The Sun.
London, England, 1826-11-03 00:00:00

UM E lA. I 1' AU 1,..1 AM ENT.

----
Vesterday the Lords and Commons assembled pro forma.
At half past three o'clock the Lord Chancellor entered
the Ilouse of Lords, and took his seat on the Woolsack.
Ile was accompanied by Lord Stowell (his Lordship's
brother) and Lord Dudley and Ward.
The attendance on the part of the Lower House was
uncommonly scanty.
The LORD CI-um:mon then said—
" My Lords and Gentlemen of the Ilouse of Commons,
" lbs Majesty bath boot pleased to cause a writ to be
issued under the Greet Seal, for further proroguing the
present. Parliament, which you will now beer read."
The Deputy Clerk of the Crown Office having handed
the writ to E. G. Walmesley, Esq., their Lordships'
Clerk of the Journals, that gentleman proceeded to read it.
The writ was signed on the Ist September. It set forth
the adjournments, &c., and added—" It is our will, further
to prorogue our said Parliament from this 9.d November,
till Tuesday, Nov. 14," &c. ; then to be present "to treat,
do, act, and 'conclude upon those things which in our Par-
liament, by the Common Council of 'our kingdom (by
God's assistance) shall happen to be ordained." The
Lord Chancpllor then retired. At the side bar, allotted to
strangers, there were about a dozen persons present; and
between the red curtains inclosing a part of the Usher of
the Black Rod (Sir T. Tyrwhitt's) box, there were some
ladies.

LAW INTELTAGEN

VAX-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 2.

nth ROYAL STANNARY, OR BRITISH MINING AS,

SOCIATION COMPANY.

BLAIN V. A( *A, A/ 4D OTllltitS.

Mr. iiART appeared for the defendants, to support the
demurrer.—The bill was filed by a 'great number of per-
sons, on behalf of themselves, and all other subscribers to
this Association, against the defendants, as Directors of
the Company, railing upon them to account for the money
received by them, and to set forth all scrip receipts in their
possession; that the Court would order an account to be
taken as against them, of all the monies they had received,
and that they might pay back the deposits, with 5 per
cent. interest. in the early part of last year, a prospectus
was issued, and advertisements put into the newspapers,
stating that this Association was about to be formed, for
the purpose of purchasing and working Mines in Cornwall
and Wales, with a capital of 500,0001, in 10,000 shares at
50/. each,and offering those shares to the public,upon which
a deposit of 51. a share was to he paid into the banking-
house of Sir John Perring and Co. About 6,000 of the
shares only have been sold, upon which the 5/,deposit had
been paid, and another call for a furthers um of 21. per
share had been made on those 6,000 shareholders; part of
whom objected to the cull, refused to pay the 21., and
hence the upsetting of the whole concern, Mr. Hart con-
sidered this, purely a partnership suit; it was a bill filed,
by partners in a joiet concern against their co-partners; he
Wad rather in the dark as to how the gentlemen on the
other side meant to treat the equity on the face of the bill;
if, however, they meant to call for the return of the depo-
air*, on the ground of those deposits having been paid on
condition of something prospectively to be done which had
riot been done, the ile:mai had -nothing to do but to
bring their action at common law. Again, if the
igiiinelits to them of the shares of others, he (Mr. 11.)
llisiain6ff:.l:ttee:dd:d sustain their right, on the ground of
would that that deed of assignment was nothing
more than chart-met •
ship, 1,0 „Q xy, end that partners, in any partner-
might put or Power to sell their interests; they
end the partnership, but selling their,
shares was out, „r th t°
The grounds of demurrer,
therefore, were, fill! 'tue*tion.
ing been mod by
itirvtlitli:/ant of parties, the bill not hav-
were not sufficient, ilia! bare boilers; and next, if this'
plaintiffs, attempting, e, deed of assignment to the
" 'loth* them with the power of
euirs nit
obreloutnlAfuot)
followed
civoesn
the zttittar:s .11
• filed by persons holding 1690 dm eg till was
re*, eaving about 40f10

