On this page
- Departments (3)
-
Text (11)
-
' ¦ .sui^^ : ' Vt:r U^A:ok ' iUu^ "' ' ....
-
A. recent imperial ukase, which imposes ...
-
GUBBINS V.'O'CONNOR. - •¦ _ - '¦ ¦ - •¦¦...
-
'' ¦"¦ggB.iy— ' - — ——. ] ;' T?«5 Explos...
-
^wtfarC ttmfM ©ouvt
-
. -MONDAY, June 11. The June session of ...
-
titouftmiM
-
CORN. Maiuc-wlvb, Monday. June 11.:—Our ...
-
FOTND ERING O.F ' MORE EMIGIUN.T SIIU>S ...
-
I'rmtedAw .wiLiitAM ' KiiiER; ot'No. 3. ilacclcsfield-street i
-
'nffi™ C-n W- ' AmK > " t'SRUiUSter, at ...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Monday, Jraull... " House Of Lords. —Exp...
in all , for miscellaneous expenses , from £ 315 , 000 to £ 708 , 000 , or 143 per cent , hi 1817 the total amount had risen to £ 1 , 200 , 000 , being an increase of seventyfour per cent , since 1833 . Parliament had relieved the counties of charges formerl y paid out of the rates to the amount of £ 3 , 532 , 000 . Some counties had appointed finance committees to attend to their expenditure , which was all very well , but would not satisfy the ratepayers . ilr . II . JDkbmmoxd , though entertaining some doubt as to the means by which tho bill waspropesed to be worked out , seconded the motion that
it be read a second time . Sir J . Pakisgtos was not opposed to tbe principle Of county boards ; but . believing the bill to be an impracticable one , he trusted it would not receive the support of the government , and moved as an amendment that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the expenditure ofthe county rates with the view of ascertaining whether a more effective and economical system than the present could not he adopted . Mr . Robert Pauier , preferring tbe appointment of a committee of inquiry , rather than sending the bill to a select committee , seconded the
amendment . Sir G . Gre was favourable to the appointment of financial county boards , into which tbe principle of representation should enter , not meaning any slur upon the magistracy , who had exercised a watchful control over the expenditure , which , as ratepayers , they had a direct interest in keeping down . But they were only one class of ratepayers , and if the principle of admitting other classes to control the expenditure had been the whole ofthe bill , he should not object to the second reading ; but to the details be had almost the same objections aa Sir J . Pakington , and , in its present state , he could not support the bill . If it were to be referred to a select committee , the powers ofthe committee must be enlarged to the extent of that proposed by the amendment , so that practically , there was no difference between the two propositions , and he thought the preferable course was to appoint a
select committee to inquire into the whole subject . The discussion afterwards diffused itself over matters chiefly of detail , or connected with the choice of the alternative courses of proceeding ; Mr . Hbseet , Mr . T . Sinxn , Mr . Pattes , JMt . Sacke , Mr . C . Lewis , Mr . Mh . es , Mr . E . Desiso > v arid other members taking part in it , most of them approving the principle of representation nvjthe administration of county finances . — * Mr . Hume in bis reply said he asked no more than to establish the principle of representation . He considered he had been deceived by the government . The Home Secretary ( Sir G . Grey ) and the Pirst Lord of tbe Treasury ( Lord J . Russell ) had been asked to bring in this bill , but although they expressed their approval of its princi ple , they declined to introduce it in the House . He ( Mr . Hume ) had undertaken that duty , and now—to use a common expression—he found he was sold . ( Laughter . ) The House divided , when there were ^
Tor the second reading ... ... 96 „ Against it 153 Majority against the bill ... —57 The question was then put on tbe amendment , when Mr . Milker Gibson moved an amendment to it , to the effect that the inquiry of the proposed select committee should embrace some mode whereby the control of the rate-payers over county expenditure mi ght be made more effectual . After some discussion , the gallery was cleared for a division , but none took p lace ; an adjournment of the debate was moved , in order that the amendment , as proposed to be amended by Mr . Gibson should be printed . The House divided , and the numbers
were—For adjourning the debate 83 Against ... ... 131 Majority against ' £ S Lord Bbookb then moved that the House do now adjourn . The discussion on this motion was progressing , when six o ' clock having arrived , the House adjourned amidst great laughter .
THURSDAY , Juxk U . HOUSE OF LORDS . —The Siate Prisoners nr Ireland . —Lord Campbell laid on the table a bill for the purpose of removing any doubts as to the power of her Majesty , in tho exercise of her prerogative of mercy , to commute the punishment for high treason in Ireland , as well as in England . In so doing he recapitulated the circumstances attending tha trial of O'Brien and his associates , which had led to the introduction ofthe present measure , and in so doing paid a well-deserved compliment to the integrity and profound learning of the judges by whom these persons had been tried .
After some remarks from Lord Brougham , the EarlofDEVOx , and Lord Denmax the bill was read a first time , with the understanding that it should be forwarded another stage on Friday . Pbotectios of "Womex . —The Bishop of Oxfobd then moved the third reading of his bill for the Protection of Women , and , in spite of Lord Campbell ' s opposition , succeeded iu carrying it upon a division by a majority of four . Their -Lordships then adjourned . HOUSE OF COMMONS . — Canada . — On the order of the day for the consideration of the report of the Committee of Supply on Colonial Services , Mr . Glabstoxe called the attention of the House to certain parts of the recent act to provide compensation for rebellion losses in Canada .
A long discussion then ensued between Lord J . RussBix 7 Mr . Herries , Mr . Roebuck , and Mr . B . Cochrane : the debate was adjourned gto Friday evening . Exclusion of Strangers . — On the motion of Lord J . Russell , a select committee was appointed to consider the present practice of this House in respect to the exclusion " of strangers . Several bills were forwarded a stage , and , the other orders being disposed of , the House adjourned at half-past one o clock . ( From our Third Edition of last week . J FRIDAY , June 8 . HOUSE OF LORDS . —The Earl of Harrowbt gave notice that on Monday he should move for a select committee on the Sale of Beer Bill .
Lord Brougham proposed his motion on Canaba to Tuesday week . Lord Stanley presented a petition from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London praying to he exempted from the operation of the Leasehold Tenure of Lands ( Ireland ) Bill in regard to their property in that country . After some discussion on the princip le of exemption , which it appeared had been already embodied in the bill in one instance , Lord Campbell postponed the third reading till Monday . The House then adjourned .
HOUSE OF COMMONS . —On the motion that the House , on rising , do adjourn till Monday , a somewhat lengthened conversation took place upon the subject ofthe late evictions in Toomevara and Kilrush , during the progress of which Sir It . Peel admitted that there might he difficulty hi getting the law to reach the case , but thought that an expression of indignation on the part ofthe House mi ht have the effect of putting some limit , under existing circn instances , to the extreme exercise of legal power , snd of checking scenes of barbarity such as no civilised country had ever hefore witnessed . On th >* motion for going into committee on the Poor Belief ( Ireland ) Biix .
SirH . W . Barms moved : — " That the property at present rated to support the poor in Ireland is totally inadequate ibr that purpose ; that in England there are sixty-seven millions of property rated tv the poor , the ponulation being about-fifteen millions ; whilst in Ireland there are only thirteen millions of property-rated to the poor , with a ( much poorer ) population of about eight millions ; showing nearly three , times more property in England per head to support the poor tlian . in Ireland ; th-it therefore it is necessary to provide fur ' ther means for support of the cobrin Ireland , in order to remove the extreme-pressure wliich is now crushing down the ratepayers hi that country , and checking the energies of all employers and capitalists . "
Sir . W . Somerville replied to the arguments used by the hon . baronet in support of "his motion , and moved as an amendment that the Speaker do leave the chair . . - -3- •;•' .. " ¦ Colonel Dia . vE supported the motion of the hon . member for Waterford . .- - . ; Mr . B . Osborne , - in an energetic speech , drew tbe attention of the House to the evils , resulting from estates in the Court of Chancery being under the control-of receivers , not one shilling of the rentals of which were applied to the improvement of tlie estates . He called upon the House to appoint a committee of inquiry into the subject , when La pledge'd himself that a plan
should be submitted . - - - ? calculated to remove the evils ai present existing , and to hold out some immediate hope .. of a better state of things . " . Lord X RrssEp . hadiio objection to the proposal of the hon . member for Middlesex , that there should be . in mquiry ; arid if the hon . member would move for the appointment of a committee , he ( Lord ^ -RussellJ would g ive his support to the motion , and the Solicitor-General would he ready to give every assistance towards passing such a measure as the House might approve . It was not , however , by -one measure , " but by a series of measures , that rest couldbe given to Ireland .
