The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-10 00:00:00

COURT CIRCULAR.

WINDSOR, TIJESDAY.—Her Majesty and Prince
Albert and the Prince and Princess of Saxe Coburg
took their usual early walk to Adelaide Cottage this
morning. -
'rho erince of:Wales and the Princess Royal, accom,
panied by the Dowager Lady Lyttelton, were taken
airings both morning and afternoon.
The Royal party left. for . Kew shortly _before one
o'clock, and returned to- the-Castle at six o'clock.

Lord Byron has arrived,. and has succeeded the Mar-
quis of Ormonde as-the Lord in Waiting.
The Countess of Westmoreland has arrived On a visit
to the Queen.-

Her }loyal Highness the Duchess of Kent, Lady
Charlotte Dundas, and Major-General and Lady Isabella
Wcmyss, will join the Royal dinner circle at the Castle
this evening.
Captain Francis. Seymour (Scots Fusilier Guards)
took his departure this morning.

The_Queen and Prince Albert, accompanied by the
Hereditary Prince and Princess of Saxe Coburg Gotha,
arrived. at Kew at ten minutes past two o'clock yesterday
afternoon in an open carriage and four from 'Windsor
Castle, followed by the Viscountess Jocelyn, Lady in
Waiting ; Colonel Buckley, Equerry in Waiting ; and
Colonel Wylde, Equerry to Prince. Albert, in another
open carriage and four.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge received
her Majesty and the Illustrious party at the entrance to
his Royal Highness's residence. A Royal Salute was
immediately fired from Kew Green, and the Royal
Standard was hoisted on the Church.

A dejeune was served to the Royal visitors in the
Dining-room, after which the whole of the party walked
into the Botanic-garden. Her Majesty and her Royal
Highness the Princess Augusts of Cambridge, entered
a pony phaeton ; their Royal Highnesses Prince Al-
bert, the Duchess of Cambridge, and the Princess Mary
of Cambridge, and her Serene Highness the Princess of
Saxe Coburg Gotha followed in an open carriage • and
the Duke of Cambri '
dge, the Hereditary Prince of Saxe
Coburg Gotha, Colonel Buckley, and Colonel Wylde, on
horseback. After taking an airing round the garden,
and into Kew Park, the august party returned to the
ilesidence of the Duke of Cambridge, and were received
by Baron Knesebeck and Colonel Jones. _

The Queen and Prince Albert, the Prince and Prin-
cess of Saxe Coburg, and the Royal Suite, left at twenty
minutes before five o'clock on their return to Windsor
Castle.

Despatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-
office from the Governor of Newfoundland.

Mr. Spiers, late M.P. for Richmond, in Yorkshire,
with his lady and family, have arrived at Farrance's
Hotel, Belgrave-street, from Italy, after an absence of
two years.

STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH

BELGIUM.
(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)
BRUSSELS, Am. 6.—The Senate to-day passed the
Bill to enable Government to ratify the treaty exempt-
ing Belgium from the French ordonnance of the 26th of
June. The treaty will, therefore, most likely be ratified
ere this letter reaches you.
The Moniteur Beige of this morning contains the fol-
lowing Royal Ordonnance, which I am sure will be read
with astonishment :

