The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-12 00:00:00

ARCHES' COURT—Jan. 11.

This being the first doy of Hilary Term, tho Eccle-
siastical Courts were opened with the usual forms.

HARRISON V•. HARRISON.

This was originally a suit for nullity of marriage by
the wife against the husband in the Consistory Court,
against the decision of which an appeal is now entered.
In the course• of the proceedings in the Court below a
decree was issued, directing the husband to appear for a
certain purpose. This decree he disobeyed, and he was
pronounced in contempt ; but the case was still allowed
to go on, the arguments were heard, and judgment was
pronounced in favour of. the wife's pr7yer for nullity.
Against that definitive sentence this appeal is brought
by Mr. Harrison ; but for his wife, it is contended, that
a " verus contempt " has no right of appeal .against a
definitive sentence pronounced during his contumacy in
an inferior Court. On this point of law a lOng argument
took place.
The COURT postponed its decision.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 10.

IN RE MILES AND HADDON.

This day being appeinted for the final examination of
the bankrupts, who carried on a very extensive• business
as sugar-bakers and refiners, a number of creditors were
in attendance.

The bankrupt Miles was subjected to a long examina-
tion. The Commissioner ordered the case to be further
adjourned, in order that the special balance-sheet might
be amended? and some further inquiries made concerning
the disposition of certain property.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 11.
IN RE EDWARD WALI3Y SALOMONSON.
The insolvent in this ease was a stock-jobber, and had
dealt very extensively in what is called " time bargains."
He had become a bankrupt in the year 1837, and his
present debts and liabilities amounted to 20,487/.
He was opposed by Mr. Nicholls, on behalf of Louis
Stichest, a German tailor, . carrying on business in
Argyle-street, Regent-street, on the grounds of having
fraudulently contracted a debt of 70/. without any rea-
sonable
.expectation of paying it.
The insolvent was remanded until he should prepare
a fresh balance sheet.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MiINBIOA-HO USE.
Captain Fife, who is in the employment of the Gene-
ral Steam Navigation Company-, appeared upon a sum-
mons to answer, touching a deficiency in tour chests
of indigo, which were on the 21st of December last
shipped in the Ocean steamer by Messrs. Schaezler and
Co. of London, and consigned to Messrs. L. Meyer, and
Co., Rotterdam.—Sir P. LAURIE adjudicated.
The Bavarian Consul appeared, not against, but to
question the Captain of the Ocean, and the case excited
a great deal of attention.
Upon the part of Messrs. Schaezler, it was stated that
there had been shipped for Rotterdam, in the Ocean, four
chests of indigo, which were weighed before and after
they were eased for shipping; in order to make all secure
against plunder, a wrapper, with nails and other secu-
rities was placed upon each chest by the shipping agent,
Mr. Williams, who paid every attention to she subject.
A very considerable deficiency, however, took place in
the weight of the chests after their arrival at
Rotterdam. Now the complaint of deficient weight had
been made by a great number of merchants, and it was
in vain that they represented the matter to the officers
of the General Steam Navigation Company. They
therefore determined to introduce the subject • at the
Mansion-house, in order to have it publicly investigated
and exposed.
Sir. P. LAURIE asked`whether any suspicions were en-
tertained before the present case was brought to the
notice of the complainant.
The Bavarian Consul, stated that several complaints
had been made respecting deficiencies in the weight of
indigo sent from England to Rotterdam. It was rather
singular, he observed, that when the merchants shipped
goods by the Batavier: for Rotterdam, ,no deficiency
whatever took place. The complainants upon the pre-
sent occasion were 'amongst the largest shippers of in-
digo in London, and they of course felt strongly upon
the subject.
Sir P. LAURIE—Thig is a serious charge, but I do not
exactly know against whom it is. Is it against the Cap-
tain or against the. General Steam Navigation Company?
The Bavarian Consul—l cannot say that it is against
• either. The complaint is made in order to arrive at the
merits of this case, for the purpose of redressing a
but it is in vain we
haveserious
ap
pe
ivi ie
dl .
the
ee ups e n i
r6coto party,rDirectors
ot
the Steam Navigation
toI
Company. We could get no explanation of the matter
from them.
Sir P. LAURIE—You must prove to me the deficiency,
in order to enable me to act.
The Bavarian Consul stated, that in the particular in-
stance of the charge before the Magistrate' a deficiency
of 61 pounds weight was ascertained in three chests,of
indigo. which was calculated to be worth ss. a pound.
One of the partners in the house of Messrs. Schaezler
and Co. stated that it had, beyond a doubt, been ascer-
tained that the deficiency alluded to had taken place.
