The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-29 00:00:00

MARYLEB DNB VESTRY.

STREET ADVERTISING VANS.—COMMUNICATION FROM
SIR JAMES GRAHAM.—On Saturday, at the ordinary
weekly meeting of the Marylebone Vestry, Mr. H. C.
Wilson in the chair,
Mr. FLOOD, the Vestry Clerk, stated, that in ac-
cordance with the resolution of the vestry, the com-
mittee appointed to draw up a statement to Sir James
Graham, with respect to perambulating advertising
vans, had met, and forwarded such statement to the
Home Secretary ; and he had also to announce
that he had to received from Earl Manvers, as
chairman of the committee to whom it was ad-
dressed, the: following communication from Sir James
Graham on the subject :
"My Lord,—l have the honour to acknowledge the
recipt of the statement signed by your Lordship, on be-
half of a committee of the vestry of the parish of St.
Marylebone, relative to the nuisance arising from ad-
vertising vans which are driven through the streets, and
I beg to inform your Lordship that I have the subject
under my consideration, with a view to provide a
remedy.—l have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lord-
ship's obedient servant,

" J. R. G. GRAHAM.

" The Earl Manvers, Portman-square."
Sir PETER LAURIE moved that the reply of the Secre-
tary of State be entered on the minutes. He thought,
since the van nuisance had been brought before the
public, it had increased rather than diminished. It was
only the previous day (Friday) that he encountered no
less a number than eighteen of these monster machines
between Westminster bridge and his residence in the
Regent's Park. He had no doubt but the Home Secre-
tary was quite alive to the nuisance, and that in a short
time the public would have to congratulate themselves
upon its abolition. As a proof of the danger from these
machines, he had received a letter from Mr. Whitehair,
the governor of Giltspur-street Compter, in which he
stated that some time ago he was riding through Cheap-
side, on a horse well accustomed to the streets of the
City, when he met one of the advertising vans ; his
horse became alarmed at it, plunged on the foot pave-
ment, and fell. The horse was blemished, and he was
himself much bruised, and the bone of his arm was in-
jured. Ile had been desirous of punishing the pro-
prietor of the nuisance, but he was informed that he had
no remedy. This case was sufficient to prove the neces-
sity of some protection being afforded to the public.
The resolution was seconded, and carried unani-
mously.
DEPUTATION TO SIR ROBERT PEEL.
Just as the vestry was about to separate, Mr. HUME,
M.P., entered the board-room, and inquired if anything
had been done with reference to the deputation to Sir
Robert Peel to present an address to the Right Honour-
able Baronet on the subject of the Corn Bill ?
Mr. JOSEPH said he had not taken any step in the
matter, in the absence of the Hon. Member for Mont-
rose, but he now felt great pleasure in moving, " Tha
a deputation be appointed to wait upon Sir Robert Pee'
to present, as an address the resolutions come to by the'
'
vestry on the previous Saturday, thanking the right
Hon. Baronet for having passed the Corn Bill." He
(Mr. Joseph) could not, however, allow the present
opportunity to pass without expressing his sincere re-
gret—and he believed every one present would join with
him in that expression—at the loss which he feared the
country was about to sustain by the resignation of one of
the most upright and honourable men, and enlightened
statesmen, that ever filled the office of Prime Minister
of England.—(Cheers,) He believed the Right Hon.
baronet had left London for Osborne House that morn-
ing, to tender his resignation to her Majesty, and he
thought it highly desirable, if possible, that the address
should be presented before Sir R. Peel's retirement took
place.—(Hear.)
Mr. RIDGWAY seconded the resolution. If there was
nothing else to endear the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Peel) in the minds of his fellow-countrymen, it was the
last act he had done in his private capacity in support
of the fine arts, and a lamented and talented contributor.
—(Hear.) The conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet to
the late unfortunate Mr. Haydon, when he could not
have expected that his benevolence would be made public,
would occasion his loss still more to be regretted by the
country.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME, M.P., remarked that he never gave a vote
in the House of Commons with more regret in his life
than he did on Thursday evening against the Right Hon.
Baronet OR the Irish Coercion Bill, as he was convinced
that be could not relinquish office without the result
being most disastrous to the country, which could ill af-
ford to lose such a Minister at such a time.—(Hear.)

