The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-19 00:00:00

IMPORTANT DECISION.

The room was then, for the third time, cleared, and the Com-
mittee having again deliberated for some time, the parties were
re.admitted, when
The CHAIRMAN read the following resolution :—" The Com-
mittee having had before them an agreement entered into between
the promoters of this Bill and the London and Birmingham
Railway Company, the effect of which would be, that
this projected line of railway would be made over to
the London and Birmingham Railway Company, and
having further had before them an agreement between the
London and Birmingham Railway Company and N. C. Newdegate,
Esq., M.P. for North Warwickshire, covenanting that a portion of
this line of railway should not be executed, and that epplioatioa
should be made next year to Parliament for a Bill to authorise the
construction of a different line of railway, the Committee con-
sider that the line of railway proposed by the promoters of the
Bill could not be made, and, therefore, arc unanimously of opinion
that the preamble of this Bill is not proved."
The Committee then adjourned.

GROUP X.
CAMBRIDGE AND LINCOLN LINE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Mr. George Abbot, carriers' agent at Stamford, deposed as to the
quantity of wool carried to and from Stamford to London at pre-
sent, the expense of transit, and the lessening of the expense, if the
proposed line should be made.
Mr. Robert Maultby, wool buyer at Bourne and at Spalding,
gave evidence similar to that of the last witness.
Several other witnesses were examined to the same effect, but no
new feature was elicited, and the Committee adjourned at the
usual hour.

GROUP Z.
The Committee to whom this group was referred re-assembled to-
day at twelve o'clock, in Room 17, the Right Hon. Mr. Clive in
the chair.

