The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-19 00:00:00

COLONIAL.

SIG/lA.—The market for British Plantation continues
dull, the sales being barely 350 hhds, at a decline of 6d
per cwt.
MAURITIUS.-5,710 bags offered by auction only
partly sold at a further decline of 61 per cwt; low to
fine yellow realised 36s 61 to 40s 6d., extra fine 43s 6d,
and brown 29s to 345. Bengal sold at former rates for
Benares; but other sorts went at a decline of 6d per
cwt. Madras was taken in at 32s to 33s 6d for mid
to fine brown ; Penang sold at a reduction
of 6d to is per cwt, white at 36s 6,1 to 40e, and brown
and yellow at 30s to 355. Pliva.:ely, good yellow Ha-
vannah realised 22s for export; and a parcel for home
refining sold at 40s, duty paid. The quantity of British
Plantation landed last week at the East and West
India Docks was 632 hhds, 72 tierces, 309 barrels, and
there were taken for home consumption 1,244 hhds
93 tierces 331 barrels. The stock in the same places is
8,578 hhds, 1,564 tierces, 2,770 barrels.
COFFEE.—The market is buoyant, and a large business
would have taken place had holders met the demand; the
transactions in Native Ceylon are estimated at 1,000
bags, from 61s to 61s 6d.
RUM.—The quantity landed last week at the East and
West India Docks was 138 puns 70 hhds; there were
taken for home consumption 444 puns 13 hhds, and ex-
ported 21 puns 32 hhds. The stock in the same places
is 18,567 puns 2,293 hhds.

RlcE.—Carolina sold steadily at 20s to 21s per cwt.
TALLOW.—P. Y. C. is 37s 3cl to 37s 6d per cwt. on the
spot, and Town, 39s 6J. ,

TEA.—The market is steady. The deliveries aro to a
fair extent.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
PRIVY COUNCIL.-(TIIIS DAY.)
(Before Lord BROUGHAM, Lord CAMPBELL, the Master
o f the ROLLS, Dr. LUSHINGTON, Sir Edward RYAN,
and the Hon. Mr. PE➢IBERTON LEIGH.)
HAMMOND AND ANOTHER V. ROGERS AND ANOTHE2.
This was an appeal, part-head, from the Admiralty
Court. The respondents are the owners of a ship
called the Marshall Bennet., between which and the
appellant's vessel the Christiana, a collision took place
in the year 1848, off the South Foreland. The Judge
of the Admiralty Court was of opinion, that the crew
of the Christians were to blame for the accident. The
appellant now appealed from that judgment to this
Court.
Mr. Sergeant Adams and Mr. W. F. Channel, were
counsel for the appellants ; Sir F. Thesiger and Dr.
Bayford represented.the respondents; and the Attorney-
General appeared for the Masters of the Trinity House.
The case was proceeding when:we went to press.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

HUNTER V. NOCKHOLDS.-JUDGMENT.

The Loan CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, which came before him some time since upon
appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram.
The principal question in this case was whether the
petitioner was entitled to recover the arrears of an an-
nuity for twenty, or only for six years. In a former
stage of the case the matter was referred to tho Master,
who reported that the petitioner was only entitled to the
arrears of the annuity for six years, and,upon exceptions
being taken to that report, the Vice-Chancellor Wigram
decided that they were valid, and that the petitioner was
entitled to the arrears of the annuity for twenty years.
Against this decision the parties appealed, and upon
that appeal the Lord Chancellor now gave judgment.
His Lordship was clearly of opinion that the Master had
come to a right conclusion, and that the Vice-Chancellor
Wigraw had not. Ile must, therefore, order the judg-
ment of the Court below to be reversed with costs.

MILLER V. PRIDDEN'.
The further arguments in this part heard case were
then resumed and occupied the Court the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before the Vice-Chancellor of ENGLAND.)
BELL V. REA.
The further arguments in this part-heard case occu
pied tho Court the whole morning.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
EYRE V. GREE.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed,
and occupied the Court the whole morning.
The Vice-Chancellor Wigram did not sit to-day.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
ERLE and a Special Jury.)
♦USTIN V. THE MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LIN-

COLNSIIIRE RAILWAY.
In this case Mr. Hunafrey was counsel for the plaintiff,
and the & fondants wero represented by Sir F. 'Thesiger
and Mr. Hawkins.

The action was brought to recover the sum of 9!St. as
a compensation for the damage which the plaintiff aileged
he had sustained by the injury done to four of his
horses, which were being conveyed on the railway of the
defendants.

The plaintiff is a large horse dealer, and having pur-
chased twenty-one horses in Lincolnshire was desirous
of having them conveyed to London. He took them to
the defendants' railway station at New Holland, in Line
colnshire, where he contracted with the defendants to have
the horses conveyed from thence to London for
221. 10s. On that occasion he signed a printed agree-
ment handed to him by the sta.tion•master, by which the
plaintiff undertook to bear all the risk of injury to the
horses by conveyance or by the contingencies of the
journey; the company setting forth that they would not
be answerable for such injury or for any defect in their
carriages or trucks. Horses are conveyed generally on
railroads by what are called horse baskets, but on this
occasion it was the wish of the plaintiff to have his
horses conveyed in open trucks, the carriage in open
trucks being much less expensive. The people at the
New Holland station refused to carry the plaintiff's
horses in open trucks unless he would enter into the
special agreement with them, the substance of which hss
been stated. That agreement was then signed by the
plaintiff's partner on his behalf, the plaintiff himself being
unable to write. During the journey to London a
wheel of one of the trucks in which the plain-
tiff's horses were being conveyed caught fire and
eNentually broke, and the result was that
four of the plaintiff's horses were more or less injured,
and one of the four ultirra'ely died. The plaintiff now
brought the present action to recover the loss he had
sustained, which he estimated at 951.
On the part of the defendants it was contended that
they were not responsible for the damage occasioned to
the plaintiff's horses under the ordinary common law
liabilit y of carriers, that common law liability having
been done away with by the special agreement entered
into between the parties.
The MO was proceeding when our report left.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF BARLiN and a Common Jury.)
WOODS V. BIGGS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action t) Obtain damages fir an alleged
improper execution of a distteis warrant, and also to re-
cover 261, Bs, 6d , the balance claimed by the plaintiff of