The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-18 00:00:00

HAMBURGH MAIL.

The Borsenhalle of the 15th says that from the offi-
cial list the loss of troops on the 18th and 19th of
March, at Berlin, amounted to three officers and seven-
teen soldiers killed, or who had died of their wounds up
-to the 12th of April, and that the number of the wounded
snsounted to 14 officers, 14 subalterns, 225 privates and
-sergeants.

SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN AND RENDSBURG, APRIL 13..4-
'instead of the official report respecting the engagement of
-the 9th, the Vaglebladt contains merely the following
motice-:—" Although the results of the last engagement
are very melancholy, the General in command feels him-
self called upon to make honourable mention of the
valour of the troops." Here the various companies are
enumerated. These did all that could possibly be expected
from a well-disciplined army, and painful as the sacrifice
has been to the country, the heroic :example of those who
fall will serve as a noble stimulus to their fellow. soldiers.
APRIL 12, 4 o'Coocn, P.M.—Yesterday a Danish corps
of 800 men arrived at Schleswig. The leaders of the
;political party arrived here early this morning to avoid
beiug sent to Denmark. Count Reventlow von Farve,
'who has been appointed Ambassador of the Provisional
Government at Vienna, has also arrived here.
RENDSBIIRG, APRIL 12.—Major Michelson, of the
Sth Jager corp,, lies at the Flensburg hospital severely
wounded. On the evening of the 12th Flushing was
brilliantly illuminated. The Danish standard was un-
furled °a many of the public and private residences.
The Rendsburg Jageblaft says that the Bracklow
Volunteer corps arrived there on the evening of the 12th,
together with the 6th company of the Rantogan corps of
volunteers, consisting of Brunswickers, under the com-
mand of a StoWeld. A half-battery of Pruasian mounted
artillery likewise arrived at Altona, and proceeded
towards their destination.
HAXISURGH, APRIL 14.—Yesterday evening 800 in-
fantry, avid one battery, of eight Hanoverian pieces,
arrived here, and this morning about an equal number
of Brunswickers, together with artillery, arrived at
Altona. The troops have, however, as yet not re-
ceived any orders to advance further. The cause, of
these continued delays remains inexplicable. The train
this morning has brought no further intelligence either
from Kiel or Rendsburg.
COPENHAGEN, APRIL 12.—The Copenhagen journtils
state that.his Majesty sva,s received with great demon-
strations of joy at-Flensburg.
The Dannevirke and Fadrelandet state that the
Schleswig-Holstein main army at Flensburg consisted
of from 7,000 to 10,000 men, which were put to flight in
the utmost confusion, when the valorous Danes stormed
Bau and other strongholds; that at noon the Duke and
his brother fled, followed by masses of troops in
the greatest confusion; that the Duke and other princes
who occupied the city previous to the engagement, were
seized. with a panic and took to flight, and only
escaped the hussars, who pursued them, on account
of the- extreme swiftness of their horses, although
the Duke had declared on Sunday morning that lie
would- remain in Flensburg as long as a single house
remained standing, or an individual German stayed
in the city. The Berlingsha Zeitung is of opinion
that the affairs of Flensburg hare routed the insurgents
and disorganiied the army„ The loss on the Danish side
at Bau was eight _or ter killed and wounded, among
whom. was Captain Stigemann Linden Crone. .The
Dannevirke gives- the loss of the Danish killed
and wounded at 100 men. In the reports of this journal
a fierce engagement is likewise mentioned as having
taken-place between the Haderslibon volunteers of thirty
men and a German corps of volunteers bearing the
insignia of the, death's head, consisting chiefly
of University men, of the wounded brought to the Flens-
burg; seven Danes and twenty-four Germans have died.
Among the Danish wounded officers are Captains Rohe-
berg, Stigemann Linden Crone; Lieutenants Heckscher,
Prunst, Fogh, Meyer, Regenburg, and Weyede, and
68 subalterns. Among the Germans are Captains
Michersen, Hedeman, Smith, and Vasmer; Lieutenants
Lutzau, Aller, and-Mathesen; and of the aristoertio vo-
lunteer corps - the • two Counts, Ranzan Baron Gylden
and Baron Von Rosen; seventy-four subalterns, besides
a considerable number of wounded, who were carried off by the insurgents.
The Fadrelandel greatly censures Colonel Bagges.6 for having demanded grace for Captain lifichel
One hundred and twenty-one prisonerssell.
o war,
who have :arrived at Copenhagen, have been con-
veyed to the Dronning marine ship of the line,
which has been fitted up for a prison, and where they
will be examined individually.
The frigate Gifern is to sail to-morrow, and the Thetis
will follow speedily. The Flora corvette of war, of 22
guns, sailed yesterday for Prussia, with sealed dispatches.
It is reported that she is to take up her station at Swine
Minste. The Thetis, of 78 guns, is to be ready the day
after to-mot Tow, sod will probably take the same course.
The Swedish students at Upset have received
the intelligence of the Danish victory with. the
greatest joy, and have requested the permission of the
King that they may. be trained in arms. The students
of Lund have requested permission to enter the Danish
corps of students as volunteers.—Hamburgh Borsenhalle
total Hastipsesh Cc rre..pendent.

