The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-03 00:00:00

China raw overland (A) 11 21 H 10 40 A 14'£738, net
cash.

" Settled.

F. C. AGG."

Mr. Woolrych—Let me see that document.

Mr. Humphreys—You see, sir, that it don't tally with
the first statement, that £530 was given for the silk, and
among it three Bank of England notes for £3OO. The fact
that three notes for £lOO each were found upon Debock is a
singular confirmation of Newton's first statement.

Mr. Woolrych—Who is Agg ?
Mr. Humphreys, jun.—A publican, the landlord of the
Clown publichouse, near Sadler's Wells Theatre. Hunter,
his confederate, is also a publican, keeping the Red Deer
publichouse in Cambridge-heath-road, Bethnal-green.
Neither of them was in the silk trade. Agg was formerly
in the service of Drakeford and Co., silk merchants in the
city, and was well acquainted with Crane, who, at the time
of his apprehension, was al& in the employ of Drakeford
and Co., and had been so f.r many years. Ten balesof silk
were found in Newton's mill, which Mr. Mumford, the
superintendent of the St. Katharine's Dock police, had
seized and brought to London. It would be shown that
the silk was similar in quality and other particulars to the
silk of the 401 bales delivered into the dock warehouse in
Cutler-street.

After some further evidence the prisoners were remanded/
without bail.

THE ChARGES 40.1 !NAT MR. LAING.

The directors of the Great Western Railway of
Canada have issued a pamphlet of considerable bulk
by way of reply to the report of the committee of
investigation. They of course refer to the charges
against Mr. Laing, and proceed to argue at consi.
derable length that that gentleman must be held to
be completely exculpated. They observe :
The board see no reason to doubt the truth of Mr. Laing's
assertion that the verbal understanding between himself
and Mr. Wythes was never reduced to writing or rendered
eapablo of being carried out in any practical form, and that
long before Mr. Wythes had finished his work Mr. Laing
had put an end to the arrangement. The committee offer
no evidence to contradict this statement. To speak there-
fore of the joint claims of Messrs. Wythes and Laing under
the contract seems simply an unjustifiable aspersion. The
committee of investigation very well knew that Mr. Laing
never received one farthing under the contract; that it was
a mere understanding to enable the line to be floated, to
assure the mind of Mr. Wythes in taking a contract in a
strange country, entered into for the advantage of the pro-
moters of the company, and not for the advantage of Mr.
Laing; and at their solicitation and not at the desire of
Mr. Laing ; that it ceased when Mr. Laing became con-
cerned in the conduct of the Great Western Company's
affairs ; and that, whilst the promoters of the Company pro.,
fited by the facilities the arrangement afforded them in going
to the public, Mr. Laing never profited to the extent of le.
by his share in the transaction. The appendix to the report
contains a letter from Mr. Wythes, the contractor, explana-
tory of the transactions in which he was engaged in con-
junction with Mr. Laing. Mr. Wythes says :—" The inves-
tigation Committee report with regard to this railway, that
Mr. Laing had entered into a partnership agreement with
Mr. Wythes for the construction of the Hamilton and
Toronto line. I was applied to to become the contractor for
the construction of the Hamilton and Toronto Railway
Having had no experience at that time in the construction
of railways in America, I was not inclined to undertake
the work. It was, however, much pressed upon me by
various parties, and amongst others by Mr. Laing. At
last I agreed to undertake it provided the parties pro-
moting the line would show their confidence in the line
and in their own estimates for its construction by taking
some share of the risk. It was agreed that Mr. Laing
should do so, and should become liable for one-third
of any loss I might sustain. There was nothing but
an honourable understanding in the matter, and that
honourable understanding was put an end to, at Mr.
Laing's desire, about 14 or 15 months after the agreement.
As I had felt myself prejudiced by Mr. Laing's connec-
tion with the matter, which occasioned much interference
and annoyance from the manager, I was rejoiced to end
the connection. There was, of course, no account of aril
sort up to the time the understanding terminated. It is
not true, as the committee assert, that when I made eIY
claims upon the company for extra work, Mr. Laing
accompanied me to the board and advocated my claims.
He never accompanied me to the board. On one oeoa"
sion I believe he was present when I attended
with my solicitor to get a settlement; but it is
wholly untrue that Mr. Laing, on that or any other Oa"
sion, attended with me to advocate my claims. 119
could have no interest in doing so ; and, indeed, at the
period when I made my claim, we were not acting in per
ect harmony. Concerning my contract for this line I earl
only repeat what I wrote to you under date 20th Novara'
ber last, that lam ready to reopen the whole question
and refer it to arbitration, as provided for in the contract,
and to refund whatever the arbitrators may decide, if I
have been oven aid anything, provided your company
will, on your part, undertake to pay me such sum as the
arbitrators may determine that I am fairly entitled to in
excess of the moneys already paid me.' "

COUNTRY 211ARKETS.