The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-02 00:00:00

In the Country.

J. Harford and W. W. Davies, iron founders, Bristol, March
25, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court—R. Crosbie, tea
dealer, Sutton, Cheshire, March 26, at one, at the Liverpool
District Court—W. A. Brown, J. T. Bailey, J. Smith, T.
Pierce, and H. Grueber, oil manufacturers, Liverpool, March
26, at half-past twelve, at the Liverpool District Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the

oc
contrary, on the day herein-mentioned.
G. Mitchell, tailor, Bury-street, St. James's, March 22
E. Evans, draper, Llangurdirne, Carmarthenshire, March 22
R. Hazell, corn dealer, Ramsbury, Wiltshire, March 28—B.
Reynolds, silk printer, Mitcham, Surrey, March 22—S. Par-
tridge, tea dealer, Birmingham, March 22—R. Parker, linen
draper, Deptford-row, Rotherhithe, March 22—T. Gere,
baker, Broadstairs, Kent, March 22—J. Atkins, tobacconist,
Shoreditch, March 22—J. Cornish, painter, Bridport, Dorset-
shire, March 22—J. Wilkinson, grocer, Leeds, March 22
R. T. Fletcher, money scrivener, Brentford, March '22—W.
and J. Statters, cotton spinners, Mellor, Lancashire, March 22
—M. Hadley, chemist, Walsall, Staffordshire, March 22—M.
Allen, apothecary, Waltham Holy-cross, Essex, March 22
S. G. Beamish, limestone dealer, Walworth, March 22.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

J. and C. Godfrey, Windsor chair manufacturers, Worksop,
Nottinghamshire—H. and J. Gray, common brewers, Bath-
wick, Somersetshire—J. Varty, jun., and S. Williamson,
joiners, Liverpool H. and T. Hurndall, silk mercers,
Swansea—E. M. Stephens and W. Jones, attorneys-at-law,
Newtown, Montgomeryshire—C. and W. Maude, corn millers,
Carleton, Yorkshire—G. and T. H. Mason, licensed victual-
lers, High-street, Shadwell—J. Lord and J. Wall, canal car-
riers, Worcester—J. Whitehead and R. W. Roberts, corn
dealers, Liverpool—J. W. Handley and S. Wood, brass
founders, Great Sutton-street, Clerkenwell—G. Pole and M.
Maylard, linen drapers, High-street, Southwark—R. Green-
halgh and G. Wroe, paper dealers, Manchester—G. Kebbell
and J. Prout, hair dressers, Finch-lane, City—J. Carr, J.
Grey, and G. Carr, timber merchants, Berwick-upon-Tweed
—G. Carr and H. Short, timber merchants, Berwick-upon-
Tweed—R. Ramsden and J. Bennett, brewers' mechanists,
Kingsland-road—J. Evans and T. H. Taylor, attorneys, South-
square, Gray's Inn—J. Kenyon, W. Pickup, J. Hargreaves,
T. Leach, and M. Chatman, grocers, Blackburn, Lancashire
(so far as regards W. Pickup)—R. Cherrington and W. Max-
welf, grocers, Crowland, Lincolnshire.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION. _

JAMES WILSON, merchant, Ardrossan, March 6 and
April 3, at two, at A. Campbell's, vintner, Saltcoats.

PRICE OF SUGAR.

The AvQrage Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the
week ending Feb. 27, 1844, is 365. 3d. per cwt., exclusive
of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the im-
portation thereof into Great Britain.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HO USE OF LORDS, March 1.

The House sat to-day to hear appeals The Peers present
were Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham, and Lord Campbell.

13YRON V. COOPER.

The further arguments in this part-heard tithe case were re-
sumed, and occupied their Lordships the whole day.

COURT OF CHANCERY, March 1.
The Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn-hall to-day.