THE MURDER 114 WESTMINSTER,

, WESTMINSTER POLICE-COURT.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Sergeant Wright, 10 B said—About a quarter to
one he was walking down Regent-street in company
with some other constables. Having been informed that
a wonysn had been stabbed, I proceeded to the spot, and
found a woman lying on the ground. I gave directions
to have her taken to Mr. rearse's. She was taken,
and -I saw that gentleman examine her ;
he pronounced her dead. I had her taken
to the dead-house of the workhouse. Whilst there
a young woman whom I know to be an unfortunate girl
came up,.and I asked her to look at the female on the
stretcher. She did so, and said her Lame was Maria,
and gave me her address. Wright and I went '
to the residence of the prisoner, 7, Vincent-street.
His father looked out of the window, and we
told him we wanted his son. Be came down
and opened the door, and showed us into the parlour,
where we found the prisoner in bed apparently in a
sound sleep. Wright called him several times by his
name, but he did not answer. I clapped my hand upon
him, and he sprang up in bed, and said to the constable
who was with me, " What do you want, Harry ?" The
constable told him he had been ill-using " Maria."
He got Out of bed and sat on the side of it. He
then asked the question "Is she dead ?" ' twice. I told
him she was. He asked where she was, and I replied in
St. Margaret's Workhouse. He then threw himself on
the bed in agony and grief, and exclaimed with his hands
together, " Oh, my God, I have done for her-1"
(The prisoner here asked for water, which was
fetched him by the gaoler.) After a minute or
two, we induced him to dress. Seeing the
state of excitement he was in, I took the precautionto
search his clothes. In the right hand pocket of the
backet he has now on I found a knife, the point of the
lade of which was covered with blood. We took him
away with us, and as we passed the end of the street
where the woman had been found he said he could
not go , by that place; he exclaimed, " 0 my
God! I can't go by that place; there she
stands looking at me." After a little persuasion we
intaced him to go. When he had passed the street he
stal, "There, now I will go with you. It was owing to
that soldier, hut perhaps he will be sorry for it now."
On the way to the station-house he said---" The knife
has done it for her, and the rope must do it for me."
The prisoner did not want to ask any questioni..
Police-constable Heiry Wright, 133 B, corroteratcd
the evidence of the last witness.
,Inspector Cumming corroborated the evidence of ihe
last two witnesses, with this addition, that when he met
the; prisoner in their custody he said " You have get
MM."' To .which the prisoner replied, "I have done it."
I told him not to criminate himself.
Mr. liftonxitiP--A prisoner should be told the charge
agllipit him, and should be then left either to speak or
be. silent, as he may think fit. Any other course might
impede the ends of justice. It has not done so in this
case, but it might have done.
FJ,sgOinittion resumed--The.prisoner said, " Oh, Sir!
if yoa.but know what I have suffered for some time. I
read, ~the charge to. Lim. He said nothing, but
crotrhedfaa if he wished.to avoid my sight. I took hlm
into nity Private _room, and, caused him to undress, it
order that I might examine him. I found blood on his
left' hand, on- the palm. and the, two middle fingers.
Whit I wat-examiniag the right hand, he spat a piece of
tobacco frons his mouth into the left hand. I found blood
on his right, and said to Mr. Keene, loud enough for the
prisaser -to . hear, " This is blood," to which -the
prisoner said, "It is tobacco juice, it is not blood.". I
the{ ad hisn emiveyed to the cell.
Mr. BRODERIP —Do you wish to ask the witness any
questions ?
Prlicuier—Yea. 'Was there any tobacco juice on my
bandit if- 'Witness—Yes, there was.
,Ari;soner—Was there any Wood ? Witness—Yes; theie
-gi4orlir:—No, there was net—there was nothing but
inice, You looked at my left hand and said there
1'94 ""c"34,uPon it. You then asked to look at my right,.
and I then chucked the tobacco into any left, in order
that YOU, Might
,do
that-pit was tetwie you said there was blood on so, and
Mrs. Hare juice.
Darlinget , said the female , Maria Eder'
whose person she I,
nog weeks last Saturday,uentified had lived at her house about
V/0113811, and that her hush
at said she was a married
at Thorne's brewery, ©hewas a brewer, and worked
The prisoner came ho with he would pay the rent.
room, and remained every sight:hwirthwhhen she took the•
erfor a fortnight,
but.she never knew him to take-his food there.
iAfter that
hi) cane only occasionally. They sometimes
words, but they were very trifling, and generally rallicly a fedw
it up soon after. Never heard him use threats mSahee was a very sober female. Never saw her tipsy. The
bad, some words m
last Friday. The femme laughed,'
and she heard something said about being hung atNe,wate-
Prisoner—l only. stopped two or three nights. I did:
not sleep every night.
-witness—You did not stop many nights, if you did any:
Prisoner—I used to stop sometimes on the nights I got
•
any wages. She used then to turn out. and get some
money for herself. ou are telling a story when you Say
you never saw her drunk.
Witness—I was always in bed when she came hgamef.
I never saw her. A more quiet girl never lived in any,
house. ,
Mr. George Pearse, the surgeon, of 5, Ree.ent-str „ eld
Vincent-square, was next examined—The female . w
brought to my place about one o clock on Sunday mOrn.,
ing. With the exception of the loss of her bonneta
neck handkerchief, her clothes were not disordered.:
examined' her; she was quite dead. She had
horizontal wound about three-quarters of as
Deh in length above the lower end of
second rib. I inised a probe int9t_ the woend- #4Axr
tflsdea vertically -ctoWnwards about iwt
bal£ I Dore open her dress before and behind in order

