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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 16, 1851.

The three directors who go out by rotation are
William Haigh, Esq., Joseph Esda.ile, Esq., and John
Stewart, Eict., all of whom being eligible offer them-
selve4 for re-election.
LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK, DEC. 31, 1350.
Dr. £ s. d.
To Proprietors for paid-up Capital... 1,000,000, 0 0
To Amount due by the Bank fur De-
posits, Circular Notes, 84c.
To Rest or Surplus Fund -
To Net Profits of the last Half-year

... 3,969,648 15 11
111,183 16 7
33,923 15 6

£5,114,756 8 0
£ s. d.

Cr.
By Government Stock, Exchequer
Bills, and India Bonds ... ... 1,089,794 16 5
By other Securities, including Bills
discounted, L Ans to Customers, &c. 3,458,922 4 7
By Cash in hand •• ••• ... 566,039 7 0

£5,114,756 8 0
PROFIT AND LOSS, 31ST DECEMBER, 1850.
Dr.
To Total Expenditure of the Six
Establishments, including Rent,
Taxes, Salaries, Stationary, &c.
To Payment of the Dividend now
declared, at the rate of Six per
Cent. per Annum, for the last
llal'-year 30,000 0 0
To Banos of Six Shillings per Share 15,000 0 0
To Balance of unappropriated Profits 100,107 12 1

a. d.

19,154 1 2

Cr.
By Balance of unappropriated Profits,
on the 30,h June, 1850 ...
By Gross Profits of the last Halt.
year, after paying thy; Income•tax
and making provision for all bad
and doubtful Debts...

£164.261 13 3
X s. d.

111,183 16 7

53,077 16 8

X 164,261 13 3

By Balance of unappropriated Profits
• brought down £100,107 12 _
The CHAIRMAN in moving the adoption of this repel%
took occasion to observe that the directors hoped the
details of that document would give universal satis-
faction. He was sure that pleasurable feeling would
be increased when he told them that the bonus had
been unanimously agreed on by the directors, and
could be paid without in any way impairing the effi-
ciency of the bank, which he was happy to say was
never in a more sound or prosperous condition. It
was now some four years ago since the bank declared
a bonus, and it would perhaps not be out of
place if he took this opportunity of reviewing the
events which had occurred in the interval. The year
1847 opened with every indication of coming pros-
perity; but before the summer passed -away
the country was overtaken by a panic, which para-
lyzed trade, and which, even up to this very day, had
left its baneful effects to be felt in the commercial
world. No sooner was that struggle got over, than
the French revolution fell upon Europe like a thun-
derbolt, and ever since the continent had remained in
a state of chaos and warfare, sadly reducing the value
of money in which they dealt, and entirely destroying
a large portion of the British trade ; and yet, in spite
of all these obstacles, the bank had been able to main-
tain its six per cent., while, if they turned from the past
to the present, there was every reason for believing that
the future was pregnant with hope and promise.
The branches of the bank were successful and exten-
sive in their operations, and though they were shut
out of the advantages attendant upon the clearance
system, they were still in a position, and likely to
continue so, to carry on an honourable and straight-
forward competition with the friends in Lombard-
street, who, he trusted, would ere long see the justice
and expediency of changing their bearing towards
this establishment. He could not resume his seat
without acknowledging the energy, industry, and
ability which their officers and managers devoted to
their service, and to which must be attributed a con-
siderable portion of the bank's success, and expressing
a hop* that the proprietors would join with the direc-
tors in thanking the executive staff for the zealous
and untiring exertions which they always displayed
in conducting the daily business of the bank, he
should sit down fully convinced that the meeting
would as freely and. heartily pas the motion he had
just made.
Mr. TaTE, the architect, had much pleasure in se-
conding the motion, and congratulated the directors
upon being once more in a positicin to pay the pro-
prietors a lineral and acceptable bonus. At the first
blush the surplus capital might appe.,r small in com-
parison with that of other joint-stock banks, but it
should be remembered that this establishment had a large
additional paid• up capital to tall-back upon in cases of
need. He, however, warned the directors not to compete
too severely with the private bank-1, -but in giving
them that advice he must couple it with this remark,
that extreme caution was as baneful as rash specula-
tion, and should always be avoided. They had to
contend with formidable coi earns conducting their
business upon the Scotch system, or allowing more
extravagant interest on deposits, and in order to keep
up :pith them and sustain the prosperity of the bank,
they might safely extend their accommodations to the
putlie.

