The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-31 00:00:00

S' pairing of success in the Chambers in obtaining a
vote for the PRITCHARD indemnity, have resolved to
make it up by subscription, and states that the fol-
lowing membt•rs have subscribed I,ooof. each :
Nlcssrs. Hartman o, Francis Delesv..rt, I3ussiere,
Mu*, t (de Boni), Doguereau, Harle, D' Angeville,
Latournelle, Lavielle, Montozon, Barbet, Alphonse,
P6rier, De Peyramont, Raguet-Lepine, Dejean,
Sebastiani, Gravier, Wrier (de l'Ain), Cousture, and
Pr6vost. It is hoped (this journal adds) that by the
care of the two Commissioners appointed to fix the
indemnity, viz., Lord SEYMOUR and Admiral HAME-
LIN, the sum of 20,000 f. will be more than sufficient
to compensate the injury caused to the diffetent trades
and undertakings of Mr. PRITCHARD.
The Funds remained steady. The Three per Cents.
on 'Wednesday closed at 8.5 f. 25c., and the New Loan
at 861. 40c.

THE BOURSE--iVEDNESDAY, JAN. 29.

First

Highest Lowest

Price. Price. Price. Price.
Preach Five r-er Cents • •• 122 •• 122 30 • • 122 .. 122 30
Three per Cents..... i 5 20 .. 85 25 85 15 .• 85 20
New Loan - • 86 35 .. 86 40 .. 86 35 .. 86 40
Gouin Elan k. 1.0001. Shares • .10 0 ..1060 ..1085 •• 1085
Beige ;n Bank • - • • • • 630 .. 630 .. 630 .. 630
Belgian Fiviai, 1840 104% .. 1041 .. 104% .. 104%

1842 ........ 100; .. 106 N .. 100; .. 106 g
Apanlfili Pasalve •• .... 634 G:h
Portuguese Five per Conte•• 593 i .. 5934 .. 59% .. b 93%
Neapolltun . . 99 .. 99 .. 99 .. 99
Roman ... ............... 104 95 104 93 .. 104 95 .. 14)4 95

THIS DAY'S NEWS.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
IN THE NATTER OF MAL CARUS WILSON.-JUDGMENT,

Lord LENMAN, in delivering the judgment of the
Court in this case, said that it was now admitted on all
sides that a writ of habeas corpus would run into the
island of Jersey, and whatever inconvenience might
arise from it, the Court would not decline to exercise its
right in behalf of any person who might require it. The
principal question, therefore, in this case, depended on
the peculiar circumstances attending it. The first ques-
tion was, had the Learned Baron (Baron Rolfe) powc r
to issue the writ, and that he had such power they were
convinced by the arguments in this case. Another ques-
tion was whether, as the affidavits appeared to be entitled in
the Exchequer, a Baron of that Court had the power of
issuing the writ and making it returnable into the Court
of Queen's Bench. It appeared that at the time the ap-
plication was made to the Learned Baron it was desired
that the writ should be made returnableinto the Court of
Exchequer, but the Learned Baron thought it better to
make it returnable into the Court of Queen's Bench, and
this Court were of opinion that the Learned Baron had
a discretion as to the Court where the writ would be made
returnable. But then it was said that a deception had
been practised on the Learned Baron when the applica-
tion was made, inasmuch as it was not stated to him that
the person on whose behalf the application was made was
imprisoned for a contempt of the 'loyal Court of Jersey;
which fact, if it had come to his knowledge, would have
prevented him from granting the writ, or at all events
that ho would have only granted a rule nisi. If the
Court were satisfied that a fraud had been practised it
might induce them to quash the writ, but there was not
sufficient before them to induce them to come to the con-
clusion that a fraud was intended. Mr. Wilson was an
English lawyer, and he might have thought that a war-
rant for his committal was necessary and that the warrant,
if there was any, was refused to be shown to him. They
had then to consider whether the writ was to be set
aside, le cause the circumstances of the case were not
laid before the Learned Baron, which might have prevented
him from granting the writ. The Court did
not intimate any opinion that a previous inquiry
would be wrong where there was reasonable
ground for supposing that the party had been impri-
soned under the sentence of the Court. On the con-
trary, if they thought: such a course would be desirable,
because the Judg.r would then see whether there ought
only to be a rule nisi, but this was an application to
quash a writ which had actually gone forth, and they knew
from the Masters of the Court that the practice was to
have a return made to the writ, and that was the most
convenient course—the most just to the party applying,
and most in conformity with the great object which the
Constitution had in view, in allowing this writ. They
did not think, therefore, that they would be justified in
setting aside the writ, and the c oasequence was, that the
rule must be made absolute, and a return made to the
writ. —The return was then ordered to be made within
ten days.