The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 18.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES•
Their Lordships sat in a Committee of Privileges to-day
at ten o'clock. The Peers present were—the Lor.l Chancel or,
Brougham, Lord Cottenbam, Lord Campbell, the Ear of
Kinnaird, and the Bishop of Carlisle.
THE MARCHMONT PEERAGE.
Sir William Beetham and Colonel Irwin were exa-
mined this morning in this Peerage o:i the behalf of the
claimant, and the further consideration of the chim was ad-
journed sine die.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham,
and Lirrd Campbell, then sat to hear Appeals.
PARR V. THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
Mr. BETHEL resumed his arguments in the part heard ap-
peal on behalf of the appellant, who complained of a decree of
the Court of Chancery, pronounced on an information filed by
the Attorney-General, respecting matters arising out of a claim
made by the omit Hoot, for compensaion for the loss of hi,
office of Town-clerk for the borough of Poole.

ROLLS' COURT, Feb. 18.
DAVIES V. FISHER.

The Court was engaged throughout the day with the argu.
nients on this part-heard cause. The principal question turned
ui-on the construction of a will. It did not present any feature
o: interest.

• _ .
The decision of Sergeant Nicholl was "delivered shortly after
the passing of the 'statute, and may be held conclusive.
lir. ADDAMS, for the owcers_l am surprised that this
op-non • • should be now brought forward. It is distinctly op-
posed to all the authorities. The last edition of Mr. Abbott on
shipping, contains a most positive opinion, founded on the dictum
of Lord Stowell, that the reward far the preservation of life
must be left to private bounty. If it were not so—if the pre-
servation of life formed a proper claim for salvage, how would
the matter stand? Why the vessel, the property.of the owners,
wuuld be arrested, and they Would have to pay for benefits
conferred en other persons. The very principl. s on which
salvage is founded necessarily confines it to the preserva-
tion of property. The Statine quoted does not mention
the Court of Adm'ralty in the section referred to, and, in
another it expressly sass, that anything in that Act con-
tained shall not alter its jurisdiction. The Queen Mab was not
a case in point. It was a case of derelict —it was unoppesod,
and the owners might have been unw filling to give a certain sum
to the men who had saved the life of a feßow-ereature.
Dr. LUsHINGTON—In the first plict,; what is the general
law applicable to the present point? An unsuccessful at-
tempt to save yroperty, however energetic the conduct or
laudable the motives of those making it, is no title to sal-
vage. So here is the simple ease of the preservation of
human life, and since I have been in practice 1 have always
underst:rod, as one of the first principles of adminivering law,
that upon that no Maim for remuneration could be -here
founded. But how is the general law affected by the statute
1 and 2 George IV., c. ? It gives, by the section quoted,
authority in certain matters to the ( ommissioners of the
Cinque P. its and to magistrates'; but, a: has been stated
by Dr. Addams, it declares that the kwisdiction of the High
Court of Admiralty should not be affssq. red .by its enactments.
So still the principle remains the same, as far as I can see; but
we must 10. kto the decision in Queen Mab. There, unques-
tionably, remuneration was given simply fur the saving of life ;
but the ease was a case of derelict, and uno posed, and conse-
quently I cannot think the judgment in it of that solemn and
coneusive nature which precludes me from acting on my own
opinion. That opi. ion is, that this Court can give no remedy in
such eases. I must dismiss the owners, but will not give costs.
Dr. ADDAUS.—We do not wish it. It is but right to state
that the owners, on first hearing of the salvors' claim, made
them an offer of 351.
Dr. LusIiINGTON.—I think it was very:handsome.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Chairman )

POLICE INTEPAAGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNINfT, FEBRUARY 19, 1841.

charged.- He was supported by Mr. Cooke, and opposed by.
Mr. Nicholls.