Mr. Jonesore was willing to give the directors
full credit for skillful management, but he unhesi-
tatingly objected to the last proposal of the Honour-
able Proprietor who preceded him. He never wished
to see the field of their operations expanded at the ex-
pence of their security, nor did he think it would be
wise or judicious to reduce their surplus below
100,0001. It we. little enough a surplus in all consci-
ence for an establishment of this magnitude, and he
therefore deprecated the very idea of decreasing their
busiees.s by reducing the balance of unappropriated pro-
fits. Web regard to the retrospect of the Hon. Chair-
msn, he had failed to arrive at the conclusion that gen-
tleman had propounded to the meeting. The policy
of the directors since 1847 was not so free from
h'eme or error as the Chairman would have them be-
lieve, for had they confined their advances to home
securities, instead of extending Clem to the colonies
and colonial produce, the bank would have been in a
better situation now. However, the experience of
the past would be of service in guiding them in the
labyrinth of the future, and he was willing to forget
these mistakes, and accept the present dividend and
bonus with gratitude.
Mr. CROUCH thought the directors were not making
the most of the surplus profits in hand. If they would
adopt the suggestion of Mr. The and increase their
operations, or invest the money in securities yielding
1 arge interest, the dividend would be worth receiving.
He looked upon the present division of profits
as insignificant and unsatisfactory, and it would never
be otherwise until they resorted to the Scotch system.
A PROPRIETOR wished to know if the bank was
still incumoered with debts, or had it sustained any
losses this half year. He saw by the papers, that the
bank was litigating a claim on another concern, which
was likely to result in a serious loss.
The CHAIRMAN said there were no losses in the last
half-year worth mentioning, except the one which
was now the subject of litigation, and which was likely
to be recovered is the end. In fact, he might go the
length of saying, that the bank would ultimately
sustain no loss from that quarter. He did not think it
necessary to answer Mr. Crouch's argument about the
Scotch system, but he must remind the Honourable
Proprietor that the nature of their business compelled
them to invest the surplus in securities of easy con-
vertibility.
Mr. LETT was quite astounded to hear any man
say he was
enot s
wasatisnotd fie with the dividend. Why, if
seven pert. a good dividend, he should be
I was ?—(Laughter.) For
glad to know what the d—
his part be was quite satisfied with it, and so long as
the business remained at its present height, he hoped
the directors would never dream of the Scotch sys-
tem. His advice to them was, let well alone.
Mr. MAYHEW had heard it said that the newly
paid-up capital was an incumbrance on the bank.
Now if that were so, why not return it?
The CHAIRMAN explained that it had been felt as
an incumbrance during the period of the recent com-
mercial depression, when money could not be lent
out with safetv, but the capital was well and profit-
ably invested now, and he very much feared the pro-
prietors would experience great difficulty in disposing
of their money in a better manner if it were returned
to theta.
A PROPRIETOR objected to the thumping style of
Putting down speakers which Mr. Levy always fol-
lowed. In spite of his emphatic question and strong
expressions, he was not afraid to avow that he for one
was dissatisfied with the dividend. Other banks made
9 per cent., and why could not they ?
The CHAIRMAN replied simply because they could
not get is without running great-risk of losing every-
thing.
After some further discusion the report was
adopted, the dividend declared, and the retiring
directors re-elected.
A PROPRIETOR proposed that they should pass
vote of thanks to the officers, which was
readily
ceded to, arid the motion being reduced Co -writ
was carried by acclamation.

