The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-19 00:00:00

MARKET NEWS.-(THIS DAY.)

CORN EXCHANGE—WEDNESDAY.
Tale supply of English Wheat on offer to-day was
selsonably good, and of excellent quality. Selected
samples moved off steadily, at full prices. In the mid-
dling and inferior kinds very little business was trans-
acted. Upwards of 11,000 quarters of Foreign Wheat
have come to hand this week. On the whole a fair
average business was transacted in most kinds, at fully
Munday's currencies. Scarcely any English Barley was
on offer, but the supply of Foreign was tolerably exten-
sive. All descriptions moved off slowly, at late rates.
Malt was in moderate supply and sluggish inquiry, at
last week's quotations. We had a moderate inquiry for
Oats, at very fall prices. Beans, Peas, and all other
articles were dull in sale.

ARRIVALS THIS WEEK.
Wheat. Barley. I Oats.
Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. Qrs.
1,160 410 130 1,530
4,180 4,180 8,418

Malt. I Flour.

English •• ....
Scotch.. • . • ...
Irish .... ....
Foreign ......

BOROUGH FLOP IVEZLIZICET.

Sacks.
970

Fine Hops continue scarce, and quite as dear. In all
other kind 3 very little business is doing. The plantation
amounts are favourable.
vra ISMOZAUPILSO
The general demand ii,re w-thy ruled heavy, and
prices had a downward tendency. Beef, from 2s Od to
3s Od; Mutton, 23 83 to 33 8d; Lamb, 4s Od to 53;
Veal, 23 8d to 33 4d; and Pork, 33 to 4s per 81bs, by
the carcase.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
This being the first seal after Trinity Term, the Mas-
ter of the Rolls sat in his Court, in the Rolls'-yard,
Chancery-lane, and heard motions to-day, none of
which possessed any point of interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)

His Honour sat in his,Court, in Lincoln's Inn, to-day,
it being the first seal after Trinity Term. His Honour,
on taking his seat, stated that it was extremely probable
that he should not be able to sit on Friday, in consequence
of having to attend the Queen's Bench to give evidence
in the action which Mr. Dimes had brought against
the Lord Chancellor. His Honour had in the first
instance been subpoaned on behalf of the Lord Chancel-
lor, but he had since been informed that his attendance
would be unnecessary. Since then, however, he had re-
ceived a communication from Mr. Dimes, a very silly
one he could not help considering it, requesting to
know where he might be served with a subpoana on his
behalf. The probable result therefore was that he
should not be able to sit on Friday.
The Court then proceeded to bear motions, none of
which possessed any feature of interest except to the
parties concerned.

- (Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
His Honour sat in his Court at Lincoln's Inn, it being
the first seal after Trinity Term.

MATTHEWS if. THE EASTERN C.)IINTIES RAILWAY COM-

PAN Y-AUDGMENT.

His HONOUR gave judgment to-day in this case, which
was argued before him shortly befure the recess after
trinity Term, upon a motion to strike off the list of
allottees the name of a party that had been placed upon
it by the Master. His Honour dismissed the motion
without costa and without prejudice to any application
being made to the Master to rehear the case.
His Honour in concluding his judgmeut. observed that
if this Act of Parliament (alluding to the Winding-up
Act) turned out to be as beneficial to the public as it
had been to the legal profession, he should feel bound to
confess that it was one of the greatest legal achievements
that he had ever witnessed.
The Court then proceeded to hear motions.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Lord
CArdraELL and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. LORD DUNBOYNE.

This was an indictment for perjury, preferred against
Lord Dunboyne, for improperly describing himself in
the parish register of St. George's, Hanover Square, as
a widower, contrary to the 6th and 7th Wm. IV., c. 86.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Ogle were counsel for
the prosecution; and the defendant was represented by
Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. E. James.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS, in opening the case for the
prosecution, stated that the defendant, the BAron Dun-
boyne, was married on the 25th August, 1842, to
Margaret Ann Vincent Vaughan, at the parish church
of Paddington. A settlement had been drawn up two
days before the marriage settling the property on the
wife under certain restrictions, to which the defendant
was a party. After the marriage, on the 27th August,
1842, it was obvious that the name of the lady ceased
to be Vaughan. She was no longer a widow, nor was
he a widower. The marriage was kept a profound
secret, except to persons present at its solemnization, for
reasons which he was not at liberty to explain. Even
the servants in Mrs. Vaughan's house were not privy to
it. On the 19th December, 1843, Lord Dunboyne went
to St. George's Church, Hanover-square with the same
lady, describing himself as the 134r0n Dunboyne, a
widower, and the lady as Mary Anne Vincent Vaughan,
which description was, consequently, untrue. The
Learned Sergeant then called the attention of the jury to
the 41st section of the 6th and 7th William IV., cap. 8,
under which the prosecution was instituted. That sec-
tion enacted that every person who should wilfully make,
or cause to be made, false entries in the register of
births, deaths, or marriages, should be subject to the
same pains and penalties as if they were guilty of per-
jury. The Learned Sergeant then called the following
witnesses to support the indictment :
The Rev. E. H. Stevenson, curate of the church at
Paddington, proved that, in 1842, he solemnized a mar-
riage between Lord Dunboyne atad Mrs. Vaughan. The
particulars in the entry of marriage were written by
witness.