NVASTELL V. LESLIE.-JUDGIIENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in this
case, which was heard before his Lordship some time since
upon appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of
England. His Lordship said that the principal question in
the case was, as to the mode in which the testator's debts
were to be provided for, whether they were to be paid out
of the corpus of the estate, or out of the income, so as to
fall upon the tenant for life. The Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
land decided that they were to be paid out of the income,
and from that decision the present appeal was brought.
Now in his Lordship's opinion whether the debts were to be paid
out of the corpus or the income of the estate depended upon
the nature of the property, and the terms and construction
of the testator's will. The will was to this effect :—The pro-
perty in question was an old established lunatic asylum at
Hoxton. The testator becoming embarrassed in his circum-
stances, made over his property to trustees, in the first place to
pay his debts,lbut reserving to his widow 7001. a-year, after his
death. By his will he charged his real estate with the pay-
ment of his debts, and in the event of that not being suffi-
cient, then the personal estate was to makeup the deficiency.
He then disposed of the 7001., and he gave two lega-
cies, one of 3,0001. to Amelia Smith, and another
of 5001. to Jonathan Smith, his son ; and he also gave two
annuities, one to Amelia Smith of 8001., and the other to
Jonathan of 1001., directing that they should be paid out of
this property ; and he then devised this concern to trustees,
the defendants in the suit, upon various trusts. The first was to
pay out of the property his debts and legacies, and for that
purpose to raise, by way of mortgage, and in no other man-
ner, the sum of 4,0001. He directs the trustees to carry on
the concern, and also to employ Mr. Wastell, who had hi-
therto conducted it, at the same salary ; but, in the
event of his not choosing to do so, they are
to procure another competent person for that pur-
pose. He directs the usual accounts of the concern,
as hitherto taken, to be continued, and the expenses to be
provided for out of the profits, and the surplus to be handed
over to the trustees, who are to invest it ; and out of the in- '
terest and profits of the concern the two annuities are to
be paid, and the surplus was given over to Wastell.
for life, subject to certain annuities on certain events to his
two granddaughters, the children of Wastell. Now, under
these circumstances, the question at issue depended upon the
nature of the property, and the rule adopted by the Court
in such cases. The rule of the Court was, where
property was of a permanent character, yielding an
annualincome. in the case where it was charged
with debts and an interest given for life to any individual
and remainders over, the tenant for life kept down
the interest of the debt, and the debt itself was placed upon
the corpus of the estate. The question then was, whether
this property was permanent or not. His Lordship was of opi-
nion that it was. It was an old establishment yielding 4,0001.
a-year ; it had gone on for a long time doing so, and there was
no reason to suppose that it would fail. Then the next question
was whether there was anything in the will to induce the
Court to depart from the usual course in cases of this kind,
it did not appear to his Lordship that there was ; and upon
the whole, after a most careful consideration of all the cir-
cumstances of the case, his Lordship, considering the judg-
ment below to be correct, ordered it to be affirmed, and the
appeal dismissed with costs.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, March I.
The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the whole
day with unopposed petitions and short causes of no general
interest.

SECONDARIES' COURT, March 1.
THIVAITES V. 2,/,,LETT.
Mr. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Hughes for the
defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an attorney,
against the defendant, to recover the sum of 3/. Ils. 4d., part
of a bill of costs, amounting to 51. 15s. 4d., 21. 4s. of which
had been paid into Court. About three years ago the de-
fendant was desirous of passing through the Insolvent
Debtors' Court, and he employed the plaintiff to prepare the
necessary documents for that purpose. Subsequently the de-
fendant found it to his advantage not to take the benefit of
the Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and he accord-
ingly made a compromise with his creditors. The sum,
therefore, for which the action was brought was for disburse-
mentschargesct by the officers of the Insolvent
made before the compromise,
wereand
and
Debtors' Court.
On the part of the defendant, it was contended that
actions for such small amounts ought to be brought in a
ceortthifieretli egasalco rre
Court of Requests, and that the unlimited power placed in
the hands of solicitors gave them an opportunity of harrassing
and annoying clients who were unable or unwilling to pay
costs amounting .to 10/. or 12/., which were entailed upon
them by actions in Superior Courts. The practice was ex-
ceedingly reprehensible. If the action had been brought in
a Court of Requests, the plaintiff would not have received
costs, which was his sole object in bringing the present
action in the Common Pleas.
The SECONDARY said that whilst the law gave solicitors
the option of bringing actions in a Superior Court, and by an
expensive process, they were not to blame.—Verdict for the
plaintiff for 31. 1 ls. 4d.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, Feb. 29.
(Before Sir C. F. WILLIA.ms.)
NV. BROMLEY'S BANKRUPTCY.

