The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-19 00:00:00

MARKET NEWS.-(THIS DAY.)

CORN EXCHAN GE-WEDNESDAY
The supply of English Wheat on sale here being small,
and the attendance of buyers somewhat numerous, the de-
mand for that article was steady, and Monday's quotalfils
were well supported.- Free foreign Wheat was in sluggiArtkr
quest, yet prices were maintained without difficulty. 10 Coin
under lock next to nothing was doing. Barley and' Attilf,,Jr
the supplies of which were seasonably good. met a 'Ott,
inquiry, and the. rates had a downward tendency.
Toe receipts of Oats being large, that article ruled dull, and
prices were somewhat lower. Beans, Peas, and Flour very
dull, yet we can notice no material alteration in value.

ARRIVALS.
Barley.
4,270 qrs.
330
1,220
Malt. 2.400 qrs.
WHETECIDIPEZ.

Wheat.
1,860 qrs.

English • .
Irish
Foreign

Oats
1,990 qrs.
33,440
11,810

300
15,150

Flour.
560 sks,

. We had a steaditiaretOr7n;;CiTiiUW. of meat at full prides.
Beef, from 2s 8d to 3s 10d; Mutton, 38 6d to 4s 8d; Veal,
45 to 4a 10d ; and Pork, 3s 10d to 58 4d per Bibs by the
carcase.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Some petitions remaining over since yesterday, as well as
some orders of course, were disposed of.

STOCKEN U. DAWSON.
Mr. TURNER resumed his arguments in this case.
Mr. ROUPELL followed on the same side, and contended
that this was a case which properly came within the jurisdic-
tion of this Court," and was not, as had been contended, a
matter exclusively for the consideration of the Court of
Bankruptcy. He conceived that it was the practice of the
Court not to divide assets until the trade debts had been
satisfied; because, in fact, until this had been doiae, no just
distribution of the same could be made.

Mr. KINDERSLRY replied at great length, and contended
that trade debts were not entitled to any priority of payment
over other equitable claims
His LORDSHIP—It has been contended by the other side
that there isle. lien on all description of property, which I think
very questionable.
Mr. KINDERSLET—I am going now to call your Lordship's
attention to that question. (The Learned Counsel then pro-
ceeded with, his argument, and cited several authorities in
support of his position).
His LORDSHIP decided in favour of the plaintiff, and or-
dered the costa to be taken out of the estate.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
WHITEHEAD V. BENNETT. _ -

