The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-04 00:00:00

18 Ni E ENI N , NOVEMBER 4, 6.

being in the name of the firm, apd the consignments in
the Caine of Pierce. The house .in New York had an
agent in Maneheseer newt d Gardner, who, however, was
not a portlier in the fir in, the fact being borne out by the
bankrupts, who were examined on the question at the trial.
and one of his objections to the trial at this part of the
case was that Gardner was only an agent, but the
Learned Judge was of opinion that he must be taken as
a principal, and there was some circumstances in the
case which favoured this view. 7004 was leaid on ac-
count of goods supplied in 1844, but it was alleged that
3001. was improperly substracted, :and that that, amount
was due to the firm. The larger amount, however,
arose out of certain share transactions by Pierce, with
which Howman it appeared had nothing whatever to
do. These transactions took place solely between Pierce
and Gardner. Pierce transacted a great deal of business
' in shares in the autumn of last year, in fact he believed
the same:might be said with considerable truth of every
ono living in Manchester during that period. Gardner
was in the possession of more money than Pierce, and
they entered into an arrangement to transact business in
shares together, Gardner acting as the broker. Gard-
ner bought largely for Pierce, and paid the money
for him, taking, however, the precaution to protect him-
self against loss, by returning the shares in his hands,
selling them, however, whenever Pierce wished him to
do so. He had a general authority to sell these shares,
when the market was in a favourable state ; and there
was also an understanding that in those transactions
there should always be a margin in Gardner's favour,
in order that he might thus be protected against what-
ever fluctuations might take place in the value of the
shares. On the 30th of September Pierce wanted some
money, and in order to obtain it he gave Gardner.bills
of exchange to the amount of 2,5001., in the name of
Pierce and Howman, and scrip in the North Staffordshire
Railway, and received 1,9001. on account of them.
He gave an acknowledgement to the effect that he had
received 420 scrip shares iu the North Staffordshire as
a security for the payments at maturity of Messrs. Pierce
and Howman's acceptances, at sixty days from this date,
the 30th September, for 2,5001., and agreeing to return
the scrip when the acceptances were paid, or sell them at
Pierce's request, with power to hold sufficient of the
proceeds to indemnify himself any loss on the bills
which he might continue to hold. It was urged at the
trial that these transaction did not go into the general
account, and that Mr. Gardner had not the power to sell
them to protect himself against any deficiency
in the general account, and that they were only
placed in his hands to cover the sum of 2,500/.,
if so, 4221. was due on them, that being the difference
between the price at the time they were deposited and
the time they were sold. as they fell in the market. The
bills were paid, and the it was contended, became
the property of Pierce. Shares in the Glasgow and
Dumfries Railway were also deposited with Gardner on
27th of October, 1845, under a similar agreement,
Gardner advancing 2,0001. upon them. The agreement
by which he was to advance 3,0001. more on these
shares, in No. 1772, was dated the 22d of October, end
stated ,that the money should be paid in sums cf 1,0001.
each, the last instalment to be paid on the 18th of No-
vember. The shares
.fell in value, and 1,0001. remained
unpaid. The plaintiff sought to recover the money for
which they were sold, but the defendant contended that
the transaction was carried to the general account.
The Learned Counsel held that the defendant was
liable for the difference. A fiat was issued against
Pierce and Howman on the 27th of December, and
Gardner satisfied all the claims which Pierce could make
upon him. Evidence was given at the trial that, at the
time of these negotiations, the firm was in an insolvent
state. Arrangements were made with the firm of Messrs.
Gardner, in New York, by which a settlement of their
accounts was brought about. Therefore, he contended
that, on the 22d of December, before the fiat was issued,
a complete settlement of the goods account between the
parties was brought about, and that a settlement of their
share account was also mad The Learned Judge at
the trial stated that this wonld he an answer to the
action, provided the transaction was a bcna fide one, and
provided Gardner had no notice of the acts of bank-
ruptcy. The jury after being out several hours, re•
turned into Court, when the foreman said that there was
no direct evidence of the defendant having had any
knowledge of the act of bankruptcy, and inquired if
they were therefore bound to find for the defendant.
Mr. Justice Cresswell said they were not, but they must
look at the surrounding circumstances. They found for
the plaintiff. He grounded his application first on the
misdirection on the part of the Learned Judge, in reply-
ing to the question, and that en the evidence the jury
ought to have found for the defendant.
Lord DENMAN granted a general rule.
THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
Lord DENMAN intimated that the special paper would
not. be taken until after term, but that the Crown cases
would be proceeded with in their natural course.
The new trial paper will be taken on Tuesdays and
Fridays.
LUNAR AND CALENDAR MONTH.—SIMPSON V. MARGER

SON AND OTHERS.
Mr. WATSON, Q.C., moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict which the plaintiff had obtained in this
case should not be entered for the defendant. The plain-
tiff is an auctioneer in the city of London, and the de-
fendants devizees of an estate in Norfolk. They em-
ployed the plaintiff to sell the estate, agreeing to pay
him cne per cent. on the purchase money
if sold by auction and within two months
after so employing him, and one and a half per cent.
if not sold by auction, or within two months after, at
the reserved price. The property was not sold by auction,
and the plaintiff claimed 4251., but the defendants
refused to pay him more than 225/. 55., as they sold the
estate slightly over two lunar months, and less than two
calendar months.

