The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-06-24 00:00:00

---- ; ,oriNcA '— -•--;• . ,s-- , FA. -- .f, ---_ , i • ‘ 1 ‘ • 7:3*:*•"- '-''''-s•-• ," 4) ?'. 1'Y*1.1.1.101..- ,•,Y7-: _.....- -..c...,.• PARTIES. The Marquis of Ifertfoid gave a grand dinner on Thursday to their Royal Highn eeeee the 1 , 11 . 41: amt Duda.. of Gloucester and a di-tin eoished party, at his h.,t .e in Piccadilly. In the evening hi• Lorti.hip else a splendid root ; to enimmrsto She company would be to name all in,. lending and distinviii‘lied of the haute ton remaining In town. Chi: Connie:, St. Gs, in.en'.; entertained a distinguished party at dinner yesterday, at her house In eacemliAt.strect. Lord sherborne had a Jiioner party yesterday, at his house in Lower Grosvenor•street. Y • La•ty Trine entertained a party of fashionable, yesterday evening, at tv.r hon.. iu Saville-4,eet. Mr. blard.malti awl the Countems of Antrim entertained ■ large party at dinner yr.rterday, at their hou4e In Berkele)..quare. MOVEfiIENTM. Lord and Lady LangLud hare lett town. for Ireland. Ilaroneo il'ilhambny de Ernby and the Earl and Connteas of Clare have left town. for Richmond. Lady Bloomfield left Hrumley. Kent. yesterday. for Tunbridge Wells. 'MI Hon. Colonel flowatd. H.P. and Alm 11.nrard and family left horn yesterday, for their test, Elton,. near Litchfield. fit•ffortiThire. T. R. Kemp. ftsq. arrived y:sterday at Yenton'y New Hotel, st. Jamee.-etreet, from him seat in Bowes; Mr. and Mrs. Milner bare left data, for Paula. Arrivals m the st. James's Rotel. Jernsynetreet :—Tbe Earl of Mil twin. from Paris; the Hon. Henry Leeson. Departure- , from the London lintel, Albemarle-street :—Enrl Lindsey, lady Charlotte Rertie. and Heyde, Esq. for their seat In Notting hamshire; Mr. :,nd Mrs. I ogils on ■ tom. LORD COCHRANE. COPY OF A LETTER TROM LORD COCHRANE, TO HIS HIGH NESS MOHAMMED Al.l, PACHA OF EGYPT. Your employing foreigner. in your military and naval service, the privilege which you Claim and exercise of building and equip ping ships of war in neutral states, and of purchasing Ateini ves sels, and hiring transports under neutral flags, for hostile purposes, and to transport to slavery a people whom the Ottoman arms have never yet been able to subdue, warrants a belief (whatever your sentiments may Iv) that the civilised, educated, and liberal portion mankind will be gratified -that succours, similar m those which you have unfortunively obtained hitherto from those stares, are now about to be armlet' to the brave, the oppressed. and suffering lireeks ; nor will the advantage derived be wholly theirs; for until y ou aball emote, or lie forced to abandon your inhuman traflie in Christian slaves, Had the commission of cruelties which stain the character of man, your suhjccts must inevitably continue barba rous—a suite from which it would be a source a great gratification to contribute to release the m. It is trite that the Christian world have not of late contended in arms with those of your faith, on points of religion ; they have not, however, Wien into a state of apathy No great as to see unheeded the perpetration of those enormities which you are daily commit. ting on their Christian brethren ; a sentiment with which no feel. ingot animosity towartle you, or towards your people, is combined, but on the contrary, a detain to render you every good service con. siitent with that duty. paramount to all others, namely, to wipe out the stain from the civalisetl world, of unfeelingly and inhumanly ear-operating to exterotimue, enslave, and transport to bondage a whole Christian people; and such people the descendants of those tireeks, whose genius laid the chief foundation of literature and the arts—who reared those noble monuments and editice., which time, and the nine destructive barbarian hand, have yet Laud to destroy, and which, compared with the wretched hovels of your hordes, nifty better point rat to you the elevation they attained, and the prostrate state in which your people are —owing, alas ! to the benefit, effects of bigotry and despotic sway. Surely, surely, there is ample field for the exercise of your energies at home, in encou raging industry, the arta, and sciences, in promoting the civilization of your people. and in enacting equitable laws foe the security of persons and propery ; on which basis she national prosperity of all countries must rest. But should your ambition. not content with bestowing blessings like t' t. A: on your native land, lead you to soar al most above mortal .ets.dis•ant 'Team. would unite,and the extremities of the globe approach at your command; an 4 might your mime he rendered immortal, anti Egypt again become the emporium of corn. mma, and one of the r•cheat and happest nations upon earth. How infinitely great the glory of such acts ! flow despicable the fame of a tyrant cunquerer,—the ruler of slaves ! It would be pleasing to support you as the author of great and good winks ; but it is shain,ful to permit your present proceedia" and dastardly to leave the unfeeling apostate sons of neutral and itristian nations unopposed. aidiog to perpetuate barbarism for bond gain, drawn room the price of Christians torn from their homes, and sold as slaves in foreign lands. Against these atrocious men, my companions and myself cast the gauntlet down, and will contend, in the hope that you anti they may perceive your true interests and your great error, and pursue a dilferrnt course bAre it shad be too late. Quit the classic sacred soil of Greece. Let the Haying and burnings. and impalings. of mi s petiole cease ; and, oh! sh ocking to humanity! the ripping up of pregnant females, and the hewing in pieces of their mint babes, and other acts yet worse than these, too horrid to relive ! Re lease the Christian slaves—pursue an honourable and enlightened pub—and we become friends, to aid you in your pursuits. yut Amid the mascot course becontinued, let the bandsof cruel assassin in your employ count on our oppot , tion; Count, too, on our neutntlia ingsks effect el anry vowel procured or bought from Christi m States. " Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers," (in the pro phecy now to be fulfilled). Wo to •hein that go down to Egypt for help and stay:** '• When the Lord shall stretch mit his hand, both he that helped, shell fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, -and they shall all fall together." Instead of titling brimful the cup of bitterness, of which you yourself must ultimately drink, how admirably might you em. Ploy your people, and your treasure, the waste whereof is rearing to you a barbarian sunces•or, to prolong the bondage of Egypt. The Christian prayer of those called to rescue their sufTerieg brethren is, that conforming yourself to the dictates of reason and humanity, you may live long to benefit mankind ; and as you are more enlightened than your predecessors, so may you become more hatrame and just. (Signed) Coen &AKE. • Isaiah, e. 31. TO TILE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH PRESS. SEI.ECT VESTRIES. 