The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-20 00:00:00

IN TERM.

IN MIDDLESEX. IN LONDON.
lit Sitting. Mou., Jan. 13 Ist Sifting ... Sat., Jan. 18
2d Sitting ... „ „ 20 21 Sitting ... 25
31 Sitting ... „ „ 27

AFTER TERM.

Sr,turclay, Feb. 1 I Monday (to adjourn only)

Feb. 3.

The Court will sit in Middlesex, at Nisi Prus in
term, by adjournment from day to day, until tle causes
entered for the respective Middlesex Sittings are di/-
posed of.
The Court will sit during and after term at ten
o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dcc. 19.

Prius Sittings fur MiddlcEex, before Lord Chief
Justice JERVIS and a Special Jury.)
C.LLINS V. LORD ALBERT CONYINGRAN.

This was an action against the defendant, as managing
committeeman of a proposed company, entitled the Dover
and Deal Railway and Cinque Ports Coast Junction
Company, to recover 1101., which had been paid by the
plaintiff, who is M.P. for Warwick, upon shares allotted
to hits in the company, of which he had been a provi-
sional committeeman.

Mr. Crowder, Mr. Sergeant B)1( s, and Mr. Ball were
counsel for the p!aintiff ; and the Solicitor-General and
Mr. T. Jones for the deftndant.

The company was projected by two solicitors named
Hook and Thompson, end was provisionally registered
on the 3d of October, 1845. On the 24th of October it
was resolved that the company should be considered
as established from the 31 of October. The defendant
(now Londesborougb) became a member of the previ-
siontl committee, and attended their meetings for the
first time on the Ist of November. At that meeting the
minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the 2 4th
October were read over and confirmed, and the defendant
and other gentlemen were appointed a committee of
management. At a subsequent meeting the defendant
and other gentlemen were appointed a deputation to
wait on the directors of the South-Eastern Railway
Company; and at another meetii,g, a few days later, it
was resolved that shares should be forthwith allotted.
On 24th January, 1846, a report of the negotiation with
the South-Eastern Railway Company was read, and the
secretary was directed to send the following circular to
the allotte sf

" Dover and Deal Railway, 7, Coleman-street,
January 21, 1850.
" Sir,—ln forwarding you the accompanying letter of
allotment the directors desire to explain that they have
delayed issuing any shares until the standing orders of
both Houses of Parliament had been complied with, and
certain arrangements entered into with the South-
Eastern Railway Company had been brought to a con-
clusion.

" The directors have ❑ow the greatest satisfaction in
stating that arrangements with the South-Eastern Rail-
way Company have been concluded, and they are fully
justified in asserting that the company will be placed in
such a psaition as to ensure its proprietary against loss,
&c., in the event of the passing of the Bill. Shares in
the South• Eastern Railway will be allotted to the pro-
prietors in lieu of stock in this company.
" The directors, in making this announcement, feel
that the affairs of the company, as now settled, aro on
such a basis as to secure important advantages to its
proprietors, and to warrant the directors in proceeding
to Parham( nt with the undertaking, with every expec-
tation cf success.

" In Vie event of the Act not being obtained the direc-
tors undertake to return the whole of the deposits with-
out deductions.

" By order,

" S. P. "loos., Joint Solicitors."
G. T. THOMPSON,
The defendant attended several other meetings of the
committee durirg the progress of the Bill, which passed
the Standing Orders Committee, but was thrown out by
the House of Commons. The plaintiff had a hundred
shares allotted to him, is February, 1816, and paid 210/
upon them, but never executed the Parliamentary con-
tract; 1004 was returned to him after the project was
abandoned. After the plaintiff had commenced his
action for the balance, the affairs cf the company were
pl2.c:d under the direction of the Court of Chancery,
under the Winding-up Act, and the Master placed the
plaintiff's name on the list of e3ntributories.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE directed the jury that, in
accordance with recently decided cases, the plaintiff was
entitle.] to rrcaver, and, accordingly, they returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damage-, 110/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 19.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)

RIRCHALL AND ANOTHER V. GENERAL ISTEAM NAVIGA-
TION COMPANY.

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged
brfach of contract.