The Court granted the application.
THE CASE OF MR. WILLIAM CORBETT.
It will be recollected that Mrs. Cobbett applied to this
Court on the first day of term to exercise its authority
to obtain the liberation of her husband, Mr. William
Cobbett, from the Queen's Bench, where he is confined,
in pursuance of a writ issued by the Court of Exche-
quer of " rebellion," or disobeying the injunctions of
that Court.

Lord DENMAN, oberving Mrs. Cobbett in the Court,
said she had urged in support of her application that the
writ on which her husband was committed was not pro-
perly issued, and the return writ irregular and false.
Her statement was not, however, supported by affidavits;
but even if her representations were bqrne out, the Court
could not interfere with the proceedings of the Exche-
quer in the matter. If there was tinything wrong, ap.
plication should be made to the Court of Exchequer to
rectify it. The Court could not, therefore, entertain her
application.

Airs. Cobbett then retired.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
;Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
PEACOCK V. SWINDLE.

Mr. TEMPLE applied for a rule to show cause why the
verdict given for the defendant in this case should not be
set aside, Ist, on the ground that the verdict was against
the evidence, and the personal misconduct of the jury,
2ndly, that the deputy-sheriff bad refused evidence on
the part of the plaintiff, and idly, on the ground that
the deputy-sheriff bad permitted the case to be con-
ducted in an improper manner. •
The action was tried at Middleham, in Yorkshire.
The account was for 5/. ss. for sacks which had been
delivered containing flour. The defendant pleaded, Ist,
nutnquarn indebitatus, 2dly, payment, and idly, that
sacks had been delivered in exchange. The cause was
tried at a public house, and both before and after the
trial the defendant's attorney treated the jury to spirits,
&c., and although not a word of the evidence went to
support the defendant's pleas, the verdict was given in
his favour.—Rule granted.

EXPARiK BROOK AND HINCKLEY.
Mr. PASIILEY moved for a rule to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue to two magistrates named
Brooke and Hinckley, ordering them to hear an appli-
cation for an order in bastardy. The Act under which
the application was made was the 7th and Bth Victoria,
cap. 101, and the question to be decided was one of very
considerable importance, viz., whether, after the order
was obtained by the woman, and afterwards
abandoned, an application for a new one - could
be entertained on the defendant's costs being paid.
The mother, in the present case, obtained a summons
from Mr. Brooke, and the case came on before Messrs.
Brooke and Baker, and was adjourned to the 17th. On
this occasion Messrs. Brooke and Hinckley presided, and
the orders were made. The attorney on the other side
said that he should appeal against the decision, as when
the second hearing came on before different magistrates,
the woman had not been sworn. The attorney for the
woman felt that the objection was fatal. After some
further discussion the weman again attempted to bring
the case before the magistrates. The attorney on the
other side, who was clerk to the magistrates, refused to
allow the case to be reconsidered until his costs in the
firmer application had been paid. On his receiving 30s.
he proceeded to renew his former objections. At length the magistrates refused to hear the case until they had
the authority of the Court of Queen's Bench.--Rule
granted.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
SCOTT V. KENT.
This was an action to recover the sum of 261. ss. sd.
for the use and occupation of apartments, and for goods
sold and delivered.
Mr. Petersdorff and Mr. Lush appeared for the plain-
tiff; the defendant was undefended.

The action was brought by Mr. Scott, formerly the
proprietor of Fendall's Hotel. In December last the
defendant came to the hotel, and stated that
he was engaged in a cause at Westminster •
hall. He brought a number of witnesses with him.
The cause lasted five days, and during that time both
he and all the witnesses called for whatever they wished.
There were several items for spiritous liquors under 205.,
and as the defendant had pleaded 'that 4/. 15s. of the
sum in that account was for spit ituous liquors under
205., that sran was struck out, and a verdict returned for
the plaintiff, for the sum of 211. 10s. sd.

EXCHEQUER..-(THIS DAY )
(Sittings in Banco.)
WEBB V. WATTS.
Mr. MARTIN moved for a new trial in this case. It
appeared that the plaintiff was employed upon ono of
the numerous railway schemes of the last year (the
Irish West Coast Railway). An engagement had been
made with plaintiff by a Mr. Campbell, who had the
management of the company's affairs, by virtue of which
agreement the plaintiff was to proceed to Ireland, and
take the traffic on behalf of the company. The plaintiff
accordingly went to Ireland, and in pursuance of his
intentions proceeded to adopt the necessary measures
for taking the traffic, and the necessary tables for Par-
liamentary deposit. Subsequently plaintiff brought bis
action against thb defendant, who was one of the pro-
visional committee of the railway in question, which
was tried at Nottingham, during the last assizes, before
Mr. Justi!e Creswell, 'the result of which was that
the plaintiff was nonsuited.

The Court granted a rule for a new trial.
(Sittings in Nisi Prius, before Mr. 13aron PLATT and

C,ltnon Juucs.)