After some further discussion , Sir Henr AY . BaerojTs motion" was- negatived by a majority of 11 ^ . the numbers 30 to 114 ; and the House went into committee on the Poor Relief ( Ireland ) Bill .
' ¦ .Sui^^ : ' Vt:R U^A:Ok ' Iuu^ "' ' ....
' ¦ . sui ^^ ' Vt : r U ^ A : ok ' iUu ^ " ' ' .... ¦^^ tfaK ^ . jis- j ' a ^^ .-., .. 8- - ¦ -.- ¦ -.- •; - ¦• : _ . ¦ - - ¦ ¦¦¦¦¦ :, r - ; :::: \ - ?; --- -- - --:: - ~ ~^ ""• - " -r ¦ ¦ ¦ - —" ¦ - --y ^ ,, - , ¦ ; -- - iim
A. Recent Imperial Ukase, Which Imposes ...
A . recent imperial ukase , which imposes a duty of ten copecks a pound on printed books imported into Kussia , provides that double duties shall be paid for all novels " arid-romances . Sir Akn MOfalf lias * arrived in London from Canada , and on Saturday had the honour of being presented to lord Grey , the Colonial Secretary .
A. Recent Imperial Ukase, Which Imposes ...
gubbins v . feargus o cojjnor ; : .- ' - » _ .- " - This was an action broug ht by the . plaintiff , a shoemaker , living in Elm-street , in this town , to recover two sums of £ 2 10 s . each , paid by the p laintiff in April , 1846 , and March , 1847 , to William Munday , of this town , and agent to the defendant , for shares in a scheme called at different periods the " Chartist Co-operative Land Society , '" and the " "National Land Society . " Mr . Becke appeared for the plaintiff , and Mr . Roberts for the defendant . Mr . Becke stated that he sought to recover the sum paid in April , 1846 , as money paid on an illegal consideration
, the Company not having been registered at all ; and so much of the sum paid in 1847 , in excess of 10 s . in £ 100 , when the Company was only provisionally registered . He also sought to recover on the ground that the money was paid on a consideration which had wholly failed , the Company having failed to obtain complete registration within a year , and the provisional registration not having beeri renewed from year to year , and the Company having therefore exploded . These were the legal grounds on which he rested his case . In support of the alleged facts , the learned gentleman called
Eliza Gubbins , who said—lam the wifeof Charles Gubbins , the plaintiff . My husband is a shoemaker , and cannot either read or write . I used to read to him the Northern Star and prospectuses of tho Land Company . He sent me to pay to Mr . Munday £ 2 10 s ., which I did , and 2 s . 4 d . I was to pay for rules and other expenses . I received at that time a card , and a little book , the rules of the Society . The certificate was sent a few days afterwards . — Cross-examined by Mr . Roberts : My husband was an active friend ofthe Company until he found he was not likely to get any benefit from it . It may be three months ago since he ceased to he so . He did not attend every meeting of the Company . I believe he attended one or two . Don ' t know that he voted for a delegate . —By the Court : I paid the money to William Munday , in Silver-street , iri this town .
Charles Gubbins : I am plaintiff in this cause . On 5 th March , 1847 , 1 went to Mr . Munday , at the Temperance Hotel in this town , and paid him £ 2 10 s . for a share in the Land Company , arid 2 s . 4 d . Expenses and Rules . I have never received any benefit or advantage of any kind from the scheme . Never consented to the purchase of land , nor was ever consulted about it . Never heard ofthe change of name nor of amount paid for . the shares . Ifever attended any meeting ; in London , nor ever saw Mr . O'Connor . —Cross-examined by Mr : Roberts : I first became dissatisfied about four months ago . I became hostile to the Company because it made a failure ; they could not go on with it . They did away with the balloting for the land . Wh y , I can't say . I heard in the Northern Star that it was
so . I did not hear that a committee of the House of Commons had said that the ballot was illegal . My wife read the Northem . Star to me about once a fortnight . If the ballot had continued , and I saw any prospect of getting my four-acre share , I mi ght have gone on ; but the prospect is very different now from when I subscribed . Working men can ' t tet their living on the allotment . —By . the Court : I id not see any prospect of getting the land , and if I got an allotment now , I wouldn ' t go . Several working men have come back from them . —By Mr . Roberts : I don ' t believe the scheme could be carried out , and if it could , I - wouldn ' t have anything to do with it . Mr . Driver has come back . I don ' t know any one else in this town who has . I don ' t
know any other , but I ' ve heard in tho Northern Star that a good many had come back . When I gave my money I expected I was to have four acres of land and £ 30 . —His Honour : You couldn ' t expect four acres of land and £ 30 for £ 5 ? Mr . Fearus O ' Connor said so . —Mr . Roberts : Did you believe it ? Yes , I did . Did you . believe . anybody else ' s money was to , go towards buying the land ? Yes . Did you expect the land would be bought by your money and the money of others ? Yes . And to he divided into lots of four and two acres , and a ballot then to take place to see vrho should have them ? Yes . Then I believe it was part of tho plan
that the rents should be mortgaged , and the money go to buy more land ? I can ' t say as to that . There was to be a rent ? Oh yes ; I was to pay a rent of £ 5 a year for the two-acre share . The tract of land to be bought -with the first money would , not be enough to locate you all , would it ? . I believe not . Can ' t say whether Driver sold his share . Have not attended above two meetings , one . was on tho 19 th November . There was so much confusion , I couldn ' thear half what was going on . Heard nothing about a change of name or ballot . Never heard of anybody selling an allotment . If I'd got an allotment I should have sold it . I should have
advertised it and sold it for £ 30 , if I could have got it . I don ' t think that would have been too much , because I was to have £ 30 in money . . I have never heard anything about registrations . —By Mr . Becke : I have heard of a great many people cominw back . — [ Mr . Becke then read from the Northern Star , as the organ of the Company , several very unfavourable accounts of the condition of the allotments and the tenants . One man said he could not get on , for his ground had not heen cultivated since the days of Adam . Another that all his potatoes had quite failed ; another that his land was not of good quality , and that he was without food or clothes . ] The witness Gubbins said that it was hearing such statements as these read that made him think the scheme impracticable . William Munday stated that he was Branch
Secretary to the Land Company , appointed by the body in Northampton . He communicated to the Directors in London . Had attended two meetings as a delegate , one at Lowbands and one at Birmingham . Mr . O'Connor was present atthese meetings . The society used to be called Mr . O'Connor ' s . Society by those who didn't understand it . . The meet ing at Birmingham was October 23 , 1848 , the business being to get the Company registered as a Joint Stock Company . Witness was also to vote for the . abolition of the ballot , wliich was declared to be illegal by the House of Commons , and the adoption of a bonus instead . On the 19 th of November he
attended a meeting m this town , and gave a report ofthe proceedings of the Birmingham conference . There was only one oppositionist . Witness bought his share . He sold it under price . The general feeling ofthe allottees on the Company ' s estates was , that they had suffered a severe struggle from the failure of the crops , but they did not blame the Society . Witness hid £ 20 for a three-acre allotment at Lowbands , three weeks ago , and could not get . it . The name ofthe oppositionist was Li ghtwood , He said the report proved that the thing was a failure , and
that he would advertise his share in the Northampton papers . It was then witness bought it for nineteen shillings . Lightwood had paid £ 2 10 s . for it . The name of the Society has been altered two or three times . There were delegates who said , tho allottees were in an awful state of destitution , and others contradicted it . There was a feeling among some of the members to get what they could , and go . The abandonment ofthe ballot . was to get the Society legalised . It would have heen re-adopted if . parliament had proved to be wrong in its opinion as to its illegality .
