The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-03 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS. DISSOLVED,

C. and T. D. Hammond, chemists, Kingston-upon-Hull—
W. Ramsbottom and T. Procter, spindle makers, Lanebridge,
Lancashire—T. Dean and L. Jackson, tailors, Preston, Lan-
cashire—M. A. Johnson and J. Penfold, farmers, Lodsworth,
Sussex—W. Ebbern, J. Ebbern, G. Ebbern, and E. Miles,
coal merchants, Soulbnry, Buckinghamshire—A. Pilling, W.
Milner, and M. Hale, woollan manufacturers Huddersfield
(so far as regards A. Pilling)—N. Greenhalgh, T. Green-
halgh, and J. S3ttle, cotton spinners, Sharpies, Lancashire—
W. and H. Joplin, brewers, Liverpool—•M. Price and T.
Crompton, fire-brick manufacturers, Shrigley, Cheshire.—A.
E. Reynolds and J. W. Field, silversmiths, Stone's- end,
Borough—J. Hudson and J. Dawson, mas,,ns, Leeds—H. J.
Mant and H. J. Harvey, attorneys, Bath—J. and W. Cot-
terell, painters, 'Worcester—W. arid J Stevenson, bleachers,
Wirksworth, Derbvshire—J. Thompson, J. Bens, J. Bens,
jun., R. Benn, and W. Ferrer, dealers in guano Liveysoo4l-,
J. and G. Hoyle, tea dealers, Manchester—S. Jones, T.
Pearce, and R. Jenkinson, ironfounders, Preston, Lanca•hire
A. and E. A. Merchant, clothiers, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
—W. Stolle and R. Brown, cotton manufacturers, Man-
chester—L. and J. Binge, china dealers, Lowther-arcade,
Strand—W. Whitfield. T. Brown, J. Bladworth, and W.
Wrightson, brewers, Thorne, Yorkshire (so far as regards
W. Whitfield)—M. Setterington and E. Jones, liaandrapers,
Bath—W. J. Edwards and W. G. Try—J. Donnell and E.
Appleby, provision dealers, Liverpool—E. and M. Smith,
Conisbrough, Yorkshire—F. Fisher and T. Leigh Blundell,
Jun,e_sur den •
Bradford, -surreet Yorkshire
-hsigrue_ar e —C. Maltby
Ana Catlow, Painter
W. Allen, slate-
merchants, A austua-street Regent's-park.
R.Marks and
SCOTCH SEQUWERATI
Thomas Moneur, china merchant, MCIn" , 5 and
31111' 1, at twelve,at tha Star Hotel, Monotrotse. j •
AltYxander Murray,
Esq., M.P., Kircudbright, June 5
and June 26, at twelve, at the Stewart Clerk's-office,Kirk-
cudbright.
Angus M'Callum, and Company, merchants, Glasgow,
June S and June 29, at two, at the chambers of Mr. Mar-
loch, Glasgow.

rS,,„,ERT„E.Fn„.]_ ROSHERVILLE GARDENS.—
3fev,srg. Ross and Sons beg to inform the public, that they
have purchased the two bears, born and reared at these gar-
dens, and intend shooting one of them on Tuesday, the 9th
of June, when a .;rand gala is to take place; any one pre-
ferring to have the flitanimal can do so, by
establishment, 119,
direct froamt
tthheeir
applying on the 10th of June,
and 120, Bishop:gate-street. i
. There is no doubt that bear's
grease, in its pure state, is decidedly the most nourishing ar-
ticle for the hair hitherto discovered, and used alternately
with their botanic wa'er, is the only thing that-will restore
it ; numerous instances of which occur daily. .
THE STATE APARTMENTS AT WINDSOR CASTI.V.—
WHITSUN WEEK.—The State Apartments at Windsor Castle,
and also the Round Tower, have been commanded to be
*pen to the public during every day this week, from eleven
till four o'clock, for the accommodation of the holiday
visitors to the town. It was not, however, known to Sykes,
the porter at the tradesmen's entrance to the Castle, until
;nearly one o'clock on Monday, that any new regulation for
the Whitsun week had been determined upon. Several
parties from London, who had arrived at the Castle before
that hour were unfortunately turned back, although possess-
ing the Lord Chamberlain's tickets, in consequence of no
official notice on the subject having been given to the porter.
As it was, but very few persons arrived in the town pro-
vided with tickets of admission. Monday being one of the
days, since the commencement of the year, on which the
'State Apartments and the Round Tower are closed. This
Tublic notification, it is hoped, may be the means of prevent-
ing similar disappointment to visitors during the remainder
a the week. The orders that none can be admitted to the
State-room' without. tickets, dated within one week of the
day on which they are presented are peremptory, and most
strictly acted upon.
The opening of the North British Railway,pos fromnad
tE o thedin
urg-
bh to Cockburnspath, has been further postponed
15th Gf June.
THE MORNING MAILS.—In many
consequence of the
changes recently made in the Post-office by the further
caused to ba
open-
ing of the several railways and the branches in connexion
with them, the Postmaster-General on Monde
issued an amended list of towns, bags to and from which are
AKw s I).‘ 1 ' tched &bin' and received at' the General Post-office.
y--1-.. ollowing towns have been added to the list published la
it last in this journal :—Newcastle-on-Tyne, Queen-
;l2, Sheerness, Tiverton, and Tunbridge. The sub-
towns have not now bags forwarded—Newcastle
ire) and Accrington.

