders, they ought to have
done so.—(Yes, they had.) He was entitled to be heard
as patiently as the gentleman who had proposed the
resolution, who had in the course of his address used more
flowers than facts.—(Cries of " No, no"—" Go to the point"
—" What have you done with our money?" and uproar.)
If they would hear him, he would compress all he had to
say into one paragraph. He then referred to all the letters
which he had addressed to Messrs. Bates and Co., soli-
citors for the shareholders, stating that he Directors
would give their application the fulllest consideration
at their next meeting. The Directors had not called upon
any but their original shareholders, to pay the increased de-
posits.—(Great uproar, and cries of " Shuffling," " This
time all the scripholders trust pay the additional call.") He
had several times endeavoured to address them, but each
time he had been interrupted, He wished to state facts, but
if he was interrupted again he would leave the meeting, for
' he was of opinion that in business matters there should be
no noise or uproar. With respect to the observations of
Mr. Courtenay, he did not think that a respectable
member of the profession ought to reply to them.—(Hisses,
and cries of "What do you come here for ?") The Directors,
who were respectable men, had committed themselves in an
advertisement stating that two-thirds of their deposits were
untouched, and deposited in a safe place. Then all the prelimi-
nary expenses up to 31st Dec. had been paid. The prospectus
was printed and issued before the order of the House of Lords
was sent forth. It, of course, placed them in an awkard posi-
tion, but if they had withdrawn their prospectus and pub-
lished another, they would have had to pay 10/. per cent.
deposit to the House of Commons. The great question was
how they were to go into that House. If they had not pro-
vided the Si. per cent. they would not have had any locus
standi. He advised this as the proper course ;and his partner
and the clerks of the firm would state that parties holding
thousands of shares had been informed of the course they
proposed to take with respect to the deposits. All the clerks
and others he had sent into the country were instructed to
say that it was possible an additional deposit of 51. per cent.
might be necessary. They looked to the original subscribers,
and not to the purchasers of shares, for the increased deposit ;
and the proper time for a public meeting to consider what steps
the Company shohld take should not be determined until
the opinion, of the original shareholders, who were responSi-
ble, could he 'obtained.
[Several gentlemen here-said that when Mr. Bushe's clerks
nailed upon them, they said nothing about• the probability of
an additional 51. per cent. being required. Great noise en-
sued at this, during which Mr. Bushe put on his hat
and seemed out to leave, but some one cried " Mr. Bushe is
going," and amidst great hissing he retired to his place.]
A SITARELIOLDER wished to know what amount of the de-
posits had been put away?
Mr. BUSHE. --Two-thirds.
A SnarzeirslDEß.—Too much.
Mr. Kiersan—Have they sufficient money to go to Parlia-
ment ?—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Busne—l will advise the Directors to prepare the
statements required, and to submit them to the shareholders
at a future day. That is my advice—it is sound, and I will
abide by it.—(Hisses.)
A SHAREHOLDER said he had bought several shares at
10s. or 12s. premium, believing that it was a good Company,
and he did not think he or others were wrong in this opinion.
Thee' acrimony shcrern towards Mr. Bushe would not
have been uttered if he had fulfilled the
statement with which lie set out—that he was there on
behalf of the Directors, and that he would reply to all
statements
made. If a guarantee would be given
to him that the money wa
Parliament,tohe should not object
required retr to g
to pay
pay
it.o into
wished now
from Mr. Bushe in what position he, a
purchaser of scrip, would be as a
dshareholder,tio after the 30th
of
Mr. January,- üßa rtrys,t htu aeaiddidthnaott
his
the additional
would be
uuldd
be this:—his
shares would not be forfeited, but would
forfeiture. As he stated to the deputation which waited
him, with Mr. Courtenay at their head, who seemedtod"lre
forgotten what he told him, that the Directors would jot
play "snap" with the shareholders, and forfeit this at twelve
o'clock at night on the 30th ofJettneey.
The same gentleman then inquired in what position would
a seripbolder be at the meeting, if he did not pay the addle
tional deposits ?
Mr. BUSHE said he would be in the same position as the
original holder, according torfetihtnereteirfmhseofdidthenodteeplay. Still
fo
the shares were liable toof
had stated this to the shareholdei s scores
times_
A SHAREHOLDER said they were bound to call the meet-
ing for an earlier day than the 31st, or to postpone the pay,
went of the deposits to the 4th of February,—(Hear.)
Bveuz said represented geutlemou whQ were Lica-

