details which could not really have occupied the writer's mind if her affections had then been alienated from her husband. The letters are put in not by way to evidence deceit, but as a true index of the writer's feelings. I may, therefore, refer to them to shew that, up to the very day preceding the elopement, no design had been even dreamt of; that the act was done under the impulse of the moment, and the dangerous temptation of an opportunity apparently favourable. In conclusion, my lords, let me advert very briefly to the position and circumstances of the defendant. His emoluments appear never to have exceeded Rs. 800 per month, and he is at present (being, for reasons not before the Court, out of employ) reduced to the pittance of some Rs. 200 or Rs. 300. Private fortune he has none, but on the contrary, is in debt. A verdict for heavy damages will be absolute ruin to him. I am aware, my lords, that this point cannot be urged for. It may be replied, that a defendant who cannot pay in purse must pay in person. But the object. my lords, of such a proceeding as this,—at least, where the plaintiff is, as he is here, a high-minded and honourable man,-is not revenge. This action is not brought for the sake of damages,-it is brought as a step to ulterior proceedings. The plaintiff must certainly obtain a sufficient verdict to entitle him to bring those proceedings to a successful termination, but I submit that a moderate verdict will suffice to ensure that result. Under all these circumstances, as nothing has appeared in aggravation, and something in palliation, I venture to hope that your lordships will take a lenient view of the defendant's case, and that you will consider a verdict for moderate damages sufficient to satisfy the ends of justice.

Sir L. PEEL, C J., pronounced the judgment of the Court.We wish to explain the grounds upon which we assess damages. The injury committed by the defendant is of a very painful and flagrant character. The husband brings his action for damages; but no money can really be a compensation for the wound in. flicted. Damages are awarded as an example to society. The action, too, is necessarily brought as the foundation for ulterior proceedings. It is a defect in the constitution of our law, that this is made a necessary step. The Court will never grant vin. dictive damages, but they must give such as are calculated to suppress conduct of this nature. We think, moreover, it is peculiarly the duty of the Court to protect members of the Company's service who may be compelled by duty to absent themselves from their families.

In this instance there appears an absence of any systematic attempts at seduction-and so far there may be some palliation for the defendant's conduct. Whatever intimacy or attachment may have existed previously to the marriage, it does not appear that he afterwards was in the habit of offering to this lady, while at Chuprab, any of those attentions which it is too often, unfortunately, the practice in this country to pay to married ladies; his conduct savours, rather, of weakness and inability to resist the attractions of a fascinating woman; but he ought to have withdrawn himself from the temptation-particularly in the ab. sence of the husband, and he must now pay the penalty of his indiscretion.

The small amount of fortune by a defendant cannot much affect the consideration of the case-otherwise it would, in fact, be holding out to young men of no means a premium to seduction. Had there been evidence of premeditated design on the part of the defendant, we should have considered it our duty to have given much heavier damages. Still it is necessary for us to mark our sense of the flagrancy of this act. We find a verdict or Rs. 10,000 damages.

Verdict accordingly.

SANDES, FRITH, and SANDES, attornies for plaintiff; HEDGER, for defendant.

APRIL 7TH, 1845.

DUNN V. WILLIS and ANOTHER.

This was an action of trover for the recovery of a quantity of goods. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and not possessed. Mr. RITCHIE opened the pleadings. Mr. LEITH stated the case as follows:

The plaintiff is a merchant at Agra, and was the proprietor of certain goods, which were shipped to him from England, as consignee and merchant for sale. The agents he employed in Calcutta were Messrs. Lyall, Matheson, and Co. Being desirous of appointing another agent, he applied to one Gardiner, who undertook that duty, but afterwards wrongfully appointed one Jephson, as agent. Jephson had since become insolvent, being at the time largely indebted to the defendants. A demand was inade upon the defendants, who set up no lien, but insisted they were entitled absolutely, and refused to deliver up the goods, unless their claim on Jephson of Rs. 10,000 was satisfied. (The learned counsel then referred to the new Factors' Act, XX. of

1844.) He could not comprehend under what section of the Act the defendants could substantiate their claim, or on what grounds the plaintiff's claim was resisted; for it could be proved that the goods belonged to the latter, and the bills of lading shew that he was the owner.

George Jephson was called, who stated that he was lately an agent in Calcutta, and in October last was indebted to the defendants in Rs. 10,000 and upwards. In respect of this debt, they held several promissory notes, but no other securities, except six pay.bills for the pay and staff allowances of an officer, each for Rs. 776 odd, which were given against one promissory note for 3,500 rupees, for money then borrowed. About that time he (witness) had communications with Mr. Gardiner, which had reference to his receiving goods for Dunn and Co. (the plaintiff) and to a certain extent, acted on those communications, by landing some goods from a ship, receiving a quantity of goods from Messrs. Lyall and Co., and also 100 rupees from Mr. Gardiner, for the plaintiff. The officer who had deposited the pay-bills with the witness, and who had received considerable advances from him, wishing to have back the pay-bills, he (witness) applied for them, but the defendant refused to re. deliver them, without some substituted security. He then proposed that the defendants should take the goods of the plaintiff (the subject of the action) with some of his own. This was done as a temporary arrangement, until he could call in funds to release them. Such portion of the goods as came to his hand were, accordingly, delivered up to the defendant, with the exception of one ship, as well as the bills of lading. The total invoiced value was 1,2001. He (witness) also delivered 300 dozen of beer of his own, and the whole of these goods were given against his liabilities generally.