Irt4l,.ii

r 4

LAW IX TELLIGE.N CE.
COURT OP CHANCERY, June 2.
(Bet;)re Vice-Chancellor WIGWAM.)
LANDER c. KINDAL.

This was a suit for ttie administration of the real and
personal property deviied by the testator, rre
Lander, to Jam,s Lander, and in ca,..,e of his death, to
James Binds', the defendant, for the plaintiff, the infant
son of the testator—the bill asserting
mismanagement
on the part of Kindel, into whose hands the estate had
fallen by the death of James Lander,
Mr. Rostuaff applied to have the accounts taken.
The decree was ordered accordingly.
BATLEY V. LAMBERT.
This suit arose out of a deed made between the
Davis,
pilain-
tiff and defendant, on the one part, and James s, on
the other, and was to try whether certain assets obtained
Bailey
and the deed should be distributed between
and Lambert in the proportion of their respective debts,
or whether Lambert should be allowed a priority of
claim.
It appeared that James Paynter Davis, postmaster, '
and James Davis, his son, executed a deed in September,
1842, giving over to the son all the horses, carriages.
chattels, and effects, proper for carrying on the busine
of a postmaster, as security for a debt of 79L in money,
and several bills of exchange and promissory notes,
being accommodation bills for which James Davis was
liable, and giving him power in case of non payment to
take and dispose of the effects mentioned. The son
took possession of the property, but immediately after,
in 1843, a fiat in bankruptcy was issued against James
P. Davis, the father, and the assignees of the bank-
ruptcy began an action against the son to recover the pro-
perty; but this action was quashed, and a deed was executed
inJune,lB43, between James Davis on the one part, and
Lambert and Bailey on the other, which gave the latter
possession of the horses and effects, with power to dis
pose of them by private sale or public auction ; and,
after paying all expeenses, to liauidaw a debt of 60/. and
of 25/. due to the assignees, Lambert .and Bailey. and
then to pay the bills and notes due respectively to Lam-
bert and to Bailey, the former having a claim of 200/.,
and the latter of 1881. against the estate. It was found,
however, that the remaining assets were insufficient to
meet both these claims, and Lambert demanded to have
his claim settled in full previously to Bailey coming in.
This priority of claim was rested on the first deed, in
the schedule annexed to which Lambert's debt stood
first.
His Hostoun intimated the strongest opinion that the
defendant had no interest whatever in the first deed ;
and that under the second he had no priority of claim
over the plaintiff. The Court ordered the case to stand
over, that there might be time to read the deeds ; but,
unless there should be reason fur a change of opinion, it
will make a decree in favour of the plaintiff, with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court at its sitting delivered some judgments ;
but they were devoid of any special interest calling for
a particular report.
The Court then proceeded. _to hear arguments upon
demurrers which stood over for discussion.

WHITTAKER V. RICHARDS.

