The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-09 00:00:00

TILE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING-, MARCH 9, 1842

SPRIIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

PROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—As in former days of Tory Government,
Orange Jurymen now choose rather to "lay perjury
• upon their souls" by violating the oaths they took on
watering the Jury-box, to return verdicts according to
the evidence, than to desert, in the hour of peril, a few
indiscreetly zealous Protestants, who have manifested
their devotion to their religion by murdering some poor
lefenceless Papist peasant, whose only crime is that
ae professes the ling-proscribed creed, • and is there-
'ore deemed a fit victim for their murderous vengeance
Such is the sad exhibition which the Irish Journals
mave recently presented of the predominance of p2rti-
Annship over justice in the administration of the .laws.
i'he subject was brought before the House of Commons
last night by Mr. O'Connell ; and, as will be seen by
he report of its proceedings in another column, Lord
on the part of the Government, admitted the
;orrectness of the statement, and expressed his lingua-
41e,', surprise and regret -at the result of the trial,
:howing, as it did, the deplorable state of society
n the part of the country in which the occurrence took
-lave. The circumstances of the case, as fully substan-
tiated by the evicHice_ adduced for the prosecution, and
which was not shaken by the Counsel for the defence,
.;ere shortly these :—A. young man named M'Ardle, was
in a public-house at Rathfriland, in the county of
Down, on Christmas-day. quarrel arose between
a friend of his and an Orangeman present, and
he endeavoured to pacify the disputants. A party
,f men had been shooting at a mark with ball car-
ridge in the neighbourhood, and were in a barn drink-
.ng, with their arms regularly piled. A message came
0 them, stating the quarrel between IlPArdle's friend
and the Orangemen ; they immediately proceeded to
the public-house, and demanded that M:Ardle should i
turned out to them. He, however, contrived to
escape, but the house was " wrecked " M'Ardle
escaped to another public-house, but that also was
" wrecked," and the unfortunate victim was dragged out
from a limekiln, where he had taken refuge, and shot
lead. Several persons were brought to trial ; but. in
the face of the most point blank evidence of their having
prticipated in this deliberate murder, they were ac-
pitted ! Lord Eliot's frank and forcible condemnation
of the party spirit of the jury, which had frustrated the
course of justice and thus given encouragement to future
rinte, by inducing a hope of impunity in criminals, is
worthy of, commendation. Lordship's professions
if impartiality we believe to be sincere—his desire to
:lave the Government administered with a due respect to
..he laws, we have never questioned. Thee mix- l

COURT OF CHANCERY, Mardi 8.
THE CLARENCE RAILWAY V. THE HARTLEPOOL RAILWAY

COMPANY.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed to-day.
The matter came before the Court upon motion to dissolve an in-
junction granted by the Vice-Chancellor of England, restraining
the defendants from carrying their line across that of ti.e
plaintiffs.

The argurnenis had not concluded when his Lordship rose to
attend the House of Lords.

ROLLS' COURT, March 8.
Short causes came before his Lordship in the early part of
the day, after which the part-heard motion of

JOHNSON V. TODD
was resun-ied, and engaged the Ccurt for the remainder of the
day. It was a motion to set aside the verdict found on the
trial of an issue, directed in this cause by this Court, and for anew
trial. The issue had been tried before Mr. Justice Wight man in
August. last at Newcastle-upon-T3ne, and was to ascertain the
next of kin of Robert Marshall, who had acquired a large pro-
perty in the West Indies, and at his death in 1820 bequeathed,
with the r xeepiion of some legacies, all his property to persons
ho, it afterwards appeared, had died during his life-time. As
the next of kin became, in consequence, the persons
entitled to the property, it became necessary to
find out who they were. The Master's report found the pla!n-
tiff the next of kin by the mother's side ; exceptions to that
report were taken, and an issue was directed. '1 ho J ury found
that Peter Marshall was the next of kin of the testa or Hobert,
at the time of his death.

.ortune for Ireland is, that no such administration
be supported by the Orangzmen, who can always
lefeat the designs of such a Government, unless they be

The argulnents in the case arc likely to engage to-morrow (this
clay) also.

