The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-25 00:00:00

per Cents., and from 201 to 20 for the Three per Cents.
The news from Lisbon was not looked upon as favoura-
ble. Colombian Stock was rather lower, viz., 221 to
211. Mexican was not higher than 291 ; and Brazilian
receded to 651 and 65. Belgian were firm at 103 ;
French Five per Cents. at 117 f.; and Dutch Two-and-a-
Half per Cents. at 511 to 511.
Except South Western Shares, the Railways generally
were held at a lower value to-day. Great Western were
21} to 22; Birmingham, 79§ to 80; and South Western,
19/ to 261 premium. Brighton ranged from In to 1311;
Blackwalt from 131 to 131 ; and Midland Counties were
20 discount. London Joint Stock Bank Shares were
21 'premium ; and National Provincial Bank of Eng-
land were at par.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

ADDRESS• TO THE KING OF PRUSSIA.

A meeting of the Court of Common Council was held
yesterday, at ten o'clock • for the purpose of discussing
the best mode of testifying the respect of the citizens of
London towards his Majesty the King of Prussia, on the
occasion of his visit to this country for the purpose of
attending the christening of the Prince of Wales.
The Loup MAYOR having briefly stated the object
for which the COurt had been called,

Mr. KING rose to propose that the Court, do invite his
his Majesty the King of Prussia to honour a banquet to
be given in the Guildhall for the purpose of testifying
their respect to his Majesty on the occasion of his visit to
this country to attend the christening of the Prince of
Wales, and to show his Majesty the admiration L.- which
his character is held by the citizens. of London.
Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the motion.

Mr. Deputy STEVENS proposed an amendment, to the
effect that a Committee, consisting of the Aldermen pre-
sent and one member from each ward, should be ap-
pointed to determine the best mode of proceeding.
Mr. ANDERTON seconded the amendment. _ _

A short discussion ensued, in which some of the
speakers deprecated a banquet on the ground or ex-
pense, and recommended that an address merely should
be voted to his Majesty. This view:appeared to receive
approbation of the majority.
Mr. WIRE urged the propriety of the amendment, and
the withdrawal of the original motion. The Court might
'then decide the question in private, which would give
the appearance of unanimity without dischssion.
Mr. KING withdrew his motion ; and, after another
short discussion, the amendment was carried, and the
Committee was appointed, and retired from the Court.
After about an hour's absence the Committee re-
entered the- Court, and Sir P. LAURIE, the Chairman,
stated that, after considerable deliberation, they had
come to a resolution to the effect that the most appro-
priate course of proceeding on the occasion of the visit
of the King of Prussia to attend the christening of the
Prince of Wales, was that .of voting to his Majesty a
suitable Address ; and Mr. Deputy Stevens, who had so
judiciously proposed the appointment of the Committee,
would nuw,.with the concurrence of the Court, move an
Address accordingly.
Mr. KING was ready to concur in the address, but
wished that to the address be added an invitation to a
banquet.—(Cries of Oh. oh.)
Another short discussion ensued.
The RECORDER called the attention of the COurt to the
fact that the Report of a Committee was now before
them, and the proper course was either to adopt that Re-
port, or formally move an amendment to it.
Mr. WILLIAMS was in favour of the banquet.
Mr. ANDERTON was as ready as any one to honour
the King of Prussia, but was this a time to expend a
large sum of money in a banquet—a sum which would
supply sustenance to thirty or forty thousand poor
persons ?—(Hear, and cries of " Order.")

The resdution 'of the Committee was ultimately put
and carried, with few dissentients.
Mr. KING then moved, that in r.ddition to the adthtss
to his Majesty, the King of Prussia be invited to a ban-
quet in the Guildhall.
Mr. Wit.L.t.tius seconded the motion amid some con-
fusion, and called upon the Town Clerk to read the mi-
nute of the Court which recorded the invitation to the
King of Denmark in 1768.
The minutes were then read, and it appeared that the
invitation of his Danish Majesty was to dine with the
Lord Mayor at the Mansion-house, and moreover that it
was confined to his Majesty and the members of his suite.
It was ultimately proposed that, in order to avoid the
unpleasantness of giving a direct negative to the motion
for a banquet., the Court should proceed, to the other bu-
siness of the day—namely, to the address. This was
at once agreed to.
Adiscussion then took place, and an Address was pre-
pared.
Mr. STEVENS produced the Address, which was read
with closed doors, and unanimously and with acclama-
tion adopted. He took occasion, in his speech, to speak
of the great exertions made. by the King of Prussia to
exalt the character of his people, and to give them a
Constitution adapted to a great country, rapidly ad-
vancing in civilization.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WIRE seconded the Address, which was unani-
mously agreed to, and ordered to be ornamentally writ-
ten and emblazoned, and presented to his Majesty the
King of Prussia. _ _ _ _ _

It-was then ordered that the Remembrance:- mould,
accompanied by the Sheriffs, wait upon the King of
Prussia, to learn from him his will and pleazxc when
and where he would receive the Address.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 24,

His LORDSHIP will not sit to-morrow (this day), in
consequence of having to attend the christening of the
Prince of Wales, at Windsor.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 24.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
BRUIN V. KNOTT.