Other evidence was called, at the close of which Mr. MORTON (with whom was Mr. FULTON) contended that there were two grounds on which the plaintiffs ought to be nonsuited. In the first place, Jephson, the agent, had a lien to the extent of 4,000 rupees at the time of the pledging to defendants. This lien, therefore, would be transferrable to the pledgee, even under the old Factor's Act.

Sir L. PEEL, C. J.-How do you make out that Jephson had a lien? He entered into a guarantee, and no lien could attach until he paid something under it.

Mr. MORTON.-Surely the lien would attach as soon as the liability to pay became absolute. It does not appear whether

any thing has been paid since on account of this debt by Dunn and Co.; and the Court, therefore, will not presume payment. Then there is a prima facie liability, and nothing to discharge it. Secondly, the case comes within the second section of the new Factors' Act. By that section, if the pledgee gives up property on which he had a good lien, and receives goods in pledge by way of substitution, the transaction is the same as if an actual advance had been made in money.

me.

Sir L. PEEL, C. J.-There are two difficulties, as it seems to In the first place, do pay-bills come within the terms of the Act? In the next place, the first advance here was before the relation of principal and agent subsisted.

Mr. MORTON.-Pay bills are not perhaps negotiable securities ; but they are certainly securities of some sort. The statute says, "Goods, merchandizes, documents of title, or negotiable securities." These comprehensive terms are obviously intended to include all available property. Pay bills are of some value, at all events. They are included in "goods and chattels," There is proof that Government recognizes the transfer of them by indorsement. As to the second objection, the words of the Act do not limit its operation to cases where the relation of principal and agent subsisted at the date of the original transaction. The words are not "such agent as agent." And there seems no reason why the Act should be limited, always provided that the acts of the pledgee (as is manifestly the case here) have been bona fide.

The Court, however, were of opinion that there was evidence to go to the Jury.

MR. MORTON then addressed the Court on the facts, and requested that the points of law might be reserved. As to the damages, the evidence of Jephson shewed that the value of the whole goods mentioned in the several bills of lading was about 1,2001. sterling, but it was admitted that some of these goods never came to the possession of the defendants. It was not wished to keep back any thing, and it would be shewn from the invoices themselves that the value was something over Co's Rupees 6,000.

MR. T. H. LLOYD, a clerk of the defendant, was then called, to produce the invoices and to speak to the value.

MR. LEITH replied.-It never was in the plaintiff's contemplation that there should be a transfer of the lien-but on the contrary was inconsistent with the instructions which accompanied

his appointment as agent, which were, that the goods should be immediately sent by steam to Agra to the plaintiff. It is stated in the letter now put in, that another person was the authorized agent-what benefit could accrue to the plaintiff in assigning his goods from a solvent to an insolvent party? If that was a benefit to any one it was to Jephson. He had given a guarantee for the purpose of afterwards placing himself in the position of agent. He contracted to take what was worthless paper, and in lieu thereof deposit with the defendants substantial goods. The goods were to be deposited for the benefit of the defendants to the loss and injury of the principal. These pay-bills cannot come under the denomination of any of the articles enumerated in the Act. (The learned counsel then referred to the case of Gibson v. East India Company, 5 Bing N. C. to shew that the pay of an officer in the Company's service was not assignable). It is merely waste paper, and cannot be considered as a valid consideration. The securities were given by him, when agent, to secure the debt previously contracted by him as an individual, and not as an agent, and therefore this is not a pledge within the statute.

SIR L. PEEL, C. J. pronounced the judgment of the Court.We have no doubt as to the construction of the Act, and it is necessary to go back a little into the history of the law of Factors and Agents. Originally they had no right to pledge, but their authority was to be strictly pursued. In this respect the English law differed from that of other countries - subsequently, but not without considerable opposition, the law was put on the same footing. The Act was then passed. It was never intended when the law was thus altered that an opening should be afforded for collusive dealings between factors and third parties. The words "all transactions shall be bona fide" run through all the enactments. The first alteration was to treat the factor as the owner of the goods in the absence of knowledge to the contrary. When it was known he was only agent, he had power to transfer his own lien and that only. The present Act also was intended to apply to transactions of pledge-and by it the Factor has the same power bona fide to pledge or to sell. It might often be an advantage to the principal, in cases where the agent could not raise funds on his own security, that power should be given to the latter to pledge rather than to sell, such as, where goods happen to come to a glutted market, or where the sale would produce a sacrifice. But the whole must be done bonâ fide-and it is obvious that when any man dealing with an agent and knowing him to be such, takes his principal's goods to secure his own previous debt, he does not act bona fide. The scope of the Act has been misunderstood in this transaction. We do not, however, mean to impute bad faith to the defendants. The The case does not fall within the 2nd section of the Act. The 3rd section excludes its operation from cases in which the consideration is merely a previous advance, even if that advance was on account of the principal: it follows then that the substitution can have no effect, where the character of principal and agent did not exist when the original pledge was made. Here the previous advance was made before that relation existed. It is not necessary to decide whether these pay bills really were negotiable instruments, or whether this Act has a retrospective operation. We think the intention was not to make this more retrospective than the orginal Act of Victoria, which was meant to attach on goods previously placed by the principal in the hands of the agent. On the other part of the question we think the lien of Jephson is not made out, and that he should have specified his particular lien. But we do not consider he had any lien at all. The liability of Jephson is on a mere contingency, and until that happens no liability can arise. If he had actually paid, or become liable to pay the amount under his guarantee, a lien might have been created.