I.3IIAPBEER V. JOll2 ON.
This action (which was in part heard yesterday) was
brought by the plaintiff; John Bradbeer, to recover from
the ilefendatit, Mr. Johinor, damages for false imprison-
ment.

SeVeral witnesses were who &posed to the
fact of John Bradbeer, the plaintiff, and his brother,
Richard Bradbeer, having. been present at the bar of
the Mitre Tavern, So:ner s-mews, Paddington, kept by
the defendant, and while there, creating a disturbance,
and using abusive language to the defendant and his
wife, and that a policeman was called, to whom the de-
fendant gave Richard Bradbeer into custody, but that
John Bradbeer, the plaintiff; was not given into custody.
The inspector of police at the station-house was not
able, however, to identify the party who was given into
custody. The charge was entered on the sheet as
Richard Bradbeer.

Mr. WIIITEHURST, for the defendant, contended that
there'W ILI no evidence at all to show that the defendant
had given the plaintiff into custody.
Mr. Baron PLATT summed up, and the jury returned
a verdict for the defendant.

COMMON PLEAS—(THIS DAY.).
(Sittings in Banco.)
TUCKER V. HORKINGS.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY moved for a rule to set aside a
verdict in this case, which was tried at last Liverpool
Assizes, before Mr. Justice Cresswell. The action had
arisen on a debt secured by a bond due by the defendant
to a person named John Tucker, deceased, and proceed-
ings were instituted by one of the executors, Richard
Tucker, to recover the same. The verdict was given to
the plaintiff, and the rule was to set aside the verdict and
grant a new trial. The main point submitted by the
Learned Gentleman „as the Statute of Limitations as
applied to bonds, and he contended that the Learned
Judge at trial had not put the construction on the sta-
tute, as applied to this case, which should have been
given.—Rule nisi granted.
PARSON V. SEXTON AND ANOTHER.
Mr; Sergeant BYLES moved for a rule in this case to
show cause why the verdict should not be entered for
the plaintiff for 1171., or why there should not be a new
trial. The action was tried at the last sittings after term in
Middlesex, before Mr. Justice Erle, and a verdict given
for the defendant would leave the plaintiff to move. The
plaintiff was an engineer in Lambeth, and the defend-
ants were millowners at -Uxbridge. The dispute had arisen
about a steam-engine. The whole transactions between
the parties amounted to 3564 19s. 6d., but prior to the
action being brought 2321. 12s. was paid. Credit was
given by the plaintiff fbr this sum, and also for a set off
of 71., and another part for the balance. The
defence was that the enginewas bought by the defendant
with the understanding that it was of 14-horse power,
but that it really was only of 9 horse power. The de-
fendants refused taking the sum, agreed to deduct an
equivalent for the deficiency. The evidence as to the
power of the engine was very cot Meting. Some engi-
neers affirming it was equal to 14-horse power while
others denied it. The delendant contended that the
plaintiff warranted the engine to be a 14-horse engine.
The latter denied there was any express warranty, and
contended that had there been any express warranty the
proper course would have been to proceed for breach of
contract.—Rule nisi granted.
RICKETTS V. BENNETT AND OTHERS.—THE WEAL
PROVIDENCE MINING COMPANY.
Mr. CROWDER moved for a new trial in this case, which
was tried at the last Cornwall Assizes, before Mr. Baron
Platt, and in which the verdict was for defendant, on
the !ground of misdirection, and that the verdict
was against evidence. The plaintiffs were bankers at
Truro, and the defendants were adventurers in the Weal
Providence Mining Company. The mine bad been in
existence for several years, and a banking account was
opened with the Messrs. Ricketts in September, 1844,
by Mr. Robinson, who was one of the company in ques-
tion. The action was for the balance of account due,
3,6681. At the time of the opening of the account the
purser of the Weal Providence mine was the son of
Mr. Robinson referred to, but he was succeeded in the
situation by a Mr. Bennett. On the trial it was argued
that the company could not be made responsible for the
acts of Robinson, he never having received express in-
structions to borrow. It was likewise ruled by the
Learned Judge that oneparticular director could not thus
pledge the credit of the others without express powers.
The real question at issue was, whether a mining com-
pany was different in its character to ordinary partner-
ship. The Learned Judge ruled that it was, while the
plaintiffs contended that it was not. They did not mean
to affirm that Robinson had acted under any express
authority, yet that he did under an implied authority.
Rule granted.
WONTNER V. SHAIRP—THE DIRECT LONDON AND

