The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-17 00:00:00

Railway Company v Mowatt—Sanderson v Dobson and
others—Keyse v v y aad
Parkes v Smith—Davies v Cary—Ruilston v York, Ne w-
castle, and Berwick Railway Company—Wagstaff v
Booth—Berry r Huxtable and another—Gallard v Gil-
christ—Scattergood v Sylvester—Reynell and another v
Lane—Daniel v Morton—Walsh and another v Treva-
nion and others—Bainbridge v Wade—Pim v Wilson—
Doe dem. Blagrave v Stephens—the North American
Colonial Association of Ireland—Hayward v Albony—
Day v Smith—Walker v Clements—Thompson and
another v Whatley—Jackson and others v Charing-cross
Bridge Company—Langbourno and another v Chadwick
—Doe Evers and wife v Challis—Marsden v M'Lean—
Rochdale Canal Company v Walmesley—Walton v Holt
—Evans v George—Mudford v Lowe and others—Trot-
ter • York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway Company
—Crow v General Ship Loan and Insurance Company—
Leeming and another v Snaith—Worsley and another v
South Devon Railway Company—West v Jackson and
another—Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin
Railway Company • Logan—Francis and another v
Bailey—Perkins v Tidd—Backhouse v Coulthard—
Griffiths v Fenton—Gallini v the Earl of Courtoun
and others—Bank of Australasia v Nias—Tarleton v
Liddell and another—Bank of Australasia v Rous. En-
larged Rules (First day): Re the Westminster Improve-
ment Commission and the Churchwardens of St. Marga-
ret and St. John, Westminster—Caudwell v Mostyn and
others—Clegg and others v Dearden—Re Wright and
another and the Cromford Canal Company—Richards
and others v Tints—Cater and another v Chigwell—
Mackenzie v Sligo and Shannon Railway Company—
Doe dem. Davies v Davies—The Queen v James Rowlands
—The Queen v J. Egginton—The Queen • Thomas Fir-
bank and another—The Queen • Robert Tyrwhit.
(Second day): Re Ralph Lindsey and the Direct London
and Portsmouth Railway Company—Cooling v Great
Northern Railway Company—Doe dem. Warren,
v Young and another—Re Sunderland Dock Com-
pany—Witmer v Lewis and another—Re John
Oldtield—Re John Lloyd—Re Charles Richard-
son—Ashley v Brown—The Queen v Recorder
of Liverpool—The Queen v Copper Miners' Company—
The Queen v the:Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
Railway Company—The Queen v Norfolk Railway
Company. (Fourth day): Re 11. W. Hall—Owen v
0 wen—Daniels v Ellaby, stands for arrangement.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS .—Remanet Paper: Water.
fall v Chappell—Moss and another v Smith and another
—The Queen v the Sheriff of Leicester in Arden • Bing-
ham—Hamilton v Cochran—Hudspeth v Yarnold—The
Electric Telegraph Company • Brett and another—
Chubb v Marshall—Canaan and another v Hartley—
Laycock v Pickslay—Fothergill, jun. v Todd—Somer-
ville v Hawkins—Jones and another v Broadhurst—
Newton v Chaplin—Mayor, &c., of London v Parkinson
and others—Hilcoat v Archbishops of Canterbury and
York—Callender • Howard—Wetherell v Julius and
others—On the behalf of the Lord Bishop of Exeter—
Mavity v Beveridge and another—Elves v Crofts—Same
v Same—Doe and Prior and others • Ongley. Demurrer
Paper—Special Arguments for Wednesday, May 29:
Robinson v the Magistrates of Bristol and others —Kepp
and another • Wiggett and others—Bank of Austra-
lasia v Harding—Sharland v Leifchild—Dean, &c., of
Christ Church, Oxford v Hill—R. Sham v Eastern
Union Railway Company—S. Shaen • Same—Temple v
Sleigh—Yates v Hill—Bulligieg v Booker and others—
Ackroyd • Smith and another—Watson and another v
Eastern Counties Railway Company—Phelps v Pro-
thero—Kingsford • Dutton—Serrell v Derbyshire and
Staffordshire Railway Company—Lord Portman v Flood
—Williams and another v Gray and another. Friday,
May 31—Special Argument: Williams and another v
Nonnansell aad another. Wednesday, June s—Special
Arguments. Friday, June 7—Special Arguments.
Crown Paper: Regina • Caledonian Railway Company
—Regina v Midland Railway Company—Regina v Ed-
mund Godfrey and others—Regina v Same—Regina r
Inhabitants of St. Marylebone—Regina • Clerk of the
PE ace for West Riding—Regina v Tithe Commissioners
for England and Wales—Regina v William Owen—Re-
gina r Dean and Chapter of Chester—Regina • Com-
missioners for Improving High and Low Harrogate—
Regina v Birmingham &c., Junction Railway Company
—Regina v Guardians of Teesdale Union, &c.—Regina
v Betts and another—Regina • Commissioners of Sewers
—Regina • John Williams and another—Regina v Inha-
bitants of County of Brecon.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFF'S COURT, May 16.
CRIM. CON.-COLES I. MARSHALL.

