The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-03 00:00:00

THIS DAY'S NEWS

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat at Lincoln's Inn-hall to-day,
shortly after ten o'clock.
His LORDSHIP, after disposing of the case of Ashley
v. Hoskins. proceeded to hear the further arguments in
the part-heard case of tile Princess Baratinski, which
our readers will recollect is a lunatic petitioner, and
comes before the Court upon a petition presented by her
brother, who is a Russian Prince. The facts of the case
we have already given at some length. Sir Charles
Wetherell, on behalf of the unfortunate lunatic, occupied
the Coda nearly the whole day.

VICE-CgANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir K. Brtucr-..)
Tris GREAT NORTH of ENGLAND, CLARENCE, AND LtARTLE.
POOL JUNCTION RAILWAY COXPANY V. THE CLARENCE
RAILWAY COMPANY.

This was
.a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendants from offering any obstruction to the plain-
tiffs in constructing a bridge over the defendant's line,
which should form a shorter and more direct mode of
communication than the Clarence Railway now afforded.
The defendants refused to let the plaintiffs make use of
their land adjoining their line for the erection of the ne-
cessary scaffolding, &e., for the construction, and had
built tip high walls so as to completely prevent the plain-
tiffs from proceeding with the bridge. The object of the
motion was to have the obstructions thus erected re-
moved, so that the plaintiffs' wotl.s night proceed.
The case has been already twice before the Court.
Hosoun to-day stated, that, under all the circum-
stances of the caso, he thought the beat course he could
adopt for all parties was to refuse to make any order
upon the motion at present, as the plaintiffs did not yet
appear to have a right to the temporary casement on the
defendant's soil, which they claimed as being requisite
for the construction of the bridge. Let the parties bring
the notion before the Lord Chancellor, without being re-
quired to'give fresh notice.
(Before Sir J. WICRAM.)
His -Honour to-day heard arguments in several cases
which were set down to be spoken to.
His Honour will take petitions and short causes on
Friday next instead •f Saturday.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN V. GORDON.
This was an indictment against the defendant, James
Brodie Gordon, for perjury alleged to have been com-
mitted in swearing in two affidavits, in an answer in the
Court of Chancery, that certain promissory notes and
bills therein mentioned were not in the possession of the
firm of Gordon and Sons, of which firm defendant was
a member, whereas the said notes and bills had been
out Of the possession of the said firm.
Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bute conducted the prosecution,
and Mr. Jervis and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the de-
fendant.
Mr. KELLY having stated the case to the jury. put in
the bills, the affidavits and the proceedings in Chancery,
on an application to the Vice-Chancellor, for an injunc-
tion against the defendant and his partners, restraining
them from endorsing, or peying away a promissory note
for 1,000/ signed by a Mr. Rice, then in their possess
Rion.
The solicitor, who conducted the proceedings in Chan-
cery, and his clerk, Mr. Westwood, described the his-
tory of the suit.
Mr. Edwin Bryant, merchant; has known defendant
fifteen years, Ile has had in possession a promissory
note •of Mr. Rice's for ;1,000/ in July or February,
1841. It was left with him by defendant as a col-
lateral security for money lent, Defendant told
witness if he had an opportunity of negotiating
it, or desired to discount it, he might do so.
Wifness said in reply, " He would do so, if he had an
opportunity." In March defendant applied for further
advances, and had lON. That was on the 3d of March,
He had also advanced money on the 19th of February
On the 15th of March there was another advance of 651.
and on the 23d of March another of 1201. Witness did
not negotiate the bill, He does not recollect haring pre-
sented the bill while it was running, although he has been
told that ho did. lie has been closely interrogated upon
the point before, but he cannot recollect that the bill was
out of his possession until after the month of June. Has
understood from defendant that Glynn and Co.had granted
him a temporary loan upon securities, of which this note
constituted a portion. Has been told that such was the
case while the bill was running. If he had been asked,
he would hare had no objection to have let defendant
have the bill to raise money upon it, for the purpose of
withdrawing it, and repaying him, or of letting him have
it again. He hid the utmost tiotifidence In the firm of
Gerdoti and ;Sons. The first time he heard of the bill
having been at Glynn's was about the time of the trial
of Scurnett v. Rice, to recover the amount of the bill.
In June he mad. a further advance to defendant.
Mr. KELLY—Did you make any advance on the 9th of
June ? Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. KELLY—Your Lordship will find it so stated in the
supplemental bill,
Nix% Jewels interrupted the Learned Gentleman, who
resuined the examination.
Witness did not on 9th of June give the defendant or
his
.firm 3801, or any such sum, to retrieve the bill from
Glynn's. He does not recollect defendant stating when
the note came back into his hands. It was most cer-
,tainly in his hands on the 10th of June, the day it be-
came due, and his clerk presented it for payment. He
had never had any further communication on the sub-
ject with defendant since the trial of Scurnett v. Rice.
had never either directly or indirectly had any commu•
nication with Messrs. Glynn on the subject. Presented
the note to Mr. Eyres at the request of Messrs. Gordon on
payment of costs some months after the bill had be-,
come due.
- Cross-examined by Mr. JERVIS—When the promissory
note was given to him, he was in advance to the Gordons
4001. or 500/., The note was endorsed to him in the
regular way. The disputes between Gowan and Gordon
had' heel referred. Whelidefendant spoke to witness about
the'bill he told him that all his books were in possession
of the arbitrators, and that consequently he was in a very
awkward position.
• Mr. Daniels, the managing clerk to Glynn and Co.,
deposed that they were the bankers of Messrs. Gordon.
On the 10th of April, 1841, there was an advance to
Gerdons of 1,500/. Ilas no doubt but that they took
security, but that would not appear in the books. •
Mr. Pickering, another clerk at Glynn's, proved the
state' of Gordons' account at the bank in the early part
of 1841, from which it appeared that, before the ad-
vance on the 10th of April, they had 16/. balance in the
bankers' hands, and, on the 7th, 2541
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
Mr. JMRYIS then addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant, and contended that there was not one tittle of
evidence to support the charge. Not only so, but there
was not the slightest stain upon his character.
Lord DErAmAN, in summing up the case, told the jury
that the perjury was alleged to have been committed in
two affidavits and a supplenientel bill in the Court or
Chancery. William Ricci it appeared, had applied fbis
an injunction to restrain defendant from negotiating two
promissory notes signed by him, and should de-
liver them up to William Rice. Tho defendant
stated in his affidavit that he had paid Away
the two promissory notes, and had them not its
his possession. This Wail alleged to be untrue.
in the second affidavit it was sworn that the notes had
been paid, the one to Mr. Scurnett and the other to Mr.
Bryant. This was denied, and perjury assigned thereon ;
and in answer to the supplemental bill, defendant
stated that the bills were not in his possession,
and had not been in his power ; and on that statement
also perjury was assigned. Such were the alleged per-
jAuirri.ens,icaenedbiotuclaerbtaeiTnelydiwedas
bmefuoerhe
ttboo
ebeeserei%greeettbedroutghbatt
etonstiwrearl.
toHownbciiewb cdamefeemtioatte
ithewtuoprpeletmbeenal bil
l, in the
edoto.
cured the bill from Bryant, and lodged it as security
with Glynn's fOr an advance, and that on the 9th June he
had agreed with Bryant, that he should:advance 387/. to
makeup the sum required to redeem the bill from Glynn so
which was done, and the bill was handed over to
Bryant. Now, this certainly was a different account
frois the one formerly given, but they must
he satisfied that this was the true account, and
that the other was false, before they could convict.
If they had any doubt on the subject, they must
acquit. It was also stated that the defendant was very
.nervous, and that the interrogatories put by the Court of
Chancery were very embarrassing, but they would not
wid a person to make a false statement. They must
alai) be satisfied that the false statements had been
made wilfully and corruptly, and certainly it should be
recollected that he had by his first affidavit obtained
his object, the dismissal of Rice's application with costs,
They iad heard the evidence of Mr. Byant, and they
would•deteresine-vvhether the former account given by
defendant was untrue in point of fact, and if such un-
truth was uttered corruptly—if so they would give the
verdict for the Crown, but if they had any doubt they
would give their verdict for defendant.
The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of Not
Guilty. --- ,

