THE GARDENERS 
CHRONICLE. 
[May 6, | 
the utmost exertions, the roof of the larger side of the 
puilding fell in half an hour after the commencement of 
the fire; and in about two hours the flames had spread to 
all the rooms in that part of the building, and floor after 
floor fell down. The entire building was completely de- 
stroyed, and several persons were seriously injured by the 
fall of the ruins. The damage is estimated at 10,0007. 
Railways.—The following are the returns of the under- 
mentioned railways for the past week :—London and 
Birmingham, 15,8597. ; Great Western, 13,7237 ; South 
Western, 6,1697. 3 South Eastern, 2,052/. ; Eastern Coun- 
tes, 2,3047.; North Midland, 4,133/.; York and ditto, 
1,596/. ; Greenwich, 773/.; Croydon, 308/.; Brighton, 
3,435/.; Blackwall, 682/.; Hull and Selby, 1,085/. ; Grand 
Junction, 6,956/. ; Midland Counties, 2,545/.—Arrange- 
ments are making to accelerate the north railway-mails 
by Lancaster, and the Irish ones by Chester ; the effect 
of which will be to save nearly two hours on the present 
time to all parties north of Lancaster. The change is 
expected to take place about the Ist July; but, as the 
various branch mails require readjustment, it may even 
bea little later before this important advantage can be 
attained.—By the report of the Parliamentary committee 
lately published, it would seem that the bill authorizing 
the construction of the branch railway to Northampton 
and Peterborough encountered a severe opposition while 
under consideration. The parties heard against the pro- 
ject were the Duke of Dorset and other landholders, who 
with the representatives of several trust interests allege 
that the line, in consequence of the small population of 
the districts through which it is proposed to pass, could 
never yield a fair return in proportion to the capital re- 
quired, and that therefore adequate compensation would 
not be afforded to those whose property was sure to be 
depreciated by the railway. Although this opposition 
was strong, the absence of any engineer on the part of 
the petitioners to impugn the calculations of Messrs. 
Stephenson and Bidder, the gentlemen called in sup- 
port of the applicants, had considerable weight with 
the committee, who, after a special examination of 
General Pasley, expressed themselves favourable _to 
the undertaking. General Pasley states his opinion 
against the circuitous route to Blisworth, the one 
which it is understood the Northern and Eastern 
Company propose to follow out when their works have 
advanced sufficiently northward; and in that case, he 
says, should the extension ever be carried out, the branch 
will then be confined to the traffic of the valley of Nene, 
along which it is to pass. The present line to North- | 
ampton and Peterborough is to be, in the first instance, 2 
single line only, and on that head the committee observe 
enough evidence was adduced, showing that while there 
would be an effectual guard against accident, public con- 
venience would be amply provided for. It is nevertheless 
to be constructed of sufficient width to admit of a double 
line of rails, should it hereafter be considered necessary ; | 
and the Board of Trade have the power of compelling the 
Company to lay down such double line if it appear to them 
that the convenience of the public demandsit. The capital | 
to be raised to carry ont the undertaking is 500,0002., and 
the income expected to be received is 35,094/., while the 
expenses are stated at 14,600/. per annum. Passenger 
traffic is estimated to realise 23,170/.; goods, 8,750/. ; 
and parcels, 3,174/. The line will be 474 miles in length. 
On Monday, a special meeting of the London and Bir- 
mingham Company, convened for the purpose of con- 
sidering the measure, passed a resolution approving of the 
draft of the bill—On Saturday, a fatal accident occurred 
on the branch railway at Blackwood, a few miles from 
Newport, occasioned by the blowing up of a locomotive 
engine used on the line of the Tredegar Iron Company, by 
which two persons were killed and two others seriously 
injured. One of the killed was Mr. Davis, a farmer, of 
Buttry-Hatch, in Monmouthshire ; and the other was 
Mr. P. Williams, a tradesman living at Blackwood. Great 
damage was done to several houses in the town, The 
explosion is reported to have been caused by the engine- 
driver neglecting to open the valve after shutting off the 
steam when leaving the engine. The loss of property, 
engine included, is estimated at least at 1000/. 
IRELAND. 
Dublin.—No slight consternation was caused on Monday 
morning by the announcement that Mr. Finn, the City 
Treasurer, elected by the Reformed Town Council, had 
absconded in the course of Friday, taking with him 
corporate funds to the amount of 4,000/. or 5,0007. He 
escaped in the packet for Liverpool, where he would be 
just in time to catch the New York packet. On the dis 
covery of his absence instant pursuit was made, Sir D. J. 