THE GREAT WESTERN (DUBLIN AND
GALWAY).
The CHAIRMAN said that, in consequence of some observations
that had been thrown out yesterday that this line had not met with
the approbation of the Board of Ordnance, he had called at their
office, and it was their intention to send down a solicitor to-day for
the purpose of having certain clauses inserted in the Bill. If their
wishes were complied with in this respect, no opposition would be
offered by them to the proposed line.
Mr. John Dl'Mullan, examined by Mr. ROWE, said that he was
secretary to the Grand Canal Company. There was a portion of
land belonging to the Canal Company lying generally on the line.
That land returns about 3001. a year to the Company. It is let
out for farming purposes. There is also a quantity of it used as a
highway, and there is a turnpike on this road which yields a return
of 100/ to 2001. yearly. That land is often crossed by the pro-
posed railway. The canal is crossed by a swinging bridge near
Ballycotnmon. He considered a much better line could be formed
along the banks of the canal. A section of the land had been
prepared.
The Committee gave it as their opinion that no plan or section
could be put in as evidence, but any question relative to the land
referred to might be asked.
The witness, in continuation, said that a ground plan had been
submitted to Mr. Cubitt, and he was of opinion that there was suf 1.
cient space on this land for a double line of railway.
Mr. ROWE said that he would produce the plan, and thus set
the matter at rest.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee had already decided that
the plan could not be produced.
The witness then proceeded—He had made a calculation along
with Mr. Cubitt, and the result of that calculation was that a line
from Naas to Ballinasloe could be laid down at a much less ex-
pense than the proposed one He had those calculations in his pos-
session.
The Committee would not allow the witness to enter into these
calculations.
The witness was familiar with the general traffic of the country,
as well as with the traffic on the canal. The tables of traffic put
forth by the promoters of the line were grossly exaggerated. Had
heard no complaints from any one but Mr. Williams with respect
to the general management of the canal, but has received the
approbation of the principal people who used the canal for the trans-
-1 mission of their goods. There were two very gross instances
of misstatement in the printed tables of traffic put forth by the
promoters. With respect to the amount of corn, grain, &c., for
the fourteen days during which the observations were made, it was
stated that 2,338 tons passed between Edenderry and Philips-
town. When this statement appeared enumerators were placed
along the line by the Canal Company, and during the
fortnight they were taking observations, only 10 tons of grain
passed along the road. He had every reason to believe that this
was a correct statement. Between Galway and Tullamore, the
largest mileage traffic would yield a return of 2021. 10s. per mile.
Cross.examined by Mr. MURPHY—The Canal Company were
possessed of the land by their Act of Incorporation. The
lands were for the purposes of the canal. Could not
say by what authority the Company let out any portion
of their land for agricultural purposes. The land re-
ferred to was six miles east of Tullamore. The Canal
Company were not landholders in any other capacity than for the
purposes of the canal. The turnpike.road was along the bank of
the canal. He heard Mr. Pym's evidence. It was not a
fair representation to say that a great portion of the
traffic which ought to go by the canal (if it were
properly managed) went now by the high road. Did not hear
Lord Ciancarty say so in his evidence. It was no misrepresenta-
t;on to say that 120,000/. due by the Canal Company to the Go-
vernment had been compromised for 10,0001. Did not know that
Mr. Williams was the first person whe put a steam-boat on the
Shannon. His calculation was made from Edenderry to Philipstown.
Re-examined by Mr. ROWE—The 120,000/. alluded to was put
in the hands of the Canal Company by trustees for the poor, and
they merely acted in that capacity in reference to that money.
Mr. C. Bagot, examined by Mr. Rowe—His father was for many
years superintendent of the traffic on the Grand Canal. He as.
tinted him for several years, and during that period he had a good
opportunity of becoming acquainted with the traffic by the canal.
He had no hesitation in saying that the statements in the printed
paper that had been put forth by the promoters of the proposed line
were grossly exaggerated. When his attention had been called to these
gross mis-statements, he caused, at the instance of the Grand
Canal Company, enumerators to be placed along the line on which
the estimates of the promoters were taken, and instead of 2,338
tons of grain, which had been assumed as the traffic along that por.
tion of the line, only ten cart loads of grain passed. The average
of a cart load was rather less than a ton. The estimates for the
whole line of railway, of all kinds of merchandise, were calculated
by the promoters at 1,0091. per mile. According to the esti-
mates of tha Canal Company, it appeared that it was only 6051.
per mile. He thought that the amount set down by
the promoters for the traffic of private carriages and
