The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-20 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER '2O, 1826.

BRITISH ROCK AND PATENT SALT CONI-

PANY, DEC. 19.

A general meeting of the Shareholders of the above
concern was held this day, at the:City of London Tavern,
pursuant to pilblic advertisement, for the purpose of re-
ceiving the report of the Committee appointed to investi-
gate the charges made by Mr. Furmval. There were
about forty persons present. Mr. Rase'dine at lirst 'took
the Chair.

Before the business of the day commenced persons who
were not Shareholders, or had not signed the deed of
settlement, were ordered to withdraw, and two or three
persons retired. An exception was of course made in
favour of the persons attending for the public press.

Mr. HASELDINE then observed, that as the meeting was
called' for, the purpose of receiving areport concerning the
conduct of the Directors, against whotp charges of a very
serious nature had been ma by Mr. Furnivid, it, must be,
41tIdelit.1414 l'irpt4‘*ite_trgegolstr for a Dieeetor to
-fill the chidi btidietWi thetiefortf, vacate the 'chair and leave
it to the Ahaziholders to appoint a Chairman frodamougst
themselves. It-was finely agreed that Mr. Easthorpe
should take the chair, a proposal to which that gentleman,
after some 'hesitation, assented, at the same time expressing
his entire ignorance of •the affairs of the Company.
A letter was then read from a Mr. Knight, who stated
that he was the agent of Mr. Furnival, who was now
abroad, and that he claimed the privilege of being present
at the meeting, as ,the representative of Mr. Furnival.
Upon this letter it was resolved that no practical good
effect could proceed from the 'admission of Mr. Knight,
which was therefore refused.
Upon the motion of Mr. PARRATT, the printed charges
of Mr. Furnival against the company Were then read.
The notice concluded by an earnest recommendation that
the present Directors should be removed, and the Com-
pany re-organised.
Mr. BOND, the Chairman of the Committee, then
moved, that the Report of the Committee, appointed on
26th September last, should be read.
This motion having been seconded, and unanimously
agreed to, Mr. RICHARD PATERSON proceeded to read the
Report, Which set forth, that the agent of Mr. Furnival
had been afforded every opportunity of substantiating the
charges made by that gentleman, as it was understood that
Mr. Furnival was prevented from attending the Com-
mittee, by the legal proceedings to which he had subjected
himself, the agents of the Company undertook to stay all
proceedings on the part of their clients, and secure Mr.
Furnival from arrest, until the investigation terminated.
'This resolution was communicated to Mr. Furnival, but
he replied that his engagements in ,France were of such a
nature, that he could not leave that country ; but that as
the evidence he had to adduce was either documentary,
or dependent on the testimony of respectable persons re-.
silent in London, his agent could transact the business
without his personal attendance. The Report further
stated, that the Committee thought the charges made by
Mr. Furnival were reducible to two, the breaking an
agreement alleged to have been made with Mr. Furnival,
without sufficient reason, and connecting themselves with
Mr. Broughton and Mr. Sutton, when a document
signed by the latter showed a direct fraud on the
Company to the amount of eighty-four thousand pounds.
•In,refereate• to the first ,eherge,i, thcropintgkeer‘
Wed lieen' *Midi' by' tlie Mitt*
Mr. Fumes!, and that Mr. F. withdrew from the manage—
ment from private feelings. As to the second charge, the
Committee stated that Messrs. Broughton and Sutton had
the management of the lime-works only, upon terms ex-
tremely advantageous to the Company. The Committee
are of opinion that,. Mr. Furnival was not possessed of
above 1,000 shares, all of which were liable to forfeiture.
He was the founder of the Company, but he had sold his
patent, and was not the lessor, as he asserted, Lord Mans-
field having made the lease at the express desire of Mr.
Furnival. Under all the 'circumstances the Committee
declared it was their decided conviction that Mr. Furnival
had been actuated by private motives, and not by any pub-
lic feelings, and that the charges he had made against the
Directors were entirely unfounded. The Committee
thought that the regularity of giving Messrs. Broughton
and Sutton a contract for coals was an arrangement of
doubtful propriety. However, the tender made by Brough-
ton and Sutton was the lowest, and the coals they had
provided the best. The Committee, in conclusion, con-
gratulated the shareholders on the zealous and prudent
manner in which the affairs of the Company were con-
ducted, and expressed their decided conviction that the
Directors had amply proved themselves worthy of the con-
tinued confidence of the shareholders.