Foyle A.,tvEs LosT.—Ano "er those deplorable
and lamerrtable occurrences which too frequently tteecnnA
pany mining or4rations, and characterise the critical lind
dangerous position of that class of individuals who labour
to gain their daily bread in this section of national in-
dustry, happened at Beaufort Iron Works, in one of
the mine quarries, or patches, on Tuesday afternoon, by
which the lives of four persons were sacrificed. The un-
fortunate party were at that time engaged in pushing
up the rubbish tram, for the purpose of Charing
the re-
mains of a " fall," when a piece of ground froni the
strata, lying eight yards above, unexpectedly gave way,
and fell directly on them, literally crushing nearly every
bone in their bodies, and, in a moment, depriving them
of life. A strict inquiry has been made, so as to ascer-
tain whether this serious event was occasioned by any
negligence on the part of the master-watchman, and
from which it appears there is not the slightest blame
attributable to him, but that has been the result of
pure accident. The ground was apparently safe, and
there was not the slightest indication of danger. The
names of the deceased are, Isaac Jamie, aged 18, Cecilia
'Tames, 18 (brother and sister) ; Charles Pensharn, 21 ;
and Margaret Davies, 18.--Monmouthshire Merlin.
HEALTU OF GENERA' NOTT.—Daring the past
week the .General has continued to gain strength, and
he is now mite-If: better than he has been since his arrival
in England. SO satisfactory;. indeed, is the state of the
ITooTost
Srr 1 Gallant et:text-4's health that he may be said to be fast
W. Massey Stanley, Bart.'s, approaching convalesence. Lady Nott took carriage
birthday, last week, was celebrated after the good old airings yesterday and to day, and it is gratifying to learn
style of English hospitality, at his seat in Cheshire. that her ladyship's health is improved.--Welshman.
The respected Baronet entertained nearly 1,000 of his Fox-HUNTING IN WALzs.—Notwithstanding the
tenantry in a spacious marquee erected purposely for the " distressed state of agriculture," there are, in and about
occasion. The school children were not forgotten, a Carmarthenshire, no less than nine packs of hounds. In
handsome provision being laid out at the hall. On the immediate neighbourhood of the town of Carmarthen
Wednesday Sir William gave a ball and supper, which alone, there are the Bennwydd, the Maesgwynne, the
concluded the three days festivities. 1 Tregib, the Pentykendyi and the Carmarthen pack of
foihounda..— Cambrian.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAV.)
There were about thirty cases put down to-day for
hearing before the several Commissioners, but none of
them-up to the time of going to press were of any im-
portance.