The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC. JOURNALS.
FION THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.
GLOBE.—Mr. O'Connell's speech on Wednesday
last, on the motion of Alderman Keshan for a peti-
tion to Parliament for the restoration of certain pri-
vileges to the Corporation of Dublin, has one or two
points which, at the present juncture, we are
unwilling to let pass without notice. Though
.the Learned Gentleman has, perhaps, no fault
more glaring, or more mischievous, both to him-
: self and to those whose interests and feelings
he represents, than his habit of speaking somewhat
at random, yet there are occasions on which he gives
utterance to what all who know him may at once re-
cognise as his real sentiments—the guiding principles
of his conduct, when unaffected by any merely
momentary impulse. On such occasions his words
have a weight with liberal-minded Englishmen
which goes far to counterbalance the ill effect
of his less reasonable appeals to the peculiar views
and prejudices of the majority of his countrymen.
We are not, as a people, and Mr. O'Connell knows it,
unwilling to hear reason, or to do justice. The real
battle of Irish rights has always been stoutly fought
by Englishmen, and by none more strenuously or
constantly than ourselves. Mr. O'Connell cannot
now look back upon one of those achievements in
behalf of his country, upon which his fame rests,
without perceiving that he has in each case owed
much to English aid, and more to an English sense of
Justice. It is therefore with regret that we notice
his having, on the occasion referred to, and upon a
subject which offered no particular inducement to the
Use of inordinately strong language, made such a de-
claration as the following :
"The reason he (Alderman O'Connell) rose was this
—although he thought it right to pass the resolution,
and to bring the proposition before Parliament, he con-
ceived it would be exceedingly wrong if they were to
induce the people to believe that they.would succeed.
The thing was too reasonable and too just to have the
slightest prospect of success."
Ireland has much to complain of—she has been
deeply wronged—and the remedial measures which
justice and sound policy combine to point out kr
adoption by the Government have encountered fla-
grant neglect and opposition under the Tory
influence which originally generated the wrong.
But this influence has also been injurious to
England. For the last quarter of a century we
have been struggling against it :with constant
-perseverance, and but varying success. And who
shall say that Ireland has had no share in the good
results? What was it that made the demand for
Catholic Emancipation, always just, at length irre-
sistible ? The increasing prevalence of liberal sen-
timents, and the growing strength of the Liberal
party in England. To the same cause, in a great
measure, may Mr. O'Connell attribute his pre-
sent possession of municipal power in Dublin, as
well as a large share of the legitimate influence
he now has in the affairs of Ireland. It is not,
then, because the demands of Ireland are " reason-
able" and " just," that they are not attended to.
On the contrary, it is because they are so that they
have ever had the sympathy and the strenuous aid of
the English Liberals, and have been attended with a
much larger measure of success than could otherwise
have been reasonably anticipated. But though Mr.
O'Connell says these things, we are willing to believe
that he does not entirely mean them. And when we
read such passages as the following, from the same
speech, we are still induced to hope that he will ad-
dress himself to the task of Irish improvement in a
more hopeful, more practical, and more worthy, be-
cause less exclusive, spirit :
" lie (Alderman O'Connell) had brought himself to
the conviction that one-half of the expense of the Pav-
ing Board could be saved by an economical management
of the business. The Corporation had it for centuries,
both when it was Catholic and when it was Protestant,
until it was taken aw ay hand over head during
Peel's Administration, for he was really the Adminis-
tration while ho was secretary in this country, and
that is part of the jurisdiction of the Corpora-
tion which they have a right to have restored to
them. If the experiment were made fora few years
under the Corporation, with all the vigilance that would
be exercised on both sides of the house—for on that
point they were all thoroughly agreed—he thought that
one-half of the expense of the Paving Board would he
saved. The enormous salaries paid to the present offi-
cers would, for instance, be saved, and the citizens of
Dublin would he disburdened frem a very great quan
tity of the local taxation."
And again, in reference to a. more general view of
the subject :
" No reason could be given why they should not get
a considerable quantity of the powers that were pos-
sessed by the former Corporation. They ought to get
as many of them at alt events as the English cor-
porations had ; and if there was a real practical union,
no ditTerencs would be mode between them and England
in this reipect, and what the English corporations
got the Irish corporations should also get. He wa.
sorry to delay the Corporation so long on a subject
that was unavailing, but he hoped the day would
speedily come when the echo of their voices would reach
the Parliament House, and when the most perfect
sympathy would be established between them and the
Legislature."
Here we most cordially agree with Mr. O'Connell.
" A real practical union" between the two countries
is the one thing needful. Of this the English public
are becoming every day more thoroughly con-
vinced; and Mr. O'Connell may be assured that no
man in her Majesty's dominions has it in his power
to do more towards strengthening that conviction,
and giving it a practical and beneficial result, than
himself.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CLIANCELLOR'S COURT, Jaa. 25.