Mr . George Dean , an officer in the office of the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies , stated that the Company was originally registered on the 24 th of October , 184 G , as the Chartist Co-operative Land Company , and its object was alleged to be the purchasing of land , erecting dwellings and schools , < Sc . On the 17 th of December the name was changed to the ; National . Cooperative Land Company , and the business was said to be to purchase land , to erect houses , to allot the same to shareholders , to make advances of money to allottees , and raise money for . the purposes aforesaid . On the 17 th of December a return of the provisional officers of the Company was entered ,
signed by Feargus O'Connor , whose namea ppeared at the head of the list of Directors . "—By . -Mr . Becke : On the uth of March , 1847 , when Giitibins took , a share in the Chartist Co-operative Land Company , and received a scrip certificate in that name , there was no such society in existence . ; On the 23 rd of October ^ 1847 , the provisional registration ought to have been , but had not been , renewed . " The Company had never heen completely registered . —Crossexamined by Mr . Roberts : Alterations in the titles of coni panies are frequently made , but the majority decidedly retain the- same name to the end .- It was impossible for him to say whether the circumstances he had described would orwould not vitiate
theconcern . The effect of a provisional registration running out without renewal at the proper time would be that it would be registered as a new society . It frequently happened that such was the case . . The renewal ofthe certificate of registration was refused by the Registrar . Docs not know why . James Dhiver : lama shoemaker , at Northampton . In 18461 took three shares in the Chartist Co-operative Land Company . I paid the money to Munday , and received scrip certificates ! I had ah allotment at Lowbands , in Worcestershire . Went
there in 1847 . Saw Mr . O Cennor there many times . He frequently spoke to me about the mode of cultivation . I sold my allotment , and we weiit to Bromsgrove to transfer it . - Mr . Doyle said ; he could not act-without the sanction ofthe co-directors , hilt Mr . O'Connor could do the whole ] business . ;; Mr . O'Connor did the business by ; himself" in a few minutes . I didn't find the allotment ; answer niy . expectations . I could have made a living at it with my own trade . in addition .. The generality of the tenants were not satisfied .. The last . report I had fromthem was very-bad . ; - r - .- ; - : ••; \
. By Mr . Roberts : If a man has got . capital he may get a living on . the . allotmeiit " , if-not , heTcan : do better at home . With capital aiid-ihdusfcry lie may do well , but he may do . as well , at hpmC ; . I subscribed in June , 1840 , thinking it would he ^ advantageous , but I didn't find it so .:. I . have . heard that all the tenants : wanted to sellout couldn ' t-get customers . They wished ; they : ^ buld ^ idvei got oufcas well as I did . Isold my snare for i £ 90 l'from which there was to be deducted £ 2210 s . aid money , £ lo ' loan money , £ 12 rent , and 2 * or three bushels o
A. Recent Imperial Ukase, Which Imposes ...
wheat . 1 received the balance ...: : i ; believe . if . I-had stopped I could , have got-a . living , for I believe I could get a living anywhere . ;; M y wife didn't like it .... l stopped . there ' , twelve months . While I was there , there were ; a good many complaints ., I saw none doing well . ; . .: . . .-. . . .-. '¦; . v Mr . RoBERTS , ; for .. thedefence ; said it would have been desirable that this case should have . been decided by the highest tribunal instead of by this Court . Large sums ofmoney wereinvolved iri it , and large numbers of individuals were deeply interested in the result , and it . would have been far better that the points of law upon which the decision depended , should have had the benefit of that argument and research which they would have received
in the highest court of judicature . Whichever way his Honour s decision might go , it would not prevent an adverse decision on precisely the same case in otlier courts . Addressing himself , next to the evidence before him , he contended that there was no evidence connecting Mr . O'Connor with , the plaintiff , excepting that certain certificates ' had been produced which were not sworn to . be . in Mr . O'Connor ' s handwriting , and . which-in point of fact were not really signed by him : . . Then , as to the jurisdiction of this court . . - He understood the case with respect to the first payment to be , that the society was an illegal society . Now he contended that a payment to the agent was not a payment to the principal when a crime is charged , and . in this
case , therefore , the cause . of action arose in the place where tho money . was received . Then as to the failure of consideration . If the failure lay in the non-registration , that arose in London , and riot here . They were told that the payment was illegal —the payment that is of more than 3 d , per share : He contended that it was perfectly legal , hut if illegal , the parties were in pari delicto , and the , plaintiff could not recover against the defendant . He denied that the scheme was abandoned . ' The non-registration was no fault of theirs , but consequent on the report of the House of Commons that they were an illegal body , and they had since , gone to the Queen ' s Bench for a mandamus to register . Therefore it was again desirable this question
should not have been raised till the other had been decided . { His Honour , interposing , said if that were the only question he . should reserve his judgment until after that decision , but it did not at all appear to him to he the only one . What pressed upon his mind was that the defendant had no right to take more than 10 s . in every £ 100 . ] . He ^ denied that the non-registration had anything to do with the case . There was at first . no ideaof registration , and no attempt at it till October , 1846 , so that there could not he a shadow of Illegality with regard to the first payment . : The change o f mime and nurnose he looked unon as nothiner . ; But the
principal observation - upon which he " relied ; was , that as far as Mr . O'Connor was concerned , the transactions of the society were eminently characterised by good faith . A committee of the House of Commons had recognised a bona jides throughout . It stated that Mr . O'Conrior had expended money of his own to a large extent beyond what ' he had received , and if it should turn out . that this society was not registrable bylaw , it was Mr . O'Connor s . intention . to go to the House of Commons for an Act , either to go on in another form oi " . to wind up the concern ; His Honour deferred judgment till the next Court day . - . '' : '" ¦' •;
Gubbins V.'O'Connor. - •¦ _ - '¦ ¦ - •¦¦...
GUBBINS V . 'O ' CONNOR . - •¦ _ - '¦ ¦ - •¦¦ Manchester , June 7 th 1849 .. Memorandum of Mr . Roberts . , l i The following is my recollection of the principal points of argument . The case was tried yesterday , at Northampton ; ,-..- - Mr ; Beck , solicitor , of Northampton , appeared for the plaintiff / and I for'the defendant . i . ; The short- substance of Mr . Beck ' s opening was , that ' " he sued the-defendant , who was one ofthe Directors of the "National Land Company , " for two sums of £ 2 10 s . each ; one paid to the coriipany by the plaintiff ( who held two shares ) in April , 1846 ; and tlriVother in March , 1847 , between
these two periods th & Company had been provisionally registered . The plaintiff did not asktho return ot the entire of these sums ; he allowed' a sum of 3 d . on each share , the full sum which the Directors of the Land . Company were legally entitled to receive . Under the 23 rd clause of the Joint Stock Companies Act , the directors had ho right , until the company was " completely registered , " to take more than ten per cent on each share . The shares were £ 2 10 s . each , and all that the Directors had taken beyond that ten per cent ., the persons who had paid the excess , had a right to recover as money had and received for their use . In the present instance , the Directors had taken tho whole amount due on the shares .
