The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-17 00:00:00

COLONIAL.

213

83 i)
963 k

64 p
64 p

C 4 p

83/i
17%

361/4
36 54

811,4
36%
110

976
18%
183 k
3%

40143

58 3%

SuGAR.—The market for British -Plantation has been
neglected in consequence of the large public sales, and
only about SOO hbds have found buyers, including at
auction 50 crystalised Demerara, 220 St. Lucia, and; 65
Barbadoes, all of which went off with spirit, and prices,
compared with this day week, are fully 6(1 dearer. 3,145
bags Mauritius, 8,260 bags Bengal, and 2,466 bags (:f
Penang also sold briskly, at rather higher prices, with
the exception of the lower kinds of Bengal, which went
irregularly, end in some instances 64 cheaper. The

quantity of British Plantation landed last week at the,
Eist and West India Decks was 316 hhds 30 tierces and
179 lads. There were taken for home consumption
1,155 hhds 154 tierces 394 brls. The .stools in the
sem*. pLoes is 7,128 hhds 900 tierces 1,606 brls.
COFFEE.—Thirty-one casks of Jamaica, and 160 bag&
Ceylon, sold steadily, as did also 136 b.gs
Mysore, gt 51s 6d; but 264 cases Tellicherry, and 1,830
bAgs of St. Domingo, were withdrawn above the value,
the later at 49s to 50s.

COCOA —695 bags Trinidad went at 495 to 565.
Rum r. mains in good demand, and tales to a fair ex-
tent have taken place. The quantity landed last
v.,etelt at the East and West India Docks was 303 puns
48 hhds. There were taken for home consumption 361
puns 2 hills, and exported 24 puns 137 hhds. The
stock in the same place is 14,865 puns 1,165 hhds.

lircE was dull of sale.
Spiess.-300 bags of Pimento mostly sold at rather
higher rates, from Sid to 51d per lb• 140 cases Penang
Nuunegs went from 2s 5d to 31 2d, being a reduction Of
2d to 3d prr lb on the heart- sorts; 60 cases of gal
brought 2s 3d to 2s 7d, biug high prices. 14 cases o
Penang Cloves sold from is to is 3d.
TALLOW.—P.
Y. C. is 37s to 37s 6d per cwt on the
spot, and Town 39s 6d.
TF:A.—There is no change of importance. The de-
liveries are good.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LO-RDS.
Parliament was again prorogued to-day to Tuesday,
the 4th of February, 1851.
The House of Lords met for the purpose of the
prorogation shortly after three o'clock. The Lord
Chancellor, Lord Monteagle, and Lord Eddisburf
were the Commissioners.
Their Lordships having taken their seat belovv tbe
throne, Mr. Pula-lan, the Deputy Usher of the Black
Rod, was directed to summon the Commons to hesr,
her Majesty's Commission read for the prorogation of
Parliament. Shortly afterwards Mr. Ley and several
of the officers of the Lower House appeared et the
bsr. The Commission having b_ en read et the
table by Mr. :-.haw Lefevre, the Clerk of the liousel
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in her Miiesty.
name, and by her Majesty's command, declared ,41
Parliament prorogued to Tuesday, the 4th of Februtirp.
1851, " then to assemble and be holden for the alsa
patch of divers urgent and important affairs ;"
it stood prorogued accordingly.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY"ie)a
Lord t ampbell and a Special Jury were (iccuPtb
throughout the morning, at Guildhall, in tryiDg:
cause of Dowdall v. Hallett, which was an action
bf
cover the amount of a policy of insurance granteuti;
the General Marine Assurance Company, of which the
go
defendant %as a director, on a ship belonging b"
plaintiff, which bad been loifor the plaintiff, enbie-;,,t. • ct
The jury gave a verdict ect
the opinion of the Court above on a point of law fa"
during the trial.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY%-.)„Bp
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the '—
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.) R
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY C. BUDD AND 011°-!?.. tO
In this action the Great Western Company sougl"vl/2
caul
1.9001., from the defendants, who are extensive ca'e
1 9001., for the carriage of goods by the raillettY,,. salt
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Hoggins, and Mc. I'll—yr.
appeared for the plaintiffs, and Sir F. Thesiger,
Ki stirs, and Mr. Brown for the defendants. ora'
It appeared from the evidence that in 10" coar
pany were in the habit of allowing 10 per cent. t°
tiers bringing their business to the line, but of
covering that the defendants were in the cost°Thol
enclosing several small parcels in one package, --sch
tkus depriving the company of their charge °° eapt
separate parcel, they refused to extend this arrangetato
to the defendants. Accordingly the defendants Lot
compelled to pay the full charge on each parcel, wiQt'itte
the ordinary deduction of 10 per cent. ; but in 184' oa
Court of Common Pleas decided that the company c%
not charge separately for each parcel contained
cliia
large package, and also that they were bouoo 001
carry goods tor all carriers on the same terms- 'o; to
this time the company declared their intention 0
make any allowance to carriers on the line; but it mitt
shown that they did continue the allowance to care
of
parties by special contracts. This being the 6ttseitiod
affairs, the defendants contended that they were 013"„"
to set off against the plaintiffs' demand all the In-geed
they had paid since 1841, ovt r and above those charged
to other carriers on the same quantity of go°(ls'prdafo
case occupied the Court the whole of YO5"-a;bore
and was resumed again this morning. ugh
being a vast number of items to go tz-v°oock
which would probably occupy the Court uelrtie
the period of its present sittings, the Ps:reed
on the recommendation of his Lordship, ,tet to
to a verdict being entertained for the plaintiff, ow-to
the opinion of the Court above, and to a reference '-
gentleman at the bar.