" Article Unique.—Provisionally, and to commence
on the 15th instant, the Scheldt duties shall not be re-
imbursed except for steam-vessels which leave Antwerp
on the days fixed by the Belgian Government, and only
for the number of departures fixed for each of those days.
We reserve to ourselves the right to regulate the order
of arrivals, if experience proves to us the necessity."
The Royal decree is followed up by a Ministerial one
of the same date, which at once shows that the above is
solely directed against the General Steam Navigation
Company, and in order to aid the Antwerp Company in
its unfair opposition to the former
Article Unique.—The two Companies at present run-
, ning their steamers between London and Antwerp will
obtain the reimbursements of the Scheldt duties for the
following departures, viz., the English Company for a de-
partitre Sundays, Tuesdays, and Saturdays. The Bel-
gian Company Wednesdays and Fridays of each week."
We have then here that which I was loth to believe,
and have long suspected, the Belgian Government di-
rectly interfering, and in the most solemn manner, in fa-
vour of the Antwerp Company. I prepared a letter some
time ago on the subject of these rival Companies, but in-
asmuch as the misstatements of the Belgian press made
to the prejudice of the English Company, which caused
me to write that letter, all at once ceased (undoubtedly
because their groundlessness was discovered by the au-
thors of them) I refrained sending it. As that letter,
however, contained a correct statement of the position in
which the two Navigation Companies stood in respect of
each other, and as, in order fully to perceive the extraor-
dinary character of the two ordinances above quoted, it
is requisite that their relative position should be known
to the English public, I trust you will not deem it too
long for insertion in your columns.
" The case attempted to be male out against the Eng-
lish Company begins with a fallacy and something more.
It is not the Steam Navigation Company that run their
boats in opposition to the Antwerp Company, but just
the reverse. Even the boats of the latter Company were
built to trade between Antwerp, Hull, and Hamburgh,
as well as London, and not until this navigation was
found unprofitable, were their steamers brought to run
solely between London, Antwerp, and Ostend. The
London Company has no right, and I believe does not
complain, that the Antwerp Company seeks to profit by
the London trade, but it has a right to complain that the
days selected are just the same days on which the London
Company's boats had always been accustomed to run be-
fore they brought their boats on these stations. Here,
then, we have the opposition begun by the Antwerp Com-
pany. The pretence set up for this opposition is public con-
venience; but will any man believe that the concourse of
travellers at Antwerp or Ostend is so great that one
steamer a day cannot accommodate them ? Had public
convenience anything to do in the matter, the Antwerp
Company would have selected for their boats the days
when the General Steam Navigation's boats did not
run, in order that the passenger who could not leave
Antwerp by the Wilberforce on Wednesday might em-
bark in the Antwerpen on Thursday. To use the lan-
guage of a Belgian gentleman well known in Antwerp—
`The London Company, with laudable enterprise,
opened the trade between that port and London
when the grass grew in the streets of the Flemish
city ;' and now that by this enterprise, and the pnb.=
lieity given to its movements, Antwerp and Ostend'
have become, to the incalculable benefit of Belgium,
great landing places for the tourist, as well as most
important mercantile depots, rivals step in, run 'their
boats on the very days hitherto belonging to the English
Company, and then have the quiet effrontery to complain
of opposition ! But why does the Antwerp Company
select the daysand hours of departure fixed on by the
General Steam Company ?: The answer this ques
tion is easy. Thelatter Company hive agents all over
the Continent ;,their bills, fixing theday and hour
their steamers sail, a-month in advance, are Spilled
Belgium; Germany, &c., so that travellers to' Engliiiid;
from those parts of the Continent for whom Antwerp and
Ostend are-convenient ports, are, at the enormous cost'
of the English Company, made acquainted with the hour
they ought to be ready for embarkation. Well, what
happens ? Down come a host of tourists, travel-
lers, &c., from the Rhine borders (for example),
to Ostend, where, instead of one boat, they find
two ready to carry them across the sea. What care
Herr Steinkoff, Frau Hochberg, and the family Von
Schneefels whether they embark in the Bruges or Sir
Edward Banks ? Nay, they know no difference ; want-
ing to embark for England they step into a steamer
thitherward bound. Thus does the Belgian Company
rob the English Company of the legitimate fruits of its
astonishing exertions. Much has been said about the
support given to the Antwerp Company by the Belgian
Government. Unless the Belgian Government support
the Belgian Company in its unfair acts of opposition, I
see herein no just cause of complaint ; but the Govern-
ment ought not to forget, that those who grant subsidies
may exercise control, and that qui non prohibet quad
prohibere protest, a SSIII lire ridyttr."
I call your attention to this last sentence. When I
wrote it, near two months ago, I had no idea the Belgian
Government would directly interfere to aid the unfair
opposition' of the Antwerp Company. By the ordi-
nances above quoted, the English Company is sub-
jected to a heavy duty, if is run a boat from Antwerp
on Wednesday, the very day it has always been accus-
tomed to do so, and the day when by far the greater pro-
portion of travellers embark for London ; worth of itself
the Tuesday and Saturday allotted to it. But, more-
over, a direct and immediate injustice is perpetrated.
Bills are in circulation over the Continent, fixing Wed-
nesday for the day of departure, from Antwerp, of the
English Company's boats—therefore all those who arrive
at Antwerp for that day, brought there by the Com-
pany's advertisement, must embark in a Belgian boat if
they embark at all. Is the interference of the Belgian
Government in this matter the result of anxiety, not to
be supposed afflicted with Anglo-mania ? At any rate,
it seems to me a most unwarrantable attempt to injure
the General Steam Navigation Company.
I take this opportunity to inform you that the Belgian
Government continue, up to this day, to advertise the
British Queen in the British Gazette (tbe sole English
-or here) as commanded by Capt. Keane, which is
•
notoriously untrue. I long looked on the°advertisement
, as an oversight, now I believe it to be a miserable trick,
to induce persons to confide themselves to this vessel, as