Mr . Beck also contended that the plaintiff was on two other grounds entitled to recover . First , inasmuch as the scheme lor which he had paid his money , had ; - on sevcrai occasions , been altered in its name and purpose , and that , therefore , the consideration for wliich the money had been paid had failed . And secondly , because the promise of " com p lete registration" had not heen fulfilled , and even the provisional registration necessary to keep tho scheme alive had not been taken out . This was the p laintiff's case ; and it may as well be stated here , that the "ten per cent . " was through the
argument recognised as the strongest point . _ ¦ : The evidence in support of the plaintiff ' s ease was the payment of money at the times stated to Munday . —Muriday admitted the payments ; that he was the secretary of the Land Company ; not , however , appointed by defendant , or the . Company , but by the body of shareholders-at Northampton ; that he sent the money to the Board in London , never to Mr . O'Connor ; and that he was in tlie-habifc ot receiving back cards which he delivered to the members . Two . of those cards he had g iven to plaintiff : There are several signatures to these cards . The name of "F . O Connor" was one of them , but
witness could not swear to the . handwriting , nor could he swear who sent the cards , nor whether the two produced by plaintiff , were those wliich witness delivered to . plaintiff—but they-were ofthe same sort . The next witness for the plaintiff , was a cleric from the Registration Office : He proved the Joint Stock paper , wherein the defendant appeared as a Director , and in one of which , signed by him , was the plaintiff's name as a shareholder . The defendant s signatures were admitted . ' The clerk also proved that the time for provisional registration had expired , and that the Company was not " completely registered . " Driver , a witness , proved that at some of the Land meetings , Mr . O'Connor had 'taken an active part ,
and was recognised as tho head qf the concern . Gubbins , the plaintiff , swore to the payment of tho money—had received no benefit—never had . notice of a ballot . He first became dissatisfied at the time that the Ballot was given up , about November last . He attended the meeting on the return of the Delegate from Birmingharii in November last . Made no opposition or complaint of what had been done at the Conference there . . He about the same time became convinced that a man could not get a living upon four acres , and he did not see any prospect of being located . These were his only complaints . Had he been successful in the ballot , he should have sold his share , and would have taken £ 30 . ( Most of this was got out , and with much difficulty , by
crossexamination . ) He . had paid his money to be put with the money of the other shareholders—the whole to be expended in the purchase of land , wliich was to be divided and allotted amongst those fortunate in the ballot ; these were not to . be absolute owners , but were to pay a rent of £ 5 , ( he did not understand " five per cent ., ' !) for their allotments . He admitted having attended two meetings , and never having made any complaint or opposition . ( It was sworn by Munday , that the plaintitfattemled all the meetings , certainly as riiany as ten , and niade no complaint . ) He ( plaintiff ) knew that Driver had been fortunate in getting : an allotment , and bad " been forced to leave—could nob make a , living of it " . Did not know that Driver had sold his
allotment . . ¦ . . -- ... .: . -. ; Driver , on cross-examination , said ho : had got an allotment and sold it for £ 90 , . " out-of-which was deducted some money he had previously received , and £ 12 rent . He spoke strongly of the ¦ dissatisfaction of the allottees ; still he thought a man niight get a living if he tried ; huthe ; must have a little capital . He admitted as ' plaintiff haddone , that-he had paid his money to be joined with : the moiiey of the other members for : the purpose of paying expenses , and purchasing land , on which the mcriibers were to be located , the rents then to be ' sold or mortgaged , and other lands purchased , & c . " ' The thing , had not
answered as well as he ( Driver ) had expected , but so far as he could judge , the promises held out by Mr . O ' . Corinor had been performed . In exnlan ' atiou of p laintiff ' s not having received notice . of ballot , _ it was afterwards admitted on the part of the plaintiff , that Gubbins was balloted the . sariib-as ; the others , ' and had the same chance under the ballot of obtaining an allotment as av . y other member . . It , was proved by Munday , that tlie alteration from " ballot to " bonus , " was only to bo . made if-. it should turn out that theballot was illegal . ThaVall the . changes had been sanctioned by the members , ; and that all the meetings were open to all the members , j . ;
The Clerk of Mr . Whitmarsh , on cross-cxnmmatioii , " admitted that ; it ' very frequently ' happened that ' provisional registration was riot applied for till after the expiration of the ¦ year ;; arid that when applied for if had nov ' e ' r ' been refused ^ except in the instance of the Land . Company—that the ^ refusal in 1 that case was in consequence of doubt as . , tothe legality of the Company ; - ' that '• Whitinarsli had beeri served ' with ' si mandamus to -register ; that changes in name and purpose were very frequent with coinpanics ) that "the constitution ' of '' the'Company was eventually determined by the ' . Deed" of Scttlcincnt , which , was obliged to -bo iii- ; conformity ... with the purposes expressed in tlie papers sent in ; . . and that the L and Company draft had been regiilarly ' sent-in to Mr . Whitmarsh , and , as ho " now saw bv hj § certificatO i " approved of l > y him ,
Gubbins V.'O'Connor. - •¦ _ - '¦ ¦ - •¦¦...
.: The above . gives . the . p laintiffs case-and the ; evidence ofthe witnesses ; there was some sparring as to the good or bad condition of the allottees—but to this the Judge said he gave no weight , . .. . . For , the defendant , I contended that no case had been made out against Mr . O'Connor—no proof that Munday . was his agent , or the agent of the Company , or that the money ever reached the Company . Then I contended that the Northampton Court had no jurisdiction , for that the cause of action had not arisen in Northampton ; that , the receipt of the money must , for criminal purposes , be taken to he hy Mr . O'Connor ; where he was , and ' not by the agent at Northampton ; and that the non-registration die ., must also be taken : as occurring in London . The
Judge stated , that in a late case of . a bill made m one place , and notice of dishonour g iven in another , it had been held thatj ' the cause of action arose where the bill wa ! j made , and not where the notice of : dishonour .. was g iven . I replied that there ; the whole cause of action was , in effect , the . debt—the bill ; the- notice of dishonour being merely a result which was necessary for other proceedings ; while , in this case , the . non-registration was the special act which alone , and of itself , constituted the claim . I don't know . whether nOwor then I succeeded in making myself understood : but I fancy that Iperceive a difference in the twocases , and I endeavoured to explain it . I contended that there was no proof of the abandonment of the
scheme—that ; in the " Walstal and Spottiswoode " and " Wontner v . Sharp" cases , tho abandonment had been complete , and before any progress ^ made . I relied on thewiandarows ' and the cross-examination of Mr . Whitmarsh ' s clerk , as a proof that we were proceeding as fast as we could . I put very strongly the fact , that the case was one which ought to be tried in a superior court , where judgment would have general application throughout the kingdom ; and 1 showed that this very question would be decided by the return , of tho ^ Registrar to the «»«« - damus and , the . ^ afguriieitit thereon . The Judge asked how . this ^ quostion would be raised on that argument ^ seeing that the money paid on shares did not appear in the returns to ; the office . . In reply , I
stated that Mr . Whitmarsh , in an , argument which had already been before the court above , had relied in his affidavit upon the House of Commons report , in which these payments appear ; and that it was clear that every . .. objection , which that report exhibited would be raised ; for that one of the , objections raised by tho Attorney-General , was tho connexion of the . Company with the Bank—an objection which did not appear in the returns , but only in the Committee report . In confirmation , I read the Times , newspaper report of-the argument—particularly directing attention to the Attorney-General ' s " Bank " , observations . This latter seemed to have some weig ht with the Judge ; but he appeared most of ah to be staggeredby what follows : I contended that tho question of whether . the ;
Company-had ever been a . company at all , was now in abeyance to . be decided on the mamlamus argumeritr-that if it should appear to-be illegal from the holding of land—from its , connexion with the Bank , or froiri the allotments being by ballot , it would then , have been illegal , ; al initio ; and , consequently , all . f Joint Stock Coriipany" connexion between the pLiintiffand defendant ^—tho " Director and shareholder "—connexion , by wliich the defendant , wiis inferred to have received the money ofthe plaintiff , would cease , or rather would never have existed ; the onl y proof that the defendant had received . thc plaintiff ' smoney , was that the . defendant was a Director of a company ; to which tho plaintiff had paid ; if the directorship were destroyed , sill
" receipt" and " -agency' ! were destroyed , and the plaintiff and defendant hecariie merely members of an ordinary partnership , and stood each in exactly the same light towards the other . That if registration were eventually denied , the whole thing became an ordinary partnership . I referred to the judgments and remarks in the > late railway cases , and particularly to the remarks . in " Nockells v . Crossby , " In tho cases where it had been decided that there was no partnership nothing had been done ; here the land had been purchased and allotted . As a ' partnership the case would not be cognizable in tlio County Court ; and if it were ho partner would have—the whole money being expended generally—any special right against another .
