The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-20 00:00:00

frbtrlY Ebition

THE FUNDS-(CLOSING PRICES.)

BRITISH FUNDS. ONE cLosixo
O'CLOCK. PRICES.
Bank Stock .. 2043 e 2033{ 2053¢
Three per cent. Reduced Annuities 944 95 94%
Three per Cent. Consols Annuities 95% n% 95%
New Three-and-a-Quarter per Cent. Anns. 964 96%
Long Annuities, Expire Jan. 5,1860 .. 103 3-16 1-16 10
Ditto, 30 years, Oct. 10, 1849 • • 10 10
India Bonds, 1,0001. _ _ 29 30 28 28
Bank Stock fir Account .. 206 208
Consols for Account 96 957 i 96
Exchequer Bills. I%el. 134 cl.
1,0001, 25 22 Pm. 24
500/. 25 22 Pm. 22
Ditto. Small •• • • Pm' 26
ONE CLOSING
FOREIGN FUNDS. O'CLOCK. PRICES.
Mexican Bonds, 1837, 5 per Cent .. 31;‘ 31;4
Poprtinttguo,es4oper Threepercents
C.e.nts.. 678 573
58
Spanish Bonds, 5 per Cent .. 25 2536
Ditto, for the Account • • .. 25;4% 25 !6
Ditto, Passive Bonds .. —5%
Ditto, Deferred .. .. 164
Ditto, Three per Cent .. 3674
Ditto, for the Account .. 36% 364
Dividends on the above payable in London.
Belgian Four-and-a-Half per Cent .. 98% 984
Dutch Two-and-a-Half per Cent .. 59%
Ditto, 4 per Cent. Certificates .. 923 92 %
PRICES OF BUSINESS CLOSING
PAID. DONE AT
RAILWAY SHARES. PAID.
ONE O'CLOCK.
Aberdeen .. .. 10 .... 3 23% 334 .... 334
Birmingham and Gloucester.. .. 100 ....124 125........ 125
Caledonian .. • . .. 10 574%.. ..
Ditto, Half Shares .. 2% . • l%
Ditto, Extension .. • • .. ... • • ..... 1
Chelmsford and Bury .. 1% ......
Direst Manchester (Rastrick's) bk 334 . .... .
Direct Northern .. • .. l %
Dublin and Galway .. 4 —• •
Eastern Counties 41. 165..... .... 22% %
.........Si.Ditto .New 165... .. 7!4p • • . •
Ditto, York Extension 133 • • 1%
Edinburgh and Glasgow
.. 50 .... 72
Great North of England . ..100 .... 213 213
Great Western .. 85 ....145
Ditto, Half Shares .. .. 50 .... 843 85% 86
Hull and Selby .. 80 . • ..101
Leicester, Tamworth, b;c. ...... 425..... 11A ills ll4 dig
London an . Birmingham .
Ditto Quarters .. .. 2 _.. 28 _ _ 28
London and -