—.—
EXETER RAILWAY.
Mr. BRAMWELL moved fora rule to show cause wby
the verdict in this cause should not be set aside, and a
nonsuit entered. The case was one of considerable im-
portance, and was tried during the after-sittings of last
term, in Middlesex, before Mr. Ju,tice Erle. The ver-
dict was given for the plaintiff, 821. 10s. The plaintiff
was Thomas Wontner, a solicitor, the defendant a pro-
visional director of the Direct London and Exeter Rail-
way. The plaintiff claimed the recovery of the-deposit of
11.75. 6d. on each cf 60 shares on two grounds—lst, that
of the 11. 7s. 6d. on each share, 11. ss. was paid for the
purpose of completing the Parliamentary deposit, but
the company having failed to proceed to Parliament,
the plaintiff was entitled to recover the 11. ss. ; and
2d, that in consideration of the total failure of the com-
pany to fulfil its pledges, and on the ground of fraud, he
was entitled to the whole sum of 821. 10s., the deposit of 60
shares. A verdict was given for the plaintiff. The
company was formed on the 4th of June, 1845, and the
defendant was appointed a provisional director. On the
16th of September he was nominated one of the manag-
ing committee. A prospectus was issued, and on the
25th of the same month the plaintiff applied
for shares, which were allotted to him. On the 11 th
the plaintiff received a letter which stated that the
deposit of IL 7s. 6d. must be paid within eight days at
the bankers named, else the shares would
be forfeited. On the 17th of October follow-
ing an advertisement from the company appeared, and it
was on this that the plaintiff mainly depended. It
stated, the committee have " completed the allotment."
It subsequently appeared that only 58,000 shares had
been allotted, and it was on this that the charge of
fraud was made to rest, and the verdict of the
jury obtained. The Learned Gentlemen went at
great length into the history of the' transac-
tions of the company, and contended that the
Learned Judge had misdirected the jury, and
that the deed of settlement under which the compauy
was formed did not state that the capital of the company
should be made up of shares to the number of 120,000.
Rule to show cause granted.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
Wm. Gulling, a young man in the service of Mr.
Watts, printer, of 3, Crown-court, Pickett-street, was
placed at the bar before Mr. Henry, charged with steal-
ing a quantity of books, &c., the property of his
employer. He bad been remanded from this day week.
It appeared that since the last examination, the officer
whO. had taken the prisoner (Serjeant Pocock, F 14) had
been to his lodgings, and had found there nine books,
all of which were identified by the prosecutor as his
property, and also a quantity of sheets of paper and a
number of letters and memorandums.
The prisoner said that all the books were waste copies,
and he had taken them without any idea of injuring Mr.
Watts.

Mr. Watts denied that the books were waste, but
added that the felonies as yet discovered were unim.
portant in comparison with some that were supposed to
have been committed by the prisoner. He would esta-
blish a charge against the prisoner of stealing several
hundred reams of paper, his acknowledgments of which
were in the paper merchant's hands, but never had been
accounted for ; and also a charge of having received
large sums of money from customers which he never
accounted for, and which indeed he had no authority to

receive.
The prisoner was remanded till Tuesday week.

MARLBRU-STREET.-.--(THIS DAY.)
Matilda Hassod and Eliza Good were charged before
Mr. Hardwick with violently assaulting Mrs. Best in
the street, and robbing her of her money and wearing
apparel.
Mrs. James Best, living at 9, Nelson-street, Camden-
town, said she had been out shopping, anti returning
home about half-past seven o'clock last night, when in
the New road, at the corner of Tottenham-court-road,
as she was waiting the carriages passing by, the prisoner
Hassod came up and attacked her.. She tore her bonnet
off her head, and after stripping it of the veil, threw it
on the pavement. Eliza Good at this time came up, and
seized complainant about the middle, and held her till
Hassod took a purse from her, containing 4s. 6d., a par-
cel containing the articles she had been purchasing, and
her veil, and made off with them. The defendant,
Good, then let her go, called a cab, and drove off.
George Waufor, who saw the transaction, corroborated
complainant's evidence. He followed Hassod, and gave
her into custody.
Both the defendants denied any felonious intent. •
They were committed for trial.

SOUTH W ARK.—( THIS DAY.)
Margaret Murphy, a woman with a child in her arms,
was charged with the following fraud :
The prisoner watched until she saw a printer's wife,
in Thomas-street, leave the house, and her back was no
sooner turned than the former went into the shop, and
producing three book-slates, told the daughter of the
woman of the house, that her mother had sent her there
with the book-slates, and that she was to give her 7s. 6d.
for them. The daughter, believing the statement, ac-
cordingly gave the money, and she went away • when,
however, the mother returned, it was found the slates
were nearly valueless. The prisoner was subsequently
found drinking in a public-house, and given,into custody.
She pleaded that she was in great distress, and had seven
fatherless children. She was committed for trial.
CLERREN WELL—...—(THIS DAY.)
John Gayer, James Carr, and Henry Wilkinson were
charged on remand, the two former with stealing a large
quantity of valuable mahogany, and the last with re-
ceiving the same. knowing it to be stolen.
Mr. 11. Walker stated that he was a cabinet-maker,
residing in Pear-tree-court, and Carr and Gayer had
been in his employment for some years. Having re-
ceived some information which induced him to think
the prisoners Carr and Gayer were robbing him, he
caused a watch to be kept, when they were seen carry-
ing away three large Planks of mahogany. Two police-
men followed them in plain clothes, and, saw them enter
the _house of Wilkinson, who kept a kind of marine store
or general shop, and upon searching there the constables
found a quantity of other wood, which the prosecutor
identified as his property.
Mr. GBENNWOOD Committed the prisoners for trial.