It appeared that he had been for many years acquainted with
a young lady, named Greenstead, to whom he paid his addresses
up to 1.8;;9, and in that year had the banns of marriage pub-
lihed in Old Lambeth Church. He was Surveyor of Highways
in the parish of Newington, and possessed an income from his
father, bes'cles which he carried on business as a stone and
marble merchant. Several letters passed between the parties,
professing-the most ardent attachment; and although the
parents on both sides were averse to their being married at
first, yet they eventual:y ct•nsented to the match ; but the in-
solvent allegt.rsorne excuse for delaying the ceremony ; and
in February, .1840, Miss Greenstead was delivered of an
illegitimate child, of which he was the reputed father. Soon
afterwards he married another lady, and an action for breach of
promise of marriage and seduction being instituted by Miss
Greenstead's next of kin, the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff, with damages of 250/
Mr. N scnost.s, on behalf of the opposing creditor, applied to
have the insolvent's petition dismissed; that he be ord• red to
readvertise before he could be again before the Court for hearing,
on the grounds of having improperly described his name in his
schedule. He was the illegitimate son of a gentleman, named
Newman, and by the registry of his baptism at the church of
St. Saviour's, Southwark, it appeared that he was baptised by
the name of John Charles Newman, and three years subsequently
when the father was about to marry another person, he executed
a bond conveying a certain annuity to the insolvent in which deed
he was described as John Charles Newman. He (the Learned
Counsel) subm tted that under these circumstances the Court
was bound to dismiss the petition, as it had been held an
es'ablished rule that a misnomtr, where even a Christian
name was concerned, would be fatal to the legal validity of the
petition. He then cited several cases in support of his views,
and was about to call the insolvent s mother, when—
Mr. COOK E interfered, and said, that although that person
was in Court, yet she was in such a bad state of heal'h, that
he hoped the Court would not, under the painful circumstances
of the case, deem it necessary to place her in the witness box.
The Learned Counsel then contended that the insolvent, being
illegitimate had no right to any name but that which he chose
to assume himself.

The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER said he coincided with
the view of the case taken by Mr. Nicholls, as far as his (the
Chit f Commissioner's) judgment was eoncerned, he should or-
der the petition to be discharged. However, if Mr. C9oke
wished, he should reserve judgment until such time as a full
•Court should be sitting.
Mr.CooEE having requested that such might be the case,
the judgment was then adjourned.
The Rev. Frederick Sturmer, who wai curate of Hayes,
whore he kept a board ng establishment (at which the melan-
choly occurrence which led to the trial of Mr. Medhurst teok
place), appeared before the Court for judgment. The case
was before the Court on a former day, when.the insolvent was
opposed on the tart of two creditors named Ratcliffe, a butcher.
and Gurney, a cheesemongsr. A long investigation occurred
respecting' the sate of furniture, &c., at Hayes, and the dis-
posal of the money. It was then h&d that the opposing cre-
ditors ha.l canoe of complaint. and that the insolvent would be
remanded. Yesterday the Rev. Gentleman again appeared,
and evidence by affidavit was supplied.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER pronounced an imprisonment
of five months from the vesting order.