The resolution was then put and carried nem. con.,
and Mr. Hume, M.P., Mr. W. Williams, M.P., Mr.
Joseph, Mr. Potter, and Mr. George Daniell were ap-
pointed as the deputation to present the address to Sir
Robert Peel.
The vestry then broke up.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 27.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the Loup CHIRF BARON and
Middlesex Special Juries.)
IIEABERT V, OGLEY.
The plaintiff in this case is the landlord of the Ring's
Arms, Palace-yard, and the defendant a farmer, who came
to town a short time since, and stopped at his house, when the
debt was incurred for which the present action was brought.
The action was undefended.

ANDREWS V. EATON.
This was an action arising out of a disputed right of pas-
sage between two houses. After it was partly gone into, it
was agreed that it should be referred to arbitration.
LEVY V. WRIGIIT.
This was a cause arising out of a bill of excharge, and
was undefended.
The above three cases, the only ones in the list, having
been disposed of, the Court rose at a quarter past eleven.

ROLLS' COURT, Jane
_27.

Lord LANGD.kLE sat to-day at ten o'clock, and proceeded
to hear short causes, none of which were of any public in-
terest.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 27.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN and
a Special Jury.)
IMPORTANT TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.
FARRAR t. WILEORZ.

This was an action brought by Mr. Farrell a master
cabinet-maker, residing in Curtain-road, Shoreditch, against
Mr. Wildbore, a surgeon of extensive practice in Shoreditch,
for damages arising from the unskilful treatment of a frac-
ture of one of the bones of the wrist, called the radius. The
damages were laid at 1,0001.
pock,
Attorney-General, Mr. Sergeant Shee, and Mr. Char-
\lA appeareda for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Watson, Mr
Tre 1.T., Mr. J. llill, for the defendant.
the partk if.R.NEv-GENErs.AL opened the case by a detail of
he intended to that had led to the present action, and which
•eveze in evidence. He said the plaintiff was
a respectable tran
who happened, o,ll,n:r‘,e.siding inCurtain-road, Shoreditch,
the
him to call
a serious misfortune ofth April, 1844, to meet with
of his wrist. fracture of
,tahtetenrdaedaiiiins
bone
in Mr. Wildbore, the defendant i,
r.
Wildbore could not, from the laragnednet:Pe:flret action.attendance
d personally, but his assistant, Mr. ii.rost,practice, at.
ten
his stead. The fracture was set, _ s e andant'a assistan
aftwerheaills,i%th,„
wrtleyek
was no longer con plaintiff
continued his attendance for ssihxo
finding that his arm was not in the condition whi
eon, who, on an examinilaetTox-,
peeled, called in another surg
t he had receive%
intimated that the treatment
that the arm could not be
was improper, and - and usefulness,
restored to its original strength
In the course of time the plaintiff, finding that his arm could
not be employed in any kind of heavy work connected with
his business, and being advised, from most respectable
.m.me-
dical authority, that lie had good ground of action for
proper and unskilful treatment, he decided to bring the pre-
sent action. By the witnesses he should call, both medical
and otherwise, he should establish the fact that the plaintiff
had been improperly treated, and that lie had since been
unable to attend to his business as he had done before.
The Learned Gentleman concluded by calling his witnesses.
The plaintiff's son and daughter, and several other per-
sons residing in the neighbourhood, were called to prove the
accident, the attendance of Wildbere's assistant, and that
the witness, since the treatment of the fracture, had not been
able to use his arm as he had before.
It came out in the cross-examination of some of these
witnessekkat Mr. Farrar had used his arm in sawing since
the fractffre had taken place, and that Mr. Wildbore had been
called in to attend on Mrs. Farrar at least eight months
after the alleged unskilful treatment of the arm.
Mr. Gill, the medical gentleman who was called in subse-
quently to Mr. Wildbore, deposed that the arm was in a
great measure incapable of use in any kind of heavy work,
and that its present state had arisen from the unskilful treat-
ment which had been bestowed on the fracture
Professor Partridge, Mr. Merrit, surgeon of Leadenhall-
street, and Mr. Barron followed on the same side. They had
been called in to examine the wrist of plaintiff, and were of
opinion that the treatment employed by the defendant was
not the best that might have been employed in such a case,
and that it had been evidently very unsuccessful.
In cross-examination they admitted that there was consi-

