The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-23 00:00:00

LIABILITIES.
.0 S. d.
39,213 1 1
1,365 0 0

40,578 1 1
Bank Stock 612,715 0 0
New Call
Further Call 108,659 17 5
Reserved Fund 2,611 3 8

£877,072 '2 2
JIRO UG UT DOWN.
£ S. d £ S. d,
Gross Assets.. 877,072 2 2 Liabilities ... 49,578 1 1
Deduct Esti- /Surplus— ..... 57,690 9
matedlosses 778,803 12 0!

£877,072 2 2

Net Asset; ... £98,268 10 2: £98,268 10 2
" The directors have cancelled 7,907 shares held by
the company, and also forfeited 4,924 k shares held b)
bankrupt and insolvent proprietors, and have carried the
amounts received on the same, say 128,3151.; original
capital of 101. per share, 4,337/. 13s. 10d.; and 7321. 10i.,
first and second calls, to the credit of the bad debt ac-
count, thereby reducing the amount heretofore taken as
estimated loss to 778,8031. 125., as stated in the present
report.

" The robable ultimate surplus has increased during
the year froth 49,5131. Bs. to 57,620/. Os. ld. This arise:.
from fur:her sums received on account of calls amount-
ing to 4,5131. 10s. and 3,6631. I Is. Id., which have beet.
realised beyond the estimates and accounts now fini.ll
closed, after deducting interest and expenses. .
" On the 30th September the liabilities were 29,609/.,
being a reduction of 10,060/, since the 30th of June t
and the directors have much pleasure in being enabled
to state that they have, in the present month, paid 5,0001.
in full discharge of the debt due to their London bankers,
Messrs. Denison, Heywood, Kennard, and Co., to whom
the shareholders are much indebt,d for the liberal treat.
went experienced at their hands during the liquidation.
" There are still some arrears of calls, and in a few
instances, where parties have the ability to pay, it will
be necessary to resort to legal proceedings.
" The lamented death of Mr. Alexander Bannerman
caused a vacancy in the direction, which was filled ui.
by the appointment of Mr. John Bannerman.
" The directors who retire from office by rotation art
Messrs. John Bannerman, Peter Rothwell, and John
Swainson. They will be proposed for re-election.
" By order of the Board of Directors,
(Signed) "G. R. CIIAPPELL, Chairman."
Mr. S. WALKER moved the adoption of the report,
which was seconded by a Shareholder.
The CHAIRMAN said that he had much pleasure it
putting the resolution, but regretted that there were not
wore proprietors present. He had the pleasure to infium
them that the concern was out of debt and out of danger.
Their London bankers had b( ea paid off, as would he
seen by a let:er which would be read to them by Mr
Harrop.

The following letter was then read to the meeting :--
" London, Oct. 7, 1846.
" Sir,—We are favoured with your letter of yester
day, and have received the remittance of 5,0001. thereil
mentioned, being the amount of the last of the pro
rnissory notes given for the debt owing to us by you!
company,

"We now the pleasure to enclose the said pro-
missory note, and to offer our congratulations to the
directors on the discharge of their engagement with
" At the period when our embarrassments pressed so
heavily on your establishment in the autumn of 1842,
when our mill advance was so considerable, and we
were under acceptances for a still larger amount, we
could not but feel a natural anxiety 'respecting our posi-
tion. We, however, placed reliance on the honour and
good faith of the gentlemen engaged in the direction of
the bank, and accepted their assurance of the ultimate
repayment of our advances. Depending upon their ex-
ertions, we allowed time for the winding up of its con-
cerns,and looked forward to a result by which we should
incur no loss. This confident expectation is now realized
by the payment of the last of the promissory notes with
interest, and it is as gratifying to us :that our reliance
has been so fully justified, as it must be satisfactory to
yourself and colleagues that the undertaking entered
into has been so completely and honourably fulfilled.
" Wo remain, yours respectfully,
" DENISON and CO.

" G. R. Chappell, Esq ,
Chairman Bank of Manchester."
A SHAREHOLDER. asked how much money was st
due by the bank.