Witness complained of the deficiency to the Directors of
the General Steam Navigation Company, and saw Mr.
Brocklebank the Chairman, who said that all the neces-
sary inquiries should be made. No information, how-
ever, had been collected, and witness stated that if those
who were interested in the matter were kept in the
dark, an application should be made to the Lord Mayor
for a summons, in order to hare the affair sifted. The
house subsequently received a letter from the General
Steam Navigation Company, stating, in fact, nothing.
Sir P. LAURIE—The letter must have said something.
What was it?—The witness said the letter stated that
Captain Fife declared that ho had stowed the indigo
away under the cabin floor in such a manner that it was
impossible for any of the crew to get at it.
Mr. Pearce, the solicitor to the General Steam'Naviga-
tion Company, observed that the very statement in the
letter, which was described by the witness as being no-
thing, appeared to him to be very important indeed, in-
asmuch as it showed that.the- chests were not plundered
on board the steamer.
The Bavarian Consul said it was known that when the
Ocean steamer arrived at Rotterdam the goods on board
were, without the supervision of any body, thrown into a
lighter, and left there until the consignee pleased to send
for them.
Mr. Pearce said the admission just made showed that
whatever mischief was done was done without the know-
ledge or responsibility of the Company. The question
before Sir Peter Laurie did not affect the legal respon,-
sibility of the parties, and Captain Fife was present to
prove that the greatest care had been taken to protect
the property. He supposed there 'would be no objec-
tion to, take the evidence of the Captain.
The Bavarian Consul Said there' could not be the
slightest. There was, it should be distinctly understood,
no charge whatever against the Captain.
Captain Fife swore he saw the indigo stowed away
in such a manner as to be completely secure.
Sir I'. ,LAURIE—Had any of the crew access to the
chests ? Captain Fife—Certainly not ;it was quite im-
possible any one could have access to them. The hatches
were loel_ed up from the moment they were shipped until
they arrived at Rotterdam.
Mr. Pearce said that quite enough had been stated
to prove that the Captain and the Company were dis-
charged from all criminal responsibility. What had taken
place in the vessel was quite sutficieat to show that 'they
were completely exonerated.
Sir PETER LAURIE said it appeared to him that all
that had taken place on board the vessel was unobjec-
tionable ; but in the lighter, which seemed to him to be a
floating warehouse, there might not be the same sort of
security. He wished to know who employed the
lighter ?—The witness replied that the agents at Rot-
terdam employed the lighter.
Sir PETER LAURIE desired that some other case should
be brought before him.
Mr. Robert Lewis Surdot, of S. Helen's-place, stated
that in the middle of November; he shipped some chests
of indigo to Rotterdam, by the Columbine, another of
the steam-vessels belonging to the General Steam Navi-
gation Company. On the arrival of the vessel at Rot-
terdam, one of the chests was 15 or 18 lbs weight defi-
cient. The chest had come from the St. Katherine. Docks,
and Sir John Hall, when he heard of the defi-
ciency, desired that it should be brought back, and
stated that if it appeared that some unfair weans had
been resorted to at the docks to account for the deficiency,
he should make,good the deficiency and pay all the ex-
penses. The chest was brought back accordingly and
examined, and it was found that the wrapper was cut
and the chest had been forced open, and that the chest
had been sewed up with twine, which- Sir John Hall
found was foreign twine. Whether the mischief had
been done in the steamer or at Rotterdam could not be
ascertained, but no such thing had taken place on board
the tatavier, which was in the habit of unloading into a
warehouse, which was properly superintended. It
seemed, therefore, that the loss in the goods occurred on
board the lighter.
Mr. Kingsbury Jameson said that he could state
cases of a similar kind.
Sir P. Laurin; said that Captain Fife was, in his opi-
nion, exonerated from all blame. He should like to
know who were the proprietors of the lighter ?
Mr. Pearce said the (general Steam Navigation Com-
pany were quite ignorant of the ownership of the lighter

The Company, he assured thei'-Alderman,lhad made
every inquiry on the subject, and if merchants fotmcl
deficiencies occurring, they had their remedy.
Sir P. LAURIE-The Company certainly ought to
ascertain everything about this lighter.
Mr. Pearce—The frauds may take place in the ware-
houses of the consignees. They certainly do not take
place on board of the steamer, as the statements made
here fully prove.
The Bavarian Consul said it would have been very
desirable if the General Steam Navigation Company
had made proper exertions on the subject, and not com-
pelled a proceeding of this description to be adopted by
the merchants of London.