This was an action for criminal conversation. In
this case judgment went by default, and the question
was the damages to be awarded.
Mr. Parry was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant
Allen for the defendant.

It appeared that the plaintiff, a very young man,
was married to his wife, who was about 20 years old,
in 1848. Ile was a carter in the employ of Mr.
Lanham, a wholesale provision-merchant in the
Borough, to whom the defendant, who was more
than 40 years old, was foreman, at 51. a week. The
plaintiff's wife, who was the daughter of a laun-
dress, kept a cigar-shop, and was visited by the
defendant. The plaintiff had his suspicions excited,
and refused to live with his wife, on which she ap-
plied to a magistrate, and he denied his liability to
support her on the ground of adultery. The evidence
to affect the defendant was not considered conclusive,
and the result was that the plaintiff was discharged
from his situation at Mr. Lanham's. Subsequentl=y
to the hearing before the magistrate, the plaintiff a
wife and the defendant were traced to a coffee-shop in
Newington-causeway, where a bed had been taken for
the night, and there the officer who had watched them
found them in bed.

Mr. Sergeant ALLEN made an energetic speech for
the defendant. He endeavoured to show that the
plaintiff had exposed his wife, and that a plan had
been laid to entrap the defendant.
The Learned UNDER-SHERIFF said the jury would
consider whether the evidence warranted the course
pursued by the Learned Counsel in his :eloquent
speech, because if it did not they would consider
whether the injury already inflicted on the plaintiff,
a young man, by a person twice as old as himself,
had not been aggravated—whether it was not a reason
to increase rather than to diminish the damages to be
awarded.

The jury, after a short consultation, assessed the
damages at 2001.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, May 16.
Before Mr. Commissioner EvaNs there was a certi-
ficate meeting in the matter of Joseph Wilbraham, a
builder in Whitechapel. Mr Lawrence supported,
and Mr. Duncan opposed. The certificate was sus-
pended for six months, on the ground of imperfect
book-keeping.
Before Mr. Commissioner GouLnunN, General
Roumigny, who had been aide-de-camp to Louis
Philippe, was adjudicated a bankrupt.

slightest deviation from his testimony in chief was
eacittd.

Police-constable Causton, 38 G, corroborated the
evidence of his brother constable, and said that when
he came up at the time of the alarm he found the
prisoner on the top of the prosecutor.
Witnesses were called for the defence, who stated
that the prisoner was a very harmless and inoffensive
man, but was given to frequent habits of intem-
perance.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The Learned Counsel for the prisoner said that he
had already suffered severely from the broken limb,
and hoped that would weigh with his Lordship in
passing sentence.
The Learned JUDGE said he had no doubt the of-
fence was committed while in a state of drunkenness,
and taking into consideration the punishment he had
already undergone, instead of months he would re-
duce the penalty to six weeks' imprisonment. He
would, while in confinement, be placed in the infir-
mary, and when his term was expired he trusted that
he would pursue a more creditable course of life for
the future.