to see if there was any further wound. I did not find
any.
Mr. BRODERIP—In your opinion was the wound
you viewed sufficient to cause death ? Witness—
I cannot say whether any vital part is icjnred
without a post mortem examination. About two ounces
of blood trickled from the wound.
Mr. BRODERIP—WeII, sir, you say the wound was
above the second rib. I suppose you have studied
anatomy—tell me, considering the vital parts in that.
locality, if you have any doubt that the wound was the
death? Mr. Pearse—l have a doubt upon the subject.
Mr. BRODERIP—Now, surgeon, that is your answer.
Mr. Pearse was about to explain.
Mr. BRODERIP—I don't want any other answer; write
down what he has said. (After a pause)—What, then,
caused her death? Mr. Pearse—l believe the wound did.
Mr. BRODERIP—WouId such a knife as that cause
such a wound? Mr. Pearse—lt would.
Mr. BRODERIP—And that is the answer? Mr. Pearse
—lt is.
Inspector Cumming said that was all the evidence.
Mr. BRODERIP —Prisoner at the bar, if you wish to
make any defence lam now ready to hear you. Have
you anything to say. Prisoner (in a low voice)—No, sir.
After the depositions had been read over,
Mr. BRODERIP said, owing to the doubt on the sur-
geon's mind as to whether the wound was the cause of
death, it would be necessary to remand the prisoner on
this charge of wilful murder until Wednesday, in order
that some competent medical man might be appointed to
make the necessary investigation.
The prisoner was then remanded until Wednesday.
The court was very crowded.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 17,
(Sittings in Banco.)
DAWSON AND OTHERS V. HAT.
Mr. Serjeant SHEE moved for a rule calling on the
defendant to show cause why a nonsuit" in this case
should not be set aside and a new trial granted. The
action was tried at the
_sittings at Guildhall after last
term, before Lord Denman, and was brought by the
plaintiffs, who are advertising agents, against the
defendant, as a member of the provisional committee of
the Shrewsbury and Leicester and the Leicester Direct
Railway Company, to reco-ver the sum of 2701., being
the balance of an account due to them by the committee.
At the trial it was proved that on the 10th March, 1845,
the committee came to a resolution that each member
should pay the sum of 631., to defray the liabilities of the
company, and that if any of their members should make
default in payment of this sum, he should receive no as-
sistance from the others if legal proceedings should be
instituted against him by their creditors. The de-
fendant, accordingly, paid his- proportion, but several
other members of the committee proving defaulters, a
further sum became necessary; and it was resolved that
another call for 20/. each should be made upon them.
'This second
rtroheuefgu
btsretida
al
gtioatipnyvasyta
him,and
nominally,thereupen the present poreespelnatinatcittrios n;
ad-
mitteds
by the plaintiff's solicitor that, in
d reality, the
ddefen ant by the
proceedings was instituted against theu
tthheespe caiirnctui
plaintiffs,
sottahnecrems,etreeisorodf
Cthbeiecfosaumstiiteteeel;
onsuni
but the Learned Sergeant now moved tteoedrset aside the
fnonsuit on the affidavit of the plaintiffs' solicitor that
! tt
bh
ae t s
tt
be
et e meactionnt a
wt
atheb
rt r io
ualo,
hwta
on made under a mistake, and
though with the sanction of the a fide by t p
he laintiffs,
tended that as the
plaintiffs
committee. He also cons,
tended
of any
s had a substituting claim
against the defendinPt, it could not be barred by the
agreement between the defendant and
the
committee,
to which the plaintiffs were not parties.
Rule nisi granted.
CO