Our readers will recollect that this case came before the
Court on Monday upon motion for a receiver, and that upon
that occasion it was ordered to stand over to see if they
could not come to some agreement among themselves.
Mr. J. PARKER stated this morning that no proposal had
been made to his clients which they could accept, and there-
fore he was afraid he must go on with the motion.
Mr. STUART observed that it could not be proceeded with
to-day, as he had not his brief in Court.
It was ultimately arranged that the matter should come
on first to-morrow.
BLACKBURN V. STANILAND AND SOWERBY.
The bill in this case was filed by the plaintiff, who is a
wine-merchant, for the purpose of obtaining the decree of
the Court that the defendants were liable to account for
the property of the business alleged to have been carried on
by the defendant Staniland in his character as executor, and
also for the assets which were admitted to have been re-
ceived by both the defendants on account of the estate of a
gentleman named Thomas Clifford.
From the statements in the bill it appeared that Some
years ago Mr. Thomas Clifford carried on the business.df an
innkeeper at the Palace Inn, Sheffield, and in that character
he had dealings with the plaintiff, who was a wine-mer-
chant, and became indebted to him to the extent of 991.
The plaintiff brought an action against Mr. Clifford for the
amount, but before the proceedings advanced so far
as the plaintiff's obtaining judgment, Mr. Clifford
died. The defendant Staniland, who was his sole
executor, carried on the business afterwards, as it
was alleged, as executor of Clifford, but, as he asserted,
for the creditors. The other defendant, Mr. Sowerby, who
was a solicitor, it was alleged, had acted as such to Staniland
in his character of executor. In these characters certain
funds cameinto their hands, which they deposited in the hands
of Messrs. Shores and Co., bankers of Sheffield. These
funds were lost in consequence of the bankruptcy of Messrs.
Shores, and the object of the present bill was to compel the
defendants to make good the amount, and also to compel
Staniland to 'account for the profits he had made by carrying
on the business of The Palace Inn, at Sheffield.
Mr. Stuart and Mr. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. James Parker and Mr. Bethell were Counsel for the
defendants, and contended that they were acting as the ser-
vants of the creditors, and as such were not liable personally
to make good any losses that had occurred.
His HONOUR at, the conclusion of the argument gave judg-
ment, dismissing both the original and supplemental bills
with costs.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WioRAM.)
SHARP v. TAYLOR.
His HONOUR pronounced judgment on the exceptions taken
in this case by the plaintiffs and defendants. The first of the
plaintiffs' exceptions was allowed, the account being subject
to a correction by striking out the sum of 1,000/. ; the other
exceptions were allowed. On the eighth, which wasthat the
Master had committed a certain witness, and received evi-
dence, his Honour said he had seen the Master, who in refer-
ence to this said he conceived himself justified in receiving
the evidence, for reasons not stated in Court, but such as in
his Honour's opinion ought not to have prevailed. He was
extremely sorry to allow this exception, but Mr. Burge's
client, (one of the defendants), would have the benefit of its
going back to the Master; the 3d, 4th and sth exceptions
being in consequence drawn with it again before the Master.
Of the exceptions by tlie defendants, that having reference
to the 7441. net proceeds of 100 bales of cotton shipped for
Liverpool, at Charleston, was reserved for further directions.
Another exception was taken to the charge of half the ex-
penses incurred by Mr. Hodgsoo, and placed to Mr. Sharp's
debit; Mr. Hodgson was emplored by Robertson without
the privity of Sharp, and sent out on instructions and
matters in which Sharp had no interest; but while out Mr.
Hodgson did act in matters where Shaio was concerned, and
in consequence one-half of his whOle expenses, which
amounted to 4001., was charged to Sharp. This exception
must be referred back to the Master, with liberty to Taylor
to show, if he can, whether any of? such moneys expended
by Hodgson are to be allowed out of the sum due to Sharp.
Reference was made again to the Master on the seventh and
eighth exceptions, on account of imperfection and incon-
clusiveness in the Master's finding.

AWLINS V. MOSS.
In this case it was argued, on the part of Mr. Moss, that
the 9001. recovered on the estate of Harrison was a sum due
on the general account. In this view his Honour could not
decide in the absence of the other parties, and therefor()
sent it back to the Master to inquire who were the parties en-
titled to participate in this sum. His Honour allowed Mr.
Moss his professional charges up to the time of his becoming
trustee, but only such sums after that as he might be out of
pocket. The suitors, in case they could not agree on what
the sums were which have been so allowed, are at liberty to
go before the Master for this purpose.
SIR CHARLES PRICE V. THE CORPORATION OF PENZANCE.'
This case, the facts of which were mentioned in The Sun
a few days ago, came on by petition to be heard on the sub-
ject of costs.
His HONOUR said the plaintiff had received the benefit of
the suit, inasmuch as the market had been built and the road
made, and although there had been unusual delay on the part
of the Corporation he did not see sufficient grounds for allow-
ing costs to either.
The cause has been ordered to come on for re-bearing on
an objection taken by the defendants.

QUEEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN V. JOHNSON.
In this case Counsel moved that the summary conviction
had in this case be brought up and quashed, on the ground of
its being informal and against the statutes. Defendant was
convicted before the magistrates, at Hull, in October, 1844,
under the 39th Geo. 3, sec. 75, cap. 15, and fined 201., for
taking 2d. at the door of a public-house, as admission-
money, to hear alecture delivered by one Emma Martin' on
" The Crimes and Follies of Christian Missions." The Act
under which the conviction had taken place was an "Act for
the Better Suppression of Seditious Assemblies," and it pro-
hibited the taking of fee,a under circumstances such as those
charged against the defendant. The penalty is 201., one-
half of which went to the Crown, and the other to the in-
former. Counsel contended that the conviction was bad and
informal, inasmuch as the conviction set out that the infor-
mation was laid by an informer, but did not specify his
name. Counsel having cited several Acts of Parliament in
support of his argument,
The COURT decided that the conviction was good, inas •
much as the information was in conformity with the form
contained in the Act of Parliament, and, therefore, if there
was any omission, it was the fault of the Legislature.
THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF LONDON.
Counsel stated that this was a demurrer to a return to a
mandamus, calling upon the Mayor and Aldermen of London
to admit or cause to be admitted William Henry Ashurst an
attorney of the Loft! Mayor's Court, to which he was entitled
by the 6th and 7th Tic., cap. 73, sec. 27. The mandamus
stated that the Court of the Lord Mayor of London was an
inferior court of the City of Loudon ; and the return, he (the
Learned Counsel) said he conceived was rather an extraordi-
nary instrument. It appeared that Mr. Ashhurst was an
attorney of the courts of Westminster, and was, therefore, en-
titled, as he (the Learned Counsel) would show, to be ad-
176tted an attorney of the Lord Mayor's Court, which was an
inferior Court. Counsel then read the 27th section of the
6 and 7 Vict., cap. 73, which gave an attorney of the superior
courts the right to practice in all inferior courts. The man-
damus commanded that Mr. Ashurst should be admitted an
attorney of the Lord Mayor's Court, and as it was alleged
that that was an inferior.court, it was expected that that fact
would be admitted in the return, but that had not been done.
The return, on the contrary, set fert,, that the Lord Mayor's.
Court was a court of law and equity', Sand that- it also had a
penal jurisdiction .attached to it, and ti. at penalties awarded
by it could be recovered in that Court only;
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS said that that, WAS argument to
show that the applicant was not At.

COUNSEL said it might or might not be an argument
that way House of Commons or House of Lords.
Lord DErrmbeforeAN the
You rest on the words of the 27th sectiora
COUNSEL—es, my Lord.
Lord DENMAN thought it would the more COnvenien
course to hear the opposite Counsel first.
COUNSEL on behalf of the Lord Mayor then proceeded. to,.
contend that this application could not be granted, and ton'
the Act read by his, Learned Friend never could have ocr
templated including the Lord Mayor's Court amongst tne.
inferior courts. The court of the Lord Mayor of London !co!
a court from time immemorial, and had jurisdiction attaeloot:',
to it different altogether from any of the inferior Courts,
as
that an action tried in it could not be removed to any of ts*
superior Courts : the Learned Counsel proceeded to ore 7.
rt
those points at considerable length, and contended, Id"
the Lord Minfer Mayor's Court was not an infer Cou, n:
a anal' of
court of law only, or a court of equity only, but
law and equity.
Mr. Ashhurst's Counsel then proceeded with his erg!!
ment, and contended that if the Mayor's Court was not to
be
considered an inferior Court, that fact should have been se
forth in the return ; but that bad not been done.
Lord DENMAN said the Court would take time to forconsider
the section of the Act upon which the Learned Canoe'
for Mr. Ashurst relied.

Y.)

