The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-30 00:00:00

BRITISH AMERICAN LAND COM-

PANY.

A special general Court of the proprietors of this Com-
pany was held yesterday at the London Tavern, to receive
and consider an important communication from the Hon.
Judge Preble affecting the interests of the Company.
The CHAIRMAN (J. C. Cummins, Esq.) said, that he had
to state first, that their Governor was called to Scotland by
the (illness of a female relative. Ile had next to explain
the object for which the meeting had been convened, which
had not arisen in their ordinary meeting. Judge Preble had
coins from the state of Maine in order to promote the ob-
ject for which the Company had devoted a large sum of
money, viz., the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad. But it
was not only from the circumstance of their having subscribed
their money, but also of its improving the land. It was the
opinion of the Directors that the information of Judge Preble
was of such importance as to induce them to call that meeting.
Mr. Galt had returned to America with a list of those who had
subscribed to the Company. It might possibly arise that
the communications which they would receive from Mr. Galt
would place them in a position to determine whether they
were to prpceed with the railroad or not. Mr. Galt would
take care that the expense should not exceed 5,0001. He
had received a letter from Mr. Galt, dated Sherbrook, 20th
December, 1845, which was to the effect that he had
inspected the route of the proposed railroad to Boston ; that
that portion of the line to Boston was under inspection for
completion in 1847; that 100,000 dollars had been sub-
scribed, and that the inhabitants on the line had proposed to
subscribe 500,000 dollars more. He also stated that Portland
possessed a magnificent harbour, and that the greatest de-
sire for the amicable adjustment of the Oregon question pre-
vailed among the inhabitants.
The Hon. Judge PREBLE said there was exceeding diffi-
culty in dealing with a subject like the present, and to con-
dense all those views which are necessarily connected with
the subject under consideration. (The Learned Judge here
read a lengthened statement, the purport of which was that
the proposed line of railroad would effect a communication
between lakes Ontario, Huron, and Erie and the Atlantic, aid
totally supersede the mode of transit now in operation. It then
dwelt on the advantages that would be conferred on Quebec
and Montreal, if this line were established, by restoring these
towns that trade of which a large portion had been diverted
nton other channels, and of creating a trade. A pro-
ject analogous to that was in contemplation by one of
the wisest governors the colony ever possessed—he meant
the late Lord Sydenham—who had caused canals to be con-
structed.) The Learned Judge, after mentioning a variety
of projects that had been got up by his countrymen to effect
this object, none of which could have any prospect of success-
ful competition with their project, if they excepted the Ver-
mont Grand Central Railway, which was circuitous, and
would require 20,000,0001., while theirs would only require
5,000,000/. ; and stating that the State of Maine would afford
him every assistance in prosecuting the undertaking, con-
cluded by recommending the shareholders to lose no time in
proceeding with the undertaking.
Mr. ROBINSON said that the eligibility of the undertaking
had been admitted twelve months ago, when they had sub-
scribed 20,0001. towards it. He regretted that there was no
distinct proposition before them, and that a statement had
not been made to show that the undertaking was
progressing. He conceived it not to be indicative
that it was held in very high estimation across the Atlantic,
where the shares were nearly all in the possession of English-
men ; and he thought there was a great security for the
speculators that no hostile proceedings would take place, or
that, in the event not only of a war, but of any difference
between the shareholders, that their interests would be se-
cured.
Mr. GOULD, while agreeing fully in what had fallen from
the last speaker, considered the undertaking of such impor-
tance in a national point of view, that he would, if it were
required, propose a further grant towards carrying it out.
--(Hear, hear.) He would propose a resolution to the effect
that the thanks of ,the meeting were due to the Hon. and
Learned Judge for his lucid and comprehensive statement.
POYNDER briefly seconded the resolution which was
tarried unanimously.
The Hon. Judge PREBLE briefly returned thanks. Thanks
were then voted to, and acknowledged by, the Chairman,
and the meeting separated.

LAW ISTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 29.
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. GREGORY.
