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

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, AUG UST 12, 1850.

ing, with the entire understanding that the Bill should
not be proceeded with further.
The Earl of LUCAN approved of the principle of
central supervision. He would prefer the responsibility
of postponing this Bill to the responsibility of hurrying
it through their Lordships. He objected to the other
House legislating totally indepently of this.
Lord REDESDALE said the Bill was introduced
into the House of Commons, and did not reach their
Lordships until August.
The Marquis of CLANRICADE said there bad been
several petitions presented in favor of the Bill, but not
one petition had been presented to their Lordships
against it.
The Bill was then read a second time.
SUMMARY JURISDICTIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved that this
Bill be read a third time.

The Earl of LUCAN thought that some measure
should be adopted to prevent tenants running off
with their crops and cheating their landlords.
He had objected to the Landlord and Tenant
Bill, but he thought some measure ought to
be adopted to put a stop to the present
system of plunder, and if the Government were in ear-
nest in this expresserl desire to put a stop to it they
could not object to his motion. He proposed to insert a
clause giving to the Irish proprietor the same protection
that the English proprietor bad. The Noble Earl then
proposed a clause, giving power to Justices in Petty
Sessions to hear and adjudicate upon complaints brought
by landlords against tenants for clandestinely removing
crops.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE objected to the
clause, as having no relation whatever to the Bill.
The landlord and tenant question was one of such
importance that it could only be legislated for
as a whole, it would be most unjust and impolitic to
make portions of the question the subject of a one-sided
and piece-meal legislation.
The Earl of GLENGALL supported the clause. It
was of consequence if the recommendation of the most
absurd of reports, the Devon Commission Report, that the
power of distraining on growing crops was taken away
from the Irish landlords; that was piece-meal legisla-
tion. He understood that in the concoction of that re-
port each Commissioner was permitted to recommend
his own nostrum. _ _

Lord REDESDALE thought the clause ought to be
inserted, yet he he could not forget that a Bill involving
this principle had been rejected by the House of Com-
mons' and he hoped his Noble Friend would withdraw
his clause. _ _ _

The Earl of LUCAN was determined to press his
clause to a division.

Lord MON TEAGLE hoped the clause would not be
pressed, although he thought the subject one demanding
legislative interference.
The Earl of LUCAN said the object of the House of
Commons was to remove all protection from the Iri►h
landlords.—(. No, no," from Earl Grey.) He was not sur-
prised at the interruption of the Noble Earl as his relative
bad opposed the Bill in the House of Commons. He was
astonished the Noble Earl had remained silent so long.
Earl GREY explained. He considered the report
was very fit for the consideration of Parliament, but he
thought it impolitic to risk the loss of this Bill by the
introduction of such a clause.
The Earl of LUCAN was determined to divide.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and their
Lordships divided, when there appeared—
Contents (for the clause) ... 6
Not-Contents 22
Majority for Ministers... ... —l6
Tha clause was consequently rejected.
(LEFT SITTING.)

would be upon an Irish Coercion Bill. Coercion Bills
and standing armies still ruled the Government of Ire-
land, as they had always done. Those Coercion Bills
had been passed over and over again, and still crime had
gone on it. the country in scarcely any diminished
ratio. The cause of crime in Ireland was that the hands
of the oppressed were raised against the-ir oppressors.
In consequence of the number of evictions which had
taken place, thousands of people were left destitute in
the high roads to perish from want of proper food and
clothing; and yet the Noble Lerd (Lord John Russell)
not only had it in his power to remedy that evil
by a measure for improving the relations between
landlord and tenant, but might be enabled, by some
such measure, to stay the hand of the assassin much
better than by an act of coercion like the present. He
had been in every part of Ireland, and he declared he
had never seen in any other part of the world the people
in so miserable and wretched a condition. The
serfs of Russia and the savage Indians inl America
were much better off. Instead of the revenue derived
frOm Ireland being employed for the legitimate pupose
of improving the condition of the country, it was ex-
pended upon a standing army, and the other accompa-
niments of a coercive Government. It had been said, all
the evils of Ireland arose from the people themselves,
but he denied that it was so. He Lad seen Irishmen in
our North American provinces, and in all parts of the
United States, competing successfully in every branch a
industry with Englishmen, Scutchmen, French-
men, and Dutchmen, and in no instance had
he found them inferior. He thought that all the
misery of the Irish people was to be attributed to bad
and unjust laws, and it rested with the Noble Lord to
pass some measure for their relief.
Sir C. ARMSTRONG objected to the Bill, observing
hat the condition of Ireland arose from our vicious
egislation.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading 75
Against it ... - _
Majority