(Before the Vecx-CusxcELLoa or ENGLAND.)
DITCHBURN V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES AND THAMES

JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Bacon applied on behalf of
Messrs. Ditchburn and Make, the steam-boat builders
at Blackwell, fur an injunction to restrain the above
railway company from taking possession of a piece of
land at the termination of the river Lee, in the Thames.
The facts of the case were these :---About two years ago
the plaintiffs having in contemplation to enlarge their
works, made a purchase of a piece of land of about three
acres to extend their building establishment, it being
contemplated by Government to build a great number
of war steamers there, and there being no other esta-
blishment on the river Thames so convenient as this
spot. The plaintiffs, previous to August, 1844, having
this purpose in view, put upon this land marks of an
intention to build or to lay out the land for their
naval purposes. The Rails ay Company Act, passed
In 1844, and, when it was in progress, the plaintiffs exa-
mined the plans, and found they had not the power
or intention of going beyond a certain line, and they did
not oppose the passing of the Ac..;, and, therefore, they
proceeded to put slips and other ship-building conve-
niences on the land. and no comnunication was made to
them at that time that the land would note be wanted by
the Company ; but, in September, 1844, they received a
notice from the Company to demand the particulars of
the land, and the claim made by them, and stating that
they were willing to treat for thc land, and the compen-
sation to be made to them. No step was taken by the
Company until November, when they gave notice that
they would pay them 1,5001. 17s. for the land, asking if
the plaintiffs would accept the same, ,if not, they would
issue their warrant for the jury to assess the amount, on
which the plaintiffs filed their bill on the 11th of January.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Wood appeared for the Company.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said that, looking at the plans
and the Act of Parliament, he thought the plaintiffs had
established a fit case for an injunction.
(Before Sir J. Wioftlist.) •
His Horrors., after disposing of some unopposed peti-
tions, gave judgment in the two following cases :
SMITH V. BEICSLEY.
His HoNors said that in this case he had had the mis-
fortune to differ from the Master in some of his conelo-
siotts, but, at the same time, he thought it duo to the
Master to say that he had great reason to complain of
wh( ever it was, who had drawn up the decree on which
he was to act, for it was clear that it ought to have been
prefaced with an explanation for the Master's guidance.
The case was outs of disputed accounts between the as-
signees of Mr. Charles Roberts, innkeeper, and dealer in
horses, of the New Inn, St. Alban's, in the city of Ox-
ford, the trustees having taken exception to some of the
items of the Master's report, Having entered at length
into the details of the case, his Honour decided that the
three first exceptions must be allowed generally, and the
fourth must also be allowed, except so far as related to
the money paid to a firm called Wickens, Wilde, and
Gabriel, with liberty to either party to except again to
the report of the Master, to whom it was to be refened
back to be reviewed.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 25.
'The Court took the Crown paper, but nothing of any
importance came before it.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 25.
TRH QUEEN V. TIIE OVERSEERS OF STORWOOD-.-

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
PARKLEY applied to his Lordship for a rule,
calling upon William Reston and Robert Jennings, the
overseers of the parish of Storwood, in the East Riding
of York hire, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against them for illegal, harsh, and
cruel conduct in the execution of their office. It ap-
peared from the statement of the Learned Counsel, and
the affidavits filed in support of it, that the defendants
were both persons of property residing in the above
parish, and that in the month of August, 1842, a labour-
ing man named W. Allinson, together with his family,
resided in that place; and that in consequence of a very
lung illness, Allinson was compelled to apply to the
parish officers for assistance, and which they ultimately
obtained. At the expiration of a month the man was
sufficiently recovered to be able to work again, and had
no occasion to make another application to the
parish officers for assistance until March, 1843,
when he again applied for relief, and obtained
six shillings. In the following Midsummer the
parish officers evinced an anxiety to get rid of Allinson
and his wife altogether, and they induced Allinson's
landlord to give him notice to quit the little cottage
which he occupied in the parish. Storwood contained
only twenty•five houses, and the overseers in so small a
locality naturally possessed very considerable influence
over the inhabitants, not one of whom would allow a poor
man as tenant of his house. it they expressed a wish that
h should be removed. Allinson's landlord, accordingly,
gave him notice to quit, and ultimately turned him ow

' TB

of the .cottage. This took place in July, 1844. Allin-
son's family had considerable difficulty in procuring an-
other lodging, but they at length did so, and the over-
seers allowed Is. 6d. a week towards their support; after
which an order for their removal to Sutton was obtained,
which order• was appealed against at the sessions, and
quashed. The overseers then told Allinson that they
would not render any further assistance either to him
or his family in the way of out-door relief, as they
did not belong to their parish. Allinson on this an-
nouncement made an application to one of the
magistrates on the subject, who advised him to apply
to the overseers for relief, adding that it was their duty
to find a settlement for him if he did not belong to Stor-
wood. Allinson made application to him accordingly,
and they then agreed to allow him Is. 6d. a week towards
his rent. Allinson again received notice to quit from
his landlord, and on his applying to the overseers to
know what he had better do, they told him they had
nothing to do with him, and that he had better remove
his family to Sutton at once. Allinson, refused to do
this, and requested Paxton would go with him before a
magistrate, whose order be would willingly obey.