The prisoner was then removed, and the Cour
adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Mortimer Kealy was brought up in the custody of
Sergeant Mitchell, of the City police, upon charges of
having fraudulently obtained goods at the houses of
warehousemen in the City. The justice-room was
crowded with tradesmen, and the matter occupied a
great part of the day.
Mr. Clarkson for the prosecution, on the part of
Messrs. White and Co., said the evidence illustrated
an ingenious system of fraud. The following cone
tains the additional accusations against the prisoner:—
Mr. T. M'Gregor, warehouseman, of Cheapside,
and Mr. E. T. Spencer, waterproofer, of 110, Fen-
church-street, proved that the prisoner had called on
them last week, urging them to take the composition
of 10s. offered on the estate of Kealy, of Galway, and
represented himself to be the servant of David Scott
and Co., a Dublin linen-house.
Mr. John Baggally, a partner in the firm of
Spence, Baggally and Co., of Love-lane, Cheapside,
warehousemen, said—On Friday, the 10th, the pri-
soner called at our warehouse, and on Saturday he
called again, and I saw him and asked his name. He
wrote " Messrs. Kealy and Co., Galway. I asked
who composed the firm ? He gave me the names of
Mortimer, Thomas, and Michael, and he wrote a re-
ference to Welsh and Margetson, of Cheapside. He
looked out gloves, silks, and other goods, to the
amount of, I believe 801. As I was returning I
met him corning out of our warehouse. He told me
that he and his brother had a balance of 2,000/. I
told him that a firm similar in name to his own had
been bankrupt or insolvent lately. He said it was a
relation of his, and afterwards that it was his sister
Margaret. Ile again said that his firm had a balance
of 2,0001., and then he said he would pay for the
goods.
_

- Mr. Goddard, the solicitor to the London Mer-
chants' and Traders' Association, produced a note in
the prisoner's handwriting, of which the following is
a copy, addressed to creditors of the estate :
" Galway, Feb. 16, 1850
" Messrs. Dent, Allcroft, and Co.
" Gentlemen,—lt is impossible, from the state of our
affairs now, that you can get paid in full. There is an
execution in for 8631. at the suit of Margaret Kealy, and
a second execution at the suit of a Manchester creditor,
and unless all the creditors agree to the composition a
sale must take place, and we shall not have another op-
portunity of asking you.—Your respectfully,
" M. KELLY and Co.

" Tho terms are los., at three, six, and nine months,
secured by Margaret Kealy. If all agree, you can have
your composition in ono note.
Inspector Mitchell said, I fetched the prisoner's
trunk from Anderton's Hotel, in Fleet-street, at his
request, to the Bow-lane station-house, and it was
opened with a key which was found upon him. This
paper was found in the trunk with others. Here the
witness produced a letter purporting to be written to
the prisoner by his brother, and dated Galway, April
28, 1850. The following are quotations :
" We received your letters to-day. However it is
useless fur me to say any more 3n this unfortunate sub-
ject; but you put your foot in it the day you had any-
thing to do with this nice association. That vagabond
Hunt is a limb of the devil. Now you might very well
give a guess to these houses that are members of the as-
sociation. Without referring them at all you might
sound them with half cash, and then you would know if
they heard anything about you. If they did they would
refuse even half cash. As to whether it would be ad-
visable for you to go near M‘Gregor, or the other par-
ties who are holding out, I cannot say; or would you
send some to me from you. At all events, the matter
must be settled with them. The fellows might be impu-
dent to you if you let yourself be known to them. I
think it is better not."

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 16.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.

Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition azainst the
Bilt authorising a marriage with a deceased wife's sister.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a peti-
tion from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Council of
Dublin against the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy of
Ireland.

DEPARTURE OF THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.
Lord BROUGHAM drew the attention of the
House to the sudden departure of the French
Ambassador from this country on her Majesty's birth-
day. That Ambassador had left this country,
as he understood, and he regretted his departure, be-
cause he considered it of the utmost importance that the
greatest cordiality should subsist between this country
and France, more especially as France was at present
almost the only country of Europe with which we had
of late been enabled to entertain cordial relations.

