The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-23 00:00:00

LAMERT ON DEBILITY, NERVOUSNESS, AND ALL
DISORDERS ARISING FROM EXCESS, &c.
"He, who in pleasure's downy arms
Ne'er lost his health or youthful charms,
A hero lives, and justly can
Exclaim, in me behold a man !"
Just published (in a sealed envelope), Tenth Edition, price 2s. 6d., or
sent by post, free, to any address, 3s. 6d.,
ELF-PRESERVATION : a Popular Essay on
L. those concealed disorders, originating in youthful excesses,
and terminating in Nervous Debility, Local and Constitutional
Weakness, and all those Sinkings, Anxieties, and Tremors, which
afflict the Weak, the Sedentary, and the Delicate. With I'ractical
Observatiops on Marriage, and on the Anatomy, Physiology, and
Diseues of the Reproductive Organs, with plain Directions fir their
perfect Restoration.
By SAMUEL LAMERT, Consulting Surgeon,
9, BEDFORD-STREET, BEDFORD-SQUARE, LONDON,
Matriculated Member of the University of Edinburgh, Honorary
Member of the London Hospital Medical Society, Licentiate of
Apothecaries' Hall, London, &c.
" The various positions of Lover, Husband, and Parent, the in-
herent privileges of mankind, are frequently marred and prevented
through the follies and frailties of early indiscretions. To such, among
others, this Essay addresses itself; and by its perusal many questions
may be satisfactorily adjusted that admit of no appeal even to the
most confidential fliend."—Stafford Gazette.
"Long experience in the treatment of a class of diseases hitherto
neglected and most imperfectly understood by the great bulk of the
medical profession, has enabled the writer to prove that there are
concealed causes of Nervous Debility in existence, where the mere
routine practitioner would never dream of finding them; traceable
to certain habits, forming the most secret, yet deadly, and tlttal
springs of domestic misery, and premature modality."—Wakefield
Journal.
Published by the Author, and sold in London by S. Gilbert, 51 and
52, Paternoster-row; Stacie, 23, Tichborne-street, Quadrant, Regent-
street; Hannay and Co., 63, Oxford-street; Noble, 114, Chancery-
lane Gordon, 146, Leadenhall-street ; and by all Booksellers.
♦t home every day till Three. and from Five till Eight.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 22.
CORMACK V. HENDERSON, EXECUTRIX, &C.
The present appeal was brought against a judgment of the
first division of the Court of Session, suspending a charge at
the instance of the appellants, originally directed against the
deceased, Edward Henderson, and afterwards transferred
against his widow, the respondent, for payment of the balance
due upon a bond granted to the Royal Bank of Scotland by
the company of Sceales, Henderson, and Co. In the begin-
ning of the year 1836 a proposal was made to the late sus-
pender, Edward Henderson, by.:Mr. Adolphus Meiklejohn
Sceales, to form a co-partnery in business with him. Mr.
A. M. Sceales, who resided with his father, Mr. Andrew
Sceales, of the Customs, Leith, had been previously en-
gaged in business as a wine merchant, under the desig-
nation of A. M. Sceales and Co., and it was proposed
that the same business should be continued, and that
the new firm should be that of Sceales,' Henderson,
and Co. Mr. Henderson had not previously been in busi-
ness, and was unacquainted with its details. He agreed to
enter into the partnership proposed by Mr. A. M. Sceales,
the arrangements for which were made with the full know-
ledge of Mr. Andrew Sceales. A bond of co-partnership was
entered into, and the question was as to the extent of the
obligation incurred under the terms of the bond by each of
the subscribers to it.
Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Gordon appeared for the ap-
pellant ; and Mr. Kelly and Mr. Anderson for the respondent.
The Lords ultimately reversed the judgment of the Court
below.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, April 22.
(Before Sir L. SIIADWELL.)
rlcAnsox V. THE LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. STUART (with whom was Mr. Malins) was heard in
conclusion of this argument, in support of the demurrer of
the Company.
Mr. James Parker supported the Bill.
His HONOUR said the case was a very clear one. It was
true the thing was not expressed as clearly as it might have
been, but still it was clear enough. The second resolution
alluded to the 10th of August, but it was so worded that the
date was not annexed to the expressions regarding those who
were registered owners, but only applied to those who held
scrip, if they should bring their scrip to be registered on or
befoh the 10th of August. But it would be rather whim-
sical to put this construction, that with respect to registered
shareholders they might at any time claim their shares, but
for those who had scrip they should only obtain their shares
on or before the 10th of August. Although it was not ex-
pressed clearly before the 4th resolution at what time regis-
tered shareholders should make their application, that reso-
lution, however, removed all doubt, for it expressed in the
plainest language that the shares which should not have been
applied for on or before the 10th, should be distributed among
those who had applied before the 10th of August. His Honour,
therefore, allowed the demurrer.
The suit, it will be recollected, arose from the accident that
Sir Edward Pearson was at Naples when the resolutions
were passed, and had not time, therefore, to make his appli-
cation as a registered shareholder on or before the 10th of
August, as he did not, in fact, hear of the resolutions till after
that date. _

(Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MUNRO.
This was an information filed by the Attorney-General at
the relation of James Kennedy, John Shepherd, George
Spence, James Young, William Kennedy, John Frazer,
David Johnstone, on behalf of themselves, all other the en-
rolled communicants and pew or seat-holders in the church
in St. Peter's-square, in Manchester, and of all other persons,
if any, entitled to the benefit of the trusts declared by the
indenture of the 4th day of April, 1832, except those who
were severally defendants thereto. The relators objected to
the doctrines of Mr. Munro. Under these circumstances the
relators insisted that Mr. Munro could not come within
the description in the deed of constitution ; that
he must be considered as no longer belonging to,
or in communion with, the Established Church of Scotland;
and that, therefore, he ought to be restrained by the injunc-
tion of the Court, from conducting Divine worship and
service, or otherwise officiating, in the Scotch Church in St.
Peter's-square, Manchester, and to restrain the defendant,
James Burt, the elder, and others, from permitting or
allowing the church, &c., to be used for any other purpose
than for Divine worship and service, in connexion with, and
according to the uses of the Established Church of Scotla.
The motion also prayed for an injunction to restrain several
other'defendants from conveying or assigninghall for any estate or
interest in the same church, &v., otherwise t
the pur.