Verdict for plaintiff-Rupees 6,245.

PAUL and SMELT, Attorneys for plaintiff.

T. B. SWINHOE, for defendant.

DAVID JONES, Actuary of the Universal Life Assurance Society, v. ROBERT O'DOWDA & CHARLES JONES RICHARDS, Assignees of Gilmore and Co.

Mr. PRINSEP, A. G. and Mr. MONTRIOU for the plaintiffs.
Mr. DICKENS and Mr. LEITH for the defendants.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of Co.'s Rupees 4,800, paid by the insurance company to the defendants, under the following circumstances:

The society were mortgagees of Messrs. Gilmore and Company, and in possession of the rents of the mortgaged premises. An order had been obtained from the Insolvent Debtors' Court for the sale of the premises by the assignees, with liberty to them to prove for the surplus, if any, with the other creditors against the insolvent's estate. Liberty was also given to the mortgagees to bid at the sale, but the assignees' commission was to be paid.

The premises were put up accordingly for sale at Messrs. Tulloh and Co.'s auction rooms, and were purchased by the assurance company for Co.'s Rupees 96 000, in exercise of the power reserved to them under the above order, and Co.'s Rupees 4,800 were paid by them to the assignees as their commission.

It was afterwards discovered that certain absent parties (formerly partners with Messrs. Gilmore and Company) were necessary to complete the conveyance of the title; and this dificulty being insurmountable, a further application was made to the Insolvent Court, the result of which was another order rescinding the previous order for the sale of the premises. The insurance company upon this, asked for a return of the sum paid by them as commission, and, on refusal, brought the present action.

The case was tried upon mutual admissions of the facts and correspondence raising the question in dispute, and the nature of which appears by the judgment.

Sir L. PEEL, C J.-We wish to state the grounds of our verdict in order that the party against whom it is given may be enabled hereafter to move to enter a verdict for himself. The intention of the learned judge in the Insolvent Court, by his second order, was in effect to cance! the sale. It appears the first order was made by the learned judge sitting as commissioner, and under that order the premises in question were sold. Previous to that period the assignees had, or were supposed to have, an equitable title only, namely, the equity of redemption, and this alone they were able to sell; but under the first order the assignees were enabled, with the concurrence of the mortgagees, to sell the legal estate; the latter having liberty to purchase. It was subsequently discovered that the title was imperfect. The second order was then made, vacating the former one, and, of course, all that was done under it; the sale must therefore be considered as cancelled. The parties do not appear to have taken any steps to compel a specific performance. This action is brought to recover the amount of the commission made, payable by the order to the insolvent assignee. The latter has a general commission, not as a quantum meruit for work and labour, but as a remuneration which is contingent upon realization of assets. Unless there are some special circumstances to take this out of the general rule, it must of necessity fall within it. It is true, the mortgagees paid the commission in the first instance, but it cannot be considered that they are thereby put in a worse position, as they were not bound to pay or allow in account the purchase money (and the commission to the assignees was ordered to be paid out of such purchase money when realized) until title made. This case does not fall within the authorities cited. Hunt v. Silk (5 East), and Beed v. Blandford (2 Crompton, J. T.) The creditors may have been prejudiced, but the assignees are not in the position of creditors, nor can they urge that as a ground for retaining this sum paid as commission. The verdict must be entered for the plaintiff for the full amount, with liberty to the defendants to move to enter a verdict.

Verdict for the plaintiff, Co.'s Rupees 4,800.
THOMAS and CHAMPION, attornies for plaintiff.
PAUL and SMELT, for defendants.

APRIL 23, 1815.

GORDON V. STEEL.

Mr. DICKENS, on a former day, had obtained a rule to shew cause, why the nonsuit in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial had, or why the verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff, on the following grounds:

Istly. That it had been proved that A. Gouger and T. Dickens had been appointed Directors of the Association in India, and as such they had a general authority to raise money by drawing bills, notes, or otherwise, for the use of the association.

2ndly. That it had been sufficiently proved, that there was an express authority from the defendant and other directors of the association in London, to bind him and them by promissory notes or bills of exchange by the parties making them; or if not, that there had been a subsequent recognition of their authority, and adoption of their acts by the defendant.

3rdly. That the notes in the form in which they were made, bound the defendant, though the makers did not profess to sign per procuration or as agents of the defendant (on the principle that evidence may be given to charge an unnamed principal though not to discharge the agent).

