The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-07 00:00:00

PRICE OF SUGAR.

The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com puted
from the Returns made in the Week ending May 3, 1842, is
41 s.l id. per Cwt., exclusive of the Duties of Customs paid or
payable thereon on the importation thereof into Great Britain.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
YO USE OF LORDS. Mat, 6.
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers present
were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham,
and Lord Campbell.
CHARTER V. SIR J. TREVELVAN.
Sir T. WILDE resumed his reply to-day in this ease, and not
haring concluded at four o'clock, the further consideration of
the case was postponed to Monday.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, May 6.
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of ENGLAND was occupied
the whole morning with short causes'and unopposed petitions.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRA3I.)
JOHNSON V. JOHNSON.

In this cause, which was heard a few days since, his Honour
made the following order :—" It appearing_ that a lease might be
settled if the estate was sold, the Conrt orders that the estate
be sold, without prejudice to the absent parties, if any."
After disposing of several motions, totally devoid of interest,
Counsel not being ready to proceed with the causes which were
set down for hearing, the Court rose at half-past ten.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, May 6.
The Middlesex Grand Jury came into Court this morning,
having found one true bill. There being no other business be-
fore them, they were thanked for their services by Mr. Justice,
Patteson and discharged.

TUE QUEEN V. THY: LONDON AND CREFINIVICU AAZI.WAY
COMPANY.
In this case a rule had been obtained calling upon the
London and Greenwich Railway Company to show cause why
a mandamus should not issue, calling upon them to purchase
the whole of the property of the Messrs. Slee, connected with
their vinegar manufactory, on the west side of Church. street,
Bermondsey. The property consisted of a brewery and vinegar
manufactory, the dwelling-house, occupied by Mr. N. Slee,
the resident partner, with a garden attached to it, ar d file
small cottages occupied by different tenants. It appeared that
the extension line of the railway passed within fifty feet of the
house, and a part of the garden occupied by Mr. Noah Slee.
By the 47th section of the Greenwich Railway Act it was
enacted that inasmuch as premises might be deteriorated
in value by the railroad passing near it, any per-
son having premises within fifty feet of the railroad
should have the power of compelling the Company to purchase
such property so situated, within fifty feet of the railroad; and
by the 46th section, it was enacted " That if flee Company re-
quired to purchase any portion of certain property mentioned
in a schedule annexed to the Act, the persons holding such
land should not be required to sell such portiun unless the
Company purchased the whole."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, on behalf of the Company,
showed cause against the rule, and contended that the Com-
pany were not compellable to purchase the whole property
under the provisions of the 46th section. The Company were
not desirous to take any part of it. But as the Messrs. Slee
had called upon them to purchase all that portion within 50
feet of the railway, they were not bound to take more. The
Company had made an offer without prejudice to take the
whole of the dwelling-house and of the garden attached, but
they refused to take the manufactory. And he contended
that the Company were justified in their refusal, inasmuch as
the case did not come within the provisions of the 46th section,
because the Company were not desirous of purchasing any por-
tion of the property at all. He therefore submitted that the rule
must be discharged.
Mr. THESIGER and Mr. LISLE in support of the rule argued
that the Greenwich Railway Company when they obtained
their Act entered into a contract with the public, who
were proprietors of land near which the railway was to pass,
and that they must be bound by that contract. Now it
as a portion of that agreement that they should take the pro-
perty within fifty feet of the railway, if the proprietors were
desit ous of compelling them to do so. It passed within fifty feet
of one po.tion of these premises, and these premises constituting
one manufactory were an entirety, and could not be severed
any more than a house could be divided in two ; and, therefore,
it was submitted that the mandamus must go.
Lord DENMAN, in giving judgment, said that it was the
opinion of the Court that the 47th section did not apply to this
ease, and that all that the Company could be compelled to do,
was to purchase such portion of the premises as were within
fifty feet of the line of Railway, under the provisions of
the 46th section. That the Company were willing to do, and it
did not seem to him that the words of the Act were large
enough to compel the Company to do more. The Company
had offered to purchase the premises withia fifty feet of the

THEILIIEIMER V. COLEATCH.
The plaintiff in this case was a merchant at Hamburgh,
the defendant an eminent warehouseman at Globe-yard, Lower
Thames-street, and this action was brought by way of
trover, to recover two casks of bristles, warehoused with
the defendant for the plaintiff. The statements on both
sides at the trial were very conflicting. The principal witness
for the plaintiff was Miss Mary Anne Theilheimer, his sister,
who swore that she entered the goods at the defendant's ware-
house, in her brother's name. For the defendant, on the contrary,
his clerk, Mr. Day, swore positively that Miss T., on entering
the goods, gave her name Blumenthal, at the same time re-
questing not to acknowledge to any one that the goods were
her's. Ile accordingly sent for the goods, and had them brought
from on board the Neptune -from Hamburgh. Shortly
aftewards he received a notice from the owners of the Neptune to
detain the goods for freight, and subsequently two attachments
were served upon the defendant from persons alleging that
they had alien on the property. AlissTheillteimer, however, aware
positively that she never gave the name of Blumenthal, and
that thf entry in the name which was produced could only have
been made by the mistake of the clerk. The Jury found for
the plaintiff, and a rule was obtained to set aside the verdict
as contrary to evidence.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE this day, in giving judgment,
said this was one of the cases in which the Court found great
difficulty in deciding, but in which they ought to abide by
the general rule, unless there was something pecu-
liar to make it an exception. It was impossible
nut to say that the motion for a new trial involved a charge of
perjury against Miss Thielheimer, and therefore the rule ought
not to be granted on that ground, unless the preponderance of
evidence was clearly against her. It was not denied
that there was strong evidence on both sides, and
it was not denied that the incongruity was pointed out to
the Jury, leaving it to them decide to which witness they would
give credit. They, therefore, having everything before them,
and having decided one way upon that evidence, why should
the Court send down the case for a new trial contrary to the ge-
neral rule? He thought the case ought to remain where it. was.
Mr. Justice COLTMAN was not satisfiedthata. charge of per-
jury was made out against Miss Thielheimer, and he thought
there was no ground for impeaching the verdict. A good
deal of doubt might exist about the case at the time of the trial,
but it had been fully submitted to the Jury, and lie was not
prepared to say that they did not come to the right conclusion.
Mr. Justice EItSKINE said there was a direct contra-
diction between the plaintiff's witness and Mr. Day,
and the Jury believed her in preference. If he (the Learned
Judge) had been on the Jury, he. might, from the evidence,
have come to an opposite conclusion but still he could not say
that the Jury were wrong, and that ;here should be a new trial.
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL concurred with the other Judges,
and the rule for a new trial was discharged.