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

cuemoNalim.

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 sale at full prices, the former at 35s Cd to
37s for low to middling yellow, and the latter at
37s 6d to 38s Gd 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 32s ; 260 hhds,
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.

Comm.—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 Es 6d for small broken white.

SALTPETI:E.-1,252 Bengal, refraction 103/ to 2% per
cent. were withdrawn for want of buyers at 25s to 27s 6d.
TEA.— The deliveries are moderate, and prices are fairly
supported.

Uorrox.—This article is in favour still.
RUM.—There is no activity.
TALLOW.—P.Y.C. brings 36s 9d to 37s per cwt on
the spot.

QUEEN'S BENCII.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice CAMP-
BELL, and Justicca PATTESON, WIGHTMAN, and
EnLE.)

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
over till Friday next.

The Court complied with the request.
TOLLER V. ATTWOOD.

The was a case involving the construction of a will,
which had been remitted to this Court by the Vice-
Chat,cellor Knight Bruce, to take their 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 nse 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 of Caroline Eden, the eldest daughter of his
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-ore years, and
to his heirs male; but, in delimit, 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 "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 limitatior.

(The case was proceeding when our report left, the
argument being likely t 9 lust the greater part of the day.)

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON, and BAWDS 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 Mr. Justice Wightman at
Liverpool, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. The in-
vention wag a very important one, and consisted in a
noval and ingenious m.chanical arrangement, designed
for the purpose of instantly stopping the whole working
part of the loom whenever the shuttle did not complete
its regular course from one shuttle-box to another.
The case now came before 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 question of general
interest came on during the morning.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices MAULS,
WILLIAMS, and TALFOURD.)
CHUBB V. MARSHALL.
_ _ _

Mr. HUMPHRIES moved for a rule to show cause wby
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
whole case turned upon the question as to whether the
signature of the plaintiff's wife to a certain deed if com-
position obtained by the defendants was to be held as
with the plaintiff's consent or not. The Learned 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
having heard the plaintiff acknowledge the sig-
nature, and regret that he ever had signed the
deed. Under such circumstances, being taken by sur-
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, ou 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 ANOTHER V. SUNDERLAND DOCK COMPANY.
Mr. MARTIN applied to the Court for a rule calling
upon the Sunderland Dock Company to show cause wby
an award of Mr. Murray should not be set aside on
the ground of nonjurisdiction. In January, 1847, the
Messrs. Craven, contractors, contracted with the Sun-
derland Dock Company:to make them a dock for 135,0001.,
and in the contract it was stipulated that 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 their account,
amounting to 153,675/., of which 127,000/. had been pre-
viously paid, leaving a balance of 27,0001. due. There
was, however, some dispute about quantity, and the ac-
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 560/., which was claimed as damages
which another contractor had sustained through certain
obstructions of the plaintiffs, and the second 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 land which had been reclaimed
from the sea. It was contended that matters of damage
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 bad been found in the Central
Criminal Court against Messrs. Davis and Cowan, into
this court. The indictment was for a conspiracy, aris-
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 of the parties
having obtained goods through the fraudulent represen-
tations of the other.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE granted the application, di-
recting the parties to put in bail, themselves in 100/. eacb,
and two sureties in 501. each.
IN RE ---.
Mr. OGLE was instructed to move for a rule to show
cause why an officer of the court should not be struck
off the roll, on the ground that he had been guilty of a
breach of professional duty. The application was sup-
ported by the affidavit of a Mrs. Cribb, who stated that
the party against whom it was made was an attorney-at-
law. Her husband died in the month of October, 1847,
and she was advised to employ this gentleman, 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 eh« quo for 100/., to
pay the proctor's fees, which the attorney represented
would amount to about 751,, but when she
called to see if the letter had been obtained,
he told her that the stamp and fees Nei swallowed
up the whole of the 1001. some time afterwards she was
applied to by the solicitors of the parties for the sum of I

901., which thefelaimed as their costs and charges for
taking out the letters, when she discovered tor the
first time that her own attorney had applied the money to
his own purposes. At first she re' used to pay the money
over again, but an action was commenced against her,
and the result was that she had to pay the 901, besides
two sums of 9/. and 101. in legal expenses. In another
instance the attorney in question had obtained 101. from
her to pay the surgeon who attended her husband in his
illness, hut that he had also neglected to Fay, and,
although the attachment had been issued against him
for refusing to obey the order of the Court to refund
the money, she could not get a single farthing of it. She
had, therefore, determined to have recourse to the pre-
sent mode of proceeding.—Rule granted.