The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-30 00:00:00

COLONIAL.

SUGAR.—The B. P. market has been quiet. Sales, 525
hogsheads, making 1,890 for the past week, at prices in
some instances 6d lower than on the previous Friday;
850 bags Mauritius and 1,300 bags Bengal found buyers
in public s.tle at full prices, the former at 35s 6d to
37s for low to middling yellow, and the latter at
37s 6d to 38s 6d for middling white Benares, with good
grainy white at 43s 6d to 44s 6d. 970 bags Madras
sold rather easier, low to fine brown 27s to 325; 260 hhds,i
and 95 barrels Porto Rico barely supported previous rates,
low to fine yellow being sold at 35s 6d to 40s; 600 boxes low
yellow Havannah have been sold privately at 18s, and a
few of better quality at 19s to 20s, the whole for expor-
tation.

COPFZE.—There has not been a public sale, and very little
business has resulted privately.
RICE.-963 bags, imported from Bombay, sold at Bs, one
lot 8s 6d for :A-nail broken white.

SALTPETEE.-1,252 Bengal, refraction 103/4 to 23/4 per
cent. were withdrawn for want of buyers at 25s to 27s 6d.
TEA.— The deliveries are moderate, and prices are fairly
supported.
Corrox.—This article is in favour still.
RUM.—There is no activity.
TALLOW.—P.Y.C. brings 3Gs 9d to 370 per cwt on
the spot.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chb,f Justice CAMP-
BELL, and Justices PATTESON, WIGHTMAN, and
ERLE.)
THE QUEEN V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

At the sitting of the Court this morning, application
was made by Counsel in this case that the application
intended to be made for a quare impedit should stand
ovw•r till Friday next.
The Court complied with the request.
TOLLER V. ATT WOOD.

The was a case involving the construction of a will,
which had been remitted to this Court by the Vice•
Chancellor Knight Bruce, to take tbeir Lordships'
opinion on the will in question, which was that of John
Hawkins, January 22, 1806. The testator devised his
real estate to trustees in fee to the use of the heirs male
of a lady who died without issue, and there was a limita-
tion in the will, on which the present question arose, to
the use ef Caroline Eden, the eldest daughter of hi,
sister-in-law, for her sole use and benefit, independent of
any husband with whom she might intermarry. Then
come the words "after the death of Caroline Eden to
the use of the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten,
who shall live to attain the age of twenty-oee years, and
to his heirs male; but, in default, then to the use of my
niece Mary Eden."
Mr. MALINS, Of the Chancery bar, submitted, first.
that the words "who shall attain the age of twenty-one"
should be entirely disregarded, and, secondly, that the
words 4' to his heirs male" should also be considered to
have no authority. In a word, he contended that the
words in the will now under consideration were words
of purchase and not of limitation.

(The case was proceeding when our report let, the
argument being likely to last the greater part of the day.)

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CIIIEFBARON, and Barons ROLFE and

PLATT.)
SELLERS V. DICKENSON.

This action, which was to try the right of the plaintiff
to an invention for certain improvements in looms for
weaving, was tried before Dir. Justice Wiahtman at
Liverpool, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. The in-
vention was a very important one, aid consisted in a
novel and ingenious mechanical arrangement, designed
for the purpose of instantly stopping the whole working
part of the loom whenever the sbuttle did not complete
its regular course from one shut -b ,x to another.

The case now come bt fire the Court on a rule obtained
by Mr. Watson to set aside the verdict for the plaintiff
and to enter it for the defendant, or for a new trial, but
their Lordships being unable to decipher the notes of
Mr. Justice Wightman at the trial, they postponed the
hearing of the case until Friday next.
The Court then proceeded with other cases in the new
trial paper, but no case involving any questiuu of general
interest came on during the morning.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CRIES JUSTICE, Justices MAULE,
WILLIAMS, and TALFOURD.)
CRUBIt V. MARSTIALL.

