The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-07 00:00:00

JOINT-STOCK BANKS.

Bank of Westmoreland, Kendal
Barnsley Banking Company, Barnsley
Bradford Banking Company, Bradford 48,169
Bilston District Banking Company, Wolver-
hampton
Bank of Whitehaven, Whitehaven
Bradford Commercial Banking Company, Brad-
ford
Burton, Uttoxeter, and Staffordshire Union
Bankinc, Company, Burton-upon-Trent
Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Banking
Company, Chesterfield
Cumberland Union Banking Company, Carlisle 32,842
Cheltenham and Gloucestershire Banking Com-
pany, Cheltenham
Coventry and Warwickshire Banking Company,
Coventry , 27,399
Coventry Union Banking Company, Coventry 14,593
County of Gloucester Banking Company, Chel-
tenham
Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Company,
Carlisle 24,610
Carlisle City and District Bank, Carlisle 19,912
Dudley and West Bromwich Banking Company,
Dudley
Derby and Derbyshire Banking Company, Derby 19,264
Darlington District Joint-Stock Banking Com-
pany, Darlington 27,736
East of England Bank, Norwich
Gloucestershire Banking Company, Gloucester 146,871
Halifax Joint-Stock Bank, Halifax 17,858
Huddersfield Banking Company, Huddersfield 33,733
Hull Banking Company, Hull 27,315
Halifax Commercial Banking Company, Halifax 12,723
Halifax and Huddersfield Union Banking Com-
pany, Halifax 42,441
Helston Banking Company, Helston 1,447
Herefordshire Banking Company, Hereford 24,735
Knaresborough and Claro Banking Company,
Knaresborough 26,521
Kingsbridge Joint-Stock Bank, Kingsbridge 4,143
Lancaster Banking Company, Lancaster 50,385
Leeds Banking Company, Leeds
Leicestershire Banking Company, Leicester
Lincoln and Lindsey Banking Company, Lincoln 47,239
Leamington Priors and Warwickshire Banking
Company, Leamington Priors
Leeds and West Riding Banking Company,
L^edi 18,359
Leeds Commercial Banking Company, Leeds 12,256
Ludlow and Tenbury Bank, Ludlow 9,328
Moore and Robinson's Nottinghamshire Bank-
ing Company, Nottingham 31,358
Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Banking
Company, Nottingham
Newcastle, Shields, and Sunderland Union Joint-
Stock Banking Company, Newcastle 75,799
National Provincial Bank of England, Birming-
ham, Head-office, 112, Bishopsgate- street,
London 398,163
North Wilts Banking Company, Melksham 59,938
Northamptonshire Union Bank, Northampton 80,157
Northamptonshire Banking Company, North-
ampton
North and South Wales Bank, Liverpool.
Pares's Leicestershire Banking Company, Lei-
cester 56,299
Saddleworth Banking Company, Saddleworth 6,751
Sheffield Banking Company, Sheffield 33,483
Stamford, Spalding, and Boston Banking Com-
pany, Stamford 57,620
Stuckey's Banking Company, Bristol Somerset-
shire Bank, and Somersetsbire Bank, Lang-
port
Shropshire Banking Company, Shiffnall ...
Stourbridge and Kidderminster Banking Com-
pany, Stourbridge
Sheffield and Hallamsbire Banking Company,
Sheffield s 21,642
Sheffield and Rotherham Joint-Stock Banking
Company, Sheffield
Swaledale and Wensleydale Banking Company,
Richmond
Stockton and Durham County Banking Com-
pany, Stockton
Storey and Thomas's Banking Company,
Shaftesbury
Sheffield and Retford Bank; Sheffield ...
Suffolk Banking Company, Ipswich
Wolverhampton and Staffordshire Banking Com-
pany, Wolverhampton 31,120
Wakefield and Barnsley Union Bank, Wakefield 14,547
Whitehaven Joint-Stock Banking Company,
Whitehaven
Warwick and Leamington Banking Company,
Leamington
West of England and South %Vales District
Bank, Bristol.
Wilts and Dorset Banking Company, Salisbury 72,616

7,370

Average Amount.
West Riding Union Banking Company, Hud.

dersfield 31,678
Whitchurch and Ellesmere Banking Company,
Whitchurch
Worcester City and County Banking Company,
Worcester... 6,357
York Union Banking Company, York 69 921
York City and County Banking Company, York 88,735
Yorkshire Banking Company, Leeds
P. DEANS, Registrar of Bank Returns.
Stamps and Taxes, Nov. 2, 1844.

6,830

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 6
(Before Sir JAMES WIGRAM.)
WOODS V. WOODS.—OPINIONS OF COUNSEL.