13:2,—IA‘t week aVt;trir Was Essex, tut the pumas of receiving a Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the several parochial accounts, which being pro. ductal and read, it was found to conclude with a recommendation to the inhabitants of that respectable and extensive village, to sub mit to the greatest of all parochial eurses--a Szlect Vestry. The utmost surprise and consternation immediately became visible on the countenances of all present, who were not in the s ta ys of e ach a rweass,re being alv , ut to be proposed ; ant pnticu. lady See when it was uuderatood (should the recommendation he adopted), that the Committee were provided with a list of the intended select vestrymen, to the total exclusion of all tradesmen, althongh many of that respectable body are met , of some repute, and have served the difficrent parochial offices with credit and ad vertent. The tradesmen and farmers looked Use, and their eyes appeared to wander for information, what to say and how to act; the for. Hier fearing to give vent to their sentiments, lest they . should lose a customer ; and the latter knowing their deficiency in role. bility of speech tcreope with their more wealthy neighbours ; how. ever, what they wanted in words they made up in actions, and although th e Report was strongly urged by persons of great weight, it was negatived by a majority of ten to one. This, Sir, is the second inel ectual attempt made to impose upon that parish. and is annther instance of public opinion to that objec tionable and deservedly detested method of transacting parish affairs In my humble opinion the merchant is general]; either too much engaged In commercial business abroad, or too indolent to attend constantly the affairs of the poor, and therefore without the assist ance et the farmer, and the experience of the tradesman, they and the parish would coon learn how inadequate they are to the ex. elusive task to which they aspire. I am, Sir, &c. VERITAS. SNIPPING INTEL:JGENCE. LiVERPOOL, TsivnlDAT. AMR ?if Arched the Sir David Attlee, Cowan, from Lisbon, In 26 days ; Anna roakr, from Antwerp. satied the John Taylor, for Calcutta; Rills. for St. Jolla's, N. 8.; Henry Sim:land, ter New Turk; Tdriteld, for New Bruo,wick. Hu Richmond, "Vince, from New Orleans, and the Accession, Roddan, tram Rarbselueo, have arrive& io the Clyde. The Livaepsol, 7t'Llllaa, from Liverpool for New York, has arrived at Cork. Pt vantrra, Jcce 21.—ladled the Waterloo transport, for Gibraltar. Wend N.W." , .. ..... .-.... Cowas, Jetra 72.—Arrived the Mary, Hannah, from Rabin. Posysnourn, Joss V—Arrived the Maitland, Snub' from Bombay 1 a. i the Antelope cutter, from a cruise. Sailed the Onyx awl Eduard tr tnoports, for Peptfoni. Wind 9.1:. ULU, Jumn 22.—A rri red and wailed for the River, the Warren Hint. I es, Mason, and the Albion. iced's, from India. The Warren 14a41,..,,,.,, Raw, I. expected In nevt tide. A boat has gone to meet her with mu. vi , lon,. The Wililao► Shand, from l'enang, ha, sailed fur the River. lie. m sln the Permit end ?telly. Wind N.Y.. tine •weather. II Coax. Juss IS.—galled the Zephyr transport, with troops, for Har. a eh, and the Prince Regent, Richards, with the 29th Regiment, for the al sudden. DANTSIC. Joss 12.—The Providence, Moon, sailed frem hence ath in.t. fur London, and ran aground on passing He's, but was g.. 4 or with d image, and has put back to di.charge and repair. Capita Cuthbert. of the Robert, from Ayr. reports that on the 16th in•t. at 3 a.m. he •aw a schooner repair, and go down, off Arklow Bank. she was about SO Sony painted with a white broad streak, and appeared to be laden. She was steering S.W. . . . 'fbe Providence, Dunean.from Ayr to Dundalk, sprang a leak and sunk off Ardrossan, I:.:th inst. Crew saved. fheJonge Jacob, Sledses, from Amsterdam to Bergen, Is lu..r with all the crew, near Lister. The vessel was entirely under water, and all at tempts to get her aloft were fruitless, The Floffnung, Schwiere, from .Imsterdam to Lubeck, has put into Cee,tendorf, badly. The Hall, Clark, arrived at Jamaica, war boarded on 29th March. in lat. :10 long. St. by • piratical schooner • and plundered of part of the cargo. 'hip% rioter, provisions, and about hint. of the captain's private property. Th.• schooner had a large gun w ' , tutted on her main hatzhway. was y .i.,ted black. wlth It while otter':, a, persntly a new ves s el, and th e ',Alters and men who Larded suppoed to lie Spaniards. LAW NOTICES. COUNT OF CHANCERY. SRFORI TAR LORD C•ANC O 000 IN LINCOLN'S INN RAIL. Tat/ DAT. AT 10. In re Turner, lunatic petldons - I Lord Gland+ v. Ewl Strathmore, two willow.. Appeal, Bray v. Fromont, COlegrave v.3l.lnby, ap. Perfect v. Lord Ribble,- peal dale, °moral Eartiney v. Cooper, do. Bute v. Cun vnghern,do. Goodenough v. Powell. VICE-CIIANCELLOR'S COURT.—Tets Dar. at/01111 TAL VICE-CIIAMCICI.LOR, LINCOLY'II INS. AT ■ALI•IAIT 10, Remaining Attu ENparte Linsley, Bankrupt l'etitiol, per order. Bankrupt Petition., •- • • Wride re Wilde, part heard. Warner re Hobbs, ditto Petitions to stay or allow Certitiese Esparto Atkinson re Atkin.on I Expert, Solarte re Daniel. Ommany re Wtifurd Petitions to supersede Commons on gra p Exp.l.nr re Moore Exp. Paul re Sims Brent re him; Di Aeon reHootoe Zeparte Rektor re Pullen, to be spoke to .... Ind of Concert. Ezp. flowell 0 Brran. Petitions on ground of Legal In , Illrch v. I.ldger Folk, v. Fuller Lid.ter, motion Heywood v. Fletcher, Webster v. Gregory three petitions Gavle •. Reel Alderson v. hod, two Maeda v. Niebui• pefitiows. Petitions to super-rde Commission Charlton v. Charlton I Broil-bow e. Bradshaw allellty. Experts Fitch re Ed- wardi Dore re Dore le Pomeroy Radium re &Wham generally. Fowler v. Mellor Harvey v. Harvey. Stonehouse v. 6, 'gory Cartwilghl v. Perry Hell V. Wllkln4on Harman v. Shaw Odom to remove A.pdirn /dawn v. Reynold. he.htre v. Fatrelough Eb,worth v. Leonard West V. West Stephen, V. Southall Harlin ♦. Hunt. Brown T. I,Vldger y. Cense., Furthi Martin v. Fo■ter, pet. Cavasoager %%Shuns. do. HiveLett v: COURT.—Tnia DAV, ur Minn. w Directions, and Petitions by Consent. In re Budingticid, pet. Hebert v. Lavers. pet. Gilbert v. R. do. Shaw T. Darnley, do. Wilbert v. Hibbert, do. In re Ryley.: d r. Witblngton v. Harker, Haytrm v. Pike, dn. further d.rections In re Greentnd Cha in re Market Street rlty, trust pet. Act, pet. Sandwich v. Cormial- Vanneck v. Hunting. Ifs, pet. field, do. - Stone v. Stone, do. Coussmsker v. Forbes, Smiley v. Wood. dn. ditto Lowrence v. Halliday, In re Smith I ditto Mohr, r. Suttees, pet. Brown r. Hodgson, do. Cisnyngbatne v. Lord Holme v. Laney. do. Eldon. do. Lee v. litan.sley, do. ?de v. Ede, fur. die. John4tone v. John- St. Jobn v. Townsend, %tone, do. cause Payton v. Williams, Green a. Rogers, pet. cause Hebert r. Lavers, fur ther directions further direction, name V. mime, petition shaprolt e. Icee, do. Burv.we. ♦. Parher, do. In to Burrow..., do. BENCH.