The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-16 00:00:00

TATTERSALL'S-THIS EVENING.

Six O'CLOCK.
LIVERPOOL STEEPLECHASE.
12 to 1 agst Vain Hope—taken
CHESTER CUP.
16 to 1 agst Rhesus—taken
30 to 1 agst Wallflower
33 to 1 agst Cossack
33 to 1 agst The Italian
40 to 1 agst Lady Evelyn
40 to I agst Trouncer
40 to 1 agst Haricot—taken
40 to 1 agst Knight of Avenel
50 to 1 agst Damask
50 to 1 agst Brother to Dough
ITATCH.
Even between Voltigeur and Flying Dutchman.
DERBY.
7 to 1 agst Prime Minister
14 to 1 agst Newminster
40 to 1 agst Confessor

LAW INTELLIGENCE
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 15.
SHORT v. MERCIER.
The farther hearing of the argument in this part-
heard appeal from the judgment of Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce was resumed and concluded to-day.
The plaintiff filed his bill for the purpose of ob-
taining certain information from the defendant as to
transactions and sales in railway shares. The de-
fend-snt answered some of the interrogatories, but re-
fused to answer others, on the ground that his doing
so would subject him to prosecution and pen dties un-
der the provisions of the statute called the Stock-
jobbing Act. To those answers the plaintiff took
exceptions, and the Master to whom the matter was
referred allowed some of the exceptions, but disal-
lowed others. Exceptions were then taken to the
Master's report before Vice- Chancellor Knight Bruce,
and his Honour, upon hearing the argument, disal-
lowed the exceptions to the defendant's answer taken
by the plaintiff, and the latter in consequence brought
the present appeal.
Mr. J. Russell, Mr. Roupell, and Mr. Gray (of the
common law bar) appeared in support of the appeal,
and Mr. Swanston and Mr. Prendergast in support of
the order of the Vice •Chancellor.
Mr. J. RUSSELL having concluded his reply,
The LORD CHANCELLOR proceeded to give judg-
ment, and observed that questions of the kind now be-
fore the Court were always of considerable impor-
tance, though not always of great difficulty. The law
of England very clearly established that no man was
obliged to disclose matters which tended to criminate
himself. The question was, whether the defendant

had shown sufficient circumstances to the Court to
entitle him to credit on the osths be had made, that
answering the interrogatories put to him by the plain-
tiff would subject him to the penalties under the
Stack-jobbing Act. His Lordship having referred to
the teats of the case proceeded to say that the plaintiff
did not allege in his bill that he had applied
to the defendant for an account, but only that
be had applied for his shares ; and after making
certain -allegations, the bill went to ask questions
which, if answered, would have the effect of fixing the
defendant with the penalties. It, therefore, seemed
to him that the object of the bill was to enable the
plaintiff to take advantage of the penalties for the
dealings which had occurred between the parties. It
further appeared that before filing the bill, the plain-
tiff had told the defendant that the transactions be-
tween them were illegal. The defendant, therefore,
refused to answer a word relating to the shares, the
transactions with these shares being so entirely con-
nected with the stock-dealings they had had, that he
could not disclose one matter without of necessity dis-
closing the other. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not
consider that, in order to avail himself of the rule
which protected him from disclosure, the defendant
was bound to prove precis:ly how such disclosures
would affect him, but if he stated circumstances which
made it extremely probable that such disclosures
would affect bin:, it W3i talaieleta to entitle the de
fendent to such protection. In this case his Lordship
thought that sufficient had been shown to entitle the
defendant to protection from making such disclosures
as were asked for in the plaintiff's bill, and that, there-
fore, the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor was a cor-
rect one. The appeal was then ordered to be dis-
missed, and with costs.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan, 15.
LOGAN V. THE EARL OF COURTOWN.

Lord LANGDALE gave judgment this morning in
this cause. It was an application for an injunction
to restrain the directors of the Dublin, Wicklow,
Wexford, and Waterford Railway Company from
enforcing, by actions at law, calls made upon certain
subscribers to the undertaking, who were dissen-
tients to their proceedings, on the ground of alleged
fraud, mismanagement, and a waste of the funds of
the company.

The hearing of the cause occupied the Court se-
veral days, and the particulars fully reported in this
paper as they were evolved in the course of the
hearing.

His Lordship having reviewed the proceedings,
decided to refuse the injunction.

KYNASTON V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIL-

WAY COMPANY.

Mr. R. PALMER applied for an extension of time to
put in the answer in this cause, in which the de-
murrer was overruled, which was granted.

