The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-17 00:00:00

RAILIVAZ SIIAEES.

St. Germain • —.. 82:5 82. .. 825
Versailles, R. 11.• • • • • • • . 375 .. 375 .. 375 .. 375
L. 8.• ...... 255 .. VG 25 • • 235 .. 235
Rouen •......

Rouen to Havre ...... .• 715 715
Orleans .• • • • • • • • • • . 9sg 75 .. 958 75 950

.. 715 •
•• 952 50

_
Strasburg to Bale• • 290 . .; 291 25 •• 287 50 .• 287 50
Avignon to Marseilles 770 .. 770 766 25 .. 766 25
RAILWAY SHARES, FOR THE ACCOUNT.
Versaille5,R.13.....
L. 8..• • • • • •
Rouen ••••••••••• • • • •• •• •• 977 50 .. 977 50 • 960 .• 960

Rouen to Havre.• ..... 715
Orleans •• •• ....... • •••. 960

.. 715
.. 960

.. 707 50 .. 710
.. 948 75 950

Strasburg to Bale ...... • 291 25 291 215 .• 295 .. 286 25
Avignon to Marseilles...... 770, •• 770 •• 767 50 •• 767 50

PRIVY CouNcIL—A Privy Council is appointed to be
held at three o'clock this afternoon, at Buckingham
Palace. Summonses were.. issued to the Cabinet Ali-
ni,ters yesterday afternoon to attend the Council.

It is expected that Lord Lonsdule wilt be sworn into
office as Lord Lieutenant of the county of Cumberland,
in the room of his late father.,

THIS DA;Y'S NEWS.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY).

BULWER V. ASIILEY-JUDGMENT.

The Loan CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this case,
which was argued some time since upon appeal limn the de-
cision of the Vice-Chancellor England. His Lordship
ordered the decree pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor to be
varied, by directing the annuities to be valued, and the tenant
to keep down the interest on 'such valuation,' instead of keep-
ing down the interest on the annuities as directed by the
Vice-Chancellor. It was arranged that the matter should be
mentioned again on Wcdnesdity next, in order to settle the
minutes of the decree.

The Court then proceeded to hear appeals, none of which
possessed any features of public interest.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS..DAY),
The Vice-Chancellor of England Watl occupied the whole
day with cause petitions of no..gencral interest.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY).

STRIKING OUT CAUSES

In the course of the morning, Mr. Ro.GEns applied to the
Master of the Rolls to permit a cause, in which the parties
were not prepared, in cohsequenee of its having unexpectedly
come into the paper, to stand over for a short time.
Lord LANGDALE said it was very inconvenient to postpone
causes that. were in the paper. Solicitors ought to be pre-
pared, and he must insist npOn striking out the causes if the
parties were not ready when they were called on. If that
course were persevered in for a short time, parties would be
more on the alert.
Mr. GDAY (of the firm of_Clarke, Metcalfe, and Gray) beg-
ged to state ca I.)elialf of the solicitors of the Court, that they
were not altogether to blame. He kueiv of a, case that was
yesterday postponed which would have laSted -three or four
days, and, consequently, those cases that stood .after it had
unexpectedly come into the paper, and much earlier than
was anticipated. The parties in those cases, relying upon
the =ties being taken regularly in their turn, were of course
not prepared, while all the,extra labour to get the heavy
case ready to which he had alluded, had been entirely thrown
aw
Loray.
d LANGDALE--There is something in that, Mr. Gray ;
but I think solicitors should be, prepared for every con-
tingency.

QUEEN'S E—(rnis DAY).
(SittingsNCit tn.BAnco.)
THE CORPORATION OF sALTAsu V. FINNIMORE.
This was an action brought to try the right of the Corpora-
tion to
uOnevery vessel entering
pbuoyage. The case was
r
anding an and a special jury at
triedpedm before
levy
s,
p a
llulnr. tolld
Justicea ofs
anchorage oe
Exeter, and the verdict wasfound for the plaintiff.
Mr. BARSTOW now moved for a rule nisi for a new trial, on
the ground—first, of the improper reception of evidenca;
and, secondly, of misdirection by the Learned Judge. At the
trial the charters grantedtotheborough by Elizabeth,Charles
the Second, and George the Third, were put in evidence.
These charters confirmed • to the Corporation their
ltintuilhioerrartofore been entitled to receive.
and buoyage, and to all
otherrigllt tdueso ieesh
they
ge from time imme-
morial aiinnttibfle's
et he
leinuttpiroonceoefdetfili
etsoeshdozs.usa.
put, in to support this usage there were a number of trades-
mens' bills receipted, taken- froM the muniments of the bo-
rough of Saltash, for repairs. dune to certain buoys. Ile ob-
jected to the admission of these bills, contending that they
could not be given as evidence, that the work had been ac-
tually done, inasmuch as it would•be extending the,principle
of the admission of hearsay evidence further than it had ever
yet been extended. The Learned Judge, however, had ad-
mitted them to be given in .evidence, as was now contended,
improperly, and the Learned Counsel quoted several cases in
support of his argument. It further appeared that there
had been given in evidence what was called a
decree of the Court of .Chaneery in the time of
Queen Elizabeth, in the case of Roodvard r. Cloburry and
others. This was an action brougbt •tv certain persons who
claimed these dues under a charter of Elizabeth, against the
Corporation of Saltash, for persisting in collecting them.
The Corporation contended .they had a right to these dues,
and the Court confirmed them in that right by what was of-
fered in evidence as a decree, but which he contended was
merely an interlocutory order. Now in that case there were
two contending grantees for the Crown, each claiming the
toll, and therefore each interested in assuming that there
was a right to collect the toll ; but there was
none to represent the • interests of the public, and
therefore it could not be given in evidence in a ease
brought to try tte right . to, the toll. The order itself
was merely interlocutory, confirming the right of the
b Corporationetter
et aue to
oscollectsutphpeesrt their claim. It Was merely ae plaintiffs should
show
decision nisi, and could nut be given in evidence to show the
immemorialitv of this claim on the part of the Corporation of
Saltash. The misdirection.was, that the Judge having ad-
mitted this as evidence, treated it iu his suumung up as de-
cisive of the point.
Mr. JuStice WIGIITMAN bad treated it as cogent evidence,
but not as decisiVe.
Mr. RAl:now—Very well, my Lord, then I will only ask
for my rule on the two tirst,points:
Lord DENMAN—Take your rule.—Eule nisi granted.

