The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-24 00:00:00

MONEY MARKET and CITY NEW:=,
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.
POST.—There seems to be a suspicion abroad that
the funds requisite to carry out the capitalisation scheme
tat' Senor Gamboa have not been procured, and as some
of the bondholders may be disposed to make needless
sacrifices of their property in consequence, we think it
right to state that the fact scarcely admits of a doubt.
A considerable portion of the money was, as we have be-
fore explained, to be advanced by the bank of San Fer-
nando, an establishment of the good faith of which
there can be as little question as of the power. We
learn, moreover, from authentic sources, that this part
of the affair has, in truth, been definitively settled.
Some minor points connected with the project haVe
perhaps vet to be arranged, or it may he that the
whole ot the members of the Commission appointed
have not reached London. The bondholders should, at
any rate, prepare themselves for a certain delay in the
actual payment. We have reason to believe that the
Ambassador, General Sancho, has written out very
energetically to his Government on the subject of the
advertised, but still unpaid, Treasury bills, and as, to
proceed to the liquidation of posterior claims while they
remain in abeyance and dishonour, would be an un-
paralleled act of treachery, and the most fatal stab of all
to Spanish credit, that business may have the effect of
protracting the final execution of the measure. Under
all the circumstances, it is not impossible that M. for-
rajo and his coadjutors may have orders, as a prelimi-
nary matter, to certain the state of feeling which •as
pre-
vails among the different classes of creditors, or, as the
French neatly txpres- it, tatonner I! terrain.
We may venture, in the meanwhile, to intimate to
Senor Borrajo. that, as he cannot but be aware of the
uneasiness of the public on the subject of his mission,
the least he could have done, in propriety, would have
been at once to make known his arrival, and to add the
assurance of his having the pesos (biros safe in his pos-
session, for the most speedy distribution that was at all
practicable. Such a course of proceeding would not
only have conveyed the idea of a desire on his part to
show the bondholders common civility, but it would
have served, at the same time, to silence reports injurious
to his Gouernment, and to check the stock jobbing ope-
rations consequent upon them, in which, for aught we
know, it may be their conviction that he is himself an
interested party. The present Spanish Government are
not so ignorant of the transgressions of their predeces-
sors in lower as tip flatter themselves that the bond-
holders will take on trust all they choose to utter at
Madrid. The circumstance that M. Borrajo is known to
have at length got through his arduous journey to Lon-
don, and that he is actually at hand to proceed to busi-
ness, if he thought tit to do so, tends to increase the sus-
picion that there must be something wrong.
As this matter was still in suspense, the Chairman of
the Treasury bondholders, with that zeal and prompti-
tude for which he is distinguished, waited in the course
of the day on Senor Murrieta for the purpose of ascer-
mining from him, if possible, whether the intended pay-
ment would include an instalment of any kind for the
constituency represented by him. Mr. Tasker requested
to be explicitly informed of the truth, yes or no, in order
that he might be able to answer the anxious inquiries of
partied addressing him on the subject of their claims, now
between five and six veers overdue ; when, to his
great surprise, he learned that Senor Murietta could say
nothing, and who, in tact, disclaimed having anything
whatever to do with the business. This may, indeed,
well account for the brevity of M. Murrietsis note in
reply to Mr_ Thornton, as to the nature of his in-
structions.

not be explained except by supposing that there was some
contract between the parties. Taking possession was an
act of part performance, because it implied the consent
of the lessor, but where an agreement was accompanied
with a lease which explained the possession, it was im-
possible to consider it as part performance. Therefore,
as far as the original transaction went, it did
not appear to him that there was any act of part per-
formance which could be relied upon. It had been
argued, however, at the bar that the Coopers' Company
had had notice of the lease to Mr. Trinder, at the time
when it was granted, and also in 1783, and had per-
mitted expenditure to go on since, and it was said that
he might from those facts infer an original agreement
to grant a license. If the Coopers' Company had per-
mitted the East India Company to spend a fortune
upon the premises, the cases which had been
cited would apply to the present. Upon the
question of notice, his Honour said, he might wish
' for further information. A second question would be as
to the waiver, and a third as to the construction of the
Act of Parliament. Upon these two questions he should
be spoken to ; but it would very much narrow the case
to settle the question of notice ; as, according to his pre-
sent view, his decision would entirely turn upon the ques-
tion of conduct. He thought it would be better that the
case should stand over till Tuesday, when he would be
able to state his opinion on that point.
The case was then ordered to stand over generally.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Jan. 22.

