The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-18 00:00:00

ZbErW Xbrition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

NAVAL APPOINTMENTS.—(This Day.

The following appointments were made at the Ad-
miralty this afternoon :
Commander J. M. Cooke (1852) to the Si moon,
troop ship.
Commander G. T. M. Purvis (b) (1852) to the Me-
para, troop-ship.
Second-Master Philip .Syvret to the Dasher.
Assistant-Clerk Henry G. Brokenshir to the Indus.

ADMIRALTY CIRCULAR.
EXPENSE IN MESSES OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS.

ADMIRALTY, DEC. 12.
My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have lately
had reason to believe that much greater expense has been
incurred by the messes of officers in some of her Majesty's
ships than is sanctioned by the rules and customs of the
service; and, from complaints which have been made to
their lordships, that mess debts have ;not been liquidated
at the proper time for payment by the officers contracting
them, and claims have consequently been made upon offi-
cers who were subsequently appointed to subscribe for
the discharge of debts, to which they had given no sanc-
tion.

My Lords have to call the attention of the officers of the
fleet to these irregularities, in order that they may be
avoided in future ; and their lordships desire that the offi-
cers of the ward-room will adopt such measures as will
enable their messes to be maintained with credit and com-
fort, and free from extravagance, and thus sot a becoming
example to the junior officers.

...
In regard to the gun•room messes, my Lords have on
several occasions had brought to their notice circumstances
of extravagance and mismanagement, which have been
caused by the unnecessarily high subscriptions, and the
use of expensive wines and spirirs, totally at variance with
tho custom of the service and the pecuniary means of the
officers.

With a view of putting a stop to such irregularities my
Lords direct that the subscriptions to the gun - room
messes shall never exceed the sum of eight pounds for
entrance, and that the monthly subscriptions, including
all extras, shall not be more than thirty shillings.
Their lordships further desire that no wine, except port
and sherry or wine of the same class and price, and no
spirits, except the ship's allowance, be used in the gun-
room messes.

No wine, spirits, or beer are to be received on board of
her Majesty's ships without the written approval of the
officer in command.

Their lordships have also been led to believe that in some
of her Majesty's ships messmen, under the designation of
stewards, are still permitted to carry on the sale of provi-
tions, wine, spirits, &c., to the messes of the officers as well as
to the men, in direct contravention of the Admiralty Order
of the 30th May, 1851. The attention of the officers of
her Majesty's ships is called to this subject, as nothing
can tend so much to irregularity in a mess, as well as
to injury to the discipline of a ship, as to permit
any person to make a traffic by the sale of provisions,
spirits, &c., instead of the messes being properly conducted
by their caterers.
The Commanders-in-Chief and Senior Officers in com-
mand of Stations are hereby directed to take the necessary
steps for carrying out these orders.—By command of their
Lordships, R. OSBORNE.
To all Flag-officers, Commanders-in-Chief, Captains,
and Commanding Officers of her Majesty's Ships and
Tassels.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
THE SADLEIR FRAUDS —FOLLARTON V. RHODES AND

ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff for the
recovery of a bill of exchange for 7001., drawn by
Messrs. Dann, Hatterley, and Co., engineers, of
Manchester, and accepted by John Sadleir, and
accepted by him on behalf of himself and the defendants,
his co-directors in the Royal Swedish Railway Com-
pany.

Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., and Mr. Melhuish were coun-
sel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Wilde, Q.C., and Mr. Phipson
counsel for Mr. Edmonds ; and Mr. M. Chambers,
Q.C., and Mr. Aspinwall for Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. Hugh Hill, in stating the case to the jury, said
that this was an action upon a bill of exchange for 7001.,
drawn by Messrs. Dunn, Hatterley, and Co., and ac-
cepted by the defendants ; and the substantial grounds
of defence were, first, that the acceptance of the bill was
not theirs ; and, secondly, that if it were so, Messrs.
Dunn, Hatterley, and Co., the drawers of the bill,
had obtained it by fraud without consideration, and
that the plaintiff was not the bona fide holder of the
bill for value, having taken this bill before it had attained
maturity. So that, in point of fact, the two questions to
be decided were, whether the defendants were bound by
this acceptance, and if so, was the plaintiff the bona fide
holder of the bill for value, having taken it before it became
due. The bill was dated Manchester, Jan. 28, 1856,
and was drawn by Messrs. Dunn, Hatterley, and Co.,
and directed "to the Chairman and Directors of the
Royal Swedish Railway Company," and the body of the
bill was as follows :—" Three months after date pay to
the order of ourselves in London the sum of 7001., value
received;" and it was accepted payable at Messrs. Mas-
terman and Co.'s, bankers, London, for self and co-
directors—John Sadleir, Chairman of the Board of
Directors, 12th May, 185 G. The plaintiff was an iron
merchant in Manchester, and the defendants at the date
of the acceptance, and for a long time prior and some
time after the acceptance of the bill, were directors
of the Royal Swedish Railway Company. Messrs.
Dunn, Hattarley, and Co., the drawers of the bill,
were engineers and contractors, and were in the habit
of dealing with plaintiff for iron. In January and
February, 1856, they were indebted to the plaintiff,
who was the holder of two bills of theirs, one for 3001.
and another for 2241. Ss. 3d., one of which would
become due on the Bth February, and the other on
the 18th February. These bills had been paid by the
plaintiff in the ordinary course of trade into his
bankers, Messrs. Brookes and Co., bankers of Man-
chester, and there was besides this a sum of 90/, and
1001. due from Messrs. Dunn, Hatterley, and Co.,
to the plaintiff. Od the 4th of February, the
cashier of Messrs. Dunn, Hatterley, and Co., called
on the plaintiff, and produced the bill in question, and
he tendered it to him with which to retire the two
bills for 3001. and 2241. Es. 3d., the balance to go
against what goods had been bad since their drawing.
The plaintiff asked if the bill was a good one, and he
was informed that it was, and that ha would be safe
in taking it; and having reason to believe the statement,
he took the bill and retired the others when they
came to maturity. That was the mode in which the
plaintiff became possessed of the bill, and he therefore,
in the strongest sense of the word, became the bona
fide holder of the bill for value. He had no reason
to suppose, nor had any one then to suspect, any-
thing improper on the part of the Royal Swedish Rail-
way Company through the conduct of John Sadleir.
The learned counsel having stated the facts in
connection with the establishment of the. London
Directory of the Royal Swedish Railway Company, and
the mode in which he sought to make the defendants
liable, and called the following evidenoe :
Mr. Fallarton deposed to the facts of his transaction
with Messrs. Dunn, Hatterley, and Co., as detailed by
the learned counsel.

In his cross•examination by Mr. Chambers he said
that Messrs. Dunn, 'latterly, and Co., afterwards
compounded with the creditors, and arranged to pay
the full liabilities in four years, by instalments of 2s. 6d.
in the pound. Witness did not accede to that arrange-
ment.

The Lord Chief Baron—What is your defence ?
Mr. Chambers and Mr. Wilde said that the defon•
dants could not be sued as directors, and that Mr.
Sadleir had no authority to bind them.
Mr. Hollingsworth, former secretary to the Royal
Swedish Railway Company, deposed that he knew the
defendants as directors in London of this company
during the time he was secretary of the London board,
in the latter part of 1855 and the beginning of 1856.
John Sadleir was chairman of the board at the time.
The bankers of the directors were the London and
County Bank, and Messrs. Masterman and Co. The
acoounts were sent in and examined by witness, who
reported them to Mr. Sadleir. The small accounts
were paid by cheques, and in the case of larger accounts
by bills drawn for stated periods.
The Lord Chief Baron—You must show me that the
bills were given by the defendant's sanction.
Mr. Hill—l propose to show the particular course
of business, and by doing that I render them liable.

The Lord Chief Baron—lt is essential to show that
a general authority has been given to the chairman
that will fix the defendants, but I think the evidence
of the general mode of business is admissible.

Witness—The greater part of the bills were drawn
upon the chairman of the directory, and accepted by
himself and copartners.

The Chief Baron—On what authority ?

