The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-16 00:00:00

CORN EXCHANGE.

The arrivals of all kinds of Grain this week are moderate, and
of Flour the return is short. The Wheat trade is rather dearer
than on Monday, as there is so little new at market. Fine
Barley also obtains rather more money. Beans and Pease are
unaltered. Oats are firm at Monday's prices. Flour commands
a free sale at last quotations.

ARRIVALS.

Wheat. Barley.
English 4,380 qrs. I '2.,780 qrs.
Irish - -
Foreign 4,100 -

Oats. I Flour.
7:344'20 In.
1 3_,750 sacks
- - brls.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

IMPORTANT TO STOCK-BROKERS.-CLARK V. POWELL.

This was an action, brought by the Chamberlain of the
city of London, to recover a penalty of 1001. from the de-
fendant, for having exercised the business of a broker in
the city, without being admitted and sworn in by the
Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. It was made into
a special ease as to the construction of various Acts of
Parliament respecting brokers, and to-day came on for
argument.
Mr. FOLLETT addressed the Court for the plaintiff, and
hoped to show that a stock-broker, which the defendant
we', was a broker within the meaning of the statutes, and
according to former decisions. By Bth and 9th of Wm. 111.,
which was an Act to restrain the number and practice of
brokers and stock-jobbers, it was provided that if any
person in the City of London acted as a broker for mer-
chants in bargaining for contracts or bills of credit, or
tickets payable by the Exchequer, or in Bank of England
Stock, such person must be licensed by the City of
London ; and any person so acting without such license
must forfeit 500/, That Act was re-enacted by the 10th
of Anne, ch. 19. Then came the let of Geo. 1., ch. 18,
which created public stock, and imposed a penalty on per-
sans acting as stock-jobbers, without being admitted by the
Lord Mayor and Aldermen. The 7th of George 111.,
chap. 8, which was an Act to restrain the infamous prac-
tice of stock-jobbing, imposed a penalty on persons deal-
ing in stock when they were not possessed of any. After
the latter Act bad passed, a case was tried in this Court,
in which it was held that a person acting as a stock-bro-
ker was bound to be licensed by the Lord Mayor and Al-
dermen, and that a stock-broker was a broker within the
meaning of the several Acts. Upon those authorities the
Learned Counsel submitted that judgment should be en-
tered for the plaintiff.
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendant, said, as the statutes
were of a penal nature, the Court was bound
to construe them strictly, and in doing so he would
contend that a stock-broker was not a broker,
contemplated by them. The case was of great importance
in the City, as, although some stock-brokers were admitted,
a great many were not. The 7th of George H. referred
to persons acting as brokers in being employed by other.
in the sale and purchase of stock and other securities.
The public were by that Act sufficiently protected against
fraud without the necessity of swelling the City purse
by such actions as this. That Act was originally
chiefly drawn in order to repeal the Ist of James 1.,
but in its progress through the House of Commons
a petition was presented by Mr. W. Stewart, who
held an office (Gauger of Spices) which was to be
destroyed by it for compensation, and then the
Act was extended to allow him 9671., and to impose a tax
upon brokers on their admission of 405., and a further
yearly payment of 40s. Neither by the statute of Anne,
nor of the 57th Geo. 111., was the business of a broker
defined. The 57th Geo. 111. took away the office of
guager of spices, and, as in the former case upon petition,
a further duty of N. upon the admission of brokers, and
13/. a year was levied ; and the penalty for persons acting
as brokers without license was made 100/. Now, as none of
the Acts subsequent to thatof Anne defined the word " bro-
ker," it was necessary to see who were then usually known
as such. The Court could not take the word in its popular
or vulgar acceptation ; for dealers in old furniture were
called "brokers," and Shakapeare had called a pimp a
" broker." It must mean a person employed as a middle-
man by the buyer and seller. This defendant was em-
ployed by one Johnson to buy 50/. stock for him ; but it
was proved that he was employed by the seller. It had
been decided that a ship-broker was not within the mean-
ing of the Act, nor was an insurance-broker, although he
was employed by buyer and seller to contract for a com-
modity called " indemnity." An attorney was not a
broker, although he was employed to negotiate annuities
and transfers of annuities.

The CouxT ordered the special case to be amended, and
afterwards to be brought again under its notice.

IN RE BATTY.

