The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-19 00:00:00

NAUTICILS

" In the practice with the mortars forthrovr
ing a shot to a vessel in distress, on Caput°
Manby's plan, which took place on Douglo
sands, on Friday morning the 23d of March, 0,
the presence of the Insular Committee, aro,
numerous spectators, the experiment was es,t'
times, repeated with, uniform success. The
tanee thus attained varied between 235 and 260
yards ; several of the shot fell within a very fel/
yards of each other, nor was a single line broken'
The "plan of projecting a line by a rocket, either
from a vessel to the shore, or from the land to $
vessel, as brought forward by the zealous and in'
defatigable Mr: Tringrouse, of Helstone, in
Cornwall, (the apparatus for which, had beer
presented by the Royal National Institution
England, to our Insular Association), was also
partially tried, and the distance attained by the
rockets caused considerable interest : further es'
periments on this plan will shortly be tried on I
large scale, and a future report be given of the
result. From the precision of the shot thrall
by the mortars, and the portability of the rockets)
and the speed with which they can be conveyed
over the most rugged rocks, we trust that the
combination of these invaluable inventions, 605
brought to perfection by two active and meritori'
ous friends to our seamen, will in future prose
a great and important addition to the measures
already adopted by Life-boats and other moos'
to avert as far as possible, the calamity of 514'
wreck on the wild and dangerous shores of ai
dievineFrom the number of wrecks which
t, sufferot 011
yon
thatou rmcoasts, w
livese
will
ebie.e T
to s
everyab Island.
pre
served, but that such regulations and improve'
ments may be adopted, both on land and on ships
board, as may ultimately much lessen the risk 42
lives by shipwreck. The rockets which were
tried on the sands last Friday, may probably be
rendered very serviceable, if carried to sea. 14
every vessel. On a lee-shore, on which vessell
are almost invariably wrecked, they would carry
a rope to a great distance."

The Horticultural Society held their periods;
cal Meeting at their house, in Regent-street, on TuesdaY;
when many valuable communications were read by l
Sabine, the Honorary and Gratuitous Secretary, and Alf;
Lindley, the Deputy. A liberal distribution of rare seed
was made amongst the members ; and it was at the sail
time communicated to the Society, that a public breakt
would this year be given at their fine and extensive garde"
at Chiswick, instead of the annual dinner. The exact Pei
riod will be determined upon when a sufficient number e
the members shall have put down their names to indernei"u
the Society against loss.
One of our Cotemporaries has called the ELl,rt
wu
of W-d a pillar of the State. This reminds us of
old story of a publican who complimented with this title we",
soldiers quartered in his house, who had just received a{
large sum of pay and prize-money. Sometime after one t;
these poor fellows returned to the same house (having befj
wounded and discharged), in a state of destitution, $.,
meeting with Lint a sorry reception from mine host, be "cji
minded him that he was one of the men whom he paid so.,
attention to, as the Pillars of the Nation- "Oh," said td
publican, " if I called you so, I meant the caterpillars °
the nation."
7.--Although Tuef
Yet we have had to-do
• of 2,000 bags h
LIVERPOOL, APRIL 1
day, Manchester market day, whin little or nothing is
ne
a very
sold
animatedl ddo nate
vi ne r ouryfull
u demand,lpt
rt
prices.
.and market,itpva r
dy
ni
APRIL 17,--Thc sales

MANCHESTER, -
ev:reryk supnai
uniform
r havem as
e tboeelneadconsiderable,
10.80 i
. ,-- Le
to-day ableveaxplietetlteetiim,
tCohettgoinianfotirtysevse:anl
that it has not been very far from the weekly consumptw;
of the trade. For a few days past, the prices have bee"
there has been recently a great dulness, and the price ve I
tloin"U.e tolt immap);Olvioes,vetvheart, it will, in some measure, Prt)ci if
loomA Cnllonthqsuaersetdweta.
more steady, and
a better feeling in the Yarn department, in fact, therstd
to-day more inquiry for that article. Goods are repo
road, who
as dull, but the returns of the quantity shipped proves to,
considerable business must be doing in them : the Ste
t tY
idseidlelyminonreqTuueset,sdanady aerveesneianr cge.a
Ity,l:
Jolly Carters, Hampstead-road, on view of the body of,i
if Cotton nlshn :lel Vd
lard
Samuel Farquharson, bookseller, Morley-street, Han'l39l:','
put a period to his existence, on Monday w
ing last, by cutting his throat. Verdict—insa3itY* ', IA
SANG FROID.—The Marechal de •Fabe_r_oe,
v
a siege, was pointing out a particular ilace with his qtlf
stretching out another, he continued his disoQ4rse,
as he spoke, a musket ball carried off the finger, now