,
WORCESTER, TENBURY, AND
LUDLOW R A ILW Ay.—( TB IS DAY.)
A special greet al me( ting of ti :.e shareholder- the
Worcester, Tenbury, and Ludlow Railway Company was
held this morning at the offices of the eompary, for the
purpose of determining the propriety or otherwise of
again applying to Parliament for the Dill next session,
and for the purpose of considering and approving of
any further call on the capital of the company to meet
the required deposit in the Court of Chancery, and on
other special business ; Mr. James Davies, one of the
directors, in the chair.
The SECRETARY stated that a private meeting of the
directors had been held that morning, at which the fol-
lowing resolution was unanitnonsly agreed to :—" That,
under the extraordinary circumstances which have trens•
pired respecting Captain Richardson, and the subsequent
prosecution of him at the Old Bailey, he be expelled
from his office of chairman of this Company, and also
from being a director."
The CHAIRMAN stated that the shareholders had been
called together to determine what they would do upon
learning that a rival company was in the field, and sur-
veying the line to go to Parliament next year. The
Company's proceedings had been exceedingly unfortu-
nate, and the expenses very heavy, but still it was for the
shareholders to consider whether they could not sell
their plans and sections, or improve their prospects by
putting themselves in a defensive position for the ensuing
session.
Mr. FRY, in answer to a question, stated that an
agreement was originally come to with the Porthdyn-
laen Company, but since Government had fixed upon
Holyhead as their harbour of refuge, the Great Western
Company had abandoned their line and repudiated the
agreement.
Mr. KNoetrs said, that before determining what
course they ought to pursue, they should know how
their funds stood.
Mr. FRY replied that Mr. Knocks himself had inves-
tigated the accounts, and the result of that investigation
was disclosed at their last meeting, when it appeared to
be satisfactory. Mr. Fry then entered into a detailed
statement of the proceedings that had been taken against
Captain Richardson, remarking that the directors bad
taken possession of the sum of 3,2001., which was found
in Captain Richardson's house immediately after
his arrest, but the money could not at pre-
sent be touched, because one or two of Captain
Richardson's creditors were taking legal proceedings to
have it applied to the liquidation of their claims. The
money was found concealed between the leaves of a book,
and he had no doubt it was part of the funds of that
company. He had been a good deal troubled in the
matter, and so cleverly had Captain Richardson, pre-
vious to his arrest, duped him with assumed endeavours
to discover the real culprit, that he (Mr. Fry) was actu-
ally watched to his own house at Sydenham, and sus-
pected of being concerned in the fraud.---(Laughter.)
A PROPRIETOR wished to know if it was intended to
take any further proceedings against Capt. Richardson ?
Mr. FRY replied that if counsel advised any it would
be for the shareholders to decide whether they should
be taken or not.—(Hear, hear.)
A PROPRIETOR asked how the directors came to ap-
point Captain Richardson as chairman ?
Mr. FRY replied that he was introduced to them by
Mr. Attwood, the banker, who said he intended to make
him Member of Parliament for Harwich.
Mr. HARDING, one of the directors, said the directors
thought, under existing circumstances, and in the present
sate of the money market, it was not advisable to go to
Parliament again. There was, however, the Shrews-
bury and Hereford Company, who would be glad of
their plans, and the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolver-
hampton, with whom they could negotiate. To the
first company their line would be invaluable,
while he knew, for a fact, that the latter
company looked upon it with a jealous eye, and he
had no doubt when they found there was a narrow gauge
interest in the field they would be too glad to get hold
of it.

Mr. ARDEN suggested that under these circumstances
the meeting had better be adjourned till a future day,
the directors undertaking to negotiate with any com-
pany disposed to take up their line, and generally to do
everything calculated to secure and advance the inter-
ests of the company.
A. lengthened discussion then arose upon the expe-
diency of again prosecuting Captain Richardson, but
eventually it was determined to leave the matter in the
hands of the directors.
A resolution in accordance with Mr. Arden's sugges-
tion, and adjourning the meeting till the 2d of Decem-
ber, was then agreed to, and a vote of thanks having
been passed to the chairman, the meeting broke up.