RT OF EXCHEQUER, .4pril 17.
(Sittings in Banco.)
POTEZ V. GLOSBOP.
Mr. CHAMBERS appeared in this case to show cause
against a rule, obtained last term, to set aside the verdict
for the plaintiff, on the ground of misdirection, and im-
proper rejection of evidence.
The defendant in the case was a clergyman residing
near Clifton who, having seen in some of the papers
advertisements offering to advance sums of money upon
personal security, made application to the parties.
A correspondence ensued, and the defendant was ulti-
mately induced to give his acceptance upon two
bills of exchange, upon the representation that the
money should be immediately forwarded to him, or if
not, that the acceptances should be returned. The de-
fendant of- course never received the money, and all
efforts to obtain the return of the acceptances were
fruitless, and upon the bills arriving at maturity the
present action was commenced by the plaintiff, who
alleged that the bills had come into her possession
through having advanced some money upon them.
Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Humfrey appeared in support
of the rule, and contended that upon the trial of the
cause evidence was tendered which would have shown
that the plaintiff was not the bona fide holder of the
bills, but that such evidence had been refused.
Rule absolute.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and
a Westminster Common Jury.)
TAMLYN V. BURTON COOPER, ESQ.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in damages for a libel spoken, and also
written, on the plaintiff, for the purpose of bringing the
plaintiff into contempt.
The defendant pleaded not guilty. The damages were
laid at 5001.
The plaintiff appeared in person ; Mr. Sergeant Tal-
fourd appeared for the defendant.
From the statement of the plaintiff it appeared that
he had been engaged in law proceedings for the last forty
years. In 1807 an uncle died, leaving his property to
his relatives. Under the will plaintiff and his wife be-
came legatees, and entitled to a portion of 47,0001.
The matter subsequently came into the Court of Chan-
cery in 1833, and on the 24th of April, 1844, when Lord
Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor, the plaintiff pre-
sented a petition, on which occasion Mr. Burton Cooper,
Q.C., and also of the Chancery bar, rose and said that
the plaintiff's case had been fully heard, that he (Mr.
Cooper) had spoken several hours in support of the
plaintiff's case, and the petition was dismissed; that the
plaintiff on that occasion promised never to bring the
natter again into court; that in 1847 the plaintiff pre-
sented another petition to the Court of Chancery, Lord
Cottenham being Chancellor; that when his petition was
about being called on, the defendant wrote a letter to the
Lord Chancellor, informing his Lordship that the plain-
tiff's case had been fully heard, and that the plaintiff had
promised never to trouble the Court again. This letter
was the cause of having his petition dismissed; that he,
the plaintiff had applied to the Lord Chancellor for his
papers, when the letter of the defendant was delivered up
to him. The plaintiff then proceeded to enter into a
history of this law and Chancery proceedings, in the
course of which he stated that about 10,000/. had been
obtained in 1810; that at a subsequent period, fortu-
nately one of the trustees broke his neck, by which
the family received about 24,0001. or 25,000/. That he
the plaintiff had been a respectable farmer down at
Taunton, but when the peace of 1815 came, he sustained
great losses by the decline in prices, and in 1817 he came
io London in consequence of some advertisements; that
since that period he had been before repeated Lord
Chancellors; that Lord Brougham had promised to hear
his case, but had never done so; and through the con-
duct of the defendant, he (the plaintiff) never attempted
to speak in the Court of Chancery but Mr. Cooper in-
variably rose and said that he (the plaintiff) had pro-
miAed never to trouble the court again.
Mr: Baron ALDERSON—What is the libel you complain
of ? Is it that you will not trouble the court again? if
that is all, that is no libel.
The plaintiff—Then I will call Lord Lyndhurst to
prove the libel. I shall call his Lordship on his subpcena.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—What do you want Lord
Lyndhurst to prove?
The plaintiff—To prove that Mr. Cooper rose andstated
that I had premised never to trouble the court again.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—SureIy you can call somebody
else to prove that. •
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—My Lord, Lord Cottenham
is also subpoenaed, and is ready to obey the subpcena,
not wishing to be called on it.
Lord Cottenham, who was sitting in the House of
Lords in appeal cases, here entered the Court in full
robes, and came on the bench. Lord Campbell, who
was in the Lords also, came in, but remained standing
in the body of the Court.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—As the Lord Chancellor is
present, and as his time is of very great importance, you
had better ask his Lordship the questions which you wish
to be answered.
The Plaintiff (handing up Mr. Cooper's letter)—This
letter was returned to me with my papers, which your
Lordship took home to examine. I want to know how
your Lordship came into possession of it.
Lord Cottenham—What is the question you wish to
ask on this paper?
The Plaintiff—How came it into your possession?
Lord Cottenham-1 recollect there was &paper handed
up to me when your case came 1a,..-fore me, but I cannot
say that this is the same paper.
The plaintiff—Does your Lordship recollect Mr.
Cooper saying that on the 24th of November, 1839, and
also in the month of December in the same year, that
he argued my case for several hours, on a promise that
I would never apply to have it reheard again ?
Lord Cottenham—l have not the slightest recollec-
tion of what passed.
The plaintiff—=Did your Lordship dismiss my petition
in April, 1847, in consequence of the letter ?
Lord Cottenham—l have no recollection of so doing,
It is the practice of my court to look into the merits o
a petition, and which is dismissed on the merits—bu
when_ once heard I do not re-hear again. I was in
formed that your petition had been before Lord Lynd
hurst and was dismissed. But I recollect taking your
papers home and looking into them, and I dismissed the
petition on its merits.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The first plea of the defen-
dant is made out.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD —I wish to say a word or
two. We have heard from the Lord Chancellor that the
petition was not allowed to be reheard, it having had two
hearings before.
The plaintiff—lf you can prove in any Court in Eng-
nemdt
ort.hsacatyoi
Colville
iledew_nwoptoerardrhsi arise
Imhye the letter, I will lay down
my life.
before Vice-Chancellor Lord Lyndhurst, his Lordship asked with him
me to go .
thetor dgp'el at you
ihnitsi plaintiff will
ecta petition
npermit beforee a.
and they
ywthheenn
jr.sai the Plaintiff hMadr. no case. a. Thed
paladin):
tifr has never paid any of the costs.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON--It is quite clear that your
petition was, not dismissed in consequence of the writing
of the letter, and therefore the second plea of the de-
tendont is proved.
Some other witnesses were called, who could not re-
collect the circamatance in question.
Th p 1 ain ti cam° t early tan citset4rtbertalt4iough
I have another witness.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON—Gentlemen, you will give your
verdict for the defendant.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict in accordance
with his Lordship's directions.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Aprill7,
(In Banco, before Lord Chief Justice WILDE).
BATTY (AN INFANT) v. MARRIOTT.

