The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-30 00:00:00

JANIJARY 3O, 1850

PItIUES OF SHARES

IN BANKS, ASSURANCE, ANT: OTHER COM-
FAMES' STOCK.
From the Official List.

PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY EVENING.

LONDON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 29.

JOINT-STOCK BANKS.

Name of Company.

Dividend
per

Amount
of
Share.

Price.

Australasia ..........
Entail:North American
Ceylon
Commercial of London
Colonial . • ....
Gloucestershire ......
Londn and Westminstr

Annum.

31. per cent.
51. per cent.
71. per cent.
61. per cent.
51. per cent.
151 per cent.
61. per cent.
61. per cent.

A .. d.
40 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0

25 0 0
100 0 0

London Joint-Stock ...
Provincial of Ireland..
Ditto, New ..
National of Ireland ..
Nat. Provnclai of Eng.
Ditto, New. .......
South Australia ......
Union of Australia....

61. per cent.
81. per cent.
81. per cent.
61. per cent.
61. per cent.
Si. per cent.
51, per cent.
61. per cent.
61. per cent.
61. per cent.

50 0 0
100 0 0
10 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
20 0 0

25 0 0

Union of L0nd0n.....
Union of Madrid .....

50 0 0
40 0 0

INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
A s. d. £ s. d.
Albion .•••••• • • • • • • • 31. 10s. 500 0 0 50 0 0 80
Alliance Brit. and For. 7114 s 6d &bs 100 0 0 11 0 0 20%
Ditto Marine. ••• • • • 61. per cent. 100 0 0 5 0 0 -
Atlas ......... ..... .. 136.6 d. pr sh. 50 0 0 5 6 8 16%
British Commercial - 7s. per share 50 0 0 5 0 0 7
Clericl,Med.BB Gen. Life Ipr ct.& los. 100 0 0 10 0 0 -
County .. • ..... .. •. - 31. 100 0 0 10 0 0 60
14s. 80 0 0 5 0 I 14
Eagle . 6s. 50 0 0 5 0 0 6%
European Life ••• • • • 4% per cent. 20 0 0 All paid. 10
General •••• • • • • .... - - -5%
Glone - 122
Guardian ...... •.• . • . 51. 100 0 0 36 10 0 82
Imperial Fire •••••• • • 121. per cent. 500 0 0 50 0 0 228
Imperial Life ........ 12s. 100 0 0 10 0 0 15%
Indemnity Marine -.• 11. oh. Ec ha. 100 0 0 513 1 37
Law Fire ............ - 100 0 0 210 0 2%
Law life•• ••••• • • • .. 11.165. 100 0 0 10 0 0 42
Legal and General Life - 50 0 0 2 0 0 4
Licensed Victuallers .• - 5 0 0 1 0 0 X
London Fire ........ 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 16%
London Ship ........ 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 I 165 i
Marine •• •••• • - •. 12s.per share 100 0 0 15 0 0 8
Sled. Invlid&Gen. Life 4%1. per ct .50 0 0 20 0 2%
National Lean Fund.. 11. per cent. 20 0 0 210 0 -
National Life •••• • • . - 81. per cent. 100 0 0 5 0 0 -
Palladium Life ..... ... 51. per cent. SO 0 0 2 0 0 210 s.
Pelican • . • • .......... - - - -
Primaix 31. p. sh. k bs. - - 141
Protector Life.... •• • 54. per cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 -
Provident Life ••-• • • • 11. ss. $ bs. 100 0 0 10 0 0 26
Kock Life ...... ...... be. 8 0 0 010 a 5%
Royal Exchange 6l. per cent. Stock. - 203
sun Fire. - - 207
r, itt a Life 11. 61. - - 48
United Kingdom. ;.... 41. per cent. 20 0 0 4 0 0 -
Universal Life........ 10% pr cut. 100 0 0 9 0 0 -
Victoria Life • 51. per cut. - 40 0 4%
DOCKS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
- -
XB. d. .S s. d.
East and West India... 61. pr cent. Stock. - 142%
East Country - 21
London . 51, pr cent. Stock. - 118
Ditto Bonds •• • • • • 41. per cent. - - -
dt.Katharine .... •• - 4 per cent. Stock. - $2
Ditto, Scrip . - - 85 0 0 67%
Ditto Bonds- • . 4%1. pr cent. - - -
Southampton •••• •• . . 21. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 -
BRIDGES
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
A. s. d. A. s. 41.
Charing-cr055........ - - - 15%
Southwrk ,Nw Sub. Av. - 632 12 $ - 2
Ditto Nw of 7% p.c. 355. per cent. 50 0 0 - S
Waterloo •.•••• • • . • .• - 100 0 0 -3%
Ditto Old Ann. of 81. 11. 4s. Od. - 60 0 0 28
Ditto Nw ditto of 71. 11. Is. Od. - 40 0 0 25
Vauxhall .• .. •• • AT. 11. 70 10 3 - 1$
WATER-WORKS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
I A s. d. 4 s. d.
East London.... ••• • .. i SI. 100 0 0 - 176
Grand Janction ••• • • • 41. per cut. SO 0 0 - $1
Kent.. --•••••• •• •• ! 21. 101. 100 0 0 - 75
Lambeth .Si. per cnt. 108 0 0 - 99
New Rivr Lndn Brdge 1 21. 10s. - - 85
Vauxhall ••...•• • • • .- 5l. per cit. 100 0 0 - 98
West Middlesex . . . 61.05. pr cnt. - - 116
GAS-LIGHT AND COKE COMPANIES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
.---
X. s. 4. A. s. d.
British ••••••• • • • - •• 11. 40 0 0 18 I II 14
Ditto Provincial.... 11. Bs. 20 I I 20 0 0 18
Brighton .... -••• • .. 51. per cent. 20 I 0 - 12
City of London ...... 101. 100 0 0 150 I 0 1230
CentinentalConsolidat. 925. pr share 75 0 0 31 8 0 1 34
Equitable ............ 50s. pr share 60 0 0 SO 0 0 1 27
Imperial .......• •• • • 31. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 ! 70
Independent ......... 61. per cent. 40 I 0 40 0 0 61
- 50 0 0 60 0 0 -
Ditto
- 60 0 0 50 0 0 -
Do., Parl. Preference 61. per cent. 25 0 0 210 0 --
Phomix. ... .... • . .... 4341. per et. 50 0 0 49 0 0 28%
51. 100 0 8 90 0 0 75
United General..... . • 7s. 64. 60 0 0 50 0 0 13%
Westminster Chartered 31. 60 0 0 - 46%
Ditto, New •• .•• • .. 12s. 50 0 0 10 0 0 87.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jax.:29.
IN THE HATTER OF BARBER.