This was an indictment against the defendant, for a libel
on the Duke of Brunswick, importing, among other things,
•
that-he had murdered Eliza Grimwood. The jury tad coq..
victed the defendant.
Mr. COCKBUEX now moved for a new trial, first on the
ground of the improper reception of evidence, and secondly,
on that of misdirection. The evidence improperly admitted
was the inquisition on Eliza Grimwood. As to the objec-
tion on that point, there was a case in East's Pleas of the
Crown. which showed that an inquisition ought to be taken
on parchment, and not on paper, and the inquisition' on
Eliza Grimwood having been taken on paper, was rot a valid
inquisition, and ought not, therefore, to have been received
in evidence in this case. This objection was confirmed
by the 6th and 7th of Victoria, which was passed to ob-
viate objections of a formal nature to inquisitions ; and
among the instances there mentioned as those in whic the
defect would vitiate tile inquisition, was that of its being taken
on paper. If this objection was valid,then the paper inquisition,
being an invalid instrument, ought not to have been admitted
in evidence. It was not admissible on another ground,
namely, that it was a proceeding between other persons than
those concerned in this indictment, and therefore could not be
evidence for or against either of them. The other point was,
that the prosecutor was described as Charles Frederick
Augustus William Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg.
This was a wrong description; the prosecutor was
no ,longer Duke •of Brunswick. He was not, there-
fore, entitled to be so called. But even if that was
his proper description abroad, he ought here to be described
as an esquire. In Lord Coke's "Institute" it was stated that
the description of rank and title of a party to an indictment
should be truly stated, and if the parties were noblemen of
foreign countries, they were to be described as armigeri, un-
less they were knights. The prosecutor was not a reigning
sovereign, and therefore ought, in our courts, to have been
described as an esquire. He quoted several authorities in
support of this proposition, and contended that this descrip-
tion of the prosecutor being bad, the indictment could not be
sustained.
Lord DENMAX—I think that in this case there ought not
to he any rule. The indictment states what is certainly
quite unnecessary; it states as a distinct fact that there was
a murder committed on the body of Eliza Grimwood, and
then it goes on to allege that an inquisition was held upon
the body, and a verdict of murder by some person unknown
wee pronounced It is quite immaterial whether this was so
or not. The real question is, whether the libel spoke of her
as a person who had been murdered. Notwithstanding this
unnecessary allegation, and the proof unnecessarily offered
upon this point, I think it was quite sufficient to show that
there was an inquisition held on the body of a murdered
person, called by the name of Eliza Grimwood. Mr. Carter,
the coroner, proved that he held the inquisition. He pro-
duced a paper, which would not be admissible as an in-
quisition taken by him in order to found other pro-
ceedings upon it, but which was perfectly admissible to
show that at the inquisition held under him he had noted
down what had occurred; so that supposing it had been
neceeeary to prove the allegation on the indictment, that there
had been such an inquisition, the evidence of Mr. Carter
would have been sufficient to establish that fact. The paper
thus produced was not made the foundation of any other
proceeding, but was a mere mode of identifying the persons
and the names mentioned at the inquest; so that the ob-
jection raised to the admissibility of the paper does not apply
here. With respect to the other part of the objection, I was
snitch struck by the objection when made at the trial. Lord
Coke's authority goes a great way to show that the descrip-
tion here given was an improper description ; for, from his
Institute it appears that foreign titles cannot be noticed in
English courts, and the safer way would have been to call
the prosecutor by his name, and to add the title or desig-
nation Esquire or Armiger. I own I was at first disposed
to think, that though this was merely a technical objec-
tion, is ought to be further discussed; and I should there-
fore hove thought we ought to grant a rule, had it not
been for the case of the King v. Sully, which occurred
in 1; 99. The prisoner there was indicted for stealing cer-
tain articles, the property of Selina Victoire Baroness
Turkheim ; and the prosecutrix said that that was her
title, and not part of her proper name, and that she was re-
pnteet to possess, and did possess that title, in right of an
estate she bad received from her father. The Court said,
that all that the law required was certainty to a common in-
tent, and, therefore, held her description in the indictment
sufficient. There the mere title of the party appeared, and
yet the Court held that that was sufficient, fir she was con-
stantly known by the title given her in the indictment. The
gee circumstances exist here. The prosecutor is not a
reigninng prince, and there is another person who is the reign-
ing iriince, still he is constantly known by this description,
and the case .1 have referred to seems to me a direct autho-
rity for saving that he has properly described himself in this
indictment. I am, therefore, of opinion that there ought to
be be no rule.