THE QUEEN V. THE INHABITANTS OF RISHWORTII..

This was an appeal from an order of Sessions for the
removal of a pauper from the parish of Rishworth, in
Yorkshire, to the parish of Staley-bridge, in Lancashire.
Mr. Wortley appeared on behalf of the appellants, and
Mr. Baines on behalf of the respondents.
The arguments turned chiefly upon the question of
whether there was sufficient legal evidence of the birth of
the pauper, and of the other facts in the case, to autho-
rise the Justices at Sessions to make the order in ques-
tion. '['here was nothing of public interest in the case,
the arguments being directed to the construction of the
various Acts of Parliament for regulating the settlement
and removal of paupers.

THE QUEEN V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was a mandamus issued at the instance of the
Commissioners for paving the parish of Christ Church,
Spitalfields, calling upon the defendants to build a bridge
in conformity- with- the provisions of their Act of Parlia-
ment—the 6th and 7th Wm. IV.—one of the sections of
which required that a space of 16 feet should intervene
between the key-stone of the arch and the level of the
ground. The Railway Company had built a bridge in
Brick-lane, the height of which was only 15 feet 1 inch,
and they were desirous of lowering the street in order to
gain the required depth. This power they claimed under
the 9th section of their Act, but it was denied by the I

Paving Commissioners on the strength of a Local Act,
I2th Geo. 111. c. 38 (which forbade any alterations in the
roads or pavements of the parish without their prior
consent), conjointly with the 120th section of the Rail-
way Act, which reserved the privileges of parishes pos-
sessing local Acts. The Commissioners called upon the
Company to substitute an iron-bridge for the stone-
bridge they had erected, and their return to the manda-
mus was a claim of the power to lower the road, and thus
gain the necessary height.
The COURT took time to consider the question, which
entirely turned on the construction of the various sections
of the Acts of Parliament above-mentioned.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 22.
JOHNSON V. CHARLES MATHEWS.

LA W INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 22.
WALKEII V. ASTON.

Mr. James applied to his Lordship for a writ of distrin-
gas to compel the defendant to put in an appearance. The
affidavit, in support of the application, stated that re-
peated calls had been made at the defendant's house for
the purpose of serving him with process, on which occa-
sions the attorney's clerk was invariably informed that
the defendant was gone to Covent-Garden Theatre, and
on application at the stage door of that establishment, he
was as frequently told that the defendant could not be
seen. The clerk explained to the door-keeper the nature
of his visit, and after repeated ineffectual attempts to ob-
tain an interview with the defendant, left a copy of the
process with him. Indeed, it appeared that although Mr.
Charles Mathews might almost nightly be seen by the
public on the stage of Covent-Garden Theatre, he was
never to be seen anywhere else by anybody.
Mr. Justice Wattems granted the writ.

Mr. Sal;AnT relied to-day in this case, which came be-
fore the Court upon motion on the behalf of Messrs.
Storr and. Mortieaer, the eminent jewellers, who sought
for the conduct of the suit which had been instituted for
the management of the estate of the late Mr. Harvey
Aston, who was largely indebted to Messrs. Storr and
)dortimer. The ground on which the application was
IROAIR was, that the plaintiffs had not used due diligence
prosecuting the suit.
The LORI) CHANCELLOR postponed giving judgment.
BAYDEN V. WATSON.

The Lord Chancellor wai occupied the remainder of
the day with the further arguments in this part-heard
whi.:th came before the Court upon exceptions and
further directions. The particulars of the case are totally
devoid of any public interest.