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Jan. 24.
NORTH WALES RAILWAY COMPANY 7%. ARCHER.
This was a motion to dissolve the injunction, prohi-
biting the defendant from prosecuting the works at a
port called Porthtlynilaen Harbour in North Wales,
under an agreement entered into in May, 1845. The
ground upon which the motion was made was the imputed
suppresbion of material evidence at the time of applying
for the injunction. The facts of the case appeared to be
these :—" In the year 1805 a person of the name of
Parry, since deceased; had obtained from the Legisla-
ture an Act empowering him to construct a harbour at
Porthdynllaen. In the year 1844 Mr. Archer and some
other persons projected a railway company, to be called
the North Wales Railway Company, whicb was to commu-
nicate with the harbour. In 1845 Mr. Archer entered
into an agreement with Mr. D. Williams, of the firm of
Williams and Breeze, solicitors of the executors of the
late Mr. Parry. The letter, dated May, 1844, in which
this agreement was contained, stipulated for the sale of
the rights conveyed by the Act of Parliament of 1806
to Mr. Archer for a sum of 6,0001., the agreement to be
void unless the terminus and the port should be com-
pleted within three years. The North Wales Railway
Company obtained their Act in June, 1845. In con-
sequence of some disagreement Mr. Archer entered into
negotiations with another company, upon which the
company obtained the injunction, upon the ground that
Mr. Archer had only acted as trustee.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, lan. 24.
(Sittings in Banco.)
COOKE V. WETHERELL, CLERK.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation for the damages sustained by him in con-
sequence of the criminal conversation between the de-
fendant and the plaintiff's wife. The action was tried
on the 15th of August, 1845, at Croydon, before the
Lord Chief Justice of this Court.
The circumstances of this horrible case are, no doubt,
fresh in the recollection of our readers.
Sir Thomas Wilde having, during the last term, ob-
tained a rule to show cause why that verdict should not
be set aside, and a new trial had on the ground of sur-
prise, that rule came on for argument this day.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE proceeded to read the evi-
dence given before him upon the trial at Croydon, after
which,
Mr. Sergeant SHEA, as counsel for the plaintiff, rose
to show cause against the rule, and contended that the
defendant was not in any manner taken by surprise, for
he perfectly well knew the charges to be brought against
him, and the times and places where the crime had been
committed, The defendant had ten days for procuring
evidence to rebut these charges, and might have brought
up witnesses from Byfield, Chepstow, and the other
places. He had not done so, and the general statements
by the witnesses had not been impugned. He had
actually been in communication with the landlady at
the Beaufort Arms, where it was said he had slept with
the plaintiff's wife, and yet no evidence was brought to
rebut these facts. No witnesses from Chepstow had
been subpoenaed, although the defendant well knew he
would be charged with adultery at that place. No
stigma was cast upon the character of Williams, and yet
if her evidence were true, the defendant's guilt could not
be denied. No new trial could be granted, according to
the rule of this Court, on the ground of surprise, unless
it were shown most distinctly to have been so. At
Byfield the affidavits were all made by the defendant's
servants. Why had they not been called at the trial?
Some of them had actually been at Croydon during the
trial. At any rate none of their statements contradicted
the positive evidence on the trial.
The further hearing of this case was then postponed
till Tuesday.

