The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-18 00:00:00

considerable portion of the work after the 27th Septem-
ber, 1849, to the extent ct between 20 0001. and t 30,000/.;
and when the works were finally completed the con-
tractors sent in ell their claims, from the c,:mmt ncement
of the contract down to the completien tit the worii.
The award of their engint:er adjudged that the-re
was justly due and owing from the Sunderland Deck
Company to the contractors the sum of 4,4221. 16i. in
respect of their contra et, the arbitrator haNihg &dueled
the sum of 14.7681. in retpret of breaelie; of contract
committed by the contYacrors. There wore twelve ob-
jections talon by the Mes,;rs. Craven t > the award, six
of which were substantially that the arbitrator had ex-
ceeded his authority in allowing counter-claims On
behalf of the company, end the seventh end
principal objection was that the arbitrator
had allowed the demanda of the contractors
for work done after the 27th September, 1849, when the
supplemental deed was made. A further objt,ction was,
that the award mspe trader the original articles of
agreement, whereas there was no submission under the
original articles.

Mr. W. H. WATSON. Q.C., (with whom was Mr. I),
Seymour) this morning atiowatal cause against the rule
on the part of the Sunderland Duck Company. In
answer to the objection that the arbitrator
had adjudicated upon claims sent in by the con-
tractors in respect of work done after the
27th September, 1849, the fact was that Messrs. Craven
never sent into the company any claim up to that dare;
but when the works.- were finished they sent in all their
claims for work done feom the communcernent of the
contract down to the completion of the weak. The bill
of claims sent in by the coi.traeter,, did not. distingui,h
between the work done, before the 27th September, 1849,
and that which was done afierwartir. There was an
agreement by parole between the parties, and the
Messrs. Craven having sent in c;aims subse-
quently to the 27th September, 1849, they could
not more to set aside this award, bee seise the submission
was partly urelar the savpleincn tn.! tigreetnn:t anti partly
by parole. The Court could only deal Iv-till an awari so
far as the submission was made a rule of ceurt; they
could not deal with it where it was partly by parole and
partly by rule of court. He (Ur. Watson) also con-
tended that the award could not be set tiaitiz., because the
agreement for the award was wholly independent of the
submission to arbitration. The 11th objection was, that
the award was bad, as professedly ono and indivisible;
but ho submitted that objection was untenable, there
being one contract governing the whole titan, and all
toe claims under that contract having been sent in, and
the arbitrtitor having determined on finding what sum
was due to the contractors, which was the result of tt e
whole, matters in di,pute between them.
Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR, on the same side, contended
that the wording of the last clause of the original
agreement was sufficient to cover anything that had
been done by the arbitrator.
Sir F. THESIGER (with whom was Mr. Atherton)
on bAralf of the contractors, contended that the award
proceeded entirely on the supplemental agreement,
which was wrong.

The Court discharged the rule without giving any
opinion as to the v,! idity oF,tbe award.

EXCHEQuEtt.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Blanco.)

Their Lordships took it e 91:wcial puper to-day, but no
case involving any question of general importance was
heard during the morning.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins at Guilahall before Mr. Baron
MARTIN cud a Common Jury.)
DALE V. CLEGHORN.

This was an action on trespass to recover compensa-
tion in damages for an assault.
Mr. Bramwell conducted the plaintiff's case, r:d Mr.
Humfrey appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff is an elderly gentleman, and a cierk in
a mercantile house, and itio defendant, who is much
younger in years, carries on the busitiosn of a merchant
in Billiter lane. It appeared that the plaintiff; who was
accompanied by his two daughters, and five more young
ladies, was waiting on the 6th of July last,
about six in the evening, at the Angel Inn,
Islington, for the purpose of procuring rn omnibus
to Hackney. When an omnibus ttrrived he found there
was sufficient room inside for the party, and fv,ving en-
gaged their places, 'they were about to enter, when the
defendant insisted on having a s.. ,t before them. The
plaintiff remonstrated with him on his conduct, where-
upon he gave the plaintiff a blow which knocked him
do we.

For the defence it was contended that the action was
a vexatious one, the plaintiff having given the defendant
no opportunity of offering an apology.
Mr. Baron MARTIN told the jury they must find a
verdict for the plaintiff, but he thought it was only
proper that the plaintiff should at least have enabled the
defendant to apologize before he resorted to the expense
of a law. suit.

Verdict for plaintiff, damages 40.
This finished the busin•sa ar the present sitting.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)

GARDENER V. DAVEY.

Mr. COLLIER applied fora rule calling upon the in-
formant in this case to show cause why the rule for an
information in the nature of a quo warranto should not
be rescinded, and the defendant reimbursed his costs dnd
charges. Last year Mr. Davey and another gentleman
were candidates to represent one 01 the Exeter wards in
the Exeter t,wn-council, but the votes on either side
being equal, the assessors gave their casting-vote in
favour of Mr. Davey and he was returned as the suc-
cessful candidate. It was afterwards discovered, how-
ever, that one of the burgesses named Couch had polled
in the name of Crouch, and a rule for a quo warranto
was obtained, calling upon Mr, Davey to show by what
right ho claimed the seat. That rule came on for argu-
ment some nine months ago, and the Court directed that
the matter should go before a jury upon the informant
putting in security for costs. The informant being a
needy man, had hitherto been unable to comply with
this condition, and although two assizes had been held
in Exeter the question in dispute had not been
carried before a jury, nor was it likely that it ever
would. Still, while this rule was hanging over his head
Mr. Davey would not be permitted to take his seat in
the council chamber, and he therefore prayed the inter-
ference of the Court in the manner already mentioned.
Mr. Justice PATTESON asked if there was any prece-
dent for a motion like this.