... -54

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Lough Corrib Improvement Company Compen-
sation (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the consideration of the amendments to the Copy-
right of Designs Act Amendment Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP stigmatised this Bill as one of
those free-trade measures which the present Ministers
introduced to please their party. This was of a piece
with that piece of tom-foolery of the Exhibition of 1851.
They were throwing cold water upon the inddstry of the
British manufacturer, they were undermining the con-
stitution, and they should beware lest they should be
setting in motion that which they could not atop. There
was a report that the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary
of State for the Home Department intended to increase
the police force, and he should be glad to know from
the Right Hon. Gentleman himself if there was any
truth in the report. Be belief ed that such a measure
would be necessary, and an increase in the taxation
would follow as a matter of course. It was proposed
after they had received the report that they should at
once proceed to the third reading. The state of the
session, perhaps, rendered it necessary, but he protested
against the proceedings which the House had lately wit-
nessed. Formerly Honourable Members had the
Wednesday and Saturday to themselves, but now
they not only sat at all hours of the night,
but all hours of the day, and he fully expected that next
session they would be called to sit on Sundays.—(Hear.)
The report was then agreed to.
The Holyhead Harbour Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Lords' amendments to the Commons' amendments
on the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill were considered
and agreed to.
LONDON-BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.

On the morion for the. third reading of this Bill,
Mr. HUME again took the opportunity of protesting
against the continuance of the coal tax, and hoped it
would be abolished as soon as possible.
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
The Union of Liberties with Counties (Ireland) Bill
was read a third time and passed.
The Improvement of Towns (Ireland) Bill was read
a second time.

The Ceurt of Prerogative (Ireland) Bill passed through
Committee.

on at the time in France. As regarded tho security
afforded to British subjects, he had not the slightest ap-
prehension that their persons or property would be sub-
ject to any danger.
PROGRESS OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

Sir B. HALL then rose to call the attention of the
House to a return headed " Public Bills," lately
printed by order of the House, with the view of making
some observations in regard to the progress of pUblio
business during the present session, in the hope that next
session their time would be better occupied. He might
-state at the outset, ha thought, without fear,
of contradiction, thut in no previous session, since the
passing of the Reform Act, had there been a more anxi-
ous desire to transact and get through the business.
During the whole session they had sat 1,041 hours, bad
held 149 sittings, over a space of twenty-five weeks, ex-
clusive of holydays, and, averaging 100 hours for the
Wednesday sittings, this gave 10i hours a day
for four days a week during The whole ses-
sion. All this was exclusive of Committees
work, to which most Hon. Members were obliged to at-
tend. He thought it would be advisable if, during the
recess, Government were to consider the subject and in
the next session bring forward some suggestions which
should have the effect of remedying this of which he
complained.
...The Hon. Barottet was

(LEFT SPEARING.)

In the course of his speech Mr. Justice MAULE ap-
peared at the table, and brought up from the House of
Lords the Duke of Cambridge's Estate Bill, agreed to
by their Lordships.

HERRING FISHING.—The fishing along the coast is
by no means up to the average mark of former years, and the
markets continue dull.—Aberdeen Herald.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Aug. 10.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GoULBURN.)
IN RE HOGG AND NOGG.
The bankrupts 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 10s. 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•
Lion in the mean time; when granted, the certificates to
be of the second class.