THE QUEEN V. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MIDDLESEX

SESSIONS.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 22.
The Courl. was compied the whole morning, disposing
of motions, none of whieb possessed any features of
general interest.

Mr. WILSON applied to his Lordship for a rule, calling
upon Mr. Sergeant Adams, the Chairman of the Mid-
dlesex Sessions, to show cause why a writ of mandamus
should not issue, commanding him to issue the usual
process of the ourt for the apprehension of William
Ernest Russell and William Russell, jun., against whom
the Grand Jury had found a true bil for keeping a
common gaming-house. The bill was found in June
last, and the prosecutor, a foreigner, named Xenophon
Yattman, immediately afterwards left town for Paris.
He returned in about six months, and then applied to
Mr. Sergeant Adams for warrants against the defen-
dants. The Learned Chairman refused to grant them
on the ground that there had been great delay in making
the application.
Mr. Justice Wil.m..ims said he had never heard of a
writ of mandamus going in such a case, and refused the
application.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Jan. 22.
• (Before the Vlcg-CatatatmLon of ENGLAND.)
COCKBUB.k V. 84011.12 L.
The further argumants is this ease, which had been
before the Court yesterday, were resumed this morning.
Mr. WAKEFIELD contended, on the part of the peti-
tioner, that the intentions of the founder of the
Charity bad not been carried out by the members
of St. Lazarus to the extent which the funds ad-
mitted. The annual amount of the trust fund was
1,3801. ; while there had never been more than
fourteen boys educzted at a time upon the foundation.
It appeared that the expenses of the maintenance of each
scholar could not amount to more than 251. a-year ; and
although the monks had undertaken, in conformity with I
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 22.
the wishes of the testator, to translate and print certain CRANE v. PRICE AND OTHERS.
books, this charge and others incidentally incurred This was a motion to make absolute the rule for set-
would not account for the outlay of the sum received. ting aside the verdict, or granting a new trial in a cause
A greater number of boys might still be educated in the respecting the infringement of a patent, tried in Mid-
charity, and a case had, therefore, been made out for the dlesex, in Easter Term, 1840.
Interference of the Coiirt. The plaintiff is an iron manufacturer, and the de-
His HoNouit, in giving his judgment, said that in his fondants are the Directors of the British Iron Company;
opinion it might be collected from the testator's own and the case set up at Nisi Prius was, that the patent
will, that he did mean that the charity should be ad- which the plaintiff had taken out for a new invention
ministered at Venice, because he had directed that a with regard to the smelting of iron, and the use of a
gentleman of the name of Puss should administer the fresh material as fuel, had been imitated and infringed
charity, anti that he should have the appointment of the upon by them. It appeared that this invention consisted
parties who were to succeed him. The will was made in of, a new arrangement of the pipes in the machinery,
the year 1791, and it appeared that Mr. Pusa, who was aI by Which the blasts for the furnaces are made. By it
monk of St. Lazarus, had, by a document dated in 1792, 1 the air is heated to 600 degrees Fahrenheit, and anthra-
appointed the Society to which ho belonged to bet cite, which Previously could not be used to any consi-
the administrators and depositors of the charity. derable extent as fuel, was, it is alleged, made service-
That was a sufficient indication of the intentions, of Mr. able as a combustible material. At the trial evidence
Pusa, as to the place where the school should be este- was produced to prove the use of anthracite, for the
blished. It appeared, too, from a paper which contained purpose of smelting iron, at the works of the defendant ;
a draft of the Master's former report, that the present and in reply to the action they pleaded that the inven-
petitioner, Mr. Alexander Raphael, had appeared before
.tion was not novel—that the principle upon which it
the, Master,. and that the report had been framed upon was founded had been brought into operation in 1828
his suggestions. He had, therefore, virtually approved by one Neilson, who had then obtained a patent for his
of the establishment of the school at St. Lazarus. The
discovery ;_. that that patent he still enjoyed, and that
Court had adopted and. confirmed the -Master's re- consequently the patent of the plaintiff was not good,
port, making the specific directious contained in the. -and could net be supported, The plaintiff obtained his
'decree for further directions, but giving liberty to
.patent in 1836 ; he commenced his operations in ac-
apply. It was
.useles4 to discuss, upon that occasion, cordanee With it in -1837, and in .1838 the alleged imi-
the general law of the Court in cases of foreign charities; tation'ao- .
