The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-18 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY-.

dered to be committed :—Birkenhead District Gas and
Water ; West London and Crystal Palace Railway.
PETTY SESSION (IRELAND) BILL.
The order of the day for the second read- g of the
Petty Session (Ireland) Bill was read and discharged.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. BOWYER, the order for the
second reading of the Grand Juries (Ire,at.d) Bill, Sxed
for to-morrow, was ordered to be discharged.
CLIFFORD'S PLAN OF LOWERING BOATS.
In reply to a question from Admiral WALCOTT,
Admiral BERKELEY said that the vessels employed
in transporting ships to China bad been furnished with
Clifford's boat lowering gear. • Every trial of it had
answered so well that he hoped before long it would be
adopted throughout the service.
SIR J. M'NEILL AND COL. TULLOCH.

Lord CASTLEROSSE appeared at the bar of the
house with her Majesty's gracious reply to the address
praying for some special mark of favour to be conferred
on Sir J. WNeill and Col. Tulloch, which he read as
follows :—" I have received your address praying that
some special mark of approbation should be conferred
on Sir J. M'Neill and Col. Tulloch in consideration of
their able services rendered by them as Commissioners
in the Crimea, and having taken the same into considera-
tion I have given directions for this purpose.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

Mr. BOWYER called the attention of the Home Se-
cretary to the decision in the House of Lords yesterday
in the case of Gray and another v. PiPierson, and after
entering into the particulars of that decision in reference
to the decision by the majority of the judges, he asked
if it were the intention of the Government at an early
period of next session for the improvement of the appel-
late jurisdiction of the House of Lords.
Sir G. GREY said he knew nothing of the case re-
ferred to, and so far as the Government was concerned
he did not think the hon. member's explanation of the
facts of the case had been sufficient to require the inter-
ference of the Government with the appellate jurisdic-
tion of the House of Lords.

THE CASE OF HONORA BROSNAHAN.
Mr. H. HERBERT asked the President of the
Poor Law Board whether his attention had been called
to the circumstances of the removal of a female pauper,
named Honora Brosnahan, and her children, from the
Holborn Union to Ireland ; whether he had reason to
believe that the said Honora Brosaahan's husband was
born in England • and whether any remedy existed by
the present law for the injustice inflicted on the woman
herself, and ou the Tralee Union in Ireland, to whick
she had been removed.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that he had made inquiry re-
lative to this case, and the result was that the woman
was the wife of a man who had been a policeman and
had deserted her. She became chargeable to the Holborn
Union, and on inquiry it could not be proved that the
husband had a settlement in this country, and as the clause
of irremovability did not apply to her case, she was re-
moved to Ireland in accordance with her wish.
PROSECUTION FEES.
In reply to a question from Mr. MOODY,
Sir G. GREY said that no uniform table of fees bad
been prepared under the 14 and 15 Viet. providing for
the expenses of prosecutions. Tables of fees were now
being acted on in several counties. As the hon. member
had not given him notice of the question, he was unable
then to state any particulars in reference to it.
THE WINE DUTIES.
Mr. OLIVEIRA. withdrew his notice relative to the
wine duties, but stated that, if he had a seat in the new
Parliament, he should renew it at an early period of the
session. .
THE LAND TRANSPORT CORPS COMMITTEE.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE withdrew his motion for naming
a committee in reference to the grievances complained of
bythfr members of the Land Transport Corp. He un-
derstood the complaints of the ccrps were now under the
consideration of the War-office, and if it was not amicably
arranged he should rene.v his motion next session, if Le
then had a scat in the house.
THE SOUND DUES.
Mr. B. MOORE called the attention of the house to
the Sound dues, and asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer if a treaty bad been signed to capitalise tboae
due-, and indemnify Danmark for giving up her reputed
rights,• and if it were the intention of her Majesty's Go-
vernment that such treaty should be acted upon before
Parliament had voted the moor-y for such object.
Mr. LIDDELL called attention t the Chancellar of
the Exchequer's statement that the treaty included the
redemption of feur-Sffhe of the transit dues, and asked
it it really was so, and why the whole amount of the dues
had not been redeemed ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that on the 14th of the month two treaties were
siened at C 'penbagen. One between Denmark,
Russia, Prussia, France, and Great Britain, and other
States containing stipulations common to those countrie..
The second treaty was between Great Britain and Den-
mark, and contained stipulations peculiar to those two:
countries. By the first treaty the Sound was to be
opened on the Ist of April, and the amount of com-
pensation to be paid by each Power wa's
as well an the time, when the whole was t be
ratified,viz., within three months. Denmark was to
retain a provisional status quo unt 1 the ratification f
the
treaties, and the good faith of E•sgla.nd was in no way
pledged to this arrangement, and it wou'd he open to
the new Parlament to enter into the question.
was oily able to speak from a teleeraphic message.
In r-ply to Sir /I WILLOUGHBY.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sa!ti
that the share to be psi I by Great Britain f r the re-
demption of the Sound dues was 1,125,2061. Ire aa-
?le dole to give the partieeltrs required relative to the
ransit dues.
TUE ROYAL BRITISH BANK.
In reply to Sir F. KELLY,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said be regretted to
he unable, from the sudden termination of Parliament, to
bring in his pr,,po.sed measure relative to Directors of
Banks and Fraudulent Tru,te. If he had a seat in the
now Pail ament he would reintro,luc-t icon an early day.
THE SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
EXCHEQUER BILLS (C 21.049,700) BILL AND
THE CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA•
TION) BILL