EXPENDITURE OF WAR.
In the last three war-years, 1813, 1814, 1815, the
sums expended for the service of the army, navy, and
ordnance of Great Britain amounted to 197,647,3151.
This expenditure was so much national capital de-
stroyed. A few contractors might indeed have been
enriched by enormous profits at a period of great jobbing
and corruption ; but there is nothing now left to show for
this outlay. The money was spent in victualling troops,
in paying extravagant prices for provisions in foreign
countries ; in waste of the materiel of war ; and above
all, in the waste of human life. We are not touching
the question—whether the cause of this expenditure was,
or was not, an unavoidable necessity. We only de-
sire to show that it was in the very nature of the ne-
cessity that this destruction of the nation's capital
should have taken place.
Now, a sum nearly amounting to two hundred millions
sounds to every one as representing a very large amount
of property. But still the figures convey only a vague
idea, unless we can fix in our minds some notion of what
two hundred millions will purchase, of things essen-
tially different from artillery, and powder, and " food
for powder."
The war expenditure of the first of these years, 1813,
was 71,316,4351.
There are forty-seven railways completed in Great
Britain up to the present time, and these have cost
70,680,8771. These, then, offer a very fair contrast with
the war expenditure of one year, the year 1813. Against
the nil of capital in hand of that war expenditure we
have to set the actual property created by the railway
expenditure. The lines laid down exceed two thousand
miles. Those lines are covered with stations, work-
shops, dwelling-houses for officers, bridges, viaducts.
They furnish profitable employment for thousands of
men; they return a reasonable, and in some cases a very
high interest for the capital employed. They have
brought the village and the town into close communica-
tion. They have imparted a new value to all commodi-
ties, by lessening the cost, and increasing the rapidity of
transit. They have equalised prices throughout the land.
They have rendered the interchange of labour more easy.
They have made the country richer and its people more
intelligent.
In the last two war-years of 1814, 1815, the amount
expended upon the army, navy, and ordnance services
was 126,330,8801. As was the case with the war ex-
penditure of 1813, nothing of national property is left
to represent this outlay, if we except a few sheer-hulks
at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Sheerness, and some old
cannon in the arsenal of Woolwioh.
According to the last population returns, there were,
built in England and Wales, in the ten years from 1831
to 1841, half a million of new houses. Many of these
were first and second class houses, a larger number third
class, and a still larger number cottages. But we cannot
estimate the average price of a house at less than 250/.
This would give a total sum expended for the additional
and improved house accommodation of the people, of
one hundred and twenty-five millions. The houses are
left to us. Look at the increase of comfort, the provision
for an increasing population, the profitable labour em-
ployed in making the provision, and the permanent in-
come which the house-builders receive, and doubt not
that the hundred and twenty-five millions were well laid
out. Look at the parallel war expenditure of 1814,
1815, and see if it has left any traces but debt.
Thus, then, for the cost of the army, navy, and ord-
nance in the last three years of war, we could have com-
pleted two thousand miles of railroads and built half a
million of houses.
The war expenditure, as is well known, was supported
partly by annual taxation, partly by loans, for which we
are still taxed. The loans represented the accumu-
lated capital not engaged in commercial and manufac-
turing industry, which was seeking investment in Go-
vernment stock. The money lent to the Government
in the last two war-years of 1814, 1815, beyond the
amount of debt redeemed, was .54,805,4101. We have
heard a great deal of the ruin that is to
ensue from the vast amount of new railway en-
terprise. Without reference to the mere projects of
1845, which would appear upon the face of them to
be carried far beyond the point of a safe investment
of capital, it appears that the new railways in course of
construction in Great Britain, and for which Acts of
Parliament have been obtained, are estimated to cost
51,359,3251. These railways are in number 118,
and they are to extend over 3,543 miles. Thus, then,
the capital seeking investments in new railways which
have receive the legislative sanction, is not equal to the
capital lent to government to spend in the two years of
peril and difficulty, 1814 and 1815. Let it not be for-
gotten that the people will have all the advantages of
the railways without any tex—the shareholders alone
will bear the risk. The war loans of 1814-15 cost the
people to this day more than two millions in actual tax-
ation ; and what is there to show for this continued
burthen ? The railroads of 1845 will enrich the na-
tion and cost the people nothing.— Penny Magazine.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Jan. 24.
An insolvent named Manning, who had been a general
shopeeker in York-street, Westminster, was opposed by
Mr. Curtis, a cheesemonger, and supported by Mr.
Lucas.
The complaint was, that the insolvent had defrauded
the creditors who opposed out of some goods when he
was about to dispose of his business. The evidence
established the fact that on the 15th of December last,
he sold the business (basing a short time before been
paid a deposit) for 119/., and on the 19th December
(only four days after) he petitioned this Court. To
account for the disposition of the money, he stated that
he paid his landlord 601., paid 251. into court for his
creditors, paid his attorney 141., and had " frittered
away," it was termed, the remainder. Just four days
before he sold the business he obtained goods from Mr.
Curtis to between 41. and Si., promising to be more
punctual in future. The creditor had not heard of the
intended sale of the business.
Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN said he considered a
gross fraud had been committed on the creditor. The
principle involved was to be considered, and not the
amount. It was a gross fraud to get goods from trades-
men when he knew that in three or four days he should
sell the business. The Learned Commissioner asked the
amount of dividend that the money in court (251.) would
pay.
Mr. Lucas said it would pay 2s. 61 in the pound. He
could not justify the getting the last supply of goods,
but if the case were adjourned the amount should be
paid.
The creditor asked the Court to dismiss the petition.
Mr. GOULBURN said he should not dismiss the peti-
tion, but would make an order to punish the insolvent
for the gross fraud he had committed, which would at the
same time benefit the creditors. By dismissing the peti-
tion the money in court would revert to the insolvent ;
but by adjourning the case sine die, the money would
be divided among the creditors, paying them 2s. 6d. is
the pound, and leave the insolvent without a protection.
The Court adjourned the case sine die, and ordered a
memorandum to be made on the proceedings, to the
effect that the adjournment had been made on the ground
that a debt had been fraudulently contracted.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CITY POLICE. COMMITTEE.