derable difference of opinion as to the best treatment to be
pursued in such cases. They could not say positively that
the treatment was unskilful. In any case of fracture, such
as the one under consideration, they did not believe that an
arm ever became as strong a‘; ,was before.
This closed the case fort I e plaintiff.
Mr. JIERVIS opened the case for the defence in a speech of
some length, in which he denied the allegation of an unskil-
ful or improper treatment, which he would prove b the
Wh
ile
he eminent gentlemen in the medical profession.
he would prove that the treatment had been right and proper,
he would also show that any damage that had since arisen
to the arm of the plaintiff beyond what would result from
such a fracture after it had healed, was caused by the plain-
tiff making an improper use of his arm. The case was
originally one of simple fracture, and treated in the usual
way, and the projection of the ulna now complained of by
the plaintiff, and which was part of his case, had arisen from
the way in which the bones necessarily joined together,
combined with the too early and improper use of the arm
by the plaintiff.
The witnesses were then called for the defence.
Mr. Gillott, the assistant of Mr.Wildbore, who attended on
Mr. Farrar, but also is now surgeon on his own account, was
the first witness examined—He described in detail the nature
of the accident, and the particulars of the treatment he had
pursued. It was a case of simple fracture, and he pursued
the system of Mr. Lawrence, or the straight system of effect-
ing the union of the bone. Ile splintered and bandaged the arm.
In about five weeks he discharged the arm as cured. It was then
as perfect as was usual in any similar case of fracture. It
had all the motions, though, of course, it was not so strong
as it bad been before the accident.
The witness was cross-examined at some length, but
nothing of material importance was elicited.
Mr. Robert Liston said he had examined the arm of
plaintiff yesterdav, and again to-day. lie had also heard
the evidence of Mr. Gillott. With regard to the pro-
jection of the ulna, it was a case that might happen
from the most skilful treatment. He had seen many
cases of the same kind, and some much worse,
after very good treatment. The arm in its present state
seemed a very good arm, and appeared to have been used a
great deal. Anything bad in it might have been occasioned
by improper care on the part of the plaintiff. He thought
the treatment of the defendant very proper treatment. He
had heard the evidence of Mr. Gillott, and he thought it
very good.
Cross-examined—He did not think such a case of fracture
difficult of treatment, though the projection of the ulna
might arise after taking the greatest care.
Mr. Bransby Cooper, surgeon of Guy's Hospital, said he
perfectly agreed with Mr. Liston in all that he had stated
both regarding the treatment pursued and the condition of
the limb, He had attended Dr. Edwards for a similar frac-
ture, and he did his best to cure him. In that case the pro-
jection of the ulna which ensued was worse than plaintiff's
arm.
Dr. Edwards, who was in Court, was called to show his
arm in corroboration of witness's evidence,
Mr. Jolly, surgeon to St. Thomas's Hospital, gave evidence
to the same effect.
Mr. Justice IVIGHTMAN left it to counsel for the plaintiff
whether they would, after such decided evidence for the de-
fendant, allow the case to go to the jury.
After a short consultation among the parties,
Mr. Sergeant Siaaa intimated that he would withdraw the
record.
The record was withdrawn accordingly.
The Court throughout the proceedings was crowded with
professional men, who seemed to take great interest in the case.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, June 27.
RICHARD DUNN AND MISS BURDETT COUTTS.