LORD MAlroa's DAY.—It is arranged that the line
of the pageant shall be from Guildhall along King-
street, Cheapside, Poultry, Cornhill, Gracechurch-
street, King William street, Arthur-street to Fish.
monger' Hall, London-bridge, where his Lordship and
the Civic authorities will embark and proceed to West-
minster Hall, returning from thence to Blackfriar's-
bridge, and disembarking at the new pier, will, after
meeting the Learned Judges in Fleet-street, proceed to
the banquet at Guildhall.
EARLY SITTING OF THE CITY POLICE-COURTS.—
Sir George Carroll, the Lord Mayor elect, has signified
his intention of commencing the proceedings at the
Mansion-housePolice-court,every day during his mayor-
alty, at ten o'clock instead of twelve, as at present. This
plan, it is understood, will also be adopted at Guildhall,
the Bankruptcy, and other City courts.
GREAT TROTTING MATCH FOR 50/.—On Tuesday
the match between Mr. Robson's grey horse and Mr.
Baker's brown mare, to trot two miles in harness, for
251. aside, came off at Wimbledon-common. At the start
the mare took the lead and was gaining on her opponent,
when she broke out to a gallop and was pulled in. The
grey horse passed her, and concluded the first mile in
3 min. and 37 sec. In the next half mile the mare had
come up to her adversary, and both horses were pressed,
when the mare took the lead, which she maintained,
and ultimately went in the winner by 15 yards, and
covered the two miles of road in 7 min. 10 sec.
It is stated that some disagreement has arisen be-
tween the South-Eastern and Brighton and South Coast
Companies respecting the use of the Bricklayers' Arms
station by the latter.
REDUCTION IN THE PRICE OF BREAD.—Yesterday
there was a general reduction of one
penny in the 41b.
loaf, in Lambeth, Bethnal-green, Whitechapel, and
Tottenham-court-road; the best being 7d., and house-
hold 60. The West-end bakers still, however, maintain
the same price, Bd. and 10d.
MAILS FOR BRAZIL, &c.—Yesterday notice was
issued at the General Post-office, St. Martin's-le-Grand,
that her Majesty's brig Peterel, Captain Cresor, would
sail for Falmouth, with the mails for Madeira, Brazil,
Buenos Ayres, Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Bahia, and
Pernambuco, on the arrival of the post from London of
the evening of the 4th instant. Letters in time this
evening.
CONSUMPTION OF TURNIPS.---The common white
globe turnip is selling freely in this market at ls. per
cwt. The supply is scarcely
Equal to the demand. The
crop is an excellent one, in many cases fully 40 tons to
the acre, and yet how difficult it is to persuade some
people to sow turnips. At what time were potatoes
worth 401. an acre ?—Dowitpatrick Recorder.
GLUTTONY.—SeveraI citizens of Craborchard, Ken-
tucky, certify to the Louisville Democrat, which pre-
viously doubted the story, that on the day of their late
election a man named Richard Evans,
in the open street
and broiling sun, on the top of the stage, in presence of
all who were about the polls, made his dinner on
fourteen chickens, drank forty cups of coffee, nine pints
of whisky, and ate ginger cakes and other things in pro-
portion, and called for more chickens. Before dinner
he weighed 138 pounds; after, 148 pounds. If he had
been hungry he could have eaten an entire mutton, and,
with a little practice, gone the whole hog." This goes
ahead of all the gormandizing I have ever known, though
I have heard of extraordinary feats in that line in Phila-
delphia in my youthful days. Not long since a nobleman
in England laid a bet with an associate of his, that he
would produce a man that would eat against anY
man in
all England The bet was accepted, and the parties met
at Doncaster at the appointed time. His Lordship could
not attend, but sent his agent to see fair play and apprise
him of the result. In due time he received, by post, the
following lines from the agent:—

"Doncaster, June 15, 18--
Ev‘a‘ll:semairaShtirc,—haTilehnegme mail is`
a pig and an apple"
time to say to your Lordshsirth
boats hr.ught
minilfersomors:ooown
closing, and I have only
victor
—NEwQuAY.
antagonist by
outOn to Ma
ov
ne
ds
vessel
e 3
eveningfi ?l
l 1 Li ccat ntl
last,
ehlre; 1 s
drivingn E st y.
, which„ from
15,000 very fine pilchards, and very large shoals wereto
seen about a mile and a half or two
Head. The crew of a boat that was going
passed through a large shoal, and actually took up with
to be all
their hands ninety-two fine fish. The crews were all
mustered on Monday evening and Tuesday inoreie„,
; Wearne
St. Ives—On Tuesday last the bay was found to be full
of fish, and about twenty scans were shot. The follow-
ingthe afarevetehreehesletismteatteedefqtuhaenwtiteieetsheirn,claorseedlikely
landed:—Hiebens and Co., 5,000 hogsheads
and Co., 5,000; Tremearne and Co., 4,000; Bolithe and
rhoi ws
sdeeart,
Co., 3,000; Architect Co., 3,000; Union Co., 1,000;
Faithful Co., 2,000. Total, 23,000 hogsheads. r'encleen
of
—On Tuesday morning last, the scan at this place was
shot, on a large shoal of pilchards, but in consequence
of there not being any men in pay, only a few hogsheads
were saved.—Falmouth Packet.
The new Recorder of Bristol, R. 8..
oEasq3l.,oQn.dCay,
.sucTeehsissogretnotlSeimr
judgeaCn.isWalestoheepreplel,i:eodCk
the Tolzey Court. It was expected that in his first
charge to the grand jury he would have introduced him-
self to the citizens by some reference to the circum-
stances which led to his appointment, but he entered at
once upon the cases enumerated in the calendar. It is
stated that counsels' opinions have been taken by sonic
parties as to tha legality of this appointment, by the
Government,
recorder is 400/ per annum, and as judge of
the Tolzey Court 2001. ; in addition to which 1002 a
salary a s
year is allowed for travelling expenses.
OPENING OF THE PORTS.—The decision of the
Cabinet not to open the ports for the free admissiot t of
foreign grain is satisfactory to all parties in Liverpool,
with the exception of the speculators and a few extreme
free trade advocates. The opening of the ports would
not influence one single cargo to this country,
.nor re-
duce the poor man's loaf the smallest fraction of our
least coin, but would for the moment have given an im-
pulse to speculation, and have put the amount of duty
into the pockets of the present holders and foreign
growers. The fire in the corn-market seems subsiding,
and prices in Liverpool are somewhat easier this week,
with a slackening in the demand ; and as the shipments:
from America come forward prices will, no doubt, re
cede, even if the farmers continue to keep back supplies.
Speculation, and not the wants of the trade, is the pause
of the late rapid advance.--Liverpool Albion.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OP CHANCERY, Nov. 3.
IN RE PENDER.
This case came before the Court upon appeal from
the decision of the Master of the Rolls, who decided
that an unsigned bill of costs might be the subject of
taxation, and from that decision the appeal was brought.
The LORD CIrANCELLOR•, at the conclusion of the
argument, said he would endeavour to give judgment to-
morrow morning.
The Court then proceeded to hoar lunatic petitions,
taking the unopposed.