LAW ;INTELLIGENCE.—(THIS DAY.)
COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
sla JOHN PERRINO AND CO. V. WILKS AND VEREEICE.
Mr*. SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. CAaIPBELL)
stated the
plaintiffs' case. The plaintiffs were hankers of
considerable eminence, and kept their banking-house on
rabill ; the defendants had been about a-year and a half
in Partnership as solicitors, during which period they be-
came the solicitors of several joint stock companies. The
Present action was brought to recover 20001. and interest,
,heing the amount of a bill of exchange drawn by the de-
fendant John Wilke, jun., upon the firm of Wilks and Ver-
beke, of which he was a partner, and discounted by the house
°f Perring and Co. on the 6th Jan. 1846. It appeared that
Ifr•Wilks was the active partner of his firm, and that all the
4nancial transactions were conducted by him, the capital
reaaired for carrying on their business as Solicitors being
~.odged in his name in the banks of Sir Wm. Kaye and Sir
John Perring, which capital could, of course, only he paid
out by a cheque fl.prn Mr. Wilke. In the beginning of
the month of January, 1826, there was a balance in Mr.
Wilke, favour to the amount of 1,7001., at the house of
Perring and Co. ; and, on the 6th of the same month, Mr.
barber, the managing partner of the house, received a let-
ter from Mr. Wilks, inclosing a bill of exchange at two
months, which he requested the house of Perring and Co.
thoblige him by discounting. The letter, which inclosed
e bill, was as follows :
witIMY DEAR. SIR—To accomplish a particular object,
outinterfering with the balance which I have at your
house, and at Sir W. Kaye's, and without selling out stock
or shares at a loss, I am in want of 2,000/. until
dtilve end of February, and shall feel much obliged by your
dit'!"utiting the inclosed bill for that amount. It will fall
,us on the 7th March, and I shall not want to have it
renew-ed.-4 remain, dear sir,
• Very truly yours,
The d JOHN WILKS, Jun.
t; aY on which this letter was received, Mr. Barber in-
mated his intention of accommodating the firm of Wilke
pand Verbeke by discounting the hill, and it was returned
apeeptance, and the acceptance written by Mr. Wilke
for himself and, partner. The next day a cheque was
drawn for the amount by Mr. Wilke, and paid to the Welsh
Iron Company, in discharge of a sum of 2,5001., due by
him for shares which he held under that CoMpany. Upon
the bill falling due it was presented, and being dishonoured
a personal application was made to Mr. Verbeke, who de-
sired that Mr. Wilke should be applied to, as he knew
nothing of the financial transactions of the firm. Un-
der those circumstances the plaintiffs had recourse to the
present action against the defendant to recover the amount
of:a bill which was discounted upon their joint credit.
Witnesses having been examined in support of the case,
!dated by the plaintiffs' counsel,
The Souctros.-GENttam. (with whom Was Mr. Parke)
addressed the Jury in favour of the defendant Verbeke, for
; 110 m. only we understood him to state, lie appeared.—
The facts of the case were simple and uncontradicted.—
,
Wilks had inserted the name of his partner in the bill,
liv.ithout the knowledge or authority of that partner. The
"l
Wm discounted to serve his private purposes ; and
e jury had it in eviece that its amount was
actually paid in discharger of a private debt of Mr.
Wi'aa to the Welsh Iron Company. Mr. Verbeke
Was in utter ignorance of the whole transaction, until the
'north
~s, of. May, two months after the bill became due.
""" he Was applied to for payment, and naturally referred
tkhe 4Pplicant to Mr. Wilke, by this act in no degree ac-
10,4wledging his own liability, or that he possessed any ,
6,"` ledge of the transaction. Mr. Wilks had drawn the
hil' "Mr. Wilks had written the accceptance, without
a
_ partner's authority, and to serve his private objects ;
nd if the Jury believed that the plaintiff, or any of them, had
;talon to think, when the bill was discounted, that it was
the private purposes of Mr. Wilks, under the entree-
of the Court, he had to inform them, that they were
and to find for the defendayts; for if a verdict was given
1:; the Plaintiffs, Mr. Verbeke, who was unconscious of the
! transaction, and who had gained nothing by it, di-
-7 Qr indirectly, would become as much responsible as
AZints, who had alone incurred the debt. That Mr.
Who transacted the business- of the house of
is irg. and Co., had reasonable ground :for supposing
s • • Wilke required the bill to- be discouilted, was ma-
' fieat front the terms of that letter in which .Mr. Wilke
indried the bill, and which had heengothY the inter-
Arention of a Court of Equity: Perring and Co. had never
.°!* discounted any' bill for the firm of Wilks and Verto-
e Mr. Wilke wrote expressly, that he" Wanted to ac-
Lpliall a particular object," and under those circumstances
ILlthrnitted to the Jury, as men of sense, and acquainted
f'lt business, whether there could be a reasonable doubt
at lair. Barber, when he consented to discount the bill,
4,4 aware that it was for the private accommodation of
arti-gc• SCAILLETT objected to the production of the letter
i,,-"reased by Mr. Wilks to Mr. Barber, unless the answer
ilcbich ft was contained, and which had been filed in
ti,ritY, was also produced ; but the Court overruled the
'l,,ecti°n, and allowed the letter to be given in evidence.
JUSTICS said that the Counsel at both sides
stated the law with considerable accuracy.—
ite act of Mr. Barber was, in law, the act of
_Loa fellow partners, 'and if the Jury 'believed that
Zmet cadent Wilke, bad pledged his partner's credit, and
ac`,l74 ilia name without the authority of the partner, and
Printe •purposes, and that the Banker knew that it
for Wilkes private purposes, when he received and dis-
- :44 the bill, a good defence had been made out. It
not • necessary for the Jury to believe that the de-
ant Wilke had contemplated a fraud upon his partner,
Pled •
41,d .„..1 ug his credit, for he might have supposed
take -4° good reason too, that he should have been able to
'pamper;nla the bill when it became due, and in that case the
V•iis credit could not have suffered. The question whether
kr-'ll,theer-tem, plated a fraud, therefore, was
.nOt the question
jury "11. The.question for the consideration of the
know" whether Mr. Barber had sufficient reason to
iis. that Mr. Wilks required the bill to be discounted for
.roclwn purposes. In support of the affirmative of this
postion, the defendant, Mr. Verbeke relied mainly on
ttaer written by Wilks, and inclosing the bill. That
tl • had come into Mr. Verbeke's hands, by
bler_intervention of the Court of Equity. If the Jury
AL.'.7ZI therefore that that letter ought to have informed
treaiiurber that Mr. Wilks was pledging his- partner's
defend:lie private' purposes, they ought to find for the
Zarhenatad; if, on the contrary, they believed that Mr.
position
tb... ‘us, minted the bill, upon a reasonable sup-
Ar --`it doin so for the accommodation of the
pif g I finds for
th Verbeke, they were holm( to
fore); n •
urY, without leaving the box returned a verdict
e Plaintiff D
-•vrest,) 7"- a.lnagea 2,1461. 14s. 2d. (including the
•