The Marquis of LANSDO WNE regretted the sudden
departure of the French Ambassador, but he could as-
sure his Noble and Learned Friend that it was not of
that great importance which he supposed attache-I to it.
The departure of the French Ambassador was owing
solely to circumstances which rendered his presence
in the French capital necessary. It was the desire
of the French Government that that most excellent
person should proceed to the French capital, because it
was thought that his presence there for a short time
would be more useful than could be his presence here.
In his opinion, the presence of that excellent gentleman
in Paris would be more useful to the connexion between
the two countries than it could be for the present here.
Lord BROUGHAM had expected that answer, and he
only wished that as good en explanation could have been
given of the absence of the Russian Ambassador.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished to know
whether any notice bad been given to Russia of the in-
tended resumption of hostilities against Greece, because
it was monstrous that ono of the protecting powers
should undertake hostilities without giving notice to the
others.

The Marquis of LA.NSDOWNE said that the papers
about to be laid on the table would give full explana-
tions on the subject.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL IMPROVEMENT

BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
DISTRESSED ADVANCES AND REPAYMENTS
(IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the third
readinc, of this Bill.

After a short conversation the motion was agreed to,
and the Bill was passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF CO3IIIIONS, May 16.
The SPEAKER, took the Chair at Five Minutes before
Four o' clock.
CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The Lords' amendments on the Buckinghamshire
Railway Bill were considered and agreed to, with some
verbal amendments.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and
passed :
Peterborough Improvement, Police, and Cemetery, &e.
Waterford and Kilkenny Railway.
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED BILLS.
The following Bills, as amended, wcre considered:—
Chester and Holyhead Railway.
Pontypool Gas Light and Coke Company.
SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.
Oa the motion that the report on tbis Bill, as
amended, should be agreed to,
Mr. H. BROWN moved that the consideration of the
report should be adjourned to the 4th of June.
Mr. W. PATTEN opposed the amendment.
Captain BERKELEY supported the amendment.
Lord SEYMOUR thought it would be desirable to
postpone the further consideration of the report till after
the Whitsun holidays.
After some further discussion the consideration of the
report was postponed till to•morrow.
REPORTS.

The reports on the following Bills, as amended, were
considered and agreed to :
South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole Railway
(Amendment of Acts, Deviation at Doncaster, &c.)
South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole Railway
(Amendment of Acts, Deviation to Woraborough, &c.)
SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were read a second time and
ordered to be committed :
Clerkenwell Improvement (Amendment of Acts and
Transfer of Powers).
Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monklands Junction Railway and
Glasgow College Lands.
TYNE NAVIGATION BILL.

William Henry Thompson book-keeper to Messrs.
Welsh and Margetson said—l know the prisoner. I
saw him frequently at our house within the last ten
days. I heard him make a statement, which I took
down in writing.

" May 7, 1850.
" Mr. Kealy states that, at their stock-taking in
January last, their balance was upwards of 2,0004,
having been in business five years, and cleared about
2001. per annum over and above their expenses."
The prisoner had purchased goods evidently for the
purpose of making us a house of reference. Three or
four houses came to us in consequence of the prisoner's
references.
Cross-examined—We had dealings with the pri-
soner in 1849, to the amount of about 201., which was
paid. We have dealt with him since, for the amount
of which an acceptance will be due in July.
In the course of examination several objections
were taken by Mr. Ribton, counsel for the prisoner.
Mr. Alderman GIBBS, after a long investigation,
said he had made up his mind to commit the prisoner
upon the charge preferred by Messrs. Spence and Bag-
gaily. With respect to the accusation made by
Messrs. White and Son, he considered that there was
a point or two to be added to the evidence to render
it complete. He therefore should leave it to that firm
to use their discretion as to the prosecution of that
charge at the Central Criminal Court.
The depositions in the case iu which the prisoner
was charged with having endeavoured to obtain goods
from Spence, Baggally, and Co., in the amount of
80/. by means of false pretences, were then ordered
to be made out ; and the prisoner, who said he should
leave the defence to his counsel, was
ordered to be
committed for trial.