.ontrolled and restrained by vigilance.

VICE.-671114.NCELLORS' COURT, _March 8.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.
IGLVDC.ES V. BRA NEIL.

STANDARD.—In the llonse of Commons NIT. Ftr-
rand replied to the defence of the mill-owners in a style
ao less bold, forcible, and triumphant, than that of his
niginal charge. He showed that the disclaimers of the

The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed this
morning, and occupied the Court during the whole of the day.
, (Before VICE-CHANCELLOR KNIGHT BRUCE.)
PARKER v. MARCN4NT.
his Honour delivered judgment in this cause, which came
before the Court on further directions. His Honour said that
the questions in the case were upinn the will and codicil, dated,
respectively, in 1829 and 1830, of Mr. Parker, who died
in the year 1837. With respect to the codicil he was
of opinion that the legacies given by it were general pecuniary
legacies, payalde in the ordinary way out of the general personal
estate, and not otherwise, and that the legacy claimed by Ann
Rolf, under the bequest to " the other servants" of 50C/. each,
was due. She was admitted to have been under that descrip-
tion when the codicil was made, and the words of the bequest
did not import that the service was to continue until the tes-
tator's death. 'I he first point upon tl:e will was, whether the
testator had disp ised of the beneficial interest in the general
residue of his personal estate, or whether he had so far died
intestate. That turned upon the meaning to be attributed to
the words " g oils, chattels, and effects," having regard to the_
pu ition in which they were found in the will, and having re-
gard also to the whole c ,ntents of the will. The words,
goods, chattels, and effects contained in the bequest wer4. suf-
ficiently large to include anti pass the absolute interest in the
whole personal estate; and it was incumbent on those who
contended for a limited construction to show that a rational
interpretation of the will required a depatture front that wh:ch
ordinarily • and prima facie was the sense and meaning of the
words. The te-tator, after diret-ting the paymt nt of his debts
andproperty, which his wife takes
alife is
concludedlautied his%villihus:—" And I do further
c d o fli
give and hequeath to my said wile, all my jewels, plate, linen,
ns, eatriage, winos, and oiler goods, chattels, and effects,
as her own goods, chattels, and effec s. for user, and
I do hereby constitute her, my said wile, sole executrix
of this my ssilhe This was the whole of th.s clause now in
;
q and firs, that it did not eon-
tauieus
anytiol
limitation rl na t
ins
pointofbste
locality
.ry
secondly, that the larger
, l
and generic terms, 6, goods, chattels, and effects" followed the
Specific terms, jaaais, plate, linen,"
s &c., and were the last
of gi
tibseenumeratedgu nt part
j of t
the ollit, ;
or
t i
that there was net in any
codicil, any disposition or
cares-ion ilenotiitg a belief in tl.e testator's mind that there was
an} thing not expt es,ly given to some other person, which the
cis
iinl the!y,
clause in question would not carry to the wife ; fourthly, that
tLe gift lo her was followed by his being appointed soh, execu-
tor in that part of the will where the dis,,osi sun of the re-
venue, if any, would be expected to be found. These considera-
tions wese only met by a rule, certainly of bequent, but not of
universal application, confirming such a general term as "goods,
chattels, and effects," following and specify ing a part cular enu-
meration of artic'es ejusdum generis. His Honour, after
citing several eases, said he conceived that he was justified in
the present ease at deviating t ont the general rule, and there-
fore he could not accede to the argument against the wife's
right to the residue. The next question was, whether the
ph.iutifi was sight iu contending that the testator's debts and
• :
pecuniary debts were payable, not in the ordinary course, but
cut of the ready Money, securities for money, and monies in
the funds. 'I he gcner.l rule, which was in this in-
stance against the plaintEs claim, must apply, unless upon
the will "and codicil, or either of them, a contrary
intention was rnatilest.. Th firt e s passage in the will made
the estUte..iable as'equitable issct to the payment; of all debts
which otherwise would not liave been primarily or purl possu,
it it had been- rrsonally tint Specifically bequeathed. Looking
at the whole will, at the particular part of it in which these
legacies were found, and, at the language of the final bequest to
the testator's w ife, he was of opinion that there was to he found
in the instrument an intention that the ready money, securities
fur money, arid monies in the fund should be primarily—if not
ro'ely—charged with these legacies, and he must
(leotard aceardin
g-Y The next question was, as td
the meaning of the term "ready money." The con-
tention had been whether certain sums mentioned in
the Master's report wr3re or were not included in that term.
There was a sum described in the report as 6,0-241. Os. lOd.,
balance clue to the testator at his death, its the hands of Messrs.
Hobhouse and Co., bank Bath, andof 16 6151
bankers, at another , .
15s. Id described
in the report to be at that period in the
hands of Messrs. Child bankers,in London. His
oral Co.,
Honour, after examining what was the meaning of the words
"ready money" in their ordinary:sense, said that in case it
included the money at the banker's, which w s to be made
available fur any emergencies which might arise, as to the
chattel leasehold property,l •of • 'that his Honour was opinion a
case should be tried for the purpose of settling that question.
The question in the case would be, whether the leasehold proper-
ties passed under the will to Sir Timothy, and Sir John Shelley.
The case was then ordered to stand in the paper, to be men-
tioned upon the minutes on this day

