The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-25 00:00:00

IN TUE MATTER OF THE SCOTTISH MIDLAND RAILWAY.

In this case the Court, upon the application of Mr. Free-
ling, ordered the deposits to be paid out, the parties having
obtained their Act.

His Honour will sit to-morrow at Lincoln's Inn at two
o'clock, in order to hear the case of Davis v. Combermere.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)

LANGFORD V. THE BRIGHTON AND HASTINGS RAILWAY

COMPANY.

An injunction was moved for by the plaintiff to restrain
the Company from trespassing on his land, Mount-field, in
the parish of St. Baptist, Southover, Sussex. The ground
put forward by Mr. Palmer, the plaintiff's counsel, was the
absence of license to the Company to begin the excavations
on the property until the purchase-money be agreed on and
paid, but the Company reptesented by affidavits that they had
got through three different parties verbal license
from the plaintiff to begin their works, who thought this
would enable the referee better to estimate the damage done
to the property, and had engaged with contractors; in con-
sequence of which they must be put to great inconvenience
and loss by an injunction. The Company, moreover, since
the notice of motion for this injunction, had made offer to
make such a deposit as might be agreed on between the
partiest
His Hosourt refused the motion, with costs, against the
plaintiff. The plaintiff did not appear to him to have shown
any cause for the injunction being granted. The Company's
offer of deposit was again made at bar, and parties ulti-
mately agreed that 1,0001 should be deposited within a
week with the plaintiff's bankers.
The ground in all extends to one rood and two perches.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAN.)
FOSTER V. THE GOVERNORS AND COMPANY OF THE BANK

OF ENGLAND.

In this case the plaintiff had applied for a rule to compel
the Bank of England to allow her to inspect what she called
the transfer books, in which were certain entries as to the
holders of stock.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose to show cause why the rule
should not be made absolute, and why the plaintiff should
not be at liberty to examine the books of the Governor and
Company of the Bank of England. He was prepared to show
that the books of the Bank were the private property of the
Company; but therewas a class of books towhich the plaintiff
had access. The plaintiff claimed 370/. in the Three-and-a-
Half per Cent. Annuities in the Bank of England, and there
was no doubt that her deceased husband was at one time en-
titled to that amount of stock; but the Bank allege that
that stock was transferred, and, therefore, the account was
closed. The plaintiff, however, alleges that she is still entitled
tofthis amount of stock, and brought an action against the
Bank, but the Bank assert that the plaintiff did transfer the
stock, and, therefore, they were not liable. The plaintiff made
an application for permission to inspect the Bank books, and
the Bank offered for inspection all the entries contained in
what they called the ledger, which was the only one, they
allege, to which plaintiff had any right of access, and that
book they were still ready to submit to plaintiff's inspection.
However, from the nature of some communications which
had taken place between the parties he (the Solicitor-Ge-
neral) understood that the plaintiff still insisted upon her
right to have access to what she called the transfer-books, and
to inspect them.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—Does the book offered to the
plaintiff's inspection contain all the names of the holders of
stock ?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it did, and went on to read
the Act of Parliament, the 20th Geo. 111., c. 16, by which the
Bank were bound to keep certain books, as they were
the agents between the Government and the public
for the transfer and sale of stock, in which certain entries
were to be made, and the Act defined the classes of the
hooks, amongst which were the ledger or ledgers to which
stockholders had a right of access, and the Bank bad always
expressed their readiness to let the plaintiff inspect these
books. That ledger would now be produced, and it would
be proved beyond all doubt that the stock in question was at
one time held by the plaintiff, but that it had been trans-
ferred by her, or by her attorney for her, and that therefore the
account was closed. If they could not prove that, of course
they would be liable to pay the plaintiff the dividends she
claimed; but if they could, then the plaintiff could have no
claim. He (the solicitor-General) understood that some
claim had been made by the plaintiff to inspect what she
called the transfer-book; but the B ank was not bound to
keep any such books as transfer books. Transfers were
made by a document ; but it would be extremely inconve-
nient if the public were to claim a right to inspect these
documents.
Plaintiff's COUNSEL contended that the rule should be
rade absolute, for the offer of the ledger in question for in-
spection had never been made at all until the application
for the rule had been made. He also cited several cases in
support of his argument.—Judgment deferred.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
EX PARTE - FELL. _ _ _