Dickenson, accountant of the corporation, having left 
Dublin on Saturday night, in the hope of catching him, 
but it is supposed without success, as the Great Western 
was expected to sail from Liverpool at 9 o’clock on 
Saturday morning. Mr. Walsh, a wealthy merchant, 
and Mr. Nolan, a rich pawnbroker, are Mr. Finn’s 
sureties to the amount of 2,000/. each.—The repeal agita- 
tion is still in full operation. At the meeting in this city 
last week, Mr. O’Connell announced that on the 4th he 
would go to Sligo; on the 7th to the Curragh of Kildare ; 
on the 14th to Mullingar; on the 23d to the Southern 
Riding of Tipperary ; 0n the 25th to the North Riding. 
He was also invited to a dinner by the corporation of 
Drogheda; andon the 29th of June he would go to Dundalk. 
The Rent for the week, announced at the close of the 
proceedings, was 683/. 9s. 2} d. This is much the largest 
weekly return yet received. 
Limerick.—The local papers mention as a proof of the 
little encouragement given to the new mail-coach con~ 
tractors, and as a circumstance without precedent on the 
Dublin and Limerick mail-coach line, that the coach 
arrived at the office in Limerick on Monday without a 
passenger, or even a single parcel, on the whole route 
from Dublin to Limerick. The way-bill was a perfect 
blank—not so much as the scratch of a pen on it. 
Dat. 
Vice-CuANcELLor’s Court.—(Before Sir Lancelot Shad- 
well).—Evors y, the Commissioners for Building New Churches. 
This case, which was argued before his Honour during 
the sittings of this Court at Lincoln’s-itin, immediately pre- 
vious to the Easter recess, came on for judgment this week. 
The Vice-Chancellor said that he had read through all the 
pleadings and affidavits in the case, and it appeared to his 
Honour that many parts of the bill were utterly unintelligible, 
but as far as he could understand the case, it appeared that 
n 1834 there was a project for building a new church al 
Newtown, Montgomeryshire, which, however, was abandoned. 
In 1838, a new i 
church, which was not to interfere wit ie old parish 
church. The plaintiff; vors, i 
posals to the defendants, the commissioners, 
the offer of a site for new church and other things, 
Eyors's site was not, however, conveyed, but in 1840 a site was 
¥ rt. Pew. Mr. Evors wished to have a chancel pro- 
vided for himself in the new church, The commissioners, it 
appeared, agreed to this, provided Mr. Evors paid the expenses 
necessary for its construction, In April, 1841, it would appear, 
however, that Mr. Evors swung round, as it were, and he there- 
upon sent a notice to the defendants, the commissioners, wherein 
he stated that he had taken the opinions of his friends, who con- 
sidered that they (the commissioners) had no right to change the 
site of the old church, that their so doing would seriously affect 
his (Mr. Eyors) ancient rights in the old parish church, and that 
! determined to resort to all legal remedies to prevent the 
commissioners from so doing. In consequence, therefore, of 
Mr, Eyors’s refusal to advance the necessary expenses for build- 
ing the chancel in the new church, that scheme was totally 
abandoned, and the plaintiff filed this bill, and prayed an iojunc- 
tion to restrain the commissioners from building the new district 
church in question, without their providing therein such accom- 
modation for the plaintiff as would protect such rights as he 
claimed to have in regard of the old parish church. Now the 
commissioners, by their answer, denied that they ever threatened 
or ever intended to destroy or infringe any such rights as the 
plaintiff has in the chancel of the old parish church. They also 
Stated that the building of the chancel in the new church was 
abandoned in consequence of the plaintiff's own act. ‘The com- 
missioners further denied that they ever threatened or intended 
to take down or remove any of the tombs, monuments, or 
monumental inscriptions now in existence in the old parish 
church. The commissioners did not say that they had de- 
termined to constitute the new district church a parish church, 
nor was it necessary that they should state what their determina- 
tion on that question was. Hi r was clearly of opinion, 
taking all the pleading: d affidavits together, that no ground 
was made out by the plaintiff for an injunction in this case. His 
Honour had read through the eleven acts of Parliament referred 
to in this case, and from them it appeared to him the commis. 
sioners had no power to pull down or repair the old parish 
church, but they had power to bnild a new district church, and 
they had power which would enable them, at some future time, 
to constitute that which was a district church a parish church, or 
a parish church a quasi district church, Being, therefore, of 
opinion that the plaintifi’s case had totally failed, this application 
for an injunction must be dismissed with cost 
Court of CoMMON PLEAS, ittings in Banco.)—Holloway V. 
