The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-23 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL

A Court was held on Thursday for the dispatch of public
business. It sat till a late hour.
THE STATE OP THE CITY PRISONS.
Mr. Wiax gave the following notices of motions :
"That it be referred to a Special Committee, to be appointed
by this Court, to view and examine the prisons belonging to this
city, and to report their opinion as to the accommodation af-
forded to the prisoners, the opportunities for classification and
separate confinement, and whether there exists any necessity for
building a new prison, or enlarging or altering the existing
prisons, with a view to carrying into effect the improvements
in prison discipline which modern experience has suggested on
the ealct.
" That such Committee do also inquire whether any and
what alterations are necessary to be made for the accommoda-
tion of judges, juries, barristers, witnesses, and the public at
the Sessions House in the Old Bailey, with a view to expedite
and facilitate the administration of justice, and to save both
time and expense to the public.
" That Mr. Jahn Clark, the Clerk of the Peace for this
City, be requested to make a return to the Court of the number
of criminals tried at the Central Criminal Court during the
years 1843, 1844, and 1845, the let September in the last
year, and distinguishing the number in each year, and before
whom tried, the number of dam and hours the Court sat each
session, how many Courts sat, the number of days and hours
during which the Judges appointed by this city sat, distin-
guishing each Judge by name, and the hours occupied by each."
_ _ THE RAILWAY BUSINESS OF THE CITY.