,-OURT.—(THIS DA
17-; (sittiligs ;., co, before Mr. Justice ParrEs°'''
JEFFERILS V. .RDS COMMISSIONERS OF HER MAJF.IA
TREASURY.
'Sfor the
Q46.erdyg;AcpopmliemdistsoiontheersCoOtft fror3t.ileusltey torreoart,
sury elioldel not, grito compensation to Mr. Jefferies
lost & Miain fes.4 'which had been abolished by Act of.ri`
as
. _
harnt,- and wlnefile had received by virtue of his °thee
xif iStY'S
cletkAu the (7,u-ea of Common Pleas of her "."1.1; of
rc-rithrlya-4 .bTeheteereind
Mr. Gentlemanjereriess,tafatemdilythfaotr tobieoro,efuctibeoatior
sef&ity years, Thic!fees he received were divided Moto
to
classes. The linsi tas a deduction which he was at- 'justice,
make from certainplies payable to the Lord Chief
d gild
and which yieldeelfabout 61)1. per annum. The sec°•lied
fot
third were comprispd in a fee of 6d., which be receive for
sealing record,s *d the fourth was a fee of r'of the
endorsing' and maiing up records after the decision.,
jury. l'ef the;roVilthapter of the Ist and 2el Willie°. 1,, at
wet enteTttatiSe offices of persons who held
aided as
'lea re, o'r-i'4l44g term of years, should be regard° ae-
matters,,of rigrit, arid that compensation should be lila. teat
`eortlingly. The Commissioners who were appointed svitig
-Act to report upon the fees, and tbo right of persons rete'_iyea
them to compensation, made a report upon the fees re,"„log
by Mr. Jefferies. They omitted all mention of the first
of fees, and stated that on the 2d and 3d he was entitlecrrh,,
compensation of 401. per annum. They reported rtir, to it
was not entitled to any compensation at all on the 4th of
was completely in the form of a gratuity. Tbe
to to
Victoria, c. 37, completely abolished the right of persons
receive fees, and a commuted salary of 6,000/. per ant
was allowed to the Lord Chief Justice lieu tia,ee
fees. Mr. Jefferies's fees being thus abolislle°,
to
het
ade an application to the Lord Commissioners of
Majesty's Treasury for compensation, but they declinu•
se
allow him any compensation for his first class of fees, ip,e2-00;
it was not mentioned in the report of the Comraissl'
- and on the fourth, because it was reported
ti againsJ'',...4ioe,
Jefferies then made an application to the Lord Chief ,u,
eth to
euti
who was clearly of opinion that be was herofe oe
compensation on the first class of fees ; but
doubtful as to the fourth class. The Lords of the :tifof
sury have now shifted their ground, and decline t°,l„rie;
compensation, on the ground that he held the office ue
pleasure. In this they were decidedly wrong, as tiltr,el3-0,
met by the Ist and 2d of William IV., sec. 4, chaP• ";nees
enacted that the fees received by persons holding
~°per
pleasure should be regarded as matters of right, en"
ration allowed for them.—The rule was granted...„,
BYMONDS V. TIIE MAYOR OF casesiadiTu"thsPsi4
In this case Mr. Williams made an appliption i.e ear'
of Mr. Symonds and five others, in whose favour tr'receito
genes of Caermarthen had voted for a mandamus t° our
their occupation of office as Town Councillors, or for c`ieetioo
damus for a new election, on the ground that no 'valid eo'oeoa
had taken place as described in the MuniciPal °rP,. of tlio,
Act. It would be seen by that Act, that the may o. t
late
Town was bound to return a list of persons elected 0° place
than two r.m., on the day after such election had taiteneirdaY
do
In this case the election had taken place (41,..,.ti fotl t
the Ist of November, and the return should have o.rw" was a°,;
by two o'clock on Monday, but instead of that 11' ratio'
made until Tuesday morning. The Municipal Corf°o sig;
Act, section 51, required that the persons elected She cloY
nify their acceptance of the office in writing within o
from the period of their election, or they should be lia
three
fine, fine, and the office should be considered vacact.
as no return was made by the Mayor, no acreteedoeis
given, so that there was no town council at all
for a new eleetion was granted. hd
• CHILD V. THE CHARING-CROSS BRIDGE COlSlrAlCt;m,
Mr. SAUNDERS applied for a rule to show cause ,e"ellet'4
Charing-cross Bridge Company, formerly known as "'"ptioirA'
gerford and Lambeth Suspension Bridge COMPanY'd
not issue a warrant to the Sheriff for the county cal
dlesex, to call together a jury to estimate
orbs
00
damages caused by the operations and
the Company in the formation of their bridge .of tilea
Learned Gentleman stated that the substance
15th section of the Company's Act was, -that theYso jito
execute their works as they should see fit, but with t
lie
damage as possible to private property ; and in Laeloess
of their causing. such damage, they should, if ;""ff of 'e
settle it otherwise, issue a warrant to the Nor— co.o d
county in which such damage occurred, to do
jury and assess „the damages. By the 85th fiecvot 41's
the Act, it is enacted that the Company
obliged to receive.-any complaint concerning any Pr • or%
sustained, unless stieh complaint should be made.,:',ooOla"
behalf of the corporation of the place where sue'l„he sr