The other Judges eoncurred.—The rule-was refused.
Mr. CocenueN then applied for the postponement of the
case on the ground that the whole of the last term had been
suffered to elapse without the defendant being called on to
come up for judgment, and the notice he had now received
to be brought up for judgment having only been given on
'Tuesday evening, he had not had time to prepare the affida-
vits he wished to lay before the Court in mitigation of
punishment.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD (Mr. Wordsworth was with him)
did not oppose the application if the Court thought it proper.
'rite COURT did think it reasonable, and the case was,
therefore, ordered to stand over to next term.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Jan. 29.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FaisE.)
'swot-a...l'T JUDGMENT.-IN RE THOMPSON.
The Learned C
i have a painful drusai"Eß said, this is a case is which
YitcL not perform, that of refusing a certifi-
cate to an attorney. d
hear-
ing, because I wished to give my decision at the hear-
eoxamine the proceedings, to see
whether there was anythi
ne case which could jastig. in the general complexion of
co taking a more lenient
ourse. I have found nothing. Mr
benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Mr Thompson took the
1838, and though
pressed, he could not venture Act .in
to
anything in the pound. He now o state' that his estate paid
ditors, and 4621, to creditors havinwge: 8541. to unsecured cre-
on this occasion will just pay one fa°rtmlel'"enritY ; his estate
.During his examination before me, he showedmg in
the pound.
regardless of the sacred obligation of himself utterly
3towever, on these general reasons thatailf oath. It is not,
if found it principally on his conduct to Mr.ouPd my decision.
anipton. Mr. Pell was employed by three ell, of North-
Thompson for sums which, with the cot clients to sue
821. 10s. ; upon which Thompson requested amountedi to
Mr. Pell to
enable him to get rid of these demands by advancing him the
891. 108. on the security of some cottages and property
which
lie alleged lie had bought of one Loke. Thededso'hich
of c
Tevance from Loke to hint, dated the 21st of August. ig4";
were produced, and no other title-deeds, the excuse for their
non-production being that they had been lost or stolen from
joke many years before. Mr. Pell required evidence of this;
upon w:;ic11 Thompson produced solemn affirmations from
Loke and two other persons, stating that the deeds bad been
.olen. and stating such other facts as were necessary to hand
21st Loke's title. These affirmations were dated the 18110 and
21st of September,,
1644, and producing their natural effect,
induced Pell to advance the
82/. 103. on the security of a
snortgage deed, dated the 17th of October following. Now,
tea days before the mortgage
ota the 7th of October, only
was&xecuted, Loker had attended before the magistrates at
li,'Oinehorough to procure their assistance, pnder a late Act
of parlizmetit, in ejecting one Wyman from part of the
.i•rmi,:e4 conic rites. in the mortgage deed IVyrnan WO
. attended with his' tiolieitor, a Mr. Sharman, of Bed..
• tord, and had showfi .!4) the satisfaction of the magis•
.zetes Ahlt he claimed a ridlt tO this property,. and
i
magistrates, of course, bad tiviin4i to inter-
fere:
Thompson was resent,p apparently sa k A?pecta•
tor, thettg if the
fictitious deed, deed of the 21st of August well (lot IP
cording to hisit:wilup for some fraudulent purpose, he, tu.3-
311 ere spectator, but trenu-nt, ought to have been, not a.
versed with ThoropsoneereiPal actor. Mr. Sharman con-
. faro that Loke appeareff;:t business was over, and told
that he had executed a (14,4 agin.4 under a delusion, for
wa-s.-klie (Sharman) held wig Viii) tglonan's grandfather,
-4194 for a cliept'