Yesterday Mr. William Bradley, of No. 9, Parsonage-
row, Newington-butts, was summoned before Aldermen
Hooper and Musgrove, at the instance of George
Fletcher, the City toll-collector at Moorgate, for unlaw-
fully using a chaise cart, on the 15th instant, without
the owner's Christian and surname painted thereon.
The defendant did not deny the truth of the complaint,
but the vehicle being only used by him as a chaise, for
which he paid the regular duty, he did not think that he
was bound to have his name painted on the back of it.
Mr. Alderman Musgrove told him that he was very
much mistaken. All chaise-carts, like the defendant's,
travelling within five miles of London, in accordance
with the Metropolitan Stage and Carriage Act were
bound to have the owner's name upon them, although
the usual duty of chaises might be paid for them. The
defendant evidently had no wilful intention of infringing
the Act ; his neglect was apparently the result of igno-
rance, and he should dismiss the summons on payment
of costs ; but he trusted that the press would take notice
of the case, as it might prove of the greatest importance
in cautioning the country people travelling near London,
in having their chaise-carts in accordance with the Act,
when within the five-mile circle of the metropolis.
BO W-STREET.

A man of respectable appearance, named Edward
Bryant Garey, aged fifty-one, a solicitor, residing in
Southampton-buildings, was charged on a warrant be-
fore Mr. Twyford, with forging and uttering a certificate,
purporting to be an office copy of a certificate of the
Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, and also
a cashier's receipt of the Bank of England.
Mr. Clerk, the barrister, attended for the prosecution,
and stated the facts of the case.

It appeared that Mr. Bellamy, of Montpellier-row,
Brighton, and Mr. Foster, of Stone-buildings, Lincoln's
Inn, had been co-trustees of the Rev. Edward Franks, a
lunatic, deceased, and the prisoner was employed by
them as solicitor. Mr. Bellamy was required to pay
into the hands of the Accountant-General of the Court
of Chancery a sum of 2,5961. 175., and the defendant in
June last inclosed to him checks for this amount, which
he (Mr. Bellamy) signed, and forwarded to Mr. Foster,
his co-trustee, for his signature. The check was drawn
on Messrs. Coutts and Co., and was crossed by Mr.
Bellamy to the account of the Accountant-General ;
that crossing was afterwards struck out, and Mr. Goth-
ing's name inserted instead. Mr. Bellamy hearing after-
wards that the money had not been paid, wrote to the
defendant to ascertain the cause, when Garey inclosed
to him papers purporting to be a certificate from the
Accountant-General, and the cashier's receipt for the
amount, dated June 24, 1844. It was afterwards proved
by the clerk in the Accountant• General's office, that
there hail been no original certificate and receipt in that
bn-me, but that the papers produced were believed to be
forgeries.