Mr. GRAINGER moved for the discharge of Mr. Fell,
a supposed lunatic, who appeared in Court under a
writ of habeas corpus, issued on Thursday last. The
Learned Counsel said that he applied for the dis-
charge of the supposed lunatic on the ground of
the insufficiency of the return. Since the granting of the
writ that return had been formally amended, but he sub-
mitted that any such amendment would be insufficient in
consequence of its being made after the granting of the
writ. He could find no case similar to the present
one in any of the reports. Under the Bth and 9th Victoria,
chap. 100, it was enacted that no alleged lunatic should be
c. mmitted to any lunatic asylum, or house for the reception
of lunatics, unless the time, place, and cause of his com-
mittal shall have been stated, and unless the
alleged lunatic shall have been examined by two
physicians separately, not more than seven days previous
to his committal to the asylum. These requisitions had
not been fulfilled. It would be a monstrous thing if these
measures were omitted in the first insince, as parties
might detain a man a year or two until tl,ey thought
him sufficiently mad, and then admit 112ot his
detention at first was illegal, but contended that the pe.ion
was then in a state that would perfectly justify his being
detained further. The original caption of this person could
not be sustained as the return of it was insufficient, and
the parties who made that return had no right to make
a second amended one after the writ of habeas corpus bad
been granted, and the person of the lunatic removed from their
custody.
Mr. UNTHANK, who appeared in support of the validity
of the return, was heard at some length in reply. He con-
tended that the return had substantially fulfilled all that
the Act of Parliament required, and that the lunatic should
be recommitted to his former custody. It could hardly be
supposed that this Court would send an admitted lunatic
forth upcn society in consequence of a slight
informality in the return of his caption. Supposing that the
opinion of the Court should go against him on the point
he bad submitted, he would call its attention to the fact
that any irregularity or informality in the first return
had been amended by the issue of the second return,
which cured all the defects of the first, and he contended that
that second return was perfectly legal.
Mr. GRAINGER replied briefly upon the arguments of Mr.
Unthank.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that he could not think
that, in consequence of any informality in the return,
that persons, stated to be lunatics, and some of whom might
be in a dangerous state, should be discharged. Under all the
facts of the case he was of opinion that the first return of the
person's caption was valid, and that :therefore the supposed
lunatic could not be discharged.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
PONTIFEX AND ANOTHER V. WILKINSON.

The Loan CHIEF JusucE this day gave the decision of
the Court in the above ease, in which the defendant had
moved for a new trial. The case depended principally on
certain letters, and the Court had postponed their decision to
this day in order that they might examine these papers; and
they were of opinion that no rule ought to be granted. The
facts of the case were these:—
_ _

The plaintiffs, the well-known copper and brass-founders,
of Shoe-lane, had agreed, by contract, to supply and fit up
a copper still for Lord Hardvricke's brewery. The sum
agreed upon was not paid at the time specified, and this
action was to recover it. The defendant insisted both at the
trial and on the motion for a new trial, that he had de-
manded more time to pay the sum, and that plaintiffs had
agreed to give more time. In support of this view several
letters from plaintiff to defendant were produced, in which
the former speaks of "the credit I am now giving you."
The opinion of the Court as to these letters, was, that they
merely referred to the credit which plaintiffs placed in de-
fendant in fixing the still, without first receiving payment,
and not to any credit beyond that agreed on in the contract.
Therefore the:jury were right in finding for the plaintiffs, and
the rule ought not to be granted.