Laing under a clever and experienced English sailor,
while, in reality, she is under the command of an inex-
perienced Belgian sailor, as everybody ought to know.
A tremendous thunder-storm passed over Brussels this
morning about five o'clock—one crash of thunder, which
seemed to rend the-heavens, was awfully near the surface
of the earth. Happily the rain fell in torrents.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Aug. 9.
Their Lordships met to-day shortly after two o'clock,
for the purpose of delivering several judgments. The
Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham,
Lord Cottenhain, Lord Campbell, and Lord Beauchamp.
THE AUCHTERARDER CASE —THE REV. JOHN FERCUSSON
V. THE EARL OF KINNOUL.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR proceeded to give the judg-
ment of their Lordships in tnis appeal, which was heard
during the present session. The proceeding was insti-
tuted by the Earl of Kinnoul, and the Rev. H. Young,
for compensation or damages, for having refused to take
upon trial Mr. Young, as the presentee of the Church
ofAuch terarder.The case came before the Court of Session,
and they decided in favour of the claimant by a unanimous
decision. From that judgment the defendants had ap-
pealed to the House. It was net, he believed, for any real
inherent difficulty in the case, but on account of the im-
portance of the subject, .that their Lordships had
taken time to consider their judgments. There
was one proof that was very clear, namely, that
it was the duty of the defendants to take Mr. Young
On trial of his qualification as presentee to the church of
Auchterrwder. That question was decided by the Court
of Session, and it afterwards came by way of appeal before
the House, which affirmed the decision of the Court below.
The law was established by that decision, and it could
not afterwards be controverted. It admitted of no fur-
ther
question or appeal, and, therefore, that point being ,
clearly establiShed, it was the duty of the Presbytery to
make trial of Mr. Young's qualification, as presentee to
the church of Auchterarder. The defendants could
not :plead ignorance of the law in the present
case, because some of them' Were parties to the suit ;
nay, more, after the judgment had been affirmed by
their Lordships, the Lord. Ordinary pronounced an-
other interlocutor; by which he decreed that the
Presbytery were still bound to make trial of
Mr. Young. Mr. Young presented himself to the
Presbytery,; the question was put to the vote ; it was
decided against admitting him to trial, and the matter
was deferred to the General Assembly ; so that the
fact was established that the Presbytery refused to
do so. Now what was the rule of law ? Why,
that when a person had a public duty to perform,
and if he neglected or refused to do it, and the party
sustained an injury, that was the foundation fur an
action. That was laid down in the case of Sutton v.
Johnsen, tried before Baron Eyre, of the Court
of- Exchequer ; and other authorities might be
stated. A case had been cited during the arguments,
from Leonard's Reports, of this description. A party
had applied to a Magistrate to take his depositions in a
certain matter under the statute of Elizabeth, in a case
of hue and cry. The Magistrate refused to take the depo-
sitions, and it was held that the party was entitled to bring
an action, he having sustained personal injury. Again,
in another case of Sterling v. the Lord Mayor of Loudon,
the plaintiff was a candidate for the office of Bridge.
Master; there the Lord Mayor refused to take the pull,
and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to main-
tain an action. This was not only the rule in England,
but it was applicable in Scotland, and had been
decided in the case of Innes v. the Magistrates of Ediri-
burgh. In the present case the parties had no discretion
to exercise—they 'were bound by law to do the
act—it was imperative upon them to accept
the party for trial, and under such circumstances
it was quite clear the action could be
supported. But then it was said the action could not be
supported against the appellants—that it ought to have
been brought against the whole body. How, therefore,
could an action be maintained against the pre-
sent individuals ? Now, what was the fact—
why, these individuals were the parties who had
done the wrong in the present instance ; by their vote
Mr. Young was' refused to be taken on his trial ; they
were the parties, therefore, who had done the injury,
and who were subject to the action. There was a case
clearly in point on this subject—Ritchie v. Felton ; there
the action was brought fora false return to a writ of man-
damus brought against the Lord Mayor ; the objection
taken was that the act was done by the Mayor and Al-
dermen, and that the action ought to be brought
against all, but there the Court decided that there
was not the least necessity to adopt any such
course, and that the action was rightly brought. The
principle, therefore, of the present case was this, that
where there was a public duty to perform, the parties
were bound to perform it, and that if that duty was neg-
lected, and the individual sustained injury, he was en-
titled to his remedy by action at law. The act of the par-
ties, in the present case, was not a judicial act, but an
act imperative upon them. The present appellants were
the parties who were bound to do the act ; they had re-
fused to do so ; and such being. the case, it was his clear
opinion that the judgment of the Court below ought-to
be affirmed.
Lord Baonatum said, agreeing, as he did entirely,
with the propositions laid down by his Noble and Learned
Friend, he was sure they would think an apology was
due from him, not only to his Noble and Learned Friend,
but to their Lordships, fur entering at all at large into
the question which he had so clearly, so lumi-
nously, and satisfactorily. stated., Nor should he
have done more flail have restod satisfied with
expressing his entire concurrence in the decision, with I