Sir P. LAURIE thought the notice of those matters in
the public press would speedily remedy the evil. The
authorities in Rotterdam would no doubt look into the
subject of complaint ; and the Company ought certainly
to have a lighter of their own at Rotterdam, in which
the property of the merchants would be properly se-
cured. He was glad, for the sake of the Company, that
the question had been brought forward, for the reports
were calculated to be highly injurious.
QUEEN-SQUARE.
Benjamin Profit, a man of colour, was charged with
endangering the life of Christopher Siddons, a shoemaker.
Siddons and another shoemaker, and their wives,
were taking some refreshment, at the bar of a public-
house in York-street, Westminster, on the preceding
evening, when the prisoner and another negro entered,
and commenced using very insulting an even disgust-
ing language to the women. Siddons interfered in their
behalf, and received in consequence' a blow from the
sledge-hammer fist of the first prisoner, which felled him
like an ox. Siddons afterwards left the house, accom-
panied by his wife and friends, but he was quickly fol-
lowed by the prisoner, who again struck him without
provocation. A scuffle then ensued, and ultimately
Siddons was thrown with great violence upon the pave-
ment, the back of his head striking the curb in failing.
He was taken up senseless. A certificate from a sur-
geon stated that Siddons had received a very severe
concussion of the brain, and he was not in a fit state
to appear. _ _ . .

Air: BURRELL ordered the prisoner to find securities,
himself in 80/, and two persons 401 each, to appear and
answer the charge a fortnight hence.
The prisoner being incapable of procuring such buil,
was committed.

SHORT WEIGHT OF UNION
BREAD.

At the Hertford Petty Sessions, last week, a case,
which had previously occupied the attention of the
Bench a considerable time at their last sitting, was again
brought before their notice, on a renewed application by
the assistant overseer of the parish of Hatfield, to take
proceedings against one of the contractors, who had en-
gaged to supply the union with bread, for sending out
bread of short weight ; as his contract was to supply
loaves of the weight of four pounds each, and such being
the description of loaves persons in the receipt of paro-
chial relief were ordered to receive.—The overseer said
his attention was called to the circumstance by a woman
who; had been ordered six four-pound loaves a
week, complaining that two of the loaves she re-
ceived were only three pounds each. He then de-
sired all the paupers when they got their bread,
to have it weighed. They did so, but not in the con-
tractor's shop, for they took it to a butcher's shop ad-
joining, who weighed it for them, ard found the loaves
generally from four to six ounces short of weight each
The overseer was prepared with evidence of these facts,
if the Bench would grant a summons against the party
to answer the charge.—The Bench considered the sub-
ject most attentively, but though they reprobated in strong
terms this cruel and heartless fraud on the poor, they said
the subject did not come within4heir jurisdiction, as there
(lid riqt appear to be any provision in the Bread Act to
punish persons for selling bread short of weight.
There was a penalty prescribed for persons using any
other than the usual avoirdupois weights, and individuals
might at all times depand to have the bread weighed in
the shop ; but if they did not do so, and got bread short
of weight, there was no proceedings which the Magis-
trates in Petty Sessions could adopt to punish for the
fraud:—.Herttord Reformer.

[The JuStices appear to us to have come to an erroneous
decision. They are not called upon to apply the Bread
Act, but the common law, or some statute directed
against fraud. The Bread Act requires the bread to be
weighed, and those who purchase it may either pay fur
less than 4 lb., or insist on having 4 lb. of bread. If the
seller uses false weights, that is a different kind of fraud,
and punishable by the common law, or some particular
statute. In the case of this contractor, he had not sold
41b. Joaves—he had committed a. fraud, according to the
statement, under a contract. The decision of the Ma-
gistrates, if generally acted on, as no doubt it will be,
goes to encourage cheating and plundering the poor. In
the eyes of county Magistrates, however, cheating and.
starving the poor must be venial offences, for of them all
the landowners are habitually guilty.]