The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-24 00:00:00

MANCEIESTER, JA.N. 23.

STOCK ExcnAsou.—But little • business was done in
our Stock Exchange to-day, and prices had a downward
tendency. The transactions were as follow :—Caledonian,
Preference, 7',l* —East Lancashire, 1234—Ditto, Preference,
Quarters (nun. 6), 7 3-16—Lancashire and Yorkshire, Fifths,
7 5-16 dis.— Ditto, 32/. Clete Extension), 914 dis.—London
and North-Western, New Quarters, 2. p. Ditto, Man-
chester and Birmingham, Quarters (C), 1 9-16 p.—Man-
cheater, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Preference, 8 5-16
North Staffordshire, 10 dis.
BIRMINGHAM, JAN. 23.

STOCK EXCHANGB.—Theshare.market was very dull to-
day, and prices were lower. The only transaction was—
Shrewsbury and Birmingham (B), 5% dis. '
YORK, Luc 22.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day were as
follow :—Great Northern,. 71 3s. 9d.—Leeds and Bradford,
102—Shrewsbury and Birmingham, Preference, 10—York,
Newcastle, and Berwick (Newcastle Extension), 11%.

LORD BROUGHAM'S EXPERIMENTS ON LIGHT.--•
Lord Brougham read on Monday at the Institute, before
a most numerous and brillia,ut auditory, a paper giving
a detailed account of the experiments on light, on which
he has been for some time past engaged. His Lordship
not only explained the nature and result of his late
scientific researches on this subject, but at great length
went through, on the black board, a series of mathema-
tical calculations and demonstrations in' support of his
views. The paper and explatations were listened to
with the greatest interest, and his Lordship was fre-
quently greeted with most enthusiastic applause, as well
as warmly congratulated at the close by the numerous
scientific men present. When the noble academician
had concluded, M. Arago observed, " how much the
scientific world was indebted to the Noble Lord I'm. his
exertions;" adding," that these most interesting experi-
ments and demonstrations, which Lord Brougham had
conducted on the Newtonian theory of attraction, ho
future
esitting philosophers
explain supporhteisd. vie Hem owouldnt
(M. Arago) believed he could explain by the other
rthroeobrayblwyha,t chsome
some
f
matter to which he then adverted." Past of the curious
apparatus invented by Lord Brougham, for his experi •
meats (beautifully made by Soled of Paris), was dis-
played on the table, and excited a considerable share of
cariosity.—Gakgnani.
PROTECTION MEETING AT YORK.—YORK, WED-
NESDAY EVENING.-411 consequence of a requisition,
numerously sigi.ed by the owners and occupiers of land,
merchants,
tradesmen, and others, resident in the
county of Yor!i, a meeting was held this
morning
at the
Da Grey Rooms, to take into consideration the best
means for the restoration of protective duty Oa Tarr.
re ,
solution?
Lord. Ilarewood took ,the, chair. Several
denouncing free trade and in favour of profoction; were
unanimously carried, and the proceedings passed off in
a very orderly manner.

THURSDAY EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 23.
GASKILL V. SHEEN.

The plaintiff in this action was an advertising
agent, and the defendant was the proprietor of the
Redford Mercury. The action was brought to re-
cover a sum of money which it was alleged had been
twice paid, on the latter occasion by mistake. In
order to prove his case at the trial, the plaintiff pro-
posed to give in evidence certai❑ letters written to
the defendant, but there admission was objected to by
the defendant, as it was not shown that any answer
had been sent to them, or that the defendant had
made any admission that he had received them. The
evidence was admitted by Lord Denman, who pre-
sided at the trial, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict
for 71. 7s. 9d. ; but subsequently this Court granted
a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that the
evidence had been improperly received.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS and Mr. PIGGOTT now showed
cause against the rule, and contended that the letters
were admissible, not as evidence of the facts therein
contained, but as showing that certain representations
were made to the defendant, and that ho was silent.
This tended to show that the defence which he after-
wards set up was not true, for, if it had been, there
could be no doubt that he would have set it up in
answer to some one of the four letters which had been
sent to him. This defence was that the plaintiff had
cheated him by deducting 25 per cent. as discount
from the debt which he owed the defendant for adver-
tisements inserted in his paper.
Mr. O'MALLEY and Mr. SPINX supported the rule.
Tho COURT decided that the rule for a new trial
must be discharged, as the evidence was properly ad-
mitted, not as evidence of the facts contained in them,
by which the defendant might be concluded, but
merely to show that a demand was made, and that
when he was afterwards seen by the writer the de-
fendant made no allusion to them.

