The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-23 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL, JAN. 22.

STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market opened with consider-
able firmness this morning, but afterwards declined; the
principal lines, however, remained firm at the close of the
market The transactions were as follow : Caledonian,
Preference, W. Bs. 9d. Great Western, 701,E c.—Ditto,
Quarters, 16 —Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths, 71,4 dis.
Ditto, 311. shares, 9 dis.—Ditto, Fifths (W. R. U.), 63/
dis. London and North-Western, 118% Ditto, New
Quarters, 21/8 p.—Ditto, Fifths, 3 p.— Midland, 441
Ditto, Halves, 16s 3d. dis. South-Eastern and Dover
(No. 4), 6/. 16s. 3d.—York, Newcastle, and Berwick (Ori-
ginal N. and B), 17—Ditto (G. N. E. Purchase), 6 per
cent. till 1850, 47 dis.;

OTHERS.

WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 23, 1850.

the parishioners in vestry duly assembled ; and the
rate in question not seeming to have been imposed
by such a majority; and not having been put to the
vote, it appeared to him that the judgment of the
Queen's Bench was erroneous, and ought to be re -
versed_ The majority who passed the resolution
had set an example of a most dangerous tendency,
and one likely to lead to endless mischief, if fol-
lowed, but their acts did not destroy their legal ma-
jority or confer their authority on the minority.
Sometimes the authority of the minority was sup-
ported on the ground that the majority had withdrawn
their voices, and were to be regarded as absent ; at
other times they were considered as acquiescing.
Neither of these grounds appeared to be sound ; but,
supposing the majority had voted not for the resolu-
tion, but against any rate, it might be questioned then
whether the minority had the power to carry the rate
against the majority ; but no authority had been cited
to support the principle that the power given by law
to the majority might be exercised by the minority
against the will of the majority. In the absence of
such things, he thought it was not law. As to any
analogy to the case of an election, it must be admitted
that it was of very modern authority. After com-
menting on the case of " Oldknow v. Wainewright,"
2 Burrows, 1.017, and others that had been cited in
the arguments addressed to the Court, the Learned
Judge said that his individual opinion was, that the
judgment of the Court of Queeri'd Bench should be
reversed, but, the majority of the Judges having
given a contrary opinion, the result was that the
judgment of the Court below must be affirmed.
[Some ambiguity appears to have arisen from the
fact of our reporter having omitted to state, in the
report of this judgment, which appeared in yester-
day's Sun, that the judgment of the Court below was
affirmed. As, however, four Judges had decided in
favour of affirming the judgment, and only three for
reversing it, those accustomed to the practice of the
courts would at once perceive that the judgment was
affirmed —ED. Sun]

EXCHEQUER COURT, Jan. 22.
'Sittings of Nisi Prius, before the LORD Caur
BARON and a Middlesex Cummon Jury.)
CLARE V. SKELTON AND WIFE.

Mr Edwin James and Mr. Tindal Atkinson were
counsel fo the plaintiff. Mr. Crowder and Mr.
Sewell for the defendants.

This action was brought to recover d*mages for
a false imprisonment. It appeared that the plaintiff
was a cook in the service of the defendants, who kept
a lodging-house in Suffolk-Place, Pall-mall. She
left tbit p!ace on the 12th o. November last, and was
afterwards given into the custody of a police-con-
stable by the female defendant, on a charge of having
stolen two blankets anl a tablecloth. Upon a search
being made at the plaintiff's lodgings, at the instance
of the female defendant, the missing articles were not
found. Nevertheless, the charge of robbery was
persisted in, and upon it the plaintiff was kept in
custody from Wednesday, the 14th of November,
until Friday, the 16th, as the magistrate did not sit
on the intervening day, the 15th, in consequence of
its having been appointed as a public thanksgiving.
[he plaintiff was discharged on the 16th, and this
action was commenced shortly afterward=. The de-
fendants pleaded a justification, but it was not sub-
stantiated, and the contention on their part was
limited to the fact of there being reasonable and
probable cause of charging the plaintiff with the rob-
bery, and, at the same time, of there being no evi-
dence of malice.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201.
WILSON V. ABFILET, .