—Tits My, Mirldie.ec Special Juries . The King v. the Key. W. EDI* Same v. smith. N.B. No Common Juries London Common Juriee on Monday nett. LT H•L••►AST NIVR Creopirny v. Hartley Wymer v. iieluble ROLLS In re Sayeev Ciurit I es, ditto L'Entrange v. L'El. Intage, 7 4o. readmit v. ParlA. do. Albemarle v. Walpole. ditto Petite ♦. Ptvitt, ditto Rose T. Rot., do. In re II thtow ; * Estates, ditto Blackburn v. Walker, ditto COURT OF KING'S Fielder r. litar.aek v. Ctbb. ilartln,E.q. v. Clement COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-Tng DAT. ♦T HALI•PAIT SINS. Midlevel' Common Juries. Doe v. Clarke I *ld. ids* v. Knife Stanton and another v. Trishaw wyford v. Shaw and smith.. LAW INTEI.I.IGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, FIIDAT, .Ints 2 , . _ IN THE 31ATTER or SIR 0. P. TURNER. The Loco i';l7C --- L1.1:0117 raer - the Counsel anciSolicitors for the parties in his private room, on the ' , object of the trial of the tra verse; but nothing transpired in Court on the sui,ject. WELLESLEY P. THE DUKE OF BEKUFonT. Mr. SHADWELL. AS Counsel for the Misres Long. sAiii that he had been requested to hand up three affidavits, which had been sworn in con.equence of the tffidsvit which had been delivered in some days since by Mr. Long Wellesley. The affidavits which he had now to put in, went directly to contradict that affidavit so made by Mr. Wellesley. The LORD CHANCELLOR Paid that the letter which had been handed to him, and which lie had returned to the C ,, uit , el, war only set out in part in the evidence ; he wished to know if it war trimmed . . . . Ala SitanwEt.r. said the original letter wet in il.e possession of Alr. Ilan, or his client. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he wished to have the letter handed hack to him, as it formed lan of cl.c evidence in the Cau.e. The atlidari.s were then handed up to his TArdship. Upon the ltegi- , rar proceeding to call the first alinesl rause, a gentleman rosr, and said he hoped his Lordship would allow an humble indivi dual to address a few words to him before the bu siness of the day commenced, respecting the cause of tirmstley r. Garth wake. The LORD CHANCELLOR slid, if the gentleman in tptcgtion had heard 1013 t had fallen from him on corning into Court, he would have known that be had appointed to give judgment in that ease to-morrow. A Counsel hers observed that the gentleman wax very deaf—which was evident from the circumstance of Ilia being unable to hear with out the assistance of a trumpet. The Individtml recommenced his observations by strying. that he had expended ten thousand pounds in the cause, and which had stood in the paper for judgment for some days. If ilk hordidlip would give judgment, it would greatly relieve the anxiety under which he laboured. The Loan CiiANCELLOR observed diet it would have the same effect on his mind. He did not think the Fentleman who had ad dressed the Court could be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. Mr. SUODES expressed his conviction that all the delay which had *firm in this cause was nut the faul , of the Court, but had arisen from the points in dispute between the Counsel. The Loan CHAJCCELLOI knew such WWI the Cale. 01(101 he would rather bear all the blame himself, than that it s'iould rest upon his Counsel. 'rite only question which be had been called upon to deride was, a question not in the esuse ; he had taken upon himself to decide it for the accommodatio t of the parties, anti this was the way he got abused for it. The Lours Cmswczt.t.un was employel the remaindtr of th day in hearing appeals of no public interest. VICE-CIIANCELLOWS l OURT. FRID ty, intz 23. GLASSINGTON v. TIIWAITES AND OTHERS. In this came, 31r.'llovrEt.( with whom was Mr. kincirr ) moved, on the part of the plahniff, that the disclaimer or one of the de fendants, W. Phillips, to the plain:,ff's amende I bill, filed oa the Ihn November, lati,should be taken off the file. 31r. AGAR: fur the defendants, resisted the motion on the ground of a precisely similar application 'having been formerly made to the Court, and refused with cosy. (The beamed Gentle man here read the words of the order made on that occa■ion.) lie thought it right thus to meet the motion, in order to save the time of the Court. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said Mr. Roupel must be heard, u, prima jade, he might have grounds for this application. Mr. Roc PEI. said, his present motion was confined to the mere taking off the file of the defendants, Phillips's disclaimer. The suit in progress had been instituted by the plaintiff against his partners in the proprietorship of the Alarming Herald newspaper, and his bill had been filed praying for an account. la the course of the suit the defendant Philips became the purchaser of a share in the newspaper in question, which, however, lie had subsequently disposed of. The plaintiff had, in consequence, filed an amended bill, to make defendant Phillips a party to he suit, to which Phillips had merely rut in a di,clairtier, unaccompanied by any answer whatever, although lie (the defendant) called it an answer. The proper course to be taken, supposing this to be an answer, was, obviously to except to it, and this the plaintiff did. The mat ter was then referred to the Master, who reported that no answer had been given to the plaintiff's bill. The plaintiff's exceptions to the alleged answer of the defendant were accordingly taken off the file ; therefore the proper course for the plaintiff to take was, to apply to the Court to compel the defendant to put iii an answer within a limited time. The VICE•CHANCELLOI—There is no such thing u a dis claimer. A disclaimer Is an answer. It is iinfortimste that you I plaintiff's Counsel) did not persevere in your exceptions, tor a dis arimer is an answer. Mr. Bourn t. urged some arguments to prove a distinction. The VICII-CHANCELLOR repeated, that there was no such thing as a disclaimer, and referred to a late refusal by the Six Clerks to file a documezt under, and because It bore solely, t..at title. Mr. RourEL said, Lord Redestlale had recognised the word disclaimer. The Vtog-Ctiswc ELLOR—A defendant who disclaims in hound to answer. lam about to give judgment in a case shortly, in which I shall state, that a disclaituct does not protect a party from answering unless he goes on to say that he not only has no interest, but that he never had any interest in the suit to which he has been made a party. In any other case he must answer. The master has made a mistake. You could have excepted to the disclaimer, and the.) I could have hearth yoo. Mr. RouPEL—Then, if at all answer, this must be held to be evasive, and therefore— The Vic E-CitsxcELLOß—lt is not evasive. If the defendant has done wrong, it was through error, and not evasion. Evasive means when a Person knows that lie is not strictly doing his duty. Now, here the defendant did every thing that appeared to him re quisite. You had better, Mr. Roupel, apply for liberty to except, and then the whole aubteet will come before the Court. Mr. Kx min' —Perhaps seeing that we have acted on the Master's judgment, your H onour will make that order now. The Vteg-Ciranct:i.i.og —No, 1 cannot. lam competled in this ease to give my judgment in the Master's conduct, and am of opinion, that you might have it .d redress by exceptions, and that, consequently, I cannot now order the defendant's answer to be taken oft the file. _ AGAR applied for cats against the plaintiff; the motion being similar to a former one refused with costs, but was met b' . the plaintiff's Counsel, who said, that even admitting that the mo tion had been made in the precise terms of the former one, the cir cumstances were different, for that when the former application was made, the plaintiff's eaceptions were still on the file. This was doubted by the defendant's Counsel. The Vic S•CaANCELLeit then postponed the question of vests THE PRITISH PRESS. ont.lto.mottow, in order to give time to ascertain the fan last re ferred to, but his Honour now refused the motion itstlf. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, THURSDAY, JURY. 22. (tilting' after Trinity Term, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE anti a Special..lury.) The following case not having been concluded on Thumlay, we postptmed the publication of it until this d.y.l lIUGOETT v. THE ROYAL. EXCHANGE ASSURANCE COMPANY. Thi s w as an acti on f o r re c overy of a sum of iffiji. die amount of a I oat by fire ; the plaintiff baying insured at the office of the de fendants to the amount of 1,000/. A legal difficulty, with regard to the valility of the defendant's plea, hissing been disposed of, Air. GURNET stated the case for the plaintiff. Ile observed, that Assurance Companies took sufficient precautions to preserve them selves from fraud or loss, which was perfectly justifiable, when they did not deviate from the line of fair dealing in the accomplishment of this end. They required a claimant to lodge his claim within a certain period, fortified by the certificates of a parish officer and other persons. On some occasions, the injured parties were not able to procure these certificates; and the defendants in this cause, or their agents, had endeavoured to entangle his client in an em barrassment of th's nature, by going round to the parish officers to dissuade them from giving the necessary certificate. The plaintiff was a manufacturer of tallow candle'', which he had forirerls car ried on on a limited scale, and effected an insurance on his stock for fitta, and, having lately extended his dealings, lie doubled die insurance at die same office. His factory was in a place called Stangate.niews. It would appear frcm the evidence, that the fire in laic!' the plaintiff's misfortune originated was purely acci dental, and that the amount of compensation claimed was not at all exorbitant, since he had witnesses to prove that they had picked up hundreds' weight of tallow which had been niched, and flowed in its liquid slate into the common sewer. He would lay this proof before the Jury, and thus, as lie hoped, obtain for his client the justice which he had in vain sought from the defendants. The policies of insurance haying been read, James Boland was called for the pl tintiff. lie stated, that in the early part of 1824, the plaintiff took certain premises in Stan- gate-niews, and employed witness to make certain alterations, for the purpose of adapting the concerns to his business of candle. making, which trade he carried on in that manufactory down to the time of the fire. Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLTTT.—The plaintiff' had a shop and dwelling•house next door to rimless in Lambeth-marsh, about three minutes' walk from his manufactory. lie employed two per sons to assist hint in the management of his business. Mr. Christopher Alderson tCated, that in the year 1821, witness, at the request of the plaintiff, advanced him a sum of 500 f. ; after which witnesssaw a considerable stock upon the plaintifrs premises. 11'i'ham flogged, brother of the plaintiff, was employed by the latter to assist him in consequence of the increase of his business.— Witness remained in the plaintiff's service down to the time of the fire, which occurred between eleven and twelve o'clock on the nig of the 28th of January, lb'•ls. Witness about five o'clock that afternoon had lett the premises, in company with an Excise-officer, who had been to sec the fire in the furnace extinguished. A lad, named Hughes, slept on the premises, Witness was 'deemed in his bed, and on repairing to the manufactory, he found it in flames. Witness, as well as his brother, assisted in extinguishing the fire. One part of the premises was burned down, and the emainder was considerably damaged. There were two casks el tallow in the roam where the candles were made, and three or four in another rcom, all of which were destroyed. The account of the losses by the conflagration was, as tar as witness could judge, a fair and just account. Cross-examined by Mr. SCAR LETT—Abnut ten o'clock on the night of the fire the plaintiff came to witness's house, to return the keys of the factory, which he had before taken for the purpose of locking Hughes up in the premises. Hughes afterwards got out, and it was he who first infomied witness of the fire. There was some understanding between the plaintiff and a Mr. Fry, re lathe to a part of the factory. Some men of Mr. Fry's had been on the premises two or three days before the accident, but they were not engaged in making repairs. Witness did not know of his brother having sent out any quantities of goods on the day of the fire, nor for two or three days before. That part of the fac tory in which the boy slept was on the opposite side of the street front that pertiott which was burned down. The boy always slept in the same place as long as witness knew. Witness himself several limes locked in the boy Hughes. Witness did not join his brother in the affidavit relative to his losses by the fire. Dom not know whether the plaintiff asked a Mr. Shaw to join him. The affidavit made by the plaintiff, estimating his loss at Bs7i., WWI next read A watchman deposed to the strenuous exertions made by the plaintiff', his brother, the witness, and other persons, to put out the names. Similar testimony was given by James Bennett, who observed quantities of telluw melted and consumed. IVilliam !ame, a tallow-merchant. WAS Hied to prove the extent of the plaintiff's purcha%es of that commodity. Between the 22d of March 11121, • id the 28th of May 1825. the i'ay or the fire. the tallow sold by witness to the plaintiff amounted in value to 5281. A number of other witnesses were examined, who described the plaintiff's dealings in the tallow trade as very extensive. A great variety of witnrases alma deposed to the extent of the plainliff's loss, and the fairness and moderation of the estimate. One of these witnesses, a labourer, stated that the, with others, after the fire. picked up more than two hundred weight of melted tallow in less than twenty minutes. A certificate, signed by three chtrectwarelens, one overseer, two ciliates, and fifteen other persona, wan read on behalf of the plain. tiff it stated the belief of the atihacribers that the tire hod ne curred without the procurement of the plaintiff, and that his account ef his loam's was a just and fair representation. All the plaintiff's witnesses, who were exeeedingly numerous, having given their evidence, Mr. Sca ft t.v.TT opened the case for the defence. He promised the Jury, that however multiplied the testimony on the other aide had been, he would not at that late hour needlessly occupy their time, but would confine Lei comments within as narrow a compass as was possible. The defendants were nut resisting the payment ofa sum of money, which