The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-12 00:00:00

WAR-OFFICE, Nov. 11.

10th Regt. of Light Dragoons—Lieut. A. Cathcart to
be Captain, by purchase, vice Sir J. G. Baird, Bart.,
who retires ; Cornet J. C. Ferrier, to be Lieutenant, by
purchase, vice Cathcart, Nov. 11.
12th Regiment of Light Dragoons—Lieut. E. Morant
to be Captain, by purchase, vice E. Vandelcur, who re-
tires ; Cornet F. M. Mulcaster to be Lieutenant, by pur-
chase, vice Morant ; T. C. Maunsell, Gent., to be Cor-
net, by purchase, vice Mulcaster, Nov. 11.
23d Regiment of Foot—Second Lieut. J. Wynne to
be Adjutant, vice Ellis, who resigns the Adjutantcy only,
Nov. 11.

44th Foot—Ensign 11. H. J. Massy to be Lieutenant,
by purchase, vice Hackett, whose promotion, by pur-
chase, has been cancelled ; R. Bainbridge, Gent. to be
Ensign, without purchase, vice Massy. promoted, Nov. 11.
57th Foot—Assistant-Surgeon F. H. Clark, from the
95th Foot, to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice Neville, de-
ceased, Nov. 11.

77th Foot—Capt. J. Hamilton, from half-pay 42d
Foot, to be Captain, vice Brevet Major G. Stuart., who
exchanges; Lieut. LI. J. White to'be Captain, by pur-
chase, vice Hamilton, who retires ; Ensign E. 11. L.
Crofton to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice White ; H.
R. Carden. Gent., to be Ensign, by. purchase, vice Crof-
ton, Nov. 11.
88th Foot—Lieut. D. Cahill, from the 46th Foot, to
be Paymaster, vice Roberts, deceased, Nor. 11.
95th Foot—Assistant-Surgeon W. Sall, from the
Royal Newfoundland Companies, to be Assis:ant-Sur-
geon, vice Clark, appointed to the 57th Foot, Nov. 11.
Royal Newfoundland Companies—J. C. Martin, Gent.
to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice Sall, appointed to the 95th
Foot, Nov, 11.
BREVET.—Captain J. Hamilton, of the 77th Regiment
of Foot, to be Major in the Army, Jan. 10.
ADMIRALTY, Nov. 5.
Corps of Royal Marines—First Lieutenant and Ad-
jutant T. B. Gray, to be Captain, vice Layton. de-
ceased ; Second Lieutenant J. E. 'W. Lawrence, to be
First Lieutenant, vice Gray promoted ; First Lieutenant
J. H. Gascoigne, to be Adjutant, vice Grey.
DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY.
JOHN PEARCE, coach-maker, Kennington-cross.
WILLIAM AYTON, brazier, Milton, Kent.
BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED.