Brighton .. .. 50 .... 631,{1
Ditto ditto Fifths .. .. 20 .... ••••• • • • • • 2'4%
London and Croydon .. 131. 15s. 9d. 21%% 21%
Ditto, Guarant. Five per Cent. 9 .... .......... 934
London and South-Western.. 411. 6s. 10d. 70;'s
LoDnidtotno,aNneawyort 21114% .. .... 21
1%
Londonderry and Enniskillen .. .......... 111
Lynn and Ely .. .. • • • • 10 •• • • 64 ••••• • • • • • 6
Lynn and Dereham r. .. 10 .... 6% s3n
Manchester and Leeds 82 .
Ditto, Sixteenths .. 614 91
Manchester and Birmingham .. 40 . ...... • •
Ditto, Quarter Shares (B) .. 2 104 • 1
Ditto, Quarter Shares (C) • • 1 •• • • 7'31 8
Manchester, Buxton, & Matlock 425. . . • • •
••
• • • • • •
Manchester and Southampton
.. 2 .... •
51idiand
.• • • .. ..100 •
• •• • • • • •
Ditto, New 18 .... 3014
• • • • •• • •
Ditto, Birmingham and Derby 108 .
Newcastle and. Darlington Janet. 15
Ditto, New . 1 .... 818 8
Newcastle and Berwick .. .. 10 .... 17% 18 z d
Newark, Sheffield, and Boston .. 2%.... •• • • ......
Norfolk Extension .. 2 ....
North British .. .. 20 .... 25% '26 ......
Ditto, Half Shares .. 6 .... ........
Ditto, Carlisle Extension .. 11.... 1 ..... .
Ditto, Dalkeitir 25 ...... •
Ditto, ditto .. .. 5 .... 6 ......
Northern and Eastern ..
.. 50 .... . 7O
Ditto, New . .. • . .. I 19 18% ...... 13%
North Staffordshire .. • . • • 425..... 2t p........ 2 p
Norwich and Brandon .. . • .. 18 .... 24 . 24
Norrampton,Banbury,&Chelthm. 2
.... ..... • • 1
Oxid.,Worcester,& Wolverlunptn. 12% .... 714 %..• ..
••
• 7, %,
Perth and Inverness ..
.... ..........
Portsmouth Direct
.... 2%
Preston and Wyre .. ••• . 25 34% .... ••• • •. 34 8
Richmond .. .. • . .. 10 .... 16 16
Rugby and Huntingdon
.. • . 2 .. • • 1% ••••• • • • • • 1%
Scottish Midland .. 10 .... • • • 8%
Shropshire Union .. 425..... 114 dis 114 dis.
South Midland .. 495. .... dis... •• • • % cgs.
South Eastem and Dover 33% —•• • • • ••• ' 36/
Ditto, New (iss. at 321.) No. 1. 16 ....
Do., New (d 0.33/. 65.8 d.) No. 2. 10 .... 11 ....... Il 14
Do., New (do. 301.) .. No. 3. 15 14%
Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth 5 .... 21.4% -••. • • • 2/%4
York turd Carlisle .. .. • • • • 2%
York awl North Midland .. • • 50 ••• • •• • ••• • • •
Ditto. Extension .. • • 15 •• • • 32118 ••• • • • 3214
Do. E. and W. Riding Eaten.• • 1 •• .. 9 ...... 8
FOREIGN RAILWAYS.
Dutch Rhenish .. . • .. 5 .... 6% • . 618
East Indian .. . 55. 11, .
Urt. North. of France Constituted 5 .......... 1 d
744
Louvain and Jemeppe 4 . 1%14
Namur and Liege .. .. 4 .... .......... 11,4
Over Yssel . • .. 4/. 3s. 4(1.... • dis
Rouen and Havre . .. 20 .... .. •••• • • • • 29
Sambre and Meuse .... 494 .
MINES.
Brazilian Imperial (issued at M. p.) 21 . .
Ditto Macaubas and Coe,aes.... 25 ..... 814
Santiago de Cuba .. .. 10 .... ••• • • ..... 15%
Real del Monte, Unregistered .. • ... 3% • •

29%
116

18xd
114
13
25
814

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock, when
tharo not being Forty Members present, the House was
adjourned.

ROLLS' COURT.---(THIS DAY.)