toft, a few mires from Yarmouth. Remembers getting
to YoxfOnl about thirty miles from Yarmouth, and there
hiA attention v...‘s called to Mr. Lacon, who had been on
the box. There were some words between Mr. Lacon and
the coachman about an excess of luggage and passengers
on the coach. Mr. Lacon sent for a post-chaise and left
the coach.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CROWDER hating addressed the jury, and called
certain witnesses to testify as to the loading of the coach,
and

Mr. WATSOir having replied at some length,
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and said that he
certainly did not consider that the contract for the seat
meant allowing a given quantity of room abstractedly
from all other considerwions, for much inconvenience
might arise from such an interpretation. The question
for the jury, after all, was, whether the coach was so
overloaded as to render the travelling in it •f a dangerous
character.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 3.
(Sittings in Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron PLATT and a
common jury.)
BROWN 4.ND LANGSIDE V. PROUD.

In this case which was one of that very numerous
class arising out of the " railway department," and which
was tried at the last Kent Assizes before Mr. Justice
Coltman, a verdict was given for the plaintiff for the
sum of 544/. 18s., being the amount claimed for work
and labour done as an engineering surveyor for and on
behalf of the Direct London and Hastings Railway.
The defendant was a member of the provisional com-
mittee of the said company.
Mr. Sergeant SHE♦ now moved for leave to
enter a verdict for the defendant on the ground that
he was not indebted to 'the plaintiffs, and that he had
never employed them to survey the line in question. It
appeared that the plaintiffs were employed by two persons
of the name of Smith and Ryder, who were described on
the prospectuses as engineers to the company. On behalf
of the plaintiffs, it was endeavoured to be shown upon the
trial that in the case of persons so employed by the
engineer, it was the general usage for them .to look
for payment from the company, and not. to the
engineer. The witness, however, called to prove
this " general usage," could not state or particularise
any case in which such usage or custom pre-
vailed, and in cross-examination stated, that "it pre-
vailed in large companies, but not in small ones." The
-Learned Counsel now contended that such evidence
should not have been left to the jury, as
it was not sufficiently explicit to substantiate the fact.
The plaintiffs had also sent their account to Messrs.
Smith and Ryder, and in consequence of its not having
been paid, they had threatened them with legal pro-
ceedings for the recovery of the same, thereby clearly
showing that they did not consider the defendant in-
debted to them, nor was any agreement produced in
which it could be shown that either the defendant or
the company were at all liable for the payment
of the plaintiffs. Upon these grounds, therefore, it was
contended that leave should be given to enter a verdict
for the defendant.

The Court stated that they would take time for the
purpose of referring to Mr. Justice Coltmen's note upon
the evidence given at the trial.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 3

(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice Sir Taos.
WILDE, Mr. Justice MADLE, Mr. Justice PATTISON,
and Mr. Justice V. VI/mm.4ms.)
OATHS OF ABJURATION AND SUPREHAM-011 the
assembling of the Court this morning, the oaths of abju-
ration and supremacy were severally administered by
the Clerk of the Court to the Lord Chief Justice and
Mr. Vaughan Williams.

