The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-12 00:00:00

respect of freehold land of the qnnual value of 51, and
was in pmsession of the estate. The property was
mortgaged to secure the repayment of 1001. lent
to the respondent, but the mortgage dial nor
extend to the payment of iiite.est on the loge. Ihe
mortgage recited that the loan had been obtained some
time previously, but that all interest on the turn tied been
paid up to the date of the deed. It was contended that
the land was not of the yearly value of 40s. clear of nil
charges and after payment of interest on t'.e loan. The
respondent, on the other hand, contended that the in-
terest was not chargeable on the estate, which
had only teen mortgaged as security for the
principal, and that be had sufficient int,,rest in
it to entitle him to a vote. The R-vi,ier..; Barrister held
that there was no charge on the land operating in abo-
lition of the annual value to the respondent, so as to
affect his right to be regi:tered, arid as the mortgagee
had not taken possession of the estate, he was entitled to
have his name on the register. Against that decision
the present appeal was instituted.
Mr. CORNER contended, en behalf of the appellant,
that the decision of the Revising Barrister ought to le»
reversed, and referred to the cute of Coreland v. Bart-
lett in support of his preposition. The opinion of the
Court in that case was that a member of a building so-
ciety, who purchased a garden and cottage, and mort-
gaged them to the society as security for the pay-
ment of the principal advanced to him and interest,
was not entitled to a vote, though he had possession of
the property. and had never failed to pay his regular
instalments during the time he had been in occupation.
The circumstances in that appeal were almost entirely
similar to those in the present case. with the exception
that the mortgage did not extend to the pay meat of
interest.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES submitted that the decision of the
Revising Barrister was quite correct.
The COURT was of opinion that the respondent bad
not a freehold estate worth 403. a year clear of all de-
ductions and charges, and consequently that his name
ought to be expunged from the register.
The Revising Barrister's decision was therefore re-
versed.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
The grand jury fur the term were sworn in and ad-
dressed by the Learned JUDGE this morning. His
Lordship told them that it was customary to swear in
two grand juries every term, but at present be was not
aware of there being anything at all for them to do, tar r
was it likely that there would be, as it was usual to pre-
fer common indictments in the Central Crimital Court,
and only cases of misdemeanour for keeping disorderly
houses, perjury, assaults, end conspira-y, were brought
into this court. Up to that hour, however, note had
been preferred, nor was it likely that any would be, at
least he hoped not, and their duties would therefore be
merely of a formal character.
The grand jury then retired.
HILL V. PARTRIDGE.

Mr. DOWDESWELL moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the peremptory undertaking to procfed to
trial should not he enlarged. The Learned Gentleman
moved on an affidavit declaring the faot that he was
unable to find a material witness, whose evidence was
indispensably necessary for establishing his eaim. The
name of the witness was John Thomas. He .was a
miner, working in the Oak Farm Mines, near Dudley,
but the plaintiff was ignorant of his nick name, by which
he was known amongst his own fraternity. Miners,
the affidavits stated, were only known to each other by
these sobriquets, and until the plaintiff discovered John
Thomas's fictitious cognomen it would be impossible to
find him out.—Application granted.

-BANKRUPTCY,-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvAas.)
IN RE CAPTAIN WARNER.
In this case bail was tendered on behalf cf Captain
Warner, and Mr. Donaldson, of FinstAary, was accepted
in the sum of 5001, and Mr. Bliss, accountant cf Moor-
gate•street, was appointed by the Commissioner to make
up the accounts.
The other cases were audit and dividend meetings
pro forma.

BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
J. Leonard and W. Daniels (young men) were charged
before Mr. Jardine, with cheating with a false instru-
ment of gaming (capped coin), and also with hocussing
and robbery.
It appeared that last night the prisoners were together
drinking in the Shades, at C) ring-cross, and com-
menced tossing. They continued to toss, and persuaded
a man present, named Wilsey, a gentleman's servant, to
join in the gambling. From small sums the stakes ran
up to 51., and ultimately the servant was induced tostake
his watch. Ho lost, but the waiter of the Shades hap-
pening to come in, and observe for the first time some-
thing of what was going on, went for a policeman and
gave them into custody, the capped coin with which they
had been tossing being secured. Upon searching them
another watch was found upon them.
Another charge Of a more serious nature was brought
against them by a young man named William Gould,
who stated that he accidentally fell into company with
the prisoners in the Strand, and accompanied them to a
public-house near Whitehall, called the ,Duke of Wel-
lington. There the two prisoners commenced tossing,
first for drink, and then for shillings. On one of the
prisoners going out of the room, the other showed
Gould the capped piece, which was so contrived as to
enable the person using it to turn " heads" or " tails"
at will, according to the call of his opponent; and this
prisoner advised the witness to join him against his ab-
sent companion, to. win his watch and money from him.
Fur this purpose, Gould was to stake his watch against
Leonard's, and he accordingly pulled out his watch,
but on reflection put it back again.
In reply to Mr. JARDINE, Gould said that
he had seen the false piece before he pulled
out his watch, but ho finally refused to have
anything to do with them. From that place
they went, in company with a fourth person, into Spring-
gardens, and there the prisoners again began to toss in
an open place near the park. Here witness sank on the
ground insensible, and, upon coming to his senses, dis-
covered that the prisoners and his.watch were gone. One
of the watches found on the prisoner was his. He had
no doubt they had drugged his drink at the public-house.
The police-officers found upon the prisoners an I 0 U,
which Gould acknowledged he had signed in the name
of " Thomas Jones," for 51., and the prisoners alleged
that the watch was given them in discharge of it.
The MAGISTRATE remanded the prisoners till Tues-
day next.