This was an action of assumpsit, involving several
breaches of the covenants of an agreement, and was in-
teresting as a question often arising between landlord and
tenant. It now came before the Court in the shape of a
special demurrer, assuming the character and form of a
general demurrer set up by the defendant to the plain-
tiff's delaration. It appeared that a gentleman named
Jones leased for a term of years certain premises at
Highgate to the plaintiff in this action, Mr. Whittaker,
a solicitor in Lincoln's Inn, and that there were several
covenants in the lease binding plaintiff, and amongst
them one to keep the premises in a state of re-
pair during the term of his holding. Plaiiltiff sublet
the premises to the defendant fur a term of two years,
short of one day ; and the defendant in the agreement
was alleged to have bound himself to the perfcirmance on
his part of" all the covenants" in the original agree-
ment between plaintiff and Mr. Jones. Plaintiff's de-
claration pleaded that defendant had thus bound himself
to keep the premises in repair, and that not merely for
the term of his taking, but for the larger term of seven
years, for which plaintiff was bound to keep them in re-
pair. To this the plaintiff demurred, and the case nuw
came on to be argued.
Mr. PEACOCK appeared for the plaintiff, and con-
tended for the larger construction, maintaining that the
defendant had made himself liable, upon strict investiga-
tion of the agreement, to keep the premises in repair for
the term of the plaintiff's holding the agreement showing
that he had bound himself to take the premises, subject
to all the covenants in the original lease.
Mr. Bunnr, for the defendant, held the contrary; and
submitted that the plaintiff's declaration was ambiguous;
that it would be absurd to suppose that the defendant
would for a moment bind himself to the fulfilment of
" all the covenants" in the original lease; as, for in-
stance, the covenant binding plaintiff to pay his rent.
Surely the Court would not for a moment suppose that
the defendant would bind himself to that
covenant ? Looking, then, at the case altogether, he
(Mr. Burni) submitted to the Court that the construc-
tion of the agreement was limited, the defendant intend-
ing the narrower construction of two years when he took
the premises; that the plaintiff's declaration was bad,
and that the judgment should be for the defendant.
The Court conferred together for some time, and de-
livered judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the Learned
Judges respectively holding that, in the terms of the
agreement, the defendant had put himself in the position
of the plaintiff respecting the repairs, and bound himself
to the covenants for plaintiff's term, it appearing to the
Court that he took the premises with that understanding

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,.kray 30.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WALSTAB V. SPOTTISWOODE.

The arguments in this ease were resumed and con-
cluded to-day.
It may be remembered that this was an action brought
by an allottee of scrip in the Direct Birmingham, Oxford,
Reading, and Brighton Railway, to recover from the de-
f‘ndant, as a provisional committeemati thereof, the
amount of the deposit paid on 30 shares in that scheme,
which was not proceeded with in the preient ses-ion of
Parliament for lack of funds, there being only 4,000 de-
posits out of 70,000 shares which had been issued. The
declaration contained a special count on an alleged con-
tract by the defendant to give to the plaintiff 30 shares
in the propesed railway, in consideration that the plain
tiff would pay the deposits and sign the deeds which are
usually required in such cases, and it averred the pay-
ment of the deposit, and a readiness to cqmply with tie
other conditions, and a breach by the defendant on his
part. A second count was in the common form for money
had and received. To these the defendant pleaded non
assumpsit, and a verdict having passediat the trial for
the plaintiff under the direction of the Chiltf Baron, a rule
nisi was obtained to enter a nonsuit on the ground of mis-
direction, which now came on for argument.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Willes showed cause on behalf of
the plaintiff. There were three questions raised by this
case. As to the first point, it was contended that the
contract was proved, inasmuch as it was set forth fully
in the letters of application and of allotment, which were
in the usual terms employed by protnoters of such
schemes, and contained an express promise, on the part
of the defendant, as a provisional committeeman, made
by the secretary of the company on hilt behalf, that if
the plaintiff would pay the deposit of 41. 12s. 6d. per
share, and subscribed certain deeds, the letter of allot-
ment with the bankers' receipts would be exchanged at
the office for scrip certificates, on a certain day. When
the plaintiff applied for her scrip. she wa, informed by
the secretary, and Mr. Blunt, the chairman. that the
comm!ttee had resolved to wind up the scheme under
counsel's ajvice, and that she could not have her shares
or her money, t'67 the latter was all spent. in _prelitni
nary expenses, except -
perhaps a small surplus, which
-Would be returned to her in !lona:ion with the other de-
positors on 4,000 shares, if any was ultimately found to
exist. This the provisional directors had no right to do,
the retention of this money, or any part of it, being
in direct violation of the contract set forth ill the letter
of allotment.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The argument of the defers •
dant is, that there is no such contract in that letter.
Mr. WILLEs—The contract is in thel last letter, and
not in the two together, and if any part of the second
letter is an intimation, why not all of it ? The great
question, however, arises under the second count, which
is for 781. 155., as for money had and received by the
defendant to the use of the plaintiff, the groundwork of
that count being, that that sum having been paid by the
plaintiffwithout any consideration being received for it,
the
defendant_ is bound to restore the whole of it to her
as a. pioyis4ona,lf,son=lotitieeman of this scheme, which, as
she
however,conte
contendsnds that Keaibsandaned.vi The defendant,
.or such part of this sum as has" been s retain the whole
sent in legitimate
preliminary preparations for formin
but this question has been already decideds owmtpearcaZ, e;
of " Nockella v. Crosby," 3 B. and C., 814,n
was heldmi
promoters
se itrfaoorseuetcehh a ,
e thew hscheme
ie subscribers
abandoned
are
dnedzo r
entitled
e
f bteh
aposits as e
tsmbimoenileparyrehead and received. This case was decisive of this
Baron ALDERsON—Was there any proof that that
argument.mr.
sum had been so deposited ? If only 4pooo deposits were
aliodte u ought
rs
paid out of 70 000, I doubt whether the promoters
to do anything till the whole tieposits'are
IVILLES—That is the contentiuin ofpthe
Mr.plaintiffs.-
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—It seems ;that of this sum
tpur-
pose,B
21. 10s- per share was received by the defendant under a
to
strict bargain to do a specific thing With it,
namely,e
deposit it under
the standing orders. That disposes
751., which was pa the plaintiff for that
specific
all idea of spending it in prelimi
which exc udid by
es-
other hand, as to the 10s. per
nary expenses. On the
1001., or 2s. id. on each share, it seems to me very much
red for the purpose of being
as though that was required
spent in forming the company.
e reuired to
The CHIEF BARON—And t
hatmust be
enginqeers and
meet future expenses, not to pay r
surveyors.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—And then only when there are
80,000 shares subscribed for. Nockells v. Crosby
is
for you as to the 21. 10s., and against you as to
the
2s. 6d. per share. in
Mr. MARTIN, Mr. F. V. Lee, and Mr. Peacock,
support of the rule, protested, in the first instance,
against the turn which the argument had taken through
the suggestion of Mr. Baron Alderson. There was no
distinction taken between the 10L per cent. and the 10s.
per cent. at the trial, nor ware the standing orders re-
ferred to once. It so happened that the sum paid in-
eluded 101. per cent. and 2s. 6d. per share; but no
allusion was made at the trial to this point; and if the
Court, were to depart from the common understanding
at trials, when cases came on cop Argument parties would
never know how to conduct their cases. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to argue that the contract 24
forth in the declaration had not been proved by the
letters. With respect to the second count, the plaintiff
cannot be entitled to recover the whole of this deposit

