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

mand ban ruled very inactive.—Bee', from 3s to 43 ;
Mutton, 33 4d to 43 61; Veal, 33 4d to 3s 81; Polk,
3s 4d to 3s 6d per 81b3.
ArtuNDEL, JAN. 14.—The general trade has 'beer,
heavy, folifiws;-13,?ef, from 33 2d to 3s -10j;Ity.ton,
3s 4d to 43 4d; Polk, 33 4d to 3i 61 per Blbs.
CHICITY.STER, JAN. 15 —Prime Beasts slid Sheip
sold at full prices. In other kinds of stock very little
was doing. Beef, from 3s to 33 10d; Mutton, 3s 4d to
4s 41; Pork, 33 4d to 3s 61 per B.lbs; (2nm-ter-old Store
Pigs, 16s to 203 each.

CORN AVERAGES.
GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN.
For the Week ended Jan. 9, 1850, made up from the Returns of th
Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in Efriglano ~nd Wale
per Imperial Quarter.
['RICE I WIIEAT. IBARLEY. I OATS. RTE. BEANS. PEAS.
.. I Zdi Id 122 s 9d 1 17s 2d 1 22s 24 126 s lld 1275 0.1

DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN,
wur.vr, I UARLEY. OATS. I LIE. I BEANS. I PEAS.
,' ad
1 .. Is Od Is Od Is Od Is Od Is Od
' QUANTITIES OF GRAIN SOLD IN THE PAST WEEK.
Wheat,, 73,473; Banle*, 85,285; Oats, 2,6(,3; 1iye,.73„; Beans,
5,0.13; Peas, 1,765 quarters.
::': , , •

QUANCER.Y.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Ut s..t in (kin Old, Hall, Lincoln
iturd appe4is and appeal ructions to-day.

;~~d~'

14t;7,: •
r
4.'7;

FOWLEt V. REYNALL.
The further arguments hi this part-heard appeal cc.
cupied'his Lordship the greater part the morning.

4"I 7:at;

j14147t 96

'ROLLS' COURT.-CTHIS DAY.)
lotions of no general interest occupied the Master o:
the Rolls the whole day.

~
111i'stao
1

iICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Etta Honour heard motions to-day, but no case callitie:
for special report came before the Court during the
morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Lord CRAIMORTIL)
HiS Lordship. after disposing of the case of "
robin-
"on V. Lomond," which was heard !Afore him on excep-
proceeded to hear motions.
(4'