Mr. Sere eantmiss (in continuation from our After-
noon Edition of yesterday) said—With regard to the
charge that Barber called himself an agent for the insurance
company when he was no longer so, it was true that he
had not done anything for the company, bet he still re-
tained the insignia of office, as he might call them—the
books and papers, and he never had resigned the office
of agent. This very Stiddolph, after Mr. Barber's return
to London from transportation, called upon him to
proffer him his warmest sympathy, and if he again got
into practice, to promise his best support. It must be
borne in mind that throughout all the affidavits which
had been made to contradict Mr. Barber's statement,
they had never given a whole letter, but only certain
excerpta of letters, such as suited their own purposes;
and it must also be borne in mind that Mr. Barber had
to answer these affidavits entirely from memory, and
without any books or papers to help him, at a distance of
12 years, f,ur of which had been spent in acute mental
agony. If they were to believe Mr. Stiddolph, after he
had suspected that Barber had been appropriating the
premiums all communication ceased between them; this
was untrue, for it appeared that from December, 1841,
to April, 1842, the two were in constant communication,
both personally and by letter, relating to the sale of an
estate, and yet Mr. Stiddolph swears that to the best of
his knowledge from March, 1841, he never had any com-
munication with him. With respect to the pamphlet
which had been mentioned, it was Mr. Barber's proper
course to take to set his case before the community—
Sir F. THESIGER said that he must certainly interrupt
his Learned Friend ; he had had sufficient latitude
already.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—Not an inch of latitude.
Sir F. THESIGER—WeII, longitude, then.
Mr. Sergeant Wuxi/is—My Learned Friends have
certainly the advantage of me there. Well, then, with
regard to Stiddolph, it seems to nie that when he
swears that he paid Barber the 51., it could not have
been a simple mistake; the Learned Master did not be-
lieve him. Was it a deficiency of memory when he
swore that he had RO correspondence with Barber after
March, 1841? Which of the two men would a dispassion-
ate man believe ? He had now gone through the whole
case, and it only remained fur him to show the
Court what they bad a right to demand—how Mr. Bar-
ber had conducted himself during his absence from this
country. (The Learned Sergeant was about to read
some extracts from the pamphlet published by Mr. Bar-
ber, when he was interrupted by
Mr. Justice PATTESON,Iwho inquired whether what his
Learned Friend was about to read were affidavits?
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—No, my Lord, they are cer-
tificates from persons of high respectability, who had
means of observing Mr. Barber's conduct abroad.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said—lt was quite contrary to
the practice of this Court to receive certificates. If the
Learned Gentleman wished it, he was quite at liberty to
state that Mr. Barber, during his absence, had con-
ducted himself well and orderly.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS said those were weak terms
indeed. He prayed the Court to receive these documents,
as he thought that if it refused them their Lordships
would not have sufficient information to guide them in
forming their judgment.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that it was certainly
quite contrary to the practice of the Court. These
were persons at a long distance, and as there were only
certificates they could not be received by the Court.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS said that he should not at-
tempt to dispute the ruling of the Court; and he could
only repeat what he had before said, that he was only
restrained from protesting against all this inquiry, from
a desire that Mr. Barber's conduct should be fully in-
vestigated. He also wished to observe that all the elle
gations were out of their Lordships' jurisdiction—that
the allegations had all of them been sufficiently met to
disprove them. These were the whole of the remarks
which he had to offer. The Learned Sergeant then sat
down having spoke to-day more than three hours.
Sir F. THESIGER commenced by remarking that, as
his Learned Friend Sergeant Wilkins bad taken up so
much time in his address, he must endeavour to com-
press his remarks in as small a space as possible. He
extremely regretted that his Learned Friend had so iden-
tified himself with the present case, as it rendered it
extremely difficult for him to meet his Learned Friend
upon the ground which he had selected. In the first
place, he must repudiate the charge which had been
thrown out by his Learned Friend against the Master, and
he deplored that his Learned Friend should have indulged
in the remarks which he had done against the pu-
rity and integrity of the judgment to which he had come.
His Learned Friend had taken very bold ground indeed
when he said that Mr. Barber had a right to plead his
pardon in freeing him entirely from all charges. He
did not at all wish to destroy the proper impression
which the pardon ought to have upon their minds, pro-
vided that his Learned Friend did not push it so far as
to plead that it extended so far as to entitle him to claim
his certificate as a man who had never been guilty of
any crimes. They now came to consider the charges which
had been brought against Mr. Barber, in all of which,
though he was said to be an innocent and deceived man,
he must be pardoned if he thought that he was some-
thing more. In defending himself Mr. Barber had an
advantage, which had been taken to the full by
his counsel, namely, that the whole materials for
his answers were drawn from his own affidavits.
The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to review
at length the different will forgeries with which Mr.
Barber was charged with having guilty knowledge. Be
contended that it was almost impossible for a man who,
like Mr. Barber, had been described as " a man of cau-
tion, curious, and investigating," not to have some know-
ledge at many stages that fraud was intended ; in par-
ticular, the handwriting of the three forged wills were
precisely the same, and that might have excited any
man's suspicion.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS here observed that Sir F.
Thesiger was travelling out of the line of the Master's
report. The Master explained that the similarity of the
hand had excited his attention, but he had not made it
the subject of comment in his report.
Sir F. THESIGER then proceeded to comment upon
the case of Robins' executor. He contended that in
this case Mr. Barber had lent himself to the conceal.
ment of Fletcher's name, and he could not have done so
had he not believed that it was a discreditable transac-
tion. Mr. Barber most certainly have been aware that
this could have been the only reason for concealment.
Then, again, to insert Mr. Turrall's name in an agree-
ment of such a nature was, to say the least of it,
discreditable to any professional man. With all
this fresh in his mind, Hunt was introduced to Mr.
Barber, who without further inquiry takes it in hand.
In this case, as well as in Stuart s, 151. as payment for
legacy duty is charged by Mr. Barber in his bill, which
legacy duty had never been paid. Mr. Barber must
either have considered that it was not likely he should
ever be pressed as to the non-payment of the legacy duty
by the persons who were joined with him in the
fraud, or he must still have shut his eyes
and considered this an honest transaction. He
could not clear himself from the imputation of misap-
propriating his client's money, and as such ho was un-
worthy of having his certificate issued to him to practise
as an att)rney. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded
at some length to investigate the case of Slack, from
which he interred that to suppose Barber bad believed
the entire genuineness of Fletcher's information was to
suppose that he was neither more nor less than wilfully
blind, and had lent himself a willing instrument
in Fletcher's hands. At this time he could no
longer have been ignorant—his eyes must have
been open, and if he hal been a fair, open, honest deal-
ing man, he would not have proceeded any further in
such transaction without inquiry. He thought the
Court would see now with the light which had been
thrown upon the transaction, that the verdict which had
been solemnly delivered was a just and a right one, and
he thought that it was quite impossible for his Learned
Friend to prove to the Court that his client was entitled
to a certificate of practice unless he could prove that this
verdict was an erroneous one. These were all the observa-
tions which he bad to offer upon the forgery part of the
case.