GEORGE WEGG, draper, Ipswich.
ANTHONY WM. GORGES DOW and WILLIAM
RICHMOND, vinegar-manufactnrers, Liverpool.
BANKRUPTS.
CHARLES YANDLE and GEORGE FIELD, coach-
makers, Marylebone, Nov. 21, at twelve, and Dec. 23, it
eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, Birchin-
lane, official assignee ; Wells, Percy-street, Bedford-
square.
EDWARD BRIGGS ROBINSON, printer. Notting-
ham, to surrender Dec. 9 and 23, at twelve, at the George
the Fourth Inn, Nottingham. Johnson, Son, and
Weatherall, Temple, London ; Bowley, Nottingham.
RICHARD LINDON, corn factor, Snapes, Devon-
shire, Nov. 24, and Dec. 23, at eleven, at the Royal
Hotel, Plymouth. Weymouth and Green, Cateaton-
street, London ; Murrell, Kingsbridge.
THOMAS BARTHOLOMEW FEHR, wine and
irn -i i n
Bourneh li
and
°l‘Vmspirit merchant, Dudley, Nov. 29, and Dec. 23, at two,
atan dt
yheouWnga,teNrleoiov-rlononm, Waterloo-rooms,
London; Birmingham.
axelni:rirgtuhst,
Dudley; Bartleet, Birmingham.
ROBERT STEUART, manufacturer of artficial
granite, Grosvenor-wharf, Pimlico, Nov. 29, at twelve, and
Dec. 23, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green,
Aldermanbury, official assignee ; Lane, Argyll-street.
STUART RAY, bookbinder, Duk e-street, St. James's,
Nov. 22, at one, and Dec. 23, at twelve, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Groom, Abchurch-lane, Lombard-street,
official assignee ; Wright and Co., Golden-square.
RICHARD JAMES WEBB, tailor, Piccadilly, Nov.
24, at half-past ten, and Dec. 23, at twelve, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee ; Bodman,
Queen-street, Cheapside.
GEORGE TALBOT KNOWLES, cotton spinner,
Manchester, Dec. 7, and 23, at two, at the Commission-
ers'-rooms, Manchester. Baxters,-Lincoln's Inn-Fields,
London ; Sale and Worthington, Manchester.
HANNAH CHARLTON, milliner, Regent-street,
Nov. 19, at half-past ten, and Dec. 23, at eleven, at
.the
Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee, Basing-
hall-street. ; Parker, St. Paul's Church-yard.
HENRY BUNDEY, builder, Upper York-place, Port -
land-town, Marylebone, • Nov 22, at twelve, rnd Dec. 23,
at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy • Johnson, official
assignee, Basing
hall-street ; Gray and Berry, Grove-
place, Lisson-grove.
GEORGE JAMES MARSHALL and WILWooLIAM
CHARLES HALL, n-rehousemen,
street, Cheapside, Cheapside, Nov. 22, at twelve, and Dec. 23, at
eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Edwards, Fre-
derick's-place, Old Jewry, official assignee ; Van Sandau
eet,
and Cumming, King-str
DIVIDENDSCheapside.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
T. Morten, sea, builder, Htllingdon, Dec. 2, at twelve
—C. King, J. Sandell, and D. H. King, paper stainers,
Berners-street, Oxford-street, Dec. 10, at eleven—R.
Lyon, cabinet maker, High Holborn, Dec, 10, at twelve
_s. Knight, cattle dealer, West Lloathley, Sussex, Dec,
10, at one.

In the Country.
T. Benson, grocer, Darlington, Durham Dec. 15, at
twelve, at the Rings Head Inn, Darlington.'
CERTIFICATES—DEC. 2.
J. Watson, sen., and J. Watson,jun., common brewers,
Wath-upon-Dearne, Yorkshire—R. Russell, provision
dealer, Bradford, Yorkshire—W. Mainwaring, coal-
master, Dudley, y, Worcestershire—ll. Payn, master ma-
riner, Liverpool_
J. Walker, R. Ackroyd, and E. Antsy,
stuff merchants, Leeds.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. and G. T. Arnold, booksellers, Liverpool—F. Skill
and T. Rackham, printers, Norwich—G. Ilirtzel, H. L.
llirtzel, and F. D. L. Hirtzel, wine merchants, Exeter (so
far as regards 11. L. Hirtzel)—F. Abraham and H. M.
Stone, drapers, Barton-upon-Humber, Lincolnshire—J.
F. Blandford and M. Hare, chemists, Charlotte-street,
Fitzroy-square—J. Taylor and W. K. Grignon, wine
' Hodson, and J. Egar, linen drapers, Cambridge—S. D.
merchants, Suffolk-street, Pall-mall—Jn. Hodson, Js.
Nicklin and M. Coon, lithographers, Ne..wgate-street—
M. and W. Fidler, maltsters, Ewell, Surrey—R. D.
Hodge and M. Thompson, Jun.,.rcurriers, Thirsk, York-
shire—W. Berkeley and B. L. Giles, coal merchants,
London-street, Ratcliffe-cross—A..-cross—A. and M. Robertson,
dyers, Darwin, Lancashire—R. and 'l'. Sutcliffe, cotton
spinners, Heptonstall, Lancashire—J. Rosser and J. B.
Snead, timber merchants, Chepstow, Monmouthshire—
E. Slater and J. Sanders, upholders, Brompton—L. Pear-
son and W. B. Tate, writing-ink manufacturers. Wilson-
street, Finsbury—J. Cooksey and J. Jukes, coal masters,
Rowley, Staffordshire.