ok place. The principal issues at the trial
because the decree had determined the place where the 'were—first, had there been an imitation of the invention
school now in question should be established ; and as no and an infringement of the patent ; and secondly, was
person had presented a petition for re-hearing, the Court, that invention new and the patent valid.
was 'still bound by that decree. If the decree could not The Jury found a' verdict for the plaintiff,' and against
be carried into effect, or if a case of gross mismanage- that verdict the present proceedings have been instituted.
menu had been made out, the Court might no doubt in- The case will be further heard on Tuesday next.
terfere ; and the real case now before the' Court was,
whether a sufficient case of mal-administration, to
necessitate such interference, had been established.
He confessed that it did not appear to him that
any such case had, been brought before the Court.
It appeared that there remained in the hands of the ad-
ministrators, after paying all expenses, a sum of
35,000 Austrian livres, but that was an unreasonably
large suiplus. It had been explained that a sum of
8,000 livres had been transmitted to Constantinople,
_ but
that sum might agent properly be devoted to an establish-
ment in that city for the convenience of the Armenian
youths sent from Constantinople to Venice. There was
nothing in the conduct of the administrators which ap-
peared to him flagitious—nothing that required par-
ticular animadversion or even particular inquiry.
The petition as it seemed to him, had arisen out of what
he might call the excessively thficions zeal of the peti-
tioner'. He admitted that it was natural that the peti-
tioner, who was the son of the founder of the charity,
should inquire about the manner of its administration ;
but after all the explanations that had passed between
him and the monks, he thought it would have been
better to have let the matter drop. It appeared that the
petitioner had advanced the administrators 690/. which
he had not receive-4 from the Accountant-General. That
sum should be repaid to him. But taking the petition
altogether, he should dismiss it, and dismiss it with costs. '
Mr. Wakefield, :Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Koe, appeared
in the case for the petitioner, and Mr. Bethell for the
monks of St. Lazarus and the Archbishop of Venice, the
present administrators of the charity.
(Before Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT BRUCE.)
Some unopposed petitions and short causes were dis-
posed of in the early part of the morning by his Honour.
BURRIDGE V. ROW
This
on
r cause, _ which has come before the Court for hear-
ing
ay meal occasions, had stood over to this day from
tire
the week, to allow time for the parties
early part - of
in the case to determine upon the minutes of the decree
to be pronounced by his Honour.
SIMPKINSON, who appeared for the plaintiff, handed
up the minute.s of the proposed decree to his Honour,
who, upon readw them, observed that they were much
g
in substance what 11,:' had intended they should be.
Mr. COOPER, for tae assignees of Alderman Win-
chester's
estate, having int,anated that he had some ob-
servations to make on the mita:,
tes of the decree as now
framed, a desultOry conversation szti the subject epsued
between the various Counsel in the catls.! and his Honour,
when it was ultimately settled that Mr. Groper should
he heard on the question of the assignment by Row's
assignees to Alderman Winchester of his interest in
what should be recovered on the policies.
POWELL V. WOOLLAM.
The pluintiffin this cause wasthe personalrepresenta-
tive of a dec.,ased member of a mercantile firm ; the defen-
dants the surviving partners of that firm, and theirpersonal
representatives ; and the object of the suit was to obtain
en order for an account to be taken as to what was duo to
the plaintiffs as personal representatives of the deceased
partner, Win. Hughe4, in respect to his interest in the firm.
His Homoun, all parties consenting, decreed a refe-
rence to the Master to take tin account of the state of the
easeta, and all dealings and transactions of the firm from
the beginning of the partnership to the present time—the
Afaster to distinguish what the state of assets was at
the time of the 'testator's death, and by whom and
under what circumstances the trade had been since
carried on, and what the present condition of the
assets was, witil liberty to state special circumstances.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGIIAM.)
THFI tan INDIA COMPANX v. THE CO9PERte COMPANT.
• This partheard case AM resumed this morning. After
hearing Counsel for the plaintiff
resent strongly inclined
said he was at p
ao think that his determination must depend upo
the conduct of the parties. He very eh
on
whether he could consider the execution of the l
as Part performance of a parole agreement. The cases
pert performance of a parole agreement were, those
111 which the act done was of Such it " natal* that it mild

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 22.
PEPPERCORN v. HAFFMAN.