Sir J. Y. BULLER brought up the report on this Bill.
MERCANTILE MARINE BILL—SHIPOWNER'S
PETITION.

Mr. ANDERSON presented a petition, to which as
being one of more than ordinary importance, he begged
the attention of the House. It was a petition from ship-
owners, ship-masters, and others assembled at a public
meeting in London on the 17th April last, and was
signed " Joseph Hume, chairman of the meeting." In
consequence of misapprehensions which he understood
existed as to the character of the meeting, he was able
to state from personal knowledge, having been pre-
sent at it, that it was more numerously and respect-
ably attended than any of a similar kind which
he had ever seen in London. It was attended by a
considerable number of Members of the House repre-
senting the principal sea-ports; by delegates from asso-
ciations of shipowners at most of the great sea-ports;
by directors or representatives of the steam shipping
interest; by many of the most extensive shipowners of
the kingdom, and by a great number of masters, mates,
and other officers of the merchant service; although
the parties composing it held very opposite
opinions relative to the navigation-laws, the
resolution upon which this petition was founded
were carried unanimously. The petition stated
" that from the assurances given by her Majesty's Go-
vernment, more especially during the discussion in Par-
liament on the repeal of the navigation-laws, the ship-
ping interest of the United Kingdom confidently relied
on the speedy removal of the many harassing impedi-
ments and disqualifying burdens to which shipowners
are exposed from the operation of existing laws and re-
gulations affecting maritime commerce; that it is with
extreme disappointment your petitioners have viewed
the introduction into your Honourable House of
the Mercantile Marine Bill, which, so far from extending
relief to the shipping interest, is calculated to increase
its burdens and embarrassment, and further to disqua-
lify the shipowner for the maintenance of that competi-
tion with the shipping of all foreign nations, which he is
now called on to sustain, while many of its provisions
are opposed to all sound principles, and are ill adapted
to improve the character and condition of the British
seamen—an object which your petitioners cordially and
anxiously desire to promote; that in the present unsa-
tisfactory, confused, and deective state of our mari-
time law, it is of the highest importance that a
comprehensive and impartial inquiry should be
forthwith instituted into the various legislative enact •
ments and regulations now in force affecting British
shipping, with a view to their consolidation and simplifi-
cation as far as practicable, and to the establishment of
a system adapted to the present times, and to the pre-
sent position of the navigation of the empire." The peti-
tioners, therefore, pray that the Bill may be postponed,
and that the House would take itnmeliste measures
for the institution of a comprehensive and efficient in-
quiry by a competent tribunal into the several questions.
PETITIONS.
Mr. HARRIS presented a petition from Leicester in
favour of the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS presented a petition from Bed-
ford against Sunday labour in the Post-office.
Mr. FORBES MACKENZIE presented a petition
from Peebles against the Marriage Bill.
Colonel MUIR presented petitions against Sunday
labour in the Post-office.
Lord CHARLES MANNERS presented a petition
from Leicester against the Marriage Bill; also a peti-
tion in favour of international arbitration.
Mr. GREENE presented petitions from different parts
of Lancashire against Sunday labour in the Post-office.
Mr. ELLIS presented a position from Leicester agains
the Marriage Bill.

Mr. GIB'SON CRAIG presented a petition from
Edinburgh, signed by 6,000 persons, in favour of the
Marriage Bill.
Mr. FAGAN presented a petition from Limerick
against Sunday labour in the Post-office.
Mr. J. B. SMITH presented petitions from Inver-
keithing, and other places, in favour of the Merriage Bill.
Mr. F. SCOTT presented petitions from Langholm,
Berwick, and the Presbytery of Dunse against th© Mar-
riage Bill.

Mr. OS WALD presented petitions from the Presbytery
of Ayr and places in Ayrshire to the same effect.
Mr. EWART presented a similar petition from Dum-
fries.