Mr. Crowder' Mr. IL Hill, and Mr. Un thank appeared
for the plaintiffs, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Knowles
for the company.
Mr. CROWDER, in stating the case to the jury, said the
slaintiffs, Messrs. Birchall, %%re wool merchants at
Leeds, and they brought this action to recover 5781.
13s. ld. being the balance of the amount of value of 42
bales of wool which the General Steam Navigation Com-
pany had agreed to convey to Hull, but which were de.
stroyed by fire in consequence of not performing their
contract. It appeared that on the 17th of September,
1849, a sale of wool took place at the Hall of Commerce,
at which a broker named Buckler purchased 42 bales
for the plaintiffs' for 7221. 12e. Id. The conditions of
the sale were, that the goods should be paid for at the
end of fourteen days from the time of purchase ;
three days' "grace," however, were allowed beyond
the fourteen days by the proprietors of the
warehouses or docks where the goods were deposited,
and if they were not conveyed away by the expiration
of that period, all risk, as well as charge for rent, fell
upon the buyer. When the wool was purchased it was
lying in the warehouse of Messrs. Gooch and Cousens,
at 65, London-wall. The fourteen days and the three
days' grace expired on the 4th of October, and on that
day Buckler went to the offica of the Steam Navigation
Company, and made arrangements for the conveyance
of the wool. He gave the delivery order to a person
in the office, who undertook to dispatch the goods on
the following day by one of the company's boats. That
promise was, however, not kept. Oa the night of the 6th
of October a dreadful fire took place in London-wall,
destroying property to the value of more than 170,0001.,
and among other premises, those of Messrs. Gooch and
Cousens. The wool was burnt in the flames, with the
exception of a small quantity, which was deducted as
salvage from the original cost. The Learned Counsel
contended that under these circumstances the defendants '
ought to bear the loss, as the goods would not have
been destroyed had they fulfilled their contract to re-
move them from the warehouse at the time specified.
The CHIEF BARON wished to know whether the
Learned Counsel could refer to auy authorities, as this
appeared to him to be an action of a very novel
character.

Mr. CROWDER replied that he was not prepared with
any particular authoriiie', but he apprehended there
was a good ground cf action.
The CHIEF BARON said be knew no one imtarce in
which a loss of this deecription had been recovered
under such a contract. Could it be said if a man was
injured another, and prevented attending the death-
bed of a relative, who, in consequence, cuts him out of
his Rill with a :billing, that the individual so. injured
could recover the loss he had su%tained ? The fire
by which tie property was destroyed wes not r.n ordi-
nary, natural, or legitimate consequence of the breach of
contract, and therefore the decendat ti, in his opinion,
could not be held responsible for the loss.

Several witnesses 'siere called, who proved the facts
detailed above.

Sir FREDERICK TIMMER was about to address tEe
jury, w'ncri

The CHIEF BARON told the jury he was of opinion
that, under the contract, the plaintiffs could only recover
nominal thmsges, as the loss sustained arose from a
purely accidontal circumstance, which no party could
reasonahly anticipptc cr foresee. There wss simply a
breach of contract in not removing the goods at the
specified time, and un.icr tho circumstances he should
direct them to find a verdict for the plaintiffs with
the nominal damages of

The jury accorditagly returned a verdict for the plain-
tiffs--I),:amges Is.

Mr, CROWDER t-t dercd a bill of exceptions to the
Les:rned Judge's sums•ing up.
His Louosnir r(fus,:d to certify for costs, observing
that he would not encourage speculative actions in the
superior court:.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NUR7'll%' RN CIRCUIT.—York, Dee. 18.
(Before Mr. Baron MARTIN.)
James Cratty, William Higgins, Michael Cantwell, and
Fdtcard Hogan, were iedicted for the wilful murder of
James Reodes, at Leeds, on the 16th Novo mber.
Mr. Hall, Mr. Overend, and Mr. Hardy were for the
prosecution. Mr. llearsley defended Cantwell; Mr.
Digby Seymour appeared :or Cratty and Higgins. The
fourth prisoner was undefended.
It appeared that on Saturday evening, the 16th of No-
vember, there was a disturbance between the Irish and
the English living in that quarter of Leeds were the
staion of the Leeds and Selby Railway is situated. The
deceased was seen to leave the Greyhound Inn with his
son, a boy ten years old, and as he was prccreding
down Shannon-street, opposite the Horse and Jockey
Inn, where a large mob then were in an excited state,
three or four men rushed at the deceased, Higgins and
Cratty being two of them, when one of them struek him
with a brick on the side of the he ad, which caused the
injuries from which be died three days after-
wards. According to the evidence of the little
boy, end one of the witnes,es for the prosecution,
who raw the blow struck, and who went immediately to
the assistance of Rhodes, no other blow was struck but
that from the brick; but a young woman named Mary
Ann Ward said that she had aeon the prisoner Cantwell
strike the deceased with a poker, and saw another man
jump upon him while he %%18 on 'the ground. There was
considerable discrepancy in the statements of the wit-
nesses as to the part taken by the several prisoners in
the disturbanco; and it was conceded by the prosecution
that the pris(,ners had entertained no ill-will towards
the deceased, ar.d had attacked him on the supposition
that he was ore of the elverse patty. After the trial
ha I lasted several hours, it was arranged by counsel,
with the approbation of the Judge, that Crafty and Hig-
gins should plead guilty to a c;targe of manslaughttr;
that Cantwell and Mogan should l e acquitted; and
that the whole of the ptiyeners, with sk veal ether
Irishmen, should plead gulty to another indictment for
a riot.