The prisoner, who made no defence, was remanded till
Wednesday.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

On Saturday Stephen Melstead, a journeyman wheel-
right, was charged by his employer, Mr. H. Snell, wheel-
right, No. 1, Dean-street Soho. with having neglected to
perform a job of work within the stipulated time.
Mr. Snell proved that he gave the defendant an order
to make a pair of wheels, and contracted that the order
should be finished within a particular time. The de-
fendant obtained money on account ; but complainant
had never got the wheels, nor had he been able to trace
out the prisoner, except by using great perseverance.
Mr. HARDWICK sent the defendant to prison for 2
days.

CLERKEN WELL.
Miss Susan Allen, a young lady, residing with her
mother in Pearl Crescent, Bagnigge Wells-road, was
summoned by John Gunn, the driver of the cabriolet
No, 123, on a charge of refusing to pay his fare.
The complainant said that the defendant engaged
him, and he conveyed her in his vehicle to several pa.:l/n_
brokers about the metropolis, and she kept him so em
ployed for several hours, until his fare amounted to 4s.
On her alighting at his own residence, he was requested
to call again on the following day, which he did, but all
the money he had obtained was is.
Miss Allen, in answer to the charge, said that it was
a gross attempt to extort money, adding that she had
paid the complainant considerably more than his
,just
fare. She engaged him, she said, to take her to some
pawnbrokers in Oxftrd-street, in the first instance, in
consequence of having lost upwards of 601. worth of
Property ; but having gained no tidings of it, she desired
to be driven to a relative's near Covent-garden, where
he was kept about twenty minutes, and from thence he
conveyed her home. It being very cold, she asked him
in doors and gavo him some spirits, and, at his request,
she allowed him to go into the kitchen to warm himself,
and while there she gave him 49., which, however, he
said, was insufficient, and demanded double that amount.
Having refused to accede to such an imposition, the de-
fendant deliberately seized a decanter that was on the
table, and dashed it into the fireplace ; after which he
walked away. For several days afterwards the com-
plainant came to her mother's residence, demanding
money in the most threatening and abusive manner, and
to get rid of him, on one occasion, a, shilling was
4iven him,

TRESUN, LONDON,,MONDA.V EVENING-, JANUARY 28, 1848.

Mr. GRZENWOOD, after hearing attentively the ex-
traordinary explanation, asked the defendant what

•
he had to say to it ?—He replied that the lady's state-
ment was altogether untrue, and persisted that his version
of the affair was the correct oue. He moreover observed

that a person who was present when he demanded his
fare, wished Miss Allen to take a gold chain from her
neck, foci raise money on it to enable her to pay him.
Mr. GREENWOOD (surprised) : Is that true ?—Miss
Allen answered that it was utterly false, and said that

she had a witness to the whole transaction.
The witness, a lady, was then called, and examined by
Mr. Greenwood. She said she accompanied Miss Allen
in the cab, and saw him paid 4s. She also witnessed his
gross conduct in Miss Allen's kitchen.
At the conclusion of this evidence Mr. Greenwood in-
dignantly told the cabman that he had been guilty of
gross perjury in an endeavour to rob Miss Allen, and

discharged the case,
Mr. Page, the solicitor, who attended to watch the in-
7!tigation, remarked that he should most assuredly

indict the cabman at the sessions.
WESTMINSTER.
Mary Anne Anson, and Charles Tudor, two middle-

aged persons, of very respectable appearance, were
placed at the bar, before Mr. Burrell, charged, the
former with stealing, and the latter with feloniously re-

ceiving, a sovereign and a half.

