The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-07 00:00:00

BANNING DEPARTMENT.

Proprietors' capital .. 14,553,000
Rest . ..... .......... 3,401,606
Public deposits (in-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Sav-
ing's Banks, and
Dividend Accounts) 3,415,624
ther deposits ...... 10,530,424
.yen Day and other
5i115........... A 06,940

Governmentsocuritles

(includg.Dead Weight
Annuity) .......... 11,557,114
Other securities 17.708 739
Notes .. .......... 65
Gold and silver coin.. 677,676

434;707,594

£34,707,594
I. MAICAIIALL, Chici Cashier.
1857.

Dated the sth day of February,

AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR.

The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from the returns made in the week ending Feb.
3, 1857, exclusive of the Duties of Cus:,oras paid or
payable thereon, on the importation thereof into Great
Britain : s. d.
From the British Possessions in America 36 11
Muscovado, the produce of the Mauritius 36
Muscovado, the produce of the East Indies.... 4O 4i
Average of the above three descriptions 3B 21

LAW INTELLIGENC K.—Feb. 6.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

SIR HENRY MEUX, BART., V. QTJARTE [MAINE- HORSE
CASE.

This was an action for the breach of a warranty of a
horse.

Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Denman were for the plain•
tiff, and Mr. E. James and another learned gentleman
for the defendant.

The plaintiff was Sir Henry Meux, Bart., M.P. for
Hertfordshire ; and the defendant, Mr. Quartermaine,
was a horse-dealer, carrying on business in Piccadilly.
The case for plaintiff was that in March last he went to
the defendant's stables with the intention of purchasing
a riding horse for his wife. He was shown one which he
liked, and he offered to give 1001. for it, subject to Lady
Meux's approval. O❑ a subsequent day she went to see
the horse, but she thought it was lame, and did not like
its action when trotted out. Sir Henry write to the de-
fendant to this effect, and added that. he considered he
ought to have a better horse for the money. The defen-
dant replied by letter, offering to exchange the horse for
any other in his possession. Some further correspon-
dence then passed between the partie,, in the course of
which the defendant insisted upon the sale having been
absolute. At length the plaintiff agreed to buy another

horse for 1701., on the defendant representing that it was

sound in all respects, and was rising six years old,
and immediately after the purchase the plaintiff had
the Lone exercised in Rotten-row, and then sent it
to a veterinary surgeon named Field for examination.
According to the judgment of Field the horse was un-
sound, and rising nine instead of six years, and he fur-
nished the plaintiff with a certificate to that effect. Sir
Henry forwarded the certificate to the defendant, and
intimated his intention to return the animal. The de-
fendant denied its accuracy, and alleged that the horse
had been injured by the ill-usage of the plaintiff's groom,
who, he 'aid, had galloped it too fast, and he positively
declined to take it back. The plaintiff, however, or
dered his man to deliver the horse to Mr. Quartermaine,
but, on reaching the stables, the gates were shut against
him, and the horse was not allowed to enter the yard.
The horse was sold by the plaintiff, at Tattersall's,
shortly afterwards, and only brought 371. 4s. 6d., the
purchaser being Mr. Quartermaine himself.
Sir Henry and Lady Meux, and other witnesses, were
examined in support of the plaintiff's case.
The defence was that no express warranty was given
with the horse, and that it was perfectly sound at the
time of the sale.
The evidence, as in most horse cases, was x' req. ely
conflicting.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after
being absent some time returned into court with a verdict
for the plaintiff—damages 1501.
GEORGE V. JONES —ARRA tILT AND BATTERY.
This lives an action for breaking into and entering the
plaintiffs dwelling, for assault and battery, and also for
money due to the plaintiff and his wife for services ren•
dered to the defendant.
_ _

Mr. E. James and Mr. Prentice appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee for the defendant.
From the opening statement of counsel and the evi-
dence it appeared that the plaintiff, Wm. George, was a
young man who had been brought up to the medical
profession, and that the defendant, Dr. Griffith Jones,
held himself out to the world as a hydro-honaceapsahic
doctor, and was the proprietor and seller of a patent
medicine called "Baron Souville's Axtra Mankaz,"
which he advertised as a cure for constipation and various
other diseases, and as a❑ agreeable substitute for cod-
liver oil, and which, it seemed, consisted of various fari-
naceous ingredients. The defendant took premises in
1853 at 496, New Oxrord-Street, for the sale of this ar-
ticle, and employed the plaintiff to manage the business
and to lecture upon the virtues of the medicine, giving
him a salary of 61. a-week and apartments in the upper
portion of the house to reside in. The speculation, how-
ever, did not succeed, and in May, 1856. the defendant
resolved to shut up the shop, and requested the plaintiff
to quit his apartments, but he declined to do so until he
obtained lodgings elsewhere, and he made a demand of
151. for the services of himself and wife, an well as 201.
as compensation for the loss be had sustained iu conse-
quence of his dismissal. He also insisted upon having
an acknowledgment of 1001., which he alleged the de-
fendant had borrowed upon a policy upon his (the plain-
tiff's) life. To these demands the plaintiff received no
reply ; but a few days afterwards a party of
about a dozen men, armed with the authority of
Dr. Jones, as well as with various instruments,
forced their way into the rooms of the plaintiff, and
endeavoured to turn him and his wife out. He resisted,
and was roughly used in the struggle ; but the cries of
himself and his wife, who was enceinte at the time,
brought the police, whose remonstrances, and the plain-
tiff's promise to leave next day, induced the men to de-
sist from their attempt, but not until he had received
some severe blows and contusions, and, according to his
own account, been nearly strangled.
In cross-examination the plaintiff said about 12 years
ago he was an upholsterer and cabinetmaker. Before
he entered the defendant's service he kept a chemist's
shop at Pentonville for about two years, but he had not
been brought up as a chemist.
Lord Campbell inquired if he sold poisons ?
Witness—l sold mineral compound and vegetable
poisons.
In answer to further questions by the defendant's
counsel, he said he had never been educated as a practi-
cal chemist, but he had received an education from a
celebrated man in America, Dr. Beech, who formerly
kept a chemioal school in Kennington-lane, Lambeth.
A large parchment skin was handed to the plaintiff by
his counsel, who asked him if it were Rot his diploma.
He replied in the affirmative, and said he had obtained
it through Dr. Beech.
The document, the size of which occasioned some
laughter in the court, was examined and read over aloud
by the learned judge. It purported to emanate from,
the "Reformed Medical Society of the United States,
at New York, and certified that, on examination, the
plaintiff had exhibited satisfactory evidence of his quali-
fications in the various branches of medicine on the re-
formed system, and gave him authority to practise the
various branches of the healing art in the United States.
In answer to Lord Campbell, the plaintiff said he had
never been in any part of the States.
Some other evidence as to the assault having been
adduced, . .

Lord Campbell expressed his opinion that the trespass
had been clearly proved.
No evidence was given on the part of the defendant,
and

Mr. Sergeant Shee addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 35/.
damages, for the trespass and assault, and 151. for the
services of the plaintiff and his wife.