dogs was a very enormous charge. The total number of passengers
by all conveyances, if full, only amounted by their calculation to 1
67,000, and in the traffic table of passengers by the promoters 1
it was set down at 102,269.
Mr. ROWE here intimated to the Committee that the solicitor
for the Board of Ordnance was in attendance to make a commu-
nication.
Mr. Higgins, solicitor for the Board of Ordnance, stated that he
was instructed by that Board to state to the Committee that they had
no objection to the proposed line as far as Tullamore; but he was
desired to request the Committee to stop that part of the line which
passed through Athlone and Philipstown, both of which were the
most important military depots which they had in Ireland.
The CHAIRMAN inquired whether the promoters were willing to
insert a clause to provide for the rights of the Board of Ordnance ?
Mr. MurePtiv, on the part of the pron:oters, engaged that a
clause should be inserted that no land would be taken at those
places without previously obtaining the sanction of the Board of
Ordnance. A draft of such clause would be submitted to Mr.
Higgins to.morrow.
Mr. Charles Bagot's examination was then continued. He
gave similar evidence on the traffic along the canal as the last wit.
ness, and after being subjected to a long cross- examination by Mr.
Talbot,
Mr. Gavin, An Alderman of Dublin, was called. He was a car-
rier, and though he sent a large quantity of corn, meal, cattle,
and sheep by the canal, he never had cause for complaint, either as
to the rate of charge or delay in the carriage.
Mr. Hannington, engineer, was then examined by Mr. J AMES—
He had been examined before the Committee on Standing
Orders relative to the proposed line. There were a great
many errors in the levels as laid down upoh the
sections made out by the promoters. In some places
there was an error of 35 feet in the levels. At 20 7.8 of
the line the error was 20 feet. The sections showed embankment
where it should be cutting. In North.place the surface of the ground
was 22 feet higher than what it was described on the section. In
North.place there was an error of ten feet of cutting ; in other
places there were errors of nine, twelve, seven, eighteen, and
twenty feet, the ground being either so much higher or lower,
either a cutting or an embankment, from the sections as described
in the datum line.
Considerable time was occupied by this witness in giving his
answers. He gave each answer' from a section he had before him,
which he previously required to measure with rule and compasses.
When he had got so far as forty miles on the line, the Speaker was
announced to be at prayers, and the Committee adjourned till twelve
o'clock to.morrow.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII,June 18.
(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.)
RICHELO V. DOWLE AND RICHBEL.
Mr, Eaton appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Turner for the
defendants.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a widow, against
the defendants for an excessive and illegal distress. The first
count in the declaration was, that a greater sum had been dis.
trained for than was due. The second, that a greater amount
of property had been distrained by them than was sufficient to
satisfy even the amount of the plaintiff's claim. The third, that
legal notice of distress had not been duly left at the plaintiff's resi-
dence. This fact was admitted on both sides, that the plaintiff
took a first floor in Lichfield-street from the defendant Dowle, at
the rate of 221. per annum. It was further admitted that in the
first instance the apartments had been taken by the year, the
rent payable quarterly, but the whole question of excessive
distress turned upon the fact, whether or no a subsequent arrange.
ment had not been entered into to pay the rent monthly, and
rent the apartments on the same kind of tenancy. The plaintiff's
daughter admitted that she paid smaller sums than a quarter's rent,
51. 10s., but swore she did so without prejudice to quarterly pay.
ments, and because the payment of small sums was more convenient
to her. The defendants brought forward a witness, who swore
that Miss Richelo had agreed with the defendant to pay the
rent monthly. The sum alleged to be due by the plaintiff was 91.
25., that claimed by the defendant was 121. 13s. 6d. The goods
distrained upon were alleged by the plaintiff to be worth 401.,
though they were sold for 13/. The plaintiff could not
by evidence support the allegation, either that an exces-
sive balance of rent was claimed, for she said she had
lost the landlords's receipts, of that the sale of the
goods by Richbel was Irregular. Witnesses for the
defendant swore they left at the plaintiff's house the usual legal
notice, the plaintiff's witnesses that they had seen no such notice.
By the entries in the defendants' book, it appeared that the latter
sums paid by the plaintiff corresponded in amount with monthly pay-
ments,which the Learned Judge in his charge said was strong evidence
of the fact of the subsequent agreement for monthly payments. The
damage claimed by the plaintiff was the amount of value between
91. 25., the rent alleged by her to be due, and 391., the real value
of the goods which had been seized on.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 18.
Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice ERLE, and Special
Juries.)

