The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-28 00:00:00

COURT OF Q UHL zv' .s. BENCH, May 27.

ST. KATHERINE DOCKS' COMPANY V. HIGGS.
This was a special case, drawn up for the purpose of obtaining
the opinion of the Court as to the liability of the St. Katherine
Docks' Company to be assessed to the sewers' rate. There was no
dispute as to the fact, and the only question was as to the con
struction to be placed nn the various statutes empowering the Com-
missioners of Sewers to levy rates.
Mr. Dundas appeared for the Deck Company, and Mr. Kelly
for the Commissioners of Sewers.

SHERIFFS' COURT, May 27.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BUSHELL.)
HOWARD V. GOSSETT, KNT.

The plaintiff in this action is a solicitor, and the defendant,
Sir Wm. Gossett, is Sergeant-at-Arms to the House of Com-
mons. The action was brought for an assault and false impri-
sonment, and the damages were laid at 2001.
The defendant had pleaded that he had acted under the
authority of the House ; but on demurrer it had been held that
the Speaker's warrant wa3 illegal, and the plea bad. The case
came before the Jury in the shape of an inquiry to assess
damages.

Defendant suffered judgment to go by default, and not ap-
pearing to urge anything in mitigation,
Mr. PETERSDORFF appeared for the plaintiff, and stated the
case. He traced the course of the various proceedings in the
action brought by Mr. Stockdale against Mr. Hansard as
printer to the House of Commons, for a libel contained in the
printed report of the Inspectors of Prisons, and also the rules
and orders of the House of Commons, declaring it to be a
breach of privilege for any person or persons to question their
privileges or interfere with their officers obeying their com-
mands.

The UNDER-SHEarry thought that the Learned Counsel
ought to confine himself to such facts as he was prepared to
support by evidence.
Mr. PETERSDORFF considered he had a right to dilate on
the facts, which were open for the jury to draw their inferences
from. It was admitted on the face of the record that the de-
fendant was acting under the orders of the House of
Commons, whose delegate and high officer he was,
and by whom there was no doubt he was indemnifi,d.
He would not idly occupy the time of the jury, but considered
he had a right to lay before them not strict, technical, arti-
ficial facts, but matters of public notoriety—drawing their
attention to them, and leaving them to draw their own infe-
rences. This was a trespass, and he had a right to trace
whether it was illegally and wantonly done, or whether a
mistake. He contended that it had been decided by the judges
that the House of Commons had no power to grant such a
warrant, and that their proceedings were in effect an interdic-
tion on judges, juries, and witnesses. He then detailed the
means taken to arrest Mr. Howard in his own house, and
the subsequent surrender of the latter to Sir Will:aaa
at the House of Commons, by whom he was af-
terwards committed to Newgate. He urged that an
attorney when applied to professionally, was bound
fearlessly and manfully to carry out his duty, however• patent
or mighty the body might be in the State, and do to the ut-
most of his ability to gain justice for his client ; and he con-
sidered that the House had deviated from justice in endeavour-
ing to punish the plaintiff for exercising his professional
functions, which had been in every respect sanctioned by the
marts of law.

Thomas Howard, son of the plaintiff, proved the surrender
and detention of the plaintiff.
The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up, and said, the history
of the case of Stockdale and Hansard had very little to do with
the matter, it did not appear on the record, which alone could
be looked to by the jury. The simple way of putting the case
was this :—that the defendant had acted under a warrant
which a superior court had decided not to be legal, and the
jury would consider the case in the same way as against any
officer of any other court who had acted under the impres-
sion he was legally authorised. The plaintiff had not alleged
Chet he had suffered in health or business, but he was fully en-
titled to compensation for his injured feelings, and the inconve-
nience he had been put to in the House of Commons, but not
in Newgate. They would, therefore, give such temperate da-
mages as they thought proper.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 2001.

MARKET INTELLIGENCE.
NEVTGATE AND Ta 7.1313 1-.1111a76..

The arrivals of most kinds of Meat from distant parts for
our markets during the past week have not,been to say
large, though they have proved seasonably extensive. With
London-slaughtered Meat we have been fairly supplied, yet
the general demand must be considered active, while prices
have further advanced, to the extent of about 2d per 81bs for
Beef, Lamb, Veal, and the primest Pork, those of Mutton
ruling about stationary. About thirty carcases of Beasts,
and forty carcases of Sheep, received from Holland, have been
disposed of at improved quotations.

At per stone, by the Carcase.

s. (.1. to s. d. a. d. to s. d.
Beef, inferior•• •• .• 210 3 0 j Mutton, inferior .. 3 6 310
middling •• •• 3 2 3 4,
prime large 3 6 3 8 I prime .. •. 4 6 410
prime small .. 310 4 0 Pork, 1arge........ 210 3 6
veal.. ...... 4 0 5 21— small ........ 3 8 4 2
' Lamb. 4s 10d to 5s ltd.
ARRIVALS DURING THE PAST WEEK.
Beasts Sheep Calves Pigs.
23 510 300
31 700 400
10 200 20
18 100 30
35 400 40
29 320 50 100
40 480 80 200
30 20
90 35 100
200 50 100

Scotland• • • • • • • . • • • • , •
Yorkshire • • • • • • • • • • • •
Norfolk .. • • •
Suffolk ••••••• • • • .• • •
Cambridgeshire ••• • • •
Essex •
Surrey • •• •
Devonshire ••••• • • • • •
Wiltshire •.• ...
Other parts .• •• ••

Total ..... . ..... 239 3,060 215 1,310
Previous melee arrival . . 206 3,130 314 1,290

Different sinceOltr it tat