Against which Mr. PRINSET, A. G. (Mr. LEITH and Mr. RITCHIE with him) now shewed cause, contending, that the letter put in evidence, and alleged to be an authority to draw bills, &c. (and by virtue of which the three promissory notes, the subject of the present action, had been drawn in favour of Messrs. Gilmore and Co., and endorsed in their name to the plaintiff),

was no authority at all. But if so, that the authority was not general, but special, empowering two of the directors of the association to draw only in a particular mode. In regard to bills and notes, clear proof should be given,, so as to render the principal liable on the authority given. The bank, in fact, had proposed new terms, which had been accepted by the agents, who thereby departed from their original authority. The personal credit of the parties in this country alone was taken, and not of those absent in England. The original conditions proposed being, the security of the coals raised, and to be raised, in the collieries. The form, therefore, of these instruments could not bind the principal. The name of the defendant was not on the notes, nor the name of any agent authorized by him. The following cases were then cited. Dickinson v. Valpy (10 Barn. & Cress.); Ducarry v. Gill (4 Car. & P. 121); Ex parte Sutton (2 Cox, as to procuration); Bramah v. Roberts (3 Bing, N. C.); Hawtayne v. Bourne (7 Mees. & W. 595); Thomas v. Bishop (2 Strange); Emly v. Lye (15 East, 7); Siskin v. Walker (2 Camp. 307); Beckham v. Knight (4 Bing, N. C.); Same v. Drake (9 Mees. & W.); Kirk v. Blurton (9 Mees. & W.); and Pense v. Stanton (Story on Agency, 125).

Mr. DICKENS (Mr. MORTON and Mr. WYLIE with him), in support of the rule, contended, that the form of the note was sufficient to bind the defendant, and that evidence might be given to render persons liable on written contracts, although their names did not appear on the face of them. All the cases cited on the other side were only authorities to the effect that one, who drew, endorsed, or accepted a bill or note as agent, but did not specify himself to be such, was personally liable. They did not shew that an unnamed principal was not also liable. Higgins v. Senior (8 Mees. & W.); Drake v. Backham, in error (11 Mees. & W.); Vere v. Ashby (10 Barn. & Cress.); The South Carolina Bank v. Case (8 Barn. & C.) were cited.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE.-This action was brought in the name of the late Secretary of the Union Bank, the plaint contains ecunts on three promissory notes, which are alleged therein to have been made by the defendant, by his agents, A. Gouger and T. Dickens, payable to Messrs. Gilmore and Co., and by them endorsed to the plaintiff. The plaint also contains counts for money paid by the plaintiff to the use of the defendant, for money due from the defendant to the plaintiff on an account stated between them, and a count for interest.-The defendant, by his pleas to the counts on the promissory notes, denied the making and endorsement of the same, and pleaded non assumpsit to the common counts. The latter were abandoned at the trial by the counsel for the plaintiff, it being admitted that the plaintiff could not sue upon the causes of action therein contained. The Court was of opinion upon the trial, that as the notes in question purported to be made in the names of Messrs. Gouger and Dickens not as agents, but as principals, the defendant was not liable as the maker of them, even if they had been made by his agents acting within their authority. The plaintiff was nonsuited on this ground alone, and if the Court was in error on this point, the case must be tried again. We are, however, of opinion that the nonsuit was right.

The case of Ducary v. Gill (1 Moody & Mal. 452) is admitted to be in point, and a decision against the plaintiff. In that case Lord Tenterden says, even supposing the agents had authority to bind him, they have not done so, inasmuch as they have drawn the bills in their own names, and not as agents." This decision is supported by the dicta of many learned judges to the same effect, and no decision or dictum of any judge or court is opposed to it. Some expressions in the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Higgins v. Senior, were relied on in the argument of this case, as indicating that that Court thought that Bills of Exchange and other contracts in writing alike admit the liability to be sued on them being extended to the principal who did not sign, though the agent had in fact signed as principal. The expressions, in our opinion, do not admit of this construction. Mr. Baron Parke's observation applies to those decision on Bills of Exchange, which establish, that a party signing as principal cannot discharge himself of liability by proof of his mere agency; but there is nothing in his observations which indicates any dissatisfaction with the decisions on bills of exchange and promissory notes, which confine the liability to the parties drawing or making them respectively, when on the face of the instruments it is not declared that such parties sign as mere agents. It appears plainly from the subsequent case of Becham v. Drake (9 Mees. and Welsby, 90) that the judges and Court of Exchequer recognize this distinction between these instruments, and other parol contracts in writing. Mr. Baron Parke says, in that case, "The case of bills of exchange is an exception which stands upon the law merchant, and promissory notes another;

for they are placed on the same footing by the statute of Anne. In neither cases can any but the parties named on the instrument by their name or firm be made liable to an action upon it." Our decision is founded solely on the authorities, which appear to us to have proceeded all the same way. Rule discharged.

FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1845.

UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. ASSIGNEES OF GILMORE AND Co.