the exception of a single verbal alteration, which was
this—instead of saying that the Presbytery, if they had j
taken' Mr. Young on trial—instead of rejecting I
would have acted judicially, and would have been en-
titled to protection, the context of his Noble and Learned
Friend's argument went to show that all he meaut was,
that this point was not then before them to
be decided. With that single qualification, a mere
verbal alteration, he should have been satisfied to have ex-
pressed his entire agreement with his Noble and Learned
Friend, but that the very great importance of the case,
and the interest it had excited, led him to trespass on the
time and attention of their Lordships by entering into it.
The decision of the Court against the Presby-
tery of Auchterarder, that in its continued refu-
sal to take Mr. Young on trial it had violated
its duty, had been confirmed by their Lordships.
It was decided that they ought to have made a trial of
his qualifications, and, if found fit, to have admittedhim.
This decree was allowed, became final, and remained un-
appealed from that day to this. But the Presbytery still
continued in their refusal. At its meeting two motions
were made, the first, that Mr. Young be taken
on trial ; and the other, that the question be
referred to the General Assembly, and the latter was
carried ; the refusal, therefore, was plain and decided,
and the present action was brought, not like the former
one, against the Presbytery as a body, but against the
individual members who rejected the motion, and was
laid for the damage sustained by an individual, in conse-
quence of that refusal. But it was observable that the sum-
mons was different on the parts of the respective pursuers;
the presentee only seeking reparation for the damage he
sustained from the refusal of the majority, the question of
a solatium for his feelings might be admitted. The patron
might pursue though there had been no judgment in the
other courts ; the presentee only sued under the judg-
ment that had been given. The question was whether
the action lay against them as individuals ; if the
former judgment had not been libelled on at all
it would have been decisive of the question, whether
the Presbytery was bound to take him on trial or not.
They came now to the only question at issue between
the partieS ; it had been said that they were individuals,
and not the Presbytery ; the former action was against
the Presbytery, as well as against the individuals, though
the judgment was given against the Presbytery alone.
If the law cast any duty on a person which he re-
fused to do, or failed to perform, he was answerable for
the damage to those to whom that refusal might bring in-
jury. If .several persons were jointly bound to do that
duty„ they,vvere also liable for the failure of the parties
injured;: ,In this case the majority had disobeyed
'the laW, and, therefore, the majority was
answerable. Nor was this proposition less binding, be-
cause there were exceptions introduced into the law of
almost every nation in Europe. Thus Courts of
J page. were not answerable for their decisions; even.
infers L courts, provided the law clothed them with
judicial. functions, were not answerable for' errors of
iiidgaiwitL EFen where they were only invested .with a-
' cllispretionary power, hpwever plain might be their miss
injurious the consequence, they were not
answerable; but where the law neither conferred judicial
power t\or discretionary functions,_ but required certain
. things ,to bla done, every body, whatever might be their
weri bound to obey, and were answerable for
neglect, or refusal, or contumacy. In this respect
the comparison between the higher and lower
courts seemed to vanish, as inferior courts were
answerable, where the higher only were not.
It was not denied that the Presbytery had certain
judicial functions, but the functions they had exercised
in the present instance could not be considered of
that nature. It was not necessary for him to go
into the question of the Presbytery: being com-
manded to admit the presentee, as that question did
not arise, because the Presbytery had resisted in
the outset taking the party for trial. The law had
been declared, which stated that the Presbytery were
bound to take the presentee on trial. The judgment of
the Court of. Session was, that the Presbytery,
having refused to try the qualifications of Mr.
Young, acted to the hurt and injury of the pursuer,
in an unlawful and illegal manner, and that
judgment, after great consideration, had been affirmed
by that House. The Noble and Learned Lord then
entered into a lengthened legal argument, for the pur-
pose of showing that the Presbytery could not be consi-
dered as having a supreme authority in the Church, sub-
ject only to the General Assembly, but that it was
bound by the law of the land, and must obey it.
His Lordship pointed out that the Presbytery stood in
the place of the Bishops in England, and mentioned
cases in which the Bishops had been subject to a writ
of mandamus for refusal of a license ; and in what did
the action against the Presbytery differ from an action
against the ordinary ? It had been contended that •
the Presbytery being a corporate body was not liable.
But in the Scotch law there was a great laxity with
respect to what were corporations and what were not.
Almost any body of persons, acting and continuing to
act together under it, might be called a corporation.
In England a corporation could only be con-
stituted by statute, or by grant of a charter
from the Crown, and in Scotland diftrent towns had the
power of making grants,' which:constituted corporations;
and unless those various bodies were answerable for
what they did, there would be no remedy whatever. In
the present case there was proof of an illegal refusal, and
contumacy in the performance of a duty, and
of injury resulting from it. The Presbytery
had refused, and did still refuse, to do what was re-
quired of them, and a continued wilful refusal to do an
net bad been held equjyalent to doing an illeznl one .