-rink system— all proceeded from mill-owners in a few
,!reitt' towns, where, from the competition fur labourers,
ind the rivalship of shopk( epers, the system could not
possibly' be worked ; or from persons who had used
tlie precaution of putting the names of brothers,
-yr sons, or servants, over the truck-shops, He' re-
marked that the system of rent truck had not been
Acnied, and then proceeded to verify to the letter every
charge that he had made, by documents, which he
oiihred to show to any Member that might wish to see
them, and oared .to prove his facts on oath before
a Committee, if the mill-owners would call for one.
Among other proofs Mr. Ferrand produced a sample
of the paste work cotton of which he had previously
Token. mentioning that he had sent similar samples
to Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel. We too have
been fortunate enough to obtain a sample, purchased in the
ordinary way at a shop in Liverpool, and its utter worth-
lessness passes belief. At the first view it appears a
elo.ely woven, fine, and smooth piece of cloth ; but let a
drop of water fall upon it, and you have, as far as it is
wetted; if not a hole, a piece of hungry net-work,
that looks just like a hole at a yard':; distartte. We
are confident that two-fifths of the weight of the

articles are supplied by flour-paste, and by- flour-paste
only. We hopQ that some one will submit to experiment
a larger sample than that which we have obtained. Now
it is impossible to conceive any purpose of utility to
which such stuff can be applied. It will not wear,
and in the washing-tub it must dissolve. It can
ix.l only " male to sell," like Peter Pindar's razors—
that k made to cheat. But when such articlos find
(heir my into foreign markets, is it surprising
:hat English goods- lose their character? It may be
answered, that the stuff is sold at a low price ; but v. hat
this ? \\That is really of no value is not worth any
price, and the purchaser is cheated if he pay tile lowest
unagi ,able amount of coin for it. lint this stuff is pur-.
chased, er it would not be manufactimd. The cheat-
ing mill-owner sill it to the cheating foreign mer-
chant—we hope IM•lish merchants have nothing to

do with it—the cheating foreign merchant sells it
at a profit to the cheating foreign retailer, who sells
it at a profit to the simple purchaser, ..ho pays the
accumulated price to the conspiracy of knaves, dis-
covers that he has been cheated, and then swears that
he will- never again have anything to do with English
good,. - It is the same, more or less, in other manufae,
turi?s, as Mr. Ferrand proved ; and thus it, is that .‘e are
losing market after market. But the cup of villairy
seems to be nearly full. Mr. Fieldcn, arta other honest
manufacturers, have already begun to acquiesce so Mr.
Ferrand's views, and more will folloW.