The CouaT here observed that as the case could not be
terminated that day it would be advisable for Sir F.
Thesiger to break off here.
Mr. Sergeant Wriants appealed to the Court to
grant a day after term to hearing the remainder of the
arguments.
Mr. Ju.tice PATTESON observed that this would be
impossible, be thought.
It being now just five o'clock, it was agreed that if
Sir F. Thesiger could arrange to continue his argument
on the malpractice cases, the. Court would sit, by consent,
on two days out of term, viz., OR the 18th and 19th of
February, when the case might be concluded.
The Court then rose at five o'clock.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Jan. 29.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge, and
a Bench of Magistrates.)

HANBURY AND CO. V. THE POOR-RATE OP ST. MATTHEW,

BETHNAL-GRBEN.

The was an appeal by the firm of Truman, Han-
bury, Buxton, and Co., the eminent brewers in Brick-
lane, Spitalfields, against a rate which had been as-
sessed upon that portion of their premises which was
in the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green.
Mr. Clarkson with Mr. Pashley conducted the case
for the appellants, and Mr. Prendergast with Mr.
Bodkin appeared for the parish in support of the rate.
The inquiry occupied several hours, but the follow-
ing outline of the case will put our readers in posses-
sion of its leading points:—
It would seem that there has been somewhat re-
cently a new valuation and assessment made through-
out the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, with a
view to an equalisation of the rating. This operation
was accomplished by Mr. John Paine, the architect
and surveyor, who has for some years been especially
engaged in re-assessing parishes under the Poor-
law Amendment Act. The result of this re-assess-
ment, in so far as it affected the present appellants,
was that their assessment was raised from 1,1501. to
1,7501. in this particular parish, for the very small
portion of their premises which is within its limits, as
compared with that portion that was in the parish
adjoining. The appellants, in common with many
other of the parishioners whose assessment had been
materially increased, not having paid the rate, suffered
themselves to be summoned before a magistrate for
the purpose of showing cause why the rate had not
been duly paid Upon that occasion the matter was
fully entered upon, and the result was that the magis-
trate reduced the rateable value to 1,6001. Against
that decision the appellants gave notice of appeal to
the sessions, and the case now came on for hearing by
special appointment.
In the course of the investigation it was proved on
the part of the appellants by Mr. Hammack, Mr.
Tite, Mr. Higgins,
and Ur. Norton, all well-known

architects and surveyors, that the ground upon which
the appellants' premises stood, which was in the parish
in question, was about 1 acre and 3 roods. The pre-
mises were on the east side of Brick-lane, and were
appropriated principally to the purposes of stabling
for the cooperage, cleansing-house, and standing for
carts and casks, whilst underneath the stables was a
" vat-house." The stables, which were admitted to
have been most expensively built, afforded accommo-
dation for 108 or 112 horses, with a certain number
of loose boxes. The main question in the case, how-
ever, was whether the " vats " used in a brewer's
storehouse are fit objects for a separate valuation,
with a view to being rated. It ha. already been
stated that under the new assessment these premises
were rated at 1,7501., and that previously that rating
had been made at 1,1501., and the witnesses who were
now called gave it as their opinion that, taking the two
extremes, the real and fair rateable value was between
1,0701. and 1,2001.