These bills alo passed through committee, and were
ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
MUTINY BILL—THE TWO SICILIES.
On the motion for considering the amendments to this
bill,

Mr. DISRAELI called attention to the suppressed
portion of the c nrespondence n the papers laid on the
table of the house relative to the Two Siciliest, and said
that as the newspapers appeared to be in possession of
them, he asked whether in the course of the cammtnaL
cations that took place with reference to the Two
Sinaloa her Majesty's Glvernment had made offer to a fo•
reign power that if an attempt were made to establish a
republican institution in the south of Italy they were
prepared to interfere, and, if necessary, with force of
arms to prevent it ? -
Lord PALMERSTON—Na such offer was ever
made.

The subject then dropped, and tke Mutiny Bill, after
a short disicussion, in which Mr. Duncan, Mr. Kinnaird,
Mr. %V. Ewart, General Codrington, and Lord Palmer-
ston on the bi!letting of soldiers in Scotland took part,
the bill was ordered for a third reading to-morrow.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CERCIIIT.—LEwEs, Milton 17.
Crrn SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron Channel.)
WEEDEN V. FIFE.

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for
3001., drawn by the defendant, who is a cornet in
the 3d Dragoons, and accepted by Mr. Joseph
Paxton, also a cornet in the same regiment, and
which was endorsed to the plaintiff by a person
named Curlewis. There was a number of pleas put
upon the record by the defendant, but the only
material one was a plea that the bill in question
had been fraudulently obtained by a person named
John Charles Johns, and that no consideration
had been given for it by the plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Honeyman
were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. E. James, Q.C.,
and Mr. Pollock were for the defendant.
It appeared that the bill which was the subject
of the action was dated the 27th September, 1856,
at three months' date, and it bore the indorsement
of Johns and also that of Mr. Curlewis, and the
fact of the notice of dishonour was admitted, and
these formal facts having been put in evidence, the
case for the plaintiff was closed.
Mr. James addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant, and he said that the present case was
one that would require their most careful consider-
; ation, because there could. be no doubt that the
defendant had been robbed of this bill, under the
pretence that it should be discounted for him, and
although there was always considerable difficulty
in making out the real facts connected with these
bill transactions, be hoped to be able to satisfy them
that this was really the case in the present instance.
The defendant, Mr. Fife, was an officer in the 3d
Dragoons, and Mr. Paxton, who was the son of Sir
J. Paxton, was a brother officer in the same regi-
ment, and there was no doubt that the bill in ques-
tion was drawn for their mutual accommodation to
raise money, and it was entrusted to Johns, whose
name appeared as the endorser of the bill, in order
that he might discount it, which he undertook to
do. Instead of that, however, he kept Use bill, and
nothing was heard of it until the present action was
brought against Mr. Fife.
Mr. G. Paxton was then examined—He deposed
that he was formerly an officer in the 3d Dragoons,
and in Sept. last he was with the regiment at Brigh-
ton. The defendant (Mr. Fife) was an officer in the
regiment. About the 25th Sept., Johns, the per-
son whose name appeared as one of the endorsers of
the bill in question, called upon him at the barracks.
He had never seen him before that time. They had
some conversation about money, and Johns told
lexa that if he could get She name of another officer
with his own to a bill, he could get it discounted for
him. He afterwards saw Johns at the shop of a cigar
merchant at Brighton, and a bill for 3001. was
cashed by him. This was not the bill that was the
subject of the present action. Another bill for
6004, which was drawn by Mr. Fife and accepted
by witness, was afterwards discounted through the
agency of Johns, and 2001. was paid in money for
it and two race-horses. Witness had the horses
and Mr. Fife had the money. The. 3001. bill that
was now the subject of.inquiry was given to Johns
to get discounted, and he promistd to pay the
money into witness's bankers in London a day or
two afterwards, but he never did 60, and he had
never received a farthing on account of the bill;
and the first information he heard relating to it
was from his attorney, who told him that an action
had been commenced against Mr. Fife as the drawer
of the bill to recover the amount. When he found
that he could not obtein the money he applied to
restore him the bill, and he tell him it was de-
stroyed, and be was satisfies with this answer.
Cross-examined—He had altogether several mo-
ney and racing transactions with Johns, and he won
one bat of him upon the Great Northern Handicap.
Johns did not find the money for the 600 i. bill,
but it was advanced by a person named La M,rt.
The horses were the property of La Alert, and they
we .e still in witness's possession. The 6001. bill
had baen paid. Witness had been sued upon one
of his acceptances, but after he had pleaded ;o the
action it was not proceeded with. He pleaded in-
fancy. Ha was nut yet of age, and he was cf
course not of age while these bill transactions were