This was an application to Mr. Justice Patteson to remove
the true bill found by the grand jury, at the last sitting of
the Central Criminal Court, for perjury, in swearing that
Miss Angela Burdett Coutts was indebted to him in the sum
of 100,0001., with the view of making that lady a bankrupt.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Humphreys, of .Newgate-street, at-
tended before the judge to resist the writ of certiorari being
issued; and the unrelenting Dunn was in attendance, un-
mindful of the Bench warrant that is in force against him for
his apprehension. However, there is an old problem of
lawyers being their own clients.
Mr. Dunn produced a very lengthened affidavit, setting
forth all his wrongs and grievances, his imprisonments in
debtors' and felons' gaols, his importunities to carry off the
fair heiress of the house of Burdett, and the annoyances he
had been subjected to by the receipt of numerous letters
couched both in prose and poetry. His affidavit set forth
that he had received, by post, a letter, which ended at the
bottom of each verse,

" For in the till there is plenty of tin."
The same document authorised him to draw upon Messrs.
Coutt's bank for 100,000/. for his loss of time, &c. ; and that,
finding his acceptance was dishonoured, he had applied to
Coutts for the money. The affidavit is altogether of a
moat extraordinary character, and consists of about forty
folios.
Mr. Bodkin said that, after perusing this singular do-
cument, the prosecutrix would require time to answer it,
before tho Learned Judge decided whether the certiorari
should issue.

The Learned Judge assented, and the case was adjourned
till Monday.
The following is a copy of the affidavit sworn to in the
Court of Bankruptcy by the defendant, and which gave rise
to the indictment for perjury.
" Richard Dunn, barrister-at-law, late of 8, Ranelagh-
street, and of the Farringdon Hotel, Strand, maketh oath
and saith, that Angela Burdett Coutts, of No. 1. Stratton-
street, and of 59, Strand, both in the city of Westminster, is
justly and truly indebted to this deponent, Richard Dunn, in
the sum of 100,0001., by virtue of a certain bill drawn by this
deponent upon the bank of Messrs. Coutts and Company, of
59, Strand, in the said city of Westminster, by the special
authority in writing given by the said Angela Burdett Coutts
to this deponent, which said bill was so directed to be drawn
by the said Angela Burdett Coutts in and for compensation
for divers injuries and imprisonments done and inflicted on
this deponent by the said Angela Burdett Coutts, and
for which injuries this deponent hath commenced legal
proceedings against the said Angela Burdett Coutts,
and which said bill the said Angela Burdett Couts promised
in writing to this deponent should be duly paid ; but which
•aid bill, although duly presented by this deponent for pay-
ment at the said bank of Messrs. Coutts and Company afore-
said, was not paid or honoured, and which said bill remains
wholly due and owing to this deponent. And this deponent
further saith, that the said Angela Burdett Coutts is a
partner in the said bank aforesaid, and a trader within the
meaning of the laws now in force concerning bankrupts, as
this deponent verily believes.
(Signed) " RICHARD DUNN.
" Sworn at the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street, in
the City of London, this 31st of March, 1846.
" J. F. MILLAR, Registrar."

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, June 27.
(Before ➢lr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)
POOLE V. ROBINSON.

The plaintiff in this case applied to the Learned Com-
missioner, under the following novel circumstances :—IIe
stated that in November last he obtained an order against
the defendant to pay the debt by monthly instalments, and
he had paid some to his (plaintiff's) attorney, who had run.
away, and defendant refused to pay any more, unless under
the order of the Court.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he did not see how he
could make another order, if the plaintiff had allowed the
time to expire over which the order had ran. The proper
course would be to take a summons out against the attorney,
and asked whether he was an attorney of this Court, for he
felt very much inclined to grant a rule against him, and take
the steps necessary to have his name struck off the roll.
The applicant said he had heard that the attorney had
gone away to Canada.
The Learned COMMISSIONER then said he could not make
another order; the defendant had complied with the former
one to the full extent during the time it had been demanded
by the attorney, who was the authorised agent of the ap-
plicant.
The applicant said the defendant did not object to pay the
balance, but would pay no one now except under the order
of the Court.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said, that although he could
not grant the order, the plaintiff might have another sum-
mons to show cause why he did not pay; but if he had paid
there was little doubt in the matter.

