The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-17 00:00:00

2

Ist December for Coquimbo, ri tlrned to harbour this
ear le du, a id mu t discharge t' lop lir.
SHIELDS, JAN. 6.—The P, a-1, of Shere'mra, which
was capsized and towA to th,s ground at Whitehill
Point, 14th January, was righted ye Ete-ear. Some of
her spars are broken, but no apparetit damge to
herself,

STAITTIES, JAN. 14.—The Admiral Collingwool,
Lynn to Hartlepool, sprang a halt January 14 off Fla..: -
borough H, al, and came ashore at Lisinei2ty in a sink-
ing Atutr, with six f et wa!er in hssr hold.

MARKET NEWS.—(Ti-1/8 1-M- .l
2MIXTGILT7IS . AND MEAZENEIALL.
The supplies of Meat on sale to-day, were extensive.
Generally speaking, the demand ruled hi ar. , on the
following terms:—Peef, from 2s 61 to 3s 6d; Mutton,/
2,10 d to 3s 10d; Veal, 3s 4d to 4s ; and Pork,
23 101 to 4s 2d ptr Blbs., by the carcase.

SAT ncekaimrs.
SMITHFIELD.—Meadow Hay, 21 10s to 3/. 10s; Glover
ditto, 8! 51 to 41 105 ; and Straw, 11 2s to I/ Eis per
load. A moderate supply, and a dull trade.
CUMISERLAND.—Meadow Hay, 2112 s to 3112 i; Clover
ditto, 3/ 5s to 41 8s ; and Straw, 11 3s to 1/ 9s per
eld• Trade dull, at the aboie quotations.
WRITECHAPEL. Meadow Hay, 21 10s to 31 10-5 ;
Clover ditto, 31 Os to 41105; and Straw, 1/ 2s to 1/ 81 per
load. Supply derably good, and trade dull.

DIZAT MAIZIEETS.
SOTT
-TRALL, JAN. 16.—Our market was but moderately
supplied With each kind of fat stuck. On the whole, a
moderate business was transacted, at about last week's
transactions,—Beef, from 3s to 4s 2,1; Mutton, 3s 4d to
41 4; Veal, 3s to 3s 8d; and Pork, 3s 4d to 3s 8d per
81bs, to sink the offal.
ItoltroßD, JAN. 16.—Prime Beasts and Sheep com-
ljlandel a steady sale, at fully lzst week's quota-
In other kinds of -stock very little was doing.
f. from 3s 4d to 4s 2d Mutton,•3s 4.1 to 45 4d; Veal,
3s
ad to 3s 8d; and Pork, 3s 2d to 3s 10d per 811 w.
illekling Calves, 18s to 255; Quarter-old Store Pigs,
"to 21s• and Miloh Cows, with their small Calf, 141
18/ each.
'
ILQUIRAN, JAN. 16.—Our market was somewhat in-
tg_tive to-da, nevertheless prices were fairly supported.
seer from 3s cd to 4s 4d; Mutton, 3s 8d to 4s 41; Veal,
in 4d to 3s 8d; and Pork, 3s 4d to 3s 8,1 per 81bs.
4/turinicr., JAN 15.—The general demand was in a
tae. 17 sluggish stwe, yet the quotations were well mein-
tit& Beef from 3. 2d to 4s 4d; Mutton 3s 4d to
‘ut Veal, 3s 2d to 3s 8d; and Pork, 3s 2d to 3s 6d
L'" albs.
CriT-4
It 11ESTER. JAN. 16.—Prime stock moved off
4 144 3, at full prices. Otherwise the trade ruled dull.
ef from 3s 4d to 4s 4d; Mutton, 3s 4d to 4s 6d;
:111,; 3s 2d to 3s 6d; and Pork, 3s 4d to 3s 8d per 81bs.
0s log Calves, 20s to 245; Quarter-old Store Pigs, 16s
. each.

CORN AVERAGES.
?or tIfi,,tZERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN
.1,4, ' ',sea ended Jan. IL 1850, made up from the Returns of the
Per
Peutors in the different Cities and Towas in Eagland and Wales
Imperial Quarter.
!RICE I wass.T. I '
1 BAILEY. OATS. ITN. ILAN/. I PEAL,
'• 41. id 26s td 1 15s 6d 1 236 4d' 26s id 128 s 6d
Irk". DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.
ls od. I 'AILEY. I OATS. I 1111. I BEANS. I PEAS.
Is Od Is Od Is Od Is Od is Od
LA

AV INTELLIGENCE.

''QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS E
DAY.)
TH
T. GRAND JUNCTION CANAL V. WILLIAM DIMES.
ees, aPpeared that the defendant in this case had been
ecalitted to the Queen's Bench Prison by the ancellor for contempt for disobeying an injunction ob-
tain
..7 1;6 ao far back as 1839. A few days ago Sir Fre-
Thesiger applied on behalf of the defendant, to
'P.9 Permitted time to file affidavits setting forth the
onds of his detention. The right of the defendant to
°it' Came on this morning fur discussion.
The ATToRNEY-GENERAL, with whom was Sir F.
It
rY. objected, on the part of the Crown, te the filing
pt affidavits by this def,ndant unless informed f their
has "0 nature. The course sought by the defendant
ltogether unprecedented.
Sir p Tim
do. • sIGER said
the principal object of the affi-
thetista was to show that the Lord Chancellor, who was
"ead of the Court of Chancery, was interested in the
rtlletter ; n e, --Y.ng a pecuniary interest in the Grand June-
-4°,- `-'l' cal, that he had, therefore, no jurisdiction,
1.19P0u e that the defendant should therefore be set at liberty.
this point he cited authorities which bore out his
Of the case. The Court, he held, had a right to
.▪
I°ll' the affidavits to be made, though they might be
i,,ected to when brought before the Court. That would
71-1 the proper time ; but surely there could be no doubt
of the
the defendant had a right to impeach the decision
(1- 10 Court of. Chancery. The subject had a general
tight,
gtie ,When the custody of the Governor of the
~,ea s Bench, to corre be f pre the Court with affidavits.
• "as impossible that an interested party could be a
3tto.l.ge.
..410 ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to this line of
argument. It had been the invariab!e practice cf Courts
refuse to allow affidavits to be made where they called
•
1411 question the jurisdiction of other Courts. If it was
ought well to arraign the jurisciction of the Court
s
Chancery, it might be done by plea, by an applica-
II
heel for time, or to take the bill off the file. The de-
„chat should have gone to the Court of Chancery,
pril whom the matter rested. This Court had no
e..tollt to review the proceedings of another and a higher
hs ult. If acceded te, the precedent thus created would
ica most danger, us or e. It would I'ave the effect of
Itillstituting another Court, and this Court might be
tie upon on some future occasion to review the de-
Zrs of the House of Lords.
to • Justice PATTEGoN raid the Court was of opinion
by th",,effidavits could be filed. The order was made
Sire pv iote•Chancellor, and not by the Lord Chancellor.
estb; ec• TResioen said the initials of the Lord Chan-
hit -4,-0. C." aepeared on the comer; it was therefore
lr•
sir Justice PATTESON said the order was signed by
tlioes,"hclor clot Shaer ell, Vicc-Ohancellor of England,
ieitjaira might be the. cu,tom of the Court t) place the
kr, r the Lerd Chancellor at the corner.
Tb,s.' Justice ERLE raid if the a-gument cf Sir
bF
tateelgoer " ai held good, it might be contended that (-
la usenet of the judges of the Court f Chancery bad
te.-'eet in some suit, that a erson might not apply
11,1t"lis or any one of the Chancery Court'.
The • TILESIGER was heard in reply.
the,l,,ourer repeated its former opinion, in which all
e'f'les agreed, that this Court could not constitute
foes n'rat° a Court of Review, and deal with the deci-
rotly 4,higher Court. The imprisonment was per-
Nri„,l4 Y
1, and they had no power to liberate the de-
The affidavits could not be filed This opinion
ferred to the question of filing affidavits. He
oaths 44 know whether there was ale thing on the face
dstiuratun• rn upon which they could exercise a ju-
rF
Of the TYIESIGER thought, after the opinion
doing w`'o4llt, tl at he was virtually precluded from
Dime; Was then removed in cm 04.
ttA
"'tie COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
fi
'tet (Before Mr. Justice ‘VicietTetAN.)
irxtt OF, BRUNSWICK V. BARNARD GREGORY.
19a th "NIKEIt me% ed the Coot t for a rule nisi, callirg
Per o defendant to show cause why the judgment
Court
.I.lcti the record in this care should not be amended.
‘;,,etipt",,llBan indictment found at the Central Criminal
4ati •laroat Barnard Gregory, the late editor of the
'brd4lll newspaper for a libel he had published on the
!iettee°„l„l3rnswick. The defendant removed the in-
mtilti, v— alto this court, and. after he had pleedel not
(Dortthe obt •
cartel permission to retract
.the plea, and
ntenced him to six mo tt ' imprisonment.
.steretect u en leo? the custody of the espstaff
.but hew as
Irere Pao his utting in Lail and preferring a writ
against the record and the sentence. When
, ertse
411 the before the Exchequer Chamber it
oiet.rn-reen't at there
ed bwebreeireleven counts in the
, it was.
su 'raised as to the validity
• 441 Of them
submitted on the behalf of the
t.paa tnt thet the sentence, which it was contended
ha Error, bo geceral one d f no avail. The Court
___ was bad
Itsao.it nmenneuevi r, sent the recordt back to this court to
diet intended,
but terided,
not as as it was quite
oneecl ear that the sentence
a general upon the whole in-
- as
f 'x j a months upon every 9enteence o 61
oncurrent. ud whole of then six months to e c
tee es grnent
Piper having been accordingly amended,
4lba:eel .114ain esune WT.. the Court f Error, when it e_..„,,
d• e•the Provision'had been added to the sentence
ttl!teo defendantuf,, was to he imprisoned. with the first
tjoeh pri Lae fourth-class prisoners in. the Queen's.
dirtnlie.inte9ncTi,,,tind the Court, still entertaining doubts as
fir, it t and meaning of the sentence,. further
J- 9 be sent back for the revision of this Court.
th 9 T•-atell,eBtSte,e WIGHTMAN—Am understand that
et In wh. nes been drawn up in terms different from
•"kr. Ich it was pronounced by the Court?
fir.ertNtanu said that was se.
eutiti to th WIGHTMAN—Have you an affidavit de-
at f ?
act
eedla "IxEß—The affidavit sets out the whole pro-
,' kr el.-
-48 v.
,oat "11 WIGHTMAN—WeII, then, it ought not to
O
•
„ for if I understand the case the Court of Error
"ta acrth9:4lodoubt as to whethe; the sentence was
counts or a general sentence.
t • jatliee "—Yacitores'
41. sittteto WianT—And your application now
tlecl " tue sentence, the judgment having en-
eed contrary to the words in which it wasbeen pro-
eaticeiElt •
see
Nat
IGHTMAN—WeII, does your affidavit
ele fent?
at' • ti
143 t 141411 T •
t,et4,3, for he affidavit states that the original
Vle„,‘ eeth lue prosecution is dead, but the managing
e of
who Present attorney states that which he recoi-
l:lol'4 the Pp took place on the trial. In the Court of
4041)14r i'oelenetant objected that the Court below had.
• bsded with make the order relative to his bring impri-
h out. the fourth class. The Court, he contended,
• 9(1 b tic'wer to make euch an order when the prisoner
Jed be r;
Rale/1r 'cu Here he never was tried, but confessed
•
NOtit:'llBtice Tr.
1,18 ppm., T,IGHTMAN--And, therefore, the judg-
QM, when'
s 2 I have no power to alter a sentence.
to htror the decendant or a prisoner preferred a writ
tends
prosecutor
might come back to this Court
,;11°..tsprtel
.eonrtence amended. Suppose a party were
Courtr 41141
.1 ten years, when in truth the law only
efLefeven years, could you come back to this
'we:Wed? a Writ of error to have the judgment
r•
is
lIE
te
evadeot irtEn--
Clearly not, my Lord, but the order
tere_irt of the sentence, while the judgment has
eats
sorenee was in terms different to those in which the
juati Pronounced.
)44.4W1ta you7neeWdlaticALll`r—Well, where is that feet
4takikirie.:l
The tir•
raaang clerk of the prima