O'CONNELL V. PAYNE AND OTHERS.
This was an action for libel, in which William John O'Connell
was plaintiff, and the registered proprietors of the Morning Post
defendants.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Percival Banks appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Boothby for the de-
fendants.
Te the libel set forth in the declaration the defendants pleaded
the general issue, which in this action amounts to not guilty,
putting in issue two facts for the jury—first, the publication;
secondly, whether the matter published was or was not libellous.
The alleged libel was as follows
44 CONFUSION IN 1116 LONDON REPEAL CAMP.--Mr. W. J.

O'Cnntll, in,-pector of the London repeal wardens (meaning the
p'aintitT William Jahn O'Conne:l), is at daggers drawn with the
London yepealers;_ their quarrels (meaning the quarrels of the

pLiinliff and the London rcpealars) threaten, as far as London
is concerned, to strangle repeal an 4 destroy the bright vision of a
native Pirliarne.it in College-green, which the night dreams of the
Hibernian sojourners in the classic neighbourhoods of
St. Giles's and Drury lane created. The inspector-gene-
ral (meaning the plaintiff), indignant at his authority (mean_
ing the authority of the plaintiff) being questioned by his
(meaning the plaintiff's) followers, has in revenge closed the St
George's ward, and suspended St. John's-wood ward. The cause
of the dispute is the payment of a weekly salary to the inspector.
general (meaning the plaintiff), while he (meaning the plaintiff)
is unavoidably compelled to absent himself from their meeting,
(meaning the meetings of his followers being London repeaters)
on all days, Sundays excepted. An organ of the London re-
f eaters explains the affair (meaning the affair as regards the plain-
tiff in his relations with the London repeaters) in the following
words One of the reasons why the London repeaters object to
the payment (which objection has called forth the conduct com-
plained of) of W. J. O'Connell (meaning thereby the payment
to the plaintiff of a weekly salary as inspector general of the
London repeal wardens) is, that he (meaning the plaintiff) is com-
pelled to be out of the way all the week, fearing an arrest, and
can only be seen out on Sundays. He (meaning the plaintiff) has
been living with (meaning thereby cohabiting with) a lady of the
name of Moss, who entrusted him (meaning the plaintiff) with
money to pay bills to the tune of .200/. or 3001., and he (meaning
the plaintiff), instead of paying the bills, otherwise employed
the c :sh (meaning by the cash the money so entrusted to the
plaintiff) for the purpose of paying the aforesaid bills. She
(meaning the lady of the name of Moss) wishes to arrest him
(meaning the plaintiff), in the hope that the association (meaning
the Loyal National Repeal Association) will pay the money (inclin-
ing the money entrusted to the plaintiff by the said lady, named
Moss, to pay the aforesaid bills, and otherwise employed by the said
plaintiff), and save him (meaning the plaintiff) from disgrace. All
this he (meaning the plaintiff) publicly acknowledged at the Sr.
George's ward, and taunted Mr. Dwane with knowing his (mean.
ing the plaintiff's) embarrassments, and wishing to increase them.
He (meaning the plaintiff) also boasted that Mr. O'Connell would
pay the sum for him (meaning the plaintiff), but he (meaning the
plaintiff) was too proud to ask him; he (meaning the plaintiff)
stated last Monday, that if twelve wards declared against him
(meaning the plaintiff), he (meaning the plaintiff) would imme.
diately close them. The inspector-general (meaning the plaintiff)
repudiates these slanderous attacks upon his character, and attri-
butes them to the vindictive jealousy of a disappointed few.' Non
nabis est componere files! It is not our business to settle disputes
(meaning thereby it is not the business of the Morning Post news-
paper to settle disputes); and a pretty quarrel it is (meaning
thereby the quarrel between the plaintiff' and the London repeaters,
from whose organ the slanderous attacks upon the character of the
said plaintiff are quoted) !"
After hearing Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd,
Mr. Justice ERLE summed up; and after some five-and-twenty
minutes' consideration, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff—
Damages 501.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice PArrEsoN and Mr Baron PLATT.)
.Tames Holt, 26, was indicted for the manslaughter of Wil-
liam T, mple.
The prisoner, who is a cab-drier, on the evening of the
23d of May, was driving down Holborn-hill, and he came
in contact with a cart driven by the deceased, who, by the
collision was thrown into the road, and killed.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty, coupled with a re-
commendation to morcy, and he was sentenced to be confined
in the Home of Correction for two months, but without hard
labour.

henry Smith, IS, was indicted for feloniously cutting and
wounding Thomas Lister, with intent to maim and disable
him, or to do him some grievous bodily harm.
The prosecutor was in the service of Messrs. Ilanbury and
Co., and on the day mentioned in the indictment he was
passing the Bell and Crown-inn, Holborn, at the time
of the arrival of the Beehive coach from Cambridge,
and seeing the prisoner struggling with an old
man who acts as patter at the establishment, for the
possession of some boxes, he told him to desist, and
not interfere with the old man. The prisoner was very angry,
and struck the prosecutor a blow on the eye, having at the time
a piece of tobacco-pipe in his hand, and the effect was, to de-
prive him of the sight of his eye, and as he had lost the sight
of the ether eye some time before, he was now totally blind.
The prisoner cried bitterly, and expressed deep regret for
what had happened, assuring the Court that it was entirely
accidental.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty of an assault, and he
was sentenced, by '.llr. Justice Pattison, to be confined in New-
gate for two months.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
QUEEA-SQUARE.

