The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-16 00:00:00

BOROUGH AND SPITALPIELDS.

2►%
222%

The arrivals of Potatoes at the water-side have been somewhat
extensive during the past week, but the supplies have come to hand
much out of condition. The finest parcels moved off steadily at full
prices. In other kinds yelp little was doing, York Reds, 90s. to 11Gs.
Twr toa ; York Regents, 80s. to 110 s. ; Scotch Reds, 50s. to 755. ;
Jersey Blues, 70s. to 80s. ; Montrose Buffs, 70s. to 80s.
HOHOUGH HOP 1141.A.Tt1TIT.

The supply of Hops on offer being small, and many of the large
brewers rather short of stock, the general demand here is steady,
and prices are well supported.____

WOOL.

The imports of Wool into London since our last report have been
on a very limited scale, viz., about 400 bales, chiefly from the Cape
and Constantinople. Privately, a full average amount of business is
pasting in British Wools, at extreme currencies, but Foreign and
Colonial parcels—arising from the forthcoming public sales—are a
slow inquiry, at barely stationary prices.
TALLOW.

3% P
78%
12%
10%
1% p
2%
151%

The delivery for the past week has again fallen off, from, we be-
lieve, the reason given in our last Monday's statement. The price
for duty paid Tallow is very firm, and there are buyers of Y. C. in
bond, at 40s. 6d. Town Tallow is very scarce at 448. net cash.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)
The House sat to day to hear English appeals. The Peers
in attendance were the Lcrd Chancellor, Lord Brougham.
Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell, Their Lordships did
not sit till eleven o'clock.

2214
2%
25
734

THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF GLOUCESTER V. OSBORNE

AND SURMAN.

The arguments in this part-heard appeal, with respect to
the will of the late Mr. Wood, the banker, of Gloucester,
were resumed this morning, and occupied their Lordships the
whole day.

QUEEN'S BENCH-( THIS DAY.)
(Before ➢ir. Justice WIGUTMAN.)

BREACH OF PROMISE.-MARY ELIZABETH SMITH V. WASHING

TON LORD FERRER&

This case, which excites an extraordinary degree of inte-
rest. was resumed this morning.
Mr. Smith, farmer, father of the plaintiff, was the that
witness examined this morning. He was examined by Mr.
M. CHAMBERS— His evidence corroborated the-opening st•ite-
ment of the Solicitor-General. He knew many of the letters
addressed to his daughter to be in Lord Ferrers' hand-
writing.
Mrs. Smith examined by Mr. Ronmos--Witness was
mother of the plaintiff. Her daughter went to reside with
her aunt at Tamworth when she was eight years of age, and
returned to her home at Austrey when fourteen. It was then
Christmas-time. She remained at home one year, and then
left for London, spending the vacation in France. She again
returned to Austrey in the Midsummer of 1841. She recol-
lected Lord Ferrers, when Lord Tamworth, being at Austrey.
That was before her daughter went to London. She knew
then that some attentions were being paid to her daughter,
and it was partly in consequence of these attentions that she
was sent to London. He went abroad, and when he returned
he took an opportunity of seeing her, and she (the witness)
was informed of it. She saw letter No. 1 in the beginning
of the year 1844. The letter was shown by her daughter
the day she received it.
!ty the ATTORNEY -GENERAL--She did not see her re-
ceive it.

