The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-24 00:00:00

TIIPA SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 24, 18-is.

Robert, from Gloucester to Dublin, got on the rocks in
Scotch Bay, was scuttled, came off this morning without
damage. The Favourite, Davies, and the Coquette, of
Limerick, were in contact.
YARMOUTH, Nov. 22.—The Tyro, of Pictou, was brought
np in the Code, waterlogged and loss of rudder. The Jane,
Remington, from Goole to London, was assisted in to-day
leaky, &c., having struck on the Whiting Sand. ...
LYME, Nov. 22.—The George Robinson, Walker, received
damage in the harbour, and must discharge her cargo.
A quantity of wood-work has been picked up near Brans-
comb, together with a piece of plank with "Lalla Rookh" in
large letters on it.
AXMOUTIL—SaveraI pieces of wreck were picked up on
Seaton and Beer Beach this morning.
CARDIFF.—The Ocean Queen, now in Bute dock, did con-
siderable damage to herself and the basin yesterday morning,
the sea running very high at the time.
LLANELLY.—One of the schooners which foundered yester-
day near here is supposed to be the Dolphin, of Penzance,
as pieces of wreck have come on shore with that name on

them.
Hum, Nov. 23.—A loaded kiel sunk off Brough, during
a gale yesterday ; crew saved. The Lucksall, from Selby to
Lynn, is sunk in the roads ; crew saved.
F,PaziouTH;. Nov. 23.—Wind W.S.W.—Arrd. Dwdalus,
Nicholas, from Shippegan, for Southampton, 'with loss of
sails and bulwarks having been thrown on her beam ends in
a gale, ou the 19th, in !at. 49, lon.- 10.
PlLL.—Arrd. China, Turnbull, Quebec. Off, A. Kenny,
Baldwin, Quebec.
BRISTOL, Nov. 23.—Wind W.—Arrd. China, Atteridge,
Quebec • Ann Kenny, Power, ditto, with loss of main top-
sail, bulwarks,' &c., and with decks swept in a gale 20th
Sid. Lady Campbell, Power, New Orleans; Janina

inst.
ditto.

MARKET NEWS.—(THIS DAY.)
lcAor EIEMIESTS.
Sivinmem.D.--Meadow Hay, 21 5s to 41; Clover ditto
3/ 5s to 4/ 17s; and Straw, 11 8s to 1113 s per load. Both
Hay and Straw sold heavily. and prices were not supported.
CUMBERLAND.—Meadow Hay, 21 8s to 4/ 2s ; Clover.
ditto, 3/ 8s to 4/ 16s ; and Straw, 11 lOs to 11 16s per load.
A fair average sapply, and a sluggish demand.
WHITECHAPEL.—Meadow Hay, 215 s to 41; Clover ditto
315 s to 5/ ; and Straw, 1/ 9s to 1/ 13s per load. Supply
good, and trade dull.

COLONIAL.
SUGAR.—The market for British Plantation is dull and
inactive, only 150 hhds having been sold at about previous
rates The public sales have offered 5,703 bags Mauritius,
2,872 bags 10 casks Bengal, 324 bags Madras, 37 cases and
casks Penang, 230 hhds Cuba Muscovado, and 140 boxes
Clayed ditto, all of which went off heavily, only about two-
thirds finding buyers at rather lower rates for all de-
scriptions, excepting the better sorts of Mauritius, which
brought the extreme value. Very low soft to good
brown Mauritius sold at ' 355 to :455; low to fine
yellow ditto, 45s 6d to 52s 6d, low to fine white Be-
nares Bengal, 49s 6d to 55s 6d ; good brown to fine grainy
christalised yellow, 45s 6d to 67s 6d ; a few lots soft greyish
yellow, 46s 6d to 47s 6d ; good brown to good yellow Cuba
Muscovado, 44s to 52s ; mid brown to good clayed yellow,
but soft*, 42s 6d to 49s 6d ; and mid white ditto, 58s to 58s 6d.
The quantity of British Plantation lauded last week at the
East and West India Docks was 335 hhds, 26 tierces, 46 bar-
rels ; there were taken for home consumption, 970 hhds,
117 tierces, 268 barrels. The stock in the same places is
7,390 hhds, 890 tierces, 2,324 barrels.
COFFEE.—The market has been dull.
Runt.—The quantity landed last week at the East and
West India Docks was 9 puns 23 hhds ; there were taken
for home consumption 254 puns 37 hhds, and exported 174
puns 92 hhds. The stock in the same places is 12,073 puns
1,326 hhds. •
TALLOW.-:-P.Y,C. is 48s to 48s 3d per cwt. on the spot,
and Town 52s 6d per cwt.
TEA.--There is a steady business doing, with a good con-
sumption. The price of ord to good ord Congou is 91,4 d to
10d per lb, and of good ord to best middling Twankay 2d to
Is id per lb.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor did not attend his Court at
Westminster today.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