Paxton told him that if he would not go to Sutton as he
had been told, he might go to the devil. Allinson
again went to a magistrate, who again told him the
overseers were bound to relieve him or find him a
settlement. On the 9th of October Allinson was turned
out of his cottage, Paxton refusing to have anything
more to do with him. Allinson's wife subsequently ap-
plied fora lodging to a person named Pagett, a servant
of Jennings, who agreed to let him have a lodging for
one night, but Jennings having beard of it, came there
and turned them out of the house. She then took her
children to Paxton's house, where she was allowed to
remain with them that night in the kitchen. The
Learned Counsel, in conclusion, urged that the case was
one which entitled him to the rule he had applied for.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said there could be no doubt
that the parties complained of were amenable to the law
for their conduct. But the case was not one that called
for the prompt interference of that Court. It was one
that might be disposed of by indictment, and did not call
for the interference of that Court.—Application refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 25.
(Sittings in. Banco.)
WADE V. SIMEON.
Mr. Wirsou said he appeared in this case to show
cause against a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show
cause why the order of Mr. Baron Alderson should not
be set aside on such terms as ' the Court should direct.
The action was brought in that Court in the month of
May last upon two cheques made by the defendant, one
dated May and the other July,- 1840, and amounting to-
gether to 2,0001. Amongst other pleas the defendant
had pleaded that ho gave these cheques for money
lost at play, and that the plaintiff well• knew of
their illegality at the time when he took them.
It appeared also from the affidavits, that the present de-
fendant had filed a bill in Chancery,which was answered
by the plaintifE The cause was appointed to be tried as
a special jury cause on the 7th of December. Some
overtures having been made by the defendant to the
plaintiff to Compromise the action, which were always
resisted and refused by the plaintiff, on the 6th of De-
cember the defendant's attorney sent for the attorney of
the plaintiff, and stated that he did not wish to defend
the action, and that he would, therefore, agree to pay
the debt and costs. Upon this it was arranged between
the two attorneys that the record should be withdrawn,
and that a judge's order should be obtained, under which
payment should be made on the 14th December.
Mr:Baron ALDERSON—It was stated that since the
date of the order new evidence had beers discovered.
Mr. WATSON said he objected altogether to any in-
crease of jurisdiction on the part of•the Court. The or-
der of Mr. Baron Alderson was drawn up on the 6th of
December. (The Learned Counsel then read the order,
which, after stating the agreement, provided that, in
case of default, the plaintiff should be at liberty to sign
final judgment, and to issue execution for the whole
amount.) The affidavits stated that on 7th of December,
the day after the date of the order, a person named
Ledbitter, who had formerly been a Bow-street
officer, obtained some information from a person
of the name of Atkins, 'Who alleged that he had
been -a' partner with a man named Davis
in a gambling house. On the evening of the 13th of
December, a summons was served on the plaintiff's at-
torney, calling upon him to show cause why the order
of Mr. Baron Aldersen should not be rescinded, and the
parties be allowed to go to trial. The case came before
Mr. Baron Rolfe at chambers, who refused to determine
the question, but ordered the principal money and in
terest to be paid into Court, leaving the parties at liberty
to apply to the Court in the course of the present term.
The application had now been made by his Learned
Friend (Mr. Martin) on the part of the defendant ; and
what he set-up was this, that between the 6th of
December, when this agreement -was made between
•the parties, and the 14th, his client discovered
some evidence which ho believed would enable him suc-
cessfully to maintain his (defence to the action. Now,
his objections to this rule were twofold—first, he con-
tended that the Court had no jurisdiction in this case;
and, secondly, that, supposing the Court had jurisdic-
tion, under the circumstances detailed in the affidavits,
it would not Ise justified in exercising it. In the case of
proceedings going on adversely, he admitted that the
Court had power to interfere; as, for example, when
there had been misdirection on the part of the judge, a
verdict against evidence, or a surpnse, and justice could
not be obtained without a new trial. But what their
Lordships were now asked to do was, to rescind a con-
tract between the parties. •
The LORD Cnxxr BARON •said the strength of the
Learned Counsel's argument was, that the Court ought
not to interfere to enable a party to break his contract.