Witness—The acceptances were prepared by himself.
The Royal Swedish Railway Company was a foreign
company, with a board of directors in London, having an
office in Cannon-street. The acceptance in question was
drawn by him, and accepted by Mr. Sadleir. He be-
lieved it was for railway carriages, &c.
The Chief Baron—Were the bills accepted at a board
of directors

Witness—No, my lord.
Mr. Hill—Was a book kept ?

Witness—Yes. The directors met at a certain time,
or when they chose, and examined the bill book. It was
always in his possession.
Mr. Hillier, the present secretary, was called and pro•
duced the bill books.

Mr, Hollinoworth recalled—The board met ou any

day when there was business. The nominal day of
meeting was Wednesday.
The Chief Baron—Have you any books of the board's
proceedings ?
Witness—One that was kept by Mr. Edmonds.
Mr. Wilde—The book is here if it is wanted.
Mr. Wilde—ls the bill book here ?
Witness—No.
The Chief Baron—Who has it ?
Witness—There were two bill books.
The Chief Baron—One that was made public, and
another that was made private ?
Witness—No.
The Chief Baron--Then, what is the meaning of it ?
Witness—Our book was kept for the entry of those
bills which were drawn for the payment of goods, and
the other for bills drawn to raise money to be sent to
Sweden—the money borrowed by Mr. Sadleir for the
purposes of the company. Mr. Sadleir borrowed
money for the company on his own authority.
Mr. Hill—Have you the other bill-book here (the
private one) ?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. M. Chambers—lt is Sadleir's book
Witness—l don't call it so.
Mr. Wilds—lt is indorsed with his name.
The Chief Baron—ls this bill of 7001. in that book ?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Chambers—The book that has got Sadleir's name
on it

Witness—lt was not there when I parted with it. I
did not know the bill in question was for goods, and
I therefore put it in that book. The bills from Swe-
den were drawn by the chairman alone. The bill-books
I made up to the 17th of February, the day of Sadleir's
death.

Mr. Hill—Had you any conversation with Mr.
Edmonds at any time respecting bills of Exchange ?
Witness—Yes, occasionally.
Mr. Hill—Do you remember that in December, 1855,
in consequence of a message from Messrs. Masterman,
you saw Mr. Edmonds ?
Witness—Yes. I told him that Messrs. Masterman
and Co. had sent for me, and informed me that the bills
drawn and accepted by Sadleir alone on the directors
could not be paid by them, but that they must have the
signature of two other directors, and be countersigned
by myself.
Evidence [was then given to show that a number
of bills drawn in the manner objected to after that noti-
fication of Messrs. Masterman, were advised by the
board, and the first advice of payment bore the names
of J. Rhodes, one of the defendants, R. Gilman, J.
Masterrean, jun., and J. Sadleir, English directors.
Mr. Crabb, clerk to Messrs. Masterman and Co.,
produCed the order for payment and the bills referring
to them.
The Chief Baron—Were you in the habit of paying
the bills without the names of two directors ?
Witness—No ; I think, however, I have a few.
The Chief Baron—You had an order in each particular.
case ?

Witness—Yes.
By the Foreman—Did you ever pay a bill withou
an order;

Witness—No.

The Chief Baron—Of course. Bankers don't conduct
their business as variable as the wind blows, but on
principle.

Most of the bills with orders of payment were pro-
duced, but there were orders without bills, and vice
versa.

Mr. Hollingsworth, recalled, said there were directors
to the company in Sweden as well as London.
The Chief Baron—Was the board here and there
considered as one authority, or distinct ?
Witness—Distinct.
The Chief Baron—ln what way ? Each could not
have direction over the affairs of the company ?
Witness—No ; the Swedish directors bad the ma-
nagement of all out there, and the English directors had
the management of money matters here.
The Chief Baron—And where was head-quarters ?
Witness—Sweden.
The Chief Baron—Were the documents connected
with the company transmitted to Sweden ?