On the part of the respondents the principal wi
ness was

Mr. Paine, who at considerable length entered
into an explanation of the grounds, or principle
rather, upon which he had made his valuation of the
various properties in the different parisheQ, with a
view to their equalisation. in this particular parish
he had made 15,000 assessments, and the only appeals
which had come to the sessions against his rating
were the present one and another by the Eastern
Counties Railway Company. The witness adhered
to his assessment as a fair one, and contended that
"vats," especially where fixed, as they were in this
brewery, were proper objects for assessment, inde-
pendent of the premises. He went through every
item, and accompanied each with his reasons for so
assessing them. The estimate he had made for the
expense cf erecting the stables was 16,000/.
Mr. CLARKSON was understood to say, that the cost
of the erection of these stables had been under 10,000/.
The Learned JUDGE eventually said that in certain
respects the Court considered that the principle upon
which Mr. Paine had made his assessment was
founded in error. Most undoubtedly that gentleman
had undergone an extremely laborious duty. Whilst,
however, it appeared to the Court that the assessment
appealed against was upon this ground too large, the
Court were at the same time of opinion that there
must be an addition made, not only to the former rate-
able value, but even to the highest amount at which
the respectable witnesses who had been called on the
part of the appellants had placed the value. If there-
fore the Court were to fix the rateable value at 1,3004
he did not think that they would be very far from the
fair and equitable mark. At the sum of 1,300/.,
therefore, as the rateable value, he should order the
assessment to be- fixed.

The appeal was therefore allowed, so far as to re-
duce the rating from 1,600/. to 1,3001. per annum.
Mr. BODKIN wished to ask what the Learned Judge
said as to the liability of the " vats" to be assessed ?