Ialso contended , that the plaintiff had received part of the consideration for his money . That consideration was the chance ' of obtaining an allotment : he had that chance ; he might have * ot . an allotment ; Driver had ; . it was the same as if the defendant had divided the whole land into the number of shares , and given to each member his £ 210 s . worth . Inferred to " Hunt v . Silk , " " Heed v . Blandford . V I also relied on the : lapse of time—the sanction by Alderson iri "Lovell v . Hicks , ? ' ofthe position that lapse of time operated generally as a bar—the coal case , " Richardson v . Dunn , '"' also supported this . I pointed out that the ground of complaint—the ten per cent . —was not taken by the plaintiff himself , anil quoted his evidence and that of Driver ; and I
alluded to the poverty ofthe plaintiff ; and the vast expense of the . contest beyond what could be allowed as costs by the court , as a proof that the action was that of others , and not that of the plaintiff . I also contended that the " ten per cent . " argument would not apply to the first £ 2 10 s ., as that was paid before tho registration under the Joint Stock Companies Act was contemplated ; at that time , indeed , we were trying ; to he enrolled under the Friendly . Societies Act ; In reply to the ten per cent , argument generally , I contended that if the payment was illegal , the plaintiff , was mi pari delicto , and cited "Andrco v . Fletcher , " " Clough v . ltatcliffe , " and some others . The Judge did not consider that the in 2 > ari delicto argument applied .
It was lawful for the p laintiff to pay , though unlawful for defendant to receive . But ho seemed , to think that tho argument might apply if it afterwards appeared , that the Company from the "Bank , " the " ballot , " or the "holding of land , " had been illegal , ao initio . The Judge appeared from tho first , and throughout , to consider the " more than ton per cent . to be the strong part of the plaintiff ' s case ; and what most appeared to shake him was the fact that the case was already before the Queen ' s Bench ; and the argument that the agency of Munday and receipt of the money by defendant , were only proved by the defendant being a Director of the Company , the legalitvof which was now in contention ; and that
thus it might eventually appear that the uompany had never had any legal existence . . But this ten per cent , position is much shaken by considering the strength of tho argument , that the plaintiff had had what he paid his money for , and that having had it , he has no right to have his money back ; this may be put rather strongly . That he has had what ho paid for , it would bo . difficult to deny . Ten persons employ A to purchase a hundred partridges , and they subscribe £ 1 each ; A procures the partridges , and each subscriber takes his share : the same persons subscribe the same sum for a watch ; A purchases it for them , and they decide tho ownership by ballot . In the latter as in the former case , each subscriber has had his money ' s worth , and having had his money ' s worth , can it be contended that he may also have his money again ? " Yes , " it may be replied , " where the transaction
( as in the Land case ) was contrary to law . In the partridges case there was no violation of the law . " But this-distinction may bo questioned . Suppose , for instance , that A had bought the birds ( the time of buying might bo either with or without the cognizance of ; the subscribers ) , a day before ( 31 st August ) they might legally . be bought—would the partridge eaters have a right to their , sovereigns back again ? " Owens v . Denton , " incidentally illustrates the question : there an " illegal measure" was held not to vitiate a settlement of accounts . In " . Taylor v . Hare" tho purchase of something that tl ) C defendant had no right to sell—a patent vrhich did not belong to him—was not allowed to recover his money after ho had for some time received the benefit ; of the patent .. The argument , . was not placed before the Judge so strongly , as I have ; here ¦ mit .-it : but it was alluded to several times .
: The cases : as to racing . swceps and lotteries would throw some light upon the question . Tlie cases " Jaques v . . Withy" and '' Jaques v . Golightly , " at first sight appear to be in favour of the plaintiff ; and many Others to much thesame effect in "Addison on Contracts , " p . 234-5-6 . But in none of theni is it clear that there was ' thc same amount of oono , fides together ' . with ' . thesanie . consent , and sanction ,- and delivery , and receipt of the . consideration . -In the judicial observations , ; and the : reasoning of these cases , : there . is much . to . support the view , that if the receiver of the moiiey actually expended it for the payer ' s benefit . and with his sanction , the latter would , riot bo sanctioned in his attempt to get his money back n again . . ,, " Hastelow v . Jackson , " " llodsbh ' v . Terrill , "' arid the other stakcholding cases , in thisvicw , support the defendant .... ' j '•'"
In ' . ' Curidell . v . Dawson , " 4 . c . b . 37 G , -it was , " held that ' the neglect to deliver a coal ticket ( 1 and 2 Vict . c . TOi . ' sec . 3 . ) nii g ht be p leaded in bar to an action for the ' price of the ' , coals ; " lint ' it does not seem necessarily to follow from this , that if the p u reliaser had paid for the coals he could afterwards have recovered his money ; this case . , seems' very similar to that now m question ., : '' . ; " ' Tho cases ' " . ' Miint and another * v . Stokes and another ; * ' " Tenmuit . « . Elliott , " a ^ l , " - . Farmer v . Hnsselland another , " and some oAkers cited in theso , arc stsongly in favour of ; deferent , indeed tlioy , go to the full extent of his case .. , ¦ ' ' . . . ¦¦¦
'' ¦"¦Ggb.Iy— ' - — ——. ] ;' T?«5 Explos...
'' ¦ " ¦ ggB . iy— ' - — —— . ] ; ' T ?« 5 Explosion a . t f Iebbuun Collieiiy . — An iiw quest on-thirty-two < jf -the sufferers by this explo sion , was held , at ¦ '• Hebburn , on Wednesday the 6 th inst ., and after hearing soriie evidence , adjourned .. The inquest ivitis resuriied on Wednesday last ,- when d number-of' witnesses , . consisting of ' stoiio-workers , cng iriomp ' ., ' ^ 'viewers , arid others connected with o 0 llior . es aiid mine ' s , werc cx ariiiiicd ' at Icngtj ^ - ' iirid i the- ' jury ; after-. r long irivos ' tigation , * lnwingj heard I the summing up of the coroner , retui'UL'tl a- " Verdict [ of" Accidental death . "
^Wtfarc Ttmfm ©Ouvt
^ wtfarC ttmfM © ouvt
. -Monday, June 11. The June Session Of ...