is received, in a written form, thirt days before eioa!
moning of the jury, and within the space of two hcatl°,
after such damage shall have been received. His aP„reis ate
was on behalf of Mr. Coles Child, who carried on btl'4l.7,ooft"
coal merchant at Belvidere Wharf. In 1842 the ereea.,";
bridge commenced. In September of that year 3'l,avat'h"o
tion was made for the pier of the bridge, which e''„-t of 'V
ran under Mr. Child's premises, causing a settlenrem 101
building and several cracks in the walls. On the c,erra;
September, a letter, stating the fact, was sent to thee;ol'
tary of the Company. On the 16th an answer ifetfri. Chn
stating that the application would be attended to. assa'„„g
wick afterwards came to inspect the premises, and u°
Mr. Coles that no further settlement would take place,.
that themischiefistill went on, he again wrote to the
who declined any further interference. On the 12th ch.•
oug;
1843, one of the walls fell, and an intimation of °cd uP
stance was sent to the Company, who at once sllor',
premises in a temporary manner, and theh left
February, 1844, the works ceased, and Mr. Childs 'l3ssi
vey made and a list of the damage sent to the CorePetP, 50;
l
request that they would either repair them or afeti.a ja st'
cient amount to do so. After this things remain" &lea cr
quo until the 12th of February, 1845, when 01-1,,,e Po
tempted to recover damages by an action, but a,s,t-030/';00
ceeding was not compatible with the Act of.the oort.lai
was compelled to abandon it. In May another, " dyed,
of the walls fell ; and in June a forratrecei';lo
was made on the Company for dainagee,„ 01_40
In August an answer was received declining ";to a're
damages, or to issue a warrant to assemble a i'ire; too
them, as the application was not made within tilt poi
quired by the Act. I, 0,4,40
Mr. Justice ParrEsorf said he (lid not tbie- oale-
would be withheld on such grounds. A rule for a fll
would, he thought, best meet the case.
Rule granted accordingly.
Alt)'
COURT OF RE VIE W—(THIS-'c -
(Before Vice-Chancellor KXIGHT BRUCE.) 00
HASTINGS V. DOBBS. veoa_it
The attention of the Court was occupied thr°°be
day withi questions of form ; the other cases on
above this case were ordered to stand over.
ei
EXCHEQUER—crms PJ
(Sittings in Banco.) ISi
SUTCLIFF V. BROOK. Claififiltlol
This was an action of debt, brought by iefe' on of
assignee of an insolvent debtor, to recover from t"ecLa
a particular sum of money, which was the result „` -acriSV,
arbitration. The declaration made the cause 8,-tbe
debt upon the submission or agreement to abide /), pa
r
in question, and the defendant had demurred to itoc,
the declaration, on the ground that it was bad in law.
Mr. ATIIERTON now appeared to suport the den' fiereety
first objection was to the form of action, for their
opolliasi
would perceive that this was not an action /Ad
award, but an action of debt, founded upon id'eferle'o6
promise between the plaintiff and the tbat to
to abide by a prospective award ; and he subinide a
otra•ddif
form of pleading was contrary to precedent, and
principle. There were three forms of remedy Nr„ atOt`,,eoa
in a case like the present, and those forms war c°
Mr. Watson's book upon awards. The first ves eforteir'
the award, debt on bond or contract for the deed ofsilL-ries
of the award, and covenant or assumpsit on:hese v'tioa
sion, and the existing precedents showed only
of action, and therefore he contended that the r itS
was contrary to president. Now with respect to
to:
00+
contrary to principle. The principle he took to beroje orA
action action of debt or assumpsit would lie upon a Ps,,,,taia7l:l
sealed contract, provided such contract „e" beu.„;l4',
promise to pay a epecific sum of money, rely
action of debt would lie on the award ir loop. 0.4
one of the parties to pay a particular sum of IT': deb,,,topot
as the contract upon which this action °.` of ;Pls
brought contained no promise to pay a specific
he contended that the declaration was con_Air—iatio'"_,
ciple. There was another objection to the de'''Peo,o,
did pot show that the plaintiff agreed to the re -00'
the consent of three-fourths of the insolvenee fa,
accordance with the provision of 1 and 2 Victerl regfa 69
Mr. Coweneusupported the declaration. ly been
the last objection, the Act of Parliament bar'ow-_,Der"
the Court to be only directory, and therefore thewith I`;'etvai
complained of did not invalidate the reference. '; errolropoae
to the other objection, that the cause of action w4aetioavell'
he apprehended that it was not. True it was al' word
00
the submission, but it was coupled with the,. %re occreiai
His Learned Friend was wrong when he said 11 jot° rett
precedents upon this point, for if he had look ° the fe..4,00
on Pleadings, page 24, he would have found tee r
a declaration precisely similar to the one in
IVO gad
CASS ha
The COURT ultimately ruled that the derntl'A ;Or
and directed the declaration to be so amended thop I
be simply an action of debt upon the aWard °
the submission out of the question altogether.
A If)