shares unrepresented. The Company had never been as-
sociated or embodied by any Charter or Act of Parlianaenti
therefore it was illegal as a public Comitany, and could
only be vieived and dealt with as a partnetship, if the
plaintitta had anv`right in a Court tif Law at all, In ad-
dition -td Mr. Itart's points, Mr. T. submitted that this.
deed of assignment could not Pe allowed to stand;. or par-
ties act under it, public policy; because, jf it were to
stand,. shareholders m any Company might assign over
their sharea to a beggar, and who might afterwards
inconvenience and harass Directors to almost any
vexatious extent. He cited the eases of Beaumont v.
Meredith, Hartley v. Russell, and Kinder v. Taylor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supported the bill, which he
said was framed on the principle laid down in Colt v.
Woolerston, !.),d.Pele Williams, page 153, which was, that
if A, for instance, bad been so imposed upon by B, in pur-
chasing of B. a share in a public Company, in which others
had been misled, if the case was of such a description that
an action at law could be maintained, so the money could
be recovered back by a suit in equity. hi the present case
both the gentlemen on the other side had tacitly admitted .
that enaction could be maintained, and therefore all they had
argued [about ehampetry, want of parties, multifariousness,
public policy, and so on, would have to be considered worth
just as much as the tin that had been raised out of the
Cornwall mines by this assumed Association, which never
amounted to one atom—or the oil that had been extracted
by the patent out of the radishes from the fens of Lin-
colnshire, but which had never been sown until this day—
vide OA v. Woollerston. Upon the facts stated in
this bill, there could be no doubt that the Directors
had got into their hands the monies of the plaintiffs,
under such circumstances, as to make the thing altogether
a fraud. The Association was decidedly a bubble. The
prospectus held out that there were to be 10,000 shares
sold, but from what ,cause or other, the directors were
charged with having withheld nearly 4,000 shares from
the public, although it was alleged that many more
applications had been made for. shares than the 10,000
could have supplied. It was admitted by the defendants
that the directors had kept 10() shares each for themselves;
that 4,7004 had been paid by them for the purchase of
1,000 shares, and that 2,500/. had been paid by them to
the Projector of the Association, though it did not ap-
pear who that projector was. The question here was,
not whether the plaintiffs were entitled to sue on behalf of
all the shareholders, but whether they had not a right to
sue individually for themselves If they had, which the
Learned Counsel submitted they had, then it was smatter
of indifference whether the objections made by the Gentle-
men on the other side to the deed of assignment, applied
to it or not, but which he contended did not apply.
Mr. KNIGHT considered 'the law applying to public
companies extremely defective; so much so, that let the
nefariousness of some of them be what it might, a notion
had gone abroad that 'individuals could have no remedy
against them. As to the want of parties to this bill, the
plaintiffs had sworn that, they did not know, nor had ever
known, the names of any other persons than those who had
been brought before the Court; so that this objection
Would have to fail with respect to the champetry ; the deed
Only authorised the collecting of debts or amount of the
shares to pay the expenses of this proceeding, and to divide
them natively to those entitled. As to the next point, the
payment back of money, that had been made for a conside-
ration that had failed, the other side having admitted the
right to recover back the money at law, as they werebound
to admit; shewed that they Were of opinion that the principles
of Colt v. Woollerston were sufficient to authorise the de-
mand in this Court. '
Mr. HART replied, and
His HONOUR, considering this a very important case,
would take a few days to consider of it.
GREEN v. BARILETT.

This was a case of demurrer to a bill, filed against the'
directors of a scheme, called " The Imperial Distillery
Company."
The V im-CttaNcitt.Loa. desired that it might come on
at,once; and he would dispose of both at the same time.
Mr. WAKEFIELD and Mr. JoILN EVAKs supported the
demurrer.

Mr. WAKEFIELD said that this case differed from the
last, inasmuch as that the complaint was brought by an in-
dividual, and that the charge was not of having set up a
bubble, but merely of misconduct against the directors.—
The plaintiff, however, though be charged misconduct to
have been committed, defeated the prayer of his own bill
entirely, because he was compelled to admit that large ex-
penees had been incurred. Nov, he could not be, entitled
to have the whole of his money restored, unless he could
show that misconduct to have commenced before any of
the expences or engagements hadbeen entered into.