Hare.—This action was tried before Mr, Justice Patteson and a 
Special Jury at the last Lewes Assizes, and was brought by the 
plaintiff, a clergyman, and curate of the parish of East Dean, 
Sussex, against the defendant, the Archdeacon of Lewes, to re- 
cover compensation in damages for a libel contained in a letter 
written to a Miss Gilbert, imputing to the plaintiff that he had 
been guilty of immoral conduct, and had committed perjury 
when a witness in the case of ‘* Greenwood v. Woodham,” tried 
t the Taunton Assizes, in 1841, The Jury found some of the 
issues for the plaintiff, and some for the defendant; bat the 
finding was substantially in favour of the latter. ant 
Byle for a rule nisi to set aside the verdict and have 
anew trial, on the ground of misdirection and the misreception of 
evidence, which consisted of certain questions relative to letters 
which had been written by Miss Gilbert, in which she spoke of 
the plaintiff's conduct, the letters themselves not having been 
put in evidence.—Rule granted. 
Cour or Excue (Sittings in Banco.)—Smith (qui tam) 
v. Bond.—This wa action for penalties under the statute of 
Ann, for keeping a gaming-house. The case was tried before 
Lord Abinger, at the sittings after Michaelmas Term, and a rule 
granted to show cause why there should not be a 
ich is still pending. The Solicitor-General now 
ound of a fraudulent: 
| 
Evo! 
attorney gave the 
street, Grosvenor-square, artist,” as his client. Inquiries were 
made at the house in question whether such a person resided 
there, and the answer was that he did, but was out of town, It 
appeared, however, on investigation, that this answer was Un- 
true, that no person of the name of Thomas Smith, an artist, 
ever lived in the house in question, and that it was a deliberate 
fraud on the part of the real plaintiff and his attorney, to conceal 
from the defendant who the real plaintiff was. So far, the plain- 
tiff had the benefit of his fraudulent misrepresentation. the 
trial, some of the witnesses were asked if they knew the plaintiff 
Thomas Smith, and they replied, truly that they did not; in fact, 
there was no such person. If the nameof the real plaintiff had beer 
suggested, their answer must have been otherwise, and their 
connexion with him would have clearly appeared on cross-eX- 
tion, and he was deprived of that benefit by the fraud of the 
plaintiff, the proceedings ought to be set aside, Lord Abinger 
saw no ground for setting aside the proceedings, as it did not 
appear the defendant had been prejudiced in his defence by the 
false name and address, No doubt the attorney, if he had wil- 
ully given a false name and address, was guilty of a contempt 
of court, and liable to punishment, but it was too Jate now to 
stay the proceedings. The rest of the court concurred, and the 
rule was refused. 
one of the cases to compel the making of 
tion was served on Mr. Francis, who was @ 
George’s, Norwich, but holding no office in th a 
concluded by stating that he was to appear in Michaelmas Term, 
there to answer certain articles touching hi soul’s health, and 
the reformation of his habi nd particularly in obstructing, or at 
least i poate 
a 
refusing to make, or to join in making a levy for rep; NG 
the church, ‘Lhe citation did not state that he had attended any 
ake a rate, nor did 
wrongfully cited, as it did not appear that he had been guilty of 
a ence, or that any vestry had been called for the purpose 
of making a rate, Notice of appeal had been given. This was 
the first time in which any attempt had been made to proceed 
against any one individual parishioner. Whole parishes had 
been excommunicated, but no one individual had been attacked. 
This was a case which deserved consideration. Rule granted. 
Court or Queren’s Bencu.—(Sittings in Banco.) — The 
Queen v. Feargus O’Connor and Others. —A great deal of 
by the announcement that these 
defendants were to be brought up for judgment, and on the 
immediately filled. The Attorney-General prayed judg- 
ment against the defendants, who had be 
unlawfully aiding and abetting others in doing certain acts 
charged as unlawful. Lord Denman said that the officer of the 
court had informed the Judges that some of the parties convicted 
the assizes were not here. That made no difference with 
respect to the present proceedings. The court could proceed to 
Richard Otley, G. J. Harney, William Hill, John Arran, William 
Aitki Challenger, Samuel Parks, Railton, William 
Woodruff (all of whom were convicted on the fifth count only), 
and J. Leach, C. Doyle, Jonathan Bairs ow, J. Arthur, 1, Cooper, 
R. Brooke, John Durham, James Fenton, James Mooney, and 
Frederick Augustus Taylor. Lord Denman said that there had 
been an acquittal on some counts, and an acquittal of some o! 
the defendants. He wished to know whether there was any 
intention on the part of any of the defendants to move an arrest 
of judgment. Mr. Dundas, who appeared for R, Brooke, said he 
should move an arrest of judgment on the fourth and fifth counts 
on which his client had been convicted. These counts were read. 