'airi.;.,

• •
• UEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco; before Lord CAmrnELL and Justices
PATTESON, COLERIDGE, and WIGHTMAN.)
" REGINA. v. THE POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS., ,
PEACOCK, Q.C., said he had to move for h rule
Low cause why a certiorari should not issue directed
• _.to the Poor-law Commissoners, to remove an order ad-
elressed by them to the directors of the poor, and the
vestrymen of the united parishes of St. Giles-in-the-
, Telds and St. George, Bloomsbury. Those parishes
the Poor. The regulation of the affairs of those parishes
Ze.a under the provisions of the 11th Geo. 4, c. 10; and
• • „ 71:Tested that the inhabitants of St. Giles were to up-
orty-five vestrymen of that parish, and the in-
. _Tztholtatita-of St. George, Bloomsbury, forty-five others.
sin °!° yeqrymen acted separately with resptct to eccle-
th-81`cal matters, but as oue united body with regdrd to
6 maintenance of the poor in the united parishes.
The
aPpointment of all the officers connected with
a maintenance and relief of the poor was
'vested
..wh in the vestrymen of the joint parishes,
°. were also empowered from time to time to
'"s'Pend or remove all or any of such officers and OP-
tint others in their stead. By section 61 of the same
41.01 the -vestrymen were authorized to make rules for the
tozbcl;goaV neci by section
of the several persons employed by
section 62 the vestrymen of the joint
retry were authorized to appoint directors of the poor,
Who were to be elected annually. So that in fact by
• that Act of Parliament the appointment and removal of
tehlleo:scterryran ;
officers connected with the relief of the poor were in
and the directors of the poor were merely
to exercise the powers relating to the relief, maintt-
. 13ebee, and employment of the poor as churchwardens and
overseers were usually authorised to exercise, eubj( ct to
ti!eappointment of alt inferior officers by the joint vestry'
'°' the parish. By the 4 and 5 Win. IV., cap. 76, under
Which the Poor-law Commissioners act, it was provided
that from and after the passieg of the Act the adminis-
;ration of the relief of the per in England and
v ates Should be subject to the direction end control
_r
the- Poor-law Commissioners; and for executing
the
Powers given to them by the Act, the Commissioners
Were authorized to make and issue all such rules, orders,
Ind regulations as they should think proper for the me-
11eRetnent of the poor, and of their relief in workhouses,
and for the guidance and control of all guardians, yes-
tries, and parish o fficers, so far as related to the manage-
!lent and maintenance of the poor. And by section 46,
the Commissioners were empowered to mite parishes
lilt° unions for the relief and maintenance of the poor.
Le
rdCAMPHELL said the policy f the whole Act walk
leave
the management of the poor in the hands of the
local authoriti, s.
nnl Pisacoeic submitted that the vestrymen of th.ese
led parishes, although they might be controlled by
the p ,aw
Commissioners,oor, still could 'not have the
Powers vested in them by the Act of Parliament trans-
et
ed from them, and given to somebody else. The
o`_o,:l,.hm ic Commissioners
di
eioners had made an order, by the 66th article
the vestry men of the joint vestry were auo-
stlz-el, whenever it might be requisite, or whenever a
ltitiley might occur, to appoint fit persons to hold cer-
tain ,°rnees connected with the management and relief of.
hhaeeor- That he (Mr. Peacock) apprehended was
11-verl3uCommissioners.'
, the powers of the Poor-law
"o sy had a right to control the ye trymen in the elec.
n of their officers ; but they had eo right to say that
• the vestrymen should appoint such efficera as the oirec-
tore of the poor, define under such vestrymen, should
direct them to do. The plain effect of the order was,
to ple,eo the directors over the vestrymen.
The Court granted a rule generally to show cause.

COMMON PLEA S.—(ll-IIS DAY.)
- • HARRIS V. HUNT.
LUsu movedin this case, on behalf of the de-
, iendant, tor 'a rule to show cause why a new trial
4,ll°aid• not be ,ranted in the Court of the Under-
, of Surrey, on the ground of excessive damages.
The CAW arose out of the following circum-
ttlinet's :--The defendant is a patent artificial
--.anute manufacturer, and some . time ago the
tiail.ltiff WAS. in his employ as collector. During that
Peried.
n,
atbook was missed from the premises of the
jonteo charged the plaintiff with having pur-
d daot,
it, and ultimately brought him up at the South-
:aarek Police-court on a charge of theft. The charge,
however, dismissed by thn sitting magistrate;
deferetilloa the plaintiff brought an action against the
_aclant for false imprisonment. The case was tried
t
sclue la the court of the Under-Sheriff of Surrey. 0!1
first cccasion a verdict with one shilling damages
714 returned, nod in the second 1001. damages were
the
".
Th defendant had offered to give plaintiff
Sot as o
• . a compensation, but this offer having been refused
to,;present application for a new trial was made in order
quireyd.uca the amount of damages given on the last in-
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that he was induced
that "' an opportunity of a fresh inquiry with the hope
unit ,by might be come to in the mean-
, ,11111" Y
utibsoi
bcp,raarntiteesd,.and further litigation prevented.
•

(MAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
t4N in Banco, before Mr. Justice WIGHTSIAN.)
JUSTICES of DEVON.
theirs
o district
.ct.
thee; tF}Yeßis QUEEN
it pt. tied to the Court tot a rule, calling
'.Devonshire acting in and for thef.
runes, to show
,cause why a conviction o
pu 8"0Uld not be brought into this Court for the
Tharry,s'se. of being quashed. The affidavits upon which
td. "ii,;i.on was founded state that a gentleman named
as,t74ir'‘, having been threatened with an attack and
saila°Y Mr. Slitchellbank, sought to have his as-
_ eat;",p''
Abotlnd over to keep the peace. The threat was
Itatai"' in these words—" I will serve him the same
,:ire 1 wheal get hold of him ;" and to explain what was
bY that remark it was necessary to explain to the
,11112istrates that Mr. MitAellbank had previously com-
lalt:ed:k violent assault on Mr. Edwards. When, there-
he. peace peace summons came on for hearing before
fti.Magiitrates Mr. Mitchellbank requested that the first
jttittult should be inquired into, but Mr. Edwards ob-
iiikked,, t° this as' he intended to carry that matter to atha
th;iit't tribuna'l, and he only wanted the protection of
I,.•‘t itt the Mean time. It 30 happened, however,
ftlibpr.Preswell the. clerk of the magistrate, was a
. , teat,' °E Mr. Mite'lellbank, and he advised the magis-
- the,'t'i to discard the peace summons and go into the
did., °II of the actual assault, which they accordingly
ot' att:;l., ultimately Mr. Mitehellbank was fined 5/.,
to beund-over to keep the peace. Now it was
ZdZaed that in the absence of any complaint of
.Mr.e
as „ itdi the-magistrates had no power to deal with
1118,1 t, itnd Mr. Edwards being desirous of conveying
.ton ilSPute into a civil court was anxious to have
hsdt-cti6n granted on the ground that the magistrates
Mr Jun
their jurisdiction.—Application granted.
.414 r°
justice WIGHTMAN afterwards sat at Nisi lfrius
dhiposed of several undefended causes.
(Ref HEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
° 3t.es-
LoRD CHIEF BARON, and Barons PARSE,
A].DELSSON, and MARTIN.)
This fir . 'WARE AND OTHERS V. BARNETT.
Which theis,to action on an alleged contract,- under
tiio -.ereadant undertook to insure the cargo of a
property of the plaintiff, on a voyage from
With on to Ibrail and back. The vessel came in collision
yoyi schooner near Gravesend, while on her outward
epna'tgand stank, so destroying her cargo, which
3:1„4 ted chiefly of carpets, as to render it
bior'Y unsaleable. The plaintiffs accordingly
stigitill'thia action to recover the loss which they' had
~leein consequence, of the defendant having ma
piti:!--a' to insure' the cargo. The defence was that the
lied not furnished him with written instructions
B,i,'"ot the insurance, but, on the other side, it was
kr" the defendant had taken preliminary steps for that
I,ll6l:4o..st,Tbiluet
„has d stopped short of completing the insu-
a wastried before the Lord Chief Baron
I,itt.tlildhall, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff,
tetn 135/, damages.
r• ICNowLEs now moved, with the permission of the
snit; Judge, to set aside the verdict Rho o enter a nn-
The being -robn ground of the motion was that the plaint.ffs
evidenceßobert, Ware, awl Thomas W;,re, T.O
izt
ognivtreancttl! prove that they were jointly
teaestedh an ware,
bthee en
Coura need a . thought
the objelLion a io.nad one, arid_
rule
",tItIPFS' COURT,—( THIS DAY).
• :
.(Before Mr. Under-S ,triff __URcHELL )
This, V. DRUGGAN—FA.LSE IMPRISONMENT.
batzt• was an action to recover damages for a.,sault and
isonment. Defenda )t suffered judgment to go
Mr.
twho uPDLEsTorfE eared the (we for tie plaintiff,
k 5
.!k Young man, hat weep 18 and 19
of age, in
er.sPlpy of M y
Messrs. Raberts and Bon, tobacconists, in
•