alqrney for the prosecution swears that the Master has
hire that the judgremer t paper has kern drawn
up in the usual Form for CaieS when the Court pises
ju:grne.ut in all 1.1-!e
Mr. Ju tice WIGIITMAN—WeII, you ma: 6.1t0 a rule
to !how cause.

R ile nisi accordingly.
HARRISON V. AUGUSTUS NEWTON.
Mr. JAMES applied to his Lordship to nave the rule
in this ess2 removed idto the toll court. It vas a rule
nis;, ta'.iing upon the defenekut, who is a mem! or of
t.l“ bar, to show cause why a discharge from execution
should not be set aside, on ate ground that it hid been
obtained by fr;;lni . Now as this was a serious imputc,
Lion on the chaT nem. f the Lc arnt'd Gentleman, and us
it must ptc.:Ando him from practising his pri f asion
until the mattr was sertied, it was desirable that the
cit,e sly.,utd be removed into the full court, where it
could he more speedily disposed
Mr. RooF.as col t a objected, on the ground, that until
now the defendaat bud appeared in person, and it was
not till yesterday that au attorney and council were
engi ttfed on the case.
Mr. Justice IVIGirrmAN saw no objection to the course
proposed, and gi stated ;he application.

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY V. THE
JUSTICES ( F LANCASHIRE.

Mr. PRASHLEI was instructed to move for a rule
nisi, eall.ng upon the justices cf Burton-upon-
Est al. to show cause why a mai:ea:ens should not
issue requiring them to hear an appi:al ( f the
London aid North-Welt ern Railway Company.
The Liverpcol and Manchester Raile ay, rt hich
formed part of the company's lines, passed through the
parish of Burton, and they were rated to the poor fur
8,935/. 155., but since the opening of rival lines th 3 pro-
fits of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway had been
greatly reduced, and the company, therefore, was cow
considerably over-rateel. They had endeavoured to ne-
gotiate a reduction of the rate, but without effect, and
at length, on their appealing to the justices in special
sessions assembled, their appeal was dismissed on the
ground chat it was too late, two special sessions having
intervened between this period and the making of the
rates. Now. although an appeal to quarter sessions
against an it firmal rate must be made within a given
time, the 6th and 7th Wu.. IV., chap. 96, which pro-
vided for apps als against over-rating, places no limita-
tion what!ver upon the time for making the appeal to
special sessions, and consequently the justices in this
instance, IDA acted erroneously in dismissing the appeal
of the company. It as as the first time this point had
been raised, and it was of great interest to the profession
that it should be decided without delay.
Mr. Justice WIGUTMAN gi anted a rule to show cause,
without pronouncing any opinion upon the point.
Rule nisi accordingly.
The Court afterwards sat at Nisi Pri'.