The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-12 00:00:00

THE SUN,

INDIA.

week issued orders that all work on the iron steamers
is to be suspended until further instructions from their
Lordships.

named Mr. Glen's Damask for this event, on Monday
communicated to him his iaten,,ion to strike him out;
and at Brighton, about 142.1 f-past four o'olock on We toe.,
day, did so in writing to Mr. ‘Veatherby: Mr. Glen, we
behave, denies the Captain's right to scratch him.

EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM THE COMMANDEE•IN+
CHIEF OF INDIA TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL Of '
INDIA.

PRICES OF SHARES

Head Quarters, Camp, Peshawar, Feb. 16, 1850.
bay Lord,—ln furtherance of your Lorship's order;
to report on the frontier defence, especially on that o f
the Peshawur district, I was proceeding to Kohat, as ot
an ordinary march, when the Deputy-Commissioner,
Lieut.-Colonel Lawrence, informed me that a dstac'a-
ment of sappers and miners, repairing the road between
Kohat and the Pass, had been unexpectedly attacked fey
a body of the Afredi tribe, aided by others of the
Khyber and Durikzye tribes, to the number of from 700
to 1,200 men; they massacred nearly all the sappers and
miners; no mercy was shown by the assailants, who
came from the neighbouring villages, occupying the fast-
nesses of the long and perilous defile through the Afredi
range of mountain!.
2. By this unexpected attack, unprovoked by any mis-
conduct on the part of the detachment, the civil station
of Kohat was cut off; and it became necessary to rein-
force that station, and to punish the insurgent tribes. I
therefore ordered the force named in the note,* accom-
panied by my own escort, under the command of Bri-
gadier Sir Colin Campbell, to march for those purposes
on the 9th of February.
3. On the 10th we entered the pass, and I was met by
some deputies, from the village of Akhor, who endea-
voured to exculpate themselves; but Lieut.-Colonel
Lawrence having assured me that his information was
correct as to what villages had formed the force that
massacred our detachment, and that this was one of those
•illages, my answer to the deputies was, that their people
must give themselves and their arms up to me; that
they have received money from the British Government
for protecting this% road, and that instead of affording
that protection they had murdered a detachment of our
soldiers. I gave them an hour to consider what answer
they would give to my summons to surrender themselves.
At the end of the hour they returned, and said their
companions would not listen to them. I therefore ordered
Sir C. Campbell and Lieut.-Colonel Lawrence to crown
the heights round the village, but not to fire unless fired
upon. The moment our troops advanced the Afredi
matcblockmen opened their fire, which was instantly re-
turned, our troops driving the enemy beforo them in
every direction.
4. The civil authorities then burnt the village, and the
column advanced five miles further to its encamping
ground at Gurgoon Khali, which the enemy defended;
but it was taken; and we pitched our camp, under the
fire of matchlocks from the overhanging precipices.
5. On the 11th we continued our march through the
defile, constantly skirmishing with the enemy, and en-
camped at Bosty Khali, about five miles from our last
ground, and immediately under the Pass of Kohat,
which was in possession of some irregular troops sent
by the Assistamt-Commissioner, Lieutenant Pollock, for
that purpose.
6. This evening I sent the Ist Punjaub Cavalry, under
Captain Daly, to Kohat, and myself examined the top
of the pass. The whole of that night the enemy kept
continually firing upon our pickets.
7. On the 12th, accompanied by my staff, I rode to
Kohat, and examined its defences and position, &c., &c.,
returning to camp about four .at. I ordered Brigadeir
Sir C. Campbell and Lieut.-Colonel Lawrence to make
preparations for our return to Peshawur the next morn-
ing, which they accordingly did, ordering the Ist Pun-
jaub Infantry to hold the high ground till our roar guard
was out of sight, when this excellent regiment retired
to Kohat, which was thus reinforced by two corps, one of
cavalry and one of infantry.
8. In one march the column swept through the whole
defile, skirmishing with the enemy all the way, and
reaching Muthuee between three and four o'clock, seven-
teen miles from the morning's ground; and on the 14th
we returned to Peshawur.

IN BANKS, ASSURANCE, AN!) OTHER, COM•

PANIES' STOCK.
Front the Official List.