FORDYCE V. BRIDGES.
His LORDSHIP delivered judgment in this cause this
mornings He said, this was a bill filed by Alexander
Fordyce, Or the purpose of setting aside a decree that
had been obtained by the defendants, Sir J. Denny
Brydges, &c.,' in this suit on the 3d of August, 1843.
The question in that suit which was raised by the plain-
tiff was one that could not be adequately discussed
before the Master. It appeared that the testator left his
property, which consisted of estates in Scotland and
England, with directions that those in the former coun-
try should be sold, and the amount resulting frcm such
sale to be invested in the purchase of estates in Eng-
land, and then left the same to the party under whom
the plaintiff claimed as heir. There was no question on
these points. The trustees, at their own request, had
been discharged from the trusteeship, and the plaintiff
filed a bill, which raised the question as to whether he
was bound by the acts of the trustees, who had invested
nearly the whole of the testator's property in the pur-
chase of estates in Scotland, as well as other dispositions
to which he objected. Two questions were before the
Court—the first, whether the present Bill was in a proper
form, and the other as to the decree. With respect to
the former point, he was of opinion that the present bill
was quite correct in the mode in which it came before
the Court. With reference to the next point, as to the
correctness Of the decree, it was necessary to deal with
the question more fully. It appeared that the testator
had given discretionary powers to his trustees, and au-
thorised them to appoint trustees; but as this appoint-
ment was left by the terms of the testator's will entirely
in private hands, with that the Court did not interfere,
nor institute any inquiry into the manner in which they
were to act. But after they had been appointed their
acts were to be considered by the Court. Now they had
not acted in conformity with the expressed intentions of
the testator, and therefore the plaintiff was not bound
by the decree of the 3d of August, 1843, which the trus-
tees bad obtained to invest the property in the manner
they had done. He declared that the trustees were er-
roneously appointed, and directed that it be referred to
the Masterto appoint new trustees under, and to inquire as
to the amount„ and all the particulars of the money paid
to those who held the property of the plaintiff in trust.
CARPMEAL V. POWIS.
His LORDSHIP also gave judgment to-day in this case,
which has been for some time before the Court.
The bill was filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of
rectifying an agreement into which he had entered with
the defendant, Miss Letitia Powis, or to have a deed of
the 7th October, 1839, delivered into Court, to be can-
celled. In August,, 1839, the plaintiff Agreed to pur-
chase 'acme 'house property- froin• the defendant, for
which—he was to pay a sum of 1,8901., but
subsequently considering that,. \as the defendant
was advanced in life, it would' be more advisable
to give her an annuity instead of the purchase-money,
he made a proposition to that effect, and to which she
acceded. Mr. Yowls suggested that it would be only
equitable for a private individual to grant more than
Government. Plaintiff acquiesced, and agreed to give
181. per annum more than Government. Then the ques-
tion came as to what Government would give, and Mr.
Powis applied to a geutleman in the Government Annuity
Office, named Cuthbert, who stated in writing that
the then price of 1,8001. in :the Three per Cents. was
1591. Bs. 6d. to a female of fifty-eight years, the age of
the defendant at that time. 0 n the 6th of October,
.1839, this was, according to the statement of Mr. Powis,
shown to Miss Powis, at the same time all
the circumstances being communicated to her.
Miss Powis, however, stated that he only told her that
the plaintiff had agreed to give her an annuity of
1761. 10s. 6d. On the 7th 'of October, 183 e, this was
' agreed to by all parties, and the deed was executed. Besides
the statement of Mr. Fowls, tle !re, was the evidence of Miss
Powis's solicitor, as well as: that of a gentleman who
was present when the parties met for the purpose of
signing the deed, and who stated that the plaintiff pro-
duced a piece of blank paper, w hich he said was for the
purpose of making the calculation according to the
rule that had been agreed upon 'between him and her bro-
ther. The amenity was paid fear a Oct. 1839 to Jan. 1844,
when the plaintiff discovered %that he had been erro-
neously informed as to the dune unt that would be given
by Government, under the car cumstances under which
he had granted the annuity, bei nginatead of 158/.,98. 6d.
only 1361. 6s. 9id., and therof ore that he had been pay-
ing considerably more than Et: should have done. He
then applied to Miss Towle. to be released from his
agreement, which she refust xi. The present bill was
then filed, praying the Court tc. set aside the agreement.
It was contended on behal f of the defendant, that
Government payments were so well known, that the
plaintiff was not entitled to POly relief. Mr. Powis had
certainly offered himself to ob taro the information re-
quired, but he (the Master of the Rolls) should not in
a matter of such importance, liave implicitly relied on
the statement of a party so c Llosely related to the defen-
dant as Mr. Powis, although there was no imputation
cast upon that gentle: nun for his conduct
in the transaction. Besides, the plaintiff continued to
act under the erroneous info, em ation for more than four
years. His Lordship though ttl tat the agreement should
be declared void, and he wo uld' decree that an account
should be taken of the sums th at had been paid by the
plaintiff, and that, upon his ',ay ing the balance between
such and the purchase-money, the deed of agreement
should be cancellsd.
The Court rose at half-past one o'clock.

