The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-23 00:00:00

GROUP XLVIII

THE 141..1rNV1 VALLEY.
The Committee met again this day at twelve o'clock. Mr. Aid-
ham (chairman).
The evidence for the promoters was proceed with. A long cross-
examination, off behalf of several landowners on the line, took place,
but nothing of importance was elicited to endanger the case for the
line.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met to-day at one o'clect, in Room 1, House of
Lords; present,-Lord Shaftesbury (chairman), and;Lords Hawarden,
Redesdale, Richmond, and Winchester.
There were on the list thirty-two Bills, which, with one exception.
were all railway Bills. Decisions were made in the following cases:—
MORAYSHIRE.
This Bill, which In the brevity of its title, Is only surpassed by
the " Deeside," which was disposed of on Thursday, was one of
those in which the standing orders of the House had been complied
with by the parties.
ASHBURTON, NEWTON, AND SOUTH DEVON.
Standing orders complied with.
MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND MIDLAND JUNCTION.
The Comrsittee decided that the promoters of this Bill, which
had been adjourned from Friday, in the absence of one witness, had
complied with the standing orders.
The following Bills were called on, and having been part heard,
stood over for further proofs :
YORKSHIRE AND GLASGOW UNION.
Adjourned till to-morrow.
NORFOLK (YARMOUTH EXTENSION AND LOWESTOFT
RAILWAY LEASE),
.also adjourned till tomorrow.
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, AND GREENOCK (POLLOC. AND
GOVAN)
GLASGOW SOUTHERN TERMINAL.
Both adjourned till Wednesday.
CALEDONIAN (GLASGOW TERMINI AND BRANCHES).
This case stood over till to-morrow.
The Committee then resolved themselves into a
SELECT COMMITTEE ON MERITS.
The list contained sixteen Bills, of which seven only were railway
Bills. ' Of these the following were disposed of :
STIRLINGSIIIRE MIDLAND.
This Bill was virtually passed. The decision, however, stood
ever, on the absence of one witness.
GLASGOW, STRATHAVEN, AND LESMAIIAGOW DIRECT.
The preamble was declared proved.
A clause was inserted, in conformity with the resolution of the
Committee, as to placing lodges at all level crossings un public roads.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY ACTS
AMENDMENT.
This was a third-class Bill. The proofs as to the standing orders
and as to the merits of the Bill were proceeded with at the same
time, and the Committee declared the standing orders complied with,
and the preamble proved.
The Hamilton Niw Gas Bill was passed.
THAMES HAVEN DOCK AND RAILWAY.
This Bill was virtually passed, but one witness being absent, its
further consideration was postponed till to-morrow.
BALLOCHNEY.
Laconic again ! This Bill belonged to the third class, and was
treated in the same way as the London and South Westeru Amend-
meld, above mentioned. It was passed.
STANDING ORDERS.
Their Lordships then resumed the form of a Standing Orders'Com-
mittee, and proceeded with the remaining Bills on the list.
LONDON AND CROYDON (THA3IES JUNCTION BRANCH).
The Committee declared the standing orders complied with.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE (NORTH EASTERN).
Their Lordships made a similar decision in this case.
SCOTTISH CENTRAL (DENNY BRANCH).
Standing orders complied with.
MONKLAND AND KIIIKINTILLOCH.
The same applies to this Bill. The Morecombe Bay Bill was also
passed.
GLOUCESTER AND DEAN FOREST RAILWAY.
This ca.;e, as well as that of the
WISHAW AND COLTNESS (GREENHILL BRANCH),
was postponed till to-morrow. So also was the
FLEETWOOD, PRESTON, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION,
and some ethers. st
NEWMARKET AND CHESTERFIELD.
The standing order. were duly declared complied with.
• CALEDONIAN (MID-LOTHIAN BRANCH).
HUDDERSFIELD AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY AND
CANAL (HUDDERSFIELD DIVERSION AND COOPER-
BRIDGE BRANCH).
SHEFFIELD, ASHTON-UNDER LYNE, AND MANCHESTER
(DITEIISFIELD, WORSTIOROUGII ANU OTHER IIRAN(;IIES).
SHROPSHIRE UNION RAILWAY AND LANAI. (NEWTOWN
TO CREWE).
The aboveltills were postponed till to-morrow.
The Committee then ruse at about a quarter to tire, and adjourned
till to-morrow at one.