COMMON PLEAs.L(TIS l'" ar
e - '
Their Lordships thcSsidttaiyugtoi ft
_tii refrt
onkßtahnecod.elatirrer or; ipte
d r
guments upon.which were wholly destitute of PO- lief%
(Nisi Prins.) : lidwo-cir
Mr. Justice Cresswell sat at nisi prias, with nil 1‘0545•- lie
common jury, in the Guildhall, Westminster, 3-icidistr-
pied the whole morning with an action for Mega'
-------_ At
, k ')
;SECONDARIES.—(THIS v `-.
(Before Mr. Secondary Porrtal.) ell/
AUSTIN AND ANOTHER V. PONT. "gre ope
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, /v,Ri 5/., 11300
brokers, Bank-chambers, to recover the sure °h'e &fled° ilo
paid in error on a sale of some railway shares; ',. Plea ,
is a tradesman in the Borough. The defendao' r A oa:
general issue. ~ tos.°,oo','
The plaintiffs' clerk was called to prove that n'llei selo
the papers of the sale of fifteen East India shares- were itio,
sent by the defendant for immediate sale. ,li% preo,, til
on the Ist of August to Messrs. Wilkinson at ',ler, ali,plit";
which was a mistake, as the price was only a quit;ivg tiro? iii„;
money was returned to them. Defendant, eIL ",oduce" le"
dnaexyst.shHareescohue
ldhandot
to, said they might deduct the amount from the h, iii 1, 01
would ' bot
waswhßaitesitsrs.Wilkinson's
the day before and the day
to
rememberdispose of,the which
of the ds'Y' de
price _Ag.
....e
..,,v.
and Mum f acti"PeciP"
clerk was (oiled alatnerpa,,l'''cl 7 iio
o the money to him.
The defendant's solicitor contended that the 105 w
not be maintained, as the buying and selling °I. °ll tileEl
manner was illegal. ri °l3
The SECONDARY—I don't think it Pitts .-:
PleAdbgel aft or Ali ACIAIitA/i9li And MMUS V? Pk'.

hr4r
isre::ooei
Sefe—l'c t°ll°o
,ieAde4
de oil;
ier
fbei 503"
were jaw,
ce fe
aoVyhe
ig Piot ti;,,
ju
• 00(
hat
esle
the
_Ol,l
ti""w
‘,„ C 0,4,4
re 3
.11 tile°