The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-22 00:00:00

MONEY MARKET and CIT Y NEWS.

CITY, THURSDAY Eva.
HERALD.—The Directors of the Bank of England gave
no further notice of a change in the rate of discount at their
usual weekly meeting to-day. The practical principle the
Bank is acting upon is, except in special cases, to restrict
their discounts to paper arriving at maturity on or before the
Bth of January, and loans made are generally within the
same limit as to time. In the meanwhile there is far from
being a scarcity of money in the market, but there is a very
general repugnance amongst the bankers to lock it up for any
lengthened period. Money is to be had in abundance by the
discount houses, returnable on call, at the rate of 3 per cent.
per annum, whilst long-dated paper has been in many in-
stances refused discount even at the rate of 5 per cent. per
annum.
This change in the face of affairs arises, as a matter of
course, from the impression that money will be
more in demand than at present from this time
to the beginning of January, and that it will in-
crease in value in proportion. But this impression,
although it may be said to be very general, is not
universal. Some of the shrewdest operators in the
Discount Market are of opinion that the real pressure for
money has been yet very slight, and that the advance in its
value is chiefly the result of distrust produced by the appre-
hension that the reaction in the price of railway shares would
bring on a serious crisis. The necessary result of this feeling
on the part of bankers is to keep their funds as much as
possible at liberty, in order to be prepared for any event that
may occur.
The effects which have been produced on many branches
of our industry by railway communication, and the still
greater changes yet anticipated, 'have been descanted on at
intervals in almost every vehicle for communicating informa-
tion to the public, until most of the salient points have be-
come familiar. Amongst other effects, the influence of
railway communication on the currency has been frequently
noticed in a cursory manner; but we have seen no view of
the revolution it has produced on banking generally, in a
connected form, equal to the following sketch, written by a
practical banker resident in :the provinces, and competent to
speak on the subject from experience:—
"Among the many social improvements which railways
have effected, or assisted to introduce into the United King-
dom, it is interesting to contemplate the influence they have
exercised over the affairs of banking.
" The distinguishing features of railway communication are
rapidity and regularity. By the aid of railways placee the
most remote, and formerly the most inaccessible, are brought
within a few hours' journey. Passengers, merchandise, and
letters are whirled along the earth with equal quickness and
dispatch, while, by the introduction of the electric telegraph,
any extraordinary circumstance requiring still greater expe-
dition, may be made known from one part of the kingdom to
another in a few minutes. _

" The banking institnticns of the country reap their full
share of the advantages arising out of this greal social revo-
lution. A banker at Newcastle-on-Tyne who is hard
run for money may put himself into the London train at
six o'clock in the morning and be at home again the fol-
lowing day to breakfast, with as large a supply of bank-
notes or gold as his credit can procure. A few years ago
the best he could do was to post the whole way with four
horses, at the rate of nine or ten miles an hour, enduring all
the torture of accidents and delays so peculiarly incident to
that mode of travelling, and accomplishing the undertaking
in three or four days. If he reached home with a supply
before his bank bad stopped, he was a fortunate man. In
the present day, if a banker has any resources, distance is of
little moment, as, by the aid of a railway train, he can bring
them into action in a few hours. If he has neither credit nor
capital, he may remain at home, a railway express can afford
him no relief.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 21.
The Lord Chancellor, though considerably improved in
health, is not expected to sit again before the 4th of next
month, which is the first seal after Michaelmas term.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 21.
LANGLEY V. FISHER.

Mr. Mmans, on the part of the plaintiff, resumed his
arguments, which were commenced yesterday. He con-
tended that the great object of his client was to connect Mr.
Prideaux with Mr. Fisher, and in order to show that con-
nexion they must look to the relationship that existed be-
tween them. Not only was Mr. Prideaux the son-in-law
of the defendant, but he was also his solicitor at the time
that the levying of the fine was effected. He was in this
position when he made the misrepresentation to the plaintiff
which was here complained of, and which had the effect of
putting him (the plaintiff) off his guard. Thero was also
every reason for supposing that a communication had been
made by Mr. Prideaux to the effect that his title to the es-
tate was imperfect, for without some infirmity of title it could
hardly be supposed that the defendant would go to the ex-
pense incidental upon levying a fine. Under these circum-
stances, he contended that to allow the representatives of
Mr. Fisher to retain the estate would be a wide departure
from the principles of law and eqiuty, and therefore that the
plaintiff was fully entitled to the relief he now sought from
the Court. But there were other points which strengthened
the claim of the plaintiff. A trustee must execute his duty,
and, therefore, under these circumstances, if Mr. Fisher
had acted in the way he had done, it was legally neglect of
duty, for it had been laid down by Lord Eldon, in referring
to the case of Bulkely v. Bulkely, that ignorance did not
exonerate a trustee from the fulfilment of his duties, or from
any excuse for his taking advantage of the person for whom
he was trustee. Mr. Fisher should therefore have informed
himself of the circumstances respecting the claim of the
plaintiff at the death of his sister.
His Lonnentr—By whom was this will in question made?
Is it here?