COURT OF KIWI'S BENCH, YVIPATMINSTAR, Nov. 2.

The Court was occupied the whole day with the trial of
Common Jury, causes, entirely destitute of public interest.
• • (In Banco.)
Mr. Justice BAYLEY, Mr. Justice lioutoYn, and Mr.
Justice LITTLunat,E, this day sat in the bail Court, under

. • .
the authority of the recent Act of Parliament, for accele-
rating busineas out of Term, and proceeded on the now
trial paper.

MOROI:GIL OF STAFFORI).•-•.Ttlit KING v. HUGHES,

This was an information in the nature of a quo warranto
to try by what right the defendant tlaimed to exercise the
office of Mayor of the borough of Stafford.
Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. MF.ar.wmitan undertook the
the case on the part of the Crown; Mr. 0. Itussztl, Mr.
.l. BAILEY, and Mr. TALFOURD for the defendant.
The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Park at the last
Assizes for the County of Stafford, when a verdict was
taken for the defendant, with leave to move to enter a ver-
dict for the Crown, on the ground, that at the election the
requisite constituent parts of the Corporation were not
present. Mr. Justice Park, at the trial, was of opinion
that the verdict should have been for the Crown ; but as
a question arose in point of law, when Turncock and
Knight were ousted from the office of Aldermen, they
would revert back or merge into their former office of ca-
pital burgesses, llie Lordship permitted a verdict.to be re-
corded for the defolant.

The Court, after this day hearing the arguments on both
sides, declared their unanimous opinion that the election of
Hughes was void, and that Turncock and Knight, having
once surrendered their offices of capital burgesses, and
taken upon themselves and acted in the capacity of Alder-
men, could not revert back to their former offices, and avail
themselves of their former rights,
and therefore the de-
fendant had n duly elected by
not been the requisite votes.
Judgment was accordingly entered for the Crown.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, Nov. 2.
JASIESON v. DRINKALD.
Mr. Sergeant Vatirmart stated the case. This was an
action brought by the plaintiff, the owner of a brig called
run do*n Oil
the Lively, of 128 tons burden, to recover the value of
the said ship and her cargo, which had been
the high seas by a ship of the defendant's of superior bur-
den (upwards of 300 tons), called the Miranda.
Mr. Sergeant
ded, that the accident had not been occasioned by the
BOSANMIRT, for the defendant, conten-'
Captain and crew of the Miranda.
.
A number of witnesses were then called on both sides,
tgpoievegetin way
thisay the
butoirp inh opinion
tt.which of the veasaseidlsthshatoudliehadvife:
Mr. Sergeant opinionsßOsamatlET,ildk irfreBprleyesi greatly with res
ference of opinion among the last witnesses had made his
case stronger, and he, was convinced the verdict of the jury
would be for his client.
Mr. Sergeant VAtJQUAN said, that the verdict must be
for the plaintiff, if the witnesses he had called were to be
believed.
The LORD CHIRP JOSTIcE summed up, leaving it to
the jury to decide whether they believed the damage had
arisen from negligence or accident.
The jury returned averdlet for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.—The Lont. MAyon expresgerl bis gi a-

ifieation at the circumstance of having received a number of

plications for teachers of the continental languages, from; amongst
the Spanish and Italian Refugees. One was from the Town
Clerk of Cambridge, who liberally offered to defray the expenses
of any Refugee of education who might be sent down, as compe-
tent to teach the Spanish language to the students of that Uni-
versity. Similar proposals were liberally made from other quar-
ters; but his Lordship was glad to avail himself of this oppor-
tunity. to state, that Mr. Waterhouse, the coach-proprietor, had
handsomely renewed his offer' to take down carriage free any of
the Refugees, to any part near which his coaches traversed. His
Lordship expressed himself now, as he always had been, extremely
solicitous to obtain relief for these unfortunate gentlemen, rather

by any kind of employment than by means of pecuniary advances,
which, however liberal, could only be temporary. The Refugees
generally showed a laudable desire to live by their labour, rather
than the latter mode; but they had no alternative.
A lady, named Free, who had come up from the country to try
her fortune in the Lottery, came to complain to the Lord Mayor,
that she bad been deprived of her property, the sixteenth share
of a 80,0001. prize, by the misconduct of those engaged in con-
ducting the drawing. She stated, that she chose the ticket
No. 1792'.