RACES T
AUG

0 COME.
;UST.

FUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY EVENING.

‘Volverharnpton l2
Eglinton Park
Reading
Boulogne l4
Lewes l4
Great Yarmouth 2O

Tunbtiilge Wells
Stirling
Eccles
Stourbridge
Derby 27
Taunton
Chalk Farm 27
Eghatn.... .. 28
Canterbury 29
Paisley
:MBER.

LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 9.

ZOTNT.STOCE SANS.

Utley
Plymouth 2l
York 2l
Barnet 2l

Warwick . , 3
Weymouth 4
Morpeth

Liverpool H. (Eloylake) 11
Totnee ll
Lynn
D.,ver
Basingstoke l2
Doncaster
Richmond ....... 23
Bedford . 24
S lndbach , 24
Manchester Autumn
Scarborough

Lincoln
Rochester
Western Meeting 5
Bungay
Lichfield
Radcliffe
Werneth Low 9
Cheadle (Stafford hire) 9
Leicester ll

Newmkt. First October 1
Chesterfield
Chester Autumn 8
Royal Caledonirtn, &c 9

I Newmkt. Sccond Oat 14
Wrexhim
INewmarket Houghton 23

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Aug. 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GOULEMAN.)
IN RE HOGG AND lIOGG.

The bankrupt; were auctioneers, at Landport, near
Portsmouth. They had also been lessees of two theatres
at that place. This was the certificate meeting. There
was no opposition. Their debts were about 3,0001.;
assets nearly lOs. in the pound.
His HONOUR, observing that their cash-book had not
been correctly kept, suspended the certificates for six
months from the date of the bankruptcy, with protec•
tion in the mean time; when granted, the certificates to
be of the second class.

IN RE NASH AND. NEALEo-THE REIGATE AND DORK

ING BANK.
Application was made in this case on behalf of Mr.
Killick, one of the assignees, and chairman of the Dork-
ing board of guardians, to be allowed to transfer his
proof for 7001. odd, made on behalf of the union, from
the joint estate to the separate estate of Na,th.
After the facts had been partially gone into, his
HONOUR directed the case to stand over.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Aug. 10.
MR. SERGEANT MANNING AND THE INSOLVENT DEBTORS'

COURT.

Shortly before the rising of the Court Mr. 'lorry
made an application to Mr. Commissioner Law for the
discharge of a person named John Brown, who had
been committed on Thursday by Mr. Sergeant Man-
ning, the Judge of the Whitechapel County Court, to
Whitecross-street Prison, notwithstanding his final order.
This is the second case of the kind in which the two
Courts have come into collision. Mr. Commissioner
Law decided a few months back, in the case of a person
named Symonds, that the protection of the Insolvent
Debtors' Court extended to relieve insolvents from orders
of County Courts where no order of commitment had
been made, and on that ground discharged Symons from
Whitecross-street Prison. Since then Mr. Sergeant Man-
ning has enforced his opinion in opposition by a commit-
ment. How long this state of things will continue it is im-
possible to say, but if persisted in some serious conse-
quences to the administration of justice are likely to arise.
It appeared that Brown had been summoned fur a doc-
tor's bill to the Whitechapel County Court, and ordered
to pay es. a month,which instalments he paid from January
to May last, when he fili-d his petition under the
Protection Act, and obtained his final order on the 17th
of June last. Two days before he obtained his final
order he was served with a judgment summons for not
paying the instalments. On the 27th of June, according
to his affidavit, he attended the County Court and pro-
duced his final order, when ha was told by Mr. Sergeant
Manning that it was of no avail, and that he must con-
tinue to pay the instalments. He refused to make such
payments, and on Thursday last was committed to prison
by the warrant of Mr. Sergeant Manning. The balance
of the debt was only 11. Bs. 6d.
The officer of Whitecross-street Prison produced the
warrant, and stated that the defendant was still in con-
finement. _ .

9. The civil authorities burnt six of the offending
villages known to Colonel Lawrence as having lioen con-
cerned in the massacre of our detachment.