VICE-CHANCERIC.--(T MIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE -CIIANC "EL: L.OR of ENGLAND.)
TERRY V. IV.AC HER.
The further arguments in this part-heard cause occu-
pied his Honour the Vice-Chi ncellor, of England the
whole morning.

QUEEN'S BENCH..- -(THIS DAY.)
HER MAJESTY'S. VIINISTERS.
At the sitting of the Court, ] :ord Campbell, Sir John
Jervis, Mr. Daniel Dundas, as id Mr. Charles Buller,
took the oaths usually taken on' the acceptance of office
of her Majesty's Ministers. Th ey held respectively the
following offices :—Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,
Attorney-General, Solicitor-Cie neral, and Judge-Advo-
cate. General.
THE QUEEN V. TURNER.--C A ctIMINAL INFORMATION.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL applied to have the rule
in this case enlarged, on the g round that the defendant
required time to obtain affida n As from France and other
places which were necessary f 3r the proper hearing of the
case. The Tule was obtained o• a the I lth of June, last term,
but it appeared that notice w a a not served upon the de-
fendant until the 7th of Aug as t.
Sir F. THESIGER opposes the application, on the
ground that the defendant ha, i had ample time to obtain
all the affidavits he might require. He might even
have obtained affidavits from :India.
The COURT refused the DT rlication.
MR. FERRAND, m. r., _ND MR. LEWIS, THE
ASSISTANT-POOR-L &W COMMISSIONER.
THE QUEEN V. MR. BUSFEILI F ERRAND,. M.P.—CRIMINAL

INFORI

iii
This case" the particulars.. of ..which mast be fresh
the recollection of our reacre xi, came on this morning
for argument. The rule w s obtained on the first day
of term, and called upon tr. Ferrand to show cause