Mr. HARTLEY, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Com-
mittee, brought up the report on the North Kent Railway
(City Extension) Bill, proposing to make a terminus
in the City of London. The report stated that the
railway was proposed to be laid down to a point between Union-
street and Peter-street in the Borough, and from that spot over
Southwark-bridge to a point at or near Thames-street; that
it was the intention to form a large depot in Southwark,
at the end of the bridge, for goods and merchandise, and that
passengers only were to be carried on the bridge. The opinion
of the Committee was, that the proposed plan was not objec-
tionable, provided the plan and elevation should be approved
of by the Court, the existing thoroughfares be not impeded,
a sufficient road for carriages and passengers over Southwark-
bridge be preserved and maintained, and the present acclivi-
ties be not made more steep, and that proper clauses be in-
serted in this Bill to ensure all these objects.
Mr. Lorr said he regretted to be obliged to differ with the
committee, of which he was a member ; but Mr. Tite, the
architect, who attended the committee on behalf of the Com-
pany, not having produced any plan of the mode in which it
was proposed to cross the river, it was suggested that the
intention was to erect a viaduct over the present foot and
carriage-way of the bridge. Now the citizens of London pos-
sessed a noble river, which was one of the great sources of wealth
as well as a facility of commerce. He could not con-
ceive a more hideous deformity, or greater obstruction,
to light and air, than a parcel of railway buildings erected upon
the top of the Southwark-bridge—a superstruction, for instance, '
very similar to thagi`which presented such an eyesore in the
Minories. In vain might architects design noble structures to
show the magnificent river, if they were to fall beneath the
blow of that ruthless destroyer and universal leveller, the rail-
way mania. —( Hear, hear, and murmurs. )
Sir P. LAURIE said he had uniformly objected to the intro-
duction of railroads into the City. He had made a resolute op-
position to the Blackwell Railway, and his experience had not
induced him to alter the opinion he had from the first formed.
He understood that the two railways, whose termini were pro-
posed to be made in Farringdon-street, had been abandoned.
What was the cause of that abandonment he did not know, but
it looked something like evidence of returning reason. He had
made many inquiries upon the subject of the City of London ter-
mini, and he gathered from these inquiries, that of the 500
acres of which the City consisted, 200 would actually be occu-
pied by railway companies.—( Laughter and cries of " Hear.")
The City, with its dense population and its enormous com-
merce and traffic, was not the place for railways, and he re-
joiced to find that the projects of the Regent's Canal Railroad,
which was to have had it terminus in Aldersgate-street, as
well as the projects of the Farringdon-street plan, had been
given up. He did not care to what committee the report
should be referred for examination as to its merits ; he only
hoped, and he had confidence in that hope, that the City of
London would not be torn in pieces in order to effect what
was called improvements.— (Hear and murmurs.)
Mr. T. H. HALL said he had seen no cause to alter his
opinion,
that it was inadvisable to introduce railroads into
the City. On the contrary, he was more confirmed in the
opinion which, crude as it wa', he had originally expressed.
The City of London was well occupied commercially. There
might be here and there lanes and confined places which re-
quired alteration, and were differently occupied, but the
City could not be said to be other than in every respect en-
gaged in commercial occupations, and a mare complete
impediment to its traffic could not be proposed than that which
projects like the present was calculated to produce. The
proposed plan was represented in the report as unobjectionable.
lie was of opinion that it was in every respect objectionable,
and that the adoption of it would place the whole of that pro-
perty at the disposal of the Company without conferring any
advantages upon the public.
Mr. PEWTRESS said the more wise course in which to pro-
ceed in the present matter was not to generalise on determining
upon its merits, but to consider it upon its simple and particular
recommendations. They ought not to be frightened by every
railroad movement with the idea that the City of London was
about to be cut up, and appropriated as one vast terminus. The
terminus projected in this particular case before the Court
would be productive of no inconvenience whatever. It would
have quite a different effect. The commerce, which it was
complaned would be injured, would undergo a great increase
from the numerous facilities afforded by a railroad at the very
doors of the citizen.—( Hear, hear.) The improvements in
the City would be accelerated by it. What a vast accommoda-
tion to traffic was the erection of London-bridge and the im-
provements in its approaches. The new street had greatly
added to the commercial advantages of London, especially since
the establishment of railway termini near London-bridge, thus
exhibiting evidence of mutual benefits. If the railroad over
Southwark-bridge was established, the commerce would be still
more important, and there could arise no disadvantage which
would not be far counterbalanced by the good derivable frordits
vicinity to the place of active business.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. AstwasT said the City was destined to be a city of
warehouses, and there could be no prevention to that doom.
The Court could not help it. They must recollect that the
question now before them must go before Parliament, whether
they consented to entertain it or not. They saw the tendency
of the age, and they could not arrest the progress of improve-
ment. Their policy was, inasmuch as they could not determine
whether the terminus of the North Kent Railway should or
should not come into the City, to present no obstacle to pro-
jects supposed to be likely to cause extraordinary commercial
facilities—to offer no opposition calculated to interfere with the
advantages to the Corporation, in the event of the success of
the plan.—( Hear, hear.) They had a fund of 20,0001. a year,
to lay out in improvements, and they were to coasider that
London was the centre of commerce. They must promptly at-
tend to all applications to accomplish rapid communication with
that centre of commerce ; and if they hesitated their privileges
would be subject to attack:and annihilation. They would, in feet,
be pronounced to be obstructives to improvement ; and, like
the Tories, completely swept away.—(Laughter, and cries of
" Hear, hear," and " No, no.")
Mr. R. TAYLOR said the present opposition to the railway
Improvement proposed reminded him of what had taken place
when the proposal was made to build the docks. At that
period a party in the Court, unfortunately a. small one, endea-
voured to prevail upon the Court to aid the petitioners in their
application to Parliament, and if the assistance required had
been rendered, the Corporation of London would now be the
proprietors of all the docks. The Court, however, refused,
and what was the consequence? The merchants and traders
went to Parliament, and represented the strong necessity which
existed, in consequence of the crowded state of the Thames.
Deputy PEACOCK presented a memorial from the president
and governors of the Corporation School for the grant of
ground in Liverpool-street for the purposes of a school-house.
Mr. JOHN Dixore opposed the petition. He stated that Sir
Aaron Rowe, who had been Lord Mayor of London, made a
present of the ground as a burial place for certain of the citi-
zens, and so delighted was Lady Rowe with the bequest that
she directed that her body should be deposited there. It
would, then, he considered, be a sort of desecration of the
ground to turn it aside from the purposes for which it was in-
tended, and disturb the bones of Lady Rowe, by whose hus-
band it had been left in trust to the Corporation.—( Hear.)
The petition was rejected.
WYION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE CITY OF LONDON AND
THE BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK.