in any view of the ca'e. If the Court should hold
that the defenchet was restionsible to tl-:at event
they would decide in effect that parties might sp,:cu-
laic and gamble in these schemes, riskkg
nothing, run the chance of gaining ,„,r7.thin2.. w
so hold. lot it " N ,ekeds v. Cro,hv"
d.cal,d a Inucliel time:, over, he (Mr. .11:rifi) wr.)1.11(1
still contend that gross injustice had b-,en peri-trat,U
by it. Appearing there for Mr. Sp,ttiswoode, who was
thus attacked, he (Mr. Martin) felt himself justified in
protecting him on strictly technical grounds, and he
mu-t now deny that there was any evidence to prove
that this company had been abandoned in the first place,
that being the foundation of the plaintiff's cause of action
on the said count. What Mr. Blunt said was no evi-
dence against Mr. Spottiswoode.
The CHIEF BARON—No; but the evidence was not
objected to, and formed part of your cross-examination.
Mr. MARTIN—At all events there was nothing to
show that there was a total abandonment ; neither was
there evidence that the promoters bound themselves
to go to Parliament in this session. Difficulties might
prevent their doing so now, but they might go on next
session, and until it clearly was proved that there
had been a total failure of consideration, this action
could not be sustained to recover back the de-
posit. The Company had an existence under its provi-
sional registration for twelve months, and the committee
had no power under the Act to dissolve it. Itstill existed,
therefore, and might be yet carried out. Under these
circumstances, therefore, the Learned Counsel submitted
that the rule to enter a nonsuit must be, made obsolete-
on one or other of the grounds on which it had been
granted. .The plaintiff had ask-d for an allotment of
shares ; that she had got, and it remained to be seen
whether the scheme was abandoned.
The CHIEF BARON—The Court will take time to
consider its judgment in this case, which is most im-
portant.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—I confess I cannot distinguish
this case from " Nockells v. Crosby," unless the scheme
be not abandoned. That is a question of fact, on which
there was very slight evidence indeed. It may turn out
that it is not abandoned.
Judgment deterred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