IN RE NA.SH ♦ND NEALE.-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 hid
proof for 7001. odd, made on behalf of the union, from
the joint estate to the separate estate of Nash.

Afcer the facts bad 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. Horry
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 bad been summoned for a doc-
tor's bill to the Whitechapel County Court, and ordered
to pay ISs. a montb,which instalments he paid from January
to May last, when he fihd 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 ❑ot
pa) ing 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. 83. 6d.
The officer of Whitecross-street Prison produced the
warrant, and stated that the defendant was still in con-
finement. _ _

Mr. Commissioner LAW closely inspected the warrant
and said it recited that the defendant had not appeared.
Mr. HORRY referred to his affidavit, in which he dis-
tinctly stated that he had appeared.
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 appeilred from a discussion which took place be.
tween Mr. Horry and the Commissioner that the defen-
dant had no attorney in his present application, but
that be (Mr. Horry) 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 Manning.
Mr. Commissioner LAW carefully went over the case,
and referred to the application in the mutter of Symons.
It would seem that the judge bad ordered the commit-
ment because the party was of ability to pay, and the
clerk who drew the warrant had set forth that the de-
fendant had not appeared. His Honour intimated that
the warrant of discharge would issue 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.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE COURT.
Mr. Commissioner LAW concluded the sittings, and
the Court on it 3 rising udjqurned for the vacation.

WESTMINSTER CuUN l'Y COURT, Aug. 10.
ROSENTIIALL V. BAHADOOR--THE NEPAULESE PRINCES.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, M.
Rosenthal', an artist, against the defendant, Colonel
Dheer Shuwsheere Jung Bahadoor, one of the Nepaulese
the sum of 151. for painting a portrait.
T Princeshe
plaintiffw ho ba
svaeidretcheapttl
yvisited:this country, to recover
he was instructed by one of the
Nepaulese Princes, during their stay in London, to paint
his portrait, and as it was only to be a small sketch, the
price fixed was ten guineas; but as he' after Nards
wished to.be placed on horseback, an additional U. was
to be charged. His brother, the Prince Bahadoor, was
so pleased with the portrait that he gave an order for
his. likeness to be taken in .a different way for 251., and
the order was executed, and the money paid immediately.
The bill was sent in, and his highness objected to pay
more than 101.

The Learned JunoF.--What did he say ? Plaintiff—
He said here is 101, and it you do not like to accept
that, I will not pay you one farthing.—(Laughter.)
The Learned JUDGE then gave a verdict for thb plain-
tiff for the full amount claimed.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME culcuir.—Guilliford, Aug. 10.
(Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.)
SMITH V. ORCHARD.—PLEA. OF INFANCY.
This was en action to recover the sum of 371. 13s. 61,
for goods sold and delivered, in one count, and in ano-
ther 40/. upon a bill of exchange accepted by the de-
fendant. The only plea upon the record was one alleg-
ing that at the time the defendant accepted the bill he
was an infant under twenty•one years of age.
Mr. Chi/niers and Mr. Lush were for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. 11a. kips was for the defendant.
sdt etrhe
the defendant
dc
Threickp 13ainudtiirs'aiil-ctalPoPteharBm'aiker at No. 5, West Smith-
an
on business in Lambs' Conduit-street
Smith-
field. In the beginning of the present year the defen-
dant called upon the plaintiff and ordered several arti-
cleseafernrydianngt
is a
of furniture, amounting in value to the sum abovc-
mentioned, and on the 24th of February he gave a bill
in payment. It was understood at this time that the
sailcloth business belonged to the defendant, but it ap-
peared in point of fact that it belonged to his mother
and that he was merely managing it for her.
Mr. IlAwitiNs said he had no defence upon the count
for goods sold and delivered, but as regarded the bill
of exchange he should show that at the period when the
defendant accepted it he was not of age, and therefore
was not liable.