A rule was granted in this case, on the motion of
Mr. Atherton, on behalf of the defendant, for a new
trial. It WP S. tried i❑ the adjoining Court a few days
ago before Mr Baron Rolfe.

JUDGMENT-BIRD AND OTHERS V• BROWN AND

The LORD Cinar BARON delivered judgment for the
plaintifT3 in this action to-day, which was argued
before the Court during last term on a special care.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Jun. 22.
(Before Dr. LUSIIINGTON.)
THE TRIDENT.
This is a salvage case, which the owners and
crews of three smacks, called Lana R udch, Five
Brothers, and George the Fourth, all of Harwich,
bring on against the United States vessel Trident.
Dr. ADDAMS appeared for the crews of the three
smacks, and stated that the Lana Rookh, on the 21st
September last, got under weigh from Harwich
harbour, and anchored under the Languard Fort, in
readiness to put to sea to assist any vessel that might
be seen in distress, the wind at
,the time blowing a
strong gale from E.S. E. which continued to increase
during the night, and about three, •.m., on the next
morning, while on, the look-out, the crew saw a light
on the larboard bow to the S.E., and considering it
to proceed from a vessel near the Cork Sands, they
made towards it, when they found it is proceed
from a very large vessel, which proved to be the
United States ship the Trident, of 335 tons, trading
from Amsterdam to New York, with a general
cargo and emigrants. She had all her masts gone.
Part of the crew of the Lalla Rookh got into their
boat and endeavoured to get on board the Trident,
but could not, from the mast and rigging hanging
over her sides and flapping about. Sne was then in
only four fathoms water, about a quarter of a mile
from the Cork Sands, her head at the time was
S S.W., the tide fast ebbing, and had she gone on
shore she must have remained there in great peril
until high water. At this time her main, miner),
and foremasts were gone, and her top-yards and
sails, and with difficulty the crew of the Lalla Itookh
was at last able to get en board, when the.master of
the Trident asked if the lights then seen were not the
South Foreland, and being informed they were not,
the master gave up the ship to the crew of the Lalla
Rookh. By this time the other two smacks', the Five
Brothers and the George the Fourth, came .up and
assisted. Having cleared away the deck of the Tri-
dent from the wreck that covered it, they towed her
off the sands into Harwich harbour ; the ship, cargo,
crew, and passengers, were saved from destruction by
this timely assistance, and for which he had no doubt
the Court would award salvage to the parties.
Dr. ROBINSON followed on the same side.
Dr. Hecelenn said he appeared for the owners of
the Trident, and contended that the vessel did not
require any extra hands, that no pump was at work,
that the master and crew of the Trident got her off
the sands without any assistance, that they cut away
the rigging to ease her, and that she was in no danger
at the time the Lalla Rookh came to her assistance,
and there was no danger of life, the wind being also
fair to carry her into harbour. The master of the
Trident admitted they had been in danger, but they
had relieved themselves from it without any assist-
ance, and what services had been rendered by the
smacks were amply remunerated by the tender of
501., which be had no doubt the Court would consider
sufficient.
Dr. ROBERTSON was heard for the same party.
The Learned JUDGE said this was a claim of sal-
vage made against the United States ship Trident,
bound to. New York with a general cargo, and 36
emigrants on board. Having got on the Cork Sands,
off Harwich, which the master took to be the G.rod-
win Sands, three smacks had rendered her assistance,
for which 501. had been tendered. A qUestion for
the Court to decide was, whether the two last vessels
were entitled to salvage, or whether they made a
claim without due found.ition ? There was no doubt
but that the vessel was in great danger, for the master
had hoisted a light for assistance, which unquestion-
ably he wanted, and the Lalla Rookh coming up, she
towed the Trident, with the assistance of the other
two smacks, in safety into Harwich harbour, and this
must have been done with the consent of the master
of the Trident. The Learned Judge said he felt the
services were meritorious, and that they were all
entitled to salvage. The vessel and cargo were
estimated of the value of 4,8001., and instead of 501.,
which had been tendered, he should award the sum
of 2001.