The plaintiffs in this case were mortgagees of certain premises, belonging to the late firm of Gilmore and Co. By an order of the Insolvent Court, dated 2nd December, 1843, it was ordered that the premises should be sold, reserving liberty to the mortgagees to become the purchasers, and to prove for any deficiency that might exist between the amount due to them and the amount produced by the sale; it was also ordered that the purchase-money should be applied towards the payment of the expenses of the sale, including the amount of assignees' commission. Under this order, the premises were put up to sale, and the plaintiffs having become the purchasers, paid the assignees their commission. The sale, however, was not completed, owing to a defect in the title, and an order was made discharging the order of 2nd December. This action was, therefore, brought to recover back the amount of this commission. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiffs had received dividends on the balance due to them after giving credit for the proceeds of the sale. A verdict was given for the plaintiffs. A rule nisi having been obtained, either to set aside this verdict and enter a verdict for the defendants on the following grounds-that is to say, 1st, that the plaintiff had affirmed the sale; 2nd, that the parties could not be restored to the same position as before; 3rd, that the sale, under the circumstances proved, was not cancelled by the order of the Insolvent Court discharging the former order of that Court of the 2nd December: or eise, to reduce the damages.

The ADVOCATE GENERAL, Mr. PRINSEP, and Mr. MONTRIOU shewed cause.

Mr. DICKENS and Mr. LEITH in support of the rule.

The CHIEF JUSTICE.-The real contest is about the commission of the insolvent assignees. By the terms of the order of the 2nd December, it is provided, that commission should be paid out of the purchase-money. The commission is not a

So.

claim which can be enforced till assets are realized. The whole argument advanced has assumed the assignees' case to be in common with that of the body of creditors. But this is not The receipt given shewed that the money was paid for the private commission of the assignees, and that such commission was paid separately. The effect of vacating the first order was to vacate the sale. The first order was made with the consent of the plaintiffs, who were mortgagees with a power of sale. They having a power to purchase, had an interest that the property should be sold at an undervalue. According to the authorities, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to obtain an order to bid at the sale. This order was discharged. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs wrote the defendants a letter, stating that the sale was vacated: in the reply, this was not denied.

There are several circumstances which shew that this sale was cancelled. In the first place, the assignees were public officers. If this sale was not cancelled, and he thought it for the interest of the estate that it should have been perfected, he should have taken measures to enforce a specific performance of the contract.

Again; this contract must fall with the order, for there is no contract in writing to bring it within the statute of frauds, and it had its sole efficacy in consequence of its being a judicial order. On general principles, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover; but it is said that the assignees have an equity, because they have incurred a liability to the auctioneers. It will be remembered that these mortgagees were willing to come forward, and exercise their power; but the Court said, If you purchase, it must be under the order of the Court with the assent of the assignees. The case referred to in the Common Pleas is distinguishable. The doctrine there was not sanctioned by Lord Eldon in Chancery. The Court did not decide on the case generally, but directed a trial. As to the sum received by the assignees for dividend, this does not aid the defendants. That money was not paid by them individually, but by the estate; and if a loss arises by this act, it will be a loss by the negligence of the assignees to the general estate, and not to themselves individually. This claim is based on a practice which it has been endeavoured to establish in this country, and which the defendants and other agents have endeavoured to act upon, but which I shall not sanction. The right to commission only arises out of assets realized; if the foundation, namely, the sale, fails, the superstructure must also fail. I cannot but express my regret

that this claim has been persisted in. The rule must be discharged. -Rule discharged.

STEPHEN V. HUME.

The CHIEF JUSTICE said that a petition had been presented privately to the judges in this case, however, as was constantly the practice—a practice which could not be too strongly reprobated, and the evil was, that the judges did not know how to check it, for they could not refuse to receive all private petitions, as, if they did so, injustice would often be done. There were many instances in which the petitions were from deserving paupers, and without reading the petitions the judges could not say which should be received and which rejected.

Sir H. SETON remarked that the practice in Chancery was to hand all petitions, sent for the purpose of creating a bias, to the opposite party.

PRESENTATION OF THE ADDRESS TO THE LORD BISHOP.

The presentation of the Address of the Christian community to the Lord Bishop, on the occasion of his Lordship's approaching departure to Europe, for the benefit of his health, took place last evening at the Bishop's Palace. There were about fifty gentlemen present upon the occasion, and among the rest were the Hon. Mr. F. Millert, Hon. Mr. Elliott, Col. Powney, Col. Forbes, T. R. Davidson, Esq., C. R. Prinsep, Esq., F. Leith, Esq., C. K. Robison, Esq., Dr. Webb, &c., &c. At the appointed hour, the worthy Bishop, who looked exceed. ingly feeble from ill health, met the company in the great hall, and having shaken hands with every individual, took a seat, being unable to sustain the exertion of standing. Mr. C. R. Prinsep then proceeded to read the Address, which has already received sufficient publicity. His Lordship replied in the following, which was previously written, and which the Archdeacon read for his Lordship :

Gentlemen, I thank you for this most affectionate, though too favourable address. Your statements of what I have accomplished are rather according to my wishes and endeavours, than their results. Whatever, however, I have done, I thank you for your kind acceptance of my proceedings; and I desire to give God in Christ Jesus all the praise of what has been really good in them, for it is to his providence and grace that we all of us owe the will and the power to do any thing for his glory. And his immeasurable love to us in the gift of his own Son to become incarnate and die for us, swallows up and annihilates all puny human efforts of gratitude and obedience, whatever they may be.