There were some other technical points which the
Court also decided iu- the plaintiff's favour.
Jule discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 23.
(Sittings iu Banco.)
COBBETT (A PAUPER) V. SLOMAN.
Mr. BaemweLL appeared in this case to support a
demurrer under the following circumstances e—The
action was brought against the defendant (who is
well known as a sheriff's officer) to recover penal-
ties amounting to 1001., for removing the plaintiff
from a lock-up house to the Fleet Prison, so far back
as in the month of June, 1840. The
.plaintiff was
in custody under a commission of rebellion issued by
zhe Court of Exchequer when the removal took place ;
and the declaration alleged that such a removal was
illegel under 31 Charles 11., c. 2, without a writ of
habeas corpus. The defendant pleaded to this
declaration, that the alleged grievance occurred
more than two years before the commencement
of the present action ; to which the plaintiff
replied that he was a prisoner and in custody
until within two years of the commencement of this
ntion ; and to this replication there was a demurrer.
The Learned Counsel now contended that the limita-
tion of two years was applicable to an action of this
kind, although the plaintiff was a prisoner. He also
submitted that a commission of rebellion was not a
criminal proceeding ; and that it WAS only where
persons were in custody on a criminal charge that
the statute on which the action was founded applied.
Cibbett was heard in person in support of the
replication, and argued at great length that a com-
mission of rebellion was a criminal proceeding, and
entitled to the protection which the statute afforded
to prisoners who were removed from one custody to
the other without the sanction of the established tri-
bunals.
After hearing counsel in reply,
The BARONS delivered their judgment, being un-
animously of opinion that the declaration was bad, as
it disclosed no sufficient ground of action. The
proceeding under which the plaintiff was in custody
when removed, though in some sort a criminal mat-
ter, was not a criminal matter within the meaning of
the II sheds Corpus Act ; and the clause in that Act
subjecting parties to penalties for removing prisoners
was meant to protect persons in custody from hav-
ing their -trials delayed. On this ground judgment
must be for the defendant. The Court b?ing unani-
mously in favour of the defendant on this point, it
was unnecessary to give any opinion on the question
raised by the pie).
Judgment for the defendant.
COBBETT (A PAUPER) v. OLDFIELD AND OTHERS.
Tail was an action by the same plaintiff as in
the last case, for false imprisonment, to which the
defendant; pleaded, in justification, that the plain-
tiff was arrested under an attachment issued by the
Court of Chancery for non-payment of costs, in a
suit instituted by one of the defendants against the
plaintiff, as executor of the will of his deceased
father, Mr. William Cobbett, so far back as the
year 1840. The plaintiff demurred to the plea of
justification.
Mr. Cobbett occupied the Court some hours in
support of his demurrer, but the grounds urged by
him appeared to be of such little weight, that
The COURT, without calling upon the Counsel who
appeared to support the plea, at once decided that the
justification was sufficient, and was well pleaded, and
that the d.efendant was entitled to judgment upon de-
murrer. The Court alai) complained of the waste of
the publio time by frivolous proceedings, adopted in
cases similar to the present, and in which plaintiffs
sued as paupers.
COBBETT (A PAUPER) V. OLDFIELD AND OTHERS.
This case, which stood next on the list of demur-
rers, involved, as we were informed, points similar
in substance to those involved in the former case, and
the parties were the same in both cases.
The CHIEF BA itoN sail the Court declined to hear
an argument repeated in this case such as they had
heard in the last, and ordered judgment to be entered
for the defendants. He also inquired the name of the
counsel by whom the demurrers were signed in those
eases ? The officer of the court stated that the de-
murrers appeared to have been signed by Mr. James
Watson.
Mr. MARTIN, who appeared for the defendant, ob-
served that these vexatious proceedings, instituted
from time to time by Mr. Cobbett, cost the defend-
ants no less than G,OOOl. It was a very gross case.
Mr. Cobbett said the costs came chiefly from his
estate.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Baron PARKE—It is a very cruel case, and if
members of the bar who take upon them to certify
pauper cases will not, as it is clearly their duty to do,
satisfy themselves that the plaintiff has a good cause.of
action, some other course must be taken to prevent
the time of the Courts from being wasted, and de-
fendants seriously injured by the institution of such
actions.
Judgment for the defendant.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 23.
(Before. Mr. Commissioner HOLBOYD.)
TUE ST. ALDAN'S DANE—IN RE GIBSON AND STURT.
These bankrupts wire bankers at St. Alban'F, and
the proceedings in the case have been frequently
before the Court and frequently reported in our
journal. The bankrupts came before the Court this
morning upon the adjourned application for their cer-
tificates.
The joint balance-sheet extends from February,
1844, to August, 1849, and is as follows :
Dr.
To creditors'
••• ••• •• ... £3,218 0 8
Commercial Bank holding security ... 4,721 10 0
Liabilities... ••• ••• ••• 102 0 0
Profits - ••• ••• ••• ... 3,784 7 3
Capital borrowed of the Commercial
Bank on deeds of Gibson and joint
note t f the firm