The charge that the decree of the Court . below
violated the consciences of the itinbers of the Church,
had not been entertained in the present instance.
That was a topic from which they had abstained
altogether. He would respectfully suggest to any indi-
viduals who found obedience to the law of the land re-
pugnant to their conscientious scruples, that an easy
escape from their pressure was placed within their reach.
It seemed by other appeals of a like nature to be sup-
posed that there was something profane in the Legisla-
ture which acknowledged the Divine origin of the power
of the Church in endeavouring to enforce the exercise of
its duties by temporal penalties ; yet the compelling men,
or a body of men, to exercise the faculties they had re-
ceived from Heaven, was one of the most ordinary acts
of the executive, legislative, and judicial power, not to
mention that it was the act of ordination itself, and not
the preparatory trial for ordination which the Church
claimed to receive from above. But when men sought to
excuse themselves for any contumacy, or refusal, or neglect,
and endeavoure.l to justify it, they had fallen into a much
more practical error—one of a much more sinister as-
pect, and fruitful of far more dangerous consequences.
We have, say they, on the one hand, the opinion of the
civil courts, and or. the other the positive injunction of
our ecclesiastical superiors ; and that all they did was to
refer to those superiors for advice. In what difficulty
did they refer to them—touching what nice perplexed
matter—involving what tangled controversy ? No less
nice, difficult, and perplexed question than whether
they were to perform a duty which had been de-
clared to be incumbent on them,:or whether they were
to follow the advice of other persons, who set themselves
in opposition to the tribunals of the country, and com-
manded them to disobey their decrees. And who did
they resort to ? Not to unbiased advisers, whose counse 1
would be safe, but to parties whenCe had proceeded the un-
wholesome advice that they should disregard the law. "It
is fit," remarked the Noble and Learned Lord, in conclu-
sion, ‘! that'these men learn at length obedience to the
tribunals appointed over them, a lesson which all others
have long ,since acquired, and which they, in learning,
must be prepared to practice. It is just that they should
make, reparation to those whom their breach of a plain
duty has injured—a duty which is not deubtfUl, but
which the Courts have distinctly laid down--7one in
which their failure cannot be a mistaken opinion nor
an error in judgment ; they know what they ought to
have done, and they have refused to do it, and the
penalty of their transgression is, that they should make
compensation to those whom they have injured by their
pertinacious refusal to perform their duty, and yield
obedience to the law."