The LORD Mayon presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of the Borough of Southwark, with the view of
accomplishing a very important object. The petition,
which was of considerable length, and recited the
various charters under which several kings granted the
town of Southwark to the citizens of London, concluded in
the following manner :—" Your petitioners, therefore, pray
that your Honourable Court will take such prompt measures as
shall seem most advisable for effectually uniting the Borough
of Southwark with the City of London, according to the in-
tentions of the charters hereinbefore referred to, and in
giving to the inhabitants of the Borough an adequate repre-
sentation in the councils of the City ; and that all the inha-
bitants of the Borough may have and enjoy such and the same
rights in the laws, franchises, and privileges as belong to the
citizens, resident within the City ; and that the inhabitants
exempted from all burdens, personal and pecuniary, inconsis-
tent with those rights and privileges as citizens of London;
and that your petitioners may be at liberty to attend any Com-
mittee of your Court, to whom the matter of the petition may
be referred, with such further statements and proposals, and
documentary and other evidence, as they may be advised."
Sir PETER LAURIE had no objection to send the petition to
a committee, but he knew the fate it merited would await it
wherever its merits underwent examination. After having
opposed the principle of reestablishing the Civic magisterial
authority in the Borough, on the grounds stated by him at a
late Court of Aldermen, Sir Peter Laurie read the unani-
mous report made, and agreed to, during the able Town-clerk-
ship
of Mr. Woodthorpe, who advised the rejection of the pro-
Ksritiorna,tieancesotmpanied with such reasoning as convinced the
condemned theonnoteeiooni oftl keeping impracticability of the scheme. He
the pauper peerage of the it thedTown-hall as a refuge
.for
described the condition
of the City Magistrates, who visitedrnn the Borough for the pur-
pose of dispensing justice, as
oficullus in the extreme. He
argued, too, that if the prayer e petitioners were to be
granted, it would be necessary toadd to the number of Al-
dermen.
Mr. ft. Ta.vr.oa said the citizens of London could very
easily spare some of their Aldermen to the Borough.—
(Laughter. )
Mr. WIRX was rejoiced to find that,
aSsirdPthester Laurie had
generous
again classed himself with the Liberals
feelings of his youth were reviving in his maturethe
was glad that Sir Peter was so liberal as not to onoasgeet.he tee-
ference of the petition. The petitioners, he wi6„l-,;,1-1
understood, represented not the Parliamentary boundaries,
ebe
but the ancient borough, which consisted of five parishes,a.wriit%
a population not exceeding 75,000 souls. The petition evinced
that the borough people desired to be incorporated with the
City, and stated that many of them were freemen of the City,
and anxious to partake of its privileges as well as bear its bur-
dens. As for the legal difficulties stated by a former able
town-clerk to stand in the way of amalgamation, and the
adoption of that opinion by a former committee, ne might use
fashionable language, and say that was no reason why another
committee, or indeed the same committee, should not come too
a different conclusion.—(Laughter.)
great statesman lately said, that he would not steer in 18-td
by observations made in 1843. He might say that since the
former consideration of the subject much new information had
been obtained as well from the Corporation records as from
other soirees. They had also a new town-clerk, whose anti-
quarian and legal knowledge, and whose known attachment to
ancient r:ghts, would materially assist them in ascertaining
whether the petitioners' object could be attained.
Ho might say, that when Southwark was annexed
to the City itself, it stood, surrounded by good stone
walls and outward defences; but since that period four other
cities, each larger than-the original one, had sprung up around
it—its population also had decreased. It was wise, therefore,
to seek to strengthen themselves by adding to the City the
borough of Southwark, and giving' both parties a common in.
barest in defending all that was preciat::., and valuable in local
oft-government, and in resisting the encroac i lal ments of b'
traYy Dower.,( Hear.) If it were necessary to
discuss tn' a lega-
lity ot ,the object sought
right o:‘Abe City, confirmedszuwa
.he was read to do it. The ancient
)0 the borough"ofl sir, and sanctioned by law,
over and , had not been destroyed.
It h., ~L,ax..ffected but in "a slight deraeseaobtyt.he Act establish-
ing 'ti."l74.44.oelitau police; isikt that the true secret why
~
...?3,014
111%..hi.4:
(
~.-77)- --,A..51- ..--,
C-_, :.----- : M-. ".'

M S

the Aldermen had discontinued their sittings in the Town-hall.
It was true that the chair had been for years the refuge
for the pauper peerage of the City. On the death of the two
last pensioners, it was, as he had heard, the intention of the
Court to give 8001. a year to two members of the Court : but
there being no unanimity upon that subject, it was proposed
to divide the 8001. a year equally amongst the Aldermen who
had passed the chair, but Sir Peter Laurie, who hated a job,
and did not wish to participate in the labour, seized upon the
clause before mentioned, and the sittings in the Town-hall were
discontinued.—(Laughter.) On the grounds of public policy,
and because ho believed the incorporation of the borough with
the City would really strengthen the latter to accomplish many
useful objects for the benefit of themselves and the great com-
munity by which they wire surrounded, he supported the
motion. The sooner Bridge Ward Without was made not a
sinecure ward, but really efficient with:representatives, and the
sittings of the Aldermen resumed, the better, or perhaps those
who were struggling for a participation of privileges might
apply to another quarter, and thus dissever themselves from the
City for ever.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir PETER LAURIE declared that he had actually brought
back the Aldermen to the borough after they had left it.
The petition was then referred to a committee.