LONDON and WESTMINSTER BANK Mr. GILBERT, the manager, briefly, but warmly,
The annual general meeting of the proprietors of acknowledged the compliment.
the London and Westminster Bank was held yes- The CHAIRMAN here informed them that the execu-
terday, at the Banking-house, in Lothbury ; Mr. tive staff during the last twelve months had under-
Henry Buckle, chairman of the board of directors, gone a strict and searching revision, and the salaries
in the chair. had been advanced wherever merit was found to exist
The advertisement convening the meeting having deserving it. This announcement was received with
been read, the minutes of the preceding meeting loud cheers.
were confirmed, and the annual general report of the A vote of confidence was then presented to the
directors was then submitted to the proprietors, as directors, and the Chairman having been thanked for
follows : his courteous conduct in the chair, the meeting, which
From the statements attached to this report, the was very numerously attended, broke up.
shareholders will perceive that the net profits of the
bank, during the last half-year, amount to 33,9231.155.6 d.
Out of these profits the directors now declare a divi-
dend at the rate of six per cent. per annum.
They also declare a bonus of six shillings per share,
being equal to one and a half per cent. on the paid-up
capital.
After these payments are made, the surplus fund will
amount to 100,1071. 12s. Id .

DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES.

SUBMISSION OF THE STADTHOLDERS.
The question of the Duchies is decided. The
Stadtholders have resolved to submit.

On Saturday last the two Commissioners, General
Thienen and Count Mensdorf, returned from; Kiel
to llamburgb. At that time it was stated that they
had effected an arrangement with the Stadtholders
and Count Reventlow.

Tne Holstein Diet had not, however, dissolved
itself. Many of its members thought it advisable to
proceed to Hamburgh on Saturday night.
It was rumoured that the march of the Austrian
army would be stopped, and that the Holstein troops
would remain in possession of Rendsburg.
This report is, however, contradicted by later in-
telligence, according to which the Stadtholders have
published a proclamation, in which document they
state that, since the German Confederacy has resolved
to enforce the treaty of peace of the 2d of July, 1850,
and since that Confederacy has promised to protect the
rights of Holstein, as well as the vested rights and
ancient connexion existing between that duchy and
Schleswig, they, the Stadtholders, had thought it in-
cumbent on themselves to decree the cessation of hos-
tilities. They finally protest that they have placed
the rights of the country under the protection of the
Germanic Confederation.

They also express their thanks to the army, the
navy, and the population at large, and they rely on
the maintenance of order.

The Stadtbolders will resign their offices as soon as
an administrative board shall have been appointed by
the Germanic Confederation.

The ninth battalion of the garrison of Rends-
burg, in Schleswig Holstein, received on the 7th
orders to march ; thinking they were about to attack
the Danes, they cheerfully complied, but they were
taken to the fortifications, and told that they were to
shoot o❑ a soldier of the battalion, who had been con-
demned to death by court-martial for having killed a
sub-lieutenant. They uttered cries of indignation, and
refused to take part in the execution, saying that the
sub-lieutenant had ill-treated his men. The officers
succeeded in quieting them, and eight men were
drawn by lot to shoot the soldier. When the word
of command was given, three men fired in the air ;
the others discharged their muskets at the man, and
he fell dead. The three refractory soldiers were at
once seized, tried by court-martial, condemned to
death, and early next morning were executed.

proceeded to number the flowers that should spring
from his cousin's grave, and to promise that—
from year to year,
Roses shall flourish, moistened by a tear.
—Dickens's " Household Words."

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-
fendant answered some of the interrogatories, but re-
fused to answer others, on the ground that his doing
so would subject him to prosecution and penalties 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 oaths he had made, that
answering the interrogatories put to him by the plain-
tiff would subject him to the penalties under the
Stock-jobbing Act. His Lordship having referred to
the facts of the case proceeded to say that. the plaintiff
did not allege in his bill that he bad applied
to the defendant for an account, but only that
he 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 bad, 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
whieh protected him from disclosure, the defendant
was bound to prove precisely how such disclosures
would affect him, but if he stated circumstances which
made it extremely probable that such disclosures
would affect him, it was sufficient to entitle the de
fendant 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 MONMOUTHSDIRE 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
Monmouthshire 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 band, 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.—Jwitiment deferred.