Armswren MURDER.—Yesterday Jane Walker, a prostitute,
who was charged on Tuesday with attempting to cut her sister's
throat, was again brought before the Magistrate.
The depositions had been prepared in order to send the case for

trial, but as it was quite evident, from the disinclination of the
complainant and her family to prosecute, that it would be useless
to do so,

Mr. BOND said he was exceedingly reluctant to treat this case
summarily, but as he felt perfectly convinced that the ends of jus-
tice would be defeated byisending it for trial, in consequence of the
non-attendance of the parties to prosecute, and the prisoner thus
escape all punishment, he should convict her in the penalty of 5/.,
and in default commit her for two months.
SOUTH IVA RK.

CHARGE OF INDECENT ASSAULT.—Yesterday Mr. Cottingham
was engaged for some time in the investigation of a series of hide-
ceat assaults, preferred by two girls of tender age against George
Bowesley, the master of an infant school in William-street, Pop-
tar-row, Newington, a man advanced in years, under whose tuition
they had been placed by their parents.
From the evidence of the little girls, one of whom is ten and the
other thirteen years of age, it appeared that the defendant's school
consisted of upwards of seventy scholars, male and female chil-
dren, the education of whom was superintended by the prisoner
and his wife, the former being engaged in teaching writing and
ciphering, and the latter attending to the other branches of their
education. One of the girls, Mary Ann Palmer, the daughter of
a hatter, in the course of her evidence, stated that the prisoner was
in the habit of behaving to her in a very disgusting manner on
those occasions that ought to have been devoted by him to her in-
struction in writing, and that it was in a portion of the school
where his wife was not in attendance; that she mentioned the
fact of his gross indecency to an elder sister, by whom it was made
known to her parents, and they, upon being made acquainted with
the circumstances, at once proceeded to take the necessary steps to
have the offender punished. Mary Donny, another little girl,
also detailed circumstances of a similar grossly indecent description
practised upon her by the prisoner, and the witness added that
several other female children in the school had all been subjected
to the same kind of treatment at the hands of the accused.
Mr. Roberts, prisoner's professional adviser, cross-examined
the witnesses to show that they varied in some degreein their
statements, but

Mr. Comm.:tram remarked that, although there might be a
slight discrepancy in the evidence, still that the principal part of
the charge was established against the accused. The magistrate
then, addressing the father of the little girl Palmer, said that he
had acted most properly in proceeding against a man like the pri-
Euler placed in such a situation, having the care and instruction
of a number of children, and that, instead of his attending to them
in the way he was bound to do, he was, on the contrary, corrupt-
ing their morals by behaviour towards them of the most disgusting
description. The charges against the accused were of that nature
that he, under the peculiar circumstances, should not wish to deal
summarily with, but that if Mr. Palmer agreed to the suggestion,
he should commit him (the prisoner) for trial to the sessions, when,
in the event of conviction, he must meet with the punishment he
so well merited, and probably be imprisoned for such a period as
would, at all events, prevent him from following an avocation—
that of master of an infant school—for a very considerable time,
and that the exposure consequent upon such a trial might have the
effect of terminating the career of a person so ill• qualified as the

instructor of youth.
Mr. Palmer expressed his willingness to comply with the ma-
gistrate's suggestion, and said that, on public grounds, he deter-
mined to do so regardless of the expense of the prosecution, as he
had since ascertained, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that not
only had the prisoner acted to his children in a most disgusting
manner, but also towards others under his tuition.
Mr. COTTINGRAIf then committed the prisoner for trial to answer
the charge at the sessions.
LAMBETH.