Mr. FRAZER, in answer, sa7d, in round numbers
24,0001., aad the available assets 45,0001.
The report was then put to the meeting, and carried
unanimously.

After ajnie conversation as to the propriety of
reclacing their annual expenditure, thanks were voted
to the directors and the chairman, and the meeting se-
parated.

REPEAL OF THE MALT TAX.
On Saturday last a deputation from the Central So-
ciety attended a meeting of the tenant-farmers at the
Norfolk Hotel, Norwich, to adopt means for securing a
total repeal of the malt-tax. The chair was taken by
Mr. Leaman, of Whitewell, a large number of the
leading agriculturists of the county being present.
Mr. J. SMITH, one of the deputation, explained the
objects of the society by referring to the following re-
solutions, which had been passed at a meeting held at
the York Hotel, Bridge•street, Blackfriars, London, on
the 30th of March, 1846 :
" 1. That the object of this association is to furnish
employment to the working classes of the British com-
munity (the first source of national- wealth), and by
setting the springs of industry free, enable them to ob•
twin both beer and meat at a moderato cost.

" 2'a. That the tax upon malt is unitlsiltl...principle and
oppressive in operation, inasmuch as it presses so heavily
upon the labouring classes of the empire, and at the
same time altogether prevents many of the more needy
from partaking of a wholesome beverage, the only nu-
tritious one arising from the proluce of the British
soil.

" That the operation of this tax limits the consumption
of barley in an incredible degree, by imposing a duty of
51. 10s. per acre upon every acre of barley used for the
purpose of malting ; thus in the first instance checking
the cultivation of the soil, and in the next precluding the
use of the produce for the purpose of fattening cattle.
" 4. That this meeting pledges itself not only to use its
most strenuous exertions for the total repeal of this ob-
ncsious impost, so detrimental to the comfort and morals
of the people, bat determines never more to relax its ef-
forts, or entirely separate, till the desired object be
attained.

"4. That the committee be requested immediately to
adopt such measures as they may deem expedient and
most proper for carrying into effect the shore resolutions
upon a wide and extended scale, and to exercise their ur-
gent endeavours for increasing the subscriptions."

Mr. NoitTriousE followed in a speech of considerable
length, in the course of which he traced the quantities of
malt consumed and the amount of duty paid from the
year 1730 to the present time. He stated, that in 1730,
when there was a population of only 5,687,993, the con-
sumption was 28,410,421 bushels, the duty being then
only 6d. per bushel, and the consumption fire bushels
per head on the whole population. In 1780, the duty
was is. 4d. per bushel; the population, 7,814,827; the
consumption, 30,805,100 bushels, or four bushels per
head. In 1828, the population was 13,249,508; duty,
2s. 7d.; and consumption, per head, two bushels two
gallons; while in 1845, with a population of 16,711,725,
the entire consumption was only 30,508,840 bushels, or
only one bushel six gallons 2-3ds per head. These
he considered proofs as strong as Holy Writ of the
effects of taxation, and the deterioration of the comforts
of the poor.
Mr. C ULLY, of Cossey, then moved the following re-
solution :—" That this meeting form itself into a com-
mittee, with power to add to its numbers, as a branch
district of the Anti-Malt Tax Association," which was
carried unanimously; and a vote of thanks to the Chair..
man having been passed, the meeting separated.

LA W IN TELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, October 22.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
CANNON V. :MYERS.
The plaintiff in this action is the landlady of' the
White Horse, Hay-street, Clerkenwell, and the defendant
is a rag merchant and Government contractor. The
action was brought to recover the sum of 3/. Os. 81 for
ale, beer, &c., alleged to have been supplied by the
order of the defendant.

The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. WAKELING stated the plaintiff's case, from which
it appeared that in April last, the defendant had an ap-
peal at the Middlesex Sessions, and had a great many
witnesses on his behalf. On that occasion defendant
went to the plaintiff's house, and asked whether a room
had not been engaged by persons of the name of Nathan
and Lazarus for his (defendant's) witnesses? and on being
answered in the affirmative, he said his witnesses were
to have what they required, for which he would settle.
Miss Ellen Cannon was called, and gave evidence as
to the supply of the articles, and that defendant distinctly
gave the orders.
There were between th;rty and forty witnesses.
After the case was over, defendant went and '• stopped
the supplies." On the bill being given, he said he did
not believe so much had been supplied, and he would
not believe it if Mrs. Cannon swore till she was black in
the face, but he would go round to the witnesses, and if
their account agreed with it he would pay, but he had
never done so.