to them could be no material object; but were on a public ground withstanding what they conceived, and what the Jury, when they should have heard the proofs which he was instructed lie would be able to adduce, would find to be, an attempt on the plaintiff's part to defraud and impose upon the In surance Company. Ilia Learned Friend. Mr. (Gurney, had ex pended a great deal of his time and labour in chewing the extent of the plaintiff's dealings ; he had called a multitude of witnesses to prove the quan idea of tallow purchased by his client ; but all thin proof was feeble and worth less wittioutevidenee as to how much remained unsold at the time of the fire, lie (Mr. Searlett) would, as he was instructed, be able to prove that the plaintiff had before the 20th of January, the day of the fire, sold off all, or nearly all, his stock, so as to be unable to supply the demand of a customer. It h.: were able to establish such a case, and to spew that the plain tiff hail wilful) , misrepresented the amount of property on his premises at the time of the fire, with a view to impose upon the Insurance Company, this would debar the party of any right to re. cover. But he had reason to believe that he would be able to carry the case much farther ; and to shew that the fire Wan nor, as wait represented, perfectly casual, and that the plain tiff' himself was neither ignorant nor innocent of its origin. Why had not his Learned Friend produced either Mr. Shaw or the boy Hughes ? He (Mr. Searlett would call both those persons. Mr. Shaw would prove that the plaintiff had solicited him to sanc tion the :account which he drew up of his pretended losses by the file, which Mr. Shaw declined to do. as he could not conacentions ly 'swear to its triith. He would shew from the boy's own lips that he had been accusterned to sleep in a part of the building on the opposite aide of the street to that where the fire took place. and that a week before that incident he was removed to the other part of the premises by Mr. lluggett's order. The Jury would please to remember that none of the persons employed in Mr. Ileggtrt'a shop had been called, to shew how he hail been engaged on the evening of the fire, or at what hour at night lie returned home. Now, he would prove, by means of the boy Hughes, this extra ordinary fact—that, after ilr. !Liggett had retired, having locked him up at night, as was his custom, he returned again to the room, and passed the light of s candle over his face, as if' to try whether he was asleep. The boy, without knowing what was the object of his master's experiment, counterfeited sleep. He would be able to follow up this proof with the deposition of a watchman, who almost immediately after this occurrence saw a flame in a part of the premises, which appeared like a flame proceeding from slitt ing., or chip., which had been just ignited. Other witnesses, and they respectable and uninteri steel persona, would prove that, for a length of time before the fire, the plaintiff' had been removing his :cock in quantities from his premises, and that at the time of the tire there was little more remaining than " a beggarly account of elipty boxes." He was also prepared with the evidence of a Mr. Wise, who was employed as an agent for the Company, although he was not known to the plaintiff' in that character ; that the latter made to this person an offer of what, in tallow-chandlers' language, is called " a score," and which means, 201. if Mr. Wise would as sist him in procuring the money from the Insurance Office. This evidence he was satisfied would be sufficient to convince the Jury, if not that the plaintiff had himself been the plotter and author of the fire, yet that he had wilfully, and with a fraudulent design, exaggerated the amount of property consumed ; in which case the Jury would not be at liberty to indulge in a mistaken, but nut un usual feeling of commiseration, for a poor man having to contend with powerful adversaries, but they would, he was convinced, ad minister impartial justice between the parties. John Allen, a carman, was examined by Mr. Sergeant Rosati- QUI:T. and deposed that on the evening of the fire witness was alarmed by Simpson, a watchman, and on looking through, a win dow into Mr. Huggett's cotton-room, he law a flame rising, as if from a few sticks thrown on the floor. Witness ran off, and gave information of the tire; and brought back an engine, and the fire was extinguished in the space of an hour anti a half'. John Simpson, a watchman, stated that at twenty minutes after eleven on the night of the 28th of January. witness heard a crack ling noise, and observing a feeble light in Mr. Huggett's premises: Witness called out, `• Who is there?" and having received no an swer, lie gave an alarm of tire. Cross-examined by Mr. GE EC—Did not take home any can. diem, but brought them to his watch-box, in order to take care of them. Witness gave them tip to Mr. Huggett on the f o ll ow i ng th'li Mr. nugget' bad not threatened to prosecute witness. John Mee, a fishmonger, living at the corner of Stangste-mews, proved that, at a noarter before eleven o'clock on Ilia night of the 28th of January, Hughes, the lad who lived with Mr. Huggett, came to witness for a light, which witness accordingly let him have. Fur several days previous to the tire, Mr. Huggett a carts lad been constantly used in bringing goods out of Mr. Huggett's premises, and always came back empty. Slam. Hughes stated that he has lived from a year and A half to two years in the employment of Mr. Huggett. Had note inversed with Mr. Huggett for the last six months. Witness then had some conver ttion with him about the fire. For the week yrec:ding the fife. witness slept at the Ride of the concern which was opposite to that where the hue took plate. Formerly he had been accustomed to sleep iii the stable, at the same side where the fire broke out. Was removed by order of 31r. Huggett, but does not know for what cause. On the night of the tire, witness procured a lizlif from the last witness, which he delivered to Mr. Huggett, and the latter carried it out of the room when witness had lain down. Mr. Hug. gett locked the don; on witness. Cron-examined by Mr. (]vawEy—His maitre was in the habit of staying in the (room until witness was in bed, mid of Waling witness up. Re-examined—Witness was first alarmed by the watchman springing his rattle. Had known nothing before of the file. Thomas Harris stated that he, on diseoveting the lire, broke open the door of the stable, and of a room abuse stairs, where there I was but a single cask of tallow, which way rolled out into the Mews, and about twenty pounds of candles. This was all the pro perty of any value which the witness diacoverel. John Spencer also stated that Inc was early on the spot, and he corroborated the tormer witness as to the small amount of property on the premises. Edward Actaeon stated that he was employed by Mr. Fry to ex amine Mr. Iloggett's premises, which, as the )titter ird anted wit ness, Fry had purchased of trim. Witness was on the prentines on the Monday before the fire, and every day after, down to the day of the tire. During this interval, and fur a fortnight b. fore. 31r. Hug. gett had been removing his goods. IVittless observed liugge•en cart repeatedly, on every thy, go out loaded and return empty. Had seen goods removed in the evening alter the witness had left off work. In the room above the atnre.ronm, which was called the factory, witness, on the day of the fire, observed a bin, a small quantity of candles, and three or four boxes, most of which hurt the covers off, and were empty. There was also a large sheet hung up between that room and Mr. Fry's factory, next door. Th..re did nor appear to be more than thirty or forty dozen of candles. There were, in another room, a hogshead, three small empty casks. and a utensil for making candles. lit the third wont witness found an empty hogshead.