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

AATATZZL-WORKS.

Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
• --
, £ s. d. X s. d.
Birmingham. ...... • • 18s. 25 0 0 25 0 0
East London.... •• •• • 1 81. 100 0 0 175
Grand Junction • • ...: ' 21. 10s. 41 13 4 80
100 0 0 83
Aew Itivr Lndn Brdge 2/. 10s. 55
rauxb all .......... • 100 0 0 105
West Middlesex • . . 51.16s.prent., 63 12 9 115
MISCELLANEOUS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of I Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
£. s. d. £. s. d.
Australian Agriculturl 100 0 0 30 0 0
Anglo-Mexican Mint., 11. 4s. 10 0 0 10 0 0
Ditto, Half Shares.. 210 0 —.
Canada ............. 6/. per cent. 100 0 0 32 10 0
Uppr Canada Bonds 51. per cent. --
City 80nd5.......... 3%1. pr cent. 89
Comp. Cppr Mars Eng. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 70 0 0
Gen. Revers. & Invest. sp. c.& bs, 21 100 0 0 .100 0 0
Equitable Reversionry 4%1. pr cent. 100 0 0 95 0 0
Gen.Steato Navigation 11. Bs. 15 0 0 14 0 0 23
London Institution . • • I
10
Peninslr & Orient.Stm. 21. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 56
Reversionary Int. Soc. 3311. pr cent. 100 0 0 100 0 0 90
Royal Mail Steam.... 331/. pr cent. 100 0 0I 60 0 0
south Australian . .... 61. per cent. 25 0 0! 25 0 0
Van Dieman's Land.. 100 0 0 23 0 0
Universal Salvage ... • 25 001 5 0 0

LA W IN TELLIGE n CE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 17,
(Sittings in Banco.)
DAWSON ♦ND OTHERS V. HAY.

Mr. Serjeant SBEE 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 recover 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 901. each should be made upon them.
This second demand the defendant refused to pay, and
thereupon the present action was brought against him,
nominally, by the plaintiffs; but at the trial it was ad •
mitted by the plaintiff's solicitor that, in reality, the
proceedings was instituted against the defendant by the
other members of the committee. Under these circum-
stances, the Lord Chief Justice nonsuited the plaintiffs,
but the Learned Sergeant now moved to set aside the
nonsuit on the affidavit of the plaintiffs' solicitor that
the statement at the trial was made under a mistake, and
that the action was brought bona fide by the plaintiffs,
though with the sanction of the committee. He also con-
tended that as the plaintiffs had a substituting claim
against the defendant, it could not be barred by the
breach of any agreement between the defendant and the
committee, to which the plaintiffs were not parties.
Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, April 17.
(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. HUGH BILL was
heard in support of the rule.
His LORDSHIP observed, that the only rule which he
could lay down for the construction of the Act was
to inquire what was the plain meaning of the words.
The first question was, whether a foot-race was
lawful. It had been said in the course of
the argument that the statute 9 Anne made it
unlawful; but he thought that statute was repealed
as tar as it related to that subject. Then the 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, the whole amount to be paid to
the winner of a race, in which they were to be the only
contending parties. He adverted to that fact, because
there might be a difference in a case where the money
was subscribed by persons not interested in the event.
Considering, therefore, that the game was not an un-
lawful o►:e, and that the money had been subscribed by
parties to the game, one or two questions arose. By
the 18th section of the Act, all contracts by way of
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,

sport, pastime, or exercise. The difficulty was this:—if
two persons subscribed a sum to be awarded to the
winner of a game which is to be contested by those two
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 expressing a similar opinion,
adverted to the singular anomaly that, in the present
state of the law, the stakes might be recovered front 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 Cresawell and Mr. Justice Williams con-
curred.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
FLECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR
_ .

SCOTLAND.
The Earl of EGLIN TON moved that " The matter of
4s. the protest given in against the vote of the person as-
{l4 sunning the title of Lord Colvill, or Lord Colvill of
114 Ochiltree, being received or counted at the meeting for
;s the election of the 16 Peers of Scotland, holden at Edin-
• burgh, upon the Bth day of September, 1847, be taken
• under deliberation by the House, with a view to direct
such inquiry, and to make such order as to the House
shall seem proper."
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
Mr. Serjeant Holcombe, counsel for the person
claiming to be Lord Colvill, was called in, and having
been informed by the Lord Chancellor of the nature of
the resolution, was asked if he had anything to urge
against it. The Learned Counsel then commenced an
address in support of his client's claim to the title. After
a short time the Learned Gentleman stated, in answer to
a question from Lord Campbell, that he did not object to
the inquiry which the resolution sought for, and a Com-
mittee of privileges was then appointed, before which
I the claimant is to attend and endeavour to make out his
title.
;2

RENIOVAL OF ALIENS BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE proposed that this
Bill should pass through Committee pre forma for the
purpose of printing certain amendments of a verbal cha-
racter, and one which gave a right of appeal to the
Privy Council. He should move that the Bill be read a
third time to-morrow (this day).
The Earl:of ELLENBOROUGII said an appeal to
the Privy Council would defeat the object of the Bill.
The foreigners in this country whom it might bode•
sirable to send away by steamerfuls were not respect
able traitors, but persons of the lowest class, and to
give each the right of a separate appeal to the Queen
in Council would keep the Privy Council constantly
sitting.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that if they
were not " respectable traitors"—(Laughter)—they
would not be able to bear the expense of such an appeal.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGR said he would not
oppose the clause, as it appeared to be useless.
After a few words from Lord HOLLAND in oppe-
sition to the Bill, which were veryi ndistinctly heard,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE felt it necessary to
say a few words after what had fallen from his Noble
Friend, whom he heard with pleasure for the first time
in that House, and who was entitled to its attention as
the descendant of the great and illustrious name which
he bore, and to the recollection of which no one was
more fondly and affectionately attached than he.—
(Hear, hear.) But the present Bill was not only a less
stringent measure than the one opposed by the late Lord
Holland, but the circumstances under which it was
brought forward were totally different. Besides, in the
speech with which Lord Holland prefaced his protest, he
stated, not as his sole objection to the Bill, but as a prin-
cipal one, that it would favour the views of the Holy
Alliance. He maintained that every society was entitled
to prevent the interference of foreigners in its concerns.
The fact that a Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Denman)
who was eminent for his attachment to the law and con-
tititution of this country, and who joined Lord Holland
in his opposition to the former Alien Act, had publicly
declared within the last three days his convic-
tion of the necessity of this Bill, removed all
doubt from his mind with respect to the objections en-