PATER V. BAKER.
CHARGE OF SLANDER.—Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL
moved for a'rule in this case, which was tried during the
last sittings after term in Middlesex, before Mr. Justice
Erle. The rule sought was to set aside the verdict which
was then obtained for the plaintiff, damages lel 125.,
and to enter a nonsuit, or else to grant a new trial, on
the ground that the verdict was against evidence. The
Learned Judge on the trial thought there was just
enough of evidence to allow the case to go to the
jury, though he (Mr. Sergeant Channel) believed the
Learned Judge was not satisfied with the verdict.
Leave at the same time was granted to move on
another point, and to obtain leave to enter a nonsuit.
The action arose from what is called a slander of title,
and originated in the folloxing circumstances:--The
plaintiff, Mr. Pater, was a solicitor, and A-siding in a
part of the parish of St. Pancras, called Agar-town,
and had been fcr some time agent and collector for the
gentleman from whom the name of the district was
derived, and in the course of business he had erected
twelve houses. While in an unfinished state, he adver-
tised them for sale, and a Mr. Kennedy was employed
at the auctioneer. On the day of the sale, the de-
fendent, who is district surveyor under the Metro-
politan Building Act, attended the room, and before
the business commenced, addressed the company to the
following effect:—His object, in attending the sale, was
to inform the purchasers, if any present intended to be
such, that he would not allow the houses in question to
be finished or occupied till the roads in connexion with
them were finished. He could not compel the roads to
be finished, but he wished to inform purchasers that they
would have to keep the carcases till the roads were
made. This was the main count in the charge. There
was another, which stated that several; persons, in con-
sequence of this intimation from Mr. Baker, declined to
purchase. The plaintiff denied that the roads were in
the state represented, and that they were sufficient for
conformity with the Act, and an action was accordingly
brought to recover damages. The plea of the defendant
was not guilty, and in his defence, he went to show
that the road way to the houses was not such as the
provisions of the Act required, and that the drains
were in a most imperfect state. In regard
to the charges of Mr. Baker respecting the property,
some time after the day of the sale the matter was re-
ferred to the Commissioners, and they caused a. view of
the property, to be taken. Th-e official referees decided
that the drains were in an imperfect state, but that there
was a roadway to the front of the houses wide enough
to allow a scavenger's cart to pass, and therefcre wide
enough for the requirements of the Act ; but that it was
in a very rough and unfinished state. The defendant,
however, in respect to the road, called attention to the
fact, that since the time he had attended the sale it had
been much improved ; and further, that the whole pro-
perty of Mr. Agar, of which Mr. Pater was agent, was
in a most imperfect state in regard to drainage and road
accommodation. The defendant, in the course he had
taken, acted from no malicious motives, but from a
strong sense of his duty to the public, a fact which the
judge had commented on when summing up. He (Mr.
Sergeant Channel) hoped, therefore, that their Lord-
ships would grant the rule to show cause against the
verdict, and that they would consult the judge as to
whether he had considered the verdict satisfactorily.
Rule nisi granted to show cause against the verdict.
DAWSON V. MORRISON.—LIABILITY OF PROVISIONAL
DIRECTORS.—THE OXFORD, WITNEY, CHELTENHAM,
AND GLOUCESTER INDEPENDENT RAILWAY.
This action was tried at the last Surrey assizes, before
Mr. Justice Coltman, and a verdict given for the defen-
dant. A rule was now sought to set aside the verdict,
on the grounds that it was against evidence and for mis-
direction.
The plaintiff was Mr. Dawson, the advertising agent,
who sought to recover 4961. for advertisements in-
serted in various newspapers, announcing a cer-
tain railway scheme, called the Oxford, Pitney,
Cheltenham, and Gloucester Independent Railway; the
defendant was Mr. James Morrison, of St. Mary-at-
hill, one of the provisional directors of the said company.
In the first prospectus of the company, advertised by
the plainiiff, the name of the defendant was found as
provisional director, and it appeared subsequently with
a number of others. He had also been seen on several
occasions at the office of the company, 58, Gracechurch-
street. The latter point had not been much &Tended on
at the trial, as there was another company which met at the
same address, of which the defendant was a shareholder.
In answer to the action, the defendant denied his
liability, and pleaded that he was not one of the com-
mittee of management, though his name had appeared
as a member of the provisional committee. The allot-
ment of the shares, it was alleged in the prospectus, was
placed entirely in the hands of the managing committee,
as also the receiving of the deposits aind the application
of the funds; therefore, there being no duties or powers
specially conferred on the general provisional committee,
they could not be made liable for the account of the de-
fendant. Besides, the plaintiff denied that he had
allowed his name to be used. The plaintiff, on the other
hand, affirmed that the managing committee acted
under the general committee, and that the latter
were equally responsible ; that the applications for
shares were addressed to the provisional committee ;
and that it bad been proved on one occasion that
the defendant, on being referred to as a director
to give information as to the respectability of an
application, wrote against the party's name, " Very
good." This was an admission, though not in express
terms, that he was a director of the company. If he
was a director, then the plaintiff maintained that he was
responsible for the debts contracted, though the Learned
Judge had instructed the jury otherwise, and that from
the terms of the prospectus, the managing committee
appeared to be the responsible party, they being ad-
vertised separately from the general committee. A
verdict was accordingly given for the defendant.
The LORD CHIEF J-USTICE said the present case did not
turn simply on the construction of the prospectus, bat
received aid and effect from the document which had
been referred to, and the letters addressed to the provi-
sional committee. Thbugh the prospectus might not
bear the construction that the provisional committee
were the parties before whom such applications were
laid, it would appear by the letter wherein the
defendant had been referred to as a director,
that though he had not signed expressly as such,
he had made some admission of it by signing against the
party's name" Very good." Inasmuch as the question
of the liability of the provisional committee did not arise
from the legal construction of the terms of the pro-
spectus, but was to be taken from its effects and other
facts in relation to the transactions of the company, the
judge had properly left the whole question to the jury,
and the rule fur misdirection could not go. But on ac-
count of the great general importance of the case, and in
order that the question might be fully considered by the
Court, the rule to show cause that the verdict was
against evidence would be granted.
Rule nisi accordingly granted.

OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVERHAMPTON
RAILWAY.—The works on a great portion of this line are
progressing rapidly. Sixteen miles will be opened iu the
autumn of next year.
A POACHER SnoT.---During Friday night last, as
the gamekeeper at FiHingham, near Lincoln, was going
his rounds, he encountered four poachers, and the issue
was a struggle in which the life of one of them was sa-
crificed. The deceased struck the gamekeeper with hii
gun, which at the instant went off and shot its owner.