why a criminal information should not be filed against
him for the publication of two letters in the Times, on
the Bth and 10th of August last, which charged Mr.
Lewis with having connived, with Sir James Graham,
in order to obtain from Mr. Mott, an Assistant-Poor-law
Commissioner, a false report with respect to the
Keighley Union, for the purpose of injuring his
character, and crushing him as a Member of the House
of Commons,' Mr. Ferrand being the chairman of the
board of guardians of the union.
Mr. Ferrand was present, and occupied a seat next
his counsel.
Mr. MARTIN, Q C., showed cause against the rule.
He said in the summer of last year a Committee
was appointed by the House of Commons to in-
vestigate certain charges which had been made
with respect to the management of the Andover Union.
It was during the sittings
.of this Committee that the
two letters complained of appeared in the Times. Re-
ports of the evidence adduced before the CoMmittee ap-
peared from day to day in the newspapers, and thus
came under the notice of Mr. Ferrand. A few days be-
fore the first letter was written a Mr. Parker, who had
been on a Government Poor-law Commission, but who
had been dismissed on account of some proceedings
with respect to the Andover Union, and Mr. Chadwick,
who held the office of Secretary to the Commissioners,
were examined before this Committee. The first letter
was written by Mr. Ferrand on reading a report of the
evidence given by these gentlemen. (The Learned
Counsel then read the letter, which stated that he (Mr.
Ferrand) had been unable to attend his Parlia-
mentary duties on account of indisposition, but
that he had watched the proceedings of the
Andover Committee with the most intense interest,
and that the feelings ,of every Hon. Member of the
House of Commons must revolt at the evidence ad-
duced before the Committee on the preceding Saturday,
as it was distinctly proved that part of tho statement
made in the House of Commons by Sir James Graham,
reflecting severely on his conduct, was false.. Further
disclosures were prevented by the chairman requesting
Mr. Parker to confine his answers to the matter before
the Committee ; and when further observations with
respect to the Keighley union were made, Mr. Manners
Sutton ordered the room to be cleared. The letter went
on to state that be should prove that Mr. Mott was
merely the tool of Mr. Lewis, that the whole business
was nothing more than a conspiracy on the part of
Sir James Graham and Mr. Lewis, in order to " crush
him " (%Ir. Ferrand). The second letter stated that
Mr. Lewis had been guilty of the most deliberate
falsehood, in order to deceive the House
of Commons, and in order to rescue his
confidential friend, Sir James Graham, from the infamy
that awaited him.)
From these letters it appeared that Mr. Lewis
was charged with having assisted in getting a report
made by Mr. Mott which contained false statements,
and that, knowing them to be false, he delivered the'
report to Sir. James Graham, to be used by him in his
place in the House of Commons, and that the report was
so used. .
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER said that was not all. His
Learned Friend should read the last passage.
Mr. MARTIN did so. The letters went on to
state that the whole proceeding was a false
and infamous conspiracy, on the part of Mr.
Lewis and Sir James Graham, to crush him (Mr.
Ferrand) in the House of Commons. The second letter
further stated that Mr. Lewis, when examined before
the Andover Committee, made a false statement with
respect to the reports on the condition of the Keighley
Union. Mr. Lewis had stated that Mr. Mott was sent
down to Keighley in consequence of a notice of motion
entered by Mr. Ferrand in the notice book of the House
of Commons, for an address to the Crown to rescind an
order of the Poor-law Commissioners with respect to the
union, which. Mr. Ferrand denied, as his motion was not
made until June' whereas Mr. Mott's report was dated
the 23d of April. Mr. Lewis stated that he had no com-
munication with Sir J. Graham before desiring Mr. Mott
to visit the union. Sir J. Walsham sent down to make a
similar investigation, in order to test the accuracy of
Mr. Mott's report, and a Committee was appointed on
the 28th of June to investigate the subject, and made
their report on the 15th of July. The affidavit of Mr.
Lewis stated that he did not direct Mr. Mott to make a
false report, and that he believed it to be strictly true;
that he did not carry it to Sir James Graham knowing
it to be false, and that he had never conspired with Sir
James Graham for the purpose of prejudicing Mr. Fer-
rand or any other person; and Mr. Mott in his affidavit
denied that he received any instructions from Mr. Lewis
or any other person, to make a special or colourable re-
port. When Mr. Lewis was examined before the An-
dover Committee he stated that Mr. Mott was sent down
to Keighley in consequence of the motion of Mr.
Ferrand, but on the 11 th of August, after the
second letter was published, he went before the
Committee, and explained that he meant Sir
John Waltham, and not Mr. Mott. What, must he
asked, have been the state of a sanguine man's mind, or
even the state of mind of a cool-minded man on reading
the evidence given by Mr. Lewis ? Why, believing that
he had been cruelly injured, that Mr. Mott had been
directed to furnish a false report, and that the statement
of Mr. Lewis confirmed him in his belief, to take the
earliest and most public opportunity of wiping away the
imputations which had been cast upon him by Sir James
Graham on the strength of these reports. The power
placed in the hands of their Lordships, of enabling
persons who felt themselves aggrieved to come forward
v ial
neproceedings,gdenotbatm
itadwea
st
she uonl r c
es e
which
subservient ei
cnh-t
orsrat
noharnecod7i ttultehlrrlriduevfsteis,i
feeling
lewdgniedjni actugshahcr
:eau' t
iv
oabul by these
edldayribssvAltauieliwdlsreipeau.ssdrsafeyiLis
not
Lewis,
vweiahs
c,
.who
Courtacteduwaht
actuated
dst
whose
that
,aai‘,name
yrpersonal
conscientiously.errsrowann was
eey
towardssseof
°euiti
ignorant of, until he saw it in the Times of August last;
and that he was induced to write the letter in question
whilst in a frame of mind which would have induced not
only a sanguine, but a cool-minded man, who believed
the statement of Mr. Lewis to be true, to act in a similar
manner. If he should satisfy their Lordships that the
letters were written under these circumstances, he appre-
hended they would consider that Mr. Lewis had a fear op-
portuuity of vindicating his character by the proceedings
he had already ialsen, and that they would, discharge the
rule. He had no wish to,speak of Mr Lewis with any
harshness, but he thought he could point out that in this
matter he had not acted with that fairness which
the public had a right to expect from a per-
son filling the situation he did. This would be
more evident when he stated that Mr. Lewis put
into Sir James Graham's hands the statements which
were undoubtedly false, and that he kept other
statements back, which would have shown the report of
Mr. Mott to be false, and that when Sir James Graham
and Mr. Lewis were in possession of Sir John Wal-
sham's and of previous reports with respect to
the union, that Mr. Mott's report was alone
used. Mr. Lewis could scarcely be considered to
have acted fairly by putting forward the statement of
Mr. Mott alone, when others were in his possession,.
which, to say the least of them, were contrary to that
report. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to read
the affidavit of Mr. Ferrand. It stated that he was
elected a Member of Parliament in 1841, and that he
had formed a very strong opinion as to the impolicy of
the New Poor-law, as he or any other man had a perfect
right to do; and that he was returned to Parliament on
the express statement made by him that he would use
the influence of his position to obtainthe abolition of that
law. Early that session he received a communication from
Sir James Graham, stating that he wished to see him.
On waiting on him, Sir James Graham stated, on the
.part of the Government, that they were Anxious that he
should abstain from opposing the New Poor-law. He
replied that he could not do so, as his conscientious
andue
madethat haemhetaidenplteedgreedaeibeids
Commissioners of tho 30th of
ocaopniiiff ordersitoitnuse nwe tfes rt
ethoe opposeagainsti ai tw. it,
f June he made a speech in opption Bill
April, 1842, but afterwards abandoned it.
to Oa
n the
ele7eth-
Ii
onected with some alteration of the Poor-law ;_and it was
on that occasion that Sir James Graham producer his
report of Mr. Mott. Sir John Walsham had
Mr. Ferrand, imputing to him the mostdishonourable
chairman oft he
report on the 9th, and made a most
conduct, stating that in his capacity of
Idl
lk
eu o
n
union,create
busandi nae saf
omr at gh ies a
attorneys,teh e h
anddone
talhl
eh eh
acdo um
aid oe
certain regulations for the purpose of creating new ex-
penses. He stated that there was not the slightest truth
in any of these charges—that they were most cruel and
unjust, and that he rose immediately after Sir James
Graham and stated so. This debate took place on the
17th ofm Juneeah,ave whenbothbeeein SpeirsseJeasmieenseGfGrahamehanndw balir..
L
sham's report. The great complaints of Mr. Ferrand
up to the present time was, that although they were in
possession of many other reports at the time, Mr.liotts,
which cast upon him the grossest possible imputations,
was used. The affidavit concluded by stating that the
report of Mr. Mott was untrue, and that the committee
had so decided. He then read the affidavit of Mr.
Patratmrekninedrge,dthste the
that the statement of Mr. Ferrand
was correct; of Mr. Macdonald, the Times reporter, who
evidence
vicommittee ,
ro.n Parker,tti e
and Andovert ftyrncioonm,inceonnt--
con-
firming
on the material facts, he concluded by calling upon
the Court,
under the circumstances, to discharge the
rule.