The bankrupt in this case is described as a money scrivener,
dealer, and chapman, 4a.f. Gray's Inn, Gray's Inn-square, but
is better known as a discounter and annuity agent of exten-
sive business, and he appeared to-day before the Court on his
final examination. lie has failed for a very large amount,
his debts and liabilities being estimated at 140,0001., while his
assets are said to be little or nothing. The bankrupt was not
prepared with his accounts in consequence of ill health, and
an adjournment was made to give time to arrange a balance-
sheet. The most serious charges of misappropriation are
made against him by his creditors, but till the case is more
fully eatered into, a detailed report cannot be given.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Hertford, March 1.

--
CROWN COURT.—The Rev. James Brogden surren-
dered to answer an indictment, charging him with felo-
niously discharging a loaded gun at Cornelius Wintle,
with intent to disfigure him. In another count the pri-
soner's intent was laid to be, to maim and disable the
prosecutor, or to do him some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Ryland and Mr. Rodwell conducted the prosecu-
tion. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Montagu
Chambers, Mr. Lydekker, and the Hon. Robt. Grimston.
Mr. RYLAND addressed the jury, and said the prisoner
was charged with one of the most serious offences, and
under circumstances which demanded, and he was sure
would no doubt receive, their most serious consideration.
The prisoner was charged with the offence of shooting at
the prosecutor, and the real question was, with what in-
tent that act was committed. The nominal prosecutor
was a constable of the Herts constabulary, but the real
prosecutor was Captain Robertson, the head of the police
force, who acted under the orders of the magistrates.
The prisoner was a clergyman of the Church of Eng-
land, and he was bound to say that up to that time he
was universally esteemed and respected, and he (the
Learned Counsel) could assure them that he appeared on
the present occasion to prosecute him under feelings of
very considerable pain and reluctance. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to state the circumstances under
which the charge was made against the prisoner, and
which will be better understood by the evidence. At
the same time he observed, that he felt it to be his duty
to state that there was not the slightest evidence of any
ill feeling being entertained by the prisoner against
the prosecutor, but rather the contrary ; and, he added
that after the occurrence it was only due to the prisoner
to say, that he had done all in his power to alleviate
the pain and injury sustained by the prosecutor. The
realfact appeared to be that the prisoner, feeling some
alarm, and imagining that thieves were upon the pre-
mises, had discharged the gun at a person whom he
supposed intended to injure him either in his person or
property. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to
make some further remarks to the jury, and observed
that if any difficulty should arise as to the law, that
would be, no doubt, reserved by his Lordship for the
consideration of the Judges.---The following evidence
was then adduced:—
Cornelius Wintle examined by Mr. RODWELL—I am
one of the Herts constabulary, and on the 31st of De-
cember last I was on duty at Childwick-green, near St.
Alban's, about one o'clock in the morning. At that time
I was near the prisoner's house, and I heard two sepa-
rate reports of firearms, almost together, and this in-
duced me to turn round and run back to the house.
When I got to a poplar tree by the side of the road, about