NICIIOLSON V. IVYLDE.
Mr. Sergeant DOWLING, on the part of the defendant,
moved for a rule to show cause why there should not be a
new trial in the above case. on the ground that the verdict
was sgainst evidence. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Nicholson,
is, it appears, a wholesale tea-dealer in London, and the de-
fendant a retail grocer at Leamington. The action was
brought for goods sold and delivered and for agency, the
plaintiff claiming to recover for tea purchased for, and deli-
vered to, the defendant, and for a commission of ld. per lb.
on the same. The defence was, that the goods were not
bought of Elizabeth Nicholson, the plalutiff, but her father

—......_—........----.......„----- ~.ters
and brother, John Nicholson and Son,
of the establishment, and in whose name the ea'
c.he Plahltifi.
receips, &c., were made out. To answer this _ a ~i,e.
called John Nicholson, the father, who produced
transferred
meet by which all property in the trade was trat
btar_r!`"eti
Elizabeth, the present plaintiff, which
assignmen cemdenil„f
the actualaprnyarnsuoia
made two and a half years previous to the tom
condition
ie
the action. It appeared, however, that it was a 71,,,de of
this assignment, " that the name of the firm a„ u,,,; Joy
transacting the business should femain the same•
e
found for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant DowuNG now contended tbattdheaninddoelitfintiansi
not aware of the change of proprietorship ;
nct Elizabeth Nicholson was the person with who
e_nn who
had dealings; that John Nicholson was the onaly
eP r-r"
ei to recover
had a right to recover, and that he would be this.,
by another action, after his daughter had recovetrhteatdtiblisYbeacetie;
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion
~
dente given by John Nicholson on the trial of this
40 might
would be a sufficient answer to any actiT.`st'Tid wot Orel. st
bring against the present defendant ; and
1 was figs
to him, or to his brother Judges, that theict
evidence. does not
een
Mr. Sergeant DowEING—If your LordehiP
eider this verdict as against evidence,
application.—Application accordingly withdrawn.
—_-- njt.l9
BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS -1
(Before Mr. Commissioner Gotiotuntle,
all), de.
IN RE GARDINER. „
COlTlRondio,
James Whalley Gardiner (alias young and
scribed in the schedule as of 69, Mortimer-streest,ruJ eedt
I -will withdreW 03/
square, 65 Harley-street, 8 Northumberland- Up
perowon stli
variety of other places, " gentleman," eame .ert neill'
journed final order. His debts amounted to , ring sr
8,000/., no assets beyond excepted articles oat; Dwyeethecour-
parel, &c. ; (his wife's wearing apparel, vlue,,oo).
ad
broker at 701., not being pressed for by the ereug'sed opl)°,,ht
The insolvent was supported by Mr. Hughes oth 110
by Mr. Lock, on behalf of Lieutenant Todd, of 011,1 trois tif
Dragoons, on the ground that he had obtained 11,0"0, Olt
lieutenant, and also from the Rev. Wm. Warring es. se
Leek, in Yorkshire, under fraudulent eircurastanreed 00 beh
Mr. Wright, of the Chancery bar, also aPPe,,e
of Colonel Wilson, to oppose on similar grounus• t, that
; self° Lor
It appeared from the examination of the .°ooos -qr.
during the past summer he had inserted in the
~...,,,5700d
don papers the following advertisement :--e gonwylitb r
men, gentlemen, clergymen, officers on full Pat's sccolpt
expectations, heirs to entailed estates, Sen., cane not le° ' lyr
dated, on their personal security, with loans ,'"titing°,,lige.
100/., or more than 5,000/. Address (p. P.), in.. "disb-squ of
to Messrs. Young, 69, Mortimer-street, Cavtegielleeti
No personal application attended to." In Acetil 3°,,,08e-ere;
this, Lieutenant Todd applied for a loan, 1111'; and,e t" Ken,
