The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-10 00:00:00

once with the rules of their original contract, with
the view to its determination. It appeared that until
this was done they could not enter into a new con-
tract. _ _

A SHAREHOLDER moved that the contractors be
not allowed to have the 1,240 shares.
Mr. SHEWARD said the question he had to consider
in the negotiations he had been engaged in was the
best terms he could get ; that was the question to
which he was reduced. Could he have got better he
would have done so. Unless, they entered into the pro-
posed arrangement they would lose 30,0001., which was
an important consideration.—(Hear, hear.) Besides,
unless they proceeded with their line, their property
was liable to confiscation, and if time were lost they
would not be able to come to terms with
the Government of Belgium during the present
session of the representatives. Unless they adopted
the proposed arrangement they might get out of the
frying pan into the fire. At any rate, let the whole
responsibility of accepting or negativing the proposi-
tion rest with the proprietors and not with him. If
rejected he would as their servant endeavour to obtain
better terms.—(Heat) The contractor, though in-
solvent, could sell his contract to others.
Mr. BURKE opposed the proposed arrangement, on
the ground that they would lose 25,0001, and that it
would be better f,r Mr. Sheward to proceed with his
negotiations, as he believed he might obtain better
terms than hose he had obtained.

N. GUEDALLA supported the proposed arrange-
ment, and considered that the proprietors were per-
fectly safe in the hands of the directors.
At length the amendment was agreed to, power
was given to raise 200,0001. to complete the line, and
a vote of thanks having been awarded to the directors,
the meeting adjourned.

ROYAL FREEMASONS' SCHOOL
FOR FEMALE CHILDREN.—(TIIIS DAY.)
A quarterly general Court of this institution was
held to-day at the School house, Westminster-road,
to place approved candidates on the list for the elec-
tion in April, and for other business. W. F. Beadon,
Esq., presided.
This is one of those excellent educational institu-
tions abounding in the metropolis, in which the
original intentions of the founder have not been
diverted from, but have been carried out
in a manner the most praiseworthy. The
charity was established in 1788, by Chevalier
Ruspini, whose portrait graces one of the rooms, for
the purpose of maintaining, clothing, and educating
female children, daughters of brethren belonging to
the ancient and honourable society of Free and
Accepted Masons, who, from affluent or prosperous
circumstances, have become so reduced as to require
its aid, and for protecting and preserving them
from the dangers and misfortunes to which
distressed young females are peculiarly exposed.
Although it is supported entirely by voluntary
contributions, no less thin 616 children have been
admitted into the school since its foundation, the
report stating "most cf these have been returned to
their friends, some have been apprenticed or pro-
vided with situations, and all have become good and
useful members of society"—a most satisfactory an-
nouncement, which redounds greatly to the honour
and usefulness of the ancient and distinguished
fraternity of Freemasons.
The minutes of the previous meeting having been
confirmed, and the accounts, which showed that the
funds were in a flourishing and satisfactory state,
having been passed, the Secretary intimated the de-
cease of Louis Hayes Petit, Esq., one of the vice-
presidents,
a th.
the
school,
There
and a most active member of the charity.
Mr. Beadon was unanimously elected to fill
up the vac
vacanciesancy
for
occasioned
were four
and only six candidates, who were all approved of
his
by the meetingi and allowed to stand for the next
election. children by ind
B. fore breaking up several of the subscribers
visited the children, who were arranged in the school-
room, and presented a picture of health and neatness
such as any institution might be proud of. Although
none were above sixteen, the penmanship would have
startled the most experienced caligraphist, and the
needlework of others excelled the best efforts of
clever matrons, whilst their general education seemed
:o be of a kind most useful to them in the sphere of
fe in which they are most likely to move.

SHERIFFS' COURT.-(THIS DAY

(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)

PHELPS V, CAMPBELL—GETTING UP A COMPANY.
This was an action to recover the sum of 51. for
money lent under the following circumstances.
Defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
Mr. HAWKINS stated the case. The facts were these
—in 18•t7 defendant, who held a cheque drawn by a
Mr. Ford, applied to plaintiff, through a Mr. Tapson,
to cash it, but on the understanding that it was not to
be presented for week, as Mr Ford would not be pre-
pared. The cheque was sent down to plaintiff, who is
a solicitor at Newport, and the cash returned in due
course; but some time afterwards plaintiff received a com-
munication that the cheque had been irregularly drawn,
as Ford had no assets in the hands of the bankers who
were the batlkers of a company to which he was secre-
tary, and requesting th:tt the cheque might be changed
for one on Ford's bankers; this was complied with, but
the cheque was dilioneured. He (Mr. Hawkins) con-
ceived that the defeuce would be, that there were cash
:rans9etions between plaintiff and Tapson, and that this
eh, clue formed part of the account; but it was difficult
to see how that could affect the present case.