A question arose in this case as to the construction of
the recent Act relative to games and wagers, it appeared
that the plaintiff and one Askew deposited in the hands
of the defendant 101. each, to abide the event of a foot-
race between them; that the race was accordingly run,
and that Askew 'having been declared, the winner, the
stakes were in due course paid over to him. The plain-
tiff, however, dissatisfied with this result, brought the
present action (for money had and received) to recover
back his stake, and a verdict having been given in his
favour, a rule was obtained last term to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a non-suit en-
tered, or why a new trial should not be granted.
Mr. OGLE now showed cause. Mr. Howl HILL was
heard in support of the rule.
His LORDSHIP observed, that the only rule which he
clot-)
inquirel ay down
what
wfaosr
tthhee
p
t eTAshwenefns
snhe A
Anne made
hemreeapcndte,
bearwl
deaidsts.
The first question was, whether a foot-race was
lawful. It had been said in the course
of
aut hsnel
af
awrargumentit
lbaettehtdha te
to
ogt
bhte
that
that
bs tasautt
bu
jtseetoatt.a9
ques-
tion was, what was the effect of the enactment of the
present statute (8 and 9 Vict. c. 109) on the question of
the wager being unlawful. It appeared that two persons
had subscribed 101. each,w thhiechwthboelye alvmeroeuntbt tobe be
tbpeaiedaltyo
ethmetewbindninegr
pofaratireasc He adverted to that fact, becausee, in
there might be a difference in a case where the money
was subscribed by persons not interested in the event.
pCaorrti
ei ds etrio ntgh,e therefore, roen,
et hoart twh
two
m
un-
lawful one, and that the money had been
aroots an
.n
By subscribedby
way by
es auesetio was
n
the 18th section of the Act, all contracts
gaming or wagering were declared null and void; and it
was enacted that no suit should be brought to recover
any sum of money or other valuable thing alleged to be
won upon any wager, or which should have been de-
posited in the hands of any person to abide the event
on which any wager should have been made; but
it was provided that that enactment should not
apply to any subscription or contribution for or
towards any •plate, prize, or sum of money to be
awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game,
tswpoortp,
eprassotnims es,abosreerxibeerdeisae.
suTmhetediffibecualtwy
winner of a game which is to be
contestedabTtdhthis:—if
persons, in what did that differ from a wager? And
yet, considering the class of persons in the Legislature
who had been engaged in promoting this measure, he
thought that some difference was intended to be made.
It was quite clear, for example, that it had not been in-
tended to put down horse racing; and yet many horse
races were matches between horses for stakes subscribed
by the owners. Here there were the two sums of 101.
contributed by two persons, to be awarded to the winner
of a lawful game, and the case, therefore, seemed to
fall within the terms of the proviso. He, therefore,
thought that the plaintiff could not maintain an action
to recover his stake, and that the rule for entering a
a nonsuit must be made absolute.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN, in eipressing a similar opinion,
adverted to the singular anomaly that, in the present
state of the law, the stakes might be recovered from the
stakeholder, but that if the latter gave a promissory
note for the amount it was to be considered (by virtue
of the sth and 6th W. IV., c. 41) as given for an illegal
consideration.
Mr. Justice Cresswell and Mr. Justice Williams con-
curred.

