The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-17 00:00:00

ITALY.

A letter from Rome of the 4th says :—" An im-
portant financial measure, which has long been in
contemplation, is at last decided upon, and brought
into action. The clergy offers to the Government
a voluntary contribution of 4,000,000 piastres,
about 26,000,000 francs, payable by fifteen annual
instalments, viz., ten of 300,000 piastres, and five
of 200,000 each. The temporal interest of the
clergy dictated this concession, which at the same
time is consistent with jus'ice and equity, as
it is fitting that in a public crisis the church
should give extraordinary support, as expressed by
his Holiness, in his autograph rescript of the 28th
ult., to Cardinal Orioli, signifying his acceptance of
the gift. A Ministerial ordonnance, of the 29th
April in the present year, gave warrant for the issue
of Treasury Bonds to the amount of 2,500,000
piastres. There are bonds in circulation to the
amount of 2,465,000 piastres, and the remaining
35,000 will be issued before the end of the year.
These bonds, which have a forced currency, bear 31
per cent. interest, and are charged upon the church
property at the pro rata of 2,000, piastres."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 16.
TIE ATTORNEY•GENERAL P. THE MAYOR AND CORPO-
RATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
?fr. TURNER (with whom was Mr. MAUL;), on behalf
of the Attorney-General, asked leave to file exceptions
to the answer of the defendants. A demurrer had been
put in, and had been overruled, and the time for filing
exceptions had expired.
Mr. BETRELL (with whom was Mr. RANDELL) said
that this was an application to the discretion of the
Court. An answer had been put in, and no exceptions
taken. As that had not been done it was too late to
complain that the answer was insufficient.
Lord LANGDALE said he did not wish to impute a liti-
gious objection to the defendants; the question was not
whether he should grant an indulgence to the Attorney-
General, but whether he should deprive him of his right.
He considered this as an application of course, and must
grant it.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 16.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WEE OF DRUNSWICIL V. GREGORY.
In this case a rule had been obtained calling upon the
defendant to show cause why the judgment roll should
not be amended, by striking out the judgment as it
stands, and inserting the judgment pronounced by the
Court. An indictment for libel was preferred by the
prosecutor against the defendant in the year 1145, upon
which the defendant was convicted, and sentenced to be
imprisoned for six months. The defendant underwent
two months' imprisonment, and then put in bail, and as-
signed errors, which had been argued before the Court
in error. The indictment against the defendant con-
tained several counts, some of which did not charge a
publication which amounted to libel, but when the roll
was drawn up the judgment was entered generally, in
stead of being entered upon each count. Application
was afterwards made to Mr. Justice Patteson, who tried
the case, to amend the rule, but that Learned Judge
considernd that he bad no power to do so, and re-
commended the motion upon which the rule nisi was
granted.

- Mr. CROWDER, Q.C., and Mr. PEACOCK now showed
cause against the rule, and contended that the judgment
having been pronounced and entered on the roll, it
could not be altered, especially as it did not appear the
Learned Judge had made any note of the way in which
he pronounced judgment. To make the rule absolute
would be in effect to pronounce a different sentence to
that which it appeared from the roll had been pro-
nounced at the trial.
Mr. SNow, in support of the rule, referred to a case in
which an amendment had been made after argument in
the court of error. The Learned Counsel also stated
that the Master of the Crown-office had taken a minute
of the judgment as actually delivered, and argued
that the amendment might be made according to those
minutes.

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said there was an early case
in which an amendment was made upon the recollection
of the judge who pronounced the sentence.
The minute of the judgment made by the Master of
the Crown.office was then produced, when it appeared
by it that judgment had been correctly pronounced "on
each and every count of the indictment."
Lord DENMAN-4 think the defect is now supplied.
We now see that the sentence was "upon each and every
count of the indictment." After the case of the " Queen
v. O'Connell," Mr. Justice Patteson adopted on circuit
the preient method of pronouncing judgment in order to
remove objections, and we have always since done the
same in respect of such indictments. This rule proves
judgment was so pronounced in the present case. The
roll must, therefore, be amended.—Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 16.
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
TUE QUEEN b. BENNETT.
Mr. HORNZ said he was instructed, in the case of
"The Queen on the prosecution of the managers and
trustees of the Margate Savings Bank v. Bennett," to
move that the defendant be admitted to bail. The charge
against him wag that of obtaining the sum of 32/. 13s. by
false pretences. On being brought before the magistrates
they remanded him; and under the authority of a recent
statute they admitted him to bail pending such rerand.