Mr. Tapson was called and proved the facts as stated.
In cross-examination witness was asked whether Mr.
Phelps had not been promised to be appointed solicitor
to the company ?
Mr. HAWKINS objected to the question, but
The Learned UNDER- SHERIFF said it could not be
known what the result might be in cross-examination.

-DNN
elfenneds
asns denieds Solicitor
iaclilt
oknowledge j anyeocftedthat p r omise.
s
the money
had been advanced solely on the security of the cheque,
therefore the presentation of the cheque must be pruved
the same as on a bill of exchange.
The Learned UNDER•SHERIFF said this was a mere
question of money lent, if the cheque had been declared
on then the prEsentation must be proved. He should
therefore allow the case to go to the jury.
The defendant's solicitor then addressed the jury to
show that all the parties had been engaged in getting
up a company for the navigation of the River Abbersley,
North America, and that the money had been advanced
to Tapson and not to defendant.

The jury, however, gave a verdict for the plaintiff for
tho amount claimed.

our Afternoon Edition.)
CRIMINAL
feiromOURT.—(THIS DAY.)
THE TRIAL C.F SARAH DRAKE FOR 3I ORDER.
Thomas Kinder—l am superintendent of the Notting-
ham,hire police. In consequence of information received
from constable Smith, I went to North Leverton. and
saw the box opened. I afterwards came to London,
and went with one of the metropolitan police
to No. 33, Harloy-street, where we saw the prisoner
in the housekeeper's room. I asked her if sha was
Sarah Drake. She said yes. I said " From Notting-
hamshire?" She said yes. I then said I had to
h e
of murdering her child,
aLewisppreDnd ra
keon a
. her
sh
She
said,
acihda, Trio w
do you know that?"
I said a dead body had been found in a box,
which had been sent to North Leverton, and round the
en sat
t o
h body was found an apron marked '• Sarah Drake." She
then
ak t
t e downm a
raynide
bblgo a.
roo
n toii ce.ryo. She was afterwards
ffi
ce.
Witcher, the policeman who accompanied the preceding
witness to 33, Harley-street, proved that he found there
some aprons belonging to the prisoner, marked " S.
Drake," and that he received a bunch of keys from the
prisoner, one of which fitted the box in which the child
was found.
Mrs. Johnson was called, and identified the clothes
found in the box with the body to be the clothes of the
child, Lewis Drake.
Mary Ann Briggs, the searcher at the Marylebone
Police-office, proved that she searched the prisoser, and
whilst she was doing so she asked the prisoner what she
was charged with. The prisoner did not answer, and wit-
ness asked her a second time. She then asked if witness
was a married woman. Witness replied she, was and had a
family. Prisoner then said, "You can feel fur me," and
added, "it is all about a child." Witness asked if it
was a new-born baby. She said it was not, it was
two years old and she had hung it. She also
said that she owed a woman who had kept
it some money and she (the prisoner) had done it in a
moment. She said she had sent the child to her sister
to be buried, and that her sister had made all the noise
about it, and that she (the prisoner) would be hung
for it.
Cross•cxamined—l only asked her what she was
charged with. She said the woman had been with her
about the money, and she had done it in a moment.
The letters written by the prisoner were then put in
and read. Those letters have already appeared in our
columns.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. COLLIER, for the prisoner, submitted that one
part of the case for the prosecution had not been made
out. It had not been shown that the child alleged to
have been murdered bore the name stated in the in-
dictment. The first two sets of counts in the indict-
ment described the name of the child respectively to be
Lewis Drake:and Lewis Taverner; and the evidence of his
name having been either the one or the other was, that he
was, when addressed, uniformly addressed as " Lead," but
that on one or two occasions, which Mrs. Johnson men-
tioned to persons, although she did not remember to whom,
the child in her custody was called Lewis Drake. That,
standing alone would not be sufficient evidence to show
that the child's name was Lewis Drake by repu-ation.
There was, another count in the indictment in which it
was alleged that the child's name was Lewis only,
and that it was an illegitimate child. Now
there was no proof of the child being illegitimate.
Tin re was only the evidence of the brother,
who said he thought his sister was not a
married woman ; but he proved that his sister had IN en
from home for a period of thirteen years. For anything
the brother knew she m'ght have been married.
Mr. PARRY followed on the same side, contending
that there was no proof that the prisoner was either a
single or a married woman, and that, assuming that:she
was a married woman, and that the child was, therefore,
it! 1,11,; 4.1if1 ovn 1w
Lord Coke, a bastard couid not have a surname.
It
there were two perfectly fair but contrary inferences