Mr. Fouzzr applied for a rule to prohibit an order of
the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors' Court being
acted upon. The case was this :—Dr. Batty, who was
many years ago King's Advocate, was a few days sim e
discharged by the Insolvent Debtors' Court, whose Com•
missioners ordered 180/. a year to be paid out of his pension
for the benefit of his creditors, which order had been

lodged at the Admiralty, where the pension was p►yable.
Mr. Follett submitted that, under the circumstances of the
case, the Court had no power to make such an order. Dr.
Batty was dismissed from his situation in 1819 without a
pension ; but, on petitioning his Royal Highness the
Prince Regent, a pension was granted him out of the Ad.
miralty Fund. The In,olvent Debtors' Court had power
over half-pny officers of the army and navy, and over
pensions for services performed ; hut this pension being
granted as a mere matter of grace and favour by the
Prince Regent, that Court, Mr. Follett submitted, had no
power over it at all.
Mr. Justice TAUNTON—Did the petition to the Prince
Regent pray for a pension for past services ?
' Mr. FOLLETT admitted it did, but the grant said nothing
of past services ; it was a mere act of grace, and the con-
tinuance of the pension was solely iu the discretion of his
Majesty.
The COURT granted a Rule Nisi for a prohibition to
prevent the order being complied with, and directed the
Rule to be served on the assignees.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.-(THIS DAY.

CREW AND OTHERS V. BRANT.

This action was brought to recover damages for the di.
lapidation done to a house while in the tenantey of the
defendant.

Mr. GODSON stated the case. He said the defendant
in 1828 took the house 24, Ecclestone-buildings, Pimlico,
from the plaintiffs for a term of three years. He, being
a water-gilder, carried on his business in the premises,
by which they were much damaged. The paint and
parer, when he left, was very much dirtied, as also the
floors ; the roof admitted water, and altogether the house
was in such a state that no tenant could be got
to inhabit it before it was repaired. The plaintiffs
had called upon the defendant to do so, or pay
them 101. which bad been agreed upon, but afterwards be
declined, and would do nothing. The plaintiffs therefore
sent in men, and the house was repaired at an expense of
251., which they now sought to recover.
The Learned Gentleman called witnesses, who proved
that when the defendant left the premises in question, the
roof leaked, the paint and paper were totally spoiled, and
from neglect of the cesspool the kitchen required a ❑ew
floor. Also, the tradesmen who had done the work, who
corroborated the other witnesses.
Mr. EARLE, for the defendant, submitted to the Learned
Baron that the plaintiff had not made out a case which
ought to go to the Jury.
His Loausinr was of opinion that though the plaintiff
had not made so clear a case as he might, still he was en-
titled to some damages upon what he had proved.
The Learned Gentleman then addressed the Jury, and
contended that in law the defendant was not liable, as it
had been laid down by no less an authority than Chief
Justice Gibbs, that a tenant at will, or one holding only
for a short term of three years, was not liable for dilapida-
tians occasioned by the lapse of time ; besides, he would
prove that the defendant, when ofte❑ applied to by the
plaintiffs, actually sent in a man who put the house in
repair.
The Learned Counsel called this witness, who deposed
that be at one time, by the orders of Mr. Brant, went and
put on some tiles on the house in question, but could not
by any possibility remember at what time, or even in
what year it was.
The Learned Baron then summed up, and the Jury im-
mediately returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages
10/.

THE UNIVERSITY.—We never performed a
duty with greater pleasure than that which calls upon us
to give insertion to the f Mowing paragraph. The an-
nouncement will be received with pleasure and satisfaction
by every Protestant in Ireland :—" We have authority
to state that Mr. GORDON, in compliance with a commu-
nication addressed to him by his arbitrators, has consented
to relinquish his intentions of standing for the representa-
tion of the College..—Dublin Evening Mail.
TITHES ! ! THE REV.MARTIN DOYLE IN
GAOL ! ! !--A great sensation was excited in this city on
Monday evening by witnessing the patriotic and spirited
parish Priest of Graig guarded in as a prisoner by a troop
of dragoons, and lodged in the county gaol, under an at-
tachment for 3/. 10s. Id., for tithe alleged to be due of
him for 1831. He remained in gaol that night, and
yesterday was waited on by two or three gentlemen who,
on the part of the citizens, said the sum would be at once
raised by a halfpenny subscription, to mark the intensity
of public feeling. This Mr. DOYLE would not allow of,
as he could stop the amount of his tithe out of the rent of
Mr. R. DEVINE, his landlord, whose debts he could not
consent to have paid by the people of Kilkenny. Mr.
DOYLE was liberated yesterday evening ; and returned to
his parish, after affording the curious spectacle of the
teacher of one religion being incarcerated, for declaring
against the injustice of being forced to support another, in
the tenets of which he did not believe.—Kilkenny.fournal.