George Iluulton was indicted for havinc., on the night
of the 201.11 Ott., at Thoregumbald, in the East Ilida3g,
fitaiLusly Let fire to a stack of wheat and a I'Al:a of
straw, the prov;:ty of Henry Cautley.
Mr. Dears!ey was for the prosecution. The prisoner,
a gentleLanly looking mar, E.gt d 43, by profession a
swoon, coadoc,el his own defence.

The evidence against the prisoner was entirely cir-
cumstantial, and the counsel fir the prosecution sug-
gested that probably the jury, when tley heard the case,
would be obliged to acquit the prisoner on the ground
of insanity. Before the fire, the prisoner was seen on a
road near the house of the pro2ecutor, acd was heard to
say, " I will put the farmers to rights; 3 on— old
Burnhans, I'll put you right." It wcs proved that ho
must have loitered some hours on the road to Hull
about the time of the fire; and when he was appre-
hended he had some matches in his pocket. The pri-
soner had gene into a cottage and killkd a cat end three
kittens. He placed the cat in a hamper, and put the
three dyad kittens in a row, and then walked away. Io
crost-examioing one of the witnesses, which he did with
remarkable acuteness and composure, he asked, had the
witness heard him whittle anything like this (putting
his finger in his mouth and making the court ring), or
like this (whistling with considerable correctness a.
military.tattoo, to the astonishment of a crowded court)?
The prisoner then addressed the jury. He taid—" I
hope, gentlemen of the jury, that you sill make allow-
ance for me under the painful circumstances in which "I
stand. I hope that your passage through lifo has been
smooth. When I see you, my Lord, sitting there, I see
your's has been fortunate. As for mine it has been
chequered by many misfortunes, so that I might say with
the Ghost in Hamlet—

' I cculd a tale untold,
Whose lightest word would harrow up the soul,
And make your hair to stand on end
Like quills upon the fretful porcupine!'
Muds of darkness have hung over me, and if a gleam
of sunshine came it soon passed away. My life has
been a romance, and perhaps it may some day appear
as such. But, gentlemen of the jury (continued the
prisoner, bursting into tears), I feel a great difficulty in
making an extemporaneous address to you, although I
have been a public spesker both on and off the stage;
but I appeal to you to give me that fair trial that every
Englishman is entitled to." The prisoner then asked
for a copy cf the plan, and inviting the attention of the
Learned Ju3ge to it, proceeded to trees upon it his
perambulations on the night of the fire. He asked, was
it extraordinary that be should have been out that night,
not at an unreasonable hour, when he belonged to a pro-
fession in which a man was liable to be celled up by
every old woman whose great toe ached? And here
the prisoner seid he would take the point that he was
not George boalton, as people supposed, and under
which name he had been indicted. George Houlton was
his helf- brother, and his (the prisoner's) right name was
Julien Mario Graviek. Again, it was said that he was
excited when he was seen on the road. The truth was,
the-. he had just heard a report that his father, who lived
at a short distance, was in a dying state. Ile was hur-
rying to see him, and therefore appeared perhaps agi-
tated, but he hoped not excited. Tile prisoner then pro-
ceeded to say that when in Hungary he had become
acquainted with the habits of the gipsies, and then began
to state with great particularity his proceedings respect-
ing an old teapot, a German pipe, and some stones,
which be said be had disposed of, so as to put the gipsies
off the scent. An observation which I made before the
magistrate (he continued), has been brought up as evi-
dence of my guilt. I said that the fire was a glorious
sight—and it was a glorious sight. The breaking out of
the lurid cloud and the body of flame in the light while
a cloud was passing over the moon was a most striking
scene, It was grand; I never saw anything equal to it
except the burning of a man-of-war in Russia, which was
set on fire for the purpose of being painted.
Mr. Baron MARTIN here interposed, and after confe-
rence with Mr. Dearsley, and consultation with Mr. Jus-
tice Patteson, his Lordship directed an acquittal on the
ground that there was not sufficient evidence to prove
that the prisoner was the author of the fire.