Two circumstances have tended to enable me to do what I have in India: I have had no immediate family dependant on me; and I have been permitted to continue for a longer time in my diocese, so that the first expenses of my coming out having been defrayed, I have had the more to devote to objects of public utility.

Indeed, when I inform you that I am now in the fourteenth year of my appointment by Lord Glenelg, then Mr. Grant, as President of the India Board, to this See, and that of my four honoured predecessors now with God, the united period of whose residences fell a little short of my own singly, you will perceive how much I have to be thankful for in this view.

You speak of the new cathedral-the due estimate of the unspeakable importance of that work I leave, as Lord Bacon did his writings, to posterity; future ages, for whom it is chiefly destined, will appreciate it aright, and they alone can. I trust it will be the nucleus and seed plot of indigenous Christianity in India, and go to convince the Hindoos and Mahometans that we are earnest and sincere in a religion on which we scruple not to expend some considerable portion of our wealth.

You refer also, gentlemen, to my efforts to preserve the simplicity of the Protestant faith in our beloved Church. I believe that was one design of Providence in sending me to India. My aim has been to settle our Episcopal Church here on the exact footing on which, in June 1832, on my leaving home, I left it there, without the corrupt and Popish addition of the Tractarian novelties on the one hand; and without any diminution, on the other hand, of those decent ceremonies and usages which, for three centuries, had tended to make our Church the glory of the Reformation, and the bulwark of Christianity, by protecting the purity of her doctrine and the simplicity of her worship. Gentlemen, I beg the benefit of your prayers.

I fully intend to rejoin you in November 1846, if God restores me to any measure of health.

In the meantime, I commend you and myself to the Divine mercy and blessing.

The Address to the bishop was signed by about two hundred persons.-Hurkaru, April 29.

MISCELLANEOUS.

THE INDIAN FREE SCHOOL.-The Indian Free School occupies a position peculiar to itself, affording a striking example of the signs of the times. It is a charity school, as the name imports, and was projected and established about four years ago by a few enlightened young Hindoos, for the benevolent object of affording the means of gratuitous education to indigent native youths. This commendable design has been carried out, up to the pre. sent time, by the aid of subscriptions and donations obtained principally from the projectors themselves and their friends, though the funds have been assisted also by one or two European gentlemen. The internal economy of the school is conducted by the agency of four native teachers, whose salaries, together with all other expenses, are defrayed from the funds from time to time raised, and which are controlled and looked after by an efficient committee and other honorary office bearers. Besides the four paid teachers, to whom the tuition of the junior classes only are entrusted, the school has four other (honorary) teachers. These latter are senior students of the Hindoo College, who, with exemplary benevolence, devote the entire morning, every day, to the fulfilment of this labour of love. There are, at present, a hundred pupils only attending the institution, which number the committee find themselves unable to increase for the lack of more funds. Taking into consideration the resources to which the institution is indebted for its existence, the agency by which it is worked, and the difficulties and disadvantages that must necessarily attend these peculiar circumstances, the scale of education imparted in it cannot reasonably be expected to come up to the same standard of education in contemporary schools. From the list of the studies of the higher classes, it appears, notwithstanding, that the nature of the tuition is both useful and well selected, embracing as it does the reading of Milton and Homer, Goldsmith's England, Elementary Mechanics, First Rudiments of Geometry, Grammar, General Geography, Arithmetic, Algebra, and English Composition. At the late examination, which was principally conducted by the archdeacon, the Rev. Mr. Thomas, and one or two others, the students appeared tolerably conversant with the several branches of knowledge enumerated, to the extent they have been taught, their answers having been generally accurate. A private examination also appears to have been held, and from the testimony borne by the several parties who conducted it, it appears to have been very satisfactory.

ARREST OF A CRIMINAL UPON CIVIL PROCESS.-A case of considerable interest was decided last week in the Supreme Court. A decree had been passed against a native, Shreenath Mullik, in appeal by the Sudder Court in Calcutta for 24,840 rupees, and a writ was issued for his apprehension in Calcutta, which, after having been duly endorsed, was delivered for execution to the sheriff of Calcutta, Mr. Smoult, and from him passed into the hands of his successor in the shrievalty, Mr. A. F. Smith. In 1843, Shreenath Mullik was indicted for a criminal act in the Supreme Court. He surrendered and was arraigned, and acquitted and discharged for want of prosecution. It was alleged by the plaintiff in the civil suit, that the sheriff ought to have detained the defendant when in his custody on criminal process, and he now sued that officer for the whole amount of the debt, as having allowed the party to escape.