The plaintiff in this case, Mrs. Bruin, claimed a share
of a certain property now in the hands of her mother,
Mrs. Knott.

It appeared that in the year 1823 a gentleman of the
name of Aldridge, a freeman of the City of London died
intestate, leaving a widow and three children, one son
and two daughters. They became entitled, according to the
custom of the City, to certain shires in his property.
One of the daughters died under age, and her share de-
volved in moieties to the two surviving children. The
on also died soon after, and willed his moiety of the
share of his deceased sister to his mother. The plaintiff,
however, claimed that moiety, notwithstanding the will,
according to the customs of the City of London, which
are of a particular character, and not regulated by the
ordinary statute of distribution.
The case having been argued at length as to the title
of the plaintiff under the customs in question,
His HONOUR said that, before he gave his decision in
the case, he wished to have an opportunity of reading
over the documents which had been referred to by
Counsel on either side, and he should therefore reserve
his judgment.
His Hortoun intimated during the course of the day
that he should not sit to-morrow.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)

CHAPMAN V. THE BRIDGEWATER AND TAUNTON NA.YI6A-

TION COMPANY.

The plaintiffs in this cause were Jol.n Chapman,
the owner of certain lands in So7-..tersetshire, and
John and Edward Seely, the occupying tenants
of a portion of these lands, umiak leases of a determi-
nate number of years. The de:tendants were the above-
mentioned Company, and the object of the suit was to
have it declared that the plaintiff Chapman (in whose
interest that of the other defendants entirely merged),
might be declared to have a lien on the pre-
mises of the Company, to a certaim amount of
compensation. The plaintiff's claim arose thus :
Under an Act passed in the seventh year of William IV.,
the Company received power to make a branch cut from
their original canal, The lands of the plaintiff ,
were situated on the line of this branch cut, and
were of consieeYable value, inasmuch as the
soil was especially suited to the manufacture of
bricks, tiles, &c., and was in part appropriated to that
purpose. The question to be decided was, whether or
not, Kider the provisions of the Act, the Company were
not bound to pay the costs, charges, and expensw; of
assessing the amount of compensation money to be
' given to the plaintiff for his lands. Another
point in dispute was, whether or not the jury
which assessed the amount of compensation were, in
doing so, right in taking into account prospective da-
mages in respect of a particular part of the lands called
No. 2. After the Jury had assessed the amount of
compensation, the Company insisted that the Jury
ought to have assessed only a certain propor-
tion of the amount, and that they were wrong
in assessing the whole amount. In this state of matters
the Company proceeded to take possession of the plaintiff's I
property, and make the canal. The lot of land 110. 2 had
not been worked in the manufacture of bricks, &c.,
but it was intended by the plaintiff to be so ;
however, No. 3 was, and kilns, &c. had been
erected upon it, and the effect of making the
new cut was the severing of No. 2 from No. 3, where
the kilns were. The company had offered 2171. as pur-
chase money for the land, and 2151. for damages ; those
offers were afterwards increased to 3001 for purchase
money, and 2501 for damages. The plaintiff did. not con-
sider that amount sufficient. The verdict of the Jury
awarded to the plaintiff 269/. as purchase money, and
481/ for damage to the land—apportioned t3huospinl/.i11 t
respect of the lots Nos. 3,5, 6, and 7, and
re-
spect of No. 2. The defendants objected to the amount
assessed, that whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to
damages for the separance of his land ; the warrant un-
der which the Jury acted, directed them only to inquire
into the damage which should arise to other lanel;,
of the plaintiff, namely, Nos. 5,6, and 7, and did
not refer to lot No. 2, and that, terefore,
they were not -warranted in making any assessment
respecting it. In consequence of the a,;sessment being
thus disputed, the plaintiff required the Company to sus-
pend their working. That, they refused to do, and
therefore a bill was, filed in August, 1838, when an in-
junction was granted by the Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
land to stop the Company from proceeding with their
works. An application to, have the injunction dissolved
was subsequently made, on the part of the defendants, to
the Lord Chancellor, and his Lordship granted the ap-
plication, on condition that the Company should pay
into Court 7501., the whole amount assessed by the
Jury. The sum was accordingly paid into Court,
where it still remains, and the plaintiff now sought for
payment of that money out of Court, also of costs and
expenses, including those of an investigation into the
plaintiff's title to the lands and those of the present
suit. It was contended for the defendants that the
Jury had no right to assess future damages ; that the
lands No. 2 were meadow lands, and not used in the
manufacture of bricks, and that it was only in the event
of the brick-works being extended to those lands that
any claim for damage respecting them could be sustained;
and therefore it was that the otyment of the 3601. already
mentioned as referring to him, was refused. In surport
of this view, the authority of the sth of Geo. IV., sec.
34, was cited.