obtained from him a bill of exchange for 100-0.4, ose',4o,
missory notes of 501. each. The 100/. WI, 5.,-yle-stept
got discounted by a Mr. Whitehead, 03 ~'-'lo_,se for
who took 20/. for discount, and the Ind
SY• 1101
handed to Lieutenant Todd 25/., keePqeS, be rtieo
himself. With respect to the promissorY n" eP° IC
negotiated them but had not handed over say a,
to Lieut. Todd. A bill for 150/, received froln ti'„,dp. 1,..
Warrington, he had negotiated and kept the Pr°°_ 't-0 tbe "of
bill had been seized by Capt. Warrington, sun ~ Olen •
posing creditor, and was now the subject of A 0
trover. d thst
Mr. LORD opposed on the ground of fraud, nhnedele
transactions did not appear on the face of the 6° bedoP• ;di
Mr. HUGHES applied for leave to amend the 5,e1,110 "iefs
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he could 31°"joions Ss
it was not like an ordinary mistake; where er,e3,,ldrefelosgi.
palpably made to deceive the creditors be sh,„-_ , die
considered that the objections were supPerted 13) "-
vent's own admission.
The petition was dismissed.
Is PAY)
CRIMINAL COURT.—(TO--
OLD COURT. ',ea.:41011
(Before the RECORDER and the Loa' .... wee: oil'
Paul Cooper, aged 20, a French polisher, iv,°„ev, WI"
burglary in the dwelling-house of James P° -r of P'"
ing therefrom one scarf, one brooch, and one l''`',o, . tioo
lion
conf!C
valued 20s. 6d., the property of Mary Ann
The prisoner pleaded Guilty, and a fortrs 10111
having been put in, the Learned Recorder sea " ir
to 0. pi
transportation for ten years. Guilty --( 10
Thomas Durral Wrench,nged 22, pleaded '-s„-tir.ty 0_406
dictment charging him with stealing a 4131°`•00" i
cloth, value 385., the property of Thomas POO Ai F
re-
his employers. ,; g 2445,1 e
The prisoner was also charged with stea,."''„,,,lof _A.--
cloth, value at 315., also the property of his el,ar d ber4l;
It appeared from the evidence that the cloth 7000. ropes
plied to a friend of the prisoner's, and he had Othe lia°_,;4l3l
it to his masters. The prisoner alleged that ~0 dr"
charged in the books of the firm for it. Thire„-wrt, A e 41•5
the prosecutor, and as the books were not in ki`",,• OP-4Sr
The RECORDER said that the case need in't b-ris`:
in consequence of the absence of the books the P
pool
entitled to a verdict of acquittal. A d the
The jury returned a verdict accordinglY, n trot ir
was discharged. the oti°
The RECORDER sentenced the prisoner ort
si% tefsAl4.,
dictment to imprisonment with hard labour for ~,r, is °lO
Joseph Mares, seaman, and George lgessenYritetill,
• were charged with feloniously breaking and lb of dre,"
the dwelling-house of James Sibley in the Pal:eree
ley, and stealing one hat, one coat, ;waistcoat,'- ,
Ste., his property. • ; " d:,
The prosecutor stated he locked his door, leaving
~ait p;
as he thought, on the 21st October, and 13`-..„tly ore
some hours after, he observed the casement P'" be' le*
e, had fits"
opening the door he found that boxes, L'elndictlne"
ti
01,
hauled, and the articles mentioned in the
He gave information of his loss to the police. &retie,/
James Brook happened to be going in the rf Ite.lP
Siblev's house on the evening on which the r° the let
mittjd, and he observed Marss running fr°l3l.rtat, Pa-
Sibley's house with a bundle, which he threw' 0:It, tie9lr
named Hodges, who was standing in the ni,il not J 4
saw Messenger also in another field, but he °1 tle, -
first two. 0 rtla °lllOl$4A
Dinah Dawson saw Marss and Hodges g° te;, selit,hh,l,
house, and they afterwards returned from .", of
bundle. There was a third person who came 011' -
with these two, but it was not Messenger. and PT
• Mary Ann Brazier saw Mersa, Messenger' OW
towards Sibley's house, and she spoke to all 1/. ~, '
017,p