The Chief Justice pronounced the final decision of the Court on the 11th ult., and gave a verdict for the defendant, thereby exonerating the sheriff from all liability for the deht. This decision was based on the principle, established by English precedents, "that it is only where the arrests are both under civil writs that one operates as an arrest in respect of the other, not when the first arrest is on criminal process." This decision therefore assimilates the legal procedure in such cases in the Supreme Court, with that which prevails in the Mofussil. In the year 1834 the subject was brought formally under the cognizance of the Sudder Court, and a reference was made to the Advocate-General, who replied, "I certainly think that, according to the law of England, a person attending in a criminal court on bail to answer to a criminal charge, is not liable to be arrested under civil process."-"It is a general rule that a person attending on a court of justice is entitled to protection from arrest." This opinion met with the full concurrence of the Sudder Court, who ruled, that "a party being in attendance on a criminal court on bail, to answer to a criminal charge, is not liable to arrest under civil process." Three years after, this rule was again confirmed by the Sudder Court, on which occasion the register referred to an older opinion, which had been obtained from the Advocate-General in August, 1810, to the effect, that "a man attending a court of justice as a party or a witness in a cause of any sort, could not be arrested on process in a civil suit, the protection being eundo, morando, and redeundo, and a reasonable construction being given as to what is going, staying, and returning."

If the circumstances which formed the basis of the action against the sheriff had occurred within the jurisdiction of the Company's Courts; that is to say, if there had been a writ for debt in the hands of the Nazir, against any individual who was in his custody on a criminal charge, he could not have detained the party on the civil writ after his acquittal on the criminal side of the Court. But the enactment of 1840, which provided for the execution of the civil process of the country Courts within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, distinctly ordained that every sheriff should be liable to be proceeded against in her Majesty's courts of justice for all matters touching the execution of any writ, warrant, or other process, executed under this Act, "in like manner as if the same had originally issued from any of her Majesty's Courts of Jusce." It was, therefore, a matter of doubt, how the sheriff was bound to act in such a case; that is, whether, within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, an arrest on criminal process did not operate, likewise, as an arrest on a civil writ. The question has now been set definitively at rest, and the same law is declared to prevail both in the Court of the Crown and the Courts or the Company.-Friend of India.

There was a sale of Mechlenburgh horses on the 28th of April at Tulloch's. The attendance was good, and the bidding pretty spirited, considering that the horses were extremely out of condition. Out of 27 put up, 20 were sold at an average of Rs. 500.

AGRA. The weather has been cloudy and dusty for some days past. A strong north-easterly wind was blowing the whole of Monday night.

A dense dust storm darkened our windows last evening, and was followed by a few drops of rain. The sky was cloudy, and the wind boisterous during the night.

Last evening an evening party was given by the Hon. the Lieutenant-Governor. It was attended by most of the rank and fashion of the station. Dancing commenced about 10 o'clock, and the waltz, quadrille, and charming polka followed each other in rapid succession. The very handsome and new suite of rooms were thrown open for the occasion and every arrangement was made that could conduce to the comfort and luxury of the guests. The party broke up at a late hour.-Agra Ukhbar, April 30.

DEATH OF MAJOR GENERAL SIR THOMAS VALIANT, K. C.B.It is with extreme regret that we have to announce the death, by cholera, of this distinguished and gallant officer, at his residence in Fort William, on the 22nd ultimo. His was a distinguished career of upwards of forty years. He entered the army in 1804-obtained his lieutenancy in the following year, his company in 1817, his majority in 1821, his lieutenant-colonelcy in 1825, and was made a colonel in the army in June 1838. In 1805 and 1806- he was engaged in active service in Guzerat, and in 1809 served in the campaign against the Seikh Chief Say. On our invasion of Affghanistan he held the command of the reserve force of the army of the Indus, and, in connection with Sir F. Maitland, the naval commander in-chief, took the fort of Kurrachee. He served throughout Lower and Upper Scinde, and in Affghanistan; and the distinguished part he played in the Gwalior campaign is yet fresh in the memory of our readers.

FUNERAL OF MAJOR-GENERAL SIR THOMAS VALIANT.-The funeral of Major-General Sir Thomas Valiant, K. C.B., took place on Wednesday evening with due military honours. A native and a European regiment of infantry preceded the procession, followed by a European band, after whom came the mutes and hearse bearing the remains of the veteran general, whose horse followed next, and then there were a couple of mourning coaches, the Governor-General's carriage and four, and lastly, a pretty good company of civil and military and other gentlemen. The funeral proceeded from the cooley bazaar-gate of Fort William to the military burial-ground, where, on arrival, the soldiers, with their muskets reversed, formed into a lane through which the procession passed up into the burial ground, the band playing a solemn air. The coffin was borne to the grave by half-a-dozen European sergeants, and the pall-bearers were Sir George Pollock, Colonels Algeo and Powney, and another gentleman whose name we could not ascertain. The funeral service was read by the Rev. Mr. Eteson, and the whole concluded with volleys of musketry being fired off in honour of the gallant deceased.-Hurkaru, April 25.

