The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-12 00:00:00

N

moderate number of candid and intelligent gentlemen will
form themselves into a Committee of Investigation, I shall
be exceedingly happy to associate with them for the purpose
of bringing Mesmerism to such tests as those best acquainted
with its practice consider most leAitimate and fair. These
gentlemen shall have the choice of subjects for me to operate
upon : my next lectures (to be given in Noveniber) shall be
exclusively illustrated, if required, by experiments on the
parties, thus chosen, and the surplus proceeds, if the pheno-
mena are not perfectly sat isfactory to the Committee, be de.
voted entirely, as those of the first lecture of this course have
been, to some public charity.—(t heers.)

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 11.

PICKFORD V. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.-

JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this case,
which came before his Lordship upon an appeal motion from
the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor of England. The plain-
tiffs in the case are the Messrs. Pickford, the celebrated car-
riers, and the defendants the directors of the Grand Junction
RailvrayCompanv. The plaintiffs filed their bill, charging the
delindants with having made certain charges fur the carrying
of goods which were illegal, and they prayed a declaration of
their rights, and also an injunction to restrain the
defendants from making the charges complained of. Upon
the case coming on Wore the Vice-Chancellor, he refused
to grant the injunction asked for on the ground
of delay, the plaintiffs having allowed a considerable time to
elapse between the filing of the bill and the application for
the injunction. From that decision the plaintiffs appealed to
the Lord Chancellor. His Lordship, after going shortly into
the facts of the case, stated his opinion to be that the
plaintiffs had failed upon all the points urged by them in sup-
port of their application ; and the appeal must, therefore, be
refused, with costs.
-- • - -

IN TIIE 3IATTER OF STAIR.

This ease was ordered, upon the application of counsel, to
stand over to the next day of petitions.

DAVENPORT V. BISHOP.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal were
then resumed, and occupied the Court the remainder of the
Morning.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 11.

His Lordship sat at ten o'clock, and was occupied during
the greater part of the day in hearing unopposed petitions.
These were chiefly praying that money lying in the Court
to the credit of certain causes might be transferred to the
petitioners.
His LORDSHIP, in the course of these petitions, expl•essed
his determination to enf.'rce strictly the 122 d order of the
Court, by which any pleading, petition, motion, or affidavit,
that might appear to be of unnecessary length. should be re-
ferred to the taxing. master, who • might be directed to in-
vestigate the same, and if it should appear to him that they
were of unnecessary length, that he should make such an
order as might appear to him just, as a set-off to the demand
for the costs.

VIOE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 11.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
NIXON V. THE TAFF VALE RAILWAY COMPANY'.
The arguments in this part-heard cause were resumed to-
day. The question in the case relates to certain contracts
for the construction of part of the railway.
The case occupied the whole morning.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
LIEVESEY V. WILLCOCK.
Arguments were heard on both sides, and judgment given
in favour of the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff:,
Lievesey and Knowles, were on terms for a coal mine near
Wigan, when they met with defendant, who, in considera-
tion of Lievesey and Knowles giving up their interest
in the lease to him, contracted to pay each of them
30s. a week for their personal services as underlookers
in the mine, and to give them or their executors
5 per cent. on the profits. Defendant, however, dismissed
both from his employment : Knowles for intoxication and
neglect, Li-resey for neglect only. They came into Cor.rt to
sue performance of contract. In consequence of the nature
of the evidence by which the charge against Lievesry was
supported, his Honour hesitated to pronounce against him ; but
as Knowles, in the opinion of the Court, had by his conduct
broken the agreement, and as Lievesey had assumed him as a
go-petitioner, his Honour decided that the Court could net afford
relief to either. The bill was dismissed with 20/. costs,
without prejudice to the cause.
Counsel for plaintiffs, Messrs. Wigram, Q.C., and Blun-
dell; for defendant, Messrs. Russell, Q.C., and Milne.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
TAMLYN V. REYNOLDS.
The plaintiff appeared to plead his own cause, below bar.
The case arises out of the sale of devised estates, over which
plaintiff, as a devisee, declares he holds unsatisfied claims.
So far back as 1818, Mr. Tarnlyn appeared before Sir John
Leach.
His HONOUR deferred judgment.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 11.

ELWELL V. THE BIRMINGHAM CANAL COMPANY.

This was an action taken by the plaintiff against the
Birmingham Canal Company, for a false return to a writ of
mandamus, issued by this Court ; damages were laid at
10,000/. It appeared from the statement of counsel, that
the objections of the Canal Company were, that notice of
the damage done to the plaintiff's mills had not been given
within one month, as required by the Act; that the venue
should have been laid in the county of Stafford; and that
the notice did not specify the extent of the damage done, as
required by the tifty.second section of the Act..
Plaintiff's Counsel contended that the notice was sufficient,
and that it was not necessary to lay the venue in Stafford.
inasmuch as the action was upon a writ of mandamus. The
damage to the defendant's mill was alleged to have been
done by the Canal Company erecting an engine to pump
up the water from one level to another, whereby his mill
was deprived of the water necessary for the working of it.
Counsel argued at great length that the plaintiff had made
good his right to the compensation awarded to him by the
arbitrators to whom it had been referred, even in accordance
with the provisions of the Public Act, and the Canal Com-
pany's Private Act, and that therefore he could not see why
the Company should resist the award.
The case occupied the entire day. Counsel for the de-
fendant having stated his case, and counsel for the plaintiff
having replici, with which he occupied the Court until near
three o'clock.—Judgment deferred.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
JOYCE V. GREENE.