• CUU BIER—lt is really refreshing to sea the sound
sense of the country reacting everywhere against the
demoniacal furies of the Anti-Corn-law League Mo-
'wits, and in favour of the equitable scheme for the
arrangement of Corn-laws propounded by Sir' Ito.
bzrt • Peel. For this we are first and foremost 'in-
debtcd to the eminent ability, the unalterab!e equani-
laity, and the exemplary moderation of tone and
argument with -which the subject was approached
and disetuss:A in all its phases by, above all
we may be allimed to say, the Premier and Mr. Glad-
stone (the Vice-President of the Board of Trade), by
whom he was so admirably seconded ;' by them, because
on them fell the brunt of the debates and the ar-
duous to k of.. arbitrating betwixt contending interests.
Let us. not, ,However, be unjust towards one of those
interests, and WO mean of course the agricultural. If
the task of Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone
were arduous beyond description—if they had
to encounter a storm of opposition; a virulence of lan-
guage; a defiance of demeanour; threats, undisguised, of
appeal to popular vengeance within the house; and with-
out its doors to brave the outrages of hired rullian mobs of
the Anti-Corn. law League, which with true ihagnanimity
,of mind, inspired by the conscientious convictions of duty
and patriotism, they could afford to pass over with the faith-
ful forbearance of Christians, who should say with the
great Founder of our Faith, " Father, forgive them, for
they know not what they do"—not the less arduous
was the task, not the less commendable the self-com-
mand, not the less exemplary the extraordinary pa-
tience and unupbraiding quiescence under insult, in-
jury, calumny, and vituperation of the great agricul-
tural interests daily slander( din Parliament, the
Press, and in public meetings. One only man conde-
scended to answer the pestiferous crew of leaguers and
libellers—one only ; and it is now confessed that even
in the small measure of retribution so justly dealt out by
Mr. Ferrand, no man has deserved so well of truth and
his country. The standing provocation has keen, not of
days, not of months only, but of years. The worthy
Member for Knaresborough, in one onslaught only, has
rooted the host of liars and slanderers in a day.

SECONDARIES'
COURT, March 8.
The Court sat this day in the Court of Queen's Bench,
Guildhall, and disposed of a few uninteresting cases.

SHERIFFS' COURT, March 7.
CRISI. CON.—WALLIS V. FRANCIS.
This was an action for criminal conversation.
The record set forth that the defendant, William Francis,
"contriving and wrongfully, wickedly, and unju tly, intending
to injure the plaintiff, and to deprive him of the comfort, fellow-
ship, society, aid, and assistance of Louisa, the wife of the
plaintiff, and to alienate and destroy her affection for the plain-
tiff," did on, Stc., to the damage of the said William Wallis, of
ten thousand rounds.
The defendant suffered judgment to go by default, and a writ
of inquiry to assess the amount of compensation due to the
plaintiff wts appointed to be executed to-morrow (this day)
before Mr. Under-Sheriff Ilurchell, but in order to avoid ex-
posure of the circumstances which gave rite to the action, and
are said to be of en extraordinary character, the affair has been
settled, and the suit was withdrawn yesterday afternoon, by
Messrs. Green and Co., of Lincoln's Inn-fields, the plaintiff's
solicitor.

INSOLVENT _DEBTORS' COURT, March 8.

RE BARNETT JOSEPH.