VICE-CHAACARY 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:—
" Farther upon truit other (1,0000 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.

Ilk HONOUR 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.
(Before Lord CRANWORTH.)
IN RE BIRMINGHAM, OXFORD, AND READING RAIL-
WAY.—EX PARTE SICKEL AND BEST. --SICKEL'S
CASE.
Lord ORAN WORTH, in giving judgment in this case,
said he had taken home the papers, in order that he
might compare them with the letters and documents
in I 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.
Sickel, 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.

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.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 15.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
Applications were made against two attorneys for
rules calling upon them to show cause why they
should not refund certain sums of money which they

I 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 for the relief of in-
valids, and in May, 1849, being i❑ a state of
great pecuniary embarrassment, left this country and
proceeded to America. He took with him 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 he went to New
York, and thence to Philadelptia, whence, on account
of the prevalence of the cholera there on their
arrival, they returned to England, arriving at
the port of Liverpool in Jily, 1849, after an ab-
sence of two months. They came up to London
by the Nort'a-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 lie 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 ,ast station, and on the 19 th
of August, 1849, a persos called there and inquired
about them. He was informed they were quite safe,
and that if he forwarded his address to Messrs. Chap-
lin and Horne, they would be sent accordingly. Oo
the following day a letter was received by Messrs.
Chaplin and Horne, de,iring them to forward the
goods to 75, Castle-street East, Oxford-street. That
letter was signed " 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 of 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. bares 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 vho, 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- town 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 signattre. 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
Elam," 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 on 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 40/. to 601. in notes
alone in his chest. In November, 1849, he agreed to
pay the sum of 301. 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 be 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 i❑
a position to pay 301., and thus getting out of prison,
and returning to his shop, where he again set himself
up in business. He did not, when he was released
front 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 hive 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
bee❑ 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 eve❑ where the
goods had been deposited. Snowden also swore
that he knew nothing of the goods being taken to
Castle-street Eist. 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 had 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, bad 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 be 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 ?
ask that
s t rMu crie dAe M.
tHhAelinE partßs fQ. theC"
arbitration
itn
might be permitted to go on. said that he was in-
Lord CAMPBELL was of opinion that
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 was tried 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 seized 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.
Mr. Sergeant &tee 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 had, on the ground that the damages were
excessive, and ought not to have been more than 8001.
or 900/. 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 seized and
sold. He therefore hoped the Court would grant a
rule.