Y•)

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS P!4', 00
(Before the Lord Chief Justice JERTIB and 5 'loin
" °a
Jury.) „ea AGS.
STRANGE S. POPE.—RRBAIII Ofr PROMISE 0! v.--,11 is $0
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, rilt ;belt,
ivory merchant in Hatton-garden, against the de'ella 00'
who is the daughter of Mr. Pope, tailor, of Batt
garden, a gentleman of some wealth, to recover colorise
action in damages, for the alleged breach of a Per°dtit
given by her to marry the plaintiff. The dete,n"sieet
denied the promise, and also pleaded that sm;
time had not been allowed her to perform the pronte";
The defendant was formerly married, but has Pe-
widower eight years.
Mr. Knowles and another Learned Gentleman tisPci
peered for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant ivies 0
Mr. Lush for the defendant.lt
Mr. KNOWLES briefly stated the plaintiff's esse..,' „at
appeared that a former intimacy had existed het"-es,
the parties, which was broken off; but about Christ°,...
1849, they met again and the intimacy was,,,oit
newed, and the plaintiff continued to
constantly at the house of the defericlaef
and was treated by her family on the implied footing._°a
an accepted lover. A correspondence was also carrot°
on until the 20th of January, when the defendant Wine,
to the plaintiff expressing a desire to break off tmt
connexion between them, giving as a reason tire
she could not be happy with the plaints
since the return of an old flame, for wheel
she declared her love could never be ex till;
Saished. She at the same time paid him the complimfe,
of saying that no other circumstances could have u 2.9
turbed her affections. The plaintiff answered 1°.,1:
refusing to accept his dismissal; but a more pereniPtl
letter followed, and all communication was broke" °„
Shortly afterwards the defendant was married to anyte
ther gentleman, and the present action was brought
recover damages for the alleged breach of promise.
Several lettere, from the defendant to the plairt-of
were then read, which showed a considerable clegrcen 0
familiarity between the parties, but which contain" -
dscided promise.
Only two witnesses were called. id
George 11. Strange, the brother of the plaintiff, Via
that ho was present at a party in December, 1"-t!
at which the plaintiff and defendant were also prese'eb
They seemed to Le on very friendly terms with toe
other. They sat next to each other, and converge
'
gether during the whole night. The plaintiff and 130
Pendant had been on intimate terms in 1845, andff
thought engaged, but the connexion was broken 0 *
consequence of the refusal of Mr. Pope to saneti°l3
marriage between his daughter and the plaintiff. or
Cross-examined—Could not say from the delnetere
of the two to each other at the party, whether they
nd
engaged or not; he was a bachelor, and did not undere'-
sureh matters.—(Laughter.) at
Sarah Joyce said she was cook and housemaidwe
Mr. Pope's, when the plaintiff visited there. He lay
very often. She remembered on Chris the
that Mr. Strange was at a party there, and
evening, when the misletoe was brought le, he let and
neri
Miss Pope. Next morning she saw Mr. Strangef-the
Miss Pope standing together on the lawn in front cna
house, and Mr. Strange kissed Miss Pope there gig to
Shortly after Miss Pope came down into the kit" 1,7- be
the witness, and asked her if she did not thin' gibe
was a wicked creature, for she was eueourug 01 05
two sweethearts at once! She also said "you wolllgbee
be in my place for any money." I asked her foci
would be her cook and housemaid when she was mar
to Mr. Strange.
This was the case for the plaintiff. e for
Mr. Sergeant BYLES addressed the t121:1 as
the defence. The present action, be bate, was
brought by the plaintiff, not as a gent her
enamoured of the lady's person, but °,`„, this
fortune, part of which he strove to get hold of Puth-ivg
means. Throughout the whole case there was
which could give the slightest foundation for inie-tio•
that any promise had been made, or any engageeetnee nil-etr
p
tered into by the defendant to the plaintiff The -for
sent of Mr. Pope had not been asked, nor bad
preparation of any sort been made by
.the
tiff for a marriage. The only construction villeieed
could be put upon the matter was that Miss Pol)nnaat
suffered Mr. Strange's attentions up to a certain 1-,00,
in order to form a proper judgment of his qualificllt'tied
without entering into au engagement, and he cent° •
that this was a right which every young lady possessed
it would be a cruelty to deny it to them.
No witnesses were called for the defence.
The Lt,RD CHIEF JUSTICE told the jury that te--„ece
these cases were very unusual—there was no differ 700
in the manner of looking at the evidence in the
or •
where a woman broke a promise made to a man' -elds
man broke a promise made to a woman. There ricleh
however, be a difference in the two cases when
(";; t the
came to look at the amount of damages. An f •
preset t case there was no direct evidence era
promise medr, and it would be for them to infer rruos
the relative position and demeanour of the partiebso
shown in the evidence, whether any engagement
exit d between them.
Tte jury, alter a short deliberation, returned aver'
diet for the plaintiff, damages ore farthing.

CITY SMALL DEBTS COURT'
(THIS DAY.)
(Before R. GURNEY, Esq )
THE TALLY SYSTEM.—TrIs morning several actil
were lb ought for:very small sums by a tallyreav, nalne
Petheridge, residing in Hatton-garden. 00
in the course of the several cases it apPeare-I
•