Mr. Boovux followed on the same ,side. He dwelt
upon the fact that when Mr. Ferrand took the matter up
it had appeared in the Times, and although the appear-
ance of such a statement in a newspaper would be no
justification for a libel, it showed that Mr. Ferrand had
taken it up on public grounds, and that it had become
a public question, that no copy had been kept of the in-
structions given to Sir John Walsharn in opposition to
the Poor-law Act ; that on the 17th of June,
when Mr. Mott's report. was produc ed, that Mr.
Lewis had been the cause of alt the injury
which Mr. Ferrand had sustained, and tro fisted the Court
would not make the rule absolute.
Sir F. THESIGER then addressed the Cc )urt in support
of the rule. He said he had listened with regret to the
speeches of his learned friends, because ti hroughout the
whole of their addresses, they had dome all in their
power to maintain the charges Mr. Nerrand had
made ; but he deeply and sincercely -regretted that
Mr. Ferrand had not found some one calm enough to
advise him to adopt a different course) -than the one he
had adopted—not to add to the venom of the sting he
had inflicted, but to make some atonerner for the injury
he had done to the character of Mr. :Lewis. Now, it
appeared that Mr. Mott was not directed to visit the
union until the middle of March, 1842, at which time
F,-rraml had ' not eon= eneed. hie) duties
as chairman until the 30th of Mare b; and when he did
visit it, -he did so in pursuance of an order from Mr.
Lewis, who was informed that many- irregularities pre-