... 1,500 0 0

...411,826 17 11

Total
Cr.
By debts, good, doubtful, and bad
Law expenses ...
Bank premises
Deeds held by Commercial
Trade expenses ... ••• 4,167 12 3
Preliminary expenses in anticipation of a
partner's loss with J. S. Story ••• 73 8 9
E. Gibson, balance 2d December, 1847 ... 1,027 18 6
G. Stull., balance ... ..• 766 2 5

... £3,149 7 1
... 1,276 18 11
.. 1,302 19 11

Total ~, ••• ..• „.£11,826 4 7
Mr. Bagley and Mr. Linklater represented the cre-
ditors, and Mr. Lawrence supported Gibson.
The bankrupt Sturt deposed that in the action
brought by Baymant he had allowed judgment to go
by default. There were proceedings in Chancery to
which Gibson had pleaded. The result of Biy-
mant'a action was, damages 2261., and costs
102/. He denied having given Miss Markham
(a secured creditor) any other assurances than a jocu-
lar remark that if the bank was going wrong he
would give her notice to that effect. At that time he
had no idea of a stoppage taking place. His expe-
rience in the banks of Messrs. Muskett and the
London and County Bank proved to him that his
profit and loss account was made up in the usual
manner. It would have been more regular if a ba-
lance-sheet had been struck at the end of each year.
He was labouring under some disadvantages as to the
position of the bank from year to year, he having had
no previous examination.
The official assignee said that this was in conse-
quence of Mr. Sturt's conduct in abiding by his
statement, thereby frustrating attempts to obtain de-
sired information.
The bankrupt—We shall have more of that by-
and-by, Mr. Groom.
Mr. George—Mr. Groom will be called out.
The bankrupt further deposed that Mr. Gibson had
not been given credit for the 1,5001. advanced by the
Commercial Basic, whose account on the 7th of
October, 1847, was 4,950/. Upon the 23d of July,
500/. was placed to the credit of Mr. Gibson, as money
advanced by him, it having been previously advanced
by his brother, and previous to certain title deeds
being deposited. Oa the 30th of August he gave a