10. The whole of these operations were ably con-
ducted by Brigadier Sir C. Campbell and Lieut.-Colonel
Lawrence, commanding the military and civil forces re-
spectively.
11. Lieut.-Colonel Lawrence will of course make his
report to the Punjaub Government; and I have the
honour to enclose that of Sir Colin Campbell, together

•
with a copy of my own general order, foi- your Lord-
ship's inforMation.
12. It may be as well to remark that all the villages
that were destroyed had bean previously abandoned ;
nothing but fighting men remained in them.
13. The conduct of the troops of all ranks was ex-
cellent.
14. We have necessarily boat some bravo soldiers in
these operations. Twenty men have been slain, and
seventy-four wounded; among the former I have to la-1
ment the gallant young Sitwell, and four brave comrades
who fell at his side—viz., havildar Gholab Dirchet, naick
Madho Sing, and sepoys Meerwan Opadeea and Deen-
bund Pandy, of the 31st Native Infantry. The havildar
and two sepoys, named Sobha RIM and Buctour Ram,
attempted to carry off their wounded leader.
15. The havildar was killed, the two sepoys despe-
rately wounded; they were rescued by their comrades
afterwards, and are now in hospital. The naick Hoolas
Khan went four times up the hill in the lace of the
enemy, accompanied by Buctour Khan, and brought
away a wounded man each time. Thase were great
deeds of valour and self-devotion done by soldiers of
humble rank, sad I claim for these four men, Hoolas
Khan, Sobha Ram, Buctour Ram, and Buctour Khan,
the " order of merit" at your Lordship's hands. Alas!
young. Sitwell is beyond human reward. He fell, rushing
against the enemy, and calling o❑ his men to follow, and
they obeyed him. When he fell, he tried in vain to
make them leave him to an unsparing fo', and save their
lives; they obeyed not then, but died with him I
Horoic was the young spirit that inspired such deeds !
' Tne jemadar who commanded the party when Sitwell
fell is said to have conducted himself with admirable
jnigment, coolness, and courage, and the enemy were
defeated in this desperate combat. There was noble
leading and intrepid following!
* • •

Mr. Commissioner LAW closely inspected the warrant
and said it recited that the defendant had not appeared.
Mr. Honny referred to his affidavit, in which be dii-
tinctly stated that he had app,ared.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said there was a great dis-
crepancy between the judge and the defendant. The
warrant of the judge recited that he did not attend at all,
whilst the oath of the other declared that he did attend.

It appeared from a discussion which took place be.
tween Mr. lorry and the Commissioner that the defen-
dant had no attorney in his present application, but
that be (Mr. lorry) had drawn the affidavit from a
"case" submitted to him. He (Mr. lorry) cited the
case of Symons, and hoped the Court would grant a
warrant of discharge, which would supersede the war-
rant of commitment of Mr. Sergeant Mantling.
Mr. Commissioner LAW carefully went over the case,
and referred to the application in the mstter of Symons.
It would seem that the judge had ordered the commit-
ment because the party was of ability to pay, and the
clerk who drew the warrant had :et forth that the de-
fendant had not appeared. His Honour intimated that
the warrant of discharge would h.sue when he had a
copy of the warrant cf commitment and a copy of his
order in the former case. The defendant was, therefore,
discharged, subject to the warrants being lodged, and
thus there is another judicial collision► between Mr.
Sergeant Manning and the Insolvent Debtors' Court.

I have, &e.,
C. J. NAPIER, General Commander-in• Chief.

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING-, AUGUST 12, 1850.

having' remainA in England at the requnt of the (12-
fentla,t. Mr. Boviil and Mr. Barnard were counsel for
tha plaintiff; Mr. E. chi:QC; Q.C., and Mr. Lush, f)r the
defendant.

The defendant in this action was the chairman of 'the
North Wales Railway Company. The plaintiff had been
its secretary, and, as is welt known to the uublic, the
affairs of that company became the subject of investiga-
tion by a Co:nrnittee of the House of Llrds in the result
of which both the plaintiff and defendant were committed
to the custody of the Usher of the Black Rod for con-
tempt of the House in not producing before the Com-
mittee the books and proceedings of the company, which
had been required by the House. The plaintiff alleged
that he had been detained in England to assist the direc-
tors in the inquiry before the House of Lords, and that
a contract was made by the defendant that ho should be
paid a year's salary, 3001., and another year's salary as a
bonus, and a further sum for the period he should be de-
tained, if he performed the services they required of him
in winding up the affairs of the company.
In order to establish the claim various minutes and
proceedings of the company were read, and also resolu-
tions that were pasied when defendant was chairman, and
. .

from which it was contended that the contract had been
established.