Tailed in the union. The practice and the act in.
itself was perfectlyt legitimate, and the. report, Mr.
Ferrand's common sense must tell him, was not of Mr.
Lewis, but for the Poor Law Commissioners to act upon,
and they did act upon it, and issued the order which Mr.
Ferrand had sought to rescind, and when the matter was
before Sir James Graham he did that which at once
showed that there was nothing at all to induce the belief
that he had embarked in a conspiracy to obtain a fabri-
cated repor, and that he had acted as an honourable
man occupying .a high position in the Administration of
the affairs of the country, he suggested the propriety of
of sending Sir John Walshans to Keighley, who was in
its neighbourhood. Surely Mr. Ferrand must see
that this conduct on the part of Sir James
Graham was entirely opposed to anything
like a conspiracy. Mr. Ferrand had stated in his affi-
davit that the committee on Mr. Mott's report was not
an impartial one, and that those who voted in the majority
were supporters of the:Government. This was a matter of
which the Court could take no cognisance, and he only
mentioned it to show how sweeping and indiscriminate werc
the assertions of Mr. Ferrand. Then he stated that
Mr. Mott's report " was a false report, and that it was
backed by another folk report" (Sir John Walsham's),
which would seem to infer that Sir John Walsham
had been also directed to furnish a fabricated
report, but the Committee held that the reports con-
firmed each other in all their material allegations, except
that some of the statements in Sir John Walsham's
report were too general, and required qualification.
Why this alone was sufficient to convince
any half.reasoned man that there was no con-
spiracy, for if there had been the reports would
no doubt have tallied to the letter. Then, again, he
stated that he was prevented from examining Mr.
Mott when he was before the Committee. Very
great credulity was necessary to induce any one to
give credence to such a statement, because Mr.
Mott was called before the Committee, for the purpose of
being examined, and it was Mr. Ferrard's duty, as one
of the Committee, to take a part in that investigation.
His Learned Friend talked of Mr. Ferrard's violent pas-
sions, but was it to be said, that because a man had a
violent temper that he was to be allowed to run his head
against any one he chose? At a meeting at Leeds he
made the statements with respect to the report, and
added that Sir James Graham had broken his tool, hut
the House of Commons subsequently voted the charge
" calumnious and false."

(The case was proceeding when our report left.)

BAIL COURT.--(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
THE QUEEN V. HEALEY.

Mr. HUDDLESTONE moved to enlarge a rule which had
been obtained by Mr. Bramwell for a criminal informa-
tion, on the part of Thomas Wakley, Esq., M.P., against
the editor of a paper called the Medical Times, for a
libel. The affidavits stated that there were likely to
arise from the proceedings many facts, which it would
be necessary to bring under the notice of the Court, and
which, owing to the lateness of the term, it would be
impossible to get up in sufficient time.
Mr. BRAMWELL could offer no objection, if his Lord-
ship thought the grounds for the enlargement sufficiently
strong.—Application granted.
THE QUEEN V.

Mr. MOODY moved for a writ of certiorari- directed
to the magistrates of the county of Cornwall to remove
an indictment which was to be preferred at the quarter
sessions for that county against the defendant for steal-
ing oysters from an oyster bed. Ilia Lordship was
aware that a prosecution of this nature would be at-
tended with peculiar difficulties as the property was
taken from an arm of the sea, and it would be necessary
to prove the title of the prosecutor to the oyster grounds
and his power of defeating. the general right of any sub-
ject to take fish between high and low water mark. The
magistrates before whom the case eatue before were
aware of the difficulty of this so
rt of case, and they en-
tertained it with the view of having it removed by writ
of certiorari.—Rule nisi granted.
THE QUEEN v. EDWARD LUTDIAN.
Mr. PHINN moved for a rule for a quo warranto call-
ing on Edward Lutman to show cause why and by what
authority he exercised the office of town councilor of
Bath.
The affidavits stated that there being two vacancies in
the town council, three candidates presented themselves,
Messrs. Lutman, Archer, and Crutwell; the votes
polled were, Archer, 212; Lutman, 212; and Crutwell,
210. After the election it was found that a very exten-
sive system of personation had taken place, and under
the Act a number of votes given for Archer and Lutman
were invalid, and therefore that Mr. Crutwell was at the
head of the poll.—Application granted.

larcen,

Mr. DUNCAN said that his Honour would clearly per-
ceive, that supposing an action was brought in Scotland
for the same debt, no plea in bar could be raised on the
discharge under this Act. The rejection of this debt
would seduce the amount.
The point of liability being reserved, the insolvent was
questioned as to the amount of the debt, and said that he
could not deny the correctness of the invoice.
The Learned COMMISSIOIIER said that the invoice
could not be received in evidence at all. The insolvent
had sworn to the best of his belief as to the amount of
his debt, and to make it greater, or to prove the invoice,
witnesses must prove the delivery of the goods.
Mr. BUCHANAN then produced the beer and spirit
licenses granted to the insolvent by the name of John
B. Walker, and contended this was a holding out to the
world a fictitious name, which must be taken as fraud,
and would prevent the Court from exercising a power of
granting an order.
The insolvent said that he had not given the name for
the purposes of fraud or concealment, but being known
by both names he had, in answer to the Excise officers,
given the name.
Mr. DUNCAN argued that no deceit could be inferred
in this case, where a man was so well knoe n to the
world. If, however, the Scotch creditors had complaint
against " John, or Johnny Walker," they had no
right to complain in England of the conduct of John
Badman.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said the insolvent ap-
peared to have been well known in both names, there
fore he could not allow the objection.
Interim order granted.