Lord CorrExias; said that he felt great satisfaction
that the case had been so fully discussed
.by the Noble
and Learned Lords who bad preceded him. A few sen-
tences would express the grounds on which he con-
curred with the opinions they had stated to the House
that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
The Presbytery in the present case had no discretion: the
law was clear. They had refused to obey it, and the re-
sult was injury to• the party. Such being the
.case, he
had a right to maintain an action. But then it was said
these parties were not individually liable for the acts of
the Presbytery at large. Now, what was the fact ?
Why, it had been decided by the highest tribunals
in Scotland and this country that such was not
the. case, and that there was no ground for
such a defence. The law was, that parties
committing damage were answerable for it ; the appel-
lants were tke parties who had committed that damage,
by violating the law ; the Court of SessiOn had decided
that they were liable for that damage, and he had no
hesitation in saying that the interlocutor of that Court
was correct, and ought to be affirmed.
Lord CAMPBELL was also of opinion that the interlo-
cutors of the Court below were correct, and ought to
be affirmed by their Lordships. The Noble and
Learned Lord, after going over the facts of the
case, stated that, upon those facts, he believed
the action was well brought. The refusal to obey the
decree of the Court of Session, which .vas affirmed by
that House, to say the least of it, was committing a
wrong, and if that wrong worked injury to any one, the
party committing the wrong might have an action
brought against him by the party injured. The mem-
bers of the Presbytery need not feel their dignity hurt
by this decision, but it was said that this action was
an interference with the right of the Church to
confer holy orders. God forbid that any Civil
Court should take upon itself to decide whether
any person was fit to preach the Gospel or to admi-
nister the Sacrament ; but he was satisfied as to their
jurisdiction in those cases where the preparatory trial was
refused. Under the Act of Uniformity the Bishop had been
compelled by a mandamus to grant a license ; there was
a distinction between a Bishop refusing to ordain hav-
ing found the candidate unfit, and refusing to grant
preparatory examination. From the time of Thomas
a'Becket till now, there had been no such assertion of
ecclesiastical power, as that a civil tribunal could not
call in question-the decision of any Ecclesiastical Court.
In the most palMy days of Popery in England, if the
EccleSiastical Courts exceeded the canon, an ap-
plication was made t.) the Courts of Westminster,
a prohibition was granted, and the law easily
vindicated its dignity if thC Bishop resisted the proceed-
ings. He was not aware that the Roman Catholic
ChurCh in Scotland 'ever claimed a higher exemption
from civil jurisdiction than the Catholic Church in Eng-
land, or that the Reformed Church ever had a greater
exemption than the Catholic Church ever possessed. As
to the complaint that they were made liable for acting
according to their consciences, nothing was more
dangerous than that the obligation to obey any law should
be made dependent on individual opinion of its pro-
priety. He believed no Church had ever administered the
rites of religion more satisfactorily than the Scotch,
as proved by the high moral condition of the people, and
he hoped they would continue to dispense those blessings
to distant generations ; but for this purpose it would be
as well for its members to pay respect to the supremacy
of the law, as its predecessors had done. It would be
well if they would follow the example of a Mackintosh, a
Robertson, and a Blair. A continual application to
Courts of Justice would inevitably lead to confusion,
and the subversion of that Church which ages had not
been able to impair.
Their Lordships. then ordered the judgment below to
he affirmed with costs.