BROWN V. THE MONMOUTHSHIRE RAILWAY AND CANAL

COMPANY.

The further hearing of this cause was resumed and
concluded. It came on upon demurrer to the plain-
tiff's bill, which was filed for the purpose of obtain-
ing an injunction to restrain the directors of the
Monraouttashire Railway and Canal Company from
paying dividends out of the income of the company,
until certain works authorised by a supplementary
Act of Parliament were completed.
Lord LANGDALE said it was a matter of importance
to decide the consideration which was involved in this
case, where a company was bound to complete certain
works within a specified time, whether they were not
bound with any limits at all, after the time for comple-
tion had expired ; and, on the other hand, whether
the payment of the dividends should be suspended
from the shareholders, in consequence of such delay
in the construction of the works. He should give it
his best attention.—Judgment deferred.

VIOE-CLIAACIRY COURT, Jan. 15.
(Before Sir J. KNIGHT BRUCE.)
HABERSHAW V. VARDEN.

Nadir Baxter, the testator, by his will, dated in
1842, among other bequests, made the following :
" Further upon trust other (1,0001.) one thousand
pounds out of such part of my personal estate as may
by law be devoted to charitable purposes, be paid to-
wards the contributories that I do conscientiously
believe and earnestly pray will steadily be began,
under the sanction of our hitherto highly favoured
Church and nation, in evidence of Christian faith to-
wards the political restoration of the Jews to Jeru-
salem and to their own land." It was contended that
the bequest was void for uncertainty.

Mr. ROGERS said that those who acted for the
Crown held that the gift was void, and that the
widow, who was residuary legatee, was entitled to
the fund.

His HoNoun said it was his opinion that he could
not decide that the sum in question could not go to
any charity to be named under the royal sign manual,
or in some other mode, although the testator had
failed to specify the particular charity which was the
object of his bounty.
It was then agreed that the question should be post-
poned, and put in the general paper of causes.
(Bvfore Lord CRANWORTH.)
IN RE BIRMINGHAM, OXFORD, AND READING RAIL-
WAY.—EX PAIITE SICKEL AND BEST. —SICKED'S

CASE.
Lord CRANWORTH, in giving judgment in this case,
said he hut taken home the papers, in order that he
might compare them with the letters and documents
in pfil's case, which had been decided in the House
of Lords, and although he confessed he did not un-
derstand the judgment in that case, yet he felt he was
bound by it. Lord Brougham, who had paid great
attention to it, had decided that if a man was a share-
holder only, he was not liable to contribute, nor was
he liable to contribute if he was only a provisional
committeeman, but that to fix his liability the two
qualities must co-exist. In the present case Mr.
Siekel, it appeared, had declined to accept of the
shares unless satisfied that the plans would be ready
in time, and the question was whether he was SO
satisfied. His Lordship said it appeared to him that
he was satisfied on that point, and that he agreed to
accept of fifty shares. He therefore thought that Mr.
Sickel's name had been properly put on the list of
"contributories," and that the motion must be re-
fused, with costs.
BEST'S CASE.

His LORDSHIP, in giving judgment in this case,
said he thought the motion for removing Mr. Best's
name from the list of contributories must be granted,
on the ground that the Master had no jurisdiction to
put the name on the list.
An application was then made by counsel for a re-
hearing of the case, in CODBE quence of a recent decision
of the Lord Chancellor.