* few staves, and some loose cand es. 'there were not more than 200 staves, 20 casks, and 3,030 candles, in the whole of the three rooms which witness saw. Witness, on the lost day that he was on .11r. fluggett's premises. saw as many utensils as he had observed on the first day. Ile could not say whether Mr. Hug. gett had removed any of his utensils. None of these three lust witnesses underwent a-1 cross.exa. mination. It being now seven o'clock, the letrd CHIEF JUSTICE post poned the further hearing of the cue, and the Curt brute up. FtiIDAY, JUNE 23. This day the defence in this case was resumed. Two witne•ries spoke to the tenusval of the stock, confirming the evidence given yesterday on that subject. Richard Westcombe, al oilman, stated that he hail been in the habit of dealing with the plaintiff for candle., and a short time be fore the tire occurred, he ordered one hundred and fifty dozers, but could not get his order executed, as lluggett assigned as a reason that Ile was going into the country to live, and would ire able 0 supply Mtn better thence. Formerly the witness saw a large quan tity of goods on the plaintiff's premises, but a week before the Ste he did not see an many. Sti iw stated that he was in the service of Mr. Huggett from ilk first entering bli.ineas, which at first was carried on in witness's name, but afterwards was °ordained in Huggett's own name. The boy Hughes had been accustomed to 'deep in the stable on the hay. His ideeping.place was changed some little time before the fire, by Huggete's order. The business was consi derable for the size of the premises. When Fry was about to take possession, witness was employed in cleaning the goods from the factory. There were about twenty dozen candles on the rods. There was a full cask of tallow, and part of one in the copper—in all, from three to five hundred weight ; also between three and five 1 , hundred staves; also sixty rod., and two dipping moulds. On the night of the fire the witness left the keys of the warehouse with Haggett. IVitnees was in bed at the time of the fire; went down stairs on the alarm being given, and ran ti the premises, where he bloke into the mews. Before witness went, nuegett caught hold of his anti, and said, " Come away, it is all right." Witness said. " Have you made an addition to your insurance ?" nugget' said, " I have." Oac morning atter the tire, nugget' observed that he must send in another account to the Insurance-office, and he de sired witness to copy an account which he gave him. About a week after that, Huggetea brother said to witness, that as he had copied t h is account, he should expect him to swear to it. Witness said he should do no such thing. Afterwards Mr. Rogers, the plaintiff's attorney, asked witness whether that account was comets but the witness answered, that if all the tuba and casks stated to the account were full, they wauld not contain the quantity emu prised in the account. Mr. Ro4ers said that he had bets , r alter the stateinent. When witness observed to nugget' that the se c.runt was quite out of the way, he made answer, " Never mind ; all above tine hundred we will go whacks in," meaning to share it. Much further evidence was given, to slum that the account of loss sent in by the plaintiff was greatly exaggerated a and after a short consultation, Mr. ("iu IN XY, for the pliuntiff, submitted to a nonsuit. SINCLAIR V. KIMBLE AND OTTIF.II9. This was an action of assunipsit, brought by the celebrated vo calist against the proprietors of Covent-garden 'I heaue, to remoter from them a compensation in damages for non-fulfilment of an en gagement for fifty nights, a. 2dl. a-night. Mr. F. POLLOCK opened the pleadings. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the cam to the Jury. He said that Mr. Sinclair, who was a gentleman of considerable cele brity, both as a composer tend performer, was under the necessity of bringing this action, for the purpose of recovering a compensa flan in damages for the breach of a contract made with him by Mr. Charles Kemble, on the part of himself and the other ;proprietors of Covent-garden Theatre. In 11123, when Mr. Sinclam was in Italy, an application was made to him on the part of the proprietors of Covent-garden Theatre, to enter into an engagement to perform on the boards of that house ; and, after sonic negotiation, Mr. Sins Blair received a letter, dated the 30th January, 11123, in which he was informed by Mr. C. Kemble that his terms were acquiesced in bc the Commitment Management.and that he was to be engaged for litty nights, at 201. per might. Sir. Sinclair received this letter in the latter end of September, and he was to be in England by the commencement of the October following, in order to fulfil his en gagement. Ile arrived before the beginning of the winter season, but was not called upon to perform until the 19th of November. After that, however, he performed forty-live nights ; and though the first engage cut was set out in this declaration, he (Mr. Sinclair) did not now go for the salary of the five nights out of the first filly on which he was not called upon for his see vices. At the dose of that engagement in 1824, Mr. Sinclair being in Dublin, the defendants were desirous of engaging his services for another season upon the same terms ; and accordingly Mr. C. Kemble wrote to him to that effect, stating, that as a new opera VIM to be produced, it would be requisite for him to be on the spot nt least ten days before the commenci me .t t f the season, to attend rehearsals, &c., as there win Id he much new am! difficult music to study. After this. it the Sept-mber following, Mr. Sinclair received a letter from Mr. Fawmtt, the stage manager. , 1 stating that Der Frei:Mut:: was to to brought out on the 1 lth of October, and it would be Absolutely neceu.ary that 31r. Sincleir should be in London at least a fortnight before that day, in order that he might study his part. To this Mr. Sinclair wrote back word, that it would not be convenient for him to be in London before the 15th ; and receiving no reply to this communication, he concluded that if he was in Landon by the 15th of October, that would be quite time enough. Accordingly he came to London on the day appointed, but was astonished t. , lind that Der Frcischtilz had been brought out, and the part of Wilhelm, which he was to have taken, being the principal character in the opera, had been assigned to Sir. Pearman. Nothing very definite took place after this until the 3il of November, when Sir. Sinclair received the usual call to attend a rehearsal; anti accordingly he studied a pert in a new opera, which was only performed two nights, and was un successful. After this he performed I's hire Orlando. in the Cithi. net ; but altogether he was only called upon to perform for nine nights during the season.