THE FORGERY OF THE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE RAILWAY
AND OXFORD AND BLETCHLEY SCRlP.—Yesterday, the
same degree of interest which was manifested on the
first examination of Faulkner and Fabian. the pe-sons
who stand charged with the forging of the scrip
of the Buckinghamshire Railway, and Oxford and
Bletchley Junction Company, display ed itself in the
justice room at the more detailed investigation.
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the prosecution, under-
taken by Mr Solornons against the prisoners, for the
forgery of scrip to the amount of 500/ ; and Mr. Ballan-
tine and Mr. Doane attended for the prisoners. "Alder-
man Gibbs pr, sided.

Mr. W. Harding, secretary to the Company; was the
first witness called by the Counsel for the prosecution.
Fie stated that the offices of the Company were in
George-street, Westmitister. He ordered the scrip
from for the Comp.ny, under the direction of the
11)ard of Nfanagement, and Messrs Smith and Ebbs, of
Tow( r-hill, were the only persons who executed the
printing of the scrip. (Here a genuine scrip form was
identified by the witness.) He had the counterfeit of the
scrip produced. The numbers were noted by the clerks
and signed by hini, and the issue commenced in October.
(A Tiantity of what appeared to be copies the goluine
scrip was then produced.) He believed the forms pro-
duced to be spurious. He had signed all the genuine
scrip, and the forgeries were skilful copies of his writing,
and had all the characteristics of the genuine vouchers
The good and the fictitious were not printed at the same
time.

The genuine and the forged documents were then ex-
amined by Alderman Gibbs. The following, is a copy
of one of the forged scrip:

1845.
(Scrip.)
Buckingham Railway, and Oxford, and Bletehley
Juncti,,n.
Provisionally Registered.
Capital, 2,250,0001. in shares of 201. each.
Deposit, 2/. 2s. per share.
No. 70 401 to 70,450.

The holder of this voucher is entitled to 50 shares in
the ab,,ve undert•akinr, behaving signed the subscr►bers,
agreement and Parliamentary contract, paid the dep. sir
as above, and agreed to pay all calls in respect of the
said shares.

By order ofthe Provisional Committee of Management,
W. Li xRDING.

The difference between the copy produced and the
genuine scrip was not perceptible to an ordinary ob-
server, so that the witness appeared to test the quality
of the documents by a comparison with the counterfoil.
In his cross-examination by Mr. Ballantine, who did
not consider it necessary to go strictly into the question
on the present stage of the proceedings, Mr. Harding
said that the company had not yet obtained its Act of
Parliament, and there were no certificates commonly
called shares. The scrip, without the signature of the
party to whom the allotment was made to the deed,
would intitle the party to nothing. It was the signa-
ture to the deed that intitled the party to the shares.
In re-examination by Mr. Clarkson, the witness said the
Company was provisionally registered, according to the
late Act of Parliament. There had been no scrip
issued to so high a number as 70,000 by the Company.
Mr. Ballantine professed the utmost indifference a; to
the name Which the pieces of paper produced might be
called whether they were d,,signated as rec,,ipts, or
vouchers, or warrants. He thought it would be a very
difficult matter to prove that they ar9, instruments of
any value at 611—(A laugh.)
Mr. Charles Moody, lithographer, of High Holborn,
was next called. He stated tlrat about two months ago,
in consequence of an advertisement which appeared in
the Times newspaper, addressed to lithographers, he
we.lt to No. 42, Gower-place, and there saw the prisoner
Fabian, and another gentleman. Fabian said they were
in want of a competent lithographic printer, and one who
had a press of a size which he mentioned. Witness said
he had been many years a lithographic printer, and was
eompetent to undertake anything relating to lithography.
Fabian was the person who spoke to him most. That
prisoner said he wanted some impressions to he worked
from pla.es which he had, and he wanted them to be
worked under his own eye. Witness intimated that of
course they would want an experienced person to litho-
graph. Fabian said No, they laid their own plans.
The other gentleman, who was lying on a sofa smoking
a cigar, said but little. Witness did nut recognise him
in the justice room. They said they wished the work
done there, and witness told them if the work was of
such consequence they could have a room in his house,
and they would keep the key, and he wiiuid forfeit 501
as compensation if anything was injured or touched. He
was induced to make the proposition because they ap-
peared to consider the matter to be of great consequence,
and that not one was to be parted with or seen. They
st,sited that they wished the work to be dorm while they
were personally present, and each would be worth 50/.
They asked what the expense might be, to which witness
replied, that he did not really know, but that his time
was valuable, and he expected an adequats recompense,
and they then said that the expense did not signify.
They added that they were glad the suggestion had been
ma& as to the room with the press in it, and they
promised to call next morning, but they did not keep
their word.