The Report, which occupied more than an hour in
reading, was received with every demonstration of ap-
plause.,
Mr. COLES then read the opinion of Mr. Richmond, a
Barrister, relative to the contract with Broughton and
Sutton, for the supply of coals. The opinion was to the
effect that the Directors were legally justified in granting
Oe contract to Broughton and Sutton.

Mr. FRESIWIELD,of the Stock Exchange was happy to
move that the Report should be received and adopted.
One of the shareholders said, it certainly appeared to
to him, that they had paid Messrs. Broughton '430,000/.,
for works which were not worth so much by 100,0001.-
11e, therefore, thought the directors were to blame in
employing them.
Mr. BRoUGTON denied that he had any share in the
formation of the company, or in fixing the price of the
works.

Mr. IlompiNE entered into some long explanation of
the details of the report.

Mr. JUNE moved as an a►nendment, that the report
should not be received.
The original motion was carried by a large majority.

LAw of LIBEL.—W. trust that the day is not
far distant when the defect of which we complain in the Law of
Libel will be amended. Until this reform is effected, the Press
lies under the worst description of thraldom ; subjected indeed to
no specific restraint, but bound to consult every man's pleasure. To
displease any one is an indictable offence. While this continues
to be the case, we may apply to the public writer, with some
verbal variation, the language in which Mr. Bentham 19 forcibly
describes those who live under sleeping laws. " Law, the only
Power that gives security to others, is the very, thing that takes it
away from him. His destiny is to live his life long with a halter
about his neck ; and his safety depends on his never meeting with
the man whom petulance, avarice, or malice, can have induced
to pull at it: Between the tyranny of indefinite laws, and the
tyranny of a lawless censorship
there is this difference—the latter
is the tyrann of one, the other is the tyranny of millions. In the
one ease, the slave has hut one master—in the other, he has as
many masters as there are individuals who can take offence at
truth and make handles of the law. You may have the whole
Libel
Law by heart, and all the while not knowwhat ground
you stand upon under the law. It
pretends to fix your destiny ;
and afterall, if you want to know your destiny, you must learn
it not from the law, but from the temper of the times.
tem-
perltd iovfidtuhael tiinintehs'e dniadt nation. You say?
Volyou must
mustna u sktnto,wntohteo y The
tempery of every
at the present instant, but what it will be at every fult'urehoante.itAilil
this you must know before you car, lay your hand ,upon your
bosom, and say to yourself, ../trn, safe.' What all this while is
the character and condition of the VI q Sometimes a bug-
bear,it. promisesetothernoticmoensfi
snare ; its threats inspire no efficient terror,
.`.,Sunday Paper.
adence.. ' 11
Lim

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Ihc. 20.
TIM DUKE OF WO YOLK AND OTHERS V. HUMP.

THE Arroaxir -Gan-that moved on behalf of the plaintiffs,
who are trustees of the Haraxiari chapel, in Warwick-sheet, that
the defendant, Robert flume, be committed to the Fleet prison,
tin: a contempt of Court, in haring committed a breach of the
order pronounced by his Honour, on the 27th of January last,
for an injunction teatraining him (the defendant) from proceed-
ing, with the erection of certain premise* adjoining the south
wall of the chappl,' or in anyway interfering with the said wall.
The_N'tEE-CmAtienELon. dismissed the motion with costs.
NZGLIGItNeI or tRACTITIONERS.

In the course of the day Mr. Rourar. moved, that an order,
which bad been :obtained for dismissing a hill for want of prosecu-
tion, be rescinded, on the ground of want of notice on the part of
the solicitor.

The Vicx-Cst.s.tommitu;r4 will not make the artier unless the
other party conewsta. mildiousation which prevails in the con •
duct bf Chancery waibilrositulais a crying evil, and I will never
give any indblgent.,* 'sky-into' -situation.
COURT OF Igls%'S BENCH, Dac. 19.

LEWIS V. W6OD AND ANOTHER.