—llere the Learned Counsel was in terrupted by The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, who suggested that perhaps this case might be perjarnred it; private, with greater advantage to all parties, than in open Court. Mr. SCARLETT expressed his belief that it might as well he performed publicly ; and he hoped it would go on without much discord. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed, and disclaimed all feel. ings of discord on the part of Mr. Sinclair. He believed the gentlemen on both sides were on the very best terms with each other. Thus niawrs passed on until the month of June, when the English Opera-house being about to open for the summer season, Air.Arnolellwas desirousof engaging 31r.Sinclair on very advantage. ow; terms to that gentleman, as he offered to secure his services for three nights in a week, ut 35 guineas per night. 3lr. Sinclair, of course, said that he could not make any engagements which might interfere with his undertakings at Covent-garden Theatre ; but he requested a friend of his, Dr. Kitchener, to wait on Mr. C . Kemble, and to inform him of the nature of the offer made by Mr. Arnold, begging to know whether lie would be allowed to ac cept the offer. Sir. C. Kemble said he was many lie could not allow Mr. Sinclair to forego his engagement at Covent-gaiden Theatre, as two new oratorios were coming out, in which Sir. Sinclair's services could not he dispensed with ; and conse. quently Mr. Sioclair lost the benefit of Mr. Arnold's offer. It was on this ground, therefore, that the present action was brought. Mr. Sinclair had been engaged for 56 nights, and having only performed nine, he now sought a compensation in damages, as tie had been preven , cil from forming another engagement, which would have secured hint from loss. The letters that had passed were now admitted, were put in, and read. Dr. Kitchener was then called, and proved the offer of Mr. Arnold, as well as the reply that Sir. t!barles Kemble made, when the witness applied to him on behalf of Mr. Sinclair. 31r. SCARI.ETT then addressed the Jury in behalf of the defen. ' dants, and set out by stating that the gentlemen who defended this action were not prompted by any disrespect towards the valuable „ n i ce , a t h e plaintiff, which they highly appreciated. He (the Learned Counsel) also could bear testimony to the great talents of Mr. Sinclair, and he only wished his public avocations allowed him oftener to hear that gentleman, instead of tt.iibling Juries to listen to himself. But the defendants had to complain that it was Mr. Sinclair who had broken the contract. The Gentitmen of the Jury were well avfare that the music of that great composer, now recently deceased (Von Weber). was of that extrdordmary and shblimc cost which necessarily required the greatest study and attention; and it could not fail to have attracted the attention of the Jury, that Mr. Sinclair was distinctly informed bin attendance would be re quired in London at least ten days hrfhre the 14th of October. when the opera of Der Freitchulz, which had enjoyed en unpre. cedented run of more titan fifty nights, via to be brought oat. Mr. Sinclair( however, wrote, to say that he could not come until the 15:11 of October; and ot course, as the piece was announced, and as 31r. Sinclair could not fulfil tilt. part of hi. engagement, it be came necessary that another gentleman should study and fill the part which Mr. Sinclair was to hare urplertaken, suit accordirigly it had been agaigned to Mr. Peaftnan. Oil this ground the Learned Counsel submitted to the Jury that there was a «Aid defence.; and he stated he (shoed be enabled to /thew (though he presumed Mr: • Sinclair had now forgotten the fact), that in a conversation with Mr. C. Kenible, he admitted that his coetraet had been forfeited by his not arriving in time. The followi• g witnettera were then called Mr. John Fawcett !bated that he was *Gage-manager of Covert_ garden Theatre in the season of 1824-25. I':e nertbrmanees com menced on the 22d of September, UN, and Drr Freisehulz WAN annotfnce'd for the 14th of October following. The company be gan to rehearse it immediately after the season commenced, and the part of Wilhelm, which was the leading character in the piece, wan intended for 31r. Sinclair. That part, however, was given to Mr. Pearman, in consequence of 31r. Sinclair's writing that he multi not mnke it convenient to Come to London until the 15th of Octi.bee, . .. . Cross-examined by the ATTOIIET-GENERAL—Mr. was no doubt perfectly cafirit with the part, from having repeat, wily acted it at the Lyceum. • Mr. H. Robinson, the treasurer of the Theatre, stated that he was at the Theatre wh-n Mr. Sinclair first presented himself Uwe, after his arrival from Dublin. Mr. C. Kemble and Captain Forbes were there at that time, and Mr. C. Kenible told Mr. Sinclair dm!. in consequence of his not arriving at the time lie was expected, .he could not consider his engagement as binding. tre could not, therefore, undertake to employ him for fifty nights; but if he Wee disposed to undertake characters as his services were wanted, he (Mr. C. li:wade) would employ him a. Wren as he could ; ansl roe this proposition Mr. Sinclair acceded. In the course of the erasson the witne•s conversed several times with the plaintiff, on the sub, ject of his engagement, and on one D7CSsiiM he regretted his own folly in not corning in time, as he said had only taken IN!. Our mg the season, which was a much smaller s u m than he had t a k en . during any season since he lirst commenced the pngfes.sion. Cross.exarrined—EnOtgemears wi•h principal performers era son:climes made by word of mouth, though principally in writing.. The engagements of Mr. Sinclair's services as often as he calms wanted were not reduced to writing. Mr. Alexander Olititi also prn`eed that h~ bad heard Mr. Sin. chair regret his tblly, as he calkd it, in not coining in time. Olt the oceaidon of his benefit, particularly, he remarked, that it would' be productive of great injury, as he had thereby missed the oppor tunity of being frequently before the public. The ATTORNEY-CANER/If, replied shortly upon the whole case; after which The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up all the evidence at length, and observer', that atter Mr. Fawcett had reccaved Mr. Sinclair's letter, saying that he cmilti not come to London until the 15th of October, the detendaeta ought then to have rirudiateti their contract; instead, however, of pursuing that course, by their silence on the subject Mr. Sinclair bright fairly and reasonably con clude that the 15th of October would be quite time enough. The Jury, after a short conmltation among themselves, found for the plaintiff--Damiges, 4101. ROBINSON V. W. J. CLEMENT, ESQ. Thin WV% an lictioa brought by an a•torney of Clement's-inn # against the proprietor