Witness—Every year. Some orders for payment to
Messrs. Masterman and Co. were put in, signed by Mr.
Edmonds. Mr. Crabbe, the clerk, was unable to say
how all the bills paid by the bank were signed.
The Chief Baron said that these parties were not like
partners, but they were a chairman and directors con-
ducting the affairs of a company, and unless it were
shown that the directors had given authority to the
chairman to sign for them they were not liable.
Mr. 11111 said that if his lordship ruled that, although
he could show that the bills so drawn were paid out of
the funds of the company and returned to them, he
bowed to the decision.

The Lord Chief Baron said that the limit put to th•
payment of money by the order of Messrs. Mastermao,
showed that Mr. Sadleir was not able to dispose of the
funds of the company.
Mr. Hollingsworth recalled, and examined by Mr.
Chambers, said that the first time he saw a bill accepted
by Sadleir for himself and co-directors, was on June 17,
1355.
The Lord Chief Baron—ls there any resolution of the
board relating to the signing of documents ?
Witness—No.
By the Foreman—Did the directors generally know
of the existence of a second bill book ?
Witness—l don't know.
Foreman—Was it kept concealed from them ?
Witness—No. If they had asked for it they might
have seen it. (Laughter.)
Foreman—Did they know that it existed ?
Witness—l oan't say that they did. If Mr. Sadleir
raised money on shares, or on any other thing that he
pledged, I entered it in this separate book.
Foreman—Beoause he told you to do so ?
Witness—Yes. It then only passed through the
banker's book, and to his credit in the ledger.
The Chief Baron—ls this bill entered in the private
bill book !
Witness—Yes.
Mr. George England, engineer of Hatcham Works,
near New-cross, deposed that he supplied the Royal
Swedish Railway Company with goods, and drew on
the chairman and directors for payment. A few days
before the first bill became due Mr. Edmonds asked him
to renew them, but he declined. One of the bills was
signed by Sadleir, for self and directors, and was paid.
The Chief Baron—You can't go into that.
Mr. Hill said he was going to show other dealings
with other persons, and that many bills had been accepted
i❑ this way and had been paid by the company.
The Chief Baron said that that might be satisfactory,
but it did not show Sadleir's authority to bind the other
directors.

Mr. Braithwaite, engineer to the company in Lon-
don, deposed that he made purchases in England, prin-
cipally by the direction of Sadleir and Mr. Edmonds.
Mr. Rhodes was rarely there. He only saw Mr. Rhodes
at the board once before Mr. Sadleir's death. In Jan.,
1856, witness received a letter from Mr. Edmonds,
authorising him to obtain estimates, &c., and to submit
them to the board, and when he mae purchases he
communicated them to Mr. Sadleir and Mr. Edmonds
when they were there. In 1855 Mr. Edmonds desired
me to assist Mr. Sadleir in raising money, and he did so.
In Oct., 1855, Mr. Edmonds gave him a list of bills. He
was to look out for the renewals. The bills were drawn
for Sadleir and co-directors. One was a bill for 17,0001.
He negotiated with Messrs. Dunn and Hatterley, at
the request of Sadleir. They were to advance 7,0001. to
the company-3,5001. as money, and the rest as the
value of one-third of the six engines to be constructed,
paid in advance. After that a bill for 2,0001., for Dunn
and Co., was made into smaller bills, and that was how
it was this bill of 700/. was not in any book.

Mr. Wilde—But was there not a resolution of the
board forbidding you to make a contract without a
written order ?