Mr. John Trehearne, a master baker, residing in Cleveland.
street, Marylebone, was ind.cted for an aggravated assault upon
Nelson Jones. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
It appeared that the complainant called at the defendant's shop
for the purpose of purchasing a half.quartern loaf ; but, upon its
being put into the scale, the complainant said it was short of the
proper weight ; upon which Mrs. Trehearne called him a good-
for.nothing vagabond for saying so ; and the defendant came out
of the parlour into the shop, and said the complainant was a d—d
liar for s aying it was short weight. Jones, upon this, observed,
"Ifl am a d—d liar, I will have it weighed again;" whereupon
the defendant seized him round the waist, and forced him towards
the door, which was open. Complainant took hold of the door to save
himself, and the def.( ndant then forced his hand through the glass, and
made him loose his hol I. Trehearne next took him in both his
arms, and dashed him into the street, and his head came in vio.
lent contact with the wheel of a cart that was standing at the door.
The complainant fell under the horse, which trampled on his
back, and injured him severely. He was much bruised about the
body, and his head was laid bare to the bone. He was taken up in
an insensible state, and conveyed to Middlesex Hospital, and upon
the 23d of November it was deemed necessary by Mr. Rawlinson,
the Magistrate of Marylcbone Police Court, to take the deposition
in writing of the complainant in consequence of the dangerous
condition he was then in. The complainant stated that he was
confined to his bed for eight or nine weeks, and did not believe
that he should ever properly recover, as he felt the injuries he had
sustained up to the present day.
John Mansbridge, 22 E, stated that he beard Mr. Vernon call
" Police." Upon going up he saw blood running down the cow-
plainant's clothes. The blood came from his head, and he appeared
to be stupified. He conducted Jones to the Middlesex Hospital.
After some further evidence, the Chairman having summed up,
the Jury found the defendant Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN then addressing the defendant, said the Court
were very doubtful if they ought not to imprison him, for it
was a gross case. However, he was fined 20/., with liberty to speak
to the complainant. The defendant speedily settled with the com-
plainant, and was fined a shilling and discharged.

William Nicholson, a respectably-dressed young man, was
placed at the bar, when police constable, No. 167, of the C
division, stated, that about two o'clock yesterday morning, as he
was on duty in St. James's-square, he heard a violent alterca-
tion being carried on at the entrance hall of the mansion
of the Archbishop of Armagh, No, :30, Charks-street ; and
on proceeding there, found the defendant attempting to forte
his way into the hall, and the porter attempting to eject him.
Both of them were very much intoxicated. Capt. T. Jones,
R.N., who resides there, came down stairs, aed ordered the
defendant to be taken to the station-house. The Archbishop
is at present in Ireland.
The defendant said be was a most particular acquaintance
of the porter's, and that, as the Archbishop was not in town,
he
.was invited to have a " sort of jollification and a bit of
supper with the porter ;" but unfortunately he had taken too
mueb-wine, and did not know what he _ was doing.
. _

- "
The police constable said that Capt, Jones had informed him
that the porter was discharged on the instant.
The defendant was fined ss. fur being drunk, which he
immediately paid.
Yesterday Mr. Joseph Bond, the proprietor of the Junior
St. James's Club House, St. James's-street, appeared on a
summons, to answer the complaint of Mr. William Facon, for
an assault.
The complainant stated that he was formerly secretary to the
defendant, at a salary of three and a half guineas per week, a
g.-eat part of which, and other sums; amounting in the whole
to between 2001. and 300/, were still owing to him. On the
4th instant he called on the defendant at the Club-house, to.
ask for a settlement, and had an interview with him in the
l
coffee-room, where the defendant got into a violent passion on
his urging his claims, and struck him with his clenched fist a
violent blow in the face ; a scuffle ensued, and the defendant
seized the poker and attempted to strike the complainant over
the head with it, but the servants of the Club rushed in and
prevented him.
After an angry recrimination between the complainant and
the defendant, the latter, in answer to the charge, stated that
the complainant had first struck and then spit in his face, and
called him a liar. These were provocations, he thought, which
would justify any assault.
Mr. HARDWICK, however, thought differently, and after
imposing a fine of forty shillings on the defendant, which he
immediately paid, ordered him to enter into his own recog-
nizance in the sum of 100/. to keep the peace towards the com-
plainant for the ensuing six months.