of the Morning Chronicle, Observer. and Englishman newspapers, to recover a compensation in damages fix an alleged libel published in those newspapers. in the form of • re. port of a trial, which was designated as a paltry aciion, brought , merely for the purpose of putting costs in Mr. Robinson's pocket. The alleged libel having been proved, and it being established that Mr. Clement was the sole proprietor of`tbe above-named Jot rnals, _ The ATT , IRVEYMENF:RAL addressed the Jury for the de. fendant, and contended that he should be able to prove that Mr. Robinson was a person of the description which the libel alleged,' namely, a person whu brought ac inns for the sake of costs. The Learned Counsel then called witnesses, who proved that Mr. Robinson had brought two actions against Mr. Knight, the Editor of the Windsor Gazelle, for the same cause of action, cad had al-tts brought actions sever..lly against the British Prc44, Alormitig Chronicle, Morning Post. Mo7ning Aduertiker, and other Jour nals, for the reports they had inserted of the trial in the first mili tia:led action. The Jury found a verdict for the defendant. CONSISTORY COURT.—FRIDAY, Jt:NE 23. WINNINGTON WINTUNGTOg. Thu rue came on tor the ckcision of the Court today. Thu suit was instituted by Lady Winnington for divorce, on the mond of her husband having been guiity of repeated acts of adidteer with Lady Briscoe. The evidence„brought forward to submit,. tilde the charge consisted t f parties chiefly with whom Lady Bris coe and Sir John ‘l'inningtun lodged in different lams of the me tropnlis. The Learned .once (Sir Clir stopher Robinson) expressed his satisfaction that the case had been sufficiently established, and dui Lally \Vinningtnn ,vas entitled to the divorce sought. Sir John Wilmington then addre•sed the Court, hoping that the sentence now pronuotwed would not be acted upon, and alleged that in consequence of his pecuniary embarrassments he was unable to prosecute his defence. _ • The COURT declared that the evidence was so dear, that DO otherdecision then the one pronounced could possibly be given. THE EARL OF PORTSMOLTH. r. TUE COUNTESS OP POUTS. atorvw. Dr. LI:SIIINGTON said, that the last Court day ha had stestd, an application should be made to the Court of Chancery to obtairt the herring of a petition connected with two caul, praying this Lady , e Portsmouth might have funds given her by Lord Ports mouth Committee, to enable hrr to carry on the suit which wae o instituted against her in the Eeclesitunicri Court for a divorce. 'f has application had now been made, and the Chancellor had ex pressed his concurrence in the prayer of the petition • but the sur. plus funds in the hands of th e C omm i ttee could only be permit. red to be appropriated for Lady Portsmouth's defence, and he was fearful that those funds were very limited. Ile was at a loss to conceive why Air. Florae, who was of Counsel for Lady POY!•. mouth, and others interested in the proceedings, should have op posed the petition, as far as her Ladyship was concerned, and hei was still more surprised that it should have been asserted that the expenses of the suit would cost so enormous a sun, as 30.0001. The Learned Dr. then proceeded to call the mtention of thd Court to the motion made on a termer day by D:. Jenncr, that the Committee of Lord Portsmouth should either be pronotmc din contempt, or that the proceedings instituted to pr. cure the divorce between Lord and Lady Portsmouth should be stayed. With re gar] to the former part of the alternative, he (Dr. Lushingtcr cou!d not for a m .rent suppose that the Court would proceed upon it ; and to to the latter, he homily hoped that the Learned Juego would not stop the proceedings. D)r. JENNER concurrent with Dv. Lushington in expressing sur prise that it could hare been asserted that the pr ,battle expenses tv( the present i.uit would amount to so large a sum as nO.OOO/. With respect to the motion, which he hat made, he must again repeat it, and he trusted the Court would be pleased to grant it. The Court at all times provided the wife of a person who W3S suing for a di. vorce means to carry on her defence; and therefore, in the present case, he hoped Lady Portsmouth would receive the same indul. : genre. Dr. Ist.titeovow, in reply, said that he saw no rearm why Lady Portsmouth should not herself advance the money ttecersatv to sustain her defence, seeing that she had 1,2e01. a year alluvreti lit.r by order of the Lord Chancellor, and seeing also that she would undoubtedly receive the full amount of the costs hereafter. Sir C. Rowtwsurr observed, that he could not in equity enters; tam the motion. If granted it would have the effect of stispentitvf the inquiry for which die suit was instituted. The application was then refused. __ cox a. cox. The Proctor on behalf oithel,steYitierman Cox said, that his client kiting de3d, the sail instituted for a divorce was no* at an • end. lite Proctor on behalf of Mrs. Cox remarked, that there wts some alimony now due to her. The COURT thought tho present not the best time to introduci the subject, seeing that Mr. Cox had died so recently. The Proctor remarked, that his object was merely to hare tho eir:unritanee recorded among the nets or the Court, as he did not then wish to found a motion upon it. MACH D. HUGH. ..-.-.. --...... In this ease .he libel was brought in to-day. and a motion waa made by dir. l,usbingron , lilt the examination of two witnir.sea de, here which was consented to. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. FalnAY.Ne Mr. REvatotais, the presiding Commissioner, on coming tons. Court this ray, wished Attorneys practising in that Ccurt sliontsl understand that he would not relax in enforcing the regulattors , respecting service of notice, which came into force after the 21;th of May last, whatever representations might be made to induce him to dispense with them ; and as that was his fixed resolution, he wished to give public titmice of it. William Daymond was opposed by Mr. Millar, a creditor to the amount offlsf. The Cu tErt rostatlSMONErt inquired upon what grounds ifr. Millar opposed the insolvent's discharge. Mr. Millar stated that, on the 17th or 18th of February, the in. solvent called upon hint, and awned him that if he would give hi n time he would pay the debt, and he now wished to know the cU. cumstances which rendered him (Daymond) insolvent. • The insolvent said that his insolvency arose out of his becoming security for his brother-in-14w, alto did not meet his etviseirents. fie further stated that, by the advice of his attorney, lie sold alt his effects, with an intention of dividing the produce of tilt a. 11 among his creditor.. lie estimated his property at 300 L, but wh , ll sold it did not produce more than ICU. The Coun it being satisfied with this explanat on, the insolvent was discharged. In the ease of William IVilliams, brought up yesterday on his petition to be discharged, but alit eta re-committed to prison to co:viequenctt of a mistake made by his attorney in serving no:iet on a wrong nu:son, Mr. TayLr, the insolvent's Attorney, was called before ds, l Court to explain the nectigerce. He 'aid that it was ustal fostisii t I F I t