The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-14 00:00:00

TALLOW.

Although only a moderate business has been tram-
actnl in our market during the week, the market to-
day is firm, and prices rule quite is higher than on
Monday last. P.Y.C. on the spot is gut t d at 398 to
393 6d LIT cwt. For forward delivery exceedingly little
is doing. Town Tallow, 38s 6d per owl net cash; Rough
Fat, 2s 2d per 8i s: The lat'et a lvices from St. Pc-
teraburgh stet..., that 500 casks fire Ukraine had
changed hands for August delivery at 113 roubles with
10 down.

1846. 1847. 1848. 4849. 1850.
Stock this day 25,376 18,597 22,350 38,003 44,452
43s Od 513 9d 45s 3d 41s rid to 39s d
Price of Y. C. .... [to 43s 3d to Os Od to 45s 6d Os Od to39s 6d
Delivery last week • • 1,761 2,440 4,294 2,568 2,513
Ditto from June 1.... 64,967 59,534 66,256 65,405 61,236
Arrivals last week . 101 50 5,395 5,181 874
Ditto from June 1 ... 74,539 67,838 80,514 95,877 80,215
Price of Town ••• • .. 458 Od 548 6d 498 6d 45s Od 41s 01

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, V. THE CORPORATION OF LON-
DON—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave his final judgment to-
day in this case. Our readers will, doubtless, recollect
that the case came before his Lordship shortly before
the Christmas recess, upon an appeal from the decision
of the Master of the Rolls, by which he disallowed the
exceptions taken by tee corporation of London to the
Master's report, and directed them to make further dis-
covery and allow an inspection of their charter
and all pipers connected with their claim to
the shore and bed of ,the River Thames. The
information was filed in Februrry, 1844, against
the corporation of London, and against certain of their
lessees of portions of the shore and bed of the Thames,
namely—William Cubits, Sir Courtenay Boyle, Sir
Thomas Turton, W. G. Prescott, J, P. Rosh, J. Cor-
nelius Parke, and J. 0. Hanson, who have erected em-
bankments and wied' to the destruction of the
navigation and the flow of the river. The inf erie-
don stated that by the royal prerogative the ground
and soil of the coasts and shores of the seas, creeks,
and navigable rivers in the kingdom, and about
it, belonged of right to the Crown ; that the
river is the King's highway for &l subjects ; that by
prescriftion or some grant the corporaton bad exer-
cised the office c f bailiff or consers ator, whose duty it
Gas to see to the navigation, and prevent obstructions
or nuisances in the river, and t regulate the fishing
thereof; that the corporation thereby acquired no right,
or estate, or interest in the ground and soil of the bed
or shores of the river between high and low water-
mark; that the corporation hal, notwithstanding, of
late claimed, in addition to the exercise of the rigt.t of
bailiff or conservator, to be seised or entitled to the free-
hold if the ground, bed, and soil of the river, and of the
shores between high and low water-mark, within toe
limits of tae conservancy of the Thames, and assumi d
the exercise of acts of ownership over it,
and had made grants of it is persons
having land or wharfs on the banks adjacent
thereon, to embank it, and build on such soil and bed of
the river, between high and low water-mark, at diffe-
rent places on the river, namely, at the Isle of Dogs, at
Durrand's Wharf, Retherhithe, and at the Battersea
Marsh; that embankmeets and buildings were, in conse-
quence of these leases, built or building, which would
be a common nuisance, and prevent the free flow of the
river. The information charged the corporation with
having received a considerable sum of money in the way
of flues and rents from such lessees, and with having re-
fused to give the Crown any account thereof, and that the
lessees ilow set up a pretended claim of right ti execute
such embankments by virtue of said indentures. It fur-
ther chargei that no charter or letters patent by any of her
Majesty's predecessors, kings or queens, had contained
any grant of the soil, or bed, or shores of the Thames, and
charged that the corporation ought to discover and set
forth under and by what charter or letters patent they
claimed such freehold in the soil or bed of the river.
The Attorney-General denied any immemorial right in
this respect, as alleged by the corporation, or that the
corporation possessed the freehold under a charter of
Henry IV., in the 23d year of his reign, which had no
force to pass such freehold; that such charter had been
also revoked or annulled; and the information also
charged that no sufficient acts of ownership by the cor-
poration could be shown to evidence an immemorial
usage of the right claimed by the corporation; and that
the corporation had no right t) exact or accept money