The LORD MATOR.—YOU had some particular reason, then,
for selecting that number.
The complainant replied, it was true, she bad ; she wished to
have a ticket with the number of the year in which she was born,
and she was sitting in the Hall where the lottery was draWn, and
heard her number distinctly cried out as one of the 30,0004
prizes, and with her own eyes she distinctly saw the officer stamp
it. Nevertheless, anothet ticket had been returned as the prize.
The LOAD MAyou, doubted, from the manner in which the

_ •
tickets were well known to be drawn, whether the complainant's
anxiety had not made her mistake a similar number for her own.
The complainant—Oh no, my Lord ; it is impossible that I
can be mistaken, though other people say I am. I shall.not give
up my claim on the word of Lottery-office clerks. If there's any
mistake, it is on their part; I trust to my own senses.
The Loan MAYOR observed, that there were scarcely any trust.
ing even to the senses on such occasions ; and asked her whether
she did not almost feel the money in her pockets at the same time
she fancied she heard her number announced.

The complainant assured his Lordship, that she heard the an-
nouncemeat as calmly as could be expected, and that she by no
means fainted away. She certainly made sure of having the pro-
perty; she sat in the hall, and went out when the other expect-

ants came away.
Mr. Cope, the Marshal, who stated that be was in attendance
officially at the drawing, to keep the peace, declared that he heard
all the fortunate numbers announced, and he was sorry to be com-
pelled to state bis conviction that this belonging to the lady was