The case was one of a peculiarly distressing character,
and should serve as a caution to persons to be exceed-
ingly careful with respect to matters of identity. It
appeared from the statement of John Bates, the pro-
secutor, a carpenter, living in Blenheim-street, Chelsea,
that he was passing through the King's-road, Chelsea,
at about seven on the previous evening, when he was
accosted by the female prisoner, who " decoyed" him
away into a dark place in Lower Sloane-street, pretend-
ing that that was her residence. She stopped at the
door of the house, and put her hand into his pocket and
took out 1/. 103. As soon as she had done so she ran
away, and at the same moment the male prisoner came
up, and inquired of him the way to Cheyne-walk. Ile
had no sooner turned away than another man made his
appearance, and inquired the best road to Jew's-row,
and at that moment he missed his money. Prosecutor
went in search of the accused, and, shortly afterwards,
found the male prisoner walking backwards and for-
wards near the place where he first met with the woman.
He watched the male prisoner for two or three minutes,
when he was joined by the female, and they walked
away arm-in-arm. He followed, and gave them into
custody, when they pretended to be very ignorant about

-
the robbery.
A policeman who took the accused into custody said
that the female only was given in charge by the prose-
cutor in the first instance, and the male prisoner followed
down to the station, where he was accused of having fe-
loniously received the money alleged to have been stolen.
The prisoners were searched, but nothing found upon
them ; a little boy, however, who was in company with
them, had eleven shillings in his pocket.
The constable, in answer to an inquiry, said that pro-
secutor, before he met with the prisoners and charged
them, in describing the female, said she was very pretty
and fair ; and on complainant being asked by the magis-
trate, his description of the man, he said he was dark.
Both these were very unlike the appearance of the ac-
cused, as the female, who appeared to be nearly fitty
years of age, was dark, and the man, instead of being of
that complexion, had carotty whiskers.
In answer to a further inquiry, the policeman said that
the prosecutor appeared to have been drinking freely,
but was not drunk.
The accused, who appeared much distressed at their
situation, gavo a perfect and most satisfactory answer
to the case. The person who described herself as a
widow with three children, with a trifling annuity, said
she went to a shop, in company with her son, in the
King's road, and having transacted the business that
took her there, joined Mr. Tudor (the male prisoner),
who had been waiting outside for her, and was proceed-
ing towards home, when the prosecutor came up and ac-
costed them. She did not hear what he said, but Mr.
Tudor having spoken to him, prosecutor said he was
mistaken, and begged their pardon. Shortly afterwards
he gave them into custody.
The male prisoner, who is an intimate friend of Mrs
Anson's, confirmed this statement. And a fine intelli.
gent boy, fourteen years of age, was put into the wit-
ness-box, and deposed to the truth of the account ; the
fact being, that his mother, with whom he had left home,
and been in company with that evening, had never seen
the prosecutor until arrested by him as described, when
he apologised.
Mr. BURRELL said that there was not the slightest
doubt that the prisoner was mistaken in his identity.
The prisoners were discharged, and left the Court with-
out the slightest imputation upon their character.
The accused complained of the unjust imprisonment
and disgrace they had suffered.
WOOL TVICH.

A pretty-looking modest young girl, dressed as a ser-
vant, applied to the Magistrate for advice under these
circumstances :—She stated that she had taken a situa-
tion at Lady Penwick's, of Bellevue House, Woolwich-
common ; but she soon discovered that it was impossible
for any servant to live with her, as she was in the habit
of accusing them all of robbing and plundering her.
Applicant left the house, and upon applying for another
situation she referred to Lady Penwick, who wrote back
a most injurious letter, calculated to prevent any one
from taking her. She wished to know how she was to
act, for by this means she might be kept out of a situa-
tion for ever.
The Chief-Clerk said the lady was so well known for
similar conduct, that he wondered at any servant going
near the house, or any lady applying to her for a cha-
racter. He had no doubt if the applicant stated this
fact to the lady who had refused to take her, she would
alter her determination.