By Mr. Roeestist—Her daughter received the letter at
the time, and she herself read it at night to Mr. Smith. She
had also seen .:he other letters produced in Court after she
had seen the first one. She had seen each of them about the
time they bore date. She recollected a handkerchief being
sent from her house to Lord Ferrer& There were two sent, but
at different times. They were of the same pattern—ofsilk—
with a small running border. The first was sent in
February or March. It was before the receipt
of letter No. 2 that the first letter was sent.
The handkerchief was marked 'with the letter F. It was
marked with Miss Smith's hair. She (witness) folded the
handkerchief in an envelope, with a letter. She did not
recollect the contents of the letter, but was in the room when
her daughter wrote it. The letter was signed, ft,r she (wit-
ness) folded the letter herself, and could therefore observe
that it was signed. It was then given to John Lees (an under
tenant) to post. She sealed it, and it was directed to the
Right Hon.' Earl Ferrers, Chartley Castle, Staffordshire.
She also folded the second handkerchief, which was marked
in a similar manner. A young woman residing with them
at the time marked the first handkerchief, and the sister of
one of the servants marked the second. The latter was not
so well marked as the first. Letter No. 3 was received after
the receipt of the second handkerchief. She did not see the
letter written with the second handkerchief until it was
placed in the envelope. She saw the letter after it was
written. It was also addressed to the Right Honourable
the Earl Ferrers. She directed the envelope herself.
This also was given to John Lees to be posted.
Witness accompanied her daughter in April, 1844, to Staf-
fordshire. They were attended by. a man-servant. They
went for the purpose of meeting Lord Ferrera at Stafford;
but they did not see him. They stayed all night at Stafford,
and,returned the following morning. They went to a place
called Syerscote, where witness's father lived, on the following
day. There they saw also Mrs. Perry, and her daughter
then wrote a letter to Lord Ferrers. Witness saw that letter,
and read its contents. She then herself put it into the Tams
worth post. It was directed as the others had been Some
time after an answer was received to that letter. She re-
•ceived a letter from the Earl before he got hers. The letter
received by her was No. 5. She received that letter a few
days after her return from Stafford. She recollected another
letter written
.by her daughter, and given to Mrs. Perry, who
posted it at Lichfield. She saw the letter, but did not
read it. That letter was also addressed to Earl Ferrers.
Her daughter showed her letters No. 9 and B. The letter
B was addressed to Mr. Smith, and after he had read it she
saw it. Her husband replied to it in two or three days. She
thought the letter was received on a Tuesday and replied to
on a Friday. Mr. Smith read the answer to her. Mr. llol-
gate also saw it. Witness sealed it, and it was directed,
" The Lord Ferrers, Chantley Castle." Witness was going
to Ashby the following morning, and the letter was in the
interval put into a drawer, that was generally kept locked in
the bookcase. On the next morning Mr. and Mrs. Holgate,
her daughter, and herself went to Ashby, and witness reit the
letter in the post. She recollected hearing at Ashby that
Lord Ferrers had married another lady. Before that time
preparations had been made for Miss Smith's marriage with
his Lordship, and everything was ready. Her daughter had
been some time at school, and could write English gramma-
tically.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL--The dresses
were made by Mrs. Lees, of Appelby. The brides-
maids were her cousins, Misses Smith. All these pre-
parations were made •without any personal communication
with Lord Ferrers. He had signified his wishes that the prepa-
rations should go on in his letters. He mentioned his wish
to marry her in May. Some of the dresses were not com-
pleted then, but they were in a state of forwardness.' They
were all to be completed in June or July. She might pro
bably have ordered the bridal dresses in June. Some of the
cakes were received in June, and they might have been
ordered in May. What had been ordered were not deemed
sufficient by Lord Ferrers, and more were ordered. Two
had been ordered in the first place, and two others after.
Part were made by Mrs. Goodman, at Ashby, and part at
Leicester. Her daughter wrote a good letter, and understood
French. She was not generally fond of novel-reading:
they lived in the country, and seldom saw one. She
might have read one in one or two months, not more. Her
father subscribed to a society. Her daughter was tan, neither
very dark, or light with dark hair. Her daughter was be-
tween 14 and 15 when Lord Tamworth first paid her atten-
tions. When her daughter informed her, she did not inform
Mr. Ashlehurst, his tutor. They were net on visiting terms
with that gentleman. They heard of Lord Ferrers going
abroad, and of his return some short time before the
death of his grandfather. Soon after his return
there was a ball at Tamworth. She went with her
daughter to that ball. They dressed at the house of Mr.
Neville, at Tamworth. Witness recollected going to Miss
Neville's room, but could not say what she might have said
about drOsing her hair. She did not remember saying any-
thing about her daughter's intention to wear a single rose.
She did go the ball with a single white rose in her
hair. Lord Ferrers was not there. She did not
know that her daughter expected him there. She might
have expected him, but of that witness could not be positive.
After that her daughter did inform her that she had at differ-
ent times received presents of dresses, jewellery, and books
from Lord Ferrers. This might be in the beginning of 1843.
She asked her daughter where she got the jewellery and'
dresses, and she informed her they were presents from Lord
Ferrers. The books were sent. They were " The
Queens of England ;" Miss Bremer's works; the
Abbotsford edition of Scott's works, and others..
They were sent from Mr. Thompson, of Tamworth,
by Lord Ferrers' orders. Some of the dresses were of silk.
some of eachemere, muslin, and so on. The material only
was sent. The jewellery consisted of brooches and rings.
They did not know where these things came from, until
they discovered that they were not paid. for. They made this
diecovery by the bills coming in. The. dresses were bad from
Mr. Sale; the jewellery from Miss Baker • and the books
from Mr, Thomson. She could not say who ordered them,
but she paid for them. They were paid for partly from
Mr. Smith's money, and partly from a 1001. borrowed from her
grandfather. The whole amount might be 2001. Her daughter
gave the bills of particulars to Earl Ferrers, who said he
would pay for them, and the bills
,of amounts were sent to
witness. Her daughter told her to borrow money from her
papa or grandpapa to pay for these presents. Letter A, from
Lord Ferrers to Mr. Smith, was written in the spring of 1844.
The letter expressed the Noble Lord's sorrow for having
caused any regret to Mary (the plaintiff). Witness did not
receive 'letters from Earl Ferrers, but she saw her once
coming up the garden with one in her hand. She did not,
however, see Lord Ferrers give her daughter the letters. Her
daughter showed her two letters received Irons Earl Ferrers's
brother, after their return from Harrowgate in July 1844.
They were received the week after. 'Witness did not see
them received, as she happened to be out at the time.
(The trial was proceeding when our report left.)