Mr. Maims—lt is in Court, my Lord, but we do not seek
be connect the defendant with this document, as it is attested
by. strangers.
Hie Lonnemr—This is a case of such importance not only
to the parties. but the Court itself, that I am anxious to hear
the matter fully.
Mr. MAuxs —lt is certainly a very important case.
—(The Learned Counsel then continued bis arguments
at great length, to show that Mr. Fisher must have been in-
formed by Mr. Prideaux of the object of levying the fine,
which was to preclude any party obtaining possession of the
property five years afterwards.)
Mr. KLNDERSLET, who appeared for the defendants, George
Dyke Fisher and Mrs. Prideaux, said he would confine hini-
self to the allegation of the fraud, as it was in fact the only
questionbefore the Court. And contended that their was no
evidence to establish the fact of Mr. Prideaux being at
the time he had the interview with Mr. Thomas Langley, in
any way employed by Mr. George Dyke Fisher. The limi-
tation in the deed of settlement respecting the default of
issne might have given rise to a conviction on the part of Mr.
Fisher that he was entitled to the estate, therefore the fraud
with reference to him could not be satisfactorily maintained.
(The Learned Counsel then went in detail into the ether
allegations of the bill, which he contended were not sus-
tained.)
The ease occupied the whole of the day.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 21.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
EX PASTE THE MAYOR Or FORDWICH.

This case came before the Court upon the petition of the
Mayor and jurate of Fordwich, praying that they might be
at liberty to lay out a sum of 1,0104 paid to them by the
South-Eastern 'Railway Company for certain land, of which
they were trustees, and that when laid out they might re-
ceive the dividend.

His Hoxoun made the order u prayed, directing that the
interest should be paid to one individual, appointed by the
corporation.

El PARTE TIM PRINCIPAL AND FELLOWS OF ERAEILNOSE
COLLEGE v. THE GREAT WESTER-NT RAILWAY COMPANY.

This case came before the Court upon the petition of the
Principal and Fellows of Brazenose College, Oxford, praying
that a sum of money paid by the Great Western Railway
Company into Court, for the purchase of certain land, might
be paid to them, and also that the costs might be provided
for. The petition also prayed that it might be referred to
the Master to approve of such proposals as might be made
from time to time.

The COURT made the order as to the former part of the
prayer of the petition, but refused to accede to the letter on
the round of its being contrary to the practice of the Court.
HIS HONOUR, after disposing of all the unopposed peti•
tions in his paper, proceeded with the further arguments in
the part-heard case of " Fraser v. Sir B. Hall," which came
before the Court upon motion for the production of certain
document., connected with thelease of certain mines in Wales.

The COURT, at the conclusion of the reply of Mr. Stuart,
postponed giving judgment
(Befor. Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BILUCIL )
MALL V. LOCK.

This motion, part-heard yesterday, came on for further
hearing this morning. The subject in dispute is certain ton-
nage and mileage chargeable for the coals brought out of the
Penycoica and Getley colleries, on the estates of Sir Benja,
min Hall, but which defendant appears to have evaded br
working on another level, thereby making the " tramway"
provided by the plaintiff unnecessary.

Argument* being concluded,
His Honovit said there was only one election he could
give either party at the present stage of the suit, the election
on the part of the plaintiffs to have the motion refused, and
on the part of the defendants to pay the sums charged with
out prejudice, such payments not to be brought into evidence
afterwards. Plaintiffs made offer to take 10d. a ton
in lieu of all charges, but defendant, declined, and pre-
ferred allowing the Court to grant plaintiffs an injunction
against working the Getley level. His Honour granted in-
junction, adding, that it would not have been granted if de-
fendants had undertaken to pay 10d. per ton without pre.
judice, and not to be brought into evidence afterwards, until
further order, they undertaking to abide by that order; but
defendants, as they had a perfect right, declined that under-
taking ; the plaintiffs undertaking to bring an action and
deliver declaration respecting the matters of the suit, or pat
thereof. Let execution not issue in the action on either side
without leave of the Court.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDA-Y MORN'