Mr. Ballantine (pointing to the forged scrip)—ls that
lithographic printing ? Witness—l cannot say whether
it is or not. My impression is that it is nut letter-press,
but it is from stone or a zinc plate.
Alderman Glens —I should have supposed it was
letter press. Witness—l do not think it is.
11‘,Calarkson said Oteuld next produce a witntsir:
who would testify `as to a transaction in -Buckingham-
shire shax:es; with Faulkner only. -- --
Mr. John Benton, speculator or jobber in railway
shares, stated that he knew Faulkner, and received from
him 250 Buckinghamshire, &c. scrip, in February or
March, to raise a certain sum of meney upon. He could
not say whether Fabian was present at the time, but he
thoug•ht it was from Faulkner's hand he received the
scrip. He had no doubt, whatever, that he received it
from Faulkner. It must have been some days previously
to the 17th of Mareh. (Witness here specified the num-
bers of the 250 scrip stated in this case to be forged.)
He parted with the scrip to Mr. John Henry Morgan,
he thought, on the same day. He raised, he thought,
2501. upon it, and paid that sum to Faulkner and Fabian.
One receipt he received from Faulkner, and the other
from Faulkner and Fabian's clerk, eacr of whom acted
in the transaction. He was nearly sure that he paid
150/. to Faulkner ; and, he believed, the receipt pro-
duced, was in Faulkner's hand-writing.
Mr. John Henry Morgan stated that he was a share-
jobber. He received 250 shares from Mr. Benton on
the 13th of March, and he sold them the same day to
two different stockbrokers. lie paid the money he re-
ceived also on the same dey.
Mr. Thomas Green, shale agent, of No. 16. Old Broad-
street. a partner in the house of Jones, Cook, and Green,
stated, on the 13th March he received 150 shares from
Mr. Morgan fur sale, after the Stock Exchange had
closed. He paid for 100 of those shares, deducting
Commission. 1471. 10s. to Mr. Morgan in Batik notes,
and soon afterwards he paid to him for the other 50
shares, 73/. 155., deducting commission. The scrip was
delivered over to Mr. Lomond.•- • ` "

Here the witness submitted that perhaps the evidence
ePa:ln
makingdhi nitng
into which the examination was calculat.gidohnttobdele
bweitaiwledenbe prejudiciallrr. Lam taltdo hainsdfi
theinm an
nor a considerable
acicitontuihrn
sthhoegualddverse party,
but if public justice
testimony.
Mr.
clerkdepos
deposed
not hesitate to proceed with his
Mrihsiesiornroknsson here called Mr. Henry Martin,
witne s stated
eetd.caitHß:h7oefthou ht that probably heaemti
by
Mr.
soinmnin substance what was
to
on, the first examination, relative
the introduction Mr. Fabianto him by Mr Richards,
fur the purpose of borrowing
Mr money
a „ t thetsofprors.e cuor.
the
it:
rei
od Bucking_oltsrtbise,
(I..nßritcntigards, he said, was praisinginghamshire scrip.
lilt so much as
the Buckingham scrip during
tothbaebian, but
whole of F.ibian's negotiation, and so
Richards praised it. From Mr.
con-
duct, witness believed him to
connected with business or jobebiiingentleraan wholly up-
connected
that Mr. SARl:ions should cg. hlt w"
Lilittely
Fur 444.. upon the scrip which Fabians bhis Ow'
After tliii piiodwitinn pf some confir
Mr. Clarkson stated that iieithould apply cheque
rought to him.
evidence,
com-
mittal of the prisoner on Thursday next.
'`'r the
Mr. Ballantinc submitted the offences charged against
the
priso4 not offences
~" oreunder any Act of Par-
-1 liament. The evident-a) wept tp impute only a misd,..
I ineanour at common law,(r a misdemeanour of soul, pthpr
_kind.. The tuagistrate tva.f.,tii,.Teforo- bound to excel t
bail for their appearance- to take th.-ir trial on
, that agailia. riThf,,.;,' Sy.e. the only request he had to make
on the part of his clients, and he akpite4 fo: it, not as a
•F ••• ••
favour, but as a right.