Mrs. Orchard, the defendant's mother, was then ex-
amined. She deposed that the defendant was her son-
and that be w-.s born on the 14th of April, 1830.
Mr. CHAMBERS, in reply, said he thought the course
that had been adopted by the defendant in this case
.was
moat absurd. He must have been perfectly well aware
that he had no defence upon the count in the declara-
tion for goods sold and delivered, and all the expense of
this action had been incurred fur the sake of saving the
difference between the actual value of the goods and the
amount of the bill of exchange.
The CRIEi BARON, in summing up, said it appeared
to him a most Profligate proceeding for a mother and
eon to carry on business in this manner, and fur the
latter to order goods as upon his own account, and when
the time came for payment, to turn round upon the cre-
ditor, and say that be was not of age; and he could not
help observing, that there appeared to be a good deal of
fraud as well as folly mixed up in the transaction. He
then directed the jury to return a verdict fur the defend-
ant upon the p:ea for the bill of exchange, and for the
plaintiff upon the other. The effect of this, he said,
shillingswoul
dbec,ost
costs
ftotrhtehpalt /31es, end also the expenses of theaintiff would have to pay a few
witnesses in coming down to Guildford to prove the de-
fendant was under age; but the bulk of the costs, pro.
bably 50/. or 601., would fall upon the defendant, the
h Baron
whole
whole sum. actually in dispute not being more than
21. log.
T inief he jury returned a verdict accordance
rected exe wit h ha
Lordships direction, and the C
eution to issue in a week.
DAY AND ANOTRER V. TIA ZELLRIGG.— PROVISIONAL
COMMITTEEMEN.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Honeyman were for the plain-
tiff
The action defendantt in was
tensive.lithographic printers, to recover 400/. for pre-
o br
o was
ughnt not represented by counsel.
the plaintiffs, who are ex-
paring plans, &c., for the Boston, Grantham, • Lincoln,
and Midland Counties Railway. The defendant was
sued as a member of the acting provisional committee,
and no defence being offered,
the jury returned a verdict
fur the amount claimed.
staitairma V. CHADWICK.-- NORTHWALEs RAILWAY.
This was an action brought to . recover a sum of 7001. ' ,
for lalarY due to the plaintiff, and also damages for his

having remained in England at the request of the de-
fendant. Mr. Bovill and Mr. Barnard were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, for 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 well known to the public, the
affairs of that company became the subject of investiga-
tion by a Committee of the House of Lords 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 Howe 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 he should be
pnid 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 resole-
' tions that were passed when defendant was chairman, and
from which it was contended that the contract bad been
established.

Mr. Eales, one of the directors of the company, was
called to prove that the defendant bad signed the aol e•
merit that was relied upon. He likewise stated that the
defendant had lent large sums of the fund.; of the com-
pany to various persons.-45.000/. to the South-Western
Railway Company, and other large sums to friends of
his own. The plaintiff, he said, to 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 witness likewise
said that be saw a cheque fur 6001. 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 com-
pany himself, but his brother-in-law had, and the loan
was upon his (witness's) recommendation. It was
3,000/., 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 been
repaid with interest, as bad also the money borrowed by
the South-Western Railway. He would not 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, arid 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, y•-t he did think that, taking into
consideration the painful position of the plaintiff, he was
the last person who ought to have i❑strutted his coun-
sel to take up all these painful proceedings agains the
defendant, particularly when they had nothing to do
with the case.

Mr. Bovna. said the matters in question were already
public enough, and all the facts had been printed in the
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 part to
come forward and give such evidence against his co-
director as he had on the present occasion. The Learned
Counsel then made some pointed obiervations upon the
position of gentlemen who, like the defendant and a still
greater railway monarch, he said, when they were de-
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 4301.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Gloucester, Aug. 10.
NISI BElUS.—(Before Lord Chief Justice CAMPBELL.)

EARL FITZHARDINGE V. LONG.

