The Sun.
London, England, 1850-09-28 00:00:00

WHY THE CLERGY ARE CALLED

ROOKS.

At the agricultural dinner held at Warrington,
when tha health of the rector was given, the Hon.
and 11,-..v. Horace .Powys responded in a speech of
some humour. He sa'd—Gentlemen, if you can ima-
gine such a position, I feel that I am placed in a very
bad one. I feel as if I were taken bodily possession
of by a strange congregation, put into a strange pul-
pit, and given a text to preach from when I do not
know the subject which the text alludes to; and as
when a man gets into a difficulty he has rather a high
precedent as to the mode of getting out of it—when
he is in one he ordinarily sets himself about throwing
in a bone of contention amongst those who are listen-
ing to him I INN at once epply myself to what I know
to be a subject of agricultural discussion, and, I be-
lieve, of wide difference of opinion. I remember once
dining in company amongst a large number of far-
mers, and one of them very good, naturedly and face-
tiously alluding to my presence in the company, said
he thought the farmers could do exceedingly well, if
it were only to get rid of certain expenses which they
had felt too long; and, I believe, that there is a bird
which is the ordinary representative of those who
usually wear the same colour in their clothing.—
(Laughter.) I have heard there is a very wide dif-
ference of opinion on the subject of the merits and
demerits of the rook, and I have beard certain sports-
men say that they are very injurious birds to them,
inasmuch as they suck the eggs, and otherwise destroy
great quantities of game.—(Hear and laughter.) I
only know I have not paid any very great attention
to this portion of the subject, but I have also heard
numerous complaints that they do a great deal of
mischief amongst the seeds ; and I have heard others,
who know most perhaps about the subject, say that
this is a great mistake ; that they merely rid the
farm of venomous insects ; and that it is the habit of
the rook, by some extraordinary providential dispen-
sation, to be able at a great distance to mark and
ascertain where the noxious vermin lies at the root of
unprofitable grass. So he descends and plucks up the
grass, feeds on the worms, and makes room for more
fruitful herbage.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now,
I believe that is our trade and profession, gentlemen
—(Great applause and laughter)—and, therefore, this
particular district must not expect from me any very
enlightened practical illustrations on farming or agri-
cultural principles. I believe I know the difference
between a bull and a cow—(Laughter)—but I be-
lieve it is quite as much as I do know.—(Continued
laughter.) However, I feel it is my duty to aid the
farmer as much as I can do by moral means, or by any
powers I may possess given me by others. Anything
which is noxious to the moral and intellectual welfare
of the country must materially affect its industrial
occupations.—(Hear, hear.) lam always rejoiced to
find myself in the presence of farmers, and I hope, as
far as I shall possibly be enabled to do so, to main-
tain that part of the controversy which certainly sets
forth the fact that rooks are an advantage to a com-
munity, by feeding on vermin and devouring them

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Sept. 27
(Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.)
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN GOODALL.

This insolvent, a surveyor, who had resided in Penton-
square, was opposed by Mr. Nichols on the part of
Messrs. Steer, Cuerton, and Lawford, stock and share
brokers, Pope's Head-alley, Cornhill. Mr. Cooke,
with whom was Mr. Sargood, supported the applica-
tion fur discharge.
Three points were raised in this case in opposition
to the discharge—namely, contracting a debt without
reasonable expectations of payment, a vexatious de-
fence, and making away with property.
It appeared that the insolvent had speculated in
railway shares, and had lost upwards of 500/. The
opposing creditors acted as his brokers and had pur-
chased largely for him in Eastern Counties' shares.
In December, 1848, they purchased by his direction
200 shares in the Eastern Counties, which came to
2,4001. The purchase was made of Messrs. Ricardo
for the 28th of that month. The money was not
forthcoming, and they were resold to Messrs.
Ricardo by Messrs. Steer, and the difference
in the few days was upwards of 900/. For
the difference an action was brought, to which the
insolvent pleaded by his attorney. Mr. John Nichols,
of Cook's-court, his attorney, conducted his case
in this court, and the costs exceeded 901., making the
debt due to the opposing creditors more than 1,0001.
The insolvent alleged on his examination that the
purchase of the shares was a " time bargain," and
that it was a gambling transaction. On the other
side Mr. Lawford, one of the firm, gave evidence that
it was a purchase, and not of the character described.
His firm, as brokers, were bound to pay the dif-
ference, and had paid on the transaction upwards
of 9001.