Lord CItArwoRTH said he thought the other side
should have notice of the application.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 15.
(Sittings in Banco, at Westminster, before Lord Chief
Justice CAMPBELL, Mr. Justice PATTESON, Mr.
Justice COLERIDGE, and Mr. Justice WIGHTMLN.)
LLAM V. THE NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover the value of several
packages of goods, temporarily consigned to the
North Western Railway Company's goods station at
Camden-town, on their arrival from America, and
obtained therefrom by means of a representation and
demand, supposed to have been made by the plaintiff.
The action was tried at Guildhall, before Lord Camp,
bell, at the sittings after last Michaelmas term, and
resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, the amount to
be paid to him to be the subject of arbitration. The de-
claration set forth that the plaintiff delivered certain
goods to the defendants, to be conveyed by them, as
carriers, and that they so negligently discharged that
duty that the property was lost. The defendants
pleaded that the goods had been detained until the
carriage was paid, and then sent away from their cus-
tody. To this plea the plaintiff replied that the goods
had been stolen by somei person in the employ of the
company.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL HOW applied for a rule
calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict
should not be set aside, on the ground that it was
against evidence, and of fresh circumstances having
come to the knowledge of the defendants since the
cause was tried, and why there should not be a new
trial. The facts of the case, the Learned Gentleman
said, were these :—The plaintiff had for some time
been in business in London, as a truss-maker, and
manufacturer of other appliances fur the relief of in-
valids, and in May, 1849, being in a state of
great pecuniary embarrassment, left this country and
proceeded to America. He took with bim seven or
eight packages, containing, as his witnesses deposed
at the trial, some valuable property, consisting of plate
and a quantity of clothes. On his passage out to
America he formed an acquaintance with a man of
the name of Snowden, with whom be went to New
York, and thence to Philadelphia, whence, on account
of the prevalence of the cholera there on their
arrival, they returned to England, arriving at
the port of Liverpool in July, 1849, after an ab-
sence of two months. They came up to London
by the North-Western Railway. The plaintiff, on
arrival at Liverpool, deposited the packages of goods
he had brought with him from America, at the goods
station of the company, to be forwarded to their goods
station at Camden-town, per railway, and there to
remain until called for. They remained there for
about three weeks at this last station, and on the 19th
inquired
about Augu4t, 1849, a person called there and
about them. He was informed they were quite safe,
acid that if he forwarded his address to Messrs. Chap-
lin and Nome, they would be sent accordingly. On
the following day a letter was received by Messrs.
Chaplin and Horne, deiring them to forward the
goods to 75, Castle-street East, Oxford-street. That
letter was signed " Alfred Elam." At that time
the plaintiff had been arrested by one of his
creditors for some arrears of rent, and was put
into the Queen's prison, where he actually was
at the time the goods were applied for, and
delivered at 75, Castle-street East. The day
before the letter dated the 20th of August was
written, an elderly gentleman called at the house of