. -MONDAY , June 11 . The June session of the above court commenced thismorniiig before the Ilig ht Hon . the Lord Mayor the ltecorder ; Aldermen Lawrence , Garden , -ton C . Marshall , 'and Sidney : the Sheriffs , Undei-Sheriffs , and the other civil officers . - Unlicensed Music and Danciso Rooms . —Charles Woolff , Hichard Pridmore , and Thomas Ottey , surrendered to take their trial for misdemeanour . — Mr . Ciarkson and Mr . Ballantine conducted tne prosecution , and Mr . Parry was for the defence .- — Mr . Ciarkson , in opening the case , said that . the misdemeanour imputed to the defendants was , that they had kept and . maintained an . establishment called the Walhalla , in Leicester-square , for the
purpose of public music and dancing , without a licence , and by so doing had rendered themselves amenable to the charge of keeping a disorderly house , which amounted to a misdemeanour . The nrosecution , was brought forward , nominally , by . a person named Stowcll , of whom they had all probably heard , and they , were no doubt aware that ho was , a common informer ; but he would admit that the real prosecutors were persons who felt or believed that they wereinjured in their own business by establishments of this description , and the jury would , therefore , understand the motives with which the . proceeding was instituted . —The ltecordor asked , the learned counsel what punishment he understood to be applicable to the
offence?—Mi-. Ballantine said he supposed the ordinary common law punishment of fine and imprisonment , which was genera l y awarded for the offence of keeping a disorderly house . In the presen t case , the object was not to inflict any punishment upon the defendants , but to obtain the opinion of the court with regard to . the law . —The Recorder said he did not remember such an indictment as this having been preferred before . There had been several actions for penalties , but they had mostly failed . . It was " the £ 100 ; penalty which generally set informers in motion ; but here it was alleged that , the indictment was preferred solely upon public grounds . — James Peaehey , who described himself as having been formerly a clothes salesman ,
was then examined .: ; He . stated , that he went to the Walhalla upon two occasions , and each time paid ls .-for admission . . The first time ho went was on the 2 nd of January , when he saw about ISO persons preserit . ' There was music and dancing going on uponrboth occasions .. He . saw Pridmore and Woolff each time . The latter was in the refreshment room , and Pridmore appeared to be superintending . The , words fM'homas Ottey , free vintner , " were Over the door , and Pridmore ' s name was b y the side of a bed belonging to the : house . . Stowell was present upon one of the . occasions , and he broke some glasses , and was g iven in charge by Pridmorey and when the matter was investigated by the magistrate Pridmore re presented himselfto . be the
proprietor ofthe establishment . —By Mr . Parry : Stowell was fined 28 s . as the , value of the ; g lasses ho had broken . Witness was paid by Stowehfor attending the Walhalla and giving his evidence , and . ho had received £ 10 from him at different times . He had only laid three informations of this , description since Christmas . In one case two of the defendants p leaded guilty , and entered into recognisances not to commit the offence again . —Mr . Ballantine said this was all that was required now . —The Recorder asked if any . of the cases had been compromised ? —The Witness said that one had been compromised . Evidence was then g iven to show that music and dancing went on every evening , and some questions were out bv the council for the prosecution with a
view to show that many of the females who were present were loose characters , but-the witnesses could not speak to . the fact . —The Recorder , wished to know whether it was desired to be shown that the hoiise was disorderly in fact , or whether it was merely "Disorderly" according to act of parliament . . ( A laugh . )—Mr . Ballantine said he believed there was no pretence that the house-was conducted in an improper manner . All they said was that the proceeding was illegal , and if , his lordship entertained the same , opinion , it . would no doubt put a stop to it . Sonie evidence was then g iven to show that the defendant , Woolff , supplied pastry to the Walhalla , and engaged a-waiter . — : Mr . Drew , a clerk in the office of the clerk of tho peace . for Middlesex ,
proved that : the Walhalla had not been licensed by the magistrates as a place for public music and dancing . —The Recorder .. wished to know whether rooms or places where certain balls were held were considered to be subject to . a licence ?—Mr . Ballantine said , that : the Hanover-square ltoomsalways had a licence ;—Mr . Parry said , that in the case . oi a dancing master , who occasionall y gave public balls in his own rooms , Lord JEllenborough decided that : i licence was not necessary . —Mr-. Ballantine said , the distinction was a place " kept" for the purpose . — This was the case for the prosecution . —The Recorder said , it appeared to him that the evidence against Woolff and Ottey was so very slig ht that he did not thinkthey ought to-be called upon for their
defence . —Mr . Parry then addressed the jury for the defendant Pridmore ; and he contended that the evidence was not sufficient to justify them in finding that person guilty of keeping and maintaining the house in question . —Tho Recorder , in summing up , said he had felt himself called upon to decide that this place of amusenierit was of such a character as required a licence , and not having one it . camo within the definition of a disorderly house , and the only question that remained was , whether ' the defendant Pridmore had been proved to have taken any . share in the management of the concern . It appeared to him that the evidence to that point would have been very slight but for the artifice th . it . had been resorted . toby Stowell , the prosecutor ,
in breaking the g lass , which had the effect of compelling the defendant to come forward and avow himself to be the owner of tho property . If the jurywore satisfied with such evidence , a ' lthough they mi ght feci that the defendant had not been guilty , of any moral offence ,. it woukl be their duty to return a verdict of guilty , but if they considered the evidence unsatisfactory , it would be equally their duty to say that thedefendant was not guilty . —The jury , after deliberating for some time , said they felt' compelled to return a verdict of . " Guilty ; " but at tho same time stat ed , that although they could not help coming to the conclusion that the establishment in
question came , within the provisions of the act of Parliament ^ there w ^ as no ground for believing that it had in . any way been improperly conducted ; and they therefore desired to recommend the defendant to the favourable consideration of the Court . —A verdict of ' . ' Not-Guilty , " was then recorded with regard to . Ottey and . Woolff , and Pridmore was or . dered to enter into his own recognisances in £ 4 . 0 , with two sureties in £ 20 each , to appear and receive the judgment of the Court , if he should bo required to do so . —In another case of a . similar description against a person named liotolor , Mr . Ciarkson said he should withdrawfrom tho prosecution , and a . verdict of " Not Guilty" was accordingly
returned
- - . WEDNESDAY , JUNE 13 . .. ' Robbin g a ft / icns — W . Arnold , aged 17 , a clerk , was indicted lor stealing a half clown , three shillings , ? i i ? ne 'l > enny piece ; the property of Joseph Rudd . fee ju-y , after a long con-ultation , and retiring for some time , found the prisoner "Guilty " —The Common' Sergeant sentenced him to ' six hionths ' . imprisonment . Stealing a Pair of SrAYS-Mary Ann Margaret Langham , aged 25 , describsd as married , was convicted of stealing a pair ofstavs , valued at 10 s ., the property of Mary Ann Brid geman , a staymaker living at Woolwich . There was also another indictment .
for stealing twenty handkerchiefs from another shop in the same tpwn , The pr . soner ; a respectable looking young . rountrywoman , who had an ' infant in' her arms , handed in a written statement , in which she stated that distress had driven her to i he act , and that | an officcrirt the army was the father of her child . —in answer to the court , the officer said the prisoner was a known character : She had been apprehended with the . property on her , shortly after taking it . bhe was delivered of the child she then had m her arms as . soonas she . gotto the station house . —She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment . .. . ...
THURSDAY , June 14 . . . ( Before Lord Chief Justice - Wilde , Mr . Ju > tice . , . Patteson , and-M . ; ' Baron ^ Rolfk . ) TRUhOF HAMILTON , FOR KIRING . AT THK ftUIsW . ' ' •¦¦ llii-ir lordships took their seats this morning at tcn ojjlook ; The prisoner William Hamilton , was placed in the dock a few minutes before ton , and , as a matter of course , attracted a great deal of notice : he was described in the calendar as a bricklayer , of the age of 23 .- " He was dressed in : a flannel jiv & et . tie is rather' ; a good-looking man , about five teet nine inch es is height . wit !» a silly expression of eountena ' we .-The Attorney-General , Mr . Wilsby P ; Wson , Mr . Bodkin , ¦ and Mr . Clark s ^ peai-Jd | . r the Crown ; - . fhe prisankr , who was uivdefeuded , uleadeii ^ itmlty ^' and was sentenced to . he tranS I ported t- . iv the- term ' of / sevenyears .
Titouftmim
titouftmiM
Corn. Maiuc-Wlvb, Monday. June 11.:—Our ...