Frederick Miller was called, and also deposed to the
defendant having stopped the supply after the appeal,
and that he said he would call in a day or two and pay.
Mr. SIDNEY for the defendant, contended that
it was highly improbable such an unlimited order would
have been given, and said that Nathan and Lazarus
ought to have been called if they were clerks or agents
of the defendants.

Siviers, wine and commission agent, Stepney, was
called, and swore that he went with defendant after the
appeal was over and saw Lazarus behind the bar, and
defendant was told that he had ordered what had been
supplied. Defendant said that Lazarus might pay, he
would pay what he had then, and they had refreshment
to the amount of 7s. The bill was tendered to de-
fendant, but he would not pay.
Other witnesses were called, but,
The UNDER•SHERIFF said, all the witnesses went to
prove the plaintiff's case, and asked whether Mr. S:d ley
intended to call Lazarus?
Mr. SIDNEY replied in the negative.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF asked the jury whether
they entertained any doubt; if not, it would be unneces-
sary for the plaintiff to reply?
The jury said they had not, and returned a verdict
for the amount claimed.
There were only four cases in the list, and the others
were not of the slightest interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
A poor man, named Richard Sherlock, applied to Sir
Pet2r Laurie for advice under the following eircum
stances:—He said he had 'resided in the parish of St.
Mary Staining for nearly seven years; it would be seven
years about the middle of next January. That about a
year and nine months ago he and his wife, who is touch
afflicted with fits, were removed to the parish of St.
llotolph, Aldersgate, to which he belonged by payment
of rent and taxes for some years. From that period
until recently he had received 2s. and a 41b. loaf weekly;
but about a fortnight ago he was told by Mr. Roberts,
the relieving-officer of the East London Union, that it
would be the last time he should have to pay him, as
he had lived five years in the parish of St. Mary Stain-
ing, and he must now lay claim to that parish. Since
then he had seen Mr. Llewellyn, the vestry-clerk of St.
Mary Staining, and that gentleman had written to Mr.
Roberts, and he had been to and from one to the other,
but without effect, and he was now recommended by
Mr. Llewellyn to apply to the magistrate for his advice.
Sir P. LAURIE said it seemed to him a great hardship
that a man should be driven from pillar to post in that
manner, and that there must be something very defective
in the poor-law to admit of such a course.
Mr. Teague, the chief clerk, said this was only one of
an immense number of such cases that had arisen upon
the construction of the late Poor Removal Act. It was
provided by the Act that a person who had been resident
in any parish for five years should be irremovable to his
place of settlement, and that no order should be grapted
for the removal of any pauper from a parish in which he
had resided for five years " next before the application"
for the order. Many of the large metropolitan parishes
have, in consequence of this Act, discontinued the greater
part of their out-door relief, and hate thus thrown tee
onus of relief upon the parish in which the pauper had
been resident for fire years, or removing them again
where they have not been so resident; for the time during
which a pauper received relief from any parish was to be
exclude,' from the computation.
Sir P. LAURIE said he thought it would be well to can
the atten ion of the Poor-law Commissioners to the sub-
ject, and get them to set the matter at rest.
Mr. Teague said he feared that a great deal of the
present hardship had been oc rasioned by Vac construe-
don which the Commissioners had put upon the Act,
and might be mainly attributed to a circular letter which
had been recently addressed to the boards of guardians
by Mr. Lumley, the assistant-secretary, wherein it was
said that the ground which had existed for non-resident
relief would now be removed. It was quite evident that
the intention of the Commissioners was to drive the pour
into the workhouses, and do away as much as possible
tothe present had been recently
barrister, and he had felt that
with all out-doer relief. Mr. Teague fur:her stated that
jleyffimesieinmletyinlairn the construction of the Act, as
.od of relief was to be excluded from the compu-