Yesterday, Charles Henry Viscount Dillon, 16, Malkin-street,
Belgrave-square, appeared before Mr. Henry to answer to two
charges, the one for assaulting George White, one of Mr. Levy's
toll collectors, and the other, with having passed through the Kent-
street toll-gate with his " drag" and four without paying the toll.
George White, the complainant, upon being sworn, deposed that
about eleven o'clock on the night of Sunday, the B.h instant, he
was on duty at the Kent-street Sunday toll-gate, near the Brick-
layers' Arms, and heard the sounding of a horn approaching him,
and in a few moments saw a coach and four in view. He called
out to the driver for the toll, but the defendant, who was driving,
took no notice of it, and finding this to be the case, he caught
hold of the bridle of the near wheel horse. His Lordship cut at
him with the whip, and endeavoured to lash him on the hand so as
to get him to let his hold slip, but the whip fell on his hat.
Mr. HENRY—Did he strike at you with the thong of the whip
doubled or single ?
Witness—With the double thong, your worship. His Lord-
ship then pulled up, and asked me what I stopped his horses for,
and I told him for the payment of eightpence for the toll. He
said the toll had been paid, but I told him it could not have been,
as there was no four-horse coach had passed through or paid that
day, and that no other gate's ticket cleared that. His Lordship
then told his servant to pay the toll, as he had got a good eight.
pennyworth; upon which he (witness) said the matter should not
rest there. The defendant merely replied, " Very well," and
desired his servant to give his name, and the servant accord-
ingly gave his name as Lord Dillon. The servant at this time
pulled out a ticket from his pocket belonging to a different trust,
and witness told him that it would not do. The toll was not paid

or offered.
Lord Dillon, in answer to the charge, said—The fact, Sir, was
that I had been dining at Greenwich with some friends, and en my
return to town the night was so dark that I mistook the proper
turning near the Green Man, and went down a different way, as it
appears, from that which we passed through in going to Greenwich,
and finding that a person had hold of one of the horses, I will own
that it was perfectly true I might have used the whip to get him to
let the horse go, but I only hit him once. I never saw the gate,
and on the complainant telling me what he had seized the horse
for, I pulled up, and desired my servant to pay the toll. My servant,
who is here, will, I doubt not, prove that he tendered the toll, but
the complainant said he would not take it, but should see me else-
where. Besides my servant, I have two gentlemen here who were
with me, and whom I wish to call as witnesses.
Mr. HENRY-I am quite willing to hear any witness your Lord-
ship may think it necessary to call.
Lord Dillon here called Thomas Storey, Esq., of the Cavendish
Hotel, Jermyn-street, who deposed he dined with Lord Dillon and
a party of friends, at Greenwich, on Sunday week. He (witness)
heard the complainant say something about toll, and he (Mr. Storey)
was quite sure the toll had been offered by the servant of Lord
Dillon, but was refused by the complainant.
In reply to a question from Mr. HENRY, the witness admitted
having heard his Lordship say something about having had a good
eightpennyworth out of the complainant.
Mr. Robert Nicholson, of the Cavendish Hotel, one of the party,
said he was there on the night in question, when the " drag" was
suddenly stopped, and saw Lord Dillon hit away at the person who
had stopped the horses. He heard the toll-collector say he would
have the toll, and heard Lord Dillon tell his servant to pay. Did
not hear the defendant say he had got a good eightpennyworth out
of the tollman, and was sure he said no such thing. Lord Dillon,
nor any of the party, were at all the worse for the wine they had
taken.

Joseph Wheeler, groom to the defendant, said he did not recol.
lect hls Lordship telling him to pay the toll, and he neither
did so nor tendered the amount. If his Lordship had whipped the
complainant he did not see it, nor heard him say he had given the
complainant a good cightpennyworth.
Mr. HENRY thought both charges proved, and observed that the
Act of Parliament enabled him to convict the defendant in the
penalty of 101. for the assault, and 101 in addition, but to a
nobleman in the defendant's station these penalties would be of no
consideration. Mr. Henry here asked the complainant if he
wished to carry the case of assault to the sessions ?

The complainant replied that he would leave the case entirely
in his Worship's hands, but Lord Dillon said he should prefer its
being sent to the sessions.
Mr. HENRY thought this would be the most satisfactory way of
deciding the case, and ordered the noble defendant to find bail,
himself in 2110/., and two sureties in 1001. each, to answer the
charge at the ensuing Surrey sessions. Mr. Henry also ordered
the deposition of the complainant to be committed to writing, to be