Witness—Yes, and it was broken the next hour by
Mr. Edmonds. After he received a copy of that order he
saw Colonel Harvey, who informed him that the resolu-
tion meant nothing. Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Sadleir had
had a little bit of a quarrel, which was then nearly made
up, and it was no use stopping, but to go on, or the
thing would be ruined.
Mr. Chambers—How was the 7,0001. to be advanced
by Messrs. Dunn and Co. ? Who first commenced that
arrangement ?
Witness—lt arose in consequence of Messrs. Fairbairn
having threatened to break their contract for supplying
locomotives. Mr. Sadleir sent for me, and I saw him
at the offices in Cannon-street, in great anxiety. He
produced Messrs. Fairbairn's letter, and said if they
break down with their contract we are ruined, because
we shall have no engines to go on the line." There are
two or three engines on the line now.
The Chief Baron—No first rate ones !
Witness—No. (Laughter.) Mr. Sadleir then re-
quested me to go Manchester and enter into fresh con-
tracts for engines. I then went to Manchester and
entered into the arrangement with Messrs. Dunn and
Co. They were to be secured for their advances by
Sadleir
railway debentures, the same as Messrs. Fairbairn for
the advance of 10,0001. Messrs. Fairbairn might be said
to have given up their contract on Jan. 27. I had nego-
tiated with Messrs. Dunn and Co. before that, fearing
what would happen. I made the contract with Messrs.
Dnnn and Co. on the 28th of January. .
had 10,0001. from Messrs. Fairbairn as well
4
from Messrs. Dunn and Co. The mode was to draw 3,500/.
Sadleir, who accepted the bills and got them discounted.
9 draw on
Witness received a commission on his cont
21 per cent. It was allowed by the company,
paid him 175/. per year salary, out of who only
provide an office and a clerk. which he had to
The Chief Baron—Were you allowed a commission
on the amount of your purchases 7
Witness—l was.
The Chief Baron—It is a very bad mode of paying
people.
Witness—There were not two contracts drawn up in
reference to Messrs. Dunn and Co.--one with the
money advanced in it, and the other without it.
The Chief Baron—Was it the usual way for advances
to be made by drawing on Sadleir.
Witness—Yes. They drew bills for 7,0001.
The Chief Baron—And •discounted them ?
Sadleir .
Witness Oh
yes. It was done in the usual way.
When I joined the company great confidence was re-
posed in Mr. Sadleir, who then was owed 9,0001. by the
company.
Several witnesses were called to show the usual way
in which the bills were drawn by Sadler, and afterwards
paid ; but the learned judge ruled it was not evidence in
this case.
Mr. Hollingsworth was then recalled, and said that he
made out the list of bills owing by the company, pro-
duced by Mr. Braithwaite at the request of Mr. Ed-
monds. Foreman's bill for 17,0001., and another bill,
the parties refused to take without the signa-
ture of other directors to them than Sadleir,
but Mr. Edmonds refused to put his name to
I them, Mr. Edmonds was in. Sweden in June,

1855, when Sadleir first drew the bills and accepted
them in the name of Self and Ca., directors. The con.
tract with Moseys. Dunn, and Co., was not known out-
side the boar.l-room. The directors met between 28th
January and 17th February, when Sadleir died. Tao

bills from Sweden were signed by the Chainma only,
and were made payable at the office of the company.
The Chief Baron—Were signed by the Chairman for
the company ?

Witness---Yes.
By Foreman—When you say at the office whose
money were they paid by ?
Witness—By Sadleir. He provided me with funds
sometimes by check on the bankers signed in the usual
way by two directors, and at others by money furnished
by himself. Generally by money furnished by himself.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Wilde submitted there was ao evidence against
his client to go to the jury ; but the learned judge over-
ruled it.

The learned Judge, however, said there was no case
against Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. Wilde then addressed the jury for Mr. Edmonds.
He said it was plain that this company was managed
by Mr. Sadleir. That Sadleir was the company, and
the company Sadleir, and that all pecuniary matters
were transacted by him. It appeared that in June
Sadleir adopted the plan of signing the bills in the form
of the one in question without any authority. He called
Mr. Edmonds, who deposed that he was a director of
the company from Feb., 1854, till April, 1856. Up to
June, 1655, Sadleir drew on the company and accepted
by himself the bills so drawn for goods supplied to the
company. He was not aware until after Sadleir's deatli
that he had drawn bills and signed them for Self and 00.,
directors. He had no knowledge that the list of
bills put in by Mr. Braithwaite were otherwise
than for goods supplied. He bad no knowledge of
the existence of two bill books. He gave no authority
to Sadleir to sign the bills, and had he known it at the
time he should have objected to it. He called on Mr.
Sadleir and a,ked him to join the company.
The learned counsel having r!plied on the evidence,

Ifis lordship summed up, and the jury found a verdifet
for the plaintiff as against Edmonds, and for the defend-
ant as against Rhodes.