The insolvent in this ease, who was a member of the Jewish
persuasion, and who described himself as a metal stripper and
dealer in metal, carrying on business in Horsham, and at No.
50, Middlesex-street, Aldgate. His petition was supported
by Mr. N iche,lls, and opposed in person by two creditors
named Peid and Raybold.
William Raybold stalled that the insolvent had been in the
h,bit of pierchasiee g ,ode fre.m him fur ready money, and some
time ago called and looked out gouda to elm amount of 471., for
vtltich it was agrecd to pay upon delivery, but the insolvent re-
ceived them during his ( llaybold's) absence.
The insolvent, in his examination by the Court, said that
upon the day after receiving the goods from Ray boli he sod
them to another Jew, named Lazarus, for the same price at
wh eh they were purchased, and paid over the amount to Aaron
Benjamin, his father-in-law, on account of a bill of exchange
he held for 491. Mr. Raybold caused him to be given into
custody on the charge of obtaining the goods fraudulently, when
he was committed for trial at the sessions •at the Old
'and acquitted last Wednesday, Before getting the
on the part of Reid arose from .gßoldesy,f,orn Raybold, he executed a bill of sale in favour of a
person named Belton, on account of money lent, but never
told tither of the opposing creditors of the fact.
similarv,,erertiaLtoutrel:el.y
strong, owing to the d.te
Mr. Nicrioi.Ls having addressed the Court on behalf of the
insolvent,
Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS said, in the case of Reid the
s oorta o
apposition(a oppositionr nearly
y
len-oplapwosrnags creditor, got his goods, and
circum-
stances
roTuhil
g
at which the debt vas contracted ; however, with respect to
Possessed of a bill for 49/. ;
the transaction with Raybold, he thought it as clear a case of
fraud and dishonesty as ever came under the consideration of
with the proceeds pays the amount of the bill. It was a clear case
Ilaybold, for the •
of defrauding lir
dwh purpose of making good
the claim if a relative, an ' en the Court came to pronounce
judgment, it would order such a remand as might mark a
stron. sense of such dishonest and fraudulent conduct on the
the Cioosoulivto.
ot Hviesoftattloretb-
.
part of the insolvent.
.
d he was n t
Mr. Nicironts sai . 0 aware that any circum-
stances had transpired during h
t e case to induce an adverse
judgment. Had lee the least apprehension of such he should
have cross-examirwil the opro i..g creditor.
The Lear. ed CHIEF COMMISSIONER said, although such
a course after the announcement by the Court of the course in.
tended to be adopted was irregular, yet he would allow the
opposing creditor to be recalled to the witness box.
Ray bold was then cross-examined_
by Ml. Nicriou.s, and
said he had been himself tried at the ad Bailey on criminal
charges. Could not say how often, or what were the subjects
o the indictments. He might have been tri. d two or three
times ; and once it was for being possessed I.f some Govern-
ment sores, which were marked with the broad arrow.
Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS said that the insolVent
had been tried on criminal charges, so had the opposing cre-
ditor, and he would put one fact as indicative of character
against the other. Still that slid net in the s'ighte t deg, e.
alter the opinion he originally formed, that it was a trans ictiqn
by which goods were fraudulently obtained from one party for
the purpose of paying the thbt contracted whir another more
favoured.
The insolvent was then o tiered to be remanded to prison
until such time as the Learned Chief Commissioner returned
from circuit, when he would give judgment. .

M. Grtithi?r, 1-m iker atAngers; who was lattiy
sentenced by the Correctional Tribunal of the town to twii
years' imprisonment for b:ea,...11 of confidente, was on the 26th
ult. di dared bankrupt, and condemned to another detention of
the former period.
twa years, which, hordver, merges in