The Learned JUDGE replied that he said nothing
about the " vats," nor was he disposed to grant a case
upon the point.
The rateable value was accordingly fixed at 1,3001.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
After the list of prisoners was disposed of on Mon-
day, Mr. Liscombe, of Park-place-terrace, Padding-
ton, a gentleman officially connnected with the Great
`Western Railway Company, applied to the Alderman
for a summons against Mr. Burchett, a goldsmith in
Cheapside, whom he charged with having sold a Swiss
watch which went badly for a " Barwise " watch.
The ALDERMAN, instead of sending a summons to
Mr. Burchett, courteously sent a message to request
that the defendant would attend and give an explana-
tion of the transaction. The Mansion-house messen-
ger, however, returned with an account of an inter-
view with Mr. Burchett's servant not at all satisfac-
tory or respectful, and the consequence was the im-
mediate service of a peremptory order to appear to
answer a serious complaint.
Mr. Liscombe said,.on the 24th of July last I went
into the defendant's shop and purchased this watch
which I hold in my hand of him for 19/., believing
it, upon his representation and the inscription inside,
to be one of Mr. Barwise's manufacture. It never
went well since I purchased it, and being astonished
at such a fact, I took it to the house in St. Martin's-
lane, where I was told by Mr. Barwise's successor
that it was never made by Mr. Barwise, but that it
was a S wiss watch, and by no means to be compared
to an English watch of the price that was given for
it. I accordingly called upon the defendant and re-
presented to him the result of my inquiry, and he
then offered to let me have an English-made watch,
but said that I must pay 71. more for it. As I con-
sidered, however, that the dealing I had already had
with the defendant was not such as to increase my
confidence in him, I declined the proposition, and
was advised to come here to make this representation.
The ALDERMAN examined the watch, and said it
was quite clear that the watch was a Swiss watch.
It is not like an English watch, and the name of Mr.
Barwise, as maker, has no doubt been adopted to make
it pass for a more valuable article than it is.
Mr. Liscombe said, he was given to understand that
it was not worth 101.
Mr. Burchett said, he had purchased the watch of
a dealer who had assured him that it was of Mr.
Barwise's manufacture, and he believed that such was
the case.
The ALDERMAN—You must know, if you under-
stand the business, that these are not the "
Hall
marks." There is nothing in the watch to show it is
English at all.
Mr. Burchett—l assure you that I bought it as a
" Barwise ;" but I am willing to be guided by your
opinion in the matter, and will readily give in ex-
change for it a genuine English watch.
The ALDERMAN—WeII, I think it would be more
agreeable to the complainant to receive his money
back, and if that be returned there is an end to the
matter.
Mr. Liscombe—l certainly would prefer the money
to another experiment.
Mr. Burchett—l only wish that the magistrate
would decide between us, and I am prepared to pay
back the 191. this instant.
The ALDERMAN—Very well; let that be done.
The money was then paid back to Mr. Liscombe,
and the watch was returned to Mr. Burchett, and
both parties left the justice-room.
MAIIYLEBONE.
Mr. James Gammage, master of a National School
in Tichbourne- road, Paddington, at the head of
which is the Rev. Mr. Boone, was charged on a war-
rant with having committed an assault of a very
serious nature upon William Taylor, a delicate-look-
ing boy, 10 years of age, living with his parents at
10, Market-street, Paddington.
Complainant, after replying satisfactorily to ques-
tions put to him as to the nature and obligation of an
oath, deposed that on Wednesday last he was standing
on a form to write his lesson upon a slate, when the
boy next to him asked him a question which caused
him to laugh. Defendant then came up to and
punished him.