go ng on. He might have told the parties he was
of age. Could not say how long he had been in
the habit of accepting bills of exchange for the ac-
commodation of himself and other brother officers.
He might have " becked" bills to the amount of
2,000/. or 3,0001. while he was in the army. The
transactions between him and Mr. Fife might have
amounted altogether to ab sot 1,205/. or 1,3001. Mr.
IFife "backed" bills for ;aim to the amount of about
1,0001., ant he in return "13.teke I.' one for him to
the am .unt of 230/. Ha hal hal the same sort of
operat oas with other officers. In answer t? f.:r
t ter clue tio s put by Mr. Ceitm e:-s, the witness
said that he might have accepted bills t) the am iunt
of 3,0G04, knowing at the, tune that he was
a a He also stated that h 3 hid now left 11
about firee weeks, and that he had resign,.
comae ssion for privats reasons that bad ne hia
whatever to do with these tran-actione.
In re-ex imitation the witne a said that he was
I now twenty years and six m inths old. It, also ap-
peared that Johns kept racehorses, and that they
st eat at Vie seine stab'e as the witness's at lllsley ;
and he said that ho Wight have told km upon one
occasku teat he was of age. He also said that La
Mert, the partien he had mentioned, was a very
curious oust Auer, and lie did not know exactly
what he was. (A laugh.) The two horses he re-
ceived as part of the consideration for the 6001. bill
were valued at 3251. to him, but he did not believe
they would fetch more than 1001. or 1201. at the
hammer if they were sold now.
Mr. Douglas Munro Fife, the defendant, was
then examined, and he confirmed the evidence
given by Mr. Paxton as to no consideration having
been given for the bill.
In answer to a question put by Mr. Chambers,
he said that when he put his name to the bill he of
course intended to pay it some time or other.
Mr. James then submitted that upon this evi-
dence he had made out a sufficient prima facie case
of fraud to c ill upon the plaintiff to show that he
had given value for the bill.
Mr. Baron Chatinell said it appeared to hint that
this ought to be done. . .
Mr. Frederick Wcedon, the plaintiff; was accord-
ingly called. He stated that he carried on the busi-
ness of a woollen-draper in Warwick-street, Gol-
den-square, and he had been in the habit of sup-
plying Mr. Curlewis, one of the endorsers of tee
bill, who was a tailor, with goods, and at the end
of 1856 he was indebted to him more than 700/.
lie asked him to give him some money on account
in the beginning of January, and he h ended him
the bill in question, which he placed to his account,
and gave him credit for the amount. He said that
he had taken other bills of Curlewis's in the sane
way, and he had no knowledge of any of the cir-
cumstances under which the bill had been origi-
nally obtained.
This witness was subjected to a very rigid cross-
/ examination by Mr. E. James, and in the course of
his answers he said that the debt due by Cur-
lewis was comp o.:ed of an ofd balance, from the
y, ar 1855, of 2001., and 5001. worth of goods teat
he had supplied to him during 1856. He produced
his books to show that the bill had been regularly
entered to Ceriewis's credit, and he sal that there
was always a sort of standing balance against bun,
and the bills were handed to him wore mtendel to
cover that balance. He also stated that when the
bills were dishonoured he made no claim upon
Curlewis, but at once instructed his attorney to
proceed against the defendant, and his attorney, it
appeared, was also the attorney for Curlewis. The
plaintiff also stated that Curlewis had asked him to
bring the present action.
In re-examination the plaintiff swore positively
that he took the bill in the ordinary course of h's
business, and that he gave Curlewis credit for the
amount in the ordinary way.
Mr. E. James, the course of a very able sum-
ming up of the case for the defendant, urged that
the endeavour to show that consideration had been
given for the bill was a mere sham and fudge, and
that the "standing balance" that had been talked
about by Mr. Weedon was got up solely for the pur-
pose of carrying out the fraud that had been prac-
tised upon these young men, and to make it ap-
pear that a genuine debt existed betwaen Curlewis
and the plaintiff. In all these Cases of bill rob-
beries the jury wore aware that it was necessary to
find out what was called an "innocent holder" fur
value to bring the action, and it certainly was an
odd thing that a tailor genera'ly appeared to be the
unfbrtunate individual. (A laugh.) He submitted
that in the present case the evidence of the plain-
tiff was most uneatisfac.ory, and he observed thee
if it was true that Curlewis owed the amount that
had been stated' to the plaintiff, he might have been
palled to prove the fact, but they had not dared t,
pn.t him into the witne-s-box.
Mt:. Baron °barmen, in summing up the case to
the jury:. explained to them the law upon the sub-
je ft, and said that the only point for them to con-
sider was NVl.:9ther the plaint ff had made out that
he had given value for the bill, and that lie had.
received it in part payment of a genuine pre-exist-
ing debt.
The jury retired, and after being absent for about
an hour, they returned into court and gave a ver-
dict for the defendant.

a r my

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—BEDFORD, MARCH 17.
(Before Mr. Justice Erle.)
ARSON AT BIDWELL.
Edward Finch, aged 19, a farm servant, was in.
dieted for having set fire to the farm buildings of