Mr. Eales, one of the directors of the company, was
called to prove that the defendant had signed the a4rt e-
meat that was relied upon. He likewise stated that the
defendant had lent large sums of the funds of the com-
pany to various persons.-45,0001. to the South-Western
Railway Company, and other large sums to friends of
his own. The plaintiff, he said, he considered did per-
form the services that were required of him in connexion
with the winding up of the company, and he believed at
the present time he was " designated" as the secretary to
some foreign mining company. The wituecs likewise
said that he saw a cheque for 600/. in the possession of
the defendant, which he understood was intended to settle
the claim of the plaintiff:
In cross-examination by Mr. JAMES, the witness said
that he was a director of the company for four years. He
had not borrowed any money from the funds of the c,;tu-
pally himself, but his brother-in-law had, and the loan
was upon his • (witness's) recommendation. Jr was
3,0001., and he would not swear that he did not himself
receive the identical cheques. He had the money, and
used it, certainly, and his brother-in-law had none of it.
He did not use it in his business, and he declined to say
to what purpose he applied it. The loan had since bean
repaid with interest, as had also the money burrowed by
the South-Western Railway. He would nut swear that
the loan to his brother-in-law was repaid before the in-
quiry into the affairs of the company commenced in the
House of Lords.

Some other evidence was adduced from which it ap-
peared that there had been other money transactions
between the plaintiff and defendant, and that the former
had received a sum of 1701., which it was contended
was to be considered a part payment of his claim upon
Mr. Chadwick.

Mr. JAMES took several objections to the form of the
contract, and it was arranged, after a good deal of dis-
cussion, that certain points should be reserved for the
consideration of the Court.

The Learned COUNSEL then addressed the jury. He
said that although he could not attempt to justify all the
conduct of the defendant in dealing as he had with the
funds of the company, rt he did think that, taking into
consideration the painful position of the plaintiff, he was
the last person who ought to have instructed his coun-
sel to take up all these painful proceedings egains the
defendant, particularly when they had nothing to do
with the case.

Mr. BovILL said the matters in question were already
public (slough, and all the facts had been printed in tae
minutes of the proceedings of the House of Lords.
Mr. JAMES said he was aware of that, but everybody
did not have access to those minutes, and he repeated
that it was an ungenerous proceeding on the part of the
plaintiff to have given such instructions to his counsel,
and he could not help observing, at the same time, that
considering the conduct of Mr. Eales as connected with
this company, it was not a very kind act on his ptrt to
come forward and give such evidence against his co-
director as he had on the present occasion. The Le trned
Counsel then made some pointed observations upon the
position of gentlemen who, like the defendant and a still
greater railway monarch, he said, when they mere di -
posed or had abdicated, were calumniated and attacked
by those who when they were in power treated them
as idols and little pieties in the peat temple of Mammon.
The CHIEF BARON briefly summed up, and the jury
after a short deliberation returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages 430/.

OXFORD CI RC U IT.— Gloucester, Aug. 10.
NISI PRlUS.—(Before Lord Chief. Justice CAMPBELL.)

EARL FITZHARDINGE V. LONG.

This was a special jury cause. Mr. Keating, Q C., and
Mr. Gray, for the plaintiff; and Mr. Whately, Q C., fir
the defendant.

It was an action by a landlord against a tenant to re-
cover half-a-year's rent. The defendant resisted the
action on some grounds of his own, which did not trans-
pire, but which were perfectly untenable, judging from
the remarks of his coun...el, who gave up the case on
Earl Fitzhardinge consenting t,) give the tenant twelve
months' time to pay. The pleas on the record were,
besides the general issue, that the defendant hail re-
ceived notice to quit before the rent was due, and that
he had also been evicted from the farm before the rent
was due.

CORWELL V. WULLS ♦ND OTHERS.