SECOND COURT.
(Before Baron Martin gad A 04111111101 Jury.)
SiIiONELLZ 11. VILLNOIII.

The plaintiff and defendant in this case are printers.
Mr. James, Q.C., for the plaintiff, stated that Mons.
Jullien, when he was director of the concerts at the
Surrey Gardens, was in the habit of drawing up pro-
grammes, which he sent to the newspapers for publica-
tion. These the plaintiff reprinted and sold as genuine
bills ; and the defendant, to protect himself, printed on
his bills that they were false and spurious. This remark
he also applied to a guide-book which the plaintiff had
issued.

M. Jullien, who was called, said that in the early part
of the last year he entered into an arrangement with the
directors of the Surrey Gardens to conduct their concerts.
The programme was sometimes composed by himself, at
other times it was entrusted to Mr. Jarrett, his secre-
tary. The concerts took place every night, and the pro-
gramme was always drawn up early on the previous day,
because the Times would not take the advertisement
after 2 o'clock in the day. He very frequently made
alterations in the programme up to a few hours of the
concert, in consequence of the indisposition of perform-
era, or from other causes.
Baron Martin said tbere was the Guide to the Gar-
dens, about which there was a libel, which certainly
could not be entirely justified. Perhaps a settlement
between the parties might be arrived at.

After a consultation, a verdict for the plaintiff, with
40s. damages, was agreed to.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn.)
IN 1114 ROSS.

This was an adjourned examination meeting, under
the estate of this bankrupt, a shipowner of Brunswick-
terrace, Commercial-road East.
The Commissioner said if he remembered rightly, this
case was one in which there was a squabble between the
shipowner and captain. The shipowner had filed a bill
of discovery against the captain.

Mr.Lawrance, who supported, replied in the affirmative
An adjournment was ordered.
IN RE I'ORTER.-SERIOIIS CiIARGR AGAINST AN ATTORNEY.

A choice of assignees was held i❑ this case. The
bankrupt was a wine merchant, of Brabant-court.
A serious and important question arose in this case.
There not being sufficient creditors present at the last
meeting, it was alleged that at the instigation of Mr.
Marshall, the solicitor, a creditor for £l2 had been
manufactured in the person of /IYr. Snell, which the
bankrupt swore was a fictitious debt, and he never
owed Snell a farthing. Mr. Marshall denies the accu-
sation, and said he knew nothing of Snell but as an
acquaintance. Snell has disappeared, and was not pre-
sent.

The matter was adjourned for Mr. Snell to be served
with a summons.

Mr. Marshall promised to do all he could to produce
Mr. Snell.

POLICE INTELLTGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

UTTERING A FORGED NOTE.—Joseph Bickmore, a
young man, 23 years of age, was brought before Mr.
Bingham, charged with uttering a forged 5/. note.
Mrs. Warren, the wife of Samuel Warren, landlord of
the Salisbury Arms, Bear-street, Leicester-square, stated
that yesterday evening, shortly after 7 o'clock, the pri-
soner entered the bar in a hurried manner, and called
for a bottle of the best gin, with which she supplied
him. He then put down on the counter what appeared
to be a genuine 51. banknote, and requested her to be quick
in giving him the change. Having a few days previously
taken a forged 101. note from a man of the prisoner's
description her suspicions were aroused, and on ex-
amining the note before her she at once detected it to be
a forgery. She asked the prisoner where he got the
note from, and he replied a gentleman in Princess-
street gave it to him, but he did not know his name.
He then wished her to give him back the note, which
she declined, and told him she should detain him until
he fetched the gentleman. She subsequently called her
husband to accompany the prisoner to Princess-street,
and in their way there he gave the prisoner in custody.
Remanded for a week.