In the course of the evidence it transpired that
after the verdict was given against the insolvent,
which was the only debt he owed except one, he mort-
gaged his furniture for 2001., which he spent in pay-
ing some few debts and living on the remainder for
some months, during which time he avoided an exe-
cution at the suit of the opposing creditor.
Mr. NICEIOL3 urged the three points mentioned,
ant asked the Court to protect sharebrokers from
similar conduct by giving a judgment of some du-
ration.

. Mr. COOKE characterized the transaction in ques-
tion as a " time bargain," and called the attention of
the Court to an Act of Parliament passed in the 7tb
year of George 11., to prevent the infamous practice,
as it was therein described, of stock jobbing. He was
aware that railways were not then in vogue, but he
apprehended that the principle was the same, and it
was a species of jobbing as much to be discounte-
nanced as dabbling in.the funds.
The CHIEF COMMI3SIONER stopped the Learned
Counsel, observing that he did not see his way
sufficiently clear to give an adverse judgment in this
case.

The insolvent was therefore ordered to be dis
charged.

IN RE JOSEPH BULLEN.
The insolvent, a cattle-dealer, was opposed by Mr.
Nichols for a creditor named Tomlins, and supported
by Mr. Cooke.

- A somewhat singular point arose in this case. The
insolvent and his brother Wiliam were partners as
cattle-dealers. Another brother named Thomas was
also a cattle-dealer. lie died in 1844, leaving a wife
and six children. He also left live stock, which
realised 4501., and, according to the insolvent's ac-
count, he and William traded with the money for
years before Mrs. Bullen, his brother's widow, heard
that her husband had left any property, and she had
struggled on at Hendon with her large family. The
insolvent was threatened with proceedings on the part
of the widow, and he paid 210/. He alleged that
William had the remainder, and also had retained a
sum which belonged to him.
William Bullen was now examined, and denied
that he had traded with money belonging to his
brother Thomas, or had retained any money of the
insolvent. This witness on leaving the box insulted,
it was said Mrs. Bullen, the widow, and the protec-
tion of the court was asked, when he was told that if
he did not behave himself he would be sent to prison.
It came out that proceedings had been commenced
against a bank to recover the money which had been
deposited for Mrs. Bullen.