CORN . Maiuc-wlvb , Monday . June 11 .: —Our market continues very thinly supplied with all . English grain , but we have had good arrivals of Foreign since-this day se ' nmght , particularlTOfoats . Fine English wheat sold pretty readil y to-day and fully' as dear , and we had more buyers of foreign at last week's prices , There was likewise more d « . mand for fresh French flour , at Is per sack advance . Barley for grinding sold fully as dear . In malt but little doing . Beans and peas maintained former prices , without much demand for either . Most of the Foreign oats coming more or less out of condition , they were taken off very ilowly by the dealers at 6 d to Is reduction , but good fresh corn was quite as dear to-day . Foreign rye would find buyers . Linseed cakes dull sale . The current prices as under :-.-
-Bumsu . —Wheat Essex , Suffolk , and Kent , ' red , 3 Ss to 153 , ditto White , 40 s to 52 s , Lincoln , Norfolk , and Yorkshire , red , 37 s to 44 s , Northumberland and Scotch , white , a " s to 41 s , ditto red , S 5 sto 4 ' 2 s , Devonshire and Somersetshire , red , — s to —s , ditto white — to —s , rye , 22 s to 24 s , barley , 24 s to 30 s , Scotch , 24 s to 2 Ss , Malt ordinary ; —s to —s , pale 52 s to 5 Gs , peas , grey , new , 28 s to 31 s , maple 29 s to 33 s , white , 24 s to 26 s , boilers ( new ) , 2 Ss to 30 s , beans , large , nlvi ' , 23 s to 2 Gs , ticks 24 s to 27 s , harrow , 2 fis to 29 s . pigeon , 28 s to 32 s , oats , Lincoln and Yorkshire , feed , 10 s to 18 s , ditto Poland and potato , 18 s to 21 s , Berwick and Scotch , 18 s to 22 s , Scotch feed , 17 s to 20 s , Irish feed , and black , 15 s to 18 s , ditto potato , 17 s to 22 s , linseed ( sowing ) 50 s to 52 s , rapeseed , Essex , new , JE 2 G to £ 23 per last , earraway seed , Essex , new , 23 s to 2 !) s per cwt , rape cake , £ i to £ 4 10 s per ton , linseed , £ 0 10 s to £ 10 10 s per 1 , 000 , Hour per sack of 2801 hs . ship , 31 s to 32 s , town , 40 s to 42 s . '
Foiieig . v . —Wheat , '— Dantzig , 46 s to 52 s , Anhalt and Marks , 40 s to 48 s ,- ditte white , 44 s to 48 s , Pomeranian red , 40 s to 44 s , Rostock 42 s to 43 s , Danish , Holstein , and Priesland , 36 s to 42 s , Petersburg }! , Archangel , and iligii , 36 s to 40 s , Polish Odessa , 3 Gs to 41 s , Marianopoli , and berdianski , 35 s to 38 s , Taganrog , 34 s to 38 s , Brabant and French , 33 s to 42 s , ditto white , 40 s- to 44 s , Salonica , 33 s to 80 s , Egyptian , - 24 s to 26 s , rye , 21 s to 24 s , barley , Wismar and Rostock , 18 s to 22 s , Danish , 20 s to 23 s , Saal . 22 s to 20 s , EastFriesIand , 17 s to 19 s , Egyptian , 16 s to 17 s , Danulii-, IGs'to 17 s , peas ; white , 24 s to 2 Gs , new boilers , 26 s to 28 s , beans , horse , 25 s to 2 « s , pigeon , 30 s to 32 s , Egyptian , 21 s to 23 s , oats , Groriingen , Danish , Bremen , and Friesland ,. feed and black , 12 s to 15 s / ditto , thick and brew , 15 s to 19 s , Riga , l ' etersbui-g , Archangel , and Swedish , 13 s tolGs , flour , United States , per 106 'lbs ., 21 s to 23 s , Hamburg 21 s to 22 s , Dantzig and Stettin , 21 s to 23 s , French per 2801 bs ., 32 s to 34 s .
Wednesday , June , 13 . —With Foreign oats we continue to be well supplied , whilst of all oilier grain , particularly wheat , the supply is very limited ; but the weather being on the whole favourable for the growing crops , the trade iu every article is very quiet—the demand being confined to immediate consumption .
CATTLE . SMiTHFiEiD , Monday , June 11 th . —The arrivals of foreign stock at the various outports have been small . From Ireland , 127 beasts , and 152 sheep have come to hand , by sea . ¦ for our market . Fresh up this moi-umg , tlie' receipts of home-fed beasts were seasonably extensive , and of full average quality . The attendance of buyers was small ; yet , as the weather was favourable for slaughtering , the beef trade was steady , at prices fully equal to those obtained on Monday last . Tlie general top quotations for beef was 3 s 8 ( 1 per Slbs . In extreme cases rather more was paid . With all breeds of sheep we were fairly supplied . Generally speaking , the mutton trade was in a very sluggish state at
barely last week s quotations , and at which a total clearance was not effected . The number of Iambs was largo ; while the demand for that description of stock was heavy at a decline in vidua of quite 2 d por 81 bs . Calves—the supply of which was good—sold slowly at the late decline in value . The sale for pigs was heavy at barely late rates . Head of Cattle at Sjhtmfield . Beasts .. .. 3 , 3001 Calves .. .. 200 Sheep .. .. 2 U . 040 j 1 'igs : .. .. .. 251 ) Price per stone ' of Slbs . ( sinking the offal ) . Beef .. . 2 s 4 d to 3 s 8 d I Veal - .. 3 s 2 d to 4 s Oi Mutton .. 3 s 4 d .. 4 s Od j Pork ., .. 3 a .. 4 ¦> ' . - . lamb .. .. 4 s Sd to 5 s lOd . ' Per Slbs . by the carouse .
Newgate and Leadesiiali , Monday , June 11 . —Inferior beet ; 2 s 2 d to 2 s 4 d ; middling ditto , 2 s Gd to 2 s 8 d : prime large , 2 s lOd to 3 s Od ; prime small , 3 s Od to 3 s 2 d ; ' InrgC pork , 3 s- 2 d to 3 s Gd ; inferior mutton , 3 s Od to 3 S - >{ \ ¦ nuddUng ditto , 3 s 4 dto 3 s Gd ; prime ditto , 3 s 8 d to 3 s 10 . 1 ; veal , bs Od toJs lOd ; small pork , 3 s 8 d to 4 s Od ; lamb , 4 s 3 d to 5 s 18 d .
PROVISIONS Lo . vnox , Monday , June 11 . —With no activity in market * we have scarcely anything new to report . Of butter , nothing Worth notice was done in Irish landed hist week and prices ruled low . Limerick , G 4 s ; Waterford , ' 63 s to 0 G ? . borne lew sales of Cork were effected , at « 4 s on board for this and next month , and no free buyers for quantity at a price so apparentl y moderate . Tlie best foreign was dull , at o , s , and local supplies abundant aud cheap . lliiuon . — 1 here was a limited demand for the Irish and American singed sides : holders tirm ; prices steady ; the former 04 s to . 6 i , s ; the latter , 42 s to 18 s . Scalded middles sold slowly at from Jos to 4 & s as m kind and quality . Hams a ready sale at from 50 s to 70 s per cwt . Lard dull ; prices nominal . Bladders , 43 s to G 2 s ; kegs , 3 Ss to 44 s .
English 1 $ utteu , June ll .-Our trade continues dull , at previous rates ; but this day a disposition is shown to prevent prices going lower . The quantity of our butter beiii " now more regular , there is not so wide a range in price ' . Dorset hue weekly , ( 6 s to 80 s per cwt ; ditto middling , 00 s to , 0 b ; Oevon ditto , 60 s to 70 s ; fresh Buckinghamshire Ss to . llls per dozen ; ditto West Country , Cs to Sb °
FRUIT AND VEGETABLES . Covest Garden-, Monday , June 11 . -Asparagus Is Od to as per bundle ; strawberries fid to Is per small pottle : peaches 40 s per dozen ; cucumbers Sd to 3 s per brace : raUTp ? ?^ " I ? W ** currants . 5 s to 6 s , goosd ^ f s , | , J ,, f > ? ld <»« iii 5 is . to 5 s , and spinach id to Gd per half sieve ; Summer cabha- 'es fid to Is -mil £ E '" it lf ^ tH 8 d rf hB ^ J Spri & t-nlS it to -V SS 1 ? r * r ° f ' ' '«' , C ! m' 0 tS 3 s t 0 *« « P " "J ? ° >» ° » lsto-s , tm mp radishes Sd to lOd , and Teens Vto ' - ' sCd per dozen bundles nine •» . ! , ! ,. « » . « t " ° l . V To * c a = . ,, S ' ' . 'ipiaea js to < s , hothouse grapes is to 8 s . and new potatoes 2 d to fid per ¦ Jb o . vinW its ri , „ it , rf ^ lf hw ! ared ; "'" sh rooms yd to Is per punnet ; lnbarb 4 ( 1 to Gd per dozen bundles ; cos lettuces fid to ieu pei . score ; cauliflowers , 3 s to 3 s per dozen heads . '
POTATOES . SoirrmvAKK Waterside , June 11 . —The supply of English potatoes is all but finished , and those from the continent are so few that it will not be worth while to "ive sinv re port afti-i- tl . is until the next season . The following arc this days prices :-rorkshiro Itegents , I 20 s to 200 i ; Scotch whites , bOsto 90 s ; foreign , oils to 'Ms .
