The Sun.
London, England, 1848-01-15 00:00:00

COAL MARKE'

Adair's Main .. 18s 6dl
Buddle's W. Hartley 20a 6d
Carr's Hartley
Chester Main 2os Od
Dipton Tanfield l6s Od
Hasting's Hartley 2os 6(11
Holywell Main 22s Od'
New Tanfield l7a Od,

North Pontop
Ord's Red he ugh
Original Pontop 18s Od
Original Tanfield l6s 6d
Ravensworth's Pelaw l7s Od
South Moor Hartley l7s Od
Tanefield Moor
West Hartley
West Wylam
Wylam 2Ol Od
Wall's End, &c.

Bewicke and Co 2ls id
Brown's Gas ,. 17s Od
Killingworth 2ls 3d
Ramsay l6s Od,
Wh,ancliffe
Arrivals, 44(

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat to-day in his Court at
Arestminster, at eleven o'clock.
MAITLAND v. BACKHOUSE.-JUDGMENT.

The Loan CUANCELLOR gave judgment to:day in
his case, in which the arguments were concluded
yesterday. The case came before his Lordship upon
an appeal motion from the judgment of the Vice-
Chancellor of England granting an injunction re-
straining the defendants, who are bankers at Bishop
Auckland, from suing the plaintiff in a court of law
for 5,0001. The facts of the case may be thus shortly
stated :—The bill was filed by Miss E. J. Maitland,
to restrain Messrs. Backhouse and Co., bankers o±
Bishop Auckland, in the county of Durham, from
suing her in respect of a promissory note for 5,0001.,
which she had endorsed. Miss Maitland had been $
ward of the court, and entitled to a large fortune. In
November, 1844, she came of age, and being then in
the house of Mr. Donald Maclean, the late Member
for Oxford, who had married her aunt, sbe under his
directions, opened an account with the London and
Westminster Bank, after being put in possession of a
sum of 83,0001. Maclean was at that time residing
near Bishop Auckland, and kept an account with
the defendant. The bill alleged that Maclean had
transactions with Messrs. Bolekow and Vaughan,
ironmasters in the neighbourhood, and that
he made an arrangement with them to pro-
cure Miss Maitland's endorsement on a promissory
note for 5,0001., and to deliver it to be negotiated.
The bill further alleged that Miss Maitland, on the
9th of March, 1846, was induced to endorse a note for
5,0001., under the influence of Maclean, and knowing
he NA as already largely indebted to her. In the course
of their business Bolekow and Vaughan paid this
note into the bank of Messrs. Backhouse. In June,
1846, Maclean became bankrupt, and Messrs. Back-
house then commenced an action on the note. The
bill charged that the defendants were acting fot
Bolekow and Vaughan, that they had not in reality
discounted the note or given credit for it in their
books. The defendants by their answer affirmed that
they had discounted the note, charging 861. for
interest. They produced their books to prove it, and
denied that they had any knowledge of' the influence
Maclean exercised over the plaintiff, being merely
informed that she was a lady of fortune. The Vice-
Chancellor thought the facts of the case raised sus-
picion, and that there ought to be further inquiry,
and he therefore granted the injunction.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment to-
day, went at some considerable length into the facts
of the case, and, in conclusion, stated his opinion to
be that the Vice-Chancellor of England had come to
a right decision, and ordered his judgment to be
affirmed, at the same time directing the costs of the
application to be costs in the cause.
:Ir. CAIRN wished to remind his Lordship of the
statement in the answer of the defendants, that the
plaintiff was residing out of the judgment of the
Court, and that the greater portion of her property
had been lost to her in consequence of the acts of her
uncle-in-law, Mr. Maclean.
ror The Court then proceeded to hear cause petitions.
,aky,

32%
11SN
52
52%

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE CABE OF MIL WILLIAM COBBETT.

It will be recollected that the indefatigable Mrs.
Cobbett made an application to this Court a day or
two ago for a habeas corpus to bring up her husband,
in order that he might be discharged, on the ground
that 11:3 further incarceration in the Queen's Prison
is unlawful. The Court having promised to give
judgment this morning, Mrs. Cobbett appeared on the
floor of the court, and after the first motion had been
disposed of,
Lord DENMAN said, the application to the Court in
this cs'e was to the effect, that according to the terms
of the Act of the 2d Victoria, c. 17, the further detention
of Mr. Cobbett was unlawful. He had been confined as
a prisoner of the first class, and it was contended
that he ought to have been confined in the prison
only as a debtor, and not subjected to the restraint
placed upon fraudulent debtors. Now, whether his
imprisonment was according to the provisions of the
Act or not the Court did not think it right to give
an opinion, or to make any inquiry into the matter,
because it had only power to commit or discharge,
and not to defi►►e the nature of the imprisonment, and
it was admitted that he was in lawful custody, and
if he wire in lawful custody the Court could only
remand him if he were brought up. Under these
circumstances they could not grant the application.•
Application refused.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
IN RE SNOWBALL.

Mr. CROMPTON moved for a writ of certiorari to
remove certain proceedings into this court. He
made the motion under the following circumstances :
—Mr. Snowball formerly held an office in one of the
Liverpool sewage boards, but by a recent Act of
Parliament, passed for the general improvement of
the town of Liverpool, the powers vested in these
sanitary boards were transferred to the corporation
of the borough, and of course the situation which Mr.
Snowball held was abolished. The Act, however,
provided that all parties who sustained loss by the
annulation of their offices should be entitled
to compensation either in the shape of an annuity,
or a vote of a sum of money, the option resting with
the party sustaining the loss. Under this prevision,
Mr. Snowball elected to take an annuity, but upon
his case coming before the Recorder of the borough,
whom the Act appointed to assess the compensation, it
was decided that instead of an annuity, Mr. Snowball
should be awarded 3,4001. in full, satisfaction for his
loss of office. The writ of certiorari now moved for
was to have the proceedings which had been instituted
before the Recorder, in this as well as five other