The point was, whether the payment of the 2101.
was a preference as against the other creditors. It was
insisted that it was a meritorious payment to the
widow, and done under legal pressure. Nobody could
regret that it had been paid.
The Cuiar COMMISSIONER said, that, as he had
doubts on the question, the insolvent was entitled to
benefit of them. It was a lamentable case, and it
was quite clear that the poor widow had been ill-
used. The insolvent had afforded her some compen-
sation in paying 2101, and he would be discharged.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HO USE.
James Arthur was brought up before Alderman
Musgrove, charged with naving broken into the
house of Messrs. Jone 4, Randall, and Morris, of Corn-
hill, warehousemen, with intent to commit robbery.
Robert Howe, porter to the prosecutors, said—l
sleep in the warehouse, and last night the doors were
-all locked at the usual time, and the keys were given
to Mr. Randall, who sleeps on the premises. I went
to bed at 11 o'clock,:as did the other porter, who also
sleeps in the warehouse. At about 4 o'clock this
morning I was awoke by hearing somebody walking
in the warehouse, but as I thought it was my fellow-
servant Henry, I called him by name. I received no
answer. I then called to him in a louder tone, and
he answered me from his bed, which is in another
part of the warehouse, and I was convinced that he
was not the person I heard moving about. I desired
him to strike a light and told him there was some one
in the warehouse. He said I was dreaming and told
me to go to sleep, and Immediately afterwards I saw
the prisoner jump on the counter and seize a rope which
hung down from the skylight and endeavour to go up
by it ; but I jumped up, got across two counters, and
caught him by the legs as he- was making the attempt.
My fellow porter then came to my assistance, and
we secured the man, who proved to be the prisoner.
We then rang the bell for Mr. Randall, who came
down stairs and called the police. Upon examining
the premises we found that the skylight, which was
a close one, had been broken through. There is a
small ventilator at the top of the skylight. A hole
had been bored through the lead, and a rope
had been passed through and a knot tied at the top.
There Ns ere several knots upon the rope, which
hung down.
Alderman MUSGROVE—Were any goods missing or
disturbed ? Witness—None. He had no time to
take anything.
Alderman MCSGROVE —Do you know the prisoner ?
Witness—Not at all. I never raw him before. He
asked me to go on the leads to fetch his coat and hat,
which ha had left there, and said he did not like to go
without them. I went on the leads and found two
coats., a hat, and a screw-driver there.
Mr. R. C. Randall, one of the partners in the firm,
said—Our warehouse is at 33 and 34, Cornhill. The
skylight is in 33, which is the dwelling-house, and
Vle warehouse extends over the ground floor of both
houses, and the skylight gives light to the back
warehouse. I had examined the premises previously
to leaving busineP. At four o'clock I was alarmed
by the ringing of the bell, and I went down and
found the prisoner between the two porters, each of
whom held him by the collar. I called a policeman.
No doubt in dropping down from the skylight he
made a noise, and when he found that the two men
were speaking on the subject ho made an effort to get
back by seizing the rope. I never saw the man be-
fore, but understand that he is known to the police.
Henry Low, the other porter of the firm, said—l
examined the warehouse between 9 and 10 o'clock on
the preceding night and found all safe. I was awoke
by my fellow-servant, who asked me for a light, and
I thought he was dreaming, and I told him to go to
sleep, and instantly afterwards I heard him scuffling
with the prisoner, and went to his assistance.
Policeman 439, upon being called into the ware-
house at 4 o'clock, took the prisoner into custody, and
found upon him two luciter boxes, a screwdriver, a
taper, three gimlets, and a knife.
Alderman MUSGROVE—Prisoner, is it your wish
to say anything ? The prisoner—l have nothing to
say, but that lam guilty, and was brought to it by
distress.
It is supposed that the prisoner mistook the well
guarded premises of Messrs. Jones, Randall, and
d
Morris, for the premises of a chronometer maker in the
immediate neighbourhood, which had been robbed
about eight or nine years ago by thieves, who entered
from the top, and which had at that period been left
without a resident protector.
The prisoner was committed for trial at the Cen-
tral Criminal Court.
Joseph Bean, who appeared to be about 11 or 12
years old, was brought before Alderman Gibbs upon
a charge of robbery. The wretched child had been
frequently committed to prison for theft, and been
twice whipped by the direction of the magistrate, and
the sentences had been regularly recorded. The case
was the firs:*, herd in the court under the New Ju-
venile Prisoners Act.

Alderman G 113133 said it Was, his duty, under the
new Act, to ask the prisoner, or the person who
ansv..&rtd for him, whether it was wished that a
summary sentence should be passed, or that the
case should be sent fur trial to the Central Criminal
Court.

The father of the boy said his child was, in his
opinion, quite incorrigible, and it would, therefore,
be advisable to send him to be disposed of at the Old
Bailey.
Alderman Ginns regretted the obligation upon him
to commit tlle boy for trial, as summary conviction
\ 1/4 1, pr,,sen ted in such a case much greater chances of re-
.o cation.
qhfrsprisoner's father said he had been completely

beggared by the boy, and persevered in hie desire to
see the case before a jury.
Alderman Gross regretted to be compelled to com-
mit the unfortunate child to prison.—Committed for
trial.
Information was given at the Mansion-house that
a poor fellow had been on Wednesday morning plun-
dered of all his property between the Bank and
Gracechurch-street. He had it seems accumulated,
by a life of hard labour, between 5001. and 6001., and
had purchased a public-house, in which he intended
to settle down for the remainder of his life. After
having left a deposit of 60/. with the person of whom
he bad made the purchase, he went and received the
amount to which he was entitled, and was proceeding
to close the business, when he found that the coat-
pocket in which he had placed his money was cut
away, and that all his hard earnings were gone. The
sister of the unfortunate man applied to the police, and
described the condition of her brother as deplorable
in the extreme. The plundered man had, no doubt,
been followed from the Bank by thieves, who found
him to be a more easy prey as he had been a sailor
and had lost an arm. _ _