The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-13 00:00:00

cognizance shall be for the appearance of the said puta
five father at such General Quarter Sessions of the
Peace as is required by the said Act, and his trial of the
appeal thereat, and the payment of such costs as he shall be
then and there ordered to pay; and if at any time before the
hearing of the appeal the pultive father who shall have
entered into any such recognizance, shall give notice in
writing of his abandonment of the appeal to the mother
of the child, in whose favour the order shall have been
made, and to the justice or justices before whom the
said recognizance shall have been taken, and shall pay
or tender to the said mt ther all sums then due under the
said order, and such costs and expenses as she shall have
incurred by reas9n of such notice of appeal, the said
recognizance so entered into by the said putative father
hall not be estreat d,nor in any manner put in force, or
otherwise proceeded with."
Mr. BOUVERIE thought there was much in-
justice in these causes, and he should oppose them.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM further explained the
nature of these clauses.

After a conversation, in which Mr. Bouverie, Sir
J. Graham, General Johnstone, and the Solicitor.
General took part, which bore upon the point of the
mother of a bastard child receiving relief from the
workhouse during her confinement, and an allowance
from the putative father at the same time, the clauses
were adde4 to the Bill.

The house resumed, and the Bill was ordered to
be reported to-morrow.
The House then adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION'S.

(From the Poles and Proceedings of the HOWL of Commons.)
• TUESDAY, MARCH 1!.
POOR-LAW.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Petition of the
Ratepayers and Inhabitan. s of 11,chitale, presented on the 25th day
of February last, be referred to a Select Committee of this House, to
inquire into the Administration of the relief to the Poor in that dis-
trict." The House divided :

MINORITY-AYES, 16.
Ainenvorth, Peter Hindley, Charles Sibthorp, Colonel
Blake, M. J. - Johnson, General Williams, William
Borthw•ick, Peter Manners, Lord J.
Duncombe, T. 'Morris, David TELLERS.
Entwisle, Wiliiam O'Conor, Don Ferrand, W. F.
Escott, Bickham Paget, Lord A. Crawford, W. S.
Hamner, Sir J. Pechell, Captain

MAJORITY-NOES, 59.
Arland, Sir T. Gladstone, Captain Nichol', John

. . . , .
Gordon,Alford, Viscount G Captain Packe, C. W.
Arundel, Earl of Goulburn, Henry - Patten, J. W.
Baird, W lliam Graham, Sir J. Plutnptre, J. P.
Baring, W. B. Greenall, Peter Praed, W. T.
Bohlen], H. G. Hale, It. It. Pringle, Alexander
Bowles, Admiral Hamilton, W. J. Shaw, Frederick
'Bowring, Dr. Hope, G. W. Smith, T. B. C.
Brotherton, J. Hussey, Thomas Somerset, Lord G.
Bruce, Lord E. Hutt, William Stuart, Henry
Buller, Sir J. Y. Jermyn, Earl Sutton, Henry
Cardwell, Edward Legh, G. C. Thesigcr, Sir F.
Clayton, R. R. Lincoln, Earl Trotter, John
Clerk, Sir G. Mackenzie, W. F. Vivian, J. Ennis
Compton, 11. C. Marshall], Viscount Warburton, Henry
Corry, Ilenry Martin, John Wawn, John 'l'
Denison, E. B. Maule, Fox Wood, Colonel T.j
Dickinson, F. 11. Maxwell, J. P. TELLERS.
Fitzroy, Henry Meynell, Captain
Forbes, William Iceville, Ralph Young, John
Gaskell, J. M. Newry, Viscount Lennox. Lord A.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Ma* 12.
The Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn-bald to-day.

IN THR CASE. OF THE LUDLOW CHARITIES.
The arguments in this part heard case were resumed and
occupied the Court the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT,March 12.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
CLOMAM V. TIIE RANK OF ENGLAND.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
to-day.
Mr. BETIIELL replied, and
His HONOUR -gave judgment, ordering the Bank of Eng-
land to restore the stock (6,000/.) which had been fraudu-
lently removed by the trustee Piccard. His Honour also or-
dered the Bank to pay the whole of the costs of the suit.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
ELLICE V. GOODSON.
The arguments in this part-heard case were concluded to-
day, with the exception of the reply; and, in consequence of
the absence of Sir Thomas Wilde, his Honour ordered the
case to stand oiler till the Saturday before the first day of
Easter Term, upon the understanding that on that day
either Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. Bethell, or Mr. Heathfield,
would reply.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRA3I.)
The further arguments in the part-heard case of Mayhew
v. Edmonds occupied his Honour the whole morning.

SECONDARIES' COURT, March 12.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
CHURCHILL V. KING.
This was an action brought by Mr. Churchill, house- agent,
Castle-street, Holborn, against Mr. King, clerk to Mr.
Sylvester, attorney, Dover-road, Borough, to recover 10/. 10s.,
on a bill of exchange, drawn by a Mr. Hvam, and alleged
to have been accepted by the defendant. The bill, on pre-
sentation for payment, being dishonoured, the holder instir.
tuted proceedings to,recover the amount.
Mr. Tezirml, who appeared for the plaintiff, called Mr.
Kinning, a respectable accountant, to prove the 'handwriting,
which the latter swore distinctly to.
Mr. King, who conducted his own case, advanced in
defence . the plea that he had never accepted the bill in
question, and called a number of witnesses to prove that
the signature to the acceptance was not in his hand-writing.
After a short consultation the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff for the amount of the bill, with interest, 101. 13s. 6d.
in all.
The defendant then asked if the officers of the Court would
be allowed to impound the bill in order to ensure its produc-
tion at the Central Criminal Court in a new trial?
The SECONDARY intimated that he had so power to do so.
The defendant next wished to move for a new trial, on the
ground of the verdict being against evidence.
This the SECONDARY overruled, and said he was perfectly
satisfied with the verdict of the jury.
Mr. King then withdrew, expressing himself very much
displeased with the result.