NEW TRIAL PIPER.
STANDISH V. ROSS.—BANKRUPT LAWS.
This action was tried at the Liverpool summer assizes,
1847, before Mr. Baron Rolfe, when the plaintiff was
aonsuited, leave being reserved to him to move to have
the verdict entered for him. A motion to that effect was
made in Michaelmas 1847, when a rule nisi was granted,
which came on fur argument to-day. The facts were
theset—Ross, the defendant, bad obtained a judgment
for 1591. against a trader in Manchester, named Hignett,
and put the writ of execution, on Saturday, the 25th
April, 1846, into the office of the plaintiff, who.was
the High Sheriff of Lancashire, and who immediately
gave it to an officer to execute. The officer went to
Hignett's house that day about one o'clock, and found
it shut ; but as it was not an unusual circumstance in
that town for tradesmen to close their warehouse about
one o'clock on Saturdays, to go into the country,
his suspicions were not excited, and he came on
the Monday, when he found the house again shut,
and learned that Hignett had that very morning
committed an act of bankruptcy. He then refrained
from enforcing the execution, and informed the execu-
tion creditor, Ross, of the facts, who, however, insisted
on the sheriff enforcing the execution. After some de-
mur on the part of the plaintiff, and threats by the de-
fendant's attorney if the execution were not enforced, the
plaintiff sent the officer again on the 11th of May, who
effect( d a seizure and sale, and levied the amount of the
execution, which was handed over to Ross. Soon after
a fiat was issued against Hignett, and his assignees in
due time sued the plaintiff for the proceeds of the sale,
on the ground that by the fiat being sued out within the
time limited by law after the act of bankruptcy, and no-
tice of that act before the levying of the execution, the
goods became theirs by relation. They recovered, and
the plaintiff paid them, and then sued Ross for money
had and received. At the trial it was contended that it
was the duty of the bailiff to have executed the writ on
the Saturday, and that all the subsequent proceedings
and the defeat of the defendant's execution were owing
to that officer's neglect or laches on that occasion ; and,
that therefore the plaintiff ought not to make the defendant
pay for what was substantially his own default. There was
a nonsuit entered,as before stated, and now the question of
the plaintiff's right to recover was argued for upwards of
four hours, by Mr. Atherton and Mr. Unthank, for the
defendant ; and Mr. Martin and Mr. Addison, for the
plaintiff. For the defendant it was contended, as at the
trial, that the plaintiff was guilty of laches in not break-
ing into the warehouse on the Saturday and levying,
and that as the plaintiff had made a return that he had
levied and satisfied the execution, so long as that return
remained on the records of the court, his (the defend-
ant's) rightof proceeding spinet Hignett was suspended,
and that the plaintiff should, therefore, before he sued
the defendant, have replaced him in the position in which
he was before the execution was levied, by applying to
have the return amended. For the plaintiff it was re-
plied that the bailiff was not bound to break open the
swi
da re er h
whatou s e
ha
et OnCe
should,
ahnadd t
haa
treasonable
etime
et og
uciol nt y-
of 'aches, the defendant should have sued the plaintiff
for negligence, and not set it up as a defence to this
action, and that the plaintiff's return on the writ did not
prevent the defendant from suing out another writ of
execution ; and, further, that as the defendant had
notice of Hignett's act of bankruptcy, and by the eubse-
quent issuing of the fiat against that person his goods
became by relation the goods of his assignees from the
27th of April, the defendant was bound to hand back the
money which he so improperly received.
The Court took time to con:rider.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Nov. 16.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
HOLMES V. THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
In this case, which had not concluded when our report
left, the jury retired at four o'clock, and, after an ab-
sence of snore than an hour, returned into court with a
•esdict for the plaintiff for the full amount, 61. lOs.,
on the ground that there were no specific fines in
the rules.