MERCURIAL IMAGININGS.
The Derby Reporter (saith the Mercury of yesterday) pub-
lished Sir Robert Peel's speech on the Corn-laws, and the
Town Counc I forthwith voted a petition against the Alinisterial
rr easure, and the populace burnt the Premier in effigy. The
Sun, as our'readers are by one of thOse woriderltil efforts
of reporting which -have, dissingui,hed that excellent paper,
aided by steam both in printing and in transport, arrived at
Derby shortly after two o'clock en Thursday morning, contain-
ing an able and accurate account, seven columns in length, of
Sir Robert's speech. Anxious that our rtaders should have
the earlie't intelligence—that their just claims on our prompti-
tude should be met to the fullest, we digested the report of The
Sun, and by- fire o'clock published a correct and impartial,
though hasty epitome of the document, in which, from its
nature there was nothing to gloss, nothing to garble. The
public appreciated our labours, so that we could scarcely print
papers sufficiently quickly to supply the crowds that rushed to
our office. Jealous of our success, our contemptible Contem-
porary, the Mercury, affects to call the verbatim report of The
Sun " a meagre outline," and the digest of the Reporter " a
miserable abortion,"—" in many respects a false, anti in all a
garbled version." We tell him, what the public too will tell
him, that in order to defame us he has asserted what he knows
to be untrue, and that with a hardihood of exposure which proves
his folly to be as great as hiik annoyance.—Derby Reporter.

WARD of CRIPPLEGATE WITHIN.
REFUSAL or THE PEOPLE TO PETITION THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS.
Thursday afternoon Alderman Sir M. Wood, Bart., M.P.,
convened a meeting of the inhabitants of the above ward, for
the purpose of taking their sentiments on the Government
Corn-law scheme.
The meeting was held at the School-room, Philip-lane, and
the worthy Alderman took the chair shortly after three o'clock.
The room was densely thronged with the most respectable
merchants and traders resident in the ward.
The CHAIRMAN said that he deemed it his duty to call the
meeting, in consequence of a requisition most numerously and
respectably signed, having been presented to him for that
purpose. It was true that the House of Commons had that
morning decided against them ; an event that they might have
expected, although the majority was a little more than that
for which they were prepared.--( Hear, hear.) But when
they knew the formation of that Home, they could not have
doubted of having a large majority, with the Minister against
them. But the question was not as yet decided, for the plan
of a sliding scale had to go through a Committee, and Mr.
Villiers's motion against any duty, was to be brought on.
He (the Chairman) was from the commencement prepared
to give his vote on the question.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. FROST moved the first resolution—" That the duty on
corn and such other provisions as generally absorb the poor
man's expenditure was not just, and if viewed as a tax on in-
come, was a burthen on a class less able to bear it, &c." He
said that the late Government would have introduced a plan
for the amelioration of the Corn-laws if they were not aware
that the opposition and the magnitude of the interests opposed
to them would have rendered their plan futile—a conviction
which the result proved to be correct.—( Hear, hear.) The
present Ministers outvoted the late Government on those ques-
tions, although they had declared that they had no other plan
prepared to relieve the distress of the country. Sir Robert
Peel had not then received the fee, but as soon as he had, and
after five months' gestation, he brought forward his scheme
which was to be so useful to the country, and which was to
be of such awful import.—(lmmense laughter.) Sir Robert
Peel knew well that his plan would not meet the distress, nor
please the supporters of the Corn-laws. His plan was an ap •
peal and an apology to the landlords, but was never intended to
meet the wishes, or satisfy the wants and privations of the
working classes.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Coorxa seconded the resolution, and said that the
question was whether they should passively allow themselves
and the working classes to be robbed of one-third of their
daily bread by lords and landlords whose sole object it was to
feed their avai ice, without any regard for the privations of the
suffering millions.—( dear, hear.)
Mr. JOHN LAST moved the second resolution, to the effect,
that independent of its direct influence as a tax, the duty
levied upon foreign corn inflicted an awful amount of injury
by its shifting!, rendering the operations of merchants, manu-
facturers, and farmers futile, and deranged the monetary system
and by throwing the manufacturing population out of employ-
ment, produced destitution, misery, and crime.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir Robert Peel admitted the advantage of a traffic in corn
with America; but said that previous agreement with Denmark
precluded any facility bring afforded for that traffic. Why, a
repeal of the Corn-laws would remove all obstacle on that
point.—( Hear, hear.) A sliding scale was an insult to com-
mon sense, as it would not reduce the loaf one farthing, while
it was injurious to all classes.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Dzwart iq a very eloquent speech seconded the yew-
.ration. ,