afterwards saw them return. , sery,h", Pr
Richard Neill, 3S, took Marss into custodY 11 piss g
Lisson-grove, and the prisoner said that 1-10d;'' ir
who committed the robbery. iflif ftY
The RECORDER—What is become of Iloelgtioioo e ;,it
not here ? Witness—He was convicted last '- -. , 005
same offence. vereP fetiiil
The hat (the only part of the property reco 00 ~,
produced in Court, and the Learned Recorder, hie 00149'
commented very severely upon the negligellet-bri°6l
those who had charge of the prosecution, in 0°- ot
only article which could be identified. a oio
The jury returned a verdict of Acquittal. giant, to
The RECORDER called up the police-serg_e; tbst, tbst,,,"
him why ha had not suggested to the proseenw;elie°, ,11'"
should be brought to Court? The sergeantj:lieS°
understood that the prosecutor had it on n''
1.4
time.—The expenses were stopped.
Thomas Ribble was indicted forbigamY.
~i, ed ,sli c 11;
William Smith, police-constable 11 E, Pr"",l,,cool'idies'i
the register of the prisoner... 3 marriage with I.`-yole ~„"e§S -,t
in the parish of Beach, Bucks. The extraetcoreey're4,
the clergyman, and he (witness) verified it t. ro th_dllo
examination. He produced also aid extract
of pip wet is'
of the parish of St. Leonard's, Shorcditch, °' igie°ll 4,
with Caroline Haswell Jones. He took th° ' bit,
blll° 06.
custody on Oct. 21. „ „elcink,pec
Joseph Rickard, parish clerk of Beach, -11°_'2:2 tbe" ed
saw the prisoner and Hannah Dudley !Darr- , rio,
ing to the forms of the Church of Englanu. 4040 00
Caroline Haswell Jones—Knew prisoner, a'",, e. 40 „re
to him at St. Leonard's Church in her oval ijireefiTfe relief
named in the certificate John Thorne. firstthe tei ed bid
till be was claimed by his first wife. The Ijilf°'A to ',06
seated herself as the husband's cousin, an" wrrie,et,'
sister that she knew she (Jones) bad been rand to y
~.6
, three years. He had always been a kind hosba- end ."',t);
a good father to his child. .„„w Tr „Ade
Mr. PAYNE addressed the jury for the Pr''",.•o:l3oeiod
tended that the first wife had occasioned, h..,/ h,e;', wftsrdasi ,
conduct, separation from her husband, and 1"„"d yet_atp 0'
The prosecution was instituted by ber noir' a',.eer-ifsoe
heard it incidentally stated that she was for th'e-eed,A3f • ip
that he was connected by marriage with his erre tur°,,ioel"
The RECORDER summed up, and the jur,Y..,„" also'
diet of Guilty.—Sentenced to, six months 11"'
Of')
the House of Correction. Ili, '
/ill- OIS 'vie eit:i
MARLBRO'-STREET.--1 ',13-20.ge‘ sitiliV•
Henry Garrett, a young man, was - .apta., oa -gig
bezzling divers sums of money, to a. COllsl'-oter .t.,' Or
received by him for and on account of his ~,In po,'" dr
ployer, Mr. David Cooper Miller, of No. 2" Pr
0 1 iiii'
Piccadilly, baker. ...ice, eeti
The prisoner had been in Mr. Miller's o,e, :in st ' 00140'
neyman, but latteriy had condutced bintse" iifiller P.,,eo'
Mr. A v. I
nroper manner About a month ago ---„ „peereed",,,d,,
s'te2ted with him, but his advice was cus.Zoer P-hinsloll
then, Mr. Miller ad discovered that the Pll.,":Wg th,,e De
in te pr„'etice for some months past of alteoiebico ,ot
the custom,"rs, and receiving the amounts' ..t re
re' a
not accounten. for.
The prisoner a, ' e.d cliffeas let
dmitted that be bad receiv a not
on his master's accOunt, and, although he lin liO3'
counted for them, he .intended to do so. nethal 101
He was remanded uno r
this day week. to 01- o'er
Thomas Collins was fined five pounds, or oriteieeetder
prisonmer.t to hard labour ;:n Westmi° wit table trgr,
committing a violent and unpr woked asea det
square on an unfortunate female ae'd.,iite lefee‘..-od
wo reePAgitl/00
men who interfered to protect her. I. -- nit neY -
at the time. He was unable to pay the -°
to gaol.