Mr. BaouGnrosi—What did he do to you ? Com-
plainant—He gave me at that time three hard cuts
with his cane on my left side. I got down from the
form, and told him that I would bring my mother up
to-morrow to see me righted. He then seized bold
of me and pulled me over the form, and struck me as
heard as:he could with a thick cane.
Mr. BROUGHTON—How many times, to the best of
your belief, did he strike you ? Complainant—About
20 times, Sir. I cried out as loudly as I could, for I
was in much pain. He told me he did not allow boys
to be impudent to him, and he then let me go home.
As soon as I arrived there I mentioned to my mother
the ill treatment which I had received.
Rebecca Taylor (the mother) said that on stripping
her boy and examining him, she found large weals,
from which blood was starting, upon his shoulders
and side. There was also blood upon his shirt.
Her husband upon coming home saw the boy's back
and side, and said that a soldier had never been served
worse.
Harriet Milton corroborated the mother's evidence
with regard to the cruel beating which the boy had
received.
Croswell, one of the warrant officers of this court,
also deposed to his having observed the marks
upon complainant when application at the court wgs
first made.
Whipp, another officer of the court, said that when
he served the warrant defendant told him that the boy
was unruly ; he had therefore struck him, but not in
such a way as to injure him.
Defendant, on being called upon for his answer
to the charge, alleged that complainant had conducted
himself upon many occasions improperly, but more
particularly on Tuesday last, when, during a lecture
which was given in the schoolroom upon astronomy,
the complainant blackened his face with ink and set',
the rest of the boys laughing; for this he set him a
lesson, and on the next morning he was extremely
insolent and laughed in his face ; he then gave him a
stroke across his shoulder, when the boy said he would
bring his father up. Defendant then gave him the
beating complained of; but it was not an out-of-the-
way correction at all.
Two witnesses were called for the defendant.
The first was William Dawson, a teacher at the
school, who spoke as to the complainant being a
saucy boy ; but he was not present at the time of the
assault complained of.
Thomas Bryan, 15 years old, who said he was a
pupil teacher at the school, deposed to the complain-
ant's disorderly behaviour at the astronomical lecture.
Mr. BROUGHTON—Were you present on Wednes-
day when the assault took place ? Witness—l was,
Sir.

Mr. BROUGHTON—Did you see complainant pu-
nished ? Witness—Yes ; he was flogged two or three
times with the cane because he had not learnt his
lesson and was impudent.
Mr. BROUGHTON—How largo was the cane with
which he was " flogged" as you call it ? Witness—
Perhaps as thick as my finger.

Mr. BROUGHTON—How many times did your mas
ter give the blows ? Witne3s—A dozen or so—not
more.

Mr. BROUGHTON—How are the pupils usually
corrected? Witness—They generally have a cut
across the hand, but when they are flogged " down-
right" they are laid across the form and Mr. Gain-
mage holds them down.

Mr. BaouGuToN-LDid you consider the flogging
of the complainant to be a "downright" one ? Wit-
ness—l should say so; but I have seen other boys
flogged worse.
Mr. BROUGHTON—If after a flogging you were to
see marks upon a boy's back, and blood upon his
shirt, what would be your opini about the correc-
tion he had received ? Witness .1 should say that
he had had a " good" flogging.
Other evidence,, descriptive of the bruises and cuts
upon the youthful complainant, was given.
Mr. BROUGHTON, after making many well-timed
remarks upon the undue severity which had been ex-
ercised towards the boy, desired Whipp, the officer,
to call upon the Rev. Mr. Boone and request his at-
tendance at the court, in order that he, as the head of
the committee of the National School, might be fully
acquainted with all that had transpired in reference to
the case.