The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-20 00:00:00

--
until the result of the analysis of the sugar remaining
in the basin, which has been placed in the hands of
Mr. Rayner, surgeon, of Uxbridge, to analyse, can
be ascertained. The magistrates room and the road
outside was crowded by hundreds of persons anxious
to hear the evidence, and to obtain a sight of the pri-
soner. On Saturday our reporter ascertained from I\lr.
Rayner that he had found in the portion he had al-
-1 ready analysed a quantity of oxalic acid.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT, Jan. 18.
EX•PIRTE TER VICAR OF TWIVERTON.
This was a petition by the vicar of Twiverton, other-
wise Twerton, Somersetshire, and the provost and scho-
lars of Oriel College, Oxford, for payment out of court of
a sum of money paid in under the Great Western Rail-
way Act, and that the Railway Company might pay the
costs thereof. The vicarage, with the garden, orchard,
and offices belonging to it, was purchased by the Great
Western Railway, and the purchase-money was paid into
the Bank of England, as directed by the Act, and laid
out in the purchase of 2,5861.175. 9cl. Three per Cent.
Consols. The Act contained a direction that in case the
Railway Company required the vicarage and land, the
purchase-money was to be laid out in the purchase of other
lands, or in erecting another vicarage-house. The vicar
upon his house being taken, purchased land as a site for
a new vicarage for the sum of 1,2861., which money was
paid out of Court for that purpose, and the costs paid by
the Railway Company. A new vicarage house had
since been built by the petitioner for 1,7751. 16s. being
more than the residue of the sum paid by the Railway
Company for the original vicarage. The present peti-
tion was by the vicar and the provost and scholars of
Oriel College, Oxford, who were the owners of part of
the land about the vicarage, and it prayed that the re-
mainder of the snm of 2,8861. 17s. 9d., might be paid out
of Court for the building of the new vicarage-house, and
that the Railway Company might be ordered to pay the
costs thereof.
Mr. Osborne, for the Great Western Railway Com-
pany, contended that the Court bad no, power to direct
the Company to pay the costs.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR 'said he had nothing to do
with the abstract juctice of the matter, nor could he
speculate upon what the Legislature intended to do ;
he could only construe a certain set of words con-
tained in the Act of Parliament. His Honour then read
the 9th section, as before quoted, and stated that, in this
case, the application was, not to have the purchase-money
paid out of Court simply, but to have part of the money
paid out to defray the expense, not of purchase of land,
but of building the vicarage-house on land which had
been purchased by the Government securities already
paid out by order of the Court. He could not, there-
fore, allow his mind to be influenced by his personal
notions of what was justice in the abstract. He could
only say, that on the true construction of the Act, the
case for which the vicar contended had been omitted or
had not been provided for. The vicar must, therefore,
pay the expenses; but as to the costs of this application
he had a discretion, and he should not give the costs to
he Company.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, Jan. 18.
THE IPSWICH MURDERERS—APPEAL TO THE JUDGES.
The judges assembled this afternoon in the Exchequer
Court, fur the purpose of hearing the argument of
counsel on behalf of the two Howells and Shipley, who
were sentenced to death by Mr. Justice Williams, at the
late Ipswich assizes, for the murder of a policeman
named MTadden. The error assigned was the inadmis-
sibility of certain evidence received. The evidence was
the confession of the parties.
Mr. PRENDERGAST, who appeared on behalf of the
prisoners, addressed the Court in a long and ingenious
speech, contending that part of the evidence adduced on
the trial was inadmissible; and in support of his argu-
ment qu-tod several law cases to show that the evidence
in question ought not to have been admitted.
Mr. GORDON arose and was about to address the
Court, when
Lord DENMAN, on behalf of himself and his learned
brethren, intimated that they did not think it necessary
for him to do so, as they (the judges) were of opinion
that there was no argument before them to show that
the evidence was not admissible.
The decision of the judge who tried the case was,
therefore, confirmed, and the unfortunate men are. left
for execution.