THE QUEEN V. THE conroß ITION OF BRADFORD

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
G UIL D HA LL.
It may be in the recollection of our readers that
some few days ego a summons was issued from this
court against Captain Ray, an advertising coal mer-
chant, requiring him to attend and explain why, in
delivering four tons of coals, at 18s. per ton, to Mr.
Cuthbert, of Paternoster-row, towards the latter end of
December last, out of 40 sacks 26 were deficient in
weight. It was then stated that 2241 b. was the ordi-
nary weight of a sack of coals, and in this instance
some of the sacks were as much as 721 b. deficient in
weight, and the majority of the 26 sacks were over
401 b. deficient. It appeared Mr. Cuthbert had not
paid for the coals, and therefore was not a loser, but
he collie forward to perform a public duty in pro
tecting others from the fraudulent intentions of this
coal advertiser.
Captain Ray did not appear, although Alderman
Lawrence expressed a hope to that effect.
Yesterday information was received at this court
that one of the parties who delivered the coals was to
be found in the neighbourhood of Scotland-yard, and
accordingly, as it was anticipated that he would not
come willingly forward, Mr. Roe, the summoning
officer of this court, went down to Scotland-yard to
bring him before the magistrate. At first the boy
refused to give his name or address, and Mr. Roe, in
accordance with his instructions, desired him to ac •
company him to the justice-room. The boy was
placed in front of the table. He appeared about
seventeen years of age, and was dressed in coarse cor-
duroy clothes. He assumed a very blank expression
of countenance, and throughout the whole of his evi-
dence (for he was put under a very rigid examination
by Mr. Wood, the chief clerk) maintained a kind of
half indifferent, and half hesitating demeanour.
Alderman FAREBROTHER (to the officer).—Swear
this boy.
The boy having been sworn,
Alderman FAREIIROTHER con tin ued—Now, remem-
ber, if you don't tell the truth we have a way of deal-
ing with you that you little anticipate. What is
your name ? Witness said his name was John
Willis. I live at No. 3, Denmark-street, Crown-
street, Soho. This is my card, Sir. lam a naturalist.
Alderman FAREBROTHER —Did you not give an
address some time previous of Tottenham-street, Tot-
tenham-court-road, and your name as James Jones ?
Witness—l believe, I did. I can't recollect the
name. I went with the four tons of coals to Mr.
Cuthbert's in December last. Ido not know where
they came from. I was met by a man in the street
who engaged me. I think his name was Smith.
There were three men, but I don't know where any
of them live. One was called " Jim," another " John,"
and I don't know what they called the other one.l
did not hear their surnames. I have seen them all
before on the wharf at Scotland-yard. I am em-
ployed there by a gentleman of the name of Coombes
The coals that were delivered to Mr. Cuthbert were
taken from that wharf. I believe the waggon and
horses did not belong to Mr. Coombes. I have only
been with him a short time. About six months,
should think. The wharf goes by the name of
" Douglas and Taylor's Wharf." Mr. Coombes carts
coals from there. lam not employed in the counting-
house. I am general superintendent of the wharf
for Mr. Coombe& I opened the letter containing
Mr. Cuthbert's order for the four tons of goals. I
believe it was directed to Captain Ray. Ido not
know any one of the name of Captain Ray. I have
not had many orders since in his name, nor do I want
any more. (Addressing the alderman.) I think I
hare said enough now, and I am getting thirsty.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—If you do not attend to
the questions that are put to you I shall send you to
prison, and you will there get enough water to quench
your thirst.
At this moment a son of Mr. Lewis, the solicitor,
who it appeared was engaged to defend the case, ap-
plied to the alderman to have the case adjourned.
Alderman FAREBROTHER —I shall not comply
with such a request. We have been at some trouble
to get this witness before us, and we will not lose
sight of him until we have obtained all theinforma-
tion he can give us respecting this Captain Ray or
his representative.
Mr. Lewis, jun., then went out of court.
Witness continued—l did not apply to Mr. Cuth-
bert for the money for the coala. The carman asked
him for the money, and he refused to pay for them. I
then asked him if he would pay me. The address on
the waggon was " Grosvenor Basin." I have a very
bad memory. I can recollect no more just now.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—Very well ; then I
shall keep you in prison till we want you again, or
until your memory improves.
Witness—The name on the waggon is that of the
man who applied to Mr. Cuthbert for the money. I
don't see the gentleman in court.—(Laughter,) Fie
aint a respectable gentleman.--(Latighter) lAm

bad received on account of their clients. The names
of the parties did not transpire; the applications, how-
ever, were granted.