Mr. HUMPHRIES moved for a rule to show cause why
a new trial should not be granted in this case upon affi-
davit. This was an action tried at Guildhall before Mr.
Justice Maule, with a verdict for the defendant, and the
e hole case turned upon the question as to whether the
signature of the plaintiff's wife to a certain deed r. f com-
position obtained by the defendants was to be held us
with the plaintiff's consent or not. The Leirned Coun-
sel, in his application, stated that in the previous trial
his whole case had been destroyed by the unexpected
production of two witnesses, who swore to
haying heard the plaintiff ecknowledge the ;If:-
nature., and regret teat he ever had eigned the
deed. Under such eircumstarecz, being taken by 3111'
prise, the verdict was of course for the defendant, but
since that time further evidence had been obtained, and
he now produced two affidavits which not only contra-
dicted the statement of the witnesses at the trial, but
gave an entirely different colouring to the alleged con-
versation. The plaintiff, too, was ready to swear to the
falsehood of that statement.
Rule granted, on condition that the plaintiff's affidavit
be filed to-morrow morning.
After all the motions were disposed of, the case of
Hilcoat v. the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop
of York, the commencement of which was reported in
our columns yesterday, was resumed. The arguments
were proceeding when our report left the court.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE,)
CRAVEN AND ♦NOTHER V. SUNDERLAND DOCK COMPANY.
Mr. MARTIN applied to the Court for a rule calling
upoti the Sunderland Dock Company to show cause why
an award of Mr. Murray should not be set aside on
the ground of nonjurisdiction. In January, 1847, the
Messrs. Craven, contractors, contratoe.l with the Sun-
derland Dock Company:to make them a dock for 135,0004,
and in the contract it was stipulated th.t any dispute as
to the quality, quantity, or manner of executing the
work should be referred to the arbitration of Mr.
Murray, the engineer. At the completion of the work,
in March last, Messrs. Craven sent in tkeir account,
amounting to 153.6754, of which 127,0001. had been pre-
viously paid, leaving a balance of 27,0001. due. There
was, however, some dispute about quantity, and the we-
.count was referred, in pursuance of the contract" to
Mr. Murray, who made certain reductions, which
were not objected to, and two of which formed
the ground of the present application. The first of
these was a sum of 5601., which was claimed as damages
which another contractor had sustained through certain
obstructions of the plaintiffs, and the stcond was an item
of 14,7681. claimed by the company as compensation
for the Messrs. Craven having placed part of the ex-
cavations landward instead of seaward of the docks,
which was built upon lad which had been reclaimed
from the sea. It was contended that matters of c'atnage
containing such items as these did not come within. the
province of the arbitrator, and hence the present appli-
cation.—Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. COWAN AND DAVIS.
Sir F. THESIGER applied for a certiorari to remove an
indictment, which had been found in the Central
Criqual Court against Messrs. Davis and Cowan, into
this court. The indictment was for a conspiracy,
ing out of a fraudulent preference which it was alleged
had been given by the parties to one creditor over an
other, and a transaction relative to one t f the parties
having obtained goods through the fraudulent repre►en-
tations of the other.
Alt. Justice COLERIDGE granted the application, di-
recting the parties to put in bail, themselves in 100/ Each,
and two sureties in 501. each.
IN RE
Mr. OGLE was instructed to mo,e for a rule to show
cause why an officer of the court should trot be ate tick
off the roll, on the ground that he had been guilty of a
breach of professional duty. The application was sup-
p lied by the affidavit of a Mrs. Cribb, who stated that
the party ngaiust whom it was made was au maim e.
fler husband died in the month of October, 18 ;7
sod the was advised to employ this gcn.lemati, in his
professional capacity of an attorney, to take out letters
of administration, her husband having died without a
will. She furnished him with a ch. quo fur 1001. to
pay the proctor's fees, which the attorney represent. d
would' amount to about 751.. but 7% hen shy•
called to see if the letter had been obtained,
he told her that the stamp and fees la I swallowed
up the whole of the 100/. Some time afterwards she nas
applied to by the solicitors of the parties for the sum of