THE MIDLAND AND EASTERN

COUNTIES RAILWAY.

An adjourned special meeting of this Company took place
yesterday, in consequence of there not having been a sufficient
quantity of scrip represented at the previous meeting. J. C.
Cobbold, Esq., took the chair..
The Secretary having read the advertisement convening
the meeting, the votes were proceeded with, when there was
found a large majority in favour of proceeding with the Bill.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH; June 22.

DONALD9ON AND OTHERS V. E33IITD.

This was an action founded upon one which was decided
on Saturday, entitled Donaldson, &c., v. Bird, brought by
the Westminster Commissioners of Sewers against a con-
tractor for the imperfect construction of a sewer in Portugal-
place, Paddington, when, after a trial which lasted the whole
day, a verdict was given for the piaintiff— damages
2311. 10s. 4d. The verdict was accompanied with the inti-
mation that the jury were of opinion the whole work had
been executed to the satisfaction of the then acting Com-
missioners of Sewers. The plaintiffs having succeeded in
that case, proceeded to-day against the contractors' surety,
and several witnesses were examined on the point at issue.
The case closed by a long and able address by Mr. Jarvis for
the defendant, when the jury retired, and after an absence
of about two hours they returned a verdict for the defendant.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

William Manfield was indicted for feloniously ribbing and
throwing Elizabeth Pullen upon a certain stone pavement,
with intent to do her some bodily injury, dangerous to life;
with intent to murder her.
The circumstances of this case will be in the recollections
of our readers. The prisoner and the prosecutrix cohabited
together, and on the day in question it appeared that they
were quarrelling, and the prisoner beat the prosecutrix in a
most cruel manner; and he was heard to say he would throw
her out of the window; and almost at the same instant the
unfortunate woman was seen to fall from the window, and
she was picked up in an insensible state and covered with
blood. She was taken to the hospital, where she remained
for some time in a most dangerous state ; and upon the ma-
gistrate taking her deposition, she, to the astonishment of
every one declared that she had thrown herself out of the
window.

The unfortunate woman was called as a witness, and she
repeated this statement; but from the manner in which she
gave her evidence, it appeared very evident that she was
actuated by a desire to screen the prisoner from the conse-
quences of his brutality.
The RECORDER inquired whether a surgeon was in at-
tendance to speak to the nature of the injury received by
the prosecutrix 7—The Police constable said that Mr. Bur-
rell, the magistrate who committed the prisoner, considered
the evidence of a surgeon was unnecessary.
The RECORDER said he was very much surprised that the
magistrate had given such an opinion. The prisoner was
charged with inflicting a bodily injury dangerous to life, and
they had no evidence of a surgeon to show the character of
the injury.
Directions were then given that the constables should go
to the hospital and procure the attendance of the surgeon ; and
in a short time he entered, and seated that the gentleman
who had attended upon the prosecutrix had gone out, and it
was uncertain when he would return.

In answer to further questions put by the RECORDER, the
constable stated that the prosecutrix was found lying upon
the ground perfectly insensible, covered with blood; and a
portion of her hair and :some blood was also found on
a brick upon which she had fallen, lie also stated that she
was three weeks in the hospital before she could be removed.
The prisoner in his defence said that the woman threw
herself out of the window, because he would not let her go
out of the door.

The RECORDER, in summing up, said that it wr•uld have
been more satisfactory to have had the evidence of a surgeon ;
but still it would be a question for the jury, supposing they
should consider the facts to be proved, whether they could
entertain any reasonable doubt that the injury received was
calculated to endanger the life of the prosecutrix.

The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The RECORDER told the prisoner he had been convicted of
a capital offence, and judgment of death would be recorded
against him. The sentence of death would not, however, be
carried out, but, taking into consideration the brutal charac-
ter of the offence, he should feel it his duty to recommend
that he be transported for the term of his natural life.