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS.
This SPiArt AND ANOTHER V. roasts.
ale all', was AND
an action at the instance of the plaintiff's, who
enees la- a the defendant,- le.ho publi of the name of Lynch, against
is!
order to recoyer-then
t
calinein - erchant i
Ivirn aidnby Mark-anlane,in
Lynch to the defen $u of 50/.
dant; after he had P
bankruptcy with committed an act of
the latter'owledge.
knowledge. Mr. Sergeant TA DD 'Y having
Veral witnesses, but the questionstated the case, called
having turned upon the
se-
point as to the defendant's knowled
'committed Previous ge to the payment,of the act of bankruptcy the oly evidence f
the plaintiff on this point/was the testimony not Mr. Hensoorn,
the plaintiff's Attorney. It appeared that on the evening
_
of the 6th October Lit. It
Imnkrupe ens house was sold, d
that A Mr. Russell, the defendant's clerk, was present,
with several other creditors., Air. liaison stated, that
next morning, at nine o'clock, Mr. Russell and Mr. Spratt
and the latter inf.orfned idol, in Russell's
tailed upon him,
Presence, that several writs hid issuedagainst the bank-
(Spratt) had every
reaaen ti) believe that
1111,t, and that he
the bankrupt had committedanac, two.fbankruptcy. Under
these circumstances 11
.....e consulteddv 1
• d Itiriiraeastn" 'g notice he
' -411°uld do, when witness a
Whitbread "and CO. anti others who
.ha.d fguZdts of the
bukulirupt in their hands, that a comtmhitss:tiownw'sheveorul,dhe is
4 --s.' aga4USt him. Notwithstanding
Russell
on the
upedt arreste an pu into a
le,a. satne.day got the bankr.
,—"uP-up here he
cuar...ged hi:, w recetv the 50/. and then dia..
about the
1,- 'ur. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendant, stated, that lie
°ald prove that Mr. Henson was mistaken
ho •
ur when the meeting took place.
bad Mr. Russell was accordingly called, thatandthdeep7otsieidoct
ob
October,
got the money about four o'clock, on the Itnd that he did not see Mr. Henson till six o'hcelockcominmtilis-e
evening.- The veitness's examination before t
timers was then read, before whom he deposed
1. 6th of
meeting took place about a fortnight after t..e . 1
in
October ; besides, the evidence he then gave, vane'
that the
several particulars from that now given.
The Cuter JUSTICE having recapitulated the evidence,
left it to the Jury to say whost testitnony they should lieve, that of Mr. Russell or Mr. Henson. lf they be-
lieved the-former, as the law stood at present, it was their
be-
duty .to find for the defendant ;
i',f the.. latter, then they
would find for the plaintiffs.
The Juri,'without any Hesitation; foitild*ii.thililaintitra
ham es 50L
• - :
-At