Mr. Keating, Q.C., and Mr. Skinner appeared for the
plaintiff in this case; and Mr. Alexander, Q.C., and Mr.
Gray for the defendants.
This ease occupied some hours, but the point at issue
lay in a nutshell. It was :a question of manori r 1 right—
whether the plaintiff, as lord of the manor of Stoke 01-
chard, had a right to the waste and commonable land
lying on the side of the road at Stoke Orchard green, in
the parish of Bishops Clune. The value of the lend was
inconsiderable; it was the question of right which was in
dispute. The plaintiff, Mr. Roger Coxwell, resides at
Dowdeswell, in this county, and was lord of the manor
of Stoke Orchard. The defendant, Mr. Hulls, is the
attorney of this city, and the other defendants are par-
ties who joined him in the act of trespass in respect of
which the action was brought. According to the plain-
tiff's case it appeared that at the first court leet held by
him as lord of the manor, on succeeding to the lordship
from his brother, a presentation was made that a com-
mon pound was required, and he accordingly provided
the timber for the purpose, and had the pound erected.
This was in 1844, and the pound so remained until April,
1849, when the wayward of the manor received a notice
from Mr. Hulls, calling upon him to remove the pound as
a nuisance. No notice was taken of this requisition, and on
the 29th of May following the defendants pulled down
the pound, and placed the timber on the highway. The
defendants claimed the land ,as being betneen their
freehold and the pathway, but the lord of the manor
claimed it as waste of the manor. It appeared from the
plans put in that there were several cottages and gar-
dens lying by the side of this slip of land, which divided
them from the road, and hence the owners of these cot-
tages and gardens, named Hatch and Hancock, claimed
the land in question as part of their freehold. It was
alleged by the plaintiff that in cases where inclosures had
bees made from this waste by cottsgers living on its mar-
gin they had paid an acknowle iguient to the lord. The
case terminated in a verdict for the plaintiff, thus estab-
lishing the right of the lord of the manor to the land as
waste.

nal En passing centence; and if in the present instance
the pr;soner imagined that in being transported he
w,-,;111 beeoml a new man, and live a comparatively easy
life in a foreign laud, he could assure him be was much
mistaken.

BURGLARY AND Assaml.. Samuel Trash, 16, and
Samuel Osborne, 17, were indicted for fianiously enter-
ing the dwelling-houso of Joseph Edgar, and stealing
therefrom a chisel and a dung-fork.
Mr. COLE, who conducted the prosecution, stated that
Mr. Edgar (who was since dead) reaided at Crewkerne,
in this county. About half-past five on the evening of
the 12th of May Mr. Edgar was sitting with his wife in
the kitchen of his house, and hearing a noise in a room
overhead, he went to see how it had been occasioned.
Shortly after Mrs. Edgar heard a heavy fall, and, on
going up stairs, she met the prisoner Trash, who had a
dung-fork in his hand, with which he knocked her down,
and made his escape. Mr. Edgar was found in the bed-
room lying on the floor covered with blood, and with a
chisel lying by his side.
The prosecutrix was called to depose to these facts,
but it appeared from her statement that no property was
actually taken from the premises.
The Learned JUDGE thereupon said he hardly thought
the charge laid in the indictment could be sustained, be-
cause it was essential to make out the crime of house-
breaking and stealing, that some property should either
be removed from the premises, or so removed as to ren•
der it apparent that there was an intention to commit a
felony. In the present instance it was most probable
that the chisel had been used for the purpose of breaking
open boxes and drawers, and that finding himself dis-
turbed Trash ust d the dungforle for the purpose of re-
si*tance, and not with any intention of ttealiug it. The
jury adopted this view, and Acquitted the prisoners.
Another indictment, charging them with assaulting
Edgar, with intent to murder him, and to do him some
grievous bodily harm, was then proceeded. Trash was
found Guilty, and sentenced to be transported fur 20
years. Osborne was acquitted.

RICHMOND PETTY SESSIOAS, August 10.
SINGULAR CHARGE OF BIGAMY.—Mary Fitzgerald,
was charged before Mr. Penrhyn, and a full bench of
magistrat, s, with having, on the 17th of JAnuary, 1831,
at St. George's, Bloomsbury, feloniously intermarried
with one William Beckfor,l, her former husband, Samuel
Fitzgerald. being still alive.
The prisoner was married to a person named Fitz-
gerald, in August, 1824, and in 1831 she married
Beckford. According to her statement it would appear
that she married the latter person—by whom she had
five children—believing that Fitzgerald was dead, he
having gone out in a condemned regiment. It turned
our, however, that he was not dead, end about ten years
after the marrilge in question he came to the house of
the second husband, and "c!aitned his wife."