The fourth charged the prisoners with having created alarm, &c., 
by stopping mills, and by these means intending to create great 
changes in the laws of this realm. The fifth count charged them 
with alarming the Queen’s subjects, with intent to bring about 
great changes in the la Mr. Dundas then addressed the 
court. He began with his objection to the fifth count. Yhere 
was no venue stated in it at all, and it was, therefore, bad upon 
the face of it. This was so plain, as not to reauire him to trouble 
the court with many observations, This want of statement of a 
ventie was not a defect inthis countalone. Itappeared in many 
but made the count bad on motion in arrest of judgment, There 
must be a venne, to show th: 
within the county, for the jt 
The marginal venue would not do for this purpose. 
remaining question was, whether the 7th of George IV., ¢. 64, s. 
20, at all cured this defect. That section was to this effect. In 
frequently 
an offence had been committed 
whether after verdict 
versed for want of the 
o be proved, nor for 
‘or the want of a proper o 
appear by the indictment, & 
offence.” ‘These words implied that a good venue had been laid, 
though not laid perfectly. Here no venue was laid as 
charge itself. The case of Rexv. J. Minter Hart (5 Car 
and Payne’s Reports) was in point on this objection. ‘The indict- 
ment there had been found by London grand jury, The 
statement of the offence was, that the offenc s committed in the 
parish of St, Mary. le-Bow, but that parish was not stated to be in 
s one where the objection 
fect the question. 
We think that this is an objection which 
requires to be considered. r. Dandas then went on to the 
second objection. He contended that the statement of the 
offence was insufficient. It charged an attempt to persuade persons 
todo what they mightlawfnlly do. The charge was to persuade 
the Queen’s subjects to disaffection to the laws, and to leave their 
labour, and so to bring about a change in the laws. No conspi- 
racy wascharged. Lord Denman: This also is an objection 
worthy of being considered. Mr. Dundas then objected that the 
ctive in havirlg no venue laid in the early 
t of it, and also that its statement of the offence was defec" 
was stated that there had been unlawful meetings, but 
it was not stated where those unlawful mectings were held; 
jurisdiction, and the absence of it was not cured by the verdict. 
There could be no necessity to 
was amaterial fact t 
Term Reports. The charge here was s 
mitted ‘ at divers times and places; but there was no state 
ment of those places. The expression ‘‘at the parish aforesaid” 
did not compensate for the want of the allegation of place in the 
: Suppose the count hat 
that wouldbe right ; but for aught that appeared, the 
i jitted in France orin 
¢. 129, was in point on the subject of 
charged with having aided and abetted. The sd section of that 
have dcouieedrt iy ; 
hat of journeymen to leave theif 
employment, or to return work unfinished, and the doing of certain 
other things, should be unlawful, but the 4th section expressly 
provided that meetings, for the sole purpose of settling the rate 
On the face of this 
these defen: iants were charged 
with aiding and abetting did not appear to have been engaged 
in any other matter, and consequently did_not appear to have 
been concerned in an indictable offence. The aiding and abet 
them was not, therefore, indictable; and the count not 
Durham, Bairstow, and Railton, to urge similar objections 0% 
behalf of his clients. The last of these defendants had only 
been convicted on the 5th count, e should not notice oe 
count now. ‘The 4th count was defective. It migh 
be true that the aiding and abetting might be laid in His 
way suggested by the Court, so as to bring the parties within tht 
penalties of the law; but that could only be where a conspiracy 
was charged. ‘This wasa mer 
mmission of an offe indictment» 
1 offence must be shown to have b ive offenck 
and the aiding and abetting must be shown to have taken pla 
within the jurisdiction of the Court, Nothing of that 50) 
done here, Suppose the allegation had been here, hi 
peaceable subjects were residing in Scotland; that wow 
prevent the jurisdiction of the Court. It was clear that the av 
col 
Mr. Justice Patteson— May not the venue in one part be sup) e 
reference to another? Mr. Sergeant Murphy answered, that ius 
venue could not be supplied by implication. In every? 
where there was a charge of aiding and abetting, there 
always an allegation that the parties charged were then ers 
there present aiding and abetting. ‘That was to show grt sae 
was apersonal offence committed ‘within the jurisdiction. pet the 
writi in England might, by counsels, aid and al erence 
offence in Scotland, but he could not be charged with the © a 
out of the jurisdiction, 
Suppose the original offence was 