The summons was taken out, the plaintiff observing that
he had trusted his attorney entirely in the case, and he had
to depend on defendant himself as to what he had paid.

IN RE PRITCHETT AND ORIUDGE.

To-day was appointed for the audit of the accounts of these
bankrupts, who had carried on business as glove manufactu-
rers, at Charlbury, near Oxford.
The Learned COMMISSIONELL, on examining the accounts,
said the case was one in which the bankrupts deserved the
highest commendation; it was one of those cases in which the
law contemplated the fullest protection. The bankrupts had
carried on extensive business, but the accounts were made
up with the greatest accuracy, and all their debts had been
collected,so that there would be a dividend of nearly 20s. in the
pound to the creditors. During the three years previously to
the fiat, and whilst they were struggling against their ill for-
tune, the sums drawn out for themselves were only 1601. a
year each, but their losses were double that amount. His
Honour regretted the death of Mr. Orridge, and was sorry
he could not allow a charge of eight guineas to Mr. Pritchett,
for making up the accounts which Mr. Orridge had kept,
and which no accountant could have so well arranged; but,
as the assignees approved it, he would, if an affidavit was
made to the special facts, so that this should not be a prece-
dent, allow the sum as an increase of charge.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A man in the dress of a messenger appeared before
the Lord Mayor, leading in a miserable-looking lunatic,
and presented to his Lordship a letter, of which the fol-
lowing is a copy :
" BRITISH CHARITABLE FUND—UNDER THE PATRONAGE
OF HIS EXCELLENCY THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR,
PARIS."
"Committee-Room, 7, Rue d'Assineau, June 23, 1846.
"My Lord—l am directed by the Committee of the
British Charitable Fund to recommend to your Lord-
ship the bearer of this letter, Thomas Stone. This
young man an was horn in France, of English parents, both
owtohosmenda,rrteohcolEeoanndl. He has fallen into a state bordering
otnheimirbeexcpileintyse,sand he has no means of subsistence here,
noridt
eofeentsrr theust permanently.
supporting
lthesn funds
paupers
saryinStone shall L p
ta:nrndredmddl
eisyrethhf
Lit
ophiostewerss resourcesdiewlh o
are
nanllaobwleit
to defray
daeffforradi
circumstances,kyionudrly
direct
t thehat
h ThomasuCmobmle-
your
in an asylum. I have the honour
to
,be,, 1 Iwo- int h.
sreecs.P
.COhIa.IFFE, M.D.,
in the
atthhelri ers
eFrur d
and Treasurer, Brit.
n
LORD
nApleAr,v an
osaiddhne
ocuoluali Could
na
unotpor interfere Lordship's
servant,
oeessenFr—Mv Lord, he has no cl • country.
case
rrir'
hhoeef the
France, for he is an Englishman. aim upon
The Lon') MAYOR—HOW can that be, when he was
born in France, as tour society acknowledge ?
The messenger—lie was horn of English parents, and
that makes an Englishman. It at all events places upon
England the responsibility of looking to and supporting
him.
The LORD MAYOR—Nut at all ; I shall have nothing
at all to do with him.
The messenger—What am I to do with him ?
The LORD MAYOR—Take him back, of course. lie
was born amongst you. I never send over to France
Immediately.
any persons born in England of French parents in a state
of pauperism. You must take him away
Mr. Goodman—There is no proof of any claim upon
the part of the poor man on the Lord Mayor.
The LORD MAYOR regretted that in France the very
extraordinary system had been adopted of sending over
any lunatics that may be found about the streets. lie
certainly should not follow the example, nor countenance
it by consenting to receive such favours in the city of
London.