BAIL COURT, April 17.
Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE and a Common Jury

BROWN T. 31`LEAN.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover
501., to which the defendant had pleaded that she was
not indebted.

The plaintiff was a mariner, and the defendant the relict
and administratrix of a merchant who formerly carried on
business at North Shields. In 1846 the plaintiff was the
master of a vessel belonging to the ideceased M'Lean,
called the Esther, of London, and he agreed to purchase
half of the vessel for 2001., paying 501. and giving a
good bill for the balance of 1501. The plaintiff went on
a voyage with the vessel, and upon his return found
that M'Lean was dead, and that the defendant's widow
had resold the ship. She agreed, however, to refund
the 501. paid by the plaintiff to her husband, but had
neglected to do so, and the present action was instituted
to compel her.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

MARYLEBOIVE COUNTY COURT, April 15.
(Before A. ABRAHA.II, Esq., Deputy Judge.)
COPE V. BREWER.
This was an action brought by the trustee of the New
Equitable Loan Society, John-street, Tottenham-court-
road, to recover from the defendant the sum of 61.,
arrears of instalments due upon money borrowed from
that society.
Mr. Keene, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff.
The case having been stated,
The JUDGE examined the rules of the society, with
the terms upon which the money was borrowed. His
Hoiaour asked, was it in the form of an agreement or
contract that the money was lent? He, for his part,
thought it was a contract, and looking at the terms, he
was of opinion that the whole thing was illegal. What
was the rate of interest charged for the money lent?
Why, 10 per cent. for three weeks, making 170 per cent.
per annum. But that was not all. Borrowers had to
pay ls. per mile to the society for the trouble of looking
after the securities, and that, together with the fines for
non-payment of the instalments within three weeks after
they became due, with other charges, made the rate of
interest amount to no less than 250 per cent. per annum.
He was of opinion that the contract, if it were one, was
illegal, and therefore null and void; but, as the question
was one of importance, he should take time to consider
his decision.