r.
Margat, who has ascended 32 times inia
balloon, bas been rewarded by the appointment of aeronaut
to the King

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.- (THIS DAY.)

GUILDHALL.

Doc &wailer-E.—John Newport was charged with
having stolen s. dog called Spot. Newport was the servant
of Messrs. Foster and Co., brewers, and he stated that
the dog in question was his. That onthe 18th of November
the dog went out of the stable, and was never afterwards
seen till a few days ago, when he saw it in the street,
claimed it, and on being refused it, he called a constable,
and ordered him to take possession of it.
Joseph Warren, a milkman in Margaret-street, Nor-
thampton-square, was the person from whom the dog had
been taken by Newport's direction. He paid ten shillings
for it to a person named Greaves. Greaves bought it of
Pullen, and Pullen bought it of Payne, who bred it. All
these persons swore distinctly to the dog ; but, with the
exception of the milkman, did not carry with them very
creditable appearances. Newport, Messrs. Foster and
Co.'s riding-master, a person who cropped the dog for
Newport, and one or two more labourers about the
brewery, as decidedly swore to the dog's being Newport's.
Mr. Alderman ANSLIE upon this conflicting testimony,
decided in favour of Newport, and ordered him to have
the dog.
STREET-KEEPERS' CRUELTY.—Two street-keepers from
Fleet-market brought up a poor woman in custody, with
an infant in her arms and another at her foot, on a charge
of having sold fruit in the streets. The fellows had sent
the poor creature's nut-basket to the Green-yard, and, not
satiated with that, brought herself and family, before the
Magistrate. The poor woman said, she had been ex-
ceedingly harshly dealt with • by the street-keepers.
She had pledged a shirt of her husband's to enable
her to buy the nuts she had in her basket, in the
hope of being able to make a trifle towards the sup-
port of herself and family by a sale of them. Yesterday
morning she had 4s. worth of nuts in her basket; she had
sold a shilling's worth of them, and then the street-keepers
took the basket with its contents from her, and sent it to
the green-yard, and brought her here.
Mr. Alderman Asst.'s expressed the greatest indigna-
tion at the conduct of the street-keepers. He knew that
the law prohibited poor people selling fruit in the streets,
unless they had the consent of the inhabitants; but he
really felt that that law ought to be altered. Many poor
individuals might make an honest livelihood, if they were
only permitted to do so in this way; but, by the conduct of
the street-keepers, as bad been manifested in the present
instance, poor people were thrown on the parish. He
would be bound to say, that when this poor woman went
to the Green-yard for her basket, not only would she have
to pay a fee there, but there would not be a not in the
basket. He desired the poor woman immediately to go
to the overseers of the parish, demand money from them
to enable her to recover the basket, &c. and if they re-
fused to supply her with such, assistance, then .to come
back, and he would grant a summons against them, call_
jug upon them to do so. He could not help again re-
peating, it was most distressing that street-keepers should
have the power of inflicting such cruelty in their hands,
and he sincerely hoped it would soon be altered.