CRIMINAL COURT.--(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.
The Recorder, Mr. Alderman Challis, and Mr. Alder-
man Wilson sat in this Court.
The Court was occupied the whole morning with cases
of petty larceny.

NEW COURT.
Before the COMMON SERGEANT and Alderthan Sir

W. MAGNAY.)
All the cases tried in this Court today were of the
most trivial character, being cases chiefly of petty

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
_ (THIS DAY_)

The November adjourned sessions for the county of
Middlesex commenced this morning, at the Court-house,
Clerkenwell-green, when the calendar presented the
names of seventy-one persons, sixty-two of whom were
charged with felony.
The Learned ASSISTANT JUDGE, in charging the
grand jury, said it was with regret that he felt compelled
again to allude to a subject which bad long occupied his
attention, and which, he feared, must almost now be
more than familiar with the gentlemen of the grand
jury, he meant the more than n3ual number of
juvenile criminals appearing in the calendar, in propor-
tion to the adults. Out of 71 cases to be brought before
the grand jury, no less than 24 were of children be-
tween the ages of nine and fourteen, and one or two
between that and seventeen. • It was truly painful to
witness these cases ; arid he sincerely hoped that next
session of Parliament would not be suffered to pass
away, without the attention of the Legislature being
directed to a subject of such deep import to the moral
welfare of society, as well as in a social point of view,
because it must be evident to every man of ordinary elo-
servation, that the alternate routine of thieving and im -
prisonment, compelled by the present state of the law,
was neither a protection to property, an example to the
depraved, nor a means of reforming the criminal.
John James Underwood, a miserable-looking man,
about sixty years of age, pleaded guilty to an indict-
ft with
hstealing a
directors leather
o f
the
poorsling,
of valuest.
gr
obi) iemr t ywoi
2mee. n6t
dc. h, a
therg pn
Pancras parish.
The prisoner, in extenuation of his offence, urged that
before he took the sling he had made several applica-
tions to the relieving officer for assistance, but without
effect, although he told him that he was actually famish-
ing through hunger.
The Learned ASSISTANT JUDGE said, under the cir-
cumstances, he should only sentence the prisoner to six
weeks' imprisonment.
Thomas Cosgrave was found Guilty of stealing a quan-
tity of iron, the property of his employer, William
Taylor, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Ann Clarke was indicted for stealing a gold watch, the
property of Thomas Littler.
The prosecutor, who seemed far advanced in years,
and described himself as a merchant-tailor, said he met
the prisoner, on the morning of the 17th instant, about
two o'clock, and after talking to him for a short time in
a hall,into which ho said she forced him, he missed his
watch, which was subsequently found upon the prisoner.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and
The Learned ASSISTANT-JUDGE said as it appeared
that the prisoner bad been convicted of s similar offence
about eight months ago, he should now senteage her to
be transported for ten years.