Mr. WATSON said that was his position. He did not
knoW where the matter was to stop if rules were to be
granted in cases like 'that before the Court. Take the
case of a cognovit. If a party had given a cognovit,
could be afterwards be allowed to say," I hare discovered
some new evidence, and I will go to a jury ?" He con-
ceded at once, that if the agreement had been obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation the rule must be granted, but
there was no pfetence whatever for such a statement.
The Learned Counsel then referred to the case of Blight
and Brewer, 3d " Dowling's Practical Cases," page 266.
That was a motion to set aside a cognovit, on the ground
that the consideration was illegal ; and, though 60/. had
been actually paid, the motion was refused.
The Loitb CHIEF BARON said that by the 9th of Anne,
cap. 14, all notes, bills, bonds, and other securities, in
respect of gambling transactions, were void.
Mr. WATSON Sind the present was not at all the case
contemplated by the statute, which meant all securities
given for money won at play.
The LORD CHIEF BARON observed that any security
substituted for the original one was in the same position.
Mr. WATSON said, that under a recent statute, such
securities were not actually void.
The LORD CHIEF BARON inquired if Mr. Wade was
the actual plaintiff ?
Mr. Watsom said he was the holder of the cheque. It
was alleged, on the other side, that a person of the name
of Davis, or orie of his partners, first won the money in
playing at hazard, and that the- plaintiff received it,
knowing such to be the fact. The defendant's attorney
had had the opportunity of examining his opponent's
briefs, and of ascertaining his case.
Mr. Baron PARSE said there could be no great hard-
ship upon the defendant if the money were paid, because,
if it were won at play, it could be recovered back again
under the 6th Will. IV.
'Mr: WATSON said the, Plaintiff was a shopkeeper in
the. Strand, where hill father had carried on business
before him. All the arbitration cases were entirely
aglinst the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court.
The case made out on the other side was not one which
called upon the Court to interfere. These were the state-
ments of Mr. Simeon and his attorney, and of Mr. Led-
bitter, who had been employed to procure the evidence ;
and five persons were produced who avowed themselves,
to be gamblers, not one of whom said that Davis was
present when loaded dice were used. Besides this, Led-
bitter had actually offered 5001. to Davis to appear as a
witness. "It was an important point that Davis said be
did not knoW the plaintiffs. He was alleged to hive been
the winner of the money, and to have had the cheques
subsequent 'to the' action but that also was denied.
Under all the circumstances of the ease, ho thought he
was entitled to ask that the rule might be discharged.
Mr. VALENTINE LEE followed on the same side.
Mr. MARTIN, who appeared for the defendant, said he
had been astonished at the propOsition of his Learned
Friend, that where an order had been made by consent
of the parties the Court could not, under any circum-
stances, have the least power to interfere, to let it aside.
The LORD.CHIEF BARON said there could be no doubt
as to the power.
Mr. MARTIN said the action was brought upon two
cheques' four years old. Immediately after it com-
menced every possible means was used to obtain evi-
dence. Ledbitter, the most competent man in the king-
dom, was employed for that purpose, and it was prove&
that he had done all in his power to effect the object.
The cause stood for trial on the 7th of
December; and on the evening of that day
important information was obtained. It was sworn that'
the evidence was not complete until the 13th, and the
moment it became so the defendant went before a Judge,
and paid the money into Court. If ever there was a fit
case for the interference of the Court, the present was
one. It was impossible that stronger • grounds could
exist. It was sworn most positively that, after
the :action was brought no less than five dif-
ferent people had seen these cheques in the
possession of Davis ; and as this was- denied by Mr.
Davis and Mr. Russell, his Learned Friend would have
the advantage of calling them on the trial to disprove the
statement. It appeared from all the affidavits,
that Mr. Davis and Mr. Russell went down to
serve the writs ; that they were together in
August, when one of the witnesses saw in their
possession two documents, which he says were
the cheques, but which they say were two I 0 U's. It
was impossible, he repeated, to make out a stronger case
for the interference of the Court, and he maintained that
the Court would be fully justified in granting the
ride. It would be a very injurious practice if
there were a peremptory rule excluding parties
from applying for a new trial on the discovery of fresh
evidence, under the circumstances of the case before the
Court.
Mr. BARSTOW followed on the same side.' He called
the attention of the Court to the important distinction
between a case in which the proceeding was in fiepi, and
a case in which anything had been done. In the pre-
sent instance the order of the Judge had not been acted
upon.
The COURT intimated that they would give their deci-
sion on Monday.

ACCIDENT OE TIIE RIVER Tw&MES.—On Friday
morning, as several deeply laden barges were driving up
the river with the tide, one of them got foul of the centre
pier of Westminster-bridge, and by the concussion a
young man, twenty years of age, named Henry Richards,
was thrown overboard and drowned.
, A eel .1 CAL., - .4 „