The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-25 00:00:00

indefatigable M. BILLAu LT proposed the following para-
graph relative to the right of search :—" This accord
cannot be complete and durable till such time as ne-
gotiations, conducted with perseverance, shall, by
continuing to repress an infamous traffic, have again
placed French vessels under the exclusive surveillance
of the national flag."
After a brief speech from M. GUIZOT, in which he
stated that his object was to place French commerce
under the protection of the national flag, M. BIL-
LAULT withdrew his amendment.

The Funds showed a tendency to decline on Tues-
day, the Three per Cents. closing at 82f. 45c. ; and
the Fives at 124 f. 70c.

BOUT' SE—PAras, TUESDAY, JAN. 23.
First Highest Lowest Last
Price. Price. Price. Price.
French Five per Cents. 124 75... 124 75... 124 60 .. 124 60
41,4 per Cents 112 60... 1 !2 60... 112 60 .. 112 60
Four per Cents 106 ... 106 ... 106 ... 106
Threes B2 60... 82 60... 82 40 , ti 2 40
Bank of France. 'V:6S —.3270 —.3265 ...3270
Laffitte Bank 1 000 f 1112 50 ..1112 50...111`2 50...1112 50
5,000f...5075 —.5075 ...5075 ...5075
Belgian Bank 695 ... 695 690 690

_
1841 ...1080 ...1080 ...1080 ...1080
Belgian Fives

1840.... 109 ... 109 ... 109 ... 109
18-12.... 110 k ... 110 k ... 110 k 110 k
Spanish Active
Passive 5k ... 5k ... 5k ... 5k
Portuguese Fives .. 46k ... 46k ... 46k ... 46k
Neapolitan ....... 107 ... 107 ... 106 90... 106 90
,!oinan ...... ............ 1U54 IC5i .. 1054 ... 1051

RAILWAY SHARES.
Versailles. R.B 345 ... 340 .. 342 50... 342 50
L. 8...
Rouen
Rouen t• Havre 665 ... 665 ... 663 75... 663 75
Orleans.
Strasburg to Bale .. 231 25... 231 25... 231 23... 231 25
Avignon to Marseilles 697 50... 700 .. G 97 50... 697 50

RAILWAY SHARES, FOR THE ACCOUNT.
St. Germain 827 50... t'27 50... 827 50 .. 827 50
Versailles, LB 176 25... 176 25... 170 ... 172 50
Rouen 847 50... 847 50... 847 50... 847 50
Rouen to Havre 663 75... 663 75... 663 75 .. 663 75
Orleans 867 50... 867 50... 862 50... 862 50
Strasburg to Bale 231 25... 231 25... 231 '25... 231 25
Mignon to Marseilles 695 ... 700 ... 695 .. €9B 75

Summonses were issued yesterday evening to the Ca-
binet Ministers, to attend a Cabinet Council thii day at
the Foreign-office, Downing-street. The Ministers are
appointed to meet at three o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR, was not sufficiently well to
attend Court to-day.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The VICE-CIIANCELLOIt of England took motions to-
day,.

_ . .
ST. ,VICTOR V. DEVER EUX.
The further consideration of this case Was postponed
inconsequence of the absence Of Counsel. The case
comes before the Court upon two demurrers put in to.the
bill filed by the plaintiff.- •

WARNE v. SMITH.

The, `bole morning was occupied with the arguments
in this case, which came before the Court upon an ap-
plication on the part of the plaintiff, for-aninjunction to
restrain
.the defendant from selling or manufacturing
articles called antigropalus, or mud boots. Both parties
carry on business at Wellingborough, and the defendant
was formerly .in the employ of the plaintiff.
There was, however, a. previous application for
an injunction in this case; which. the Court granted ex
parte, but ultimately dissolved, upon a motion for that
purpose, The Plaintiff has, howeYer, now filed a new
bill, bringing before Conrt an amended state of fadts.
The arguments had not concluded when went to press:

, • •
QUEgN.'S BENCH.-(THIS 'DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE CUSTOM-HOUSE FRAUDS.—'FEE QUEEN V. BLAKE.
The defendant in this case, who had filled the situa-
tion of landing waiter in the Custom-house, had been
indicted for conspiring with a person named Tye, a
Custom-house agent, who had not surrendered to take
his trial, 'to defraud the Queen of certain duties payable
upon certain goods, wares, and merchandise which had
been imported from foreign countries. The case was
tried at the Guildhall, before Lord Denman, and the Jury
found the defendant guilty. He was this day brought
up for judgment, when
Mr. COCKBURN moved for a rule calling upon the pro-
secutors to show cause why the verdict should not be
set aside and a new trial granted, on the ground of the
improper admission of evidence, or why the judgment
should not be arrested, on the ground that the indictment
itself was bad. With regard to the first, his Lordship
wonld no doubt recollect that at the time of the trial he
had objected to the admission of Tye's ledger as evidence
against Blake. At the time that the ledger was offered
in evidence no proof whatever had been given of any
connection between Blake and Tye, and in the absence
of such proof he contended that it was impossible to give
proof of the acts of one in evidence against the other,
and although it might have been good evidence
against Tye, yet as Tye was not present, and
not on his trial, it ought not to have
been received as evidence against Blake. Again
the counterfoil of Tye's cheque-book had been
received as evidence against Blake—that counterfoil
containing a memorandum of a cheque drawn in favour
of D. 8., and also of the various sums from which the
sum total was made up. Now, he submitted that in such
a case as this, the 'counterfoil of a cheque was not evi-
dence. A memorandum made by a party paying money
was a memorandum made by him for his own guidance,
and not in furtherance of any common transaction in
which he might be engaged with other parties. If Tye
had even written or stated to a third person, " I paid
Blake such or such a sum of money for such and such
purposes," still that would not be admissible as evidence.
It would be nothing but hearsay. At the time the cheque-
book had been received, no evidence had been given of
the transactions to which it referred. All those were
subsequent transactions. Now, the connexion between
the parties ought clearly to have been shown before such
evidence could be admitted. It could not be admitted
for the purpose of showing the connexion. In
order to make it evidence, previous connexion
between the parties, or the subsequent adoption by the
one of the acts of the other, ought to be shown. His
Lordship would recollect that the cheque-book had
been three times offered in evidence by the counsel for
the Crown ; and had been twice withdrawn, in conse-
quence of a strong intimation from the Lord Chief
Justice, of his opinion of its inadmissibility ; but the
counsel for the Crown at length felt themselves so
presed that they were obliged to urge the reception of
this cheque-book, which was received accordingly. It
was a matter of the utmost importance, and he trusted
the Court would grant him a rule.
Lord DENMAN admitted that the point was one of the
utmost importance as regarded the law of evidence.
He would not now give any opinion on the subject, but
he would state the grounds on which he had proceeded
at the trial. The charge was for conspiring to withdraw
certain duties from the Crown, to which the Crown was
entitled, and he thought that the statements in the led-
ger, showing the transactions which had taken place
between the importer and his employer, might be re-
ceived as evidence of the fact whether or not certain
goods had been withdrawn which were liable to duty.
Then with regard to the reception of the counterfoils, he
had entertained in the first instance a strong opinion that
they were not admissible, and if they had remained as
mere memorandums upon the counterfoil, he should have
most probably continued of that opinion ; but looking at
the strong case of conspiracy which had been made out,
the proof which had been given of the withdrawal of
goods, without payment of duty, and the proof which
had been given that Blake had actually received the
produce of the cheque, he thought it night be given in
proof of the proceedings of the parties ; and that view
of the case had enabled him to get over the difficulty
which he had at first felt as to the propriety of admitting
the counterfoil in evidence. It was, however, a matter of
great importance, and the Court would take time
to consider the point before either granting or refusing
the application. With regard to the motion in arrest
of judgment, the Court would be happy to hear Mr.
Cockburn proceed to argue that point at once.
Mr. COCKBURN then moved that the judgment should
be arrested, on the ground that the indictment was bad
upon the face of it. It charged the parties with having
conspired together to 'withdraw certain goods, wares,
and merchandise, which were liable to duty, without the
payment of such duty to the Crown. Now he contended
that the indictment ought to be more certain. The'
nature of the goods, wares, and merchandise, on which
the duty was payable, ought to have been more certainly
specified. It was clear, from the averments in the in-
dictment, that these goods had already been imported,
and, therefore, their qualities must have been known to
the prosecutor, and ought' to have been stated. There
was no such offence at common law, inasmuch as goods
were not liable to duty at common law. They were
only liable to duty by statute, and the nature of the
goods ought to have been stated, in order that the Court
might know whether they were liable to duty or not.
Lord DENMAN—I have not the smallest doubt of the
goodness of the indictment. The gist of the indictment
is conspiracy to convey away certain goods liable to
duty. Now it was very possible that those persons
might have so conspired without knowing exactly what
those goods were.
Mr. Justice Patteson and Mr. Justice Wightman were
also of opinion that the indictment was good.
Motion in.arrest of judgment refused.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I hope, my Lord, the case
will not go into the new trial paper.
Lord DENMAN—The Court has not yet decided to