MARLBRAY-STREET.—(THIS DAY.
. George Smith and F. S. Breewood were charged with
riot and assault in the coffee-house, 265, Oxford-street.
James Stewart, the proprietor of the coffee-house,
said the two prisoners and some others came into his
house about half-past three o'clock, and ordered coffee
and bread and butter and cheroots for Silt.. Complainant,
on their receiving these articles, asked for payment.
Sinith, the defendant, said " that's the payment I'll give
you," and threw the contents of a cup of coffee into his
(complainant's) face. Complainant struck him a back
stroke in the face, got up on the seat and collared Smith,
and Breewood then dealt him several severe blows about
the head. Complainant went out and called the police,
and when he returned he found the defendants in con-
flict with his waiter. The prisoner Breewood struck
witness in the chest. They were given into custody,
and in the struggle several articles of crockery-ware:and
the glass in the door were smashed to pieces, to the
amount of 10/. in value.
Several witnesses were called, who corroborated his
evidence.
The prisoners denied the charge, and called a witness,
who, on the testimony of the police, was more violent
than any present, and would have been taken into cus-
tody had there been force enough.
Mr. LONG said they must pay 40s. each for the assault
or go one month to the House of Correction.
Michael Connor, Mary Slater, and Pat Hannan, were
charged with assault in the Victoria public-house, Castle-
street, Oxford-street.
John Williams, being sworn, said, the three prisoners
and some others came into his father's house, the
Victoria, last night about half-past eleven o'clock, and
called for a pint of rum. Ills father refused to serve
them. They told him if he would serve them they
would go out quietly, otherwise they would not go out
of the house. He then drew a pint of rum, and, holding
it in his hand, asked for the payment. Connor snatched
the measure out of his hand and drank off half the con-
tents; the female then had it, and drank the rest. His
father again asked for payment. Connor then struck
the landlord on the breast with the measure, and
parties went out and gave Connor into custody of a
policeman. The female at this time seized a pewter
measure off the bar and threw it at witness's mother,
whom it struck in the chest; she threw a two-quart jug
and a quart pewter pot at her. This done, she smashed
two gas glasses and set the taps running. She then
went up and assaulted the barmaid, scratching her face,
and tearing off her hair by handfuls.
Elizabeth Jones, the barmaid, said she had been eleven
years in the same house, and on the night in question
tale prisoners came in and acted as had been stated. She
!then took off her bonnet by desire of the Court, and ex-
hibited the one side of her head almost as bare as the
palm of the hand, contrasting strangely with the other
dde, which was well covered with hair.
Police-constable E 118 said he took Connor into cus-
tody, and the other male prisoner, with the female, came
out and rescued him, and took him into the public-house
e gain. The constable followed, and was struck by the
defendant Hannan when proceeding to take Connor,
a gain into custody.
Mr. LONG said, Connor, for the assault on Mr. Wil-
lianas, must pay 405., or go one month to the House of
Correction ; Hannan, for assaulting the policeman, 405.,
or .one month's imprisonment ; but the female, for this
b.ru tal and horrible assault on the barmaid, must pay 51.,
or
„go two months to the House of Correction.

SOUTHWARK.—(THIS DAY.)
Catherine Watson was charged, with another female
(notincustody)with stealing 461. 125., from the person of
Mr. Thomas Davies, a salesman of Leadenhall-market.
-Prosecutor, who lives at Dockhead, said that about
two o'clock that morning, he was proceeding along
Tooley-street to Leadenhall-market with 461. 12s. in his
trowsers pocket. When near King's Head-yard, he was
suddenly pounced upon by the prisoner and another
female, one of whom pinioned his arms, while the other
put her hand in his pocket, and rifled it of its contents.
Ile, however, disengaged her arms, and secured the pri-
soner, but her companion made her escape with all his
money. lie could distinctly swear to the other should
abe be apprehended.
Mr. SECKER asked whether the oney was loose in his
pockets, and the reply being in thme affirmative, he said
that it was really alarming the extent to which robbery
of the person by females was careied.on in the locality
of this court, and that it was quite time such a gang
should be broken up and sent out of the country.
• The Magistrate then remanded the prisoner, to give
an opportunity for apprehending the other woman con-
cerned in the robbery.

TUE ATTEMPTED MURDER AT ISLINGTON.--At
Clerkenwell Police-court, yesterday, George Wilmot,
dins George Smith, was brought before Mr. Green-
ly ood for further examination, charged with having at-
teinpted to murder Mrs. Susannah Haines, the wife of
Mr. James Haines, plumber and glazier, of Paradise-
terr ac",
Liverpool-road, Islington. Mr. Greenwood in-
quired as to the present state of Mrs. Haines, or whether
the of.'fier had brought a surgeon's certificate ? Ser-
geant Lioward, 22 N, produced a certificate from B
thir.
Haines, surgeon, of the Liverpool-road, purporting at
the injured woman was still confined to her bed in a bad
state, and it would be unsafe for her to attend at the
Court' in less than a week. Mr. Greenwood, addressing
the prisoner, said it was not necessary for him to require
the attendance of Mrs. Haines, as they had already
taken down her deposition ; but if she should die, the
charge will bra very serious one. Ile should, therefore,
remand the pisoner for another week.
A new WAY' OF HEARING T:FLE NEWS.—A
fellow climbed one of the poles of the ek ctric telegraph,
in West Kent, the other day, and applieti his ear to the
wires, in order to hear the news.—Dover Tekgraph.
We are enabled to ,1-1 that our exoeillept
P. W. S. Miles, Esq., lout to hYmenmi
• altar ono of the lovely and accomplished daktgbters of
Major-General Sir W. F. B. Napier, IA ti,teuPt"
Governor of Guernsey,--Bristol Mirror,