Mr. PLATT, in this case, moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case should not be entered for
the plaintiff, with damages for 321. 6s. The action was
tried on Thursday and Friday last, before Mr. Baron
Rolfe, who had directed a nonsuit, with liberty to the
counsel for the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict in
his favour for 32/. 6s. damages. The action was one of
trespass, to recover compensation in damages for injury
alleged to have been sustained by means of an illegal
distraint on the goods and chattels of the plaintiff by the
defendant. The question, said the Learned Counsel, in
the first instance, was, whether the parish of St. Martin-
in-the-Fields, by their officers, had a right to distrain on
the goods of the tenant for the non-payment of the
poor's-rates by the landlord. That had 'been the first
point in the cause. The warrant of distress had directed
that the goods of Andrew Duncan should be distrained
upon. It so happened, that in this as in many other
parishes there was a local Act of Parliament, under the
provisions of which the poor, as well as other rates,
were directed to be made and recovered. That Act
was the 11th Geo. 111., c. 76, and by the 18th section
it was provided " that the goods and chattels of each and
every person renting or occupying any separate part or
apartment in such house or building, or renting or
occupying any ready-furnished house or any part
thereof, shall be liable to be distrained and sold for the
payment of the said rates or assessments ; and that each
and every person who shall pay such rates or assess-
ments so charged on his or her respective landlord or
landlords, or upon whose goods, or on whose chattels,
the same shall be levied in pursuance of this Act, shall
and may deduct the same from and out of the rent due
and payable from time to time to his, her, or the' ir, re-
spective landlord or landlords so- letting out the same ;
and the receipt for such payment shall be a sufficient
discharge to his or her said landlord or landlords for so
much money as he or she shall have so paid, or as shall
have been so levied on his or her goods and chattels in
pursuance of this Act." He had submitted, in reference
to this clause, to the Learned Judge at the trial, that
the warrant did not give authority to take the goods of
the plaintiff, because although the Act might have ren-
dered the goods, tinder this particular provision of the
Act, liable, yet that that.warrailt having been directed
against the goods of the landlord, and not against those
of the tenant, could not be legally put in force against
the latter. It was clear, if it had been determined by
the parish to make the levy under the eighteenth clause,
that they ought to have taken out a summons calling
on him to appear before a Magistrate. If they had
adopted that, which be contended would have been the
only proper course, then the tenant would have had an
opportunity of showing how far, and to what extent,
he could, with any approach to reason, have been held
liable ; and if the Magistrate before whom he
had been summoned had seen that he could not
have been held in any way liable then he would have
taken care that a warrant authorizing a levy should not
have issued. Let him for a moment put this case : a
tenant was a tenant at a monthly or weekly payment of
rent, and that he had always been in the habit of regu-
larlv discharging his landlord's claim upon him, could
such a man be deemed liable to any defalcation in the
payment of rates by the man under whom he held ?
Certainly not. Supposing another case : a man owed
his landlord a pound for rent; would the parish be jus-
tified in distraming upon his goods and chattels for an
emu of parochial rates, as in the present instance,
amounting to upwards of 12/. ? He apprehended not.
Well, then, was it not necessary, where the parish au-
thorities had determined to distrain on the tenant's goods
for an arrear of payment by the landlord, that that ten-
ant should be summoned before the magistrate in order
to ascertain bow far, if at all, his individwd liability
would justify a levy upon his goods ? Could it be ima-
gined for an instant that in such cases as he had just sub-
mitted for their Lordships' consideration any magistrate
would issue a warrant for a distress as against those lod-