PRICE OF SUGAR.
The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, oornritla
from the Returns made in the Week ending Nov. 11, 1842, is
365. 80. per cwt., exclusive of the Duties of Castsras_paid
oe
payable thereon on the importation thereof into Great Britain.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY. Nov. 11.
The Court took re-hearings and appeals to-day.
ALLEN V. MACPHERSON.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, which came before the Court sometime since
upon appeal from the decision of the Master of the
Rolls. The testator in the cause, by his will and sub-
sequent codicils, bequeathed considerable property to
the plaintiff. By the 9th codicil, however, he revoked
ghat bequest, made a small pecuniary provision
for the plaintiff, and made him his residuary
legatee. It was alleged that the alteration
was procured by false and fraudulent representations
made by the plaintiff and Elizabeth Evans, the illegi-
timate son and daughter of the defendant, as to the
conduct of the petitioner. To the bill filed by the
plaintiff the defendants demurred, and the Master of
the Rolls, upon the case coming before him, overruled
the demurrer, and from that judgment the defendants
appealed. His Lordship after going at some length
into the facts of the case, stated his clear opinion to he,
won both authority and principle, that the judgment
below was wrong, and ordered it to be reversed.
The Court then proceeeded with the hearing of
appeals ; but no case of interest came before his Lord-
ship previous to our Evening Edition going to Press.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 11.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
The Court was occupied with unopposed petitions
and short causes.

BEAUCLERK V. BEAUCLERK.
This was a petition from the Lady Charlotte Beau-
clerk, for a sum of 10,6421., to he carried out to her
separate maintenance, in pursuance of the will of the
late Duke of St. Alban's, Lady Beauclerk b Ang one
of the children inheriting under the NI ill.—Order
taken as prayed.
EX PARTE THE ARCHBISHOP OF TORK•
This was an application from the Archbishop of
York, for a reference to the Master, to ascertain the
amount paid as the purchase-money of certain lands
purchased by the Archbishopric, under the authority
of a special Act of Parliament. There not being
funds to meet the whole of the amount due, the
Archbishop had paid it out of his private property.
The amount so paid, and the amount still due, was
now to be ascertained.—Reference granted.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 11.
(Sittings in Banco.)
TRACY V. TAYLOR.
The plaintiff in this case was Augustus Frederick
Tracy, the Governor of Tothill-fields Bridewell, and
the defendant was one of the Commissioners of Sewers
for the City of Westminster, who had seized and de-
strained a table, the property of the plaintiff, for a
sewers'-rate, alleged to be due for that part of Brick-
well which did not constitute part of the residence of
the Governor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this cause was, in
fact, between the Justices of Peace of Westminster,
on the one hand, and the Commissioners of Sewers of
the City of Westminster on the other. The facts of
the case were not disputed, and it now came before
their Lordships as a special case for their decision. The
Commissioners of Sewers had assessed that part of
the Tothill-fields Bridewell, which did not constitute
a part of the Governor's house, in the sum of 361. 2s.
to the sewers'-rate, and had distrained a table, the
property of Mr. Tracy, which was found on the pre-
mises, for the sum of 361. 2s. There had been a
Bridewell existing in Westminster from 1656 to 1826,
which had been under the Magistrates of the city of
Westminster. In 1826, as the Bridewell was too
small, it was determined, under the provisions of the
Act 7 Geo. IV., to erect a new Bridewell. Certain
of the Justices of the city and of the county of Mid-
dlesex were appointed Commissioners for superintend-
ing the erection of the prison, and they were autho-
rised to borrow money on the credit of the county-
rate to defray the expenses of such erection. The
Bridewell having been erected, the management of it
was placed in the hands of the Magistrates of the city
of Westminster. The old Bridewell had been rated in
1746, 1753, and 1760,but the rate had never been paid.
On 13th April, 1841, a Court of Sewers had been held
and the Jurors at that Court had made a presentment
of the premises chargeable to the sewers'-rate for the
city of Westminster, in that part of the city in which
the Bridewell is situated. The presentment of the
Jury was in the following terms :—" Tothill Fields
Bridewell, except the Governor's House, Augustus
Frederick Tracy, 2,8881." And on the 2d of July
following, the Commissioners of Sewers made a rate,
and in respect of the 2,8881. presented by the Jury
as the value of that part of the Bridewell not occu-
pied by the Governor, rated the plaintiff at 361. 25.,
for the non-payment of which a distress was levied,
and the table taken, which constituted the ground of
the present action. It was not denied that the prison
detived advantages from the sewers, not that the
proceedings of the Commissioners had, up to the
time of the levying of the distress, been
legal.
That seizure, however,
.he contended was illegal.
That part of the Bridewell which did not constitute
part of the Governor's house, could not be legally
rated, and therefore any distress to enforce that rate
must be illegal. The rate must be levied on the bene-
ficial occupier. Now who was the beneficial occupier
of that part of the prison not occupied by the Go-
vernor ? Certainly not the Governor ;he was not the
occupier at "all. The prisoners could not be rated
beneficial occupiers, for they were there against their
will. There was no beneficial occupier, and it would
be just as legal to assess the Arsenal at Portsmouth,
the Tcrer of London, Tilbury Fort, or any other
of those defences which might he called the dead-
stock of the country, as to rate this Bridewell. No
one derived any rent from it ; no one had any bene-
ficial occupancy of it, and the Commissioners of
Sewers might as well assess the public highways, or
the rivers of the country.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that according
to the Law of Sewers, there was no necessity to
show any occupancy whatever. If the Jury pre-
sented that any lands or tenements derived benefit
from the sewers, the Commissioners had the power to
rate them, even although the occupier should be un-
known, and in default of payment to enter and dis •
train any gdods found therein, and if no goods could
be found, that they had the power to seize the land
itself and to sell the same. It was therefore unim-
portant for his argument whether Mr. Tracy was the
occupier or not, although as regarded that point, he
was prepared to contend that Mr. Tracy was in law
the occupier of that part of the prison which did not
constitute the Governor's house. He ordered the
location of the dlfferent prisoners. He directed the
general management of that part of the prison, and
therefore exercised such acts of ownership in that part
of the prison as to constitute him in point of law the
occupier.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL briefly replied.
The COURT reserved its judgment.
THE CLARENCE RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE GREAT
NORTII OF ENGLAND, CLARENCE, AND HARTLEPOOL

RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an issue directed by the Court of Chan-
cery to be tried in order to ascertain the opinion of
the Judges of this Court as to the construction of va-
rious Acts of Parliament authorising the construction
of the two railways. The defendants claimed aright to
cross the plaintiffs' railway at a level, contending that
they had the power so to do by their (the defendants')
Act of Parliament. The plaintiffs denied the right, con-
tending that there were clauses in defendants' Act
saving all the plaintiffs' rights, and the defendants
had merely a permission, not a compulsory power,
to enter on plaintiffs' railway. The Court of
Chancery had directed this fictitious action for
trespass to be brought, and a justification to be
pleaded, and the plea to be demurred to, so as to
enable the parties ultimately to carry the case by way
of appeal to the House of Lords, by which tribunal
the case will be ultimately decided, as it is admitted
on all hands that the question involves little less then
the existence of one of the two Companies. It was
stated that if the decision _should be adverse to the
defendants this railway would be rendered useless.
Mr. Thomlinson argued the case for the defendants,
and the Solicitor-General for the plaintiffs. The
arguments were purely of a technical nature, turning
entirely upon the construction to be placed upon ap-
parently contradictory sections of the same Act of
Parliament.
The COURT took time to consider its judgment.

BAIL COURT, Nov. 11.
The Grand Jury of the county of Middlesex was
sworn in this morning. His Lordship briefly ad-
dressed the Grand Jury, after which they retired to
their room•

TILE QUEEN V. CHARLES DEVON, AND ROBERT SULU

VAN, ESQ.