ARMSTRONG V. STORER.
Lord LANGDALE, in delivering judgment on the petitions
in this case, which was tried last March, said, it appeared
by an order, dated the 12th of January, 1841, made with
respect to the petition of James Grant, now deceased, the
receiver of the rents of the estate, as well as the plantations
in Jamaica. There had been a reference, to ascertain if
Grant had any lien on the 3,654/., the balance which was due
to the receiver, Mr. Williams, who had committed an excess
in the payment of his account. It was found by the Master
that Williams had a lien under a deed bearing date
August, 1845, which had been entered into by him
with Grant, Theodore Williams, and Baralgetti deceased,
and under whom the present Baralgetti, the representative
of his father. That lien had been assigned to Baralgette for
a suns of 1,7001., which was paid to the representatives of
Joseph Storer W illiams. The Master found th at,
under the agreement between Grant and Theodore Wil-
liams, Baralgette had the lien fir 3,6541. 25., the
principal, and for 1,8591.125. 2d. interest. The report was
not excepted to, and was confirmed. Mrs. Ann Catherine
Storer, the widow, had obtained leave to present a petition
against the report, which she accordingly did. The report
also prayed for a reference to review the same, upon two
grounds, namely, that the Master was net autho-
rised to do more than simply to report on the
alleged, claim of Grant, and also that nis decision
on the claim of Baraglette was made without authority, and
that Baraglette's having filed bills on behalf of the testator,
Anthony Gilifert Storer, could not be allowed to enter into
any compromise with Williams's executor: for his own
benefit, but for the common benefit of all the creditors. As
there had been no exceptions taken to the report, no
questions whatever raised upon it, and no excuse offered
for the matter not having been brought before
the Court in a proper manner, and that it was not even pre-
tended that there was any error in fact or law committed by
the M aster, these objections could have no weight whatever.
The petition set forth that the profit coming to Baralgette
was gratuitous, which assertion was tmounded. Baralgette
filed the second bill,which was a bill of review. If it had been
shown in a proper manner that Baraglette was bound to
protect the interests of the creditors, and that he failed in
his duty, there might then have been grounds for the appli-
cation. But the petition did not allege that Grant was not
entitled to what he had obtained. The petition must, there-
fore, be dismissed with costs.
The case was directed to be spoken to on Saturday.
NELSON V. DUNCOMBE.
His LORDSHIP gave judgment in this cause, and went
in extenso through the details. It appeared that
the plaintiff Nelson was the residuary legatee of Mrs.
E. Nelson, for whom Duncombe acted as personal
representative. Mrs. Nelson had appointed Mr. Nelson
as her sole agent, but subsequently, in a codicil
to her will, she joined Duncombe with him in the executor-
ship. Duncombe administered to the estate, and was pre-
pared to settle with Nelson, claiming, however, the ex-
penses at which he had been for sustaining the plea
of unsound mind, and in obtaining the commission
of lunacy. Mr. Nelson objected to this, and filed a bill.
after which Mr. Duncombe filed a cross bill. The alleged
lunacy was not sustained. His Lordship here went into all
the circumstances of the case, which have appeared before
the public, and decided upon granting the reference to the
Master to ascertain the state of mind of the plaintiff; and to
make a report with respect to the expenses incurred.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
TILE QUEEN V. PARKER.
Mr. Sergeant Smut moved for a rule to set aside the ver-
dict in this case. The case was tried before Lord Denman at
the sittings atter last term at Guildhall, and a verdict re-
turned for the Crown. Sergeant Shea now moved upon
atlidavits.
Lord DraistAN intimated that it had better be brought on
when the defendant was brought up for judgment.
In the case of

the
Ethe same course was d QUEER V. LEWIS,
directed by the Court.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT.
lIIS DAY.)N
(Before the RECORDER.)V.
TIIE CITAMBLATI O ma
F LO STURT AND °TITERS.
(To
ER
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (in -Continuation from our After-
noon Edition) said—Now what was the allegation which he
had submitted on behalf of the defendants l'
That the array was made by Charles Sewell anntdhitSl case?
in-
stead of the complete list of jurors liable to serve on this ca
sion only 43 had been returned ; and it was from that )eac
er-
and that paper alone which lay before the gentle-
man that occupied the seat underneath his Lordship,
that Sewell or his deputy had returned the jurors who
had been called into the box. He wished to ask, if the pap
which had been produced was not the array, which was ti,:
array? If that paper had not been produced before the
Court, there would have been no other instrument. The
second objection to the array was, that it was made by
a particular individual who was interested in the issue of
the trial. Now, if the paper before his Lordship was
not the array, there was, in fact, no array at all. It
was from that paper that the jurors had been called,
and in all ordinary cases that was termed the array.
He apprehended that the question whether the officer, the
sergeant of the mace, had made the array or not was per-
fectly immaterial. The officer received the list of 150 parties
liable to serve in ordinary cases, but as the number was so
great he reduced them to 60, which 60 constituted the
array, and in the selection of those 60 individuals he was at
perfect liberty to exercise his discretion. If he saw any
parties amongst the 150 parties liable to serve who
might be favourable to that party against whom he
entertained some dislike, he might refuse to select them.
And in the present case hi (the Solicitor-General) had aright
to assume that Sewell, or the party who had returned the
jurors in this case, had an interest in the result of the action,
prejudicial to that of'his clients. And he must not be told
that the list, in this case, was chosen by the names having
been thrown into a ballotting box ; it was enough for his
(Solicitor-General's) purposes, that Sewell was the party by
whom the list had been returned, and he contended that
the party returning the panel, ought to have been an
unindifferent person, which he submitted Mr. Sewell was not.
In delegatinc, to the Serjeant-at-Mace, the period of relection
showed that he was an unindifferent officer of the Corpora-
tion of London, because he was enabled to choose a small
out of a large number of jurors. That officer had held his