Mr. JARVIS, Q. C., moved their Lordships in this case, which
had been prosecuted in the Liverpool Court of Requests for a
rule of prohibition to set aside the proceedings in the case.
The defendant was an attorney, and having subpcened the
plaintiff on a trial in which he was professionally concerned,
the plaintiff summoned him for his expenses, which amounted
to a guinea. Now the Learned Counsel contended that the
defendant incurredno liability in subpmning the plaintiff, but
the party for whom he acted did.
Mr. Baron PARSE—That depends upon the conduct of
the attorney: prima fade the client is liable, and not the
attorney.

Mr. JARvis apprehended that it did not.
Mr. Baron PARKE—WIIy if an attorney promises to see a i
witness paid his expenses f he will attend a trial the attor-
ney renders himself liable.
Mr. JARVIS urged that a promise of this sort must
be specially stated in the summons, but nothing of the kind
appeared upon the face of the summons in this case.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—What state is the case in ?
Mr. JARvis said judgment had been recorded, and the
amount levied for. It was not so much for the amount they were
contending as for the principle involved in the case. The plain-
titiproduced witnesses to swear that the defendant promised
to see him paid, and on the other hand witnesses were exa-
mined to prove that he did not. lie contended that the
Commissioner of the Court. of Requests had no jurisdiction in
a case like this.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—Was that objection made before
the Commissioner?
Mr. JARVIS replied that it was not.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—It is too late then to urge it
now. You have said enough to inducectoourtof R
theequCeosutsr.t—tßo
Requests.—Rule
fu
the application. It .should have been made while the pro-
ceedingssed. were pending in the

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Monday Mr. Alderman Wilson attended at the Giltspur-
street Prison, to hear the charges against persons who had
been apprehended in any part of the City since Saturday
evening, in order that their imprisonment might not be pro-
longed by the recurrence of civic rejoicings. There were
many charges of drunkenness.
Robert Scott, residing at the Bricklayers' Arms, in Earl-
street, Blackfriars, was charged with striking bis mother on
the head with a poker, by which she was so much irjured
that she was unable to attend.
Edward. Knight, a policeman, stated that be was called
into the house at three o'clock on Sunday morning by the
prisoner ; and, on entering, he perceived by his lantern a
woman lying on her face at the foot of the stairs. The pri-
soner was quite drunk; and funding that the poor woman
was much injured, and that the blow had been inflicted by the
prisoner, he took him into custody.
The prisoner said it was a blow inflicted entirely by mis-
take lie thought a thief had got into the, house, and he
struck her under that misapprehension.
Mr. Alderman WILSON said it was a very unfortunate mis-
take, arising, probably, front his intemperance. It was to be
apprehended that her life was in some danger, and he should
therefore remand the prisoner till Saturday, unless his mother
should be able to attend sooner. . .

Witham Dennzan, a labourer, was charged with attempting
to commit suicide while in a state of intoxication, about
eleven o'clock on Sunday night.
He went down the steps on the Surrey side of Blackfriars-
bridge and plunged into the water; when he was got out he
said he only wanted to have a swim, but from his general
behaviour it seemed that he meant to commit suicide, and
that he was one of those who, when drunk, become un-
happy, and can think of nothing but their share of human
miseries.

Mr. Alderman WILSON fined him ss. for being drunk, and
to be imprisonel three days if the money were not sooner
paid.

CLERKEN WELL.
Thomas Mathews, a powerful-looking man, was charged
with the following brutal conduct :
It appeared from the evidence that he was misconducting
himself in a very gross manner in St. Luke's, between nine
and ten o'clock on Sunday night. Police-constable 108 E
interfered, and seeing that 'he was somewhat under the in-
fluence of liquor, procured a little boy to clnduct him to his
home. The prisoner had not advanced many paces in com-
pany of the lad when he turned round, and, without receiving
any provocation, declared the policeman was a meddling
vagabond, and applied a variety of the coarsest epithets
to him. The constable, with a forbearance not often exer-
cised by his class, took no notice, but was walking along his
beat, when the prisoner suddenly seized him, threw him into
the kennel, and beat and kicked him in so dreadful a manner
that the blood poured from his nose, mouth, and ears. The
poor fellow has since then been suffering from a violent pain
in the head and spine.
The prisoner,
who had no excuse to plead, was sentenced
to a fortnight's imprisonment in the Hsuse of Correction,
without the power of releasing himself by the payment of a
fine.

QuEEN-sQuARE.
Monday Dona!d Donald, a respect ably dressed,
middle-aged man, was charged with affixing a printed no-
tice, intimating an intention on the part of the Commis-
sioners of Woods and Forests to apply to Parliament for leave
to make certain public improvements, on the doors of West-
minster Abbey.
Burrows, a porter and constable at the cloisters, stated,
that in consepuence of notices having been previously posted
on the Abbey doors, he watched last Sunday morning, and
saw defendant during divine service paste a printed notice
on the doors, and then took him into custody.
Mr. BOND inquired whether any orders had been given by
the Dean and Chapter on the subject?
The porter replied that they had
given strict orders to pre-
vent its being :?one.
Defendant said, that the notices had been given to him to
affix in the reqn!red places, and he was not aware that ho
was doing anything wrong.
A gektaullea, oil behalf of the defoudaut, pointed out to