respectable-looking chap, aint I, your worship
?
(Great laughter.) I saw Smith the last time yes-
terday. I have seen him within the last three months
almost every day. The last time we dined together
at an eating house in Hungerford-market. Some-
times I dine at the same house as Mr. Coombes. Mr.
Coombes lives at 20, Craven-street, Strand, and I
sometimes dine:with the servants. He has a bit of an
office there. I don't know his Christian name. I
always call him " sir."
AldertnanFeatenaoenen —You'may now stand aside
while a summons is made out to ensure your future
attendance at this court when called on. A warrant
will be issued against you, and you will be liable
to be apprehended at any time wherever you may be
found.
Witness—And shall I have to coma up from the
country ?
Alderman FAREBROTHER—CertainIy. Where are
you going to ? Witness—l don't exactly know yet.
Alderman FAREBROTHER—Why are you going
into the country, then ? Witness—l have had an
invitation from a friend.
Alderman FAREBROTIIER—And don't you know
where your friend lives? Witness—l believe—l am
going for an excursion.
Alderman FAREBILOTHER—It seems highly pro •
bable to me that the whole of your gang will go for
an excursion.--(Great laughter.) :I would advise you
to give your right name and address, as it will prove
the worse for you in the end. Witness—l have
already given my right name and address. You have
got my card—(Laughter)—before you.
Alderman FAREBROTHER--Thi3 is your father's
card. Witness—lt is all the same; my name is the
same as his, and he is a naturalist the same as myself,
and which you will see upon my card.
Alderman FAREBROTEIER—NOW mind what I say,
if you do not attend to this summons a warrant will
be issued, and we will soon have you again.
Witness then withdrew, apparently smiling with
inward satisfaction at the impudent attempt he had
made to mislead the magistrate as to his connexion
with such a swindling transaction.
A summons was then issued against Mr. Coombes
to attend and answer the charge at first laid against
Captain Ray, in order to find out whether they are
both one and the same person.
CL ERKEN WELL.
An elderly woman, of lady-like appearance, who
was described in the police-sheet as Miss Gresley In-
man, who refused to give her address, was placed at
the bar before Mr. Tyrwhitt, charged by Mr. Hugh
Tutton Chilcott, of No. 4, Margaret-street, Clerken-
well, with stealing 101bs. of feathers, and otherarticles,
from her ready-furnished lodgings.
It appeared, from the evidence of the prosecutor
and his wife, that some time ago the prisoner called
at their house to inquire after some ready-furnished
lodgings. They agreed as to terms, and she men-
tioned the names of numerous highly. respectable
persons ; and, judging from her appearance and man-
ners, they did not think it necessary to make any
inquiry, but admitted her at once into the apartments.
She remained in the house without paying any rent.
She left in debt, and on searching the place they
missed the feathers from the bed, and other
property. The prosecutor gave information to
the police, with a description of the prisoner's
person, ut nothing was heard of her until
the previous evening, when witness entered a
public-house in the neighbourhood, and saw the
prisoner sleeping on a form before the bar, when
he recognised her as his lodger. He awoke her,
challenged her with the robbery, and threatened to
give her into the custody of a policeman. She turned
upon him with affected scorn, and asked him how he
dared insult her by charged her with robbery; she
said she had never seen him in all her life before ;
she knew nothing of him, and if he repeated the
insult she would give him into custody. Witness
told her that he would have the first turn, and he
called in Dearwent, 417 G, and gave her into
custody.
Dearwent said that, on searching the prisoner at
the station-house, he found in her possession several
duplicates, and a large bustle full of feathers.—(He
here produced the bustle.)
Mr. Mould (the clerk)—Pray keep it away.
Dearwent said he also found upon her several bills
for lodging and hoard, and it would appear that she
had been living in a most expensive style.
The prosecutor said he had ascertained that the
prisoner had been in the habit of taking expensive
apartments with board at hotels and private lodging-
houses, running up bills and leaving in debt.
Mr. TYRWHITT asked the prisoner if she wished to
ask the witnesses any questions ? She replied that
she knew nothing of the rubbery. The constable cer-
tainly found a " bustle" on her person containing
101bs. of feathers. She was in the habit of wearing
feathers in her bustle, and not less than 101 is. weight,
as she wore very large bustles—(A laugh)—but she
never took the feathers from the prosecutor's bed nor
anything from his house. Her brother was chief
clerk to a railway company. Her property was in
the hands of trustees, and her solicitors were Messrs.
Simpson, Bassets, and Co. She mentioned other
names of equal respectability with whom she was ac-
quainted, and denied the allegation of swindling
hotel-keepers, &c., saying she boasted of being a
" lady."
Mr. Mould examined some papers found upon her,
and said, here are two bills, one for 101. and the other
for 51, for board and lodging, neither of them are
receipted.
Prisoner—They are all right; they have been paid
by stamp receipts, which can be proved by my
solicitors.
The prosecutor and his wife swore positively to the
prisoner's person.
Mr. TYRWLIITT said he should remand the prisoner,
in order that proper inquiries should be made about
her.—She was accordingly remanded.
LAMBETH.
Charles Wood, one of the two men who made a
most murderous attack with " life-preservers" on
Mr. Thomas Carter Wigg, tea-dealer, of No. 2,
Lorimer-terrace, Walworth, on Sunday morning
last, was placed before Mr. Elliott for final exami-
nation. •
Mr. Games attended as the prisoner's solicitor.
The prosecutor, who seemed to be still suffering
from the effects of serious injuries inflicted upon him
by the prisoner and his companion, said—On Sunday
morning last, between the hours of one and two
o'clock, I was going home down West-street, and
heard the footsteps of two men walking fast behind
me. I crossed the road at Canterbury-place, and
then I found the two men close behind me. I turned
round, and heard them whisper to each other, and im•
mediately I received a blow at the back part of me
head with a bludgeon or " life-preserver. 1 turned
upon them, and instantly received another blow on
the head, and that I believe was given by the other
man, not the one who struck me first, because it fol-
lowed so rapidly. I defended myself as well es I
could with my umbrella, and the men seemed
anxious to close upon me. I backed from them into
the middle of the road, where they followed me,
and I received a third blow on the head from I
think a life-preserver. I have very little doubt that
the prisoner is the person who gave me that, as well
as the first blow. I called out " murder," and ray
little boy, who was with me, also called out, and ran
away, and one of the men left me. I think the pri
soner is the one who remained behind with me, and
I had a scu,' e with him, during which I received
several severe blows on the shoulder from him. I
tried to get the men under the light that I might see
their faces, but they kept in the shade as much as
they could. When they left me, they ran towards
the Beehive public-house, but the prisoner returned
and ran past me towards Canterbury-place. lie
passed a lamp-post, and the light falling on his face,
I saw him by that means, and I am sure he is the
man. I swear to it. lam not sure of it, but I be-
lieve the other one ran down Cottage-grove, which
is opposite to Canterbury-place. I was smothered
with blood from the wounds in my head where I had
been struck by these men. A constable came up,
and led me home, and a surgeon carne and dressed
my wounds. The prisoner was soon after brought to
my house by the police, and I knew him immediately
to be one of the men. I was very much stunned
with the first blow, but recovered a little after the
second. They tried to close upon me, but I managed
to keep them off. He positively identified the pri-
soner.
Mr. Fairbrother, a surgeon, said on Sunday morn-
ing I was sent for, and on going to the house of the
prosecutor I found him suffering from the effects of
the loss of blood from two severe wounds on the head,
one on the right temple, and one on the upper left
side of the head. There was also a severe contusion
on the back part of the bead, and several severe
bruises about the shoulders. The wound on the tem-
ple was a cut through the skin and part of the muscle,
and the other was a jagged wound, cut through to
the bone. These wounds had evidently been inflicted
by some blunt instrument, and I believe by a " life-
preserver," or a " bludgeon." The wound on the left
side of the head had been inflicted by a blunt instru-
ment, which had a rough surface, a knobbed surface.
The wounds were of so dangerous a character, that
I had to remain with the prosecutor until six o'clock
in the morning. I had to wait until reaction took
place, and had then to bleed him. It is my opinion
that the wounds might have been made by the life-
preserver produced. The contusion behind, and the
wound on the temple might certainly have been pro-
duced by it, and the wound on the left side might
possibly have been also produced by it.
Mr. ELLIOTT—You considered the prosecutor's life
endangered by the injuries you have described ?
Witness—Most certainly; seriously so.
The prisoner, who declined offering anything in his
defence, was fully committed for trial. When, he
was about to be removed from the bar Mr. Games,
addressing the magistrate, said—l am requested by
the friends of the prisoner to apply to your Worship
to liberate him on bail, and they instruct me to say
that sureties to Any amount can be given for him.