office sixty years, and had no doubt discharged his duties in
a proper manner, but that was not the question. The ques-
tion was not whether this officer conducted himself in a
proper manner, but whether he was indifferent or
an unindifferent officer of the Corporation. lie kuew
that he was the person entrusted with the list, that
he reduced it, and that he made the selection, and conse-
quently the array, sometimes fur one cause and sometimes
for another. At any rate it was this officer who made a Est
from the large list which contained this panel. Thus the
Sergeant-at-Mace had the power to omit the names of par-
ties who might entertain peculiar views and might give a
desired decision. It :was enough to say that he had the
power, whether exercised properly or not. He might
either reject or retain a considerable number. The
question then was, whether he was unindifferent or
not. He submitted that he was rot unindifferent,
and therefore that the panel must be set aside, inasmuch as
Charles Sewin, the Sergeant at Macc, was a freeman of the
City.
Sir THOMAS WILDS was astonished that his Learned
Friend should have devoted his talents argue in the way he
had done. It was perfectly evident that the piece of parch-
ment which his Learned Friend had christened a panel was
a legitimate instrument. It was returned by the proper
officer, and contained the names of forty-eight persons, forty-
four of whom were summoned. He had only to summon
those on the list, and had no authority to make it a panel.
The panel was made by the wardmote, and the officer had no
power over it. He therefore submitted that the objection
was not tenable.

The RECORDER then proceeded to give his decision on the
point. Ile said the issue was that Charles Sewin made the
array. Now, he was of opinion that the jury list was made
at the inquest during the wardmote from the list presented
by the inquest jury, and that the duty of the officer was in
that respect ministerial only, and that omission to furnish
the names of four persons who had moved out of the ward,
and whom he consequently was unable to summons, could not
vitiate the only array—namely, that presented by the in-
quest at the wardmote. He did not think he was anything
more than a summoning officer, limited to the array. That
was the object of the presentment of the inquest; and if
they were to enter into the history of the practice, they
would find that it was of the most popular description. It
was comprehended in every presentment to every ward-
mote that a return should be made by the inquests
of all those who were liable to serve on ju-
ries within each wardmote, and the entire City
constituted a large aggregate number of wardmotes. Of
this process they had a return of the inquest from all
persons throughout the City who were liable to serve as
jurors in the City. Then came the Act of cite Common
Council, which directed (the number being far greater than
was required for the City Courts), that they should take in
rotation a return of two wards for each month throughout
the year ; and as there were more wards in the City than
months in the year, it frequently occurred that
they had three wards in some particular month.
Every wardmote contained within it a court lest, at which
the proper officer presided to see it rightly done, but almost
everything was done by the public, empanelled as a jury.
It was a most ancient and popular institution, and what were
they charged with? With having resorted, according to
ancient custom and by the law of the city, to a most popular
made to arrive at the names of persons liable to serve
as jurors; thus, instead of being referred to the nomination
of one officer, they had the collective inquests of the City re-
turning from their respective wards those liable to serve as
jurors. The duty of Sewell's deputy was simply ministerial.
The only defect was this, that he had not signified in the
list which he returned the names of those whom
he was unable to find! He was therefore of opi-
r ion that the array was not made by the
Sergeant-at-Mace, but by those who elected the jury.
The objection, therefore, was not, in his opinion, tenable.
The Recorder must insist upon his right to be referred to
as fryer and not as Recorder; and he would put the matter in
any way which should not inculpate his successor, but he could
not sign the bill of exceptions in his character of Recorder.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then handed in a challenge of
the array, on the ground of unindifference in the Sheriff; Al-
dermen, and the other members of the Corporation, and cer-
tain of the instruments of making the array.
Sir T. WILDE objected to the challenge on the ground that
all the challenges could not be taken at once, on the ground
that the precedents of the books were divived on that point.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL must ask for his Learned
Friend's authority, for it really appeared to hint that the
terms of the decision were, that all challenges should be taken
at the same time ; that is, that the challenges must be made
not as one challenge, but that all should be taken before the
other party proceeded.
The RECORDER conceived that the challenges were to be
taken in succession like a number of counts, for if one suc-
ceeded that was sufficient to destroy the array.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the points of the chal-
lenges were under different issues.