COLONIAL PIIOUUCE . London-, Tuesday , June 12 . —The quantity of sugar ?? nMi " Pl \ , ° . S"le to-dlir > say 4 U 0 hluls . ' West India , 14 , 000 bags . Mauritius , and 5 , 500 bags Bengal , exceeded the demand ; and although the importers bought in fully onethird to sustain the market , yet prices declined Gel . liarbadocs sold sag Gd to 43 s Gd ; Mauritius yellow , 37 s to 42 s ; Bengal white llenares , 40 s to 4 ;! s ; crystallised 43 s to 4 SS . I n n ., ! i = ' ! r ,- ' i 'H J about m 1 , 1 , ds sold , malvins 420 hhds , including the pubic sale . The refined marked Uunptlst ^ lkl ' 1 , l 0 t : ' tiunS ™ reaUeeaCl 1 ' G ™ " * l \ Timc & up ? n't l , e l'uhlic . prices of tasrSSuk" * boul -jjp da , atewIots 34 s , andaboutl . DOOba < 'snriM . m « M . fi .. i 0 Ji by private contract , 33 s to 33 s 6 d . o lltSdS 0 M
..-. ' . COAL . eoifu ^ orS ^' ' Jua 6 ' V- »«» nion t % ^ tumiof the Tdffl dfe ' -T- thUtthe t » tol . quantity of coal , weredelidtl -m ^ ' "' 277 > 834 ^ - 2 «» . 7 W ton , ekherc A %° 4 f Bl " ^ Y ™* 08 , 130 tonsbypvivi . lc SSh ^ succeVsfi , ! -n . i Ve : ' - t ,, ut il llas ° »> y been par-K wv * the dSvl v mckl S ^^^ rionthin istVieT - « J aiJln , i Sir the ccrrespoiulm ? ^^& 'i " « "' " & % iz ? £ r »¦ ¦""• - >•»» J ¦ ^^ S gS ? Ssg ^ rsSm S' ^ l ^ i * v |«^ JftS ;! £ : iii ' ,..,... ; 5 » » V ™ . ? . l > eaiionslu . 12 s n . ' . Trt .. » H .. l , l Mo ,. r
' S 5 We ^ lhlrdey ""? J '^ vilS ^ ' " *» ' ' ^ ^ M ^ eyn ^^' c ^ ^^^ - ^ , ^ son , Ms . ; Uedlov 14 « •! . ! . n , " "town ' s gas , Us ; W » 14 s a « iVe £ T \ i ^ fd' ^ ifT \ 13 s M : Killingwor > , llCttOri , lfis 3 d " w * wdl"ii ^ ? . ? i ' 1 ' hll , ose ' , ' V ton , Ws !> d J , rVi ^ mi l r , M - 0 d i " «»«» - " ' - : l , ! r " lle « , n 15 ^* Jd ^ uL &'" I U'lumme . ' . lite * 1 ; Ku ^ U ;* Wlytwell , Used- lT ^ Sf ¦ - ' lGi W ; West iiebmttt > U V Kelloe , , Ui- cS . ' . sMT ' , 18 * ' " ' lrou S ,, """ j US , ^ = Wesellnrtlopool ' MMV . - ; u'tlTo 1 ' " ' ¦ Tho ™ l ? y , T *' 15 s Gd C 6 « S , - ' v ,, ltwo "l > , 12 s Gd ; Adelaide ' !* » ham 14 s « d"fe *^' lls 3 d ; . I ) enison , I 4 s ; South !)}*¦ ' ^ , ! , fe ^ 3-1 ; West Oornbrtli , Us ; « W 13 s Gd : ; r Jx l £ "t \ , meitc ; 20 , ; Derwent-water Hartley , *< i- J ' - \ : Sidney ' s Hartlev , los „ 0 d . ohips ' at-market , 189 . .
- V" " ¦ "WOOL . honX ^; i ?' , ' ' ' Juno ' " ' .-The imports of wool tew oSrSS , i : »» * eek wiw - SiUO hales ' from "Sydney , m trow «; t irom New Y ° - ' *»« i , rivutc co ,, trart yld S ^ 7 ^? tcl ,- ~ lw only demand for Laid lh >!> - fiSi ?; - ^ "" -mediate waut , and ot . rata * rattier " > -For . ( Kl ,. ; 1 > l ! -VCI ' s ' « t « j s ™ t much lwiiiM «« -. artXprt ^ SSedsind Cheviots there is stiU a demand , at . tuuuion on our rates a inoiitli ago of ftilly Is iw s < a , ie \
Fotnd Ering O.F ' More Emigiun.T Siiu>S ...
FOTND ERING O . F ' MORE EMIGIUN . T SIIU > S O-NlSillUSDllEDLIVliS L 0 S 1 \ Advices , receivedion Tuesday from Quehoo state that . at midnight : on tho l ' Oth of . llasAnonth 1 £ MiUMa from Liuicrick , an : old ; VOssol , mui „ e tv ' i ciw often hands , with 111 pnsscngers , when whim -hfty miles from St . Paul ' s , van into an icelmU \> ' temho foroe . The whole of her bows were stove lthe noxt moment -, tho : sea-was rushing rial £ hold wu-h the violence .. almost of -a eaUr-iei a J ^^ - ^ nekrwashoijrd from below , butftwas " only ot a few moments duration , n 8 the ship we t J w ,-with one seaman and a , cabin hoy , succeeded i , saving throe ; hves by one of the boats which float" roin , ho wreck as she-foundered . : About tmmtv-S j the passengers managed to reach tho deck iust ' bo-[ fore she went down , some of whom jumped on to the i
Fotnd Ering O.F ' More Emigiun.T Siiu>S ...
ssSESg & gs ^^ S ^ S ^'^ A S apFolched and took them ^ hoard - ¦ Jhe poor creatures had suffered . severely ^ om the cold , and their condition : was most heart-rendmg . ¦ Ibeir names are . given as follows :-Michael Cussack , Joseph Lynch , Bridget O'Gorman , spinster , — Connors , William Brew , John Hogan , and Patrick M'Toque ; the survivors of the Maria s crew are : William Collins ( mate ) , John Pickering ( seaman ) , and Michal Tague ( cabin-boy ) , making m all , out ot the 121 souls on hoard , only twelve saved . In conoD „„ nnce of the brig Falcon being short of water , ^ ^
those who were picked up by her were transterreu on board the ltoslin Castle , which proceeded direct to Quebec , and arrived there last Saturday fort . " ^ addition to the loss of the Maria , the Hannah , another emigrant ship , foundered near the same bearing . Tho master and a portion of the crew left the ship when she was foundering with thetwo hundred passengers , many of whom were subsequently rescued , having been picked up four days alter the melancholy event , and had been landed at tjuebec .
I'Rmtedaw .Wiliitam ' Kiiier; Ot'no. 3. Ilacclcsfield-Street I
I ' rmtedAw . wiLiitAM ' KiiiER ; ot'No . 3 . ilacclcsfield-street i
'Nffi™ C-N W- ' Amk > " T'Sruiuster, At ...
' nffi ™ C-n W- ' > " t'SRUiUSter , at we . «» m nflv ?' . '' . ^ vcat WindmnUtwet . lTavnnu-ket , iii the WJ ot \\ est ^ mstcr > fm . rrmirti i ^ . jf | J AK 6 Hb 0 'COXS 9 « , m q n J . " ! ll 1 il I ' ul , li 8 Uod . b y tue . said WnuAM Rnm « . : 't Juu « l 5 tr ' i 84 ' * ' rtNet ' «* pw « v-aftturiw
-
-
Citation
-
Northern Star (1837-1852), June 16, 1849, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns2_16061849/page/8/
-