BAIL COURT.--(
• THIS DAY).
THE QUEEN V. THE TOWN-COUNCIL OF STAMFORD.
Mr. STEPHENS- applied to the Court for a mandamus, di-
rected to the Town-council of the borough of Stamford, com-
manding them to pay 197/. I9s. 3d. to the treasurer of the
borough fund, to be carried to account of that fund. It ap-
peared that an order bad been made by three of the Town-
council for the payment of this sum out of the borough fund
to an attorney for certain proceedings taken by him. This
order for payment the Court of Queen's Bench had subse-
quently quashed; and the object of the present application
was to have the sum in question restored to the borough fund.
•Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said, that having doubts as to the
proper course to be pursued, he should take time to consider
his decision.

HOARE v. :ANDERSON.
In this ease Mr. Plattsamt Mr. Mills were for the plaintiff;
and for the defendant no Counsel appeared.
It was an action brought *by the plaintiff; a livery-stable
keeper, to recover the sum of 71./. 2s. 6d., the balance of an
account Of 142/. 55., from the defendant, a gentleman well
known in the sporting circles, and brother-in- law to Madame
Yestris. The account had been incurred by Mr. Anderson,
t servants,
foaun
itisd
,
and by his wife, for the hire of carriages, from January to
September in the last year, to convey them to and from
Ebury-street, Pimlico (the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Charles
Mathews),. to and from the theatres, St. Alban's races, and
various other places.
The trips were proved by threaeonft
Mr.
holm
,Nditdhriinvethietlpieeridoeafesntcalatendt
;or his family on various occa-
sions,a
verdict for the plaintiff, for the balance of account claimed
•1e jury r iy i°
a are's
once e
by him.

EXCHEQUER COURT—THIS DAY
. (Sitting's inTanco.)
The following notice ivas posted in Court this morning:---
"It is ordered flint in future: the Peremptory Paper be
called on the first 'day of each ternrafter the motions, and be
progeeded with the_next day, if tiecesaary,before,theynotipus."
In accordance with this order, the cases set dowd in the
rtmuptory past were prmelol with to-day.

Thep did not appear to be such as to call fur particular
notice.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
FEARS Y. FILICA.

Sir T. WILDE, in this case, moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside, on the ground of its
being against evidence, and on the ground of misdirection.
The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Coltman, and a ver-
dict was entered for the plaintiff to the amount of 302/. ss.
The action was on a bill of exchange. It appeared that a
person named Grand took a counting-house in the City,
using the name of the firm of Howard, Grand, and Co. Grand
had by some means obtained an introduction to the Commer-
cial Bank of Paris, and kept books at. his counting-house to
show that he had transactions with that Bank, but there was
not a single entry in them. The action in the present case
was brought on a bill of exchange remitted by Pauli
and-Co., of Milan, to Grand, and drawn on Gandolfi and
Co , in the City, who were the real defendants.
Before the letter covering the bill arrived, Grand shut up
his counting-house and absconded. He was advertised, and
a reward of 501. was offered for him, and a fiat in bankruptcy
issued against him. He had, however, left a letter for a per-
son named Lonagan, authorising him to open any letter that
came for him, and to endorse the bill in question. There
was a letter also for a person named Lopez, stating.that the
bill should be appropriated for the payment of any debts
for which Lopez was liable on account of Grand. It was not
so appropriated, but was applied in discharge of a debt due
from Lonagan to a person named Daniel, which was said to
have arisen by reason of an adVance of 300/. made by Daniel
on a pledge 14. 'Some wine warrants. Taking the plaintiff to
be a boni fide holder of the bill through Daniel,
the issue taken in the -ease was whether the bill
was endorsed , by Howard, Grand, and Co. The
first objection lie had was that the- letter might be
construed into an intention to commit a fraud, and that
Lopez and Lonagan were cognisant of fraud, having ab-
sconded. In the next place there was nothing in the letter
of Grand' authorising the appropriation which had been made
of the bill. He contended that the bill never belonged to
Grand, and that the authority to appropriate it was revoked
by the act of bankruptcy.
The Learned JUDGE told the jury to consider whether the
plaintiff was a bona fide holder, without reference to those
circumstances, and the jury were of opinion that there was
no act of bankruptcy when there clearly was one.
Rule granted on both points.