Mr. PLATT opened the pleadings.
Mr. BRQUGHAIIf stated the case. The plaintiff (Miss Lewis)
is a lady of considerable literary reputation. The defendant. are
officers belong to the Palace Court, Lambeth. This action was
brought to recover compensation in demages for the defendant's
having forcibly broken into the Jalaintiff's house in York-street,
nryanstone-squere, and carried off the furniture, in the execution
of a process for debt, issued out ofthe Palace Court. The plain-
tiff had lived with her mother during the year 1825, in Lambeth-
terrace, during which time she had lent her various sums, which
she derived from her publications ; her mother not being in a con-
dition to repay her, assigned her furniture to her at a valuation.
Shortly after, the mother was arrested, and the plaintiff took a
house in York-street, to which she removed the furniture. 'On
the 18th of May last, the plaintiff being absent from home, and
no person being in the house, the defendants having an execution
against the mother, contrived to effect an entrance into
the house, by representing to the occupier of the next house,
that there was a sweep stuck in the chimney, and thereby
persuaded him to allow three sweeps to go through his
trap door to the top of the house. These having come down
through the chimney of the plaintiff's house, opened the door for
the defendants, who entered and carried off the furniture, and sold
it for the mother's debt. This action was to recover damages for
the trespass, and also the amount of the furniture,
Mr. Se AmATT, for the defendants, contended that ,verdict should
be taken for the plaintiff for the trespassi which he could not defend,
but that the proprietory of the furniture should be referred to an
arbitration. Plaintiff's counsel objected to this, unless it were ad-
mitted that the furniture belonged to the plaintiff. This not
being agreed to, the fellowing witnesses were called •
Elizabeth Green, sister to the plaintiff, examined by Mr. KATT
—I resided with my mother in 182 S. I recollect that the plain-
tiff lent my mother various sums between June 1823 and 1824,
amounting in all to 90/. which she received front two of her
publications called Glenl,you and Zelinda. In August 1824 she
lent her 10/. which she received from the Literary Fund, and be-
tween that and December 1825, she lent her 201, derived from
the retail sale of a work of her's called Ambition ; in December
1825, my mother's ferniture was appraised at Ler residence in
Lambetk-place, and delivered up to the plaintiff, who
thereupon advanced to my mother fifty-five pounds ;
shortly after my mother was committed to the Marshalsea, and
the plaintiff took a house at 1001. a year, in York-street, Bryan-
stone-square, to which the furniture which she purchased of my
mother was removed ; besides this furniture, my sister (the plain-
tiff). hit 4. f.e.v*Pi..4llliTklisllNEk-141440.141.0244ti1e5it01r5i

sy last; InTiWiiiii7rtßrn=l;l774747.74:
of information which we received, we went to my sister's house
in York-street, where ws found a man in possession of it;. on
asking Lee (one of the defendants) the cause, he told us that he
had seized the fin niture in consequence of an execution out of the
Palace Court, at the suit of Edward Costel, against my mother,
for 771. 10s. ; my sister told him that every thing in that house
belonged to her, notwithstanding which he removed the furniture,
and had it sold, with the exception of a few articles.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCAIRLETT...--I am older than the plain-
tiff; my mother took the benefit of the Insolvent Act in June last.
Henry Belcher examined by Mr. BAOUCHAZit..-.QUAlitiall—
What.are you ?—Answer-1 am a vvitness,Sir.—(Much laughter.)
Question—Are you a chimney sweep?--Ans.—Ye.-ye-yes.
I with three more of my companions, was employed by some
gentlemen to'go. down a chimney in York-street; we went to the
top of the house, through. the trap-door of the next house to it,
and having come down through the trap door, which happened to
be open, we opened the hall-door, and let in the gentlemen who
were outside ; I don't know any of the gentlemen who were there.
The Lonn Cnizs' Jusrtcx, after recapitulating the evidence to
the Jury, expressed his opinion that the entry through the trap-
door was an illegal entry, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled
to their verdict on that point ; but with regard to the material
question in the cause, as to whom the right of property in the
furniture was vested in, that was a matter they must determine
on consideration of the evidence they had heard. If they were of
opinion that the goods in question had been bona fide transferred
to the plaintiff, in consideration of the money she bad advanced
to her mother, they would find a verdict for her, with such
damages as they thought she was entitled to, according to the
testimony that had been produced to that effect ; if they were of
a contrary opinion, they would find for the defendant.
The Jury retired at a quarter past two o'clock, and at six
o'clock returned with a verdict for the plaintiff, 401. damages as
to the trespass, and 601. as dairtiges for the value of the goods.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, Dkc. 19.
WELD v. rpm& AND ANOTHER.
This was an action on a policy of insurance brought by the
plaintiff against the defendants, who are the directors of the Star
Life Insurance Office, to recover 11,0001., the amount of a policy
of insurance which bad been effected in August, 1820, in that
office, on the life of Lady. ittulock. The -defendants pleaded,
first, the general issue; and secondly, that a misrepresentation
had been made on the part of the plaintiff with regard to the age
of Lady Hunlock, the assured.