Mr. John Burley proved that the signature to the
register of marriage was that of Lord Dunboyne.
Mr. Withers, a clerk to Simmons and Co., bankers, at
Reading, with whom Mrs. Vaughan kept an account,
proved that the signature to the register of marriage was
in that lady's handwriting.
Mr. Dyke, Registrar of Doctors' Commons, produced
an affidavit sworn in December, 1843, on the application
for a marriage licence.
Dr. Wad&love proved that it was his duty to admi-
nister the oath to parties coming before him for a mar-
riage licence. (The affidavit, which was in the usual
form, was here read.)
Mr. C. H. Powell said, in December, 1843, he was
the parish clerk of St. George's, Hanover-square. Wit-
ness produced the marriage licence and register-books
for the marriage of Lord Dunboync and Mrs. Vaughan,
respectively described as widower and widow.
The Rev. W. E. Dickenson, curate of St. George's,
Hanover-square, proved that he solemnized a marriage
between Lord Dunboyne and Mrs. Vaughan on the 19th
December, 1843. He also proved the signatures of Lord
Dunboyne and Mrs. Vaughan to the entry of the mar-
riage. _

Ann Roche proved that she was sometime ago a ser-
vant to Mrs. Vaughan. Remembered her Lmarriage in
December, 1843, at St. George's, Hanover-square, and
had lived with her since 1842. Previous to 1843 she
was always addressed as Mrs. Vaughan. Major Marshall
married a daughter of Lord Dunboyne, and Mrs. Mar-
shall was present at the marriage of Lord Dunboyne
and Mrs. Vaughan, in December, 1843.
By Mr. COCKBURN—Ia 1842, Mrs. Vaughan lived at
Belle Hatch, near Henley. Lord Dunboyne sometimes
visited at that place. She lived with her grandmother,
Mrs. Halloway, and sometimes she lived at her own
house. Witness was not aware of the first marriage with
Lord Dunboyne. For a long time in 1843 Mrs. Hallo-
way was poorly. She was possessed of some property.
She died on the sth of September, 1844. After the
marriage in 1843, Mrs. Vaughan took the name of Lady
Dunboyne. She died in 1846.
Brhfr. Sergeant WILIUNS—They lived together till

the 7th of November, 1844, after which Lord Dunboyne
never came back.
The case was proceeding when our report left.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco after Term.)
BRAITHWAITE V. CRAWSHAY.
In this case, in which an application was made for a
rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial
on the ground of misdirection, and the verdict being
against the evidence,
The COURT refused to grant a rule.
HUNTER V. SPENCE.
The COURT also refused to grant a rule in this case.

SECONDARIES'.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before J. POTTER, Esq.)
SMITH Y. STEBBING AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought to recover the amount of
two promissory notes of 51. each, of which defendants
were alleg.d to be the makers.

Mr. Du—Ncs.N appeared for the plaintiff, who was the
agent of a loan society, and the notes were made in his
favour.

The defendants pleaded that they did not make the
note s, but the fact was proved, and the substantial de-
tence vv•3s one on a point of kw. It appeared that Steb-
bing had signed one of the notes as " Henry Stebbing,"
and the other as Henry James Siebbing," and it Wld
urged on his behalf that the declaration, describing him
as Henry Stebbing alone, would not stand against him as
Henry James S,ebbing, or vice versa.
The Learned SECONDARY held the declaration wits
good, not having been demurri.d to; and that the plea
had been met by the positive testimony of a witness,
who had seen Stebbing sign both the notes. If he chose
to misdescribe himself, it was his own fault.
Verdict for the plaintiff.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(THIS DAY.)
James Dean, an old offender, was sentenced to seven
years' transportation for picking pockets.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said that he had as good a
mind as ever he had in his life to commit the policeman
engaged in the case to prison. He attended at this court
yesterday till half-past ten, and while the bill was before
the Grand Jury he went off to attend an inferior tribunal,
and never returned till late in the afternoon. The po-
licemen in the City seemed to think that they could do
as they liked at this court, but if such a case ever arose
again he should commit the offender.