A letter, dated Constantinople Dec. 3, says ;—" Mr.
Layard, M.P., arrived the day before yesterday. He
has lost nothing by waiting, for nothing has been as yet
done in the Bank business, except the appointment of
a commission by the late Ministry to investigate the re•
spective claims of the competitors, and even this com-
mittee is not likely to remain as it was packed by the
late Ministry."
GENERAL Tom THIIMB.—Among the fashionable ar-
rivals, we hear of that of this wonderful speci-
men of diminutive man. We are informed that he has
not increased in stature since he last visited England.
It is stated that he has made the resolution to follow
Christmas.
to
ast. the British pub_
EXTRAORDINARY SALE OF FRENIPH AND ENGLISH COM-
MISSARIAT STORES.—Yesterday and the previous days
this week a large quantity of stores, which were sent for
the supply of the French and English armies in the
Crimea, were sold byauction at the Commercial Sale Rooms
Mincing-lane, and at the sale rooms of Messrs. Adams,
Pudding-lane ; a great portion of the property (the third
sale) being by. order of the Frenoh Consul-General.
There was considerable competition for the various lots,
each of which, with the exception of the wines, went off
at remunerative prices.

on the metropolis gene-
:stance alone, that of the
:althe can effectbe of
jutdlige edCabtytle on S
2,000/. A shower of rain thaOtcfPeallu3dr'u
for the week in question it
London General Omnibus Cora
riinngwohnoesaeftreecriewipot:
of the Show week, lasting
laattea. occasioned an increase of
"To BE SOLD CHEAP, a first only, is calculated to h
against the company,
wesithththate
walkdine have made a difference of 200/.
from four to half.past five
dark parish, wheregarrotte walk, in a
rst-rate
the police are never seen. The
property lies in the direct netneighbourhood of several rich
peclaurtar
an adjacent parkproprietor etthorro
throw
iwilln
for the simple reason that
he is about, in as well, b
connexion with two or three mem ers of
Parliament, to try Bank Director. The
veTryngelopwresfiegnutrep,
his hand as a
receipts have, for the last three months, averaged as
much as 35/, a week, and watches (with the exception
of the Police watch)
are to be met with at every other
corner. Apply to "Neck or Nothing," Scotland-yard.
N.B. —The lighting the very worst in London."—
Punch.
OUR NORTH AMERICAN COLONIES.—On Tuesday even-
ing the Hon. Judge Haliburton, of Nova Scotia (author
of Sant Slick), addressed a full meeting of the members
of the Manchester Athenceum, in the library, on the
Position and prospects of the North American colonies,
At the close of the lecture a vote of thanks to the learned
judge was moved by Mr. James Crossley, who said the
address had been full of " wit, humour, information,
and amusement," and seconded by Mr. Alderman W.
B. Watkins, who announced the presence of the Hon.
Mrs. Haliburton.
THE GRAND TRUNK AND GRAND JUNCTION RAILROAD.
—The Boston Journal says—Among the passengers by
the steam-ship Canada, which sailed from this port on
Wednesday was S. S. Lewis, who gees to Battu,' to
complete and ratify the bargain between the Grand Rail-
road Company of Canada and the Grand Junction Rail-
road Company of this city. Mr. Lewis has already once
crossed the Atlantic upon this errand, when the main
features of the arrangement between the two companies
were agreed upon, which are, that the Grand Trunk
Company shall furnish to the Grand Junction Company
the sum of 500,000 dols., one-half of which shall be 0
ap-
plied to the liquidation of the floating debt of the Grand Junction Company, and the remainder to the
improve-
ment of its property, rendering its wharves, its., con'
venient for the transaction of a I - b .
argely increased nap
ness. The Canada directors of the ^ra d Trunk Com-
pany give their assent to the arrangements,‘ln and that of
the London directors, there is nodonbt, wil be obtained
by Mr. Lewis. In case the project is carried out the
European steamers of the Canada corepanY will bring
their goods to this t
por l from whence the Canada por-
tion will be sent forward, the light
Eastern
railway, and the heavy by propeller to Port-
land. It is the intention also of the Canada company,
when the project is fully carried out, to run a propeller
once a fortnight between Liverpool and this port, with
freight for New England and Canada, in which case we
shall have at least a weekly communication by steam
with England. Boston will then be the Atlantic depot
of the large and daily increasing trade of England with
Canada, and will also by this route be enabled to extend
its trade with the groat West of our own country.