Their Lordships gave three other judgments of no
public interest.

INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S COURT, August 9.
IN RE JAMES BROMFIELD.
The insolvent in this case was opposed by Mr. Ilaghe,
on behalf of a creditor named James Carpenter.
It appeared that Mr. Carpenter had rented a house
from the insolvent, in Camden Town, and some of the
clauses in their contract not having been complied with,
the present opposition was entered in order that the in-
solvent might be compelled to lodge in Court the lease
of those premises under which he derived a beneficial
interest.

Mr. Commissioner REYNOLDS ordered the case to stead
adjourned until the lease be produced.

IN RE PHILLIP' SPENSER HARRISON.
The insolvent was the proprietor of an ironmonger's
establishment in Holborn, known as the sign of the
Little Dust Pan. He had been a bankrupt some time
back, and the investigation under his present petition
had been frequently before the Court, and adjourned
from time to time. He was supported by Mr. Wood-
ruffe, and opposed by Mr. Cooke, on behalf of a person
named Rowland Williams.

Mr. Williams having entered the box, in reply to Mr.
COOKE, said he could not be termed in strict parlance a
creditor of the insolvent, although he (Mr. Williams) ''
had become security for him in the sum of 2002, and con.
sequently wished fur the assistance of the Court. lq la,
Mr. NicHoLLs said, as Mr. Williams was not a creditor; A
he had no right to be heard in opposition.
Mr. Gotland, a literary teacher, having been examined -
with respect to purchasing some furniture and °thinly-Ow, •
perty which formerly belonged to the insolverit:and ther
use of which he was still allowed by Mr. Gotland;
The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER said the insol
vent's balance-sheet required some amendment, and as
he was at present out upon bail, he shouldbrdei the case
to stand further adjourned.

w ~ i',

:POLICE INTELLIGNCIO:3OIth! 1$
CLERK E IV TV ELL bvs"
David • Brown, a -gentlernanly=lookine 1361.40 W. 4`)"'
charged:
,!.)3r Mrs.. Tryphosa Mine, a ladyiektfie hriG‘"4"9l'.'
46,' Upper North-place; 3 (lriea firit;Meillty ,lm OLP tic
.followingtircunistanots-:== 1 ~":7;
,3
The complainant, .111 rs: Laiie-77.4epiiikicrtbarTiTUT '
been intinfite with the ptitoner, for it earislaitattlelli4s..„ik.„....,
She' hid lately been separated &tali liertinisbtuid: Vesfte
day about twelve o'clock the trisbnei 'Walked 'het .37
drawing. room, and offered her cake' and wine, tt being, - 4
her birthday, which she refused. Hi then becalm
abusive and insulting, arid said he would take her life
before the morning, upon which she gave him into
custody.—The prisoner was committed, being unable to
rind bail.

(11,1 i I

UNMV-lIALL.

Mary Hulse was charged with conveying spirits into
the county gaol, against the regulations.
One of the turnkeys stated that, on being suspected,
she was examined, and a bladder of gin was found in her
bosom, which projected out so much as to excite sus-
picion in the first instance.
The defendant was fined 205., and informed, that if
she repeated it, the heaviest penalty would be inflicted.

LISTS OF VOTJERS.—III consequence of the 31st of
July falling on Sunday this year, the lists of voters were
exhibited on the church and chapel doors last Sunday,
and will be on Sunday next, and may be seen at the house
of an overseer during the first fortnight in August. Those
persons who desire to secure their votes should not fail to
see if their names arc inserted ; and also that names have
not been improperly put on. It is better that claims, in
cases of omission and objection, where there is sufficient
ground should be made by a registration society,
where there is one. The following are the grounds
of objection :—Peers ; aliens, under twenty-one 'years of
age ; idiot or lunatic ; officers in the Excise, customs,
Stamps, Post-office, assessed taxes (if appointed by -As-
sessed-t ix Commissioners) ; new police ; conviction of
bribery, or any other crime; pauper; dead; premises not of
sufficient value, not a house, warehouse, counting-
house, shop, or other building ; chambers, if a street-
door ; lodger, where the premises are not included in the
above description ; landlords who did not occupy a suf-
ficient part ; servant, as secretary, manager, or other-
wise, not being owner or tenant ; not. occupied twelve
tnonths ending the 31st of July, or let the premises during
any part of the year ; bankrupt or insolvent ; not rated
or claithed to be rated ; poor-rate not paid ; window
tax not paid ; non-residence within seven miles Irvin
the 31st of January to the 31st of J uly ; partners, where
premises do not give 101. a-year to each partner ;or not e
in partnership fur a year ending the 31st of July, or
want of qualification in other respects as above. Naiee•
of objection or of claim must be served on the overseetS.- -
Mr. Standish has left for the Continent, with the
intention of remaining abroad for some considerable time.
He has broken up his establishment, and his stud is about
fn ha cilia •