apply to it, He c9Rtended, moreover, that Packhurst was
the informer himself and had an isterest in the case, altdAie
was, therefore, entitled to put the objected question to him,
to test his credibility, unless it would violate some over-
whelming public principle, which he had already shown it
could not do. The other rule relied on the case of Hardy,
who was tried some years ago for high treason, and he relied
himself upon the same case. In that case the Lord Chief
Justice held that the channels of information for the public
good must be protected, and the names of third parties to
whom information had been given, who did not appear as
witnesses, could not be disclosed. But that was not the
state of the case here. The question put to the witness was,
not "to whom did you give information ?" but, " did you do
so and so ?" and the Court had never yet interposed to pre-
vent such a question being answered. In cases of high
treason they were prohibited from asking, to whom did you
give such and such information? but they were not pre-
vented from asking, " did you give such and such infor-
mation ?" The case of Watson had also been mentioned, in
which Mr. Dowling,"a short-hand writer, was protected from
answering a particular question, as to whom and whether
he gave certain information, as it would have laid him
open to great danger and held him up to execration. But it
must be remembered, that Mr. Dowling was only a corrobo-
rative witness, and not the informer himself. In the re-
cent case of O'Connell, a witness was protected by the Court
from giving up the names of certain parties, but he was not
privileged from a question as to whether he gave such and
such information calculated to throw discredit upon him or
his evidence.
Mr. Baron PARKE—You admit, Mr. Chambers, that the
question, " to whom did you give such and such information,
or from whom did you receive such and such instructions?"
cannot be put.
Mr. Cita:um/is—Certainly, my Lord.
Mr. Baron PARKE—But you can ask, " did you give such
and such information ?"
Mr. CHAMBERS—Just so, my Lord.
Mr. Baron PARKE—WouId not this, in fact, then, be dis-
closing the channels whence the Government obtained its
information ?

The LORD Om? JusTicE—Certainly it would ; and I ap-
prehend, that if the witness gave the information, he is the
channel whence the Government obtains its information, and
entitled to the privilege of answering the question.
Mr. CHAMBERS submitted, then, if his Lordship's dictum
were correct, they had hitherto been acting erroneously, for
the rule, it would seem, was to be general and not limited,
and would apply to all cases. Let them look, then, at the
dangerous policy they were establishing. A witness might trap
a third party with a crime, but the counsel for the accused
would be prevented from arriving at this fact, because
the rule just laid down by their Lordships would prevent
him from asking, on cross-examination, " Did you not do so
and so and give such and such information ?" That was
precisely the case here, and he contended that the rule only
applied to higher cases of crimes and offences, and not to
petty cases of larceny and misdemeanours. He humbly
submitted, therefore, that he was strictly in order when he
asked the witness in this case the question complained of.
Mr. Baron PARKE—Mr. Attorney-General : Can you tell us
if it has been the practice to ask the question complained of?
The A'FFORNEY-GENERAL replied that his experience in
these cases was so very limited, that he could not take upon
himself the responsibility of answering the question of the
Learned Baron. So far, however, as he understood, it was not ;
but their Lordships would be good enough to remember that
this was the first case where the question of "Did you give such
and such information?" had been brought before the Court.
The question heretofore argued before the Court was not
" Did you give the information ?" but "To whom did you
give it ?"
The LORD CHIEF BARox—The matter relates to a rule or
law of extreme importance, and as there are no immediate
cases bearing on the point, the Court will take time to con-
sider the question.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 20.

CATTERALL V. CATTERALL.
This was originally a suit of nullity of marriage by Mr.
Joseph Catterall against Georgiana Ann, his wife, by the
name of Sweetman, on the ground that the marriage, which
was had in New South Wales in 1835, under an Act passed
in that colony in 1834, was invalid, by reason of the non-
observance of certain forms and regulations prescribed by the
Act. The Court rejected the libel pleading that ground of
nullity, but permitted the husband, if he thought fit, to
plead that the marriage was null and void by the law ante-
cedent to the Act and without it.
Dr. ADDAMS now, on behalf of Mr. Catterall, declared he
would proceed no further in that suit, and moved the Court
to allow him to proceed against his wife in a cause of divorce
by reason of her adultery, ingrafting this suit upon the
former, the wife (who is resident in New South Wales) hav-
ing appeared by proctor in the suit of nullity. The difficulty
in this case was, that in New South Wales there was no court
possessed of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as in India, which
could take cognisance of the case. Mr. Catterall, ho was
resident in this country, had endeavoured to obtain a disso-
lution of the marriage, and a Bill was actually introduced
into the House of Lords for that purpose, and was read a
first time, when it was discovered that the House of Lords
had no authority to examine witnesses in New South Wales,
and the Bill in consequence dropped. It was then supposed
that the decision of the House of Lords in " Regina v. Mines"
would have the effect of annulling this marriage; but that
decision was found not to go the length of pronouncing such
marriages not good for all intents and purposes. He now
moved the Court that, instead of sending out a fresh citation
to New South Wales, he might be allowed to bring in a libel
in a cause of divorce by reason of adultery.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON deferred his decision till the next court.
day.