His HoNoun pronounced judgment in this case. This
was a motion by the plaintiffs in a cross suit for the pro-
duction of documents contained in the schedule to the
answer, and admitted to be relative to the matters con-
tained in the bill. Amongst the documents were a case
submitted by the defendant to his counsel, and the
opinion thereupon. The defendant had submitted to
produce the case, but resisted the production of the
opinion; and the only question upon which he was callod
upon to exercise his judgment was whether the opinion
should be produced or not. According to the admissions
in the answer, and to the issue in the cause, there could
be no doubt that this opinion might be material to the
plaintiff's case, and the plaintiff, therefore, would,
prima facie, upon the general principle, be entitled to
have it produced, unless the defendant had shown by his
answer that the document was privileged. If his answer
showed that, it became unnecessary to consider whether
the document might be material or not to the plaintiff's
case, in either case it would be protected. It was
stated by counsel in the argument that Lord Langdale
had lately decided a case, in which he stated
that he considered the opinions of counsel as not en-
titled to privilege where it appeared that it might be
material to the plaintiff's case. On referring to the cage,
however, which was that of Robinson and Wright, it
appeared that Lord Langdale recognised the authority
of the cases which determined that such documents were
generally privileged, and that he afterwards carefully
excepted the documents that fell within the scope of the
decided cases which established that principle. That
case, therefore, left the authorities precisely where they
stood before. In order to avoid the repetition of his
own opinion on this subject, he would refer to the case
of Lord Walsingham against Goodrich. He remained
of the opinion which he then expressed, that while the
state of the law rendered it impossible that parties should
be their own lawyers, and act without professional ad-
vice ; it was indispensably necessary that the privile4e
conceded to professional communications should be main-
tained, at least to the extent to which it was at present.
He had looked into the bill and answer in this cause, and
by the answer it appeared that the opinion in question
was taken after the dispute had arisen which was the
subject of the original and cross cause then before him,
and that it was taken for the purpose of obtaining the
opinion of counsel for the guidance of the parties in re-
spect to that very suit. There could not be in his judg-
ment any doubt that an opinion taken under such cir-
cumstances was privileged at the time when it was
taken ; and he thought it clearly retained its privileges
in that suit. He gave no opinion as to the obligation of
the defendant to answer any particular charge in the
interrogatories. His present judgment was confined
exclusively to the production of the opinion itself.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Noe. 5.
(Sittings in Banco.)
ALDIS V. GARDINER.

This was an action brought against an attorney for
negligonce in investing a sum of money belonging to the
plaintiff, in consequence of which the money had been
lost. The action was tried at Liverpool, before Mr.
Justice Cresswell, and the jury found for the plaintiff.

Mc. lisowLEs now moved for a rule nisi for a new
trial, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence.
The declaration alleged in the usual manner that the
defendant had been retained by the plaintiff as an at-
torney for fee and reward, and that he had neglected
his duty. The pleas were, first, not guilty, and,
secondly, that the defendant had never been em-
ployed as an attorney. The plaintiff was as artist,
who had received many acts of kindness from
defendant, who had been a patron to him
for years. In February, 1840, the plaintiff wrote to the
defendant, asking him to invest about 2004 for him,
which he had saved from his earnings. The money
was lent to a person named Baines, to whom the defend-
ant had subsequently lent 2001. Baines' father was
joint security with himself for the repayment of plaintiff's
money. The younger Baines died insolvent, and the
elder Baines gave up his property to his creditors, which
only yielded six shillings in the pund. lie moved to
set aside the verdict, on tha ground that there was no
evidence whatever to show that the defendant had ever
been retained as an attorney. There was no bill of cu: is
put in—there was no proof given of any payment of
fees from plaintiff to defendant, and all that appeared
on the trial went to negative such a supposition.
Lord DENMAN—You had better hand up the letters
which passed between plaintiff and defendant, and w e
will see my brother Cresswell on the subject.

THE QUEEN V. THE MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL

RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was an indictment against the defendants for a
nuisance, for obstructing the public highway in New
Bailey-street, Salford, by the erection in the carriage-
way of that street four pillars, on which they had erected
a bridge, over which they had carried a portion of their
railway. The case was tried at Liverpool, before Mr.
Justice Cresswell, and a verdict passed for the Crown.

Mr.WonTLEv now moved for a rule nisi to set the
verdict aside, and have it entered fur the defendants, or
for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection by the
Learned Judge, or at all events that the verdict should
be confined to that part only of the works which were the
subject of the indictment. The bridge had-been etect,d
in the course of the construction of a railway joining the
Manchester and Liverpool, and Manchester an .1
Leeds, and Manchester and Bolton Railways, in
one common terminus.. The Act of 1826, which was
the original Act forming the Company, gave them
power to erect bridges over public highways and streets,
for the purpose of carrying on their works., -An Act
was passed in 1839 empowering the Company to con-
struct a junction railway, which gave them all the powers
of the first Act. That road was not constructed, and
in 1842 an Act was obtained for the construction of the
present railroad, continuing to them all the powers of
the two former Acts, and undzr these Acts they had, the
power, as he contended, of erecting these pillars. He
had to complain of the summing up of the Learned
Judge at common law. He had told the jury that no
jury would be doing their duty who could find the erec-
tion of an obstruction in the public street to be anything
but a nuisance.

Lord DENMAN—I doubt if he went far enough. lie
ought to have told the jury that any obstruction what-
ever, preventing the passage over a public highway, was
a nuisance in the eye of the law.
Mr. WORTLEY apprehended that there must be some-
thing more than mere obstruction to make a nuisance.
Beside;, he contended that, under a proper constructitm
of the Company's Acts, they were authorised to erect
these pillars. There was only one single pillar in ti e
carriage-way, and he submitted that, at all evenrs, the
writ of abatement ought only to issue as to that one
pillar. lie trusted, that if such were the case, some com-
promise might be come 'to, as bad been suggested by the
Learned Judge at the trial.
Lord DENMAN—Probably it had better be turned into
a case.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)

IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES CARUS WILSON-APPLI
CATION FOR A HABEAS CORPUS.
_ -

Mr. PEACOCK, in this case, appliedlO;;;;;it of habeas
corpus, directed to John Kanditch, the gaoler of one of
the prisons in Jersey, commanding him to bring up the
body of Charles Carus Wilson. Mr. Wilson went to
reside in Jersey on the 23d of September, and was shortly
after arrested and imprisoned. He stated that he was
advised, and verily believed that his imprisonment was
illegal, and applied several times for a copy of the war-
rant under which he was arrested. The gaoler told him
he had no such document, but on the 29th of September
he brought in a paper and left it in the deponent's cell,
which stated that he was condemned to pay a fine of 10/.
to her Majesty, and to make an apology to the Court for
contempt. This did not state what the contempt was,
what the Court w as, nor to whom the apology was to be
made.