as fines or rents fa- permission thus t r build.
It charged, moreover, that the defendants had
in their custody, possession, or power, books,
accounts, deeds, instruments, charters, letters
patent, leases, maps, plans, and papers:, re-
lating to the matters aforesaid, by which the truth of
the several matters above-mentioned would; if produced,
appear. The information then prayed that the rights of
the Crown and those of the corporation might be ascer-
tained and declared; that William Cubist and the other
lessees be restrained by perpetual injunction, in respect
to works in progress, from carrying them on; that the
embankme its formed should be restored to their former
and ancient condition, and that an account should be
taken by this Court of the fines, rents, expenses, and
profits arising from granting such licenses to embank,
received by the mayor and corporation, and the amount
be decreed to be paid, to her Majesty, af..er de-
ducting -all just allowances, and the right is
the freehold be decreed and established in and
to her Majesty.' The corporation demurred in
part, and answered to the residue. The de-
murrer denied that the Crown had stated a case 'that
entitled it to relief in a court of equity, or to arty dis-
covery. It was overruled by the Master of the Rolls,
and his Lordship's decision was confirmed by the House
of Lords. The answer which was then argued before
the same Judge, stated that the title of the corporation
was not founded en a particular charter, but on a right
to the enjoyment of the bed and shore of the river from
time immouserial—a right virtually recognised by Acts
of Parliament of Henry IV., Henry VII., Henry VIII.,
and Elizabeth. With regard to the erections complained
of, the: corporation rested its defence on the opinions
of harbour-masters, water-bailiffs, and Captain Bullock,
bydrographer to the Admiralty, under whose in-
spection and approval they had been constructed,
alleging that they improved, or would improve,
the navigation of the river; and denying that the
corporation alleged or pretended they had a right to
erect or create, or give licence to erect or create a com-
mon nuisance on the Thames, to the injury of the sub-
jects using it as a highway. A reference was made to
the Master on the sufficiency of this answer, and he re-
ported that the corporation were bound, in his opinion,
to set forth their alleged title, and to allow the Solicitor
for the Crown to inspect their charters, and such deeds,
documents, and papers, as he required. Exceptions to
the report were arehed before the Master of the Rolls,
and his Lordship decided against the corporation, and
held, that having regard to the fiduciary relation in
which the corporation stood to the Crown as conserva-
tors of the Thames, and to the prima facie right of the
Crown to the bed and soil of all navigable rivers, the
corporation was bound to answer fully, and to
produce the deeds and documents demanded.
Against this decision, the corporation of London pre-
sented their appeal to this branch of the court, and that
apple al was argued a; considerable length. At the con-
clusion of tie arguments the Lord Chancellor gave
judgment, agreeing with the Master of the Rolls in or-
dering the Corporation to answer fullyeand dismissing
the a?peal. With respect, however, to the question of
costs, his Lordship took time is consider his judgment
in that respect, as it had been argued for the corpoi a-
don, that the erder of the Master of the Rolle giving
costs to the Attorney-General was wrong, inasmuch as
in a court of equity, the Crown never gave or received
costs, and iu support of that proposition several cases
were cit Al. The Lord Chancellor this morning gave
judgment on the question of costs. He thought the
rule lard down in some of thee cases teat had been
a ivated to might be a sound one in a case where the
Crown persisted in a claim which it failed t i suktain,
but such was not the present case. Hero the p ainttff
was in possession of the Order of the Master, and thede-
cree of the Master of the Rolls, and that decree had
been affirmed by himself; he therefore thought thst the
Crown was entitled to the costs of, the appeal.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
EX-PARTE THE EARL OF MANSFIELD IN RE THE UNI-
VERSAL SALVAGE COMPANY.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment t.-Jay in
this case, the arguments in which were concluded on
Saturday. Our readers will recollect that the case cane
upon au appeal motion to discharge
abneferoredehri! Lordshipfviee-e
hancellor Knight Bruce, making the
Earl of Mansfield liable as a contribut me to the losses
incurred in the attempt to establish a salvage company,
although Master Farrer had expressed an opinion on the