of
.teptle°lo
,ir el° ~,' sit 10!
DEATHOFDR.Nrcuom—This Le-- ne 'r- f-pl-
- 0 „ri
well known in the Ecclesiastical Courts,
In
he:
house, at Upper Clapton, yesterday 13119111w' 6 /13 t Ot'
attack of smallpox. The learned civilian - $ 10 40
of life, and has left a widow and large familY;,,, 0000, tio
The Duke of Devonshire rereaing,""nville4o, /00
tendance upon his noble relative Earl ura-f bel‘';forq ' ,
regret to learn, is still in a very weak state °d to ;‘
forstated e that
benefitthe o
fNtoibt
the
es
eEaa Earl
air. will
oCA a re'
, r fin,* 0 tio{rs
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUO' - (r) o'o4ol 1,0,-
-The absence of Lord Granville Sonterse"„oed Zatle,o.- 40
cent Cabinet Councils has occasioned S b DO '''' rOn'
t t 0 ode
founded speculation. We are informed 0,9 sod, °,10.,-'- for
was on his way from the Continent to Enfil .100 gsiV4
to attend them, when he was arrested at v,riery°ol,s#
by a violent fit of the gottt, which rendered 1,, 0/ to ne.
him to travel, it having, in fact, confined 7,lstii Setoots re'
great, however, was the impatience of his 14,)°,,t he_op til
part in the deliberations of his colleagues. t—ntrs noi#
fore his convalescence was established, an d c°- •att C-re
bLyATCEha
m clue:
commendations of his medical attendants. il), ociltl:ii Ord
cover 40,0001. and 20,0001. won on the tam were bo oof
QrieuslllT. ARMossAeIICT:ONS.
.... fj, AI: stOP, 0
olnol. the
14ss. pioady.meTntheoafbocvoes_tnsaminecdur;;;:tsat:::lll:serrlgeare;eo:loC::
costs of an action brought by him against If°
been captured and lodged in Whitecross- fiord " OP,
4._ C 101.4 Ald
and tried at Guildford Assizes. —erri, lei: ,
OPERATIVE TA ILORS.—A docu,. 0 fro tonf oe
with apparently great care by the OperaLlvog ifors 0)1'05
ciation, shows that in Liverpool 1,187 reeri,vibicb soolloe,ir
41 boys are employed in their own houses, yibile 800 bP
most part in a dirty and unhealthy state
,0001101100115, /14
men and 139 boys are employed 10;sis Narks it
masters' premises. Of the dwellings ose'-',,2 courts
_01,"
are bedrooms and 127 cellars; while in 2b...„.. , liev p#7,
working at home for shops.—Liverpeolgaitr-that In 00° JO;
NEW PAPER URRENCF.---00 un- t thei11f4046111-
is not uncommon fora speculator to dine a ell 00 00
as readily as if the paper was
the bill with scrip, the waiter handing 11111: . (5° oirig tP,$
Liverpool Standard; but our ConternPoreles is ilia 0-1
for he knows that scrip is down and "it',,, go!' 4,0
dinners are not current on such teruis, to v"'" COP
ill
change.)—Leeds Intelligeneer. sotto
The birthplace of Sir Walter
a bank Or; is ciiiin old 00
Wynd, Edidargh, is now A public-W '
A