Mr. REYNOLDS presented petitions from spirit-
dealers in county Down and Sligo praying for a draw-
back of the duty on spirits in bond.
Mr. WALTER presented petitions from Nottingham
and the Nottingham Union against the Parochial Assess-
ments Bill ; also a petition from Nottingham against
the Savings-banks Bill.
Mr. G. SANDARS presented a petition from Wake-
field against the Burgess List Bill.
Mr. HENLEY presented petitions from Independents
and Wesleyans in Oxfordshire in favour of an ocean
penny postage.
Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from• St. Michael,
Wood-street, in favour of the Interment Bill ; also a
petition from the managers and trustees of the savings-
bank at Bridgenorth against some provisions in the
Savings-banks Bill.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from a place
in Dorsetshire against the Marriage Bill, also a petition
against church-rates. _ _

Mr. SMOLLETT presented a petition from a place in
Dumbartonshire against any alteration in the present
parochial system a education in Scotland.
Mr. CONOLLY presented several petitions against
Sunday labour in the Post-office.
Mr. I'. WOOD presented a petition from Oxford
against the Bill for revising the burgess lists.
Lord R. GROSVENOJ presented several petitions
from the metropolis in favour of the Government Bill

for extramural Interments.
Mr. 13. OSBORNE presented a petition from Brent-
ford in favour of an independent college of medicine.
Mr. W. MILES presented a petition from a place in
Somersetshiro, against the increase of bear-shops.
Mr. NE WDEG ATE presented a petition in favour of
international arbitration; also a petition against Sunday
lab ur in tho Post-office.

lIILDYARD presented a similar petition from a
place in Nottinghamshire.

SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 17, 1850.

Mr. A. ITASTIE rreqentrd a poition from Glas7ow
t.;,0
Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh,
and one from Glasgow, against,the Marriage Bill.
EMPLOYMENT OF PAUPERS.

Mr. P. SCROPE gave notice that on an early day he
should move that all persons maintained at the public
expense should be employed on some remunerative em-
ployment with a v:e at to the saving of their maintenance,
and their striving in some means for their self-support.
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. B. OSBORNE gave notice that on the
Secretary of the Treasury moving for a vote of money
for the Houses of Parliament, he should move that the
vote be refused, and if be succeeded on that motion he
should call the attention of the House to the fact that
the original estimate i❑ 1837 was 770,1041, and that the
amount incurred at present was stated at 2,045,9231.;
that the estimate was stated not to have received the
assent of the Commission. He should move a resolu-
tion that the House had no efficient control
over the architect, and that the expenditure
was lavish and injudicious; also that the Commissioners
be directed immediately to furnish an estimate of the
expense to be incurred; and that they be directed
to suspend all works of decoration and the fine arts.
Mr. HUME said he had also intended to propose a
similar 'motion to that of the Hon. Gentleman.
UNITED BENEFICES.

Mr. FREWEN moved for a return of all the bene-
fices, rectories, or vicarages which have been united
under the Act 1 and 2 Vic., c. 106, stating the names ot
the united benefices, with the names of the incumbent or
incumbents, the amount of the population, and the yearly
value of each, and the distance that the churches ot each
of the united benefices are from each other, with the
county and dioce.e in which each is situated.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE ON THE
DERBY DAY.

The lioN. MDMBEIt .Iso moved, that the House
do meet at twelve clock at DOOR on Tuesday, the
28th instant, and not continue to sit after six
o'clock in the evening ; and that orders of the day
have precedence of notices of motions on that day,
without` giving priority to Bills introduced by the Go-
vernment. That the House do meet at a quarter before
five in the afternoon on Wednesday the 29th instant,
and that if forty Members are not present before five
o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House ; and that
notices of motions which stand in the Order Book for
Tuesday, the 28th, shall have precedence of orders of the
day on Wednesday, the 29th instant.
There being no seconder of the motion, it fell to the
ground.
PRECEDENCE OF ORDERS OF THE DAY.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN moved that on Thursday,
the 13th day of June, orders of the day have precedence
of notices of motions, without priority to Government
orders.
Agreed to.