LACY INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 21.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, Guildhall, before Lord DENMAN
and a Special Jury).
TOSTER V. THE BANK Or ENCLIXD.

In this case Mr. Sergeant Shoe and Mr. Pearson ap-
peared on behalf of the plantiff, and the Solicitor-
General and several other counsel for the Bank of
England.
The allegation of the plaintiff was, that she held
certain stock in the Bank of England, on which she bad
received various dividends from time to time, or rather
that her husband, who died in 1838, had received them,
and that she subsequently had received dividends in the
years 1839, 1840, and 1841; but that when she applied,
after the latter period, to sell out her stock, she was told
that her stock had been sold out in January, 1839. This
she positively denied, and therefore took an action for
the recovery of 3731 195., as the amount which she
alleged still remained in the hands of the Bank belonging
to her. She also alleged that ske applied for an in-
spection of the books of the Bank, but was refused.
The SOLICITOR. •GENEILAL, on behalf of the defendants,
said he would prove by competent witnesses that on the
23d January, 1839, the plaintiff had sold out her stock,
and that her account was closed then, and that therefore
she had misinstructed her counsel. The plaintiff sued
in forma pauperis, and therefore would incur no expense
if the action went against her. She complained of
having been refused access to certain books ; but that
was done in order to:prevent fraud, and was the practice
of the Bank • but all the books to which it was neces-
sary she should have access were offered her. A
_

question of identity might arise ; but it would almost
be impossible for clerks to identity all the parties who
transfer stock, far the number was enormous during the
year—there were nearly 300,000 stock-holders, and
millions were transferred every year ; and therefore a
mark of identity was put in the book and on the warrant
at the time of transfer. That warrant would be pro-
duced, and so would Mr. Oxley, who had identified the
plaintiff. He had been dismissed from the Bank, but
not owing to this transaction. He (the Solicitor-
General) would now proceed to call his witnesses.
The first witness called was

Mr. G. F. Clerk, sworn—l am the principal clerk in the
New Three-and-a-Half per Cent. Annuities office. Pro-
duces a copy of the late Samuel Foster's account, and a
copy of the transfer of stock in 1838 to his wife, and
William Oxley was the person who identified the par-
ties ; Mr. Oxley had up to that time been a clerk in the
office for 37 years ; he was dismissed in June, 1141.
Produces the book, showing the sales of stock in
January, 1839, to plaintiff, and witnessed by Oxley.
Upon that occasion a lady came to me, who stated she
was Mrs. Foster, and that Mr. Oxley had sold her stock
and paid her a greater amount of interest than the
Bank paid, but that she had lost all her money; she
made the same statement to the chief accountant, and
appeared to be in great distress.
Cross-examined—Mr. Oxley had access to all the
transfer books, and he could show other books like the
transfer books, if he chose, to an illiterate person, like
the plaintiff; he was dismissed for having ebsented him-
self. I have understood that his accounts with other
parties were not found to be correct.
Re-examined—There are two witnesses to the plain-
tiff's signature to the transfer, which is the practice
when the signature is a mark.
Mr. Ripon, one of the witnesses, corroborated the
above. In July, 1841, the plaintiff came to the Bank
and said Mr. Oxley had sold her stock.
Cross-examined—Could not say that the party who
came in 1841, and who signed the book in 1839, were
the same party.
Re-examined—The number who come to transfer is
very great.
Mr. Durat—Was present at the transfer and wit-
nessed it ; does not know the plaintiff personally.
Mr. Oxley, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL---I
was 37 years a clerk in the Bank of England. I knew
plaintiff's husband two or three years, and herself also
for five or six years ; she attended on my mother.
I remember Mr. Foster's death, it took place in
July, 1838. Plaintiff took out administration. De-
ceased was possessed of stock in the Bank at the time
of his death. Plaintiff sold 1001. of the stock to pay
the expense of the administration. I identified her on
that occasion. I also identified her upon other occa
sions of transfer of two sums of 201. each, and of the
2001. to herself. She afterwards applied for the balance
of 115/., and it was transferred, and I identified them. In
about two months after she came to me and brought me
between 50/. and 60/., with which I purchased stock for
her. She complained of the low rate of interest she was
receiving, and I said I could procure her higher in-
terest. She came on the 13th January, 1839, to me to
the Bank, for the purpose of selling out her stock, and
the transfer book now before me was placed before her,
and she put her mark upon it, and "Hannah Foster " was
written across it by another clerk, and I identified her.
A person named a stockjobber, was the party
who purchased upon that occasion. M'Neill paid the
money. After this I paid the plaintiff 10/. interest half-
yearly. I made her four such payments up to January,
1841. I left the Bank in June, 1841.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant SREE—I am not
aware that she was an illiterate person. I believe she
could read. I withdrew from the Bank in 1841, and
went to Canada. I went without informing the Bank.
I lived at Chelsea before I went to Canada, with my wife
and children, and I left them there. You may call it ab-
sconding if you please. I left because I was in embar-
rassed circumstances. A Mrs. Hanby had an account at
the Bank. She had 7001. stock, and I got it. I did not
pay it to her. I did not attest her identity, but
my broker did it.
Did he know her by any other way than by your
telling him ?—I don't know. I gave her no security for
her money.
How long was that before you absconded ?—About
four or five years. I gave Mrs. Foster no security, nor
did I tell her how it was to be invested. The transaction
took place at her own apartments, and there was no
person present. Well, if you will have it, I told her I
would procure her that interest for her. It was under-
stood between us that her money would be secure. I
was insolvent at that time. I did not owe more than about
2,0001. at the time.—(Laughter.) When I paid the
plaintiff the interest I used to make her put a mark in
a small book. She did this four times before I ab-
sconded.