TESTIMONIAL TO MAJOR GENERAL SIR WILLIAM NOTT, G C.B.A meeting of the community, pursuant to an advertisemen, most respectably and numerously signed, was held in the Town-hall last evening, when, however, the attendance was not so large as might have been expected. Among those present were C. R. Prinsep, Esq., Colonel Forbes, T. R. Davidson, Esq., G. A. Bushby, Esq., Dr. Strong, Major Anderson, Capt. Birch, and Capt. Broome, C. K. Robison, Esq, &c. &c. The high

sheriff, John Beckwith, Esq., was in the chair, and having in due form opened the business of the meeting, the following resolutions were proposed, seconded, and passed unanimously:- First of all, it was proposed by G. A. Bushby, Esq., and seconded by Col. Hawkins, and carried, that a public subscription be opened for the purpose of securing a testimonial in honour of the services and memory of the late Major General Sir William Nott, G.C.B. The next resolution was moved by C. R. Prinsep, Esq. seconded by Colonel Forbes, and also carried-That a fulllength portrait of the late Major General Sir William Nott, G.C B. be placed in the Town-hall of Calcutta, and that an appropriate monument be erected at one of the large military stations in Upper India, where the sepoys, by whom he was so enthusiastically beloved, may have an opportunity of learning the estimation in which he was held by his own countrymen. The last resolution was moved by Capt. A. Broome and seconded by Capt. F. W. Birch, and likewise carried-That two committees be formed, one in Calcutta and one in the Upper Provinces, to raise subscriptions and co-operate in carrying out the objects of the foregoing resolutions; that the subscribers in the Upper Provinces name their own committee; and that the following gentlemen be requested to form the committee in Calcutta:-Brig. Frith, Col. Forbes, Capt. Broome, and Messrs. Rattray, Bushby, Prinsep, Hardings, John Allan, J. Hume, and John Cowie.

Several gentlemen addressed the meeting; namely, Messrs. Prinsep and Bushby, Major Anderson, and Mr. Hume. The two former spoke generally of the gallantry of the hero of Candahar in bringing forward the resolutions respectively proposed by them; Major Anderson, as one of the followers of the late gallant general, bore testimony, in feeling terms, to his undaunted conduct and rare attributes as a military commander; and the last-named gentleman delivered a most effective speech, expatiating with great warmth on the magnanimous bearing of Sir W. Nott throughout the period of his services in Affghanistan. The meeting broke up with the usual vote of thanks to the sheriff. Hurkaru, May 1.

FEVER HOSPITAL.-Rajah Suttchurn Ghosal, of Benares, has made a donation of 10,000 rupees to the funds of the Fever Hospital.

CIVIL. APPOINTMENTS, &c.

BACON, G. W. perm. to resign fr. July 1.
BARBER, L. to be dep. coll. in Tipperah, Apr. 30.
CHRISTIAN, E. J. to be assist. under com. of Agra div. Mar. 31.
COSTLEY, W. C. to be dep. coll. in Chittagong, Apr. 30.
DAVIES, R. att. to N. W. Prov. Apr. 26.

EDWARDS, W. to off. as sup. of aff. of Mysore princes, Apr. 23.
FORDER, W. B. to be postmast. of Agra, Apr. 5.

GORDON, J. C. to be mem. of local com. of pub. ins. at Benares, Mar. 29.

GRANT, J. civ. and sess. judge of Dinagepore, res. ch. of off. Apr.

18.

HOUGH, G. to be dep. coll. in Bullooah, Apr. 30.

LEDLIE, J. P. prin. sudder ameen of Bareilly, to be reg. of deeds at that station, Mar 29.

LLOYD, J. to be postmast. of Delhi, Apr. 5.

MCLEOD, G. F. att. to N. W. Provinces, Apr. 26.

MUSPRATT, J. R. to be asst. to jt. mag. and dep. coll. of Furreedpore, April 23.

ONSLOW, W. resignation to take effect fr. Jan. 15, 1846.
RIDDELL, H. P. A. B. to be postmaster-gen. N.W. Provinces,
April 1.

Ross, A. to be jt. mag. and dep. coll. of Moozuffurnugger, but to cont. to off. as jt. mag. and dep. coll. of Ghazeepore, Mar. 31. WYATT, T. civ. and sess. judge of Rungpore, made over ch. of off. to prin. Sudder Ameen, to proc. on circuit duty, April 12.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

COCKBURN, G. F. mag. of Howrah, I mo. in ext. April 23.
REID, J. for 2 years on m.c. fr. date of sailing of steamer Fire
Queen, April 23.
TRESTON, E. fr. Feb. 1 to Nov. 1 to hills north of Deyrah, on m.c.
April 17.

ECCLESIASTICAL. APPOINTMENTS.

MOULE, Rev. H. to be chaplain of Singapore, April 30. SPRY, Rev. A. B. asst. chaplain, to be chaplain, fr. April 7.

MILITARY. APPOINTMENTS, &c.

ALEXANDER, Col. fr. 65th to 74th N.I. April 17.

BRISTOW, Lieut. J. S. inv. est. to be post master of Azinghur, April 4.

Cox, Lieut. C. V. art. to act as adj. of the brigade proc. to Ferozepore, April 5.

ELLIS, Ens. A. posted to 31st N.I. at Almorah, April 18.