The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 2.

Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Sergeant-Byles were
called within the bar by the Lord Chancellor, having
received patents of precedency.
The Court rose shortly before three o'clock.

ROLLS' COURT,
Nov..• 2.
SMITH V. SMITH.:
Mr. Smith, the defendant in this cause, having stated
that he would not give any explanation of his refusal to
give answers in the above cause, was committed to her
Majesty's prison.
Several unimportant motions were disposed of, and in
the coarse of the day Sergeants Talfourd, Manning,
Murphy, and Byles, having received patents of prece-
dence, were called within the bar by his Lordship.
The Court adjourned at the usual hour.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Nov. 2.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
Nwor QUEEN'S SERGEANTS.—In the course of the
morning Sergeants Talfourd, Manning, Murphy, and
Ryles, were called by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of
England within the bar, the two former having been
appointed Queen's Sergeants, and the two latter having
received patents of precedency.
The Court rose at half-past three o'clock.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
Sergeants Talfourd, Manning, Murphy, and Byles,
were called by his Honour within the bar, having re-
ceived a patent of precedence.
His HONOUR having disposed of a number of motions
which, as usual on the first day of term, were very un-
interesting, the Court adjourned at the usual hour.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)
Barons Parke, Alderson, and Rolfe took their seats on
the bench at half-past one.
In the course of the day Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and
Mr. Sergeant Manning were appointed Queen's Ser-
geants, and were called within the bar, and took their
seats accordingly. Mr. Sergeant Murphy received
a patent of precedence, and was also called within the
bar.

Mr. J. Bacon, Mr: Walpole, Mr. Bolt, and Mr. Hum-
phrey were appointed Queen's Counsel learned in the
law, and were also respectively called within the bar.
and took their seats accordingly.

c.nIFFEN BURLTEN.
This was a trial which took place before the Lord
Chief Justice at Hereford, in which nominal damages
were awarded to the plaintiff.
Mr. GODSON, Q.C., now moved for a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be granted, on the ground of the
verdict of the jury being against the evidence offered in
the case.

The COURT decided that it would consult the Lord
Chief Justice before coming to any decision upon the
subject.

THE QUEEN V. NEWTON.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in this case called upon the
Court to pronounce a rule ,regulatink the allowances to
be made to the. Snerifi of Middlesex in cases where
seizures were made on behalf of the Crown. It ap•
peered that by an Act passed in the 3d George 1.,
sec. 3 and 18, a certain poundage was allowed upon the
levying of all Crown debts, in full satisfaction of every
charge of the sheriff: The Ist Vie., chap. 55, sec. 1 and
following secti-.ms authorised, the judges to make a rule
for allowing the sheriffs certain fees upon execution, and
the question to be decided, and upon which a rule was
prayed, was. whether the sheriffs were entitled to re-
ceive as uoundago, in addition to the allowance authorised
by the 3d Geo 1., the sun) allowed by the 3d Vic.

BRIGGS V. HAYES.

Mr. CLIOWD'illt, Q.C., moved for a rule in this case to
compel the defendarit. who was a share-br..,ker, to render
further paxtieutars of the contracts male and entireJ
into on behalf of the plaintiff in the sale and purchas,
of a number of railway shares, the loss upon which had,
from time to time, been placed to tne aecount of the
-defendant. In the bill of pariieu:ars which had been filed
by the plaintiff, no mention was made of the names of any
of the parties of whom, or to whom, the sale or purchase
.4 the shares hal been ; and the Learned Counsel
• therefore contended that such particulars were ab;o.
lately necessary, in order to enable the defendant to
• rebut if pos:lible the statement of the plaintiff, and also
to enable him to prove whether such contract had or
had not been entered into on his behalf by the plaintiii:
—Rule granted.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. '2.
This being the commencement of Michaelmas Term,
the Q le,n's CoUoSel appeared it, full dress. Among those
present we observed the Al torney-Gcneral, the SoLcitor•
(=eneral, Sir Frederick Thesiger (the late Attorney -
General), Mr. Sirgtartt Tali.oird, Mr. Andrews. Mr.
Watson, Mr. Whateley, Mr. Stuart Wortley, and !Mr.
Alexr,nder. The attendance of the bar was unusually
large, and the Court was very crowded, a great number
of ladies being present.
The Lord Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Coleridge,
Mr. Juitije 1474:;htnr:tn, and Mr. Justice-Erle, took their
seat& on the bench shortly before two O'C.loi:k.
APPLICATION FOR A CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST

W. U. FERRAND, M.P.

Sir F. Tnasruen said he had to apply for a criminal
information against Mr. William Busfeild Ferranti,
31. P., on account of two letttera which he published in
the Times newspaper of the Bth and 11th of August lust
Mr. Ferrand had adinittcd writing and publishing the
letters. 'Before he proceeded to refer more particularls
to the It tters themselves, it would be necessary that 11;
should shortly detail seine matters which took plait
tome time betwe they were 1 üblish d, and which i
w.s absolutely necessary their Lordships should be it
possession of. In the West Riding of Yorkshire then
was a poor-hew union entitled the Keightley Union, is
which Mr. Ferrand :tier, and probably then was, thi
hairman of the board ofguardians. At the beginning;
of the year 1842, the Poor-law Commissioners receiver
information that various irregularities were practised by
the gtfardians of the union, and that the new Poor-law
WSA not properly carried out by' them. In consequence
of this Mr. Lewis wrote to Mr. 111eq, an assistant-corn
missioner, in whose district the Keightly Utlior.
was situated. It was dated the 22d of Fe
bruary, 1842, and stated the nature of the
information which had been received, and desired him
not to make a special examination, or to let it be
known that he came there for a special purpose, anti to
4-raw up a report with respect to the allegations brought
:against the guardians of the union. On the following
day Mr. Lewis wrote a letter to the Poor law Commis.
:stoners, saying that he believed there was too much
truth wits respect to the irregularities in the Keightley
Union, and addhig that similar charges might be mad-
-with considerable truth against other manufacturing
unions. Mr. Mott, it appeared, visited the Keightley
Union and made a report on the 23d of
April. Mr. Mott reported that he attended a meeting
41t the guardians on the 13th of April, and that he found
they conducted their proceedings in a very irregular
=tanner ; in short, that they entirely set at variance the
provisions of the Poor-law—that all the errors of the
old Poor-law were carried on, the poor claiming out-
door relief as a right, and that the rates were conse-
quently very fast increasing ; and the guardians, on the
23cl of April, issued an order for an out-door labour test
and for abolishing the payment of rates in certain
cases. On- the; 26th of May Mr. Ferrand gave notice,
in his place in Parliament, to move for an
address to her Majesty to rescind the order
of the union of the 23d. In order to test the
accuracy of Mr. Mott's report, Sir John Welsher was
cent down to make an inquiry, and the report which he
made confirmed it in its most material points. A Com-
tnittee of the House of Commons was appointed on the
28th of June, 1842, to inquire into the allegations con-
tained in the reports. The Committee, after examining
Witnesses, also held that the reports were correct in all
the material allegations, although they stated they con-
tained some expressions which required qualification.
Vow, in the course of last session a Select Committee was
!appointed to inquire into the condition of the Andover
Union, and Mr. Lewis was summoned to give evidence
before it. Immediately afterwards the letters referred
to appeared in the Times. The first letter, which bore
slate the Ist of August, stated that although ill health
Lad prevented him from attending to his Parliamentary
elastics, he had watched the proceedings of the Andover
Zillion with intense interest. It went on to say, what must
be the feeli.ig o every Hon. Member of the House of Com-
mons Maid read the evidence taken before the com-
mittee on uie preceding Saturday with respect to the
sptatement which he made in the House of Commons on
iiha 6th ot. April, 1844, that Sir James Graham took
steps to peoeuee a report for the purpose of crushing
)rim (Mr. Yersasid), a Member of the House
of Commons, and which the House, in Sir James
Graham's simple denial, voted " calumnious and un-
founded?" Now, on Saturday the denial of Sir James
Graham was proved to have been false. Mr. Parker and
Tdr. Manners Sutton, Sir James's private secretary, had
done. all they could to make it appear that he had not
r ctired, an " infamous and false report." Sir
George Grey had promised next session to sanction
the appointment of a Committee on the subject of thePoor-
' law when neither Mr. Manners Sutton nor any one else
would be able to screen him, for he (Mc. Ferrand) should
provv that Mr. Lewis knew that the report of Mr. Mott
was false , and that knowino• it to be false he carried it
to Sir James Graham, and that Sir John Walsher's re-
port was also false. Sir James Graham handed the
reports to Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons,
Who upon the strength of them made a charge against
birch, and that he (Mr. Ferrand) still maintained that
the whole. proceeding was a false and infamous
conspiracy between Sir James Graham and
Mr. :Lewis, for the purpose of crushing
him. lie (Sir Frederick Thesiger) considered that on
this letter alone Mr. Lewis was entitled to his applica-
tion. When Mr. Lewis was examined before the An-

(lover Committee he did m:tsi;;;tb:the-would be ex-
amined with respect to the Keightley Union, and he WAS
the!iefore not so fully prepared to reply to the questions
idle h were put to him as he otherwise would have been. and
be m; stakingly said, in reply to a question, that Mr. Mott
wsa sent down from the Hosue-nice to Keightley.
wharesi Sir John VVulsher was sent down, but he sub-
lialtientivsecondmistake, letter, en the
I°4' 'A. August,
said that the bursting of
the Yoorelaw CornteiVhone.rs was "a great fact;" that
Mr- iMannexs Sutton,
saittee , was in the habitoof7l4l3il,iing
a member
.of the Com-
111r. Lewin out of the
imam': ttee, nerd eensulting -
him
.him, , and afterward.
est 'him !kis& in and examini eg
that he would
guitt'yi:7fn..the most delihe-
izost=prore .thar. Mr. Lewis was
rst,,,falsehovd. for the purpose of dee',
*et .eby preventing the Arch- Commi,,cuiehre I Ismae, and
Graham, front the infamy which awaits him., Sir
It
went on to say that Mr. Mutt's report was dated
ithee
13tat of April, 184'2, whereas the order for oat- doorcet
Was mot issued until the 30th of that month, and that hie
motion to the House for the withdrawal of it was nnt made
until June, so that it was untrue that Mr. Mott received
instructions in consequence of the order ; and that
were ,a witness at the Old Bailey to utter such a falso-
hood hhe would be peaked off in the prison van, and in-