LAW INTELLIGENCE. t: CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
HO :51,2 OF LORDS, March 8. j OLD COUR7'.
Tne House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Lords present j George Willes, 42, agent ; Wm. Saint, 26, weaver ; Wm.
were, Lord Brougham, Lot d C. ttenham, Lord Cainrbe.l, Clarks32,
the"aver ; James Davis, 33, harnesF-maker ;• and
Earl of Sheffie:d, and the Earl of Itoseberry. George Lloyd,' 22, uphobterer, were indicted for stealing three
CLARK v. SIIITIL bills of exchange, and half a 5/. bank-note, the property of
This was. an appeal from the decision of the Court of Chan- Jacob Ruffy ; and George Cunningham, 26, fringe maker, and
eery in Ireland. Ile only question in the case way, whether George lAA were indicted for feloniously forging and utter-
a lease that had been granted was warranted by the leasing ibig an endorsement to a bill of exchange, with intent to de-
power contained in the settlement made on the marriage of fraud Charles Munro Johnson.
Thomas and Mary Palm, r. Upon the case first coming Mr. Bodkin prosecuted, and Mr. Phillips defended the pri-
on before the Court of Chancery in Ireland, a case was directed soners Lloyd and Cunningham; Mr. Payne appeared for the
by that Court for the opinion of the Con' tof Common Pleas, other prisoners.
and that Court, after argument, decided in favour of the lease, The case was very complicated, and possessed no features of
the Loid Chancellor of Ireland,
a;:ting Olson that judgment, general interest. A-robbery had been committed on the pre-
cohfirmed the validity of the lease, and from tha.; decision the raises of the prosecutor on the 26th of December last, when
present appeal was brought. several bills of exchange were stolen. Shortly after the rob-
Their Lordships, at the conclusion of the arguments, post bery the bills were found in the possession of the prisoners,
ported their judgment. who were attempting to negotiate them to Mr. Johnson, the
CARTER V. SIR. W. H. PALMER—JunumEN* endorsements Waving been forged subsequently to the robbery.
Lord Co-I'l'EN isA NI gave judgment. nt in this case, affirming the Mr. Pliswes and Mr. PAYNE having ad ressed the Jurydecision of the Court below, with costs. for their clients,
THE SCOTTISH UNION INSURANCE COMPANY V. THE 3tAßQuis The RI:coal-4m summed up the evidence, and the Juty re-
OF QUELNSEURY. . turned a verdict of Gu lty against William Saint, William
Lord COTTENHA 31 also gave judgment in this appeal, affirm- Clark, James Davis, and George Lloyd, and acquitted the
ing the decision below. other prisonerr.—Sentence deferred. •
Mlles, Lloyd and Cunningham were then indicted for fe-
loniously forging and uttering an endorsement to a bill of
exchange, with intent to defraud Charles Munro Johnson.
The hill in question was the one alluded to- in the above
transaction, and the forgery idiputed to the prisoners was the
placing the name of Mr. Ruffey upon it, when it was taken to
Mr. Wood.
The evidence was the same as in the foregoing case, and
Ruffey prove 1 that h.s name upon the bill was a forgery.
Mr. PA YNE again addressed the Jury. on behalf of the pri-
sone..s, and
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against them all.
The RECORDER then ordered the prisoners to be planed at
the bar, and after a suitable admonition sentenced them to be
tr nsported beyond the seas for the term of 15 years.

ASSIZE.: INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIR CUI T.—Chelmsford, Miirch 8.
The commission for the county of Essex was opened en
Monday, and this morning both Courts proceeded to bu iness.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON in the Crown Court, and Baron
GURNEY at Nisi Psius. There are ninety causes set down
Co. trial, four of which are spoeial juries. The calendar con-
lains the nacres of seventy prisoners, and the offences are of
a serious description. _ _

CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Baron GURNEY and a Common Jury. )
BURTON V. HENSON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought, under rather curious circum-
stances, to recover compensation from the defendant, for hav-
ing assaulted the plaintiff, and with violence ejected him from
the church of North Weald in this cuinty.
Mr. Sergeant Shea and M. Peacock were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. 1 he*i,er and Mr. Ma sh for the defendants.
he LearnecrSERGEANT, in his address to the Jury said,
that his client was an aged man, and he had been forty years
parish clerk • o North Weald, and he now sought compensation
from the defendants, or.e of whom was the churchwarden, and
the other the overseer of that parish, for having, without any
just cause, outi aged his feelings, in the face of the parishioners,
by wham he had been known and respected for so many years, by
causing him to be violently ejected froalt he church. The Learn( d
Sergeant proceeded to say, that the office filled by the plaintiff
was a freehold office, from which no one could remove him
,:ithout going through the neces ary forms required by the
law ; but it appeared that in this kstance the Rector had
thought fit to dismiss him and appoint another person in his
pi ace, and upon the plaintiff attempting to take his place in
the church, a policeman was brought by the defendants, and
he was publicly removed in the presence of a number of re-
si,ectable inhabitants who hid come to attend divine worship.
The Learned Gentleman then called. witnesses, and after
long speeches from Counsel, as well as a tolerably long sum •
teing up from the Judge, the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, One Farthing.