not one of them.
eeiTveldie
llie.orsaenlf.MeHveo ea
isd
snailis,tieh
de wasthe
e afraid
the
application,
reecomplainant
enamei had de-
iding her
to go to the Stamp-office, and apply to the commissioners, who
woßulodwifo_sliln7REthEini,.g,_exceelpiatrielyfittermryouniety,etfo, satisfy, he
street, Fitzroy-square, decently dressed, end apparently turned of
llrrtford-
e
40, was charged by a Mr. Hughes, of Holborn, who has also a
residence at Hampstead, with being discovered at an unseasonable
hour of the night in the house of the complainant, situated at the
latter place.
ittliisathfeoureesoime eHttinemep3ptzti,nletihthieehr
ryas
familyleft
e
also in his service. The father of the lad came to him on Mon-
"c'hoall‘.rfigirieullilafgeehreeislia'sluetaltegatitir,l, named Ann Randall, and a boy, who was
Mon-
day morning, to say that his son told him that a man was in the
habit of visiting. his fellow-servant, Ann Randall, and he had
nightsa days
es welllea.e
easeaccount,the man
together
underreason
histo l)el i
master'sbelieve
r thatee
roof.
they
Apeaesesred
dieg
to the
made himself quite at home in the house of Mr. Hughes, sleeping
in bit best bed, and coming down every morning in his slippers,
to a sumptuous breakfast, provided by the careful Ann. Mr.
Hughes, having heard of these goings on, determined, like the
master in " High Life below Stairs," to surprise the parties who
took such unwarrantable liberties with his bed and board, and with
this view he repaired to Hampstead on the evening of Sunday last.
and succeeded in surprising together the unsuspecting Ann mid
her amorous swain, the prisoner, both of whom he gave in charge
to a constable. Mr. Hughes added, that he believed he had lost
nothing from his house, except whatever extra provisions had
fallen to the prisoner's share ; but, knowing that gentlemen's
houses were frequently robbed in consequence of the introduction
of strangers by servants, he felt it his duty to give charge of the
prisoner, who, to aggravate his guilt, was a married man, and bad
btree children, although he represented himself to the girl as a
achelor. '
Mr. Harts desired the defendant to account for his conduct in
thus intruding himself in the house of a gentleman without his
knowledge or desire.
The prisoner, who stood with the most sanctified awl peni-
tential air while the charge against him was repeated, bowed
low, as if to acknowledge the impropriety of his conduct, and
merely said, in a half-suppressed voice, preceded by a sort of
a smothered sigh—" lam really very sorry—it is an awkward
business."
Mr. HALLS observed, that if anything were lost, or missing
from the house of Mr. Hughes, he Might haVe found himself in
a still more awkward predicament. - As it appeared, however,
that he obtained admission to the house by invitation• of the girl,
he might go about his business ; and as he seemed to feel. his dis-
graceful situation, and to be sorry for his immoral and improper
conduct, he (Mr. Halls) hoped he would return at once to his
wife an family.
The defendant, bowing to the ground, from which he had
scarcely raised his eyes during the examination, thanked the Ma;
gistratv and Mr. Hughes for their leniency, and drawing another
deep sigh in token of his sorrow and contrition, he was suffered
to retire. In passing through the Office, however, his eyes
ienigiohiev s.
him, The
and sanctifiedttey both hypocrite
lefto crtihtee
caught those of his frail friend, Ann Randall, who was ilischar-
gimedmferdoimatetlhye.bseeerkveieceedoier
flMr. H
to
Oeffidetehesae who,
atarm-rlmik,elhaiumgh,inug,ere d
theece ivcerdedublityofthe
mortifiedl visageagistrate
e
and penitential appearance of the methodisticy the
al sinner.
James 'Harbert and his wife, and John Harrison, were
tientr:ia'y
apwe'll-drened
fe!.
charged by Messrs. Grazehrook and Monro, owners of a wharf and
extensive warehouses in the City-road, with stealing from one of
their boats fifteen dozen of wine, principally claret.
:ntdil i whenieeeatroc:
prisoners
e although placedoffa
itafut individually.ti having hu e beffa rec
overpowered.tpr e
partakenw s
eern
et e lsolaamrgllleewloy:taotlfiltidile
dif-
ferente
ciCirioauTtlrarshlillya(a)
as
prisoners,;:et gena
anprrpat, appearance,
stolen beverage, whose " invisible spirit" operated on them in an
OHneeofletelewtm, John
against
the back of the dock, and seemed very well inclined to take a
doze, leaving his fate in the bands of Justice. The woman, on
the contrary, was all life and volubility. She complained loudly
and indignantly, interrupted by an occasional hiccup, that a per-
son direr respectability,should be so treated, white her husband,
who had taken just a quantum suffiieit of the generous juice,
seemed to be in perfect good humour with all mankind, observing
that " the stuff was proper good," that he drank three bottles,
and could have finished a dozen, and only he felt " confounded
dry," he would be " all right for another bout."
.Froin the answer of this man and his wife, who were examined
separately, it appeared, Sufficiently cleat' that the two male pri-
soners had merely been, employed by more knowing thieves, to
convey the wine from the lilacs where it had been stolen; and
they were accordingly remanded until some inquiry should be
made that might lead to the detietion of those who were most im-
mediately concerned in the.rohbery,
One of the fellows that stand at Temple-bar for the purpose of
thrusting filthy hills into the hands of passengers was held to hail
for assaulting a gentleman, who merely pushed away the fellow's
dirty hand, in which' he held a bill of a certain " Doctor Hoff-
man,ceolfepNleoi.e9ed, Gtharmtt, Surrey-street, Blaekfrig"." The gentle-
mance ted by the man-
ner in which the man held out his arm ; and another gentleman
came . forward to state that =dot finales were constantly in-
sulted by a Similar nuisance.
MARLBOROUG he
low, named Howard Hawkins; who has been some days in cu.-
F. A. Roe, EN., the SpwTreltuiEatiEliiTn:APifeatfYgiirtY:trate, for final examina-
tiontotter upon the following charge of robbery, was brought before
accompanied her home to her
:-..-
The complainant, one of those unfortunate young females *who
swarm in the New-coat!, stated, that eotne time ago ehe acciden-
tally oast with
.et. After stopping a short time with
lodgings, in Creecent-stre
• in the parlour, she had occasion to go to another part
the prisoner .
Wm alone in the
of the house; leaving i . parlour ; but when she re.
turned, elle found that the prisoner had taken his departure, and
the vreioner, Who
that with him had departed her gold watch. She saw nothing of
she once
until one night, about a week ago,
tnihaerP:ltenteltir mariaTeidentallys in the Regent's quadrant, when she
immediately seized him by the collar, and giving him into the cus-
tody of a watchman, had him taken to St. James's watch-house,
where he was searched, but no property of a sumpicious nature
found upon him.
Mr. Roe asked the prisoner where he resided? He replied,
that be lived at No. 7, ilrunswiek-terrace, City-road.
Mr. Roe gave directions that a search-warrant should be inn.