Mr. Erle moved fora rule to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue to the defendants, com-
manding them to grant a warrant of distress, to levy a
poor-rate made within the district of Hampton-court
Palace. The case was similar to that in which Lady Em-
melinePonsonlivwas a defendant, and which was decided
by the Court of Queen's Bench Pgainst the defendant.
A rate was made on ten or twelve other persons not
included in the former rate on the 14th of April. On
the 16th of July they were summoned to appear
before Charles Devon, and Robert Sullivan, and
Mr. Carpenter, the Magistrates of the district.
The two former Magistrates met at the Red
Lion, but they refused to grant a warrant of
distress, stating that they would not be justified
in doing so, unless a mandamus was issued by the
Court of Queen's Bench. The Crown officers, it
seemed, had expressed dissatisfaction as to their liabi-
lity, notwithstanding the decision
which had been
given by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of
Lady Emeline Ponsonby, and an indemnity to the
Magistrates was demanded from the overseers. - This
Mr. Erle contended was not necessary, the same
question having been already decided, and the Court
granted the rule.
SLADE V. THE EARL OF WALDZGRAVE.
Mr. PEACOCK in this case applied for a distringas to

proceed to outlawry against the defendant. The applica-
tion was founded on an affidavit, which stated that appli-
cations had been made to Mr. George Robins, the
defendant's agent, and to Mr. Pearson, his attorney,
who informed the deponent that he (the defendant)
was out of the jurisdiction of the Court ; and Pearson '
told him that he had a memorandum of the debt.
On the 20th of July a writ of summons was issued,
and an application was made by Mr. Pearson to enter
an appearance, which he refused. On the 28th July
a similar application in writing was made to Dr.
Daniel, a relative of the defendant, to which no an-
swer was returned. On the 30th August, a clerk called
at Strawberry Hill, the defendant's former residence,
He saw the housekeeper, who informed him that the
Earl of Waldegrave was residing in Italy, but that if
a copy of the writ was left with her, she would have
it forwarded to him.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Was not this case before
me in chamber ?
Mr. PEACOCK—The application in chamber was
for the purpose of compelling an appearance ; but
your Lordship then stated the application must be for
the purpose of proceeding to outlawry. The appli-
cation is now made in that shape.—Application
granted.
The Court rose before 12 o'clock, there being no
other business to be disposed of to- day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 11.
The Court sat for the first day this term at Nisi
Prius in the new Court, Guildhall (London), when
several undefended actions having been disposed of
by Mr. Justice Cresswell and common Juries, the
Court rose at half-past twelve o'clock.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 11.
EVANS V. NICHOLSON.
This was an action against the defendant for the
recovery of compensation for the non-delivery of
goods consigned to his care.
The defendant is the extensive shipowner and
wharfinger in the City. It appeared that the goods
hal been sent out of the West India Docks to
be shipped for Canton, on board the George
the Fourth, a vessel belonging to the defendant.
After they had been brought to the docks, however,
they were placed by mistake on board another
ship called the Sophia, which sailed with
them for Bombay. The action was after-
wards instituted against the defendant ; and the
simple question was, whether the Dock Company, or
the officers of the Sophia, or the servants of the
defendant, were answerable fur the improper
delivery which had thus taken place. The case
had been tried at the Guilhall, before Lord Abinger,
when the Jury returned a verdict to the effect that
there had been no neglect of duty on the part of the
officers of the Sophia, thus rendering the defendant
liable in the case, hut leaving it open to him to sue the
Dock Company if he should think proper.
Mr. NICHOLSON now appeared in person to move
for a rule to show cause why a new trial should
not be had on the grounds of misdirection
on the part of the Learned Judge, and of a
verdict against evidence. In a somewhat unprofes-
sional speech, Mr. Nicholson attempted to support his
application by pointing out certain supposed discre-
pancies in the evidence of the witness for the plaintiff.
The COURT held that no reason had been adduced
to show that the verdict of the Jury should be dis-
turbed, and neither was there any thing to justify
the plea of re-consideration on the part of the Learned
Judge. The rule was therefore refused.
In the course of the day the Court intimated that
they should on Thursday next proceed to take the
new trial paper, in the cases in which rules had been
granted.