COURT OF REVIEW-(THIS DAY )
(Before Vice -Chancellor Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE.)
IN RE THE NEWTON BANK.

The Totries bank makes a claim against the estate of the
Newton bank of 1,8051., which is disputed on the ground
that the alleged agreement of 1834, on which the claim is
rested, never existed. It seems that the partners in both
banks previous to that date were the same persons, sharing
the like interest in both concerns, but that at that time an
alteration took place, by which ie banks at Newton and
Totnes were erected into separate and independent concerns.
The question in dispute is, whether there was such an ar-
rangement about the debts of each as made the Newton bank
liable to the claim made against it by the bank at Totnes.
The case was opened by Mr. Swanston and Mr. Matins,
whose arguments occupied the attention of the Court for
three hours. When these were concluded, his Honour ad-
journed the further hearing till this day week, that certain of
the partners might be brought up and examined.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULBURN.)

IN RE BLYTH.

This bankrupt carried on business as a grocer in the
country, and to day was appointed for the choice of assig-
nees. During the case a point of some importance arose
under the following circumstances :—An endeavourhad been
made to arrange. with some of the creditors by giving pro-
missory notes for a composition of 10s. in the pound. The
notes, however, not being duly honoured, it was claimed to
prove for the original amount ; the proof, however, was ob-
jected to, on the ground that the acceptance of a bill for a
smaller amount extinguished the original debt, and that the
proof could only be for the amount of the bill.

The Learned COMMISSIONER said the question was of im-
portance, but his opinion was, that if the bill was not taken
up when due the original debt existed. •
The solicitor to the fiat said the question was whether it
could be proved-whilst the security existed, the time of pay-
ment not having expired? The bankrupt said he had no
means of taking it up.
The Learned COMMISSIONER, after referring to many cases,
said that it appeared- clear that nothing but a release could
extinguish the debt unless the composition was fully
carried out.

Sir Robert Peel was again cupped on Friday, previous
to his going to the House of Commons.
The Earl of Ellenbor,ugh and Admiral Bowles left
town on for Portsmouth. . . .
We regret to hear that General Lord Bloomfield,
Commandant at Woolwich, continues indisposed.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

Sub -Committee No 1.
This Committee met Jhis day 'at one o'clock t, Mr. Sftutt,
Chairman.

NORTH STArronnsizzaz (POTTERIES).
Soon after the assembling of the Committee the room was
cleared; and, upon the parties being called in,
Tlie CHAIRMAN said that with respect to the objec-
tion raised against the subscription contract in the
case of the North Staffordshire (Potteries) line, the Com-
mittee had consulted the Speaker, as well as many
legal authorities, with respect to the validity of the
contract deed: The opinion of eminent lawyers was, that
notwithstanding one of the trustees was himself unqualified
to have his name attached to the contract, still the parties
who were duly qualified could, in a court of equity, enforce
the terms of such deed. It, however, appeared that with-
out the subscription of Mr. Garrett, the trustee in
question, there was sufficient capital. That was so
much in favour of the promoters, but it, did not alter
the non-compliance with the standing order. Indeed he was
of opinion that the order required some alteration to meet
such a case as the present, for the principle would apply to a
large number of Bills. The decision of the Committee was,
therefore, unaltered, namely, that the standing order in this
instance was not complied with. The COmmittee would, how-
ever report to the House the circumstances of the case.
Mr. BURKE then called Mr. Burchel, of the firm of Kil-
gour and Parsons, to prove that without the amount of Mr.
Garratt's liability, there was more than sufficient capital.
This disposed of the case. There is no doubt of the non-
compliance bring overruled by the Select Committee up
stairs, the decision of the Sub Committee being mtrcly a
formal compliance with the standing order applying to the
allegation.