e
tation of the five years, and yet that period would in
rala. ahniceydar
pbeeewl Parrseecaias nde
tervene between the residence and the application for a
new order; and therefore it might be urged that five
years residence would not be " next before the applica-
tion," as the Act required. In that case the counsel
advised that the opinion of the Court of Qaeen's Bench
eliollid be taken as soon as possible; and in the case now
before Sir P. Laurie he could see no better course than
for the parish of St. Mary Staking to apply for a new
order, and leave the other parish, if they thought fit, to
raisethe question on appeal.
Sir P. LAURIE said he was quite of opinion that out-
door relief, instead of being diminished, ought to be
greatly extended. The driving the poor into the work-
houses bad the effect of depriving them of their energy
and independence of character, and tended to reduce
them to a state of continual pauperism. Next to a men
out of a gaol a master was usually most averse to a man
out of a workhouse, while he thought the worse of no
man who was obliged to receive a little out door relief.
The outdoor relief should be extended for the sake of
the rate-payers as much as for the feelings and reputa-
tion of the poor. It might be sometimes abused, but
that was not a reason for its abolition. It was the duty
of the Poor-law Commissioners to see that none were
placed in danger of starvation, and the poor could not
wait till the law was amended.
He gave Sherlock 53. from the poor-box, and advised
him to apply to the parish in which he resided, to be
relieved or passed.
RAILWAY SHARES.—A young man named Stokes, a
solicitor's clerk, applied for advice under the following
circumstances;—llia father died immediately after the
railway panic, and he was found to have in his posses-
sion 600 shares in the Kentish Coast Railway, upon
which 11. is. 6d. had been paid, and which he had bought
at five-eighths premium, so that he had invested 1,200/.
The company did not apply for a Bill, and the directors
had advertised to return 1Z per share on genuine scrip;
but they repudiated complainant's scrip as spurious, be-
cause it was not signed by any of the directors. It was
signed by the secretary, Mr. Richards.
Sir P. LAURIE asked if that was the same person who
fie
bured as a witness in a forgery case of shares? The
A ppl ic an t said it was. He was now in France. Be
produced a prospectus.
Sir P. LAURIE said there were several respectable
names amongst the provisional committee, and he held
that a promoter was liable to the shareholders for re-
payment where the scheme altogether failed.
The applicant said he did not know who to sue, as
the name of the secretary only appeared on his scrip.
Sir P. LAURIE said it was not difficult to make these
companies account as bankrupts, and he recommended
the applicant to seek the advice of Mr. Spackman, of
Moorgate-street, who appeared to be well versed in
winding up companies, as appeared by the newspapers.
The applicant begged to mention another case. He
was at the time a stocbroker's clerk, and another broker
persuaded him to buy 100 Lynn shares. He paid him
50/. down, 2391. more on the settling day, having lost by
the transaction. It subsequently transpired that hie
friend had bought only 56, instead of 100 shares, and had
paid one-half
per cent. less than he said, cheating him of
the difference.
As it was a partnership concern Sir P.LeURIE though
he could not inter'ere.

George Stodclart, a young man of good appearance and
E THAM S.
address, late head-shopman to Mr. David anitillier, linen-
draper and silkmercer, of No. 4, Northumberland-place,
Commercial-road, Stepney,
Bro-
derip, ( n remand, charged with stealing cash and goods
to the amount of 4001. was brought before Mr.
Mr. Pelham conducted the prosecution. Mr. Fearnley
defended the prisoner who is very respectably connected.
His father is captain of a merchant-ship called the Ingo,
trading between London and the north.
It appeared that the prisoner had been in the prose.
cutor's employ four years, and had commenced at a sa-
lary of of 251. per annum which had been increased last
year to 35/.
The greatest confidence had been placed in
the pisoner. During the summer he obtained six
,
weeks' leave of absence, and married a young lady of
high respectability in Sunderland, where he proposed es-
tablishing hill:up:4lin business. In the ouros of the lust