mediateip issued, and executed at the prisoner.* residence, but when
the seare.h.4arrant was drawn up, and Avis the officer about to
execute it, the prisoner told him he might save himself the trouble
of going so far, as be had never lived at Brunswick-terrace in
his life.
The Magistrate then asked where be really did reside?
The prisoner said, he should decline answering.
At this time a genteel-looking young woman came to the of-
fice, and said, that she wished to see the prisoner, who was her
husband. Mr. Roe had her shown into the Magistrate's private
room; before allowing her to see the prisoner, and asked her where
her husband and herself resided. She at first replied that she
should not tell, as they wished to keep their residence a secret.
Mr. ROE said it was of no consequence, as her husband had
already told. She then said, that as her husband had told she
might as well telVand gave as their residence, " Elm-pleee,
Bayswater."
Avis was then despatched along with her to search this place;
but returned without discovering any trace of the watch.
The Magistrate inquired if any communication had taken place
between the prisoner and his wife, or any other person, sines his
apprehension on this charge.
The watchhouse-keeper of St. James's parish said, that on the
night the prisoner was brought to the watchhouse, a map who
occasionally acts as a supernumerary watchman contrived, un-
known to any other person, to supply the prisoner with pen, ink,
and paper, and privately conveyed a letter from the prisoner to
hii wife.
Mr. Roe expressed much indignation stanch conduct, and said
that nothing could be more scandalously improper than the negli.
gence of the watchbouee authorities, which allowed of such a
prong where a prisoner was charged with a felony. There
was, however, sufficient in the evidence to warrant the full com-
mittal of the prisoner. He was committed accordingly.
One of the officers of the Meadieity Society, said, that the
prisoner was well known at their office, as a writer of begging
letters to noblemen and others, from whom be hai for years past
received to the amount of some ,thousands in thatlesic he-
had
been in custody, and imprisoned upon such -charges, and there
were others pending against him new.
tbe M
Mr. Roe ordered that the prisoner should again be brou
endicitYght to
the office on Thursday next, to meet any charge
Society might have against him.
UNION-HALL.r—Yeeterday.* man named John Smith WAS
brought up for final examination, on a charge of having knocked
down a Captain Davidson, in one of the streets of the Borough,
with intent to rob him. The Captain 'received such serious injury
at the time of the outrage, that he was prevented from attending
until yesterday, in consequence of illness.
Shepherd, a watchman, stated, that on the night in questi:'
he observed the complainant walking on the foot-path An It-
ler-street, and in a few moments afterwards, saw three
low him, one of whom, (the prisoner) run towards the coollt„.""";
ant and gave hind a blow that knocked him from the pserin
into the road, where he lay insensible ; the prisoner then SW F,"
down as if with the intention of rifling the pockets of C*Pteni
Davidson, when witness immediately proceeded to the spot'."
The three men, on seeing him, ran away, but be followed
the
prisoner and kept him in view until he reached the yard of the Old
Ship Inn, where he took him into-custody.
The prisoner was known to all the officers as a man of the
worst description, having been repeatedly in custody on charges
of felony. The prisoner was fully committed fur trial.' ,