The Learned UNDER-SIIERIFF, on the suggestion of
Mr. Helps, asked whethor, i❑ the opinion of the jury,
the plaintiff had broken any of the rules.
Several members of the jury said that they found that
he had not brokea the rules; some others said the ques-
ion was not decided.
The verdict was then recorded as given. The case
occupied the Court until past fire o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
Yesterday Mr. Charles Mayer, of 26, Mark-lane,
merchant, was summoned before Mr. Alderman Gibbs,
under the following circumstances:--
From the evidence of Mr. Lewis flermanny, of Ham-
burgh (through his 'interpreter, Mr. Charles Sturm, of
St. Bennett's-place), it appeared that in the early part
of September last the defendant entered into an arrange-
ment with the complainant to be supplied with gold
chains, brooches, trinkets, and other things, to the
amount of between 5001. and 600/. At the time it was
agreed that he (the defendant) was to take half on his
own responsibility, for which he gave two bills, of three
and six months respectively, and the remainder were
to be forwarded overland to Calcutta, and if not dis-
posed of then they were to be returned at the end of
twelve months. The articles were forwarded on the
Bth of September, by the John Bull steamer, but
shortly after, in consequence of the bills returning to
Hamburgh from London protested, he became anxious
about his property, and at once eame to this country.
When he called on Mr. Mayer he said he should
like to have his property back, upon which the
defendant said he could not have it as it had
already been shipped on board the Colombo, Captain
Ritchie, for Calcutta. The complainant then asked for
something as a collateral security in case the bills were
not taken up; when Mr. Mayer gave him a warrant for
two cases of goods, which he represented were worth
1501., but on going to examine them afterwards they
were found to contain nothing but bunting. The war-
rant was given to him on Monday last, and on Tuesday
would pay his expenses,discovered
the defendant said that as he had been at so much trouble
theiv give
goodshim
and
dt
g
coming
n ToTeruehsdaewld
y
were lying at Nicholson's Wharf, in the name of Brown,
and that when they were 80 deposited a delivery warrant
was given which would enable the parties to sell the
goods in this country. Under those circumstances the
defendant was summoned.
Mr. Humphreys cross-examined Mr. Hermanny at
some length, but did not succeed in materially altering
the above facts.
Alderman GIBIB asked Mr. Humphreys what defence
he had to make?
Mr. Humphreys said he contended that the goods
were not obtained under false pretences, and even sup-
posing they had, the transaction took place at Ham-
burgh, which was not within the jurisdiction of the ma-
gistrates here. Whatever happened in London, or
anywhere else, was not a false pretence if used after
the goods had been obtained. If at the time of ob-
taining, a false representation had been made, then it
would be very different; but there was no proof of that.
If any proceedings were taken at all it should be at
Elamburgh. He also wished further to impress on the
mind of the Alderman, that according to the law of evi-
dence laid down in " Archbold's Criminal Proceedings,"
'my false representation of what shall be done hereafter
is not in law a false pretence, but a mere promise of
Future conduct. To amount to false pretence, the misre-
presentation must relate to some existing or past fact.
Alderman GIBBS intimated that it approached the
51st section of Peel's Act, which forbade an agent to
appropriate to his own use the goods of a principal. Be
should like to hear from the persons at Nicholson's
Wharf all that had taken place with respect to these
goods; and therefore the case stood remanded until to-
morrow (this day), but be should require Mr. Mayer to
enter into his own recognizauce of 2001., and one surety
of 100/., for his appearance.
The required bail being given, the defendant was
allowed to depart.
BOW-STREET.

ROBBERIES BY A SERVANT.—Yesterday a young fe-
male, named Anne London, who had been within the last
few days in the service of Mr. John Cooke, of Cumber-
land grove-place, Camberwell, was brought up in the
custody of Thompson, a serjeant of the F division, and
placed at the bar, charged with the following robberies:—
Mrs. Fulley, landlady of the Salisbury Hotel and
Coffee- hot's*, in St. Martin's-lane, stated that the pri-
soner came to lodge at her house on Monday week last,
a4d left ou the Saturday following, without, however,
giving any notice of her intention. There was no other
lodger in her house at tho time, and in the afternoon she
missed the time-piece produced, value 305., from a room
in the upper part of the house.
Henry Wood, pawnbroker, 64, High-street, B'oongs-
bury, said that the time-piece was pledged to him on
the 11th instant for 3s. by the prisoner, who gave the
name of Anne Smith, and said it was her property.
serjeant Thompson proved that when he apprehended

When, however, he appeared a second time before the
same magistrates they committed him for trial at the
they were afraid of the responsibility of doing so. The
usual notice had been given to the attorney for the pro-
secution of this intended application, and a letter had
been received from him since, stating that he had no in-
tention to oppose the application.
At the suggestion of the COURT, a rule was granted
for a certiorari to bring up the depositions, and a rule
nisi to admit the defendant to bail.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 16.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BLACK V. HUIIFREYS.
The plaintiff obtained, in the autumn of 1845, an,
allotment of twenty shares in the Dorking, Brighton, and
Arundel Atmospheric Railway Company, and before he
paid his deposit received on the 25th November a letter
from the secretary stating that the managing committee
had undertaken to expend on preliminary expenses more
tha❑ 7s. 6d. per share, without the previous sanction of
a public meeting of the shareholders. The defendant
thereupon paid a deposit of two guineas a share. He
never applied for scrip nor received any, nor signed aay
agreement, and the project having become abortive, be
now sought in this action to recover from one of the
managing committee 351. 103., the balance of his deposit
minus the 7s. 6d. per share, which he admitted might
have been applied to preliminary expenses. At the trial
at the sittings during this term, before Mr. Baron Platt,
it was submitted by the defendant's counsel that the case
of "Clement v. Todd," 1 Exchequer Reports, 268, in
which it was held that a person who received and acted
on scrip stating " that the subscribers' agreement and
Parliamentary contract had been signed by" the person
to whom the certificate was issued, was in the same posi-
tion so far as regarded the company as if he had signed
those instruments, applied to this case, and thereupon the
Learned Judge directed a nonsuit, reserving leave to
the plaintiff to have the verdict entered for him.
Mr. KNOWLES now moved accordingly, pointing out
the difference between the position of the plaintiff in
this case and the plaintiff in that, and obtained a
rule nisi.