The prisoner, who said that she was not aware Fitz-
gerald was alive when she marrici Beckford, was com-
mitted fur trial.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.

REFUSING TO ADMIT THE POLlCE.—lllichael Myers,
the keeper of a beer-shop in B)reas passage, Cutler-
street, was summoned for refusing to admit the police
on Sunday morning.
Finie, 41, stated that at ten minutes to twelve on
Sunday morning be saw six persons leave the house.
He knocked, the door was opened, but slammed back
again when it was seen that he was an officer, fie stood
at the dour more than a quarter of an hour, and a fe-
malis and two men looked out of an upper window. In
Vie early part of tha morning he had seen between
twenty and thirty persons enter the home.
Defendant said he was i❑ the habit of keeping open
till eleven o'clock on Sunday morning to sell coffee, but
certainly not beer, and he did nut do so on the present
occasion.

Mr. Alderman CARDEN inflicted a find of 40s. and
costs.

GUILDHALL.

THE RIVAL GAS COMPANIES —ll7illiam Gray, one of
the workmen in the employ of the Great Central Gas
Company, appeared in answer to an information charg-
ing him with wilfully and maliciously cutting and other-
wise injuring a pipe belonging to the City Chartered Gas
Company; which was used f.a- supplying the public lamps
with gas.
Frederick Billows, Assistant-Inspector to the Char-
tered Gas Company, said that he saw the pipe at Fins-
bury-place, and at 7 o'clock on Thursday he saw it quite
sound. It was encrusted with rust, but there were no
holes in it to allow an escape of gas. SL eing the men
at work in the trench were bringtng the new main in
such a direction as would necessarily disturb the pipes
belonging to the City Chartered Gas Company, he called
Gray, the f fireman of the works, and cautioned him to
avoid the pipes, or otherwisl he would effect a permit
rent injury to the pipes belonging to the City. Chartered
Company if he carried the new main so close to the old
one. Gray said, " Very well, I will go under it." In-
stead of lie, ping to that promis.', the next morning
witness found he had cut the pipe, apparentiy. with a
chisel, and thereby stopped the supply to the lamp that
the pipe served. On saying to Gray that he had cut the
pipe, he replied "Yes, a gentleman came here and told
me to cut it." He atterwards said he was instructed by
Mr. Bushy to cut the pipe. On being cross-examined
by Mr. Under-Sheriff Wire (who was retained by the
the Great Central Gas Company to defend the prisoner),
he (witness) stated that the pipe was quite sound when
he first saw it, and that the holes in it when produced
were occasioned by the removal of the rust.
John Henry Brock Billows stated that he had from
20 to 30 himiiar charges against the new company,
all of which might have bei n avoided had the parties
directing the works been disposed. lie called the at-
tention of the Commissioners of Sewers to the mode
in which the company were conducting tbeir works.
and he stopped theta, and would not allow them to
go on.
That being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Wire
rose to reply. Ho contended that it was absolutely im-
possible fur a new company, in opening the roads, to
feel their wa7 amidst the multiplicity of pipes in the
public thoroughfares of the city of London, so as to re-
frain from doing some kind of injury to some of the
pipes, and that, too, without any malicious intention.
He was confident that had the damage complained of
been effected by the Commercial Gas Company in-
stead of a new rival one, the Alderman would then
have heard nothing of the information at present before
Alderman HUNTER said it seemed to him that the
pipe was intentionally broken, and therefore wilfully,
though not maliciously. Gray was warned not to
touch the pipe, and iuvit'd to alter the direction of the
main. Grey said, " Very well, I will go under it."
Instead of which, he receives lust' uctions, as ho has
said, and as Mr. Bugby admits, to break the pipe.
He would, therefore, fine Gray 205., the lowest penalty;
, but he conceived it was important that no company
i should be permitted to destroy the works of another.