.I❑ this case a mandamus had been obtained by Mr.
Crompton, ordering :the Mayor and Corporation of
Bradford to proceed to the election of certain aldermen.
Mr. HALL was heard to-day on behalf of certain
burgesses, and Mr. CROMPTON on the part of some of
the Corporation. The arguments in the case pre-
sented no features of general interest.
His LORDSHIP said be should take time to consider
his judgment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 15.
(Sittings in Banco.)
GRAPES V. DUNNEY.
This was an action of libel, against the registered
proprietor of the John Bull newspaper, for the publi-
cation of a libel reflecting on th© character of the
plaintiff, formerly a Post-office letter-carrier. At the
second trial, before the Lord Chief Baron, during the
sittings in London after last term, there was a verdict
for the defendant on the plea of justification.
Mr. KEATING today moved for a rule to set aside
the verdict and have a new trial, on the ground of
misdirection. The libel charged the plaintiff with
having tampered with certain witnesses, by whose
evidence the guilt of Thacker, another Post-office
letter-carrier, was proved; and the Lord Chief
Baron directed the jury to consider whether the alle-
gation in the libel was made by way merely of stating
what had come out in the inquiry at the Post-office,
or whether it stated it with an implied conviction of
its being established by the evidence. Considering
the nature of the charge made in the libel, the
Learned Counsel contended that the defendant should
have called the witnesses with whom the plaintiff was
alleged to have tampered, in order to show that they
were witnesses by whose evidence Thacker's guilt
was proved.