Mr. Serieant Wieur stated the case. The plaintiff formerly
carried on business in the city, but having accumulated wine pro-
perty, he had now retired, and was not now engaged in any mercan-
tile transactions. lie thought proper, however, to employ Messrs.
Howard and Gibbs, the well.kuown monoy.agents, to negociete an-
nuities for him. These gentlemen effected an annuity on Lady lion-
luck's life to the amount of 80001. It became uscessary.to insure this
lady's life, and the Pelican Office granted a policy for the amount,
of the plaintiff's interest. This policy was however transferred
from this respectable office to the Star. This was most utirtu-
nate for the plaintiff, for, had that never taken place, he would
now have been in possession of his money, and would not, hive
been compelled to have recourse to legal proceedings in order to
reeever it. The Star Company had been created by Howard and
Gibbs, for their own advantage, anti with a view of effecting Ito,
licks on those annuities which had been neglected by those;indi-
viduals. This company was conducted, and its business trans-
acted, in the house of the persons who had given it bieth—
Messrs. Howard and . Gibbs. These gentlemen had thought
proper, without any authority from the plaintiff, but sohtly on
their own responsibility, to transfer the policy in question from
the respectable office in which it had been effected, to the office of
this company of their own raising. He understood that the de-
fence to the present action would be, that there was a statement
in existence ielativ to the age of Lady Ilimlock, which they said
had been misrepresented, she being more advanced in life, than
had been stated. If that were the case, it had arisen out of a
mistake on the part of the plaintiff, and was not a wilful error.
The policy, dated on the 10th of August, 1820,
was then put
in and read by the associate. It contained a condition, by which
it appeared that if any case of misrepresentation should occur with
regard to the age of the person assured, whether it were wilful or
otherwise, the policy should become void. . ,
Mrs. Stephens proved the death of Lady Tittalock, which took
place in January, 1821. She could not speak at to her effh•
James Gibbs was the subscribing witness to th, grant ae annui-
ty. He stated that he had money of the plaintiff's in his bade pre-
vious to the date of the annuity. Pie had negeeiated that grant
of the annuity for Lady Ifunlock, and on the 6rantisg of the

annuity, a policy was effected in the Pelican. It was be who
conducted that transaction. He made no communication to the
office. Himself end partner were both directors iu the Star
Company : they had been instrumental in raising it, and the busi-
ness of that Company wee carried un in their house. Mri Foster
and the other defendant were directors in August, 1820. Wit-
ness had communication with the defendants after he beprd the
annuity was to be taken up. He had no doubt but that hi stated
to them the beneAts which would arise from the risk. It was in
January, 1821 that he heard Lady Hunlock was. more than 61
years of age. It was not witness, hut Lady Ilunloek herself,
who had made therepresentation of her age.
A certificate was then put in and read, by which it Appeared
that Lady Hunlock was born on the Bth of June„Ob2, *bd was
buried on the 2d of February,lB2o, aged 68.
James Mitchell—Was Secretary to the Star Company"; they
had Adopted the semi age as the Pelican had.

Oliver Carmichael confirmed the testimony of the last witness.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS replied. The question the Jury would
have to decide wits, whether there had, been, a false revresentation
made with respect to the age of the assured. Now, it appeared,-
that no representation 110 *4l made at all.
After some discussion, it was agreed that the plaintiff should
be nonsuited ; 'at the same time, his Lordship gave him leave to
enter a verdict for 3,000/. subject to the opinion of the' Court.