The RECORDER conceived that although the whole of the
challenges had not been put in upon parchment yet, that
they were to be considered as so many different challenges.
But they must consider the confusion on the record.
Sir T. WILDE was of opinion that although the points of
challenge might be different, yet the whole of the reasons
ought to be stated on the same paper.
After a little interruption the SOLICITOR-GEXERAL re-
sumed, and stated that he had challenged the array on the
ground of several individuals acting from indifferency, and if
he succeeden on one that was sufficient, and it was certainly
new to him to find that because the parties were different,
the cause being the same that he was to be precluded from
his challenge, and he apprehended that some sufficient
authority ought to be given instead of the vague intimation,
and if his Lordship gave any erroneous intimation he should
be entitled to an amendment in the writ of error.
The RECORIDEE—Then I will take the matter in this way.
I will take the parchment as diverse challenges, but not on
double challenges.
Sir 'l'. WILDE said that his Learned Friend had stated
that if a second challenge would not be allowed he would bo
taken by surprise, but he very much doubted
whether he had not a long consultation with those
who he bad instrutced, •as to which of his two
challenges against the officer who made up the array
and the party themselves, he should submit first. Ills
Learned Friend had also stated, with his characteristic
courage, that he had not quoted any authority in support
of his opinion, that the defendant could not now put in
anothe. challenge. He had quoted the authority of
no less a personage than Lord Coke (than whom
a higher authority could not be quoted), who stated,
that " if an adversary wished to make any challenges,
he must nicks them all at once." And if that meant any-
thing, it meant that he was precluded from putting in chal-
lenges in succession, and he submitted that although those
challenges might be tried in succession, yet that
they must all be laid before the Court at one
and the same time. It was ridiculous for his
Learned Friend to say that he was surprised by the
objection which he (Sir T. Wilde) had made against .the
second challenge, because when he informed him at
the outset that he would not be permitted to make
a second challenge, his reply was, "Oh 1 we shall see
about that afterwards," which showed that he feared
he should be unsuccessful in his second attempt to interrupt
the progress of the trial, and that he could not therefore be
now surprised at the objection taken against the challenge.
It was plain that his Learned Friend wished to have as many
strings to his bow as he possibly could. The language of
Lord Coke was clear, and decidedly against the course pro-
posed to be taken by his learned friend, and Ole therefore
trusted that his Lordship would not sanction it.
The ReconoEn said that it was perfectly conclusive to
his mind that the passage quoted from Lord Coke was against
the Learned Solicitor-General. but he was disposed to admit
the challenge, although he had no right whatever to make it.
The challenge, and the return of the inquest, having been
handed in, the Recorder deliberated, and
Sir T. WILDE stated that a serious question arose as to the
interference with the law of the wardrnotes.
The RECORDER conceived that the question would hinge
on the way in which the juries were removed.
Sir T. WILDE thought that that question was already dis-
posed of, and the only question was, whether the further
consideration should conic on in the way of challenge or de-
murrer.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL conceived that the right of chal-
lenge had been substantiated, and after considerable delibera
tiou it was decided that the cause should be adjourned till
Monday next at ten o'clock, the right of challenge being
left to the Solicitor-General with a power on the behalf of
the plaintiffs to question the extent to which it was
exercised, the understanding being that the exception should
be several, but confined under one statement.