Die COURT thought that there should be a rule, but
recommended the defendant to consent to a stet pro-
cessus rather than go to a new trial, which suggestion
the counsel on both sides agreed to consider.

NEWINGTON PETTY SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. JOHNSTON, Chairman, and a Bench of
_ _

Magistrates.)
Yesterday, Mr. G. S. Butt, assistant surveyor oi
the parish of St. Mary, Newington, was summoned
by Mr. T. Walker, No. 47, Bridgehouse-place, in the
parish of St. George, Southwark, "fur having unlaw-
fully neglected to repair a certain highway, known as
Newington-causeway, in the county of Surrey, con-
trary to the statute, to which he was liable to a pe-
nalty of 51."

The board of highways of the parish of Newington
were present, and Mr. G. Hayes the barrister, at-
tended on the part of the south district board of St.
George's, who, according to the inquest held on Mon-
day last before Mr. Payne, the City Coroner, were
liable for the repair, as appears from the report in The
Sun of Tuesday.
Mr. HavEs observed that before the summons was
gone into, he would wish to say a few words. He
was instructed to state, on the part of the gentlemen
he represented, that they were willing to enter into
an arrangement for the repair of the road, pending
the dispute as to the boundary of the parishes, which
he trusted would be for the benefit of the public and
the interest of all parties. The Bench had no juris-
diction while the liability was disputed. It was only
when there was an admitted liability that the Bench
possessed power to interfere, when they could issue
an indictment against the surveyor of the parish, who
would be the responsible party. There was, how-
ever, not only a dispute between Newington and the
south district board, as to the boundary line, but the
south district board and the board of highways of St.
George's, differed in opinion with each other as to
their respective liability to repair the road. He should
propose that the three boards agree to repair the road,
which was admitted to be in a most dangerous con-
dition, and that when the question of liability was de-
cided, the cost of the repairs be paid by the party de-
cided to be liable. If his proposition were not ac-
ceded to, a period of nine months might elapse before
a decision, as the question might have finally to be
taken into the Court of Queen's Bench.
Mr. Chester, clerk to the board of highways of
Newington, said he thought that the board he repre-
sented would agree to the proposition. In August
last he suggested to the two boards of St. George's
that some arrangement should be entered into, and it
was only now a plan was pat forward.
The summons was then heard, but it failed on the
ground that the assistant surveyor, not being elected
by the parish, was not the responsible party.
Mr. Day, clerk to the highways board, and vestry
clerk to St. George's parish, who was a witness for
the complainant, 'stated that there was a hole in the
road in front of his house, in Bridge-house-place, a
yard and a half wide and ten inches deep. Every
morning he expected to hear of an accident. He be-
lieved the division of the parishes was a sewer under ,
the pavement on the west side, which went nearly
round the parish. Forty years ago he recollected
hedges growing there.
The summons was then dismissed.