This was a special jury cause. Mr. Keating, Q.C., end
Mr. Gray, for the plaintiff; and Mr. Whately, Q.C., fur
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 counsel, who gave up the case on
Earl Fitzhardinge consenting to give the tenant twelve
months' time to pay. The pleas on the record were,
besides the general issue, that the defendant had re-
ceived notice to quit before the rent was due, and that
ho had also been evicted from the farm before the rent
was due.

nal in passing sentence; and if in the present instance
the prisoner imagined that in being transported he
would become a new man, and live a comparatively easy
life in a foreign land, he could assure him he was much
mistaken.
BURGLARY AND ASSAULT.— Samuel Trash, 16, and
Samuel Osborne, 17, were indicted for feloniously enter-
ing the dwelling-house of Joseph Edgar, and stealing
therefrom a chisel and a duug-fork.
Mr. COLE, who conducted the prosecution, stated that
Mr. Edgar (who wai since dead) resided at Crewkert,e,
in this county. About half-past five on the evening of
the 12th of May Mr. Edgar was sitting with his wile in
the kitchen of his house, and bearing a noise in a room
overhead, be went to sea 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
t 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
he removed from the premises, or so removed as to refl•
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 used the dunglork for the purpose of re-
sistance, and not with any intention of stealing 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 for 20
years. Osborne was acquitted.

RICHMOND PETTY SESSIONS, August 10.
SiticuLaa CHARGE OF BIGAMY.—Mary Fitzgerald,
was charged before Mr. Penrhyn, and a full bench of
magistrates, with having, on the 17th of January, 1831,
at St. George's, Bloomsbury, feloniously intermarried
with one William Beckford, 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
out, however, that he was not dead, and about ten years
after the marriage in question he came to the house of
the second husband, and "claimed his wife."

The prisoner, who said that she was not aware Fitz•
gerald was alive when she married Becktord, was com-
mitted for trial.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CITY POLICE COMMITTEE.

REFUSING TO ADMIT THE POLlCE.—Michael Myers,
the keeper of a beer-shop in Bureas 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 he 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. He stood
at the door more than a quarter of an hour, and a fe-
male and two men looked out of an upper window. In
the early psrt of the morning he had seen between
twenty and thirty persons enter the house.
Defendant said he was in the habit of keeping open
till eleven o'clock on Sunday morning to sell coffee, but
certainly not beer, and he did not do so on the present
occasion.

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

GUILDHALL.

THE RIVAL GAS COMPANIES.— William Gray, one of
the workmen in the employ of the Great Central Gas
Company, appeared in answer to an intormatiou charg-
ing him with wilfully and maliciously cutting and other-
wise injuring a pipe belonging to the City Chartered Gas
Company, which was used for 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. Seeing the men
at work in the trench were bringing the new main in
such a direction as would necessarily disturb the pipes
belonging to the City Chartered Gas Company,- he called
Gray, the foreman of the works, and cautioned him to
avoid the pipes, or otherwise he would effect a perms
neat 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 keeping to that promise, the next morning
witness found he had cut the pipe, appareutiy 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, ho replied " Yes, a gentleman came here and told
me to cut it." He afterwards said ho was instructed by
Mr. Bughy 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 bad from
20 to 30 similar charges against the new company,
all of which might have been 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 their works,
and he stopped them, and would .not allow them to
go on.

That being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Wire
rose to reply. He contended that it was absolutely im-
possible for a new company, in opening the roads, t,.)
feel their way amidst the multiplicity of pipes in the
public thoroughfares of the city of London, so as to re-
train from doing some kind of injury to some of the
piper, and that, too, without any malicious intention.
He, was confident that bad the damage complained of
been effected by the Commercial Gas Company in-
stead of a new rival one, the Alderman would then
have hesrd nothing of the inlorniation at present before
him.
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 invited to alter the direction of the
main. Grey said, " Very well, I will go under it."
Instead of which, he receives instructions, as he has
said, and as Mr. Bugby admits, to break the pipe.
He would, therefore, fine Gray 20e., the lowest penalty;
but he conceived it was important that no company
should be permitted to destroy the works of another.