Mrs. Seares, 75, Castle-street East, and informed that
lady that he wished to take lodgings for a young man
who was a nephew cf his, and who he expected to ar-
rive from Liverpool. He stated that his nephew had
a quantity of luggage which he wished to keep in his
apartments. Mrs. Seares requested a reference, upon
which the elderly gentleman named a Mr. Heather as
his reference, who was the proprietor of a shop in the
neighbourhood, and who, on being referred to, stated
that the elderly gentleman was a most respectable
man. The lodgings were consequently let to him for
his nephew, whose name, he said, was " Alfred
Elam." The goods, which had been left at the Cam-
den-sown goods station, were forwarded by Messrs.
Chaplin and Horne to 75, Castle-street East, where
they were received by a young man who represented
himself as " Alfred Elam," and who signed the de-
livery book in a handwriting extremely like that per-
son's genuine signature. After the goods had been de-
livered, a cart was brought to Mrs. Seares's house,
and the goods were placed therein, and conveyed
away ; and the young man, calling himself " Alfred
Eletn," then left the house, and never afterwards re-
turned to it. During this time the plaintiff, the real
"Alfred Elam," was a prisoner in the Queen's prison,
living cn the charity of his friends, who lent him such
small sums as half. a-crown at a time. He also re-
ceived the prison allowance, which was granted the
prisoners who were not worth 101. in the world.
Whilst in prison he had never made any application
for:his packages, although, by the evidence which he
offered at the trial, he had from 401. to 601. in notes
alone in his chest. In November, 1849, he agreed to
pay the sum of 30/. to his landlord, and to give a war-
rant of attorney to that person for the remainder of
the debt which he owed him, and he was then released
from prison. He (the Solicitor-General) would ask
where did the plaintiff get the 301. from ? Here was
the case of a man without the means of existence,
and whose father and family were in the most
indigent circumstances, suddenly finding himself in
a position to pay 301., and thus getting out of prison,
and returning to his shop, where he again set himselt
up in business. He did not, when he was released
from prison, apply for his goods, but waited until the
16th of December, when he went to the goods station
of the defendants, and requested to have his goods
forwarded to him. The clerk to whom he made his
application, not knowing that the goods had been al-
ready sent away, stated that they should be delivered
upon a written application being made for them. The
plaintiff directly wrote a letter demanding the goods ;
but, on investigation, it appeared that they had already
been delivered to a person calling himself " Alfred
Elam." A second demand was made for the goods,
and the action was then brought against the defen-
dants. There was this important fact in the case,
that Snowden, who went with the plaintiff to America
and came back with him thence to England, stated
at the trial that no one except himself and plaintiff
was aware of the 'quantity of property that had
been brought from America, or even where the
goods had been deposited. Snowden also swore
that be knew nothing of the goods being taken to
Castle-street East. Whoever had obtained the goods
must have been aware of their having been brought
from Liverpool, and of the number of packages. He
must also have been so well acquainted with the
handwriting of the plaintiff that he could imitate it,
and a number of witnesses who had been examined at
the trial, had stated that they believed the handwriting
to be that of Alfred Elam, the plaintiff in this cause.
There were also the peculiar circumstances in this
case, that the plaintiff had left England in a state of
poverty, had returned, and been thrown into prison,
had remained there for some time, and bad not got
out except by settling with his detaining creditor ;
and further, that when he was released, he did not
apply for his goods until six weeks after that event.
He the (Solicitor-General) suggested that supposing
there were any property in the packages, the plaintiff
had himself assisted in getting possession of them. The
defendants, since the trial, had received some fresh
information, which he (the Solicitor-General) was of
opinion was of great importance. At the trial the
sister of the plaintiff had deposed to the contents of
the packages, which she had helped to pack when her
brother was preparing to leave England for America.
Since the trial a person named Wilkins had been
discovered, who had been foreman to the plaintiff, and
he states that the plaintiff never, at any time, had
any property on his premises of the value of 80/., and
that he left England in so much fear of arrest that
the property which he took with him was put into
potato•sacks, and deposited in a place of safety. The
Custom-house officers at Liverpool had made affida-
vits contradicting the evidence of Snowden. The
entry made in the Custom-house at Liverpool, op-
posite the names of the plaintiff and Snowden, was
merely one of " wearing apparel." There were, too,
letters written by the plaintiff to Wilkins, since the
former left England, and these letters showed that
at that time the plaintiff was in a state of poverty.
There was also another fact to which he (the Soli-
citor General) would direct the attention of the Court.
A person named Day, a commission agent for some coal
merchants in London, happened, on the 21st of August,
1849, the day upon which the goods were sent to
Castle-street East, to be at the corner of that street,
on his road to a house therein, and he there met three
persons, one of whom he identified to be Alfred Elam's
father, and the other, a person named Stewart. Old
Mr. Elam asked Mr. Day which was the way to
Castle-street, and was shown it by him. Mr. Day
then went to a public-house, where he had business,
and which was next door to Mrs. Seares's house, and
while drinking a glass of ale Mr. Elam, Stewart, and
another person came into the house, and sent a letter
to Wilkins. Mr. Day was a friend of Mr. Wilkins's,
and he stayed in the public-house until the messenger
returned with some papers. Stewart then said " This
will not do; we must go to Wilkins's ourselves." Mr.
Day afterwards went to Wilkins's, where he saw the
father of the plaintiff. Mr. Day called afterwards on
Stewart on business, and then recognized him as hav-
ing been the person he had seen before. The plaintiff
had two brothers, whose addresses were not known
to the defendants. The Learned Gentleman then
proceeded to advert to other circumstances, and con-
cluded by hoping that the Court would grant a rule.
Lord CAMPBELL—Take a rule.
The SOLICITOR.-GENERAL then desired to know
whether the arbitration respecting the items contained
in the packages should be proceeded with ?
Mr. M. CHAMBERS, Q.C., said that he was in-
structed, on the part of the plaintiff, to ask that it
might be permitted to go on.
Lord CAMPBELL was of opinion that the arbitration
ought to go on until the rule was determined.
Rule nisi granted accordingly.
DANIEL V. CHALLIS AND ANOTHER.

This was an action against Alderman Challis, as
Sheriff of London, and another, for an illegal distress.
It wastritd before Lord Campbell, at Guildhall, at
the sittings after last Michaelmas term, and resulted
in a verdict. for the plaintiff, damages 5,0001. The
property sized had formerly belonged to Mr. James
Bohn, a bookseller and publisher, and the complaint
of the plaintiff was, that it had been sold for a sum
much less than its value.
ge Mr. Sergeant SHEE now moved, on the part of the
defendants, for a rule calling on the plaintiff to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a
new trial bad, on the ground that the damages were
excessive, and ought not to have been more than 8001.
or 9001. In support of this opinion the Learned Ser-
geant referred to the testimony of several witnesses at
the trial,'as in contradiction to that of the plaintiff's
witnesses, as to the high value of the books seizd and
sold. He therefore hoped the Court would grant a
rule.
Lord CAMPBELL—There was no doubt that the
books were valued in a most disgraceful manner. The
question of amount was, however, altogether one for
the jury, and he (Lord Campbell) was not dissatisfied
with the verdict.—Rule refused.