CONSISTORY COURT, Jan. 18.
BRITTEN V. BRITTEN. •
This was a case of divorce by reason of adultery, pro--
moted by Thomas Britten, Esq., against his wife, for the
commission of adultery with Mr. Edward Henry Keeling,,
of the firm of Clark, Etcling, and Clark, wine brokers,
in Great Tower-street, City.
Shortly after the case was opened by Dr. Addams, the
Court inquired whether it was a suit in ptenam?
Dr. ADDAMS—It is, sir.
The COURT—I have no sort of occasion to trouble you.
Dr. ADDAMS—I submit it is clear.
The COURT—It is imp ;ssible that a case can be more
clearly proved. It is quite unnecessary to enter into the
circumstances of the case. It can do no good to the
parties or to the public. Let the parties be called.
The REGISTRAR—They have been called.
The Court then signed the sentence of separation.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 18. 1
(Before Mr.- Commissioner BULLOCK.)
FORD V. DAVIS.
Mr. V ALEN TI;IE LIKE, who appeared for the plaintiff,
stated that his client is a bootraaker, on Holborn-hilt,
and had brought this action to recover 14/. from the de-
fendant, Cyrus Davis, the ex-pugilist and landlord of the
Plough public-house. in Gilcspur-street, West Smithfield.
In the month of October last a watchmaker named
Shimmell, being in want of money, deposited a gold
watch with the plaintiff as a security for 141. Shortly
afterwards, Shimmell told plaintiff that he could dispose
of the watch, and it was deposited with him, the defen-
dant undertaking to pay the plaintiff the 141. in the
event of a sale, or to return the watch. Ford having
ascertained that the watch had been raffled in a billiard-
room belonging to Davis, called on him and asked for his
money in the presence of witnesses, and on that oc-
cusion the defendant said that he had forgotten the cir-
cumstance, but would settle with him in a few days.
Several days elapsed, and no money being forthcoming,
Ford again applied to Davis, when he guaranteed the
payment of the money. High words then ensued ; the
defendant calling the defendant a - liar, and, finally,
putting down two 5/. notes, and offering to bet that
amount that he had never made any promise relative to
the watch or money. The plaintiff, in his excitement,
was rash enough to put down a similar amount, where-
upon defendant handed the 201. to his wife, saying,
" Here, old woman, you stick to this," and the same is
still retained in spite of the interference of mutual friends,
so that Ford is minus his 101. and his watch, or the value
thereof. This action, however, was only brought for the
14L, leaving the bet of 10/ the subject of future pro-
ceedings.
Two respectable witnesses were called, and they proved
the promise to pay the 141., and also the raffle. For
some reason, however, unknown to them, he (defendant)
handed the amount paid by the subscribers to the raffle
to Shimmell.
Mr. LUSH, for the defence, contended that there was
not sufficient proof that his client was bound to restore
the watch, or give 14/. to the plaintiff. The defendant
had the watch raffled, but he considered that it was for
the mutual benefit of Ford and Shimmell, and he thought
they would settle the matter between them. Mr. Davis
was willing to restore the watch, and would have done
so on the first application, but his son, who was the
winner of it, had gone to the theatre with it on his
person. On the following day it was offered to the
plaintiff, and he refused to aceept it.
Mr. Shimmell was called for the defence, and, in his
cross-examination, he admitted the receipt of the produce
of the raffle, and the application of it to his own use, and
that he afterwards placed in defendant's hands a watch
of much greater value as a security to repay the plaintiff,
which watch was, to the best of his knowledge, in de-
fendant's custody. He added that he was present when
Davis objected to pay the 14L, and had recently heard
him say that he would bet 10/ that he never undertook
to pay the 141. He saw each of them put down 10/, and
likewise saw the defendant pass the 201. to his wife,
telling her to keep it. He believed that it was in her
possession at the present time—in fact, he heard de-
fendant admit that such was the case within a very
few days.
Mr. Lunt hore rose from his seat, and consented to a
verdict for the plaintiff for the 141.
Mr. VALENTINE LEE remarked that the matter would
not end there, it being his client's intention to take other
proceedings for the recovery of the 101.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 18.
THE lIIPPODROXE RACE-COURSE.-IN THE MATTER OF

dACOIt CONNOP.

An application was made in the case of this insolvent,
who had been connected with the Hippodrome Race-
course, to appoint an assignee before the hearing, with
the view of making the property at Notting-hill available '
for the numerous creditors under the estate. The in-
solvent had sojourned among the Poor Knights of Wind-
sor, and a question was raised whether his residence in
the Castle-yard, New Windsor, was for him a privileged
place. lie had, however, been taken in execution, and
was now a resident in Reading gaol, and his case had
been appointed to be heard on Feb. 7, before Mr. Com-
missioner Pollock on the ensuing circuit. 'rhe schedule
filed by the insolvent for public inspection, of which
notice has been given to the creditors, extends to
many pages. The debts in the aggregate are set
forth at 67,240/. 1 ls. 3d., and the debts owing to
the insolvent, all of which are bad and doubtful, to
36,239/. 12s. The consideration debts from January,
1840, are mentioned at 63,232/. 95.; those without eon.
sideration, 2,2001.; and those more than twice entered,
to 1,571/. 2s. 3d. The insolvency is attributed to the
insolvent not having had sufficient capital to work so
extensive a building speculation as the Hippodrome, and
farther, to his liabilities for three persons, inserted as
debtors in his schedule. He was a bankrupt in the year
1829, when he obtained his certificate, and the debts
still unpaid were in amount 80,0001. It seems that the
insolvent's income had been about 2,000/. a-year, and his
wife had a separate property of 250/. From a statement
in the general balance sheet, it appears that the insolvent
has an expectation that if the property be properly
worked it would produce as much as 10,000/. over the
debts due on the same. The debts due to various
creditors on simple contracts, for work done and mate-
rials supplied, amount to 9,0001.; and the charges on the
buildings to secure debts to creditors, are in amount
40,369/. There are 106 creditors and nine debtors in
the schedule.
Mr. WOODRUFFE now applied to make the rule, which
was granted a few days ago, absolute, for the appoint-
im-nt of Mr. R. Laurence, a builder, who was a creditor
for npv.,ir !-; of 2,0001., as assignee. The Learned
Counzel remarked that the insolvent had been lessee of
the Hippodrome, and employed the various parties to
erect buildings on the ground, which belonged to Mr.
Ladbroke, who was anxious to benefit the creditors. The