Re-examined—A person receiving a dividend signs a
book aad a warrant.

To the COURT-1 returned from Canada in 1842.
To Mr. Sergeant Smac—l have not been to see Mrs.
Foster since.
Mr. Smee—l am chief accountant in the Bank of
England. I recollect Mrs. Foster coming to my office
and stating that she had lost all her stock. I found that
her stock had been properly transferred, and told her
that the Bank could afford her no relief. I do not re-
collect anything of a memorial.
Cross-examined—l don't recollect that I said I could
not show the books unless the Bank got a release. I
don't recollect that the gentleman now pointed out to me
in Court called upon me for that purpose. I don't re-
collect an attorney applying to me for the purpose.
You don't recollect anything ?—I don't.—(Laughter.)
Do you recollect Mr. Oxley ?—I do.—(Laughter.) I
never saw him since his return from Canada until this

day.
Mr. Bockett, clerk in the Bank, paid the dividend to
the party whose name appeared on the warrant.
Here the case closed.

Mr. Sergeant SHEE having replied,
Ills LORDSHIP briefly summed up, and said the ques-
tion lay in a very narrow compass. The question was,
whether it had been proved to the satisfaction of the
jury that the plaintiff had transferred her stock, and that
she was aware of it ? No doubt the jury should regard
the evidence of the witness Oxley with great suspicion ;
but they should also consider whether they had evidence
sufficient without that of Oxley to convince them that
this transfer had been made. And here he should ob-
serve that it would be just as well for the Bank, in all
such transactions, to afford the fullest information pos-
sible to all parties making such applications.
The jury retired, and in about half an hour returned
into Court with a verdict for the defendant.

NIIIII v. HERIIXRT.

This was an action for the recovery of 20G/., due by
a promissory note. The defendant did not appear, and
the jury found for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 21.
DROUNE V. EVE.
The hearing of this action, brought against the pub-
lisher of the Globe newspaper, for an alleged libel en
the conduct and motives of the plaintiff as an Rea% e
promoter of the " British and American Colonisation
Association," commenced on Saturday, about half-past
two, and had proceeded as far as the part cross-exami-
natinn of the plaintiff's first witness, Dr. Rolph, when
Sir TIIOBIAS WILDE said that the suggestion which
he, on behalf of the defendant had made' to the plaintiff wasjust accepted, and therefo're a juror might be with.
drawn. The terms of the suggestion, however, did not
transpire.

A -juror was accordingly withdrawn, and the cause
'ertninated about three o'clock.

POLICE IN TELLIGI-IN CE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Old 'Chane
On Saturday, Mr. John Southgate, 0- f
appeared before the Lord Mayor and Alderman Fee'
brother to answer the complaint of Mr. Archibald
White, of Great Missenden, in the county of Bucking-
' ham, gentleman, for that he (to use the words of the
sumnic,nz) within the space of six months from the day
of the date hereoof October), in this city, did act
f (1-: 41
A ~;:x:Lt. pint-stock com-
as, and was a promoter of,
pany, to wit the Grand Junction, Great itresteiii, ::::l
South-Western Railway Junction Company, and that
the intention and proposal to form the said Joint-Stock
Company, did not, nor have, within one month, or sub-
sequently, after some one, or more than one, and all the
particulars required to be registered iu accordance with,