The prisoner was then sirrrtiinedoTanother charge of
arson, and the jury found that he was not to a fit state of
mind to take his trial, and the Learned Judge said that
he should be dealt with according to 39 and 40 George
c. 94, sec. 2.

The prisoner exclaimed, " That imputation upon me is
woree than the crime of which I have been acquitted."
He was then removed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Joseph Hewett was brought before Mr. Bingham,
charged with having created a disturbance at No. 33,
Hell-street, the resider.co of the Earl of Stamford, and
also with having attempted to force open the door of the
carriage for the purpose of serving the Countess of
Stamford with a subpoena.
The Earl of Samford stated that about three o'clock
that day, as the carriage was at the door of his resi-
dence, the defendant and another person came forward
and attempted forcibly to open the carriage door. The
defendant had a writ or a subpoena in his hand. He in-
terposed and pushed him back. The carriage drove off,
and he walked towards P;ecadilly followed by the defen-
dant. Meeting with a police-constable near the Bur-
lington. arcade he gave him into custody.
A footman corroborated this stat'meat, and was cer-
tain that the defendant laid his baud on his Lordship's
shoulder.

Police-constable Petch, C 136, said. when he took the
defendant into custody, the defendant said he had only
acted according to his instructions.
Mr. 13mottAm asked the defendant what he had to
say? Defendant—l had a subpoena to serve on the
Countess, and I only endeavoured to serve it when I saw
her Ladyship in the carriage.
Mr. BiNaffem—Ont of what court was the subposaa?
Defendant—l don't know; I was only acting under in-
structions.

Mr. BINGHAM—W ho gave you those instructions?
Defendant—Mr. Holt, solicitor, of Chatham-place. Ho
will be here directly.

Mr. BINGHAM—bid Mr. Holt give you instructions to
open the carriage door against the will of parties inside?
Defendant—l did not open the door; they were too quick
forine.

In a short time Mr. Holt entered the court and an-
nounced himself. Ile said the defendant had been em-
ploy td by him to serve a subpasna on the Countess of
Stamford from the Court of Chancery, to give evidence
in a matter to which he would not then further allude.

Mr. BINGHAM asked if the Court had given no special
directions about the time and place when the subpoena
should be served?

Mr. Holt said there were no directions beyond that it
should be served within a month.
Lord Stamford said this was not correct.

Mr. Holt said his messenger had acted only with
that zeal with which persons in his situation would act
when they had a party to serve who was reluctant to be
served.
Mr. BINGHAM said he did not think Mr. Holt would
say that it was a proper way to serve a subroena to lay
hold of his Lordship's aheulder, and to endeavour to
force open the carriage-door.
Bolt had no wish to resort to such proceedings,
but her Ladyship had already refused to attend to oce
sub' cepa that had been served on her.
Mr. BINGHAM asked if throwing the subpoena into the
carriage would not have sufficed?
Mr. Holt said it would. He very much regretted the
matter having been attended with unpleasant circum-
stances to his Lordship.
Lord S:amford was sorry he had not horsewhipped
both the men.
Mr. BINGHAM considered that the cw.e was one which
did not require, under the circumstances, to be dealt with
very s,ver.i.y. He thought his Lordship would be sada •
fled with the explanstion that had teen offered, and t
should, therefore, only rupire the defendant to enter
into his own recogn-zai.ce, without few, to keep the peace
for three metal?.

—Aar. bolt a:led Lord Stamford if ho would Recut
service on behalf of his lady, and that would end all
further annoyance?
Lord Stamford replied—Decidedly not.