Mr. CoLLIER was nct aware that there was any direct
precedent, but there were cases in the books which by
analogy bore upon the motion. For instance, the Court
had frequently laid down the doctrine, that where a new
trial was ordered on the performance of a certain con-
dition, and the condition was not complied with within
a reasonable time, the rule could be rescinded with costs.

Mr. Justice PATTESON said it never could have been
intended that the informant could keep the rule alive for
ever, and he should therefore grunt the application.

Rule nisi accordinviv.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE B. W. A. SLEIGH.
This bankrupt, who had been a lieutenant in the
army, and was proprietor of the British Army Gazette,
came up on his application for certificate.
Mr. Laurance appeared for the plaititiff, and Mr.
Linklater for the assignees, and offered no opposition.
His HONOUR inquired what was the cause of the
bankruptcy?
Mr. LAURANCE said that it arose from a negotiation
respecting the paper, which the bankrupt had offered to
sell for 2,0001.; bankrupt had been secretary to the
County t3ervice Club, aad expected to have made the
paper answer. The expenses were very moderate,
His HoNona granted a certificate of the second class

MARLBRO'-STREET.-(T HIS DAY.)

A DRUNKEN GENT.—Mr. James Mansh, gentleman,
Gower-street, was charged before Mr. Bingham with
being drunk and disorderly.
Pratt, 311 A, stated that this morning, about half
past one, he was on duty in Bluecross-street, when he
saw the defendant, who was very tipsy, chasing a cat
down the street, and behaving in such a boisterous man-
ner as to arouse the inhabitants in the street. Witness
requested him to go away, when be (defendant) made
use of a filthy expression and refused to leave. Witness
then took him into custody.
The defendant, who did not attempt to deny the
charge, was fined ss. for being drunk.
RUFFIANLY ASSAULT.—FIeury Luching was placed at
the bar charged with assaulting Henry Field, the water-
man employed at the cab-rank in the Huy market.
The complainant, whose face was covered with blood,
said, about four o'clock this morning he was on the cab-
rank, when be saw the prisoner acting as waterman, a
privilege to which he had no right, and on witness
cautioning him against doing so, be (defendant) struck
him a tremendous blow iu the mouth, winch knocked
out four of his teeth. The defendant was proceeding to
further violence when a constable came up, and witness
gave him in charge.
The prisoner, who denied the charge, was fined 505.,
and in default committed fur a month.

FRIGHTFUL GUN ACCIDENT AT PECKHAM. OD
Saturday an accident of a very frightful characteri took
place at Peckham-fields, to a man named Thomas Groves,
in the employ of the patent pottery works, Canal-bridge,
Peckham, whereby it is feared he will lose his life. He had
killed several birds. On his return he placed his loaded gun,
full-cocked, behind a haystack, with his right hand over the
muzzle. The gun went off; blowing the right arm almost to
pieces. He was taken, in a distressing condition, to Guy's
Hospitaf, in a cab. He was examined without delay, and it
was found that he had received Rich serious injury that it
was deemed necessary to amputate the limb at the shoulder
joint, which operation was performed. The poor fellow is in
a very precarious state, arum the hemorrhage and shock to
the system.
CHECK) TO INTEMPERANCE IN THE NAVY.—In
order to discourage the use of ardent spirits in the navy, the
Admiralty have determined that in future no drawback of
the duty on spirits shall be allowed to the merchants in sup-
plying the officers of her Majesty's ships with spirituous
liquors. It is reported that their Lordships have been led to
this determination in consequence of an application on the
part of en officer in command, demanding the drawback on a
large quantity of spirits he was about to ship. Their Lord-
ships' regulation, however, can only apply to the borne parts;
it will be futile at any foreign station, It might, therefore,
just as well have never been issued for the geed that will be
produced, except that it evinces the desire of the Admiralty
to throw every obstacle in the way of intemperance.—United
aerrzce Gazette.

-----
EXTENSIVE ROBBERIES FROM TDB PERSON. —ln.
formation has been given that on the Bth inst. a gentlemen
travelling in a railway carriage between the Pteston arid
Tebay stations .on the Lancashire and Craiisle line was
robbed of 151. in bank notes, one of them a 1,,/. note, 66,8:7,
ated August ;,, 1850. At Colcbeiter market, on Saturday
week, a cattle-dealer was robbed of three 5/. Bank of Eng-
land notes, seven or eight Si. Colchester Bank notes, and a
cheque for six guineas, drawn by Joseph Kingly on Messrs.
Round, Green, ant Co.'s Colchester Bank. At Donne Fair,
llunt.lane, a farmer was robbed of a red morocco pocket-book
containing 107/. in bank notes, consisting of two 20., two
101., four Si., and the rest 1/. notes, all of the Bank of Scot-
laud, except a few of the mall cotes.