LAW TELLIGEN CE,
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 18.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron ALDERSON
and Common Juries.)
WOODROFFE V. NARNIZAM.
This was an action of trespass to recover compensation
in damages for false imprisonment. The defendant out
several pleas on the record. _

Mr. (Anis, with whom was Mr. Hoggins, conducted
the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Gray
appeared for the defendant.
Mr. JEnvls, in stating the case, said that this was an
action brought by the plaintiff, who carried on the busi-
ness of clothier and hatter, whilst the defendant, who
had been extensively engaged in the coal trade, was a
retired gentleman of fortune. It would appear that the
a smalldeb tor
amountt h
ofe daehteenudt ant
i/.
la2nsd.
tphlaaitnttihfferehaidvasbetehne
sr
ue ma i nin e
d himg
in
unpaidth twoe
County
Courtyears
n ii
ings g
a la
tter
Holborn, for debt and costs, together making
2/. ls. 71d. Upon the plaintiff appearing at that
Court, an arrangement was made by which the demand
was to be liquidated by instalments. These payments
were duly made until the total had been reduced to 18s.
3/d, which -ought strictly to have been paid off by the
10th May, 1844. That not baying been done, on the
28th of May an execution was issued from the Court for
11. Is. 71d., including the cost of the warrant, 35.:4d.
This warrant was obtained at about eleven o'clock on
the morning of the 29th of May, but it happened that
at twenty minutes before nine o'clock of that day the
plaintiff called and paid the 18s. 31d. to the sister of the
collector or agent of the defendant. Toe debt and all
the costs had thus been paid, but in consequence of the
warrant on the execution having been obtained, there
was the cost of that proceeding, 3s. 4d., still unsatisfied.
Accordingly the plaintiff was taken in execution on the
29th, the following day, for that sum. He was arrested
at Paddington, and was in custody about two hours,
when, by the advice of his solicitor, he paid the 3s. 4d. to
the officer under protest, whereupon he was released.
The jury, no doubt, had heard much about cheap law,
and the outcry which had been constantly raised for
the general establishment of county courts, as the
means by which that cheap law was to be obtained.
Let him beseech the jury, should they have any peti-
tion brought to them for their signature, to bear in
mind this case. And if there were an illustration of
the system which would more clearly bear out what
cheap law was, it would be found in Mr. Dickens's
" Pickwick," as practised in the office of Dobson and
Fogg. It was there related that a then poor, but honest
person, ground down to the lowest grade of poverty, had
been sued by that celebrated firm for a paltry sum.
After having parted with every article of necessary or
comfort of life, the poor debtor had gone to Dobson and
Fogg's office with just sufficient money to cover the ex-
isting demand, inclusive of costs, but upon arriving
there and tendering the amount, be was, after a few
head
eTfh
the
ehpe onoffiredeebtutoldr wast
minutes of delay and consideration, informed that de-
claration had been filed, and that there was a further
he
consequence. The
clerk to go and file the declaration, observing that the
imprisonment would do the debtor good, for he had been
arrested,charg e fo
and iicdosafterwardst costs
in
a wild and extravagant man in his
.early. days. Such
law, in which branch of
few if any men practised who were under
the profession
up
this rule of cheap
the least responsibility. Following
was one of the benefits of cheap
hands ofsister, took
the
money bad been paid into
law practice, the agent of the defendant, althongh the