ten or a dozen yards from Mr. Brogden's yard gate,
I received the contents of a gun in my head, eyes,
and different other parts of my body. I dropped
immediately in the road, and lay senseless for some
time. It was a moonlight night. In a short
time I put my hand to my head and found it
covered with blood, and I called out that I was
shot. I then heard Mr. Brogden say--' Oh, my God
there is some one shot." Shortly after this I saw
George, Mr. Brogden's butler, and several females,
and the prisoner said to me Why did you not answer
when I called out to you ?' I told him I did not hear
him. The prisoner then asked me why I did not show
my light as I had promised to do,:and I said that I had
promised to show my light if I was on his premises at
any time when he opened the window, but at this time
I was on the road. I also :told him that it was such a
light night that he could see a man on the high road a
quarter of a mile off. It was both moonlight and star-
light. I should say that the place where I was standing
at the time I was shot, could be easily seen from the
house. Mr. Brogden, the prisoner, immediately sent
for a doctor, and rendered me every assistance.
Cross-examined by Mr. CHAMBERS—The prisoner
has lived in this house about four months, and when he
first came there was some conversation about the dan-
gerous position of the house, and it was then arranged
that I should show my light whenever I was upon his
premises.
Mr. CHAMBERS—Was anything said about the house
being lonely ?
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—How can that be material ?
If he believed the constable was .a thief he bad no right
to shoot him.

Cross-examination continued—The road in question
leads to two other houses besides Mr. Brogden's, and
from thence to the fields. The shots to have struck me
must have passed over a wall, but not near the place
where there is a good deal of ivy. I had a lighted
lantern with me.

Sarah Woodbone, examined by Mr. RYLAND—On
Saturday, the 30th of December, I was in Mr. Brogden's
house, in attendance upon Mrs. Brogden, who was
within three days of her confinement. After I had re-
turned to bed, I was disturbed in the night by a noise
as if something was knocking at the yard gate, and the
dogs upon the premises barked very much. I got up
and looked out of my window into the lane at the side
of the house. Mr. Brogden's room was next to mine.
I could not see anything because it was such a dark
night. Soon afterwards I heard the noise again, and
I went to the window and rapped at it, thinking
that if it was the policeman he would show his light,
but I did not see anything, and I then went to Mr.
Brogden's room, and he told me to open the staircase
window looking into the yard, but Mr. Brogden even-
tually did so himself. From that window you can see
the poplar tree. The prisoner looked out of the window
and said, " Who is there ? who is there ?" There was
no answer, and the prisoner then said, " You had better
stand off," and immediately fired his gun out of the
window. He brought a double barrelled gun from his
bed-room, and he discharged both barrels out of
the window. The prisoner went away telling me
to watch if I could see any body. I looked out of
the window but could not see any thing. I could
not observe the poplar tree. The prisoner was away
long enough to re-load the gun, and when he came
back he again called out twice, and then fired in the
direction of the cottage as it appeared to me, and itfter
he had fired, I heard a man groan, and Mr. Brogden
immediately exclaimed, Oh! there is somebody shot;"
and he appeared very much surprised and agitated. The
house was immediately alarmed, and the prisoner and
all the servants, and also Mrs. Brogden, went out, and
the prisoner was assisted into the house. Mr. Brogden
asked the policeman why he did not answer when he
called out to him, and the policeman replied that he did
think he would have shot off the premises.
George Rutherford was then called, in order that the
prisoner's counsel might have an opportunity of cross-
examining him. In answer to questions from Mr. Cham-
bers, he
_said the night was so dark that he could not see
the policeman or tell who he was until he got close up
to him and found him lying upon the ground.
Isaac Rye, a superintendent of police, deposed that he
was sent for to Mr. Brogden's house after the occurrence,
and saw the prisoner who called him to him and asked him
to go up stairs with him. He then showed him the par-
sonage window, and told him thathe heard some persons
about his premises, and he called out to them and fired in
the direction of the poplar tree, and not hearing any one
answer he reloaded his gun, and then returned to the
window, and called out again three times " Who is
there?" He then said he thought he heard footsteps,
and he fired in the direction of the cottage and the
poplar tree, and soon afterwards he heard the moans of
some person who was wounded. Mr. Brogden then
brought him the gun, which he now produced. It was
very dark at the time witness went, and he had not ob-
served that the moon gave any light in the early part of
the evening; if there had been light sufficient to observe
objects it would be possible to see the poplar tree from
the window iri question.
Mr. Robert Clarke, a surgeon at St. Alban's, deposed
that he examined the person of the prosecutor, and found
that he was wounded on the head, both thighs and ab-
domen. The wounds were not in themselves dangerous,
but might have proved so in their results.
Cross-examined—Mr. Brogden constantly expressed
the greatest anxiety about the prosecutor.
Mr. RYLAND said this was the case for the prosecution,

Mi. BARON ALDERSON expressed his ()Pinion, that
there was no case to go before the jury. It appeared that
the prisoner had fired a gun out of a window in the dark,
and there was not the slightest proof that he saw any
one, much less that he intended to shoot any one. If
Mr. Brogden had intended to shoot the person he fired
at, he would have said, " I have hit him," and not have
said, " Good God, there is a man shot."
The jury considered for a short time, when the fore-
man said they were unanimously of opinion that Mr.
Brogden did not intend to shoot at any one when he fired
the gun.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON said he quite concurred in the
opinion of the jury, and then addressing Mr. Brogden
said—" I hope, Mr. Brogden,you will be more careful in
future; it was a very incautious act, but I entirely acquit
you of an intention to injure any person."
The Rev. Gentleman then came upon the Bench, and
was warmly greeted by his friends, amongst whom were
the Earl of Verulam, Viscount Grimston, M.P., Lord
John Manners, M.P., the Bishop of Hereford, the Dean
of Ely, Archdeacon Thorpe, Rev. Dr. Wordsworth, of
Harrow, Rev. Dr. Nicholson, and T. H. Gape, Esq., all
of whom were in attendance to bear testimony to the
general humanity and kindness of Mr. Brogden.
A verdict of Not Guilty was then recorded, and Mr.
Brogden was ordered to be immediately set at liberty.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Abingdon. Feb. 29.
Mr. Baron Parke, the senior judge of assize, arrived here
yesterday afternoon about three o'clock, and having opened
the commission, proceeded to attend Divine service at St.
Mary's. Mr. Justice Coleridge came down in the course of
the evening, and the business of the assize commenced this
morning at an early hour, Mr. Baron Parke taking his seat
in the Nisi Prius Court at nine o'clock. At ten o'clock Mr.
Justice Coleridge charged the grand jury in the Crown Court,
and soon afterwards some bills were found, and the trials of
the prisoners began.
Both the civil and criminal business of the county exceeds
the average amount. There are sixteen causes for trial, al-
though none of them are marked for special juries. On the
Crown side there are 65 prisoners, a very large number for a
Berkshire spring assize, even when the circumstance is taken
into consideration that no special commission was issued for
this county for the trial of prisoners in December last, as was
the case in the adjoining county of Oxford. With a few ex-
ceptions, however, the calendar does not present instances of
crimes of an atrocious character. There are four cases of
arson, one of shooting at with intent to maim, two of high-
way robbery, one of an assault with intent, &c., and one of
sacrilege. The rest of the offences described to have been
committed are of the ordinary character.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
LOVEGROVE V. WILLIS.

In this case Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Carrington
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. V. Lee was counsel for
the defendant.

The plaintiff, it appeared, is a young woman, now twenty-
one years of age, who some time previous to the 12th of De-
cember, 1842, had gone to live in the family of a Mr. Corne-
lius Willis and his sister, all her own near relations being
either dead or settled in other parts of the country. The
plaintiff, however, as Miss 'Willis said, was " a little of a re-
lation, as Miss Willis's brother had married the plaintiff's
great aunt ;" and partly, perhaps, on this account, and partly
on the score of the plaintiff's skill in dress-making, and her
readiness and ability to make herself generally useful in the
family, she continued to reside with Mr. C. Willis and Miss
Ann from the time when she first went to live with them up
to the present period. Mr. Cornelius Willis is a draper and
grocer carrying on his business at a place called Woolstone,
m this county, and happens to be pretty far advanced in life.
The defendant, Thomas Willis, is the brother of Cornelius,
and carries on the business of a coal-merchant at Uffington ;
and it seemed that some yet unhealed differences had broken
out between the two brothers, and that the defendant_had
taken umbrage at the plaintiff's residing in his brother's fa-
mily, he having got into his head a notion that Cornelius in-
tended to marry Miss Matilda Lovegrove (the plaintiff), who
was to receive 6001. when she reached the age of twenty-one.
Influenced by 'these feelings, the defendant thought proper to
indulge himself on various occasions in remarks derogatdry
to the plaintiff's character for chastity; and, as some good-
natured friend is never wanting to carry an unpleasant-tale,
it was not long before these remarks reached Miss Matilda's
ears. Accompanied by Miss Willis, the plaintiff proceeded to
the house of the defendant, and, conscious of her own purity,
demanded what he had to say against her. He replied,
that he had nothing to say, and that he knew nothing against
her; but at the same time took care to qualify the satisfac-
tion which such a declaration was calculated to produce, by
a threat that if she did not leave his premises he would
thrust her head and that of her compamon, his own sister,
into the " guzzle," a word which, in the Berkshire dialect,
signifies " gutter." The ladies accordingly beat a retreat,
and the defendant, elated at the success of so vigorous a de-
monstration, suffered his prudence to go to sleep, and instead
of keeping " on the windy side of the law," as he had care-
fully done during his brief interview with the slandered Miss
Matilda, communicated his private opinion about her to a
customer who came to his shop for coals on the 12th of De-
cember, 1842. The language in which this was expressed
was so coarse as to be unfit, in part, for publication. The
witness who deposed to the conversation, a Mrs. Tyler, who
lived at Woolstone, said that when she went on the day in
question to the defendant's coal-shed, he asked about his sis-
ter, Ann Willis, who had been very unwell for a long time,
and said that she was poisoned, as Mr. Barnett, her medical
attendant, had told him so—that she had taken enough mer-
cury to poison a lion—that " them that were about her had
given it to her"—and that 44 it was that little Matilda
that gave it to her." He added " that they wanted to get his
sister out of the way, in order to marry Matilda to his
brother." Upon this conversation being reported to the
plaintiff's friend, Miss Willis, the defendant was written to,
and an apology demanded, but that not being given, an ac-
tion was at once commenced by Cornelius Willis, as the next
friend of the plaintiff.—The jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff, and give her 401. as damages.

NOR rHERN ClRCUlT.—Carlisle, Feb. 28.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Eliza Hetherington, aged 24, a person of mild and pleasing
demeanour, was indicted for the wilful murder of her illegiti-
mate child, at Carlisle, on the 11th of October last.
The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Ramshay, Mr.
Bele, and Mr. Lawrie ; the prisoner was defended by Mr.
Mathews.

The circumstance of the prisoner having given birth to a
child, and her concealment thereof,were proved : the evidence
it is wholly unnecessary to detail.
His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury acquitted the
prisoner of the murder, but found her guilty of concealing
the birth.
To be imprisoned twelve calendar months.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
UNION-HALL.
Jane Griffiths, a masculine-looking Welsh woman, wee
charged with assaulting her husband, under the following
circumstances :
The defendant, who is between fifty and sixty years of age,
was married three months ago to the complainant, her junior
by thirty years, he being her third husband. Soon after
their marriage, squabbles arose between them, she accusing
him of infidelity, and vowing that she would not maintain
him if he did not carry out the milk to the customers. On
the preceding day they quarrelled, and the wife attacked
him with such fury that in a very short time, according to
his statement, she " closed up both his eyes," besides throw-
ing him out of the house " neck and crop." He added that'
she was of such a fiery temper that he was absolutely afraid
she would do him some personal injury if she was not re-
strained, and that he had not the smallest control over her.
The defendant, in a strong Welsh dialect, said that she
deserved to be " hanged " for marrying such a booby as the
complainant ; that he was an idle and worthless fellow, and
no use on earth to her.
The MAGISTRATE said that, the defendant having married